Clinician Reviews

AMSTERDAM – Among patients with atrial high-rate episodes detected by implantable devices, anticoagulation with edoxaban did not significantly reduce the incidence of a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism in comparison with placebo but was associated with a higher bleeding risk in the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial.

“These results tell us that patients with atrial high-rate episodes with clinical stroke risk factors – but who do not have clinically defined AF[ib] [atrial fibrillation – do not need blood thinners. They do not need to be anticoagulated. That is a relief,” the lead investigator of the trial, Paulus Kirchhof, MD, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), said in an interview.

Dr. Kirchhof pointed out that this result was unexpected. “Many of us thought that because atrial high-rate episodes look like AF[ib] when they occur, then they are an indication for anticoagulation. But based on these results from the first-ever randomized trial on this population, there is no need for anticoagulation in these patients.”

Dr. Kirchhof presented the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The study was also simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial recruited patients with implanted devices that enable continuous monitoring of atrial rhythm, such as pacemakers and defibrillators. “Because we can record the rhythm day and night with these devices, they pick up small abnormalities. About 20% of these patients experience these occasional atrial high-rate episodes – short episodes that look like AF[ib], but they are rare and brief,” Dr. Kirchhof noted.

He explained that whether the occurrence of these atrial high-rate episodes in patients without AFib, as documented on a conventional electrocardiogram, justifies the initiation of anticoagulants has been unclear. “But this trial tells us that these episodes are different to AF[ib] that is diagnosed on ECG,” he added.

Another finding in the trial was that among these patients, there was an unexpectedly low rate of stroke, despite the patients’ having a CHADSVASC score of 4.

“Based on the result of this trial, these occasional atrial high-rate episodes do not appear to be associated with stroke. It appears quite benign,” Dr. Kirchhof said.
 

Implications for wearable technology?

He said the results may also have implications for wearable devices that pick up abnormal heart rhythm, such as smartwatches.

“We don’t know exactly what these wearable technologies are picking up, but most likely it is these atrial high-rate episodes. But we need more research on the value of these wearable technologies; we need randomized trials in this particular patient population before we consider anticoagulation in these patients,” Dr. Kirchhof stated.

The NOAH-AFNET 6 study was an event-driven, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trial involving 2,536 patients aged 65 years or older who had atrial high-rate episodes that lasted for at least 6 minutes and who had at least one additional risk factor for stroke.

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive edoxaban or placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism, evaluated in a time-to-event analysis. The safety outcome was a composite of death from any cause or major bleeding.

The mean age of the patients was 78 years, 37.4% were women, and the median duration of atrial high-rate episodes was 2.8 hours. The trial was terminated early, at a median follow-up of 21 months, on the basis of safety concerns and the results of an independent, informal assessment of futility for the efficacy of edoxaban; at termination, the planned enrollment had been completed.

Results showed that a primary efficacy outcome event occurred in 83 patients (3.2% per patient-year) in the edoxaban group and in 101 patients (4.0% per patient-year) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.08; P = .15). The incidence of stroke was approximately 1% per patient-year in both groups.

A safety outcome event occurred in 149 patients (5.9% per patient-year) in the edoxaban group and in 114 patients (4.5% per patient-year) in the placebo group (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.67; P = .03).

ECG-diagnosed AFib developed in 462 of 2,536 patients (18.2% total, 8.7% per patient-year).

In the NEJM article, the authors wrote that the findings of this trial – the low incidence of stroke that was not further reduced by treatment with edoxaban – may make it appropriate to withhold anticoagulant therapy for patients with atrial high-rate episodes.

The main difference between the population studied in this trial and patients with AFib, as documented on an ECG, appears to be the paucity and brevity of atrial arrhythmias in patients with atrial high-rate episodes (termed low arrhythmia burden). Published reports show that a low arrhythmia burden contributes to a low incidence of stroke among patients with AFib, the study authors wrote.

They added that the low rate of stroke in this trial suggests that in addition to clinical risk prediction formulas for stroke, methods to improve the estimation of stroke risk among patients with infrequent atrial arrhythmias detected by long-term monitoring are needed to guide decision-making on the use of anticoagulation.

Commenting on the NOAH-AFNET 6 results, the comoderator of the ESC HOTLINE session at which they were presented, Barbara Casadei, MD, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, England, said: “Finally we know what to with these patients. Before we just had a variety of opinions with no evidence. I think that the trial really highlights that patients who come to the doctor with symptoms of AF[ib] or who have ECG-documented AF[ib] have a much higher risk of cardioembolic stroke than patients in whom this presumed AF[ib] is picked up incidentally from implanted devices.”

She added: “The stroke rates are very low in this trial, so anticoagulation was never going to work. But this is an important finding. We know that anticoagulants are not a free lunch. There is a significant bleeding risk. These results suggest that unless a patient has clinical AF[ib] that shows up on an ECG then we need to more cautious in prescribing anticoagulation.”

Also commenting on the study, immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology Ed Fry, MD, Ascension Indiana St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, said the management of patients with implanted cardiac devices or personal wearable technology that has picked up an abnormal rhythm suggestive of AFib was a big question in clinical practice.

“These episodes could be AF[ib], which comes with an increased stroke risk, but it could also be something else like atrial tachycardia or supraventricular tachycardia, which do not confer an increased stroke risk,” he explained.

“This study shows that without a firm diagnosis of AF[ib] on an ECG or some sort of continuous AF[ib] monitoring device, we are going to be anticoagulating people who don’t need it. They were exposed to the risk of bleeding without getting the benefit of a reduction in stroke risk,” Dr. Fry noted.

“The important outcome from this trial is that it gives comfort in we can be more confident in withholding anticoagulation until we get a firm diagnosis of AF[ib]. If we have a high index of suspicion that this could be AF[ib], then we can arrange for a further testing,” he added.
 

Second trial reporting soon

A trial similar to NOAH-AFNET 6 is currently underway – the ARTESIA trial, which is expected to be reported later in 2023.

“We are in close contact with the leadership of that trial, and we hope to do some meta-analysis,” Dr. Kirchhof said. “But I think today we’ve gone from no evidence to one outcome-based trial which shows there is no reason to use anticoagulation in these patients with atrial high-rate episodes. I think this is reason to change practice now, but yes, of course we need to look at the data in totality once the second trial has reported.”

But the lead investigator of the ARTESIA trial, Stuart Connolly, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., does not believe the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial should change practice at this time.

“This trial fails to adequately address the critical issue that drives clinical decision-making in these patients because it is underpowered for the most important endpoint of stroke,” he said in an interview.

“The key question is whether anticoagulation reduces stroke in these patients,” he added. “To answer that, a clinical trial needs to have a lot of strokes, and this trial had very few. The trial was stopped early and had way too few strokes to properly answer this key question.”

The NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was an investigator-initiated trial funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Daiichi Sankyo Europe. Dr. Kirchhof reported research support from several drug and device companies active in AFib. He is also listed as an inventor on two patents held by the University of Hamburg on AFib therapy and AFib markers.

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

AMSTERDAM – Among patients with atrial high-rate episodes detected by implantable devices, anticoagulation with edoxaban did not significantly reduce the incidence of a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism in comparison with placebo but was associated with a higher bleeding risk in the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial.

“These results tell us that patients with atrial high-rate episodes with clinical stroke risk factors – but who do not have clinically defined AF[ib] [atrial fibrillation – do not need blood thinners. They do not need to be anticoagulated. That is a relief,” the lead investigator of the trial, Paulus Kirchhof, MD, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), said in an interview.

Dr. Kirchhof pointed out that this result was unexpected. “Many of us thought that because atrial high-rate episodes look like AF[ib] when they occur, then they are an indication for anticoagulation. But based on these results from the first-ever randomized trial on this population, there is no need for anticoagulation in these patients.”

Dr. Kirchhof presented the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The study was also simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial recruited patients with implanted devices that enable continuous monitoring of atrial rhythm, such as pacemakers and defibrillators. “Because we can record the rhythm day and night with these devices, they pick up small abnormalities. About 20% of these patients experience these occasional atrial high-rate episodes – short episodes that look like AF[ib], but they are rare and brief,” Dr. Kirchhof noted.

He explained that whether the occurrence of these atrial high-rate episodes in patients without AFib, as documented on a conventional electrocardiogram, justifies the initiation of anticoagulants has been unclear. “But this trial tells us that these episodes are different to AF[ib] that is diagnosed on ECG,” he added.

Another finding in the trial was that among these patients, there was an unexpectedly low rate of stroke, despite the patients’ having a CHADSVASC score of 4.

“Based on the result of this trial, these occasional atrial high-rate episodes do not appear to be associated with stroke. It appears quite benign,” Dr. Kirchhof said.
 

Implications for wearable technology?

He said the results may also have implications for wearable devices that pick up abnormal heart rhythm, such as smartwatches.

“We don’t know exactly what these wearable technologies are picking up, but most likely it is these atrial high-rate episodes. But we need more research on the value of these wearable technologies; we need randomized trials in this particular patient population before we consider anticoagulation in these patients,” Dr. Kirchhof stated.

The NOAH-AFNET 6 study was an event-driven, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trial involving 2,536 patients aged 65 years or older who had atrial high-rate episodes that lasted for at least 6 minutes and who had at least one additional risk factor for stroke.

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive edoxaban or placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism, evaluated in a time-to-event analysis. The safety outcome was a composite of death from any cause or major bleeding.

The mean age of the patients was 78 years, 37.4% were women, and the median duration of atrial high-rate episodes was 2.8 hours. The trial was terminated early, at a median follow-up of 21 months, on the basis of safety concerns and the results of an independent, informal assessment of futility for the efficacy of edoxaban; at termination, the planned enrollment had been completed.

Results showed that a primary efficacy outcome event occurred in 83 patients (3.2% per patient-year) in the edoxaban group and in 101 patients (4.0% per patient-year) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.08; P = .15). The incidence of stroke was approximately 1% per patient-year in both groups.

A safety outcome event occurred in 149 patients (5.9% per patient-year) in the edoxaban group and in 114 patients (4.5% per patient-year) in the placebo group (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.67; P = .03).

ECG-diagnosed AFib developed in 462 of 2,536 patients (18.2% total, 8.7% per patient-year).

In the NEJM article, the authors wrote that the findings of this trial – the low incidence of stroke that was not further reduced by treatment with edoxaban – may make it appropriate to withhold anticoagulant therapy for patients with atrial high-rate episodes.

The main difference between the population studied in this trial and patients with AFib, as documented on an ECG, appears to be the paucity and brevity of atrial arrhythmias in patients with atrial high-rate episodes (termed low arrhythmia burden). Published reports show that a low arrhythmia burden contributes to a low incidence of stroke among patients with AFib, the study authors wrote.

They added that the low rate of stroke in this trial suggests that in addition to clinical risk prediction formulas for stroke, methods to improve the estimation of stroke risk among patients with infrequent atrial arrhythmias detected by long-term monitoring are needed to guide decision-making on the use of anticoagulation.

Commenting on the NOAH-AFNET 6 results, the comoderator of the ESC HOTLINE session at which they were presented, Barbara Casadei, MD, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, England, said: “Finally we know what to with these patients. Before we just had a variety of opinions with no evidence. I think that the trial really highlights that patients who come to the doctor with symptoms of AF[ib] or who have ECG-documented AF[ib] have a much higher risk of cardioembolic stroke than patients in whom this presumed AF[ib] is picked up incidentally from implanted devices.”

She added: “The stroke rates are very low in this trial, so anticoagulation was never going to work. But this is an important finding. We know that anticoagulants are not a free lunch. There is a significant bleeding risk. These results suggest that unless a patient has clinical AF[ib] that shows up on an ECG then we need to more cautious in prescribing anticoagulation.”

Also commenting on the study, immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology Ed Fry, MD, Ascension Indiana St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, said the management of patients with implanted cardiac devices or personal wearable technology that has picked up an abnormal rhythm suggestive of AFib was a big question in clinical practice.

“These episodes could be AF[ib], which comes with an increased stroke risk, but it could also be something else like atrial tachycardia or supraventricular tachycardia, which do not confer an increased stroke risk,” he explained.

“This study shows that without a firm diagnosis of AF[ib] on an ECG or some sort of continuous AF[ib] monitoring device, we are going to be anticoagulating people who don’t need it. They were exposed to the risk of bleeding without getting the benefit of a reduction in stroke risk,” Dr. Fry noted.

“The important outcome from this trial is that it gives comfort in we can be more confident in withholding anticoagulation until we get a firm diagnosis of AF[ib]. If we have a high index of suspicion that this could be AF[ib], then we can arrange for a further testing,” he added.
 

Second trial reporting soon

A trial similar to NOAH-AFNET 6 is currently underway – the ARTESIA trial, which is expected to be reported later in 2023.

“We are in close contact with the leadership of that trial, and we hope to do some meta-analysis,” Dr. Kirchhof said. “But I think today we’ve gone from no evidence to one outcome-based trial which shows there is no reason to use anticoagulation in these patients with atrial high-rate episodes. I think this is reason to change practice now, but yes, of course we need to look at the data in totality once the second trial has reported.”

But the lead investigator of the ARTESIA trial, Stuart Connolly, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., does not believe the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial should change practice at this time.

“This trial fails to adequately address the critical issue that drives clinical decision-making in these patients because it is underpowered for the most important endpoint of stroke,” he said in an interview.

“The key question is whether anticoagulation reduces stroke in these patients,” he added. “To answer that, a clinical trial needs to have a lot of strokes, and this trial had very few. The trial was stopped early and had way too few strokes to properly answer this key question.”

The NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was an investigator-initiated trial funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Daiichi Sankyo Europe. Dr. Kirchhof reported research support from several drug and device companies active in AFib. He is also listed as an inventor on two patents held by the University of Hamburg on AFib therapy and AFib markers.

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

AMSTERDAM – Among patients with atrial high-rate episodes detected by implantable devices, anticoagulation with edoxaban did not significantly reduce the incidence of a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism in comparison with placebo but was associated with a higher bleeding risk in the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial.

“These results tell us that patients with atrial high-rate episodes with clinical stroke risk factors – but who do not have clinically defined AF[ib] [atrial fibrillation – do not need blood thinners. They do not need to be anticoagulated. That is a relief,” the lead investigator of the trial, Paulus Kirchhof, MD, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), said in an interview.

Dr. Kirchhof pointed out that this result was unexpected. “Many of us thought that because atrial high-rate episodes look like AF[ib] when they occur, then they are an indication for anticoagulation. But based on these results from the first-ever randomized trial on this population, there is no need for anticoagulation in these patients.”

Dr. Kirchhof presented the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The study was also simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial recruited patients with implanted devices that enable continuous monitoring of atrial rhythm, such as pacemakers and defibrillators. “Because we can record the rhythm day and night with these devices, they pick up small abnormalities. About 20% of these patients experience these occasional atrial high-rate episodes – short episodes that look like AF[ib], but they are rare and brief,” Dr. Kirchhof noted.

He explained that whether the occurrence of these atrial high-rate episodes in patients without AFib, as documented on a conventional electrocardiogram, justifies the initiation of anticoagulants has been unclear. “But this trial tells us that these episodes are different to AF[ib] that is diagnosed on ECG,” he added.

Another finding in the trial was that among these patients, there was an unexpectedly low rate of stroke, despite the patients’ having a CHADSVASC score of 4.

“Based on the result of this trial, these occasional atrial high-rate episodes do not appear to be associated with stroke. It appears quite benign,” Dr. Kirchhof said.
 

Implications for wearable technology?

He said the results may also have implications for wearable devices that pick up abnormal heart rhythm, such as smartwatches.

“We don’t know exactly what these wearable technologies are picking up, but most likely it is these atrial high-rate episodes. But we need more research on the value of these wearable technologies; we need randomized trials in this particular patient population before we consider anticoagulation in these patients,” Dr. Kirchhof stated.

The NOAH-AFNET 6 study was an event-driven, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trial involving 2,536 patients aged 65 years or older who had atrial high-rate episodes that lasted for at least 6 minutes and who had at least one additional risk factor for stroke.

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive edoxaban or placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism, evaluated in a time-to-event analysis. The safety outcome was a composite of death from any cause or major bleeding.

The mean age of the patients was 78 years, 37.4% were women, and the median duration of atrial high-rate episodes was 2.8 hours. The trial was terminated early, at a median follow-up of 21 months, on the basis of safety concerns and the results of an independent, informal assessment of futility for the efficacy of edoxaban; at termination, the planned enrollment had been completed.

Results showed that a primary efficacy outcome event occurred in 83 patients (3.2% per patient-year) in the edoxaban group and in 101 patients (4.0% per patient-year) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.08; P = .15). The incidence of stroke was approximately 1% per patient-year in both groups.

A safety outcome event occurred in 149 patients (5.9% per patient-year) in the edoxaban group and in 114 patients (4.5% per patient-year) in the placebo group (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.67; P = .03).

ECG-diagnosed AFib developed in 462 of 2,536 patients (18.2% total, 8.7% per patient-year).

In the NEJM article, the authors wrote that the findings of this trial – the low incidence of stroke that was not further reduced by treatment with edoxaban – may make it appropriate to withhold anticoagulant therapy for patients with atrial high-rate episodes.

The main difference between the population studied in this trial and patients with AFib, as documented on an ECG, appears to be the paucity and brevity of atrial arrhythmias in patients with atrial high-rate episodes (termed low arrhythmia burden). Published reports show that a low arrhythmia burden contributes to a low incidence of stroke among patients with AFib, the study authors wrote.

They added that the low rate of stroke in this trial suggests that in addition to clinical risk prediction formulas for stroke, methods to improve the estimation of stroke risk among patients with infrequent atrial arrhythmias detected by long-term monitoring are needed to guide decision-making on the use of anticoagulation.

Commenting on the NOAH-AFNET 6 results, the comoderator of the ESC HOTLINE session at which they were presented, Barbara Casadei, MD, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, England, said: “Finally we know what to with these patients. Before we just had a variety of opinions with no evidence. I think that the trial really highlights that patients who come to the doctor with symptoms of AF[ib] or who have ECG-documented AF[ib] have a much higher risk of cardioembolic stroke than patients in whom this presumed AF[ib] is picked up incidentally from implanted devices.”

She added: “The stroke rates are very low in this trial, so anticoagulation was never going to work. But this is an important finding. We know that anticoagulants are not a free lunch. There is a significant bleeding risk. These results suggest that unless a patient has clinical AF[ib] that shows up on an ECG then we need to more cautious in prescribing anticoagulation.”

Also commenting on the study, immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology Ed Fry, MD, Ascension Indiana St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, said the management of patients with implanted cardiac devices or personal wearable technology that has picked up an abnormal rhythm suggestive of AFib was a big question in clinical practice.

“These episodes could be AF[ib], which comes with an increased stroke risk, but it could also be something else like atrial tachycardia or supraventricular tachycardia, which do not confer an increased stroke risk,” he explained.

“This study shows that without a firm diagnosis of AF[ib] on an ECG or some sort of continuous AF[ib] monitoring device, we are going to be anticoagulating people who don’t need it. They were exposed to the risk of bleeding without getting the benefit of a reduction in stroke risk,” Dr. Fry noted.

“The important outcome from this trial is that it gives comfort in we can be more confident in withholding anticoagulation until we get a firm diagnosis of AF[ib]. If we have a high index of suspicion that this could be AF[ib], then we can arrange for a further testing,” he added.
 

Second trial reporting soon

A trial similar to NOAH-AFNET 6 is currently underway – the ARTESIA trial, which is expected to be reported later in 2023.

“We are in close contact with the leadership of that trial, and we hope to do some meta-analysis,” Dr. Kirchhof said. “But I think today we’ve gone from no evidence to one outcome-based trial which shows there is no reason to use anticoagulation in these patients with atrial high-rate episodes. I think this is reason to change practice now, but yes, of course we need to look at the data in totality once the second trial has reported.”

But the lead investigator of the ARTESIA trial, Stuart Connolly, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., does not believe the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial should change practice at this time.

“This trial fails to adequately address the critical issue that drives clinical decision-making in these patients because it is underpowered for the most important endpoint of stroke,” he said in an interview.

“The key question is whether anticoagulation reduces stroke in these patients,” he added. “To answer that, a clinical trial needs to have a lot of strokes, and this trial had very few. The trial was stopped early and had way too few strokes to properly answer this key question.”

The NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was an investigator-initiated trial funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Daiichi Sankyo Europe. Dr. Kirchhof reported research support from several drug and device companies active in AFib. He is also listed as an inventor on two patents held by the University of Hamburg on AFib therapy and AFib markers.

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

AMSTERDAM – The era of guidelines that recommended treatment with either a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease (CVD) ended with new recommendations from the European Society of Cardiology that call for starting both classes simultaneously.

“A key change is that we removed the ‘and-or’ and the ‘either-or’ terms and recommend using both classes simultaneously in patients who are eligible based on their clinical indications and without contraindications or intolerance,” said Darren K. McGuire, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The society’s new guidelines for managing CVD in patients with diabetes, released on Aug. 25 and presented in several sessions at the Congress, also break with the past by calling for starting treatment with both an SGLT-2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 receptor agonist without regard to a person’s existing level of glucose control, including their current and target hemoglobin A1c levels, and regardless of background therapy, added Dr. McGuire, a cardiologist and professor at the UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and a member of the ESC panel that wrote the new guidelines.

Instead, the new guidance calls for starting both drug classes promptly in people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic CVD.

Both the previous ESC guidelines from 2019 as well as the current Standards of Care for 2023 document from the American Diabetes Association call for using one class or the other, but they hedge on combined treatment as discretionary.
 

Different mechanisms mean additive benefits

“With increasing numbers of patients with type 2 diabetes in trials for SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists who were also on the other drug class, we’ve done large, stratified analyses that suggest no treatment-effect modification” when people received agents from both drug classes, Dr. McGuire explained in an interview. “While we don’t understand the mechanisms of action of these drugs for CVD, we’ve become very confident that they use different mechanisms” that appear to have at least partially additive effects.

“Their benefits for CVD risk reduction are completely independent of their glucose effects. They are cardiology drugs,” Dr. McGuire added.

The new ESC guidelines highlight two other clinical settings where people with type 2 diabetes should receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor regardless of their existing level of glucose control and any other medical treatment: people with heart failure and people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) based on a depressed estimated glomerular filtration rate and an elevated urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

Nephropathy was considered by the ESC’s guideline panel to confer risk that is similar to that of established atherosclerotic CVD, Dr. McGuire said.

The guidelines also, for the first time for ESC recommendations, made treatment with finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) a class 1 level A recommendation for people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.
 

SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator

Another major change in the new ESC guideline revision is introduction of a CVD risk calculator intended to estimate the risk among people with type 2 diabetes but without established CVD, heart failure, or CKD.

Called the SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator, it calculates a person’s 10-year risk for CVD and includes adjustment based on the European region where a person lives; it also tallies different risk levels for women and for men.

The researchers who developed the SCORE2-Diabetes calculator used data from nearly 230,000 people to devise the tool and then validated it with data from an additional 217,000 Europeans with type 2 diabetes.

Key features of the calculator include its use of routinely collected clinical values, such as age, sex, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, serum cholesterol levels, age at diabetes diagnosis, hemoglobin A1c level, and estimated glomerular filtration rate.

“For the first time we have a clear score to categorize risk” in people with type 2 diabetes and identify who needs more aggressive treatment to prevent CVD development,” said Emanuele Di Angelantonio, MD, PhD, deputy director of the cardiovascular epidemiology unit at the University of Cambridge (England).

The guidelines say that people who have a low (< 5%) or moderate (5%-9%) 10-year risk for CVD are possible candidates for metformin treatment. Those with high (10%-19%) or very high (≥ 20%) risk are possible candidates for treatment with metformin and/or an SGLT-2 inhibitor and/or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, said Dr. Di Angelantonio during his talk at the congress on the new risk score.

“The risk score is a good addition” because it estimates future CVD risk better and more systematically than usual practice, which generally relies on no systematic tool, said Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) and also a member of the guideline-writing panel.

The new risk score “is a reasonable way” to identify people without CVD but at elevated risk who might benefit from treatment with a relatively expensive drug, such as an SGLT-2 inhibitor, Dr. Sattar said in an interview. “It doesn’t rely on any fancy biomarkers or imaging, and it takes about 30 seconds to calculate. It’s not perfect, but it gets the job done,” and it will increase the number of people with type 2 diabetes who will receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor, he predicted.

Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Altimmune, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Intercept, Lexion, Lilly, Merck, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Di Angelantonio had no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – The era of guidelines that recommended treatment with either a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease (CVD) ended with new recommendations from the European Society of Cardiology that call for starting both classes simultaneously.

“A key change is that we removed the ‘and-or’ and the ‘either-or’ terms and recommend using both classes simultaneously in patients who are eligible based on their clinical indications and without contraindications or intolerance,” said Darren K. McGuire, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The society’s new guidelines for managing CVD in patients with diabetes, released on Aug. 25 and presented in several sessions at the Congress, also break with the past by calling for starting treatment with both an SGLT-2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 receptor agonist without regard to a person’s existing level of glucose control, including their current and target hemoglobin A1c levels, and regardless of background therapy, added Dr. McGuire, a cardiologist and professor at the UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and a member of the ESC panel that wrote the new guidelines.

Instead, the new guidance calls for starting both drug classes promptly in people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic CVD.

Both the previous ESC guidelines from 2019 as well as the current Standards of Care for 2023 document from the American Diabetes Association call for using one class or the other, but they hedge on combined treatment as discretionary.
 

Different mechanisms mean additive benefits

“With increasing numbers of patients with type 2 diabetes in trials for SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists who were also on the other drug class, we’ve done large, stratified analyses that suggest no treatment-effect modification” when people received agents from both drug classes, Dr. McGuire explained in an interview. “While we don’t understand the mechanisms of action of these drugs for CVD, we’ve become very confident that they use different mechanisms” that appear to have at least partially additive effects.

“Their benefits for CVD risk reduction are completely independent of their glucose effects. They are cardiology drugs,” Dr. McGuire added.

The new ESC guidelines highlight two other clinical settings where people with type 2 diabetes should receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor regardless of their existing level of glucose control and any other medical treatment: people with heart failure and people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) based on a depressed estimated glomerular filtration rate and an elevated urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

Nephropathy was considered by the ESC’s guideline panel to confer risk that is similar to that of established atherosclerotic CVD, Dr. McGuire said.

The guidelines also, for the first time for ESC recommendations, made treatment with finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) a class 1 level A recommendation for people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.
 

SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator

Another major change in the new ESC guideline revision is introduction of a CVD risk calculator intended to estimate the risk among people with type 2 diabetes but without established CVD, heart failure, or CKD.

Called the SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator, it calculates a person’s 10-year risk for CVD and includes adjustment based on the European region where a person lives; it also tallies different risk levels for women and for men.

The researchers who developed the SCORE2-Diabetes calculator used data from nearly 230,000 people to devise the tool and then validated it with data from an additional 217,000 Europeans with type 2 diabetes.

Key features of the calculator include its use of routinely collected clinical values, such as age, sex, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, serum cholesterol levels, age at diabetes diagnosis, hemoglobin A1c level, and estimated glomerular filtration rate.

“For the first time we have a clear score to categorize risk” in people with type 2 diabetes and identify who needs more aggressive treatment to prevent CVD development,” said Emanuele Di Angelantonio, MD, PhD, deputy director of the cardiovascular epidemiology unit at the University of Cambridge (England).

The guidelines say that people who have a low (< 5%) or moderate (5%-9%) 10-year risk for CVD are possible candidates for metformin treatment. Those with high (10%-19%) or very high (≥ 20%) risk are possible candidates for treatment with metformin and/or an SGLT-2 inhibitor and/or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, said Dr. Di Angelantonio during his talk at the congress on the new risk score.

“The risk score is a good addition” because it estimates future CVD risk better and more systematically than usual practice, which generally relies on no systematic tool, said Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) and also a member of the guideline-writing panel.

The new risk score “is a reasonable way” to identify people without CVD but at elevated risk who might benefit from treatment with a relatively expensive drug, such as an SGLT-2 inhibitor, Dr. Sattar said in an interview. “It doesn’t rely on any fancy biomarkers or imaging, and it takes about 30 seconds to calculate. It’s not perfect, but it gets the job done,” and it will increase the number of people with type 2 diabetes who will receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor, he predicted.

Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Altimmune, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Intercept, Lexion, Lilly, Merck, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Di Angelantonio had no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – The era of guidelines that recommended treatment with either a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease (CVD) ended with new recommendations from the European Society of Cardiology that call for starting both classes simultaneously.

“A key change is that we removed the ‘and-or’ and the ‘either-or’ terms and recommend using both classes simultaneously in patients who are eligible based on their clinical indications and without contraindications or intolerance,” said Darren K. McGuire, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The society’s new guidelines for managing CVD in patients with diabetes, released on Aug. 25 and presented in several sessions at the Congress, also break with the past by calling for starting treatment with both an SGLT-2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 receptor agonist without regard to a person’s existing level of glucose control, including their current and target hemoglobin A1c levels, and regardless of background therapy, added Dr. McGuire, a cardiologist and professor at the UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and a member of the ESC panel that wrote the new guidelines.

Instead, the new guidance calls for starting both drug classes promptly in people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic CVD.

Both the previous ESC guidelines from 2019 as well as the current Standards of Care for 2023 document from the American Diabetes Association call for using one class or the other, but they hedge on combined treatment as discretionary.
 

Different mechanisms mean additive benefits

“With increasing numbers of patients with type 2 diabetes in trials for SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists who were also on the other drug class, we’ve done large, stratified analyses that suggest no treatment-effect modification” when people received agents from both drug classes, Dr. McGuire explained in an interview. “While we don’t understand the mechanisms of action of these drugs for CVD, we’ve become very confident that they use different mechanisms” that appear to have at least partially additive effects.

“Their benefits for CVD risk reduction are completely independent of their glucose effects. They are cardiology drugs,” Dr. McGuire added.

The new ESC guidelines highlight two other clinical settings where people with type 2 diabetes should receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor regardless of their existing level of glucose control and any other medical treatment: people with heart failure and people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) based on a depressed estimated glomerular filtration rate and an elevated urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

Nephropathy was considered by the ESC’s guideline panel to confer risk that is similar to that of established atherosclerotic CVD, Dr. McGuire said.

The guidelines also, for the first time for ESC recommendations, made treatment with finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) a class 1 level A recommendation for people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.
 

SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator

Another major change in the new ESC guideline revision is introduction of a CVD risk calculator intended to estimate the risk among people with type 2 diabetes but without established CVD, heart failure, or CKD.

Called the SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator, it calculates a person’s 10-year risk for CVD and includes adjustment based on the European region where a person lives; it also tallies different risk levels for women and for men.

The researchers who developed the SCORE2-Diabetes calculator used data from nearly 230,000 people to devise the tool and then validated it with data from an additional 217,000 Europeans with type 2 diabetes.

Key features of the calculator include its use of routinely collected clinical values, such as age, sex, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, serum cholesterol levels, age at diabetes diagnosis, hemoglobin A1c level, and estimated glomerular filtration rate.

“For the first time we have a clear score to categorize risk” in people with type 2 diabetes and identify who needs more aggressive treatment to prevent CVD development,” said Emanuele Di Angelantonio, MD, PhD, deputy director of the cardiovascular epidemiology unit at the University of Cambridge (England).

The guidelines say that people who have a low (< 5%) or moderate (5%-9%) 10-year risk for CVD are possible candidates for metformin treatment. Those with high (10%-19%) or very high (≥ 20%) risk are possible candidates for treatment with metformin and/or an SGLT-2 inhibitor and/or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, said Dr. Di Angelantonio during his talk at the congress on the new risk score.

“The risk score is a good addition” because it estimates future CVD risk better and more systematically than usual practice, which generally relies on no systematic tool, said Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) and also a member of the guideline-writing panel.

The new risk score “is a reasonable way” to identify people without CVD but at elevated risk who might benefit from treatment with a relatively expensive drug, such as an SGLT-2 inhibitor, Dr. Sattar said in an interview. “It doesn’t rely on any fancy biomarkers or imaging, and it takes about 30 seconds to calculate. It’s not perfect, but it gets the job done,” and it will increase the number of people with type 2 diabetes who will receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor, he predicted.

Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Altimmune, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Intercept, Lexion, Lilly, Merck, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Di Angelantonio had no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s been estimated that up to one-third of people who survive acute SARS-CoV-2 infection will suffer a post-viral syndrome with lingering neurologic and other symptoms – now known as long COVID or neurological postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Neuro-PASC).

However, new research suggests that may be an underestimate and that far more people may be suffering from long COVID without ever having tested positive for the virus. Researchers found a significant proportion of patients in their small study who had never tested positive for COVID-19 but who were having symptoms of long COVID nevertheless showed evidence of immune responses consistent with previous exposure.

“We estimate that millions of people got COVID in the U.S. during the first year of the pandemic and then developed long COVID, yet they did not get a positive COVID diagnosis because of testing limitations,” Igor J. Koralnik, MD, of Northwestern Medicine Comprehensive COVID-19 Center in Chicago, said in an interview.

He noted that many post-COVID-19 clinics in the United States don’t accept people with long COVID symptoms who do not have a positive test result.

Patients with long COVID symptoms but without laboratory evidence of prior infection, “who have often been rejected and stigmatized, should feel vindicated by the results of our study,” Dr. Koralnik said.

“We think that those patients deserve the same clinical care as those with a positive test, as well as inclusion in research studies. This is what we are doing at Northwestern Medicine’s Comprehensive COVID[-19] Center,” Dr. Koralnik added.

The study was published online in the journal Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation.

Delayed care

The researchers measured SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cell-mediated immune responses against nucleocapsid protein and spike proteins, which indicate a prior COVID-19 infection, in 29 patients with post-viral syndrome after suspected COVID-19, including neurologic symptoms such as cognitive impairment, headache, and fatigue, but who did not have a confirmed positive COVID-19 test.

They did the same in 32 age- and sex-matched COVID long haulers with confirmed Neuro-PASC and 18 healthy controls with none of the symptoms of long COVID and no known exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or positive test result.

They found that 12 of the 29 patients (41%) with post-viral syndrome (but no positive COVID-19 test) had detectable humoral and cellular immune responses consistent with prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Three-quarters harbored antinucleocapsid and 50% harbored antispike responses.

“Our data suggest that at least 4 million people with post-viral syndrome similar to long COVID may indeed have detectable immune responses to support a COVID diagnosis,” Dr. Koralnik said in a news release.

The 12 patients with post-viral syndrome but without a confirmed COVID-19 test had neurologic symptoms similar to those of patients with confirmed Neuro-PASC.

However, lack of a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis likely contributed to the 5-month delay in the median time from symptom onset to clinic visit, the researchers said. They were evaluated at a median of 10.7 months vs. 5.4 months for Neuro-PASC patients.

Dr. Koralnik said in an interview that the “most important take-home message” of the study is that patients with post-viral syndrome often present with clinical manifestations similar to those of confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, suggesting that a positive result by commercially available SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test should not be a prerequisite for accessing care.

Patients with post-viral syndrome may benefit from the same clinical care as confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, and the absence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test should not preclude or delay treatment, he added.
 

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

This article was updated 8/28/23.

It’s been estimated that up to one-third of people who survive acute SARS-CoV-2 infection will suffer a post-viral syndrome with lingering neurologic and other symptoms – now known as long COVID or neurological postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Neuro-PASC).

However, new research suggests that may be an underestimate and that far more people may be suffering from long COVID without ever having tested positive for the virus. Researchers found a significant proportion of patients in their small study who had never tested positive for COVID-19 but who were having symptoms of long COVID nevertheless showed evidence of immune responses consistent with previous exposure.

“We estimate that millions of people got COVID in the U.S. during the first year of the pandemic and then developed long COVID, yet they did not get a positive COVID diagnosis because of testing limitations,” Igor J. Koralnik, MD, of Northwestern Medicine Comprehensive COVID-19 Center in Chicago, said in an interview.

He noted that many post-COVID-19 clinics in the United States don’t accept people with long COVID symptoms who do not have a positive test result.

Patients with long COVID symptoms but without laboratory evidence of prior infection, “who have often been rejected and stigmatized, should feel vindicated by the results of our study,” Dr. Koralnik said.

“We think that those patients deserve the same clinical care as those with a positive test, as well as inclusion in research studies. This is what we are doing at Northwestern Medicine’s Comprehensive COVID[-19] Center,” Dr. Koralnik added.

The study was published online in the journal Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation.

Delayed care

The researchers measured SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cell-mediated immune responses against nucleocapsid protein and spike proteins, which indicate a prior COVID-19 infection, in 29 patients with post-viral syndrome after suspected COVID-19, including neurologic symptoms such as cognitive impairment, headache, and fatigue, but who did not have a confirmed positive COVID-19 test.

They did the same in 32 age- and sex-matched COVID long haulers with confirmed Neuro-PASC and 18 healthy controls with none of the symptoms of long COVID and no known exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or positive test result.

They found that 12 of the 29 patients (41%) with post-viral syndrome (but no positive COVID-19 test) had detectable humoral and cellular immune responses consistent with prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Three-quarters harbored antinucleocapsid and 50% harbored antispike responses.

“Our data suggest that at least 4 million people with post-viral syndrome similar to long COVID may indeed have detectable immune responses to support a COVID diagnosis,” Dr. Koralnik said in a news release.

The 12 patients with post-viral syndrome but without a confirmed COVID-19 test had neurologic symptoms similar to those of patients with confirmed Neuro-PASC.

However, lack of a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis likely contributed to the 5-month delay in the median time from symptom onset to clinic visit, the researchers said. They were evaluated at a median of 10.7 months vs. 5.4 months for Neuro-PASC patients.

Dr. Koralnik said in an interview that the “most important take-home message” of the study is that patients with post-viral syndrome often present with clinical manifestations similar to those of confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, suggesting that a positive result by commercially available SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test should not be a prerequisite for accessing care.

Patients with post-viral syndrome may benefit from the same clinical care as confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, and the absence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test should not preclude or delay treatment, he added.
 

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

This article was updated 8/28/23.

It’s been estimated that up to one-third of people who survive acute SARS-CoV-2 infection will suffer a post-viral syndrome with lingering neurologic and other symptoms – now known as long COVID or neurological postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Neuro-PASC).

However, new research suggests that may be an underestimate and that far more people may be suffering from long COVID without ever having tested positive for the virus. Researchers found a significant proportion of patients in their small study who had never tested positive for COVID-19 but who were having symptoms of long COVID nevertheless showed evidence of immune responses consistent with previous exposure.

“We estimate that millions of people got COVID in the U.S. during the first year of the pandemic and then developed long COVID, yet they did not get a positive COVID diagnosis because of testing limitations,” Igor J. Koralnik, MD, of Northwestern Medicine Comprehensive COVID-19 Center in Chicago, said in an interview.

He noted that many post-COVID-19 clinics in the United States don’t accept people with long COVID symptoms who do not have a positive test result.

Patients with long COVID symptoms but without laboratory evidence of prior infection, “who have often been rejected and stigmatized, should feel vindicated by the results of our study,” Dr. Koralnik said.

“We think that those patients deserve the same clinical care as those with a positive test, as well as inclusion in research studies. This is what we are doing at Northwestern Medicine’s Comprehensive COVID[-19] Center,” Dr. Koralnik added.

The study was published online in the journal Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation.

Delayed care

The researchers measured SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cell-mediated immune responses against nucleocapsid protein and spike proteins, which indicate a prior COVID-19 infection, in 29 patients with post-viral syndrome after suspected COVID-19, including neurologic symptoms such as cognitive impairment, headache, and fatigue, but who did not have a confirmed positive COVID-19 test.

They did the same in 32 age- and sex-matched COVID long haulers with confirmed Neuro-PASC and 18 healthy controls with none of the symptoms of long COVID and no known exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or positive test result.

They found that 12 of the 29 patients (41%) with post-viral syndrome (but no positive COVID-19 test) had detectable humoral and cellular immune responses consistent with prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Three-quarters harbored antinucleocapsid and 50% harbored antispike responses.

“Our data suggest that at least 4 million people with post-viral syndrome similar to long COVID may indeed have detectable immune responses to support a COVID diagnosis,” Dr. Koralnik said in a news release.

The 12 patients with post-viral syndrome but without a confirmed COVID-19 test had neurologic symptoms similar to those of patients with confirmed Neuro-PASC.

However, lack of a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis likely contributed to the 5-month delay in the median time from symptom onset to clinic visit, the researchers said. They were evaluated at a median of 10.7 months vs. 5.4 months for Neuro-PASC patients.

Dr. Koralnik said in an interview that the “most important take-home message” of the study is that patients with post-viral syndrome often present with clinical manifestations similar to those of confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, suggesting that a positive result by commercially available SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test should not be a prerequisite for accessing care.

Patients with post-viral syndrome may benefit from the same clinical care as confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, and the absence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test should not preclude or delay treatment, he added.
 

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

This article was updated 8/28/23.

A single injection of the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide led to short-term normalization of associative learning in people with obesity and insulin resistance, a finding that suggests dopamine-driven learning processes are modified by metabolic signaling and that this effect “may contribute to the weight-reducing effects of liraglutide in obesity,” say the authors of a recent report in Nature Metabolism.
 

“We demonstrated that dopamine-driven associative learning about external sensory cues crucially depends on metabolic signaling,” said Marc Tittgemeyer, PhD, professor at the Max Planck Institute for Metabolism Research in Cologne, Germany, and senior author of the study. Study participants with impaired insulin sensitivity “exhibited a reduced amplitude of behavioral updating that was normalized” by a single subcutaneous injection of 0.6 mg of liraglutide (the starting daily dose for liraglutide for weight loss, available as Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) given the evening before testing.

The findings, from 30 adults with normal insulin sensitivity and normal weight and 24 adults with impaired insulin sensitivity and obesity, suggest that metabolic signals, particularly ones that promote energy restoration in a setting of energy deprivation caused by insulin or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, “profoundly influence neuronal processing,” said Dr. Tittgemeyer. The findings suggest that impaired metabolic signaling such as occurs with insulin resistance in people with obesity can cause deficiencies in associative learning.
 

‘Liraglutide can normalize learning of associations’

“We show that in people with obesity, disrupted circuit mechanisms lead to impaired learning about sensory associations,” Dr. Tittgemeyer said in an interview. “The information provided by sensory systems that the brain must interpret to select a behavioral response are ‘off tune’ ” in these individuals.

“This is rather consequential for understanding food-intake behaviors. Modern obesity treatments, such as liraglutide, can normalize learning of associations and thereby render people susceptible again for sensory signals and make them more prone to react to subliminal interactions, such as weight-normalizing diets and conscious eating,” he added.

The normalization in associative learning that one dose of liraglutide produced in people with obesity “fits with studies showing that these drugs restore a normal feeling of satiety, causing people to eat less and therefore lose weight,” he explained.

Dr. Tittgemeyer noted that this effect is likely shared by other agents in the GLP-1 receptor agonist class, such as semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) but is likely not an effect when agents agonize receptors to other nutrient-stimulated hormones such as glucagon and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide.

The findings “show that liraglutide restores associative learning in participants with greater insulin resistance,” a “highly relevant” discovery, commented Nils B. Kroemer, PhD, head of the section of medical psychology at the University of Bonn, Germany, who was not involved with this research, in a written statement.

The study run by Dr. Tittgemeyer and his associates included 54 healthy adult volunteers whom they assessed for insulin sensitivity with their homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance. The researchers divided the cohort into groups; one group included 24 people with impaired insulin sensitivity, and one included 30 with normal insulin sensitivity. The average body mass index (BMI) of the normal sensitivity group was about 24 kg/m²; in the insulin-resistant subgroup, BMI averaged about 33 kg/m².

The associative learning task tested the ability of participants to learn associations between auditory cues (a high or low tone) and a subsequent visual outcome (a picture of a face or a house). During each associative learning session, participants also underwent functional MRI of the brain.
 

Liraglutide treatment leveled learning

The results showed that the learning rate was significantly lower in the subgroup with impaired insulin sensitivity, compared with those with normal insulin sensitivity following treatment with a placebo injection. This indicates a decreased adaptation of learning to predictability variations in individuals with impaired insulin sensitivity.

In contrast, treatment with a single dose of liraglutide significantly enhanced the learning rate in the group with impaired insulin sensitivity but significantly reduced the learning rate in the group with normal insulin sensitivity. Liraglutide’s effect was twice as large in the group with impaired insulin sensitivity than in the group with normal insulin sensitivity, and these opposing effects of liraglutide resulted in a convergence of the two groups’ adaptive learning rates so that there wasn’t any significant between-group difference following liraglutide treatment.

After analyzing the functional MRI data along with the learning results, the researchers concluded that liraglutide normalized learning in individuals with impaired insulin sensitivity by enhancing adaptive prediction error encoding in the brain’s ventral striatum and mesocortical projection sites.

This apparent ability of GLP-1 analogues to correct this learning deficit in people with impaired insulin sensitivity and obesity has implications regarding potential benefit for people with other pathologies characterized by impaired dopaminergic function and associated with metabolic impairments, such as psychosis, Parkinson’s disease, and depression, the researchers say.

“The fascinating thing about GLP-1 receptor agonists is that they have an additional mechanism that relates to anti-inflammatory effects, especially for alleviating cell stress,” said Dr. Tittgemeyer. “Many ongoing clinical trials are assessing their effects in neuropsychiatric diseases,” he noted.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Tittgemyer and most of his coauthors had no disclosures. One coauthor had several disclosures, which are detailed in the report. Dr. Kroemer had no disclosures.

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

A single injection of the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide led to short-term normalization of associative learning in people with obesity and insulin resistance, a finding that suggests dopamine-driven learning processes are modified by metabolic signaling and that this effect “may contribute to the weight-reducing effects of liraglutide in obesity,” say the authors of a recent report in Nature Metabolism.
 

“We demonstrated that dopamine-driven associative learning about external sensory cues crucially depends on metabolic signaling,” said Marc Tittgemeyer, PhD, professor at the Max Planck Institute for Metabolism Research in Cologne, Germany, and senior author of the study. Study participants with impaired insulin sensitivity “exhibited a reduced amplitude of behavioral updating that was normalized” by a single subcutaneous injection of 0.6 mg of liraglutide (the starting daily dose for liraglutide for weight loss, available as Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) given the evening before testing.

The findings, from 30 adults with normal insulin sensitivity and normal weight and 24 adults with impaired insulin sensitivity and obesity, suggest that metabolic signals, particularly ones that promote energy restoration in a setting of energy deprivation caused by insulin or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, “profoundly influence neuronal processing,” said Dr. Tittgemeyer. The findings suggest that impaired metabolic signaling such as occurs with insulin resistance in people with obesity can cause deficiencies in associative learning.
 

‘Liraglutide can normalize learning of associations’

“We show that in people with obesity, disrupted circuit mechanisms lead to impaired learning about sensory associations,” Dr. Tittgemeyer said in an interview. “The information provided by sensory systems that the brain must interpret to select a behavioral response are ‘off tune’ ” in these individuals.

“This is rather consequential for understanding food-intake behaviors. Modern obesity treatments, such as liraglutide, can normalize learning of associations and thereby render people susceptible again for sensory signals and make them more prone to react to subliminal interactions, such as weight-normalizing diets and conscious eating,” he added.

The normalization in associative learning that one dose of liraglutide produced in people with obesity “fits with studies showing that these drugs restore a normal feeling of satiety, causing people to eat less and therefore lose weight,” he explained.

Dr. Tittgemeyer noted that this effect is likely shared by other agents in the GLP-1 receptor agonist class, such as semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) but is likely not an effect when agents agonize receptors to other nutrient-stimulated hormones such as glucagon and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide.

The findings “show that liraglutide restores associative learning in participants with greater insulin resistance,” a “highly relevant” discovery, commented Nils B. Kroemer, PhD, head of the section of medical psychology at the University of Bonn, Germany, who was not involved with this research, in a written statement.

The study run by Dr. Tittgemeyer and his associates included 54 healthy adult volunteers whom they assessed for insulin sensitivity with their homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance. The researchers divided the cohort into groups; one group included 24 people with impaired insulin sensitivity, and one included 30 with normal insulin sensitivity. The average body mass index (BMI) of the normal sensitivity group was about 24 kg/m²; in the insulin-resistant subgroup, BMI averaged about 33 kg/m².

The associative learning task tested the ability of participants to learn associations between auditory cues (a high or low tone) and a subsequent visual outcome (a picture of a face or a house). During each associative learning session, participants also underwent functional MRI of the brain.
 

Liraglutide treatment leveled learning

The results showed that the learning rate was significantly lower in the subgroup with impaired insulin sensitivity, compared with those with normal insulin sensitivity following treatment with a placebo injection. This indicates a decreased adaptation of learning to predictability variations in individuals with impaired insulin sensitivity.

In contrast, treatment with a single dose of liraglutide significantly enhanced the learning rate in the group with impaired insulin sensitivity but significantly reduced the learning rate in the group with normal insulin sensitivity. Liraglutide’s effect was twice as large in the group with impaired insulin sensitivity than in the group with normal insulin sensitivity, and these opposing effects of liraglutide resulted in a convergence of the two groups’ adaptive learning rates so that there wasn’t any significant between-group difference following liraglutide treatment.

After analyzing the functional MRI data along with the learning results, the researchers concluded that liraglutide normalized learning in individuals with impaired insulin sensitivity by enhancing adaptive prediction error encoding in the brain’s ventral striatum and mesocortical projection sites.

This apparent ability of GLP-1 analogues to correct this learning deficit in people with impaired insulin sensitivity and obesity has implications regarding potential benefit for people with other pathologies characterized by impaired dopaminergic function and associated with metabolic impairments, such as psychosis, Parkinson’s disease, and depression, the researchers say.

“The fascinating thing about GLP-1 receptor agonists is that they have an additional mechanism that relates to anti-inflammatory effects, especially for alleviating cell stress,” said Dr. Tittgemeyer. “Many ongoing clinical trials are assessing their effects in neuropsychiatric diseases,” he noted.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Tittgemyer and most of his coauthors had no disclosures. One coauthor had several disclosures, which are detailed in the report. Dr. Kroemer had no disclosures.

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

A single injection of the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide led to short-term normalization of associative learning in people with obesity and insulin resistance, a finding that suggests dopamine-driven learning processes are modified by metabolic signaling and that this effect “may contribute to the weight-reducing effects of liraglutide in obesity,” say the authors of a recent report in Nature Metabolism.
 

“We demonstrated that dopamine-driven associative learning about external sensory cues crucially depends on metabolic signaling,” said Marc Tittgemeyer, PhD, professor at the Max Planck Institute for Metabolism Research in Cologne, Germany, and senior author of the study. Study participants with impaired insulin sensitivity “exhibited a reduced amplitude of behavioral updating that was normalized” by a single subcutaneous injection of 0.6 mg of liraglutide (the starting daily dose for liraglutide for weight loss, available as Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) given the evening before testing.

The findings, from 30 adults with normal insulin sensitivity and normal weight and 24 adults with impaired insulin sensitivity and obesity, suggest that metabolic signals, particularly ones that promote energy restoration in a setting of energy deprivation caused by insulin or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, “profoundly influence neuronal processing,” said Dr. Tittgemeyer. The findings suggest that impaired metabolic signaling such as occurs with insulin resistance in people with obesity can cause deficiencies in associative learning.
 

‘Liraglutide can normalize learning of associations’

“We show that in people with obesity, disrupted circuit mechanisms lead to impaired learning about sensory associations,” Dr. Tittgemeyer said in an interview. “The information provided by sensory systems that the brain must interpret to select a behavioral response are ‘off tune’ ” in these individuals.

“This is rather consequential for understanding food-intake behaviors. Modern obesity treatments, such as liraglutide, can normalize learning of associations and thereby render people susceptible again for sensory signals and make them more prone to react to subliminal interactions, such as weight-normalizing diets and conscious eating,” he added.

The normalization in associative learning that one dose of liraglutide produced in people with obesity “fits with studies showing that these drugs restore a normal feeling of satiety, causing people to eat less and therefore lose weight,” he explained.

Dr. Tittgemeyer noted that this effect is likely shared by other agents in the GLP-1 receptor agonist class, such as semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) but is likely not an effect when agents agonize receptors to other nutrient-stimulated hormones such as glucagon and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide.

The findings “show that liraglutide restores associative learning in participants with greater insulin resistance,” a “highly relevant” discovery, commented Nils B. Kroemer, PhD, head of the section of medical psychology at the University of Bonn, Germany, who was not involved with this research, in a written statement.

The study run by Dr. Tittgemeyer and his associates included 54 healthy adult volunteers whom they assessed for insulin sensitivity with their homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance. The researchers divided the cohort into groups; one group included 24 people with impaired insulin sensitivity, and one included 30 with normal insulin sensitivity. The average body mass index (BMI) of the normal sensitivity group was about 24 kg/m²; in the insulin-resistant subgroup, BMI averaged about 33 kg/m².

The associative learning task tested the ability of participants to learn associations between auditory cues (a high or low tone) and a subsequent visual outcome (a picture of a face or a house). During each associative learning session, participants also underwent functional MRI of the brain.
 

Liraglutide treatment leveled learning

The results showed that the learning rate was significantly lower in the subgroup with impaired insulin sensitivity, compared with those with normal insulin sensitivity following treatment with a placebo injection. This indicates a decreased adaptation of learning to predictability variations in individuals with impaired insulin sensitivity.

In contrast, treatment with a single dose of liraglutide significantly enhanced the learning rate in the group with impaired insulin sensitivity but significantly reduced the learning rate in the group with normal insulin sensitivity. Liraglutide’s effect was twice as large in the group with impaired insulin sensitivity than in the group with normal insulin sensitivity, and these opposing effects of liraglutide resulted in a convergence of the two groups’ adaptive learning rates so that there wasn’t any significant between-group difference following liraglutide treatment.

After analyzing the functional MRI data along with the learning results, the researchers concluded that liraglutide normalized learning in individuals with impaired insulin sensitivity by enhancing adaptive prediction error encoding in the brain’s ventral striatum and mesocortical projection sites.

This apparent ability of GLP-1 analogues to correct this learning deficit in people with impaired insulin sensitivity and obesity has implications regarding potential benefit for people with other pathologies characterized by impaired dopaminergic function and associated with metabolic impairments, such as psychosis, Parkinson’s disease, and depression, the researchers say.

“The fascinating thing about GLP-1 receptor agonists is that they have an additional mechanism that relates to anti-inflammatory effects, especially for alleviating cell stress,” said Dr. Tittgemeyer. “Many ongoing clinical trials are assessing their effects in neuropsychiatric diseases,” he noted.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Tittgemyer and most of his coauthors had no disclosures. One coauthor had several disclosures, which are detailed in the report. Dr. Kroemer had no disclosures.

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

Apple cider vinegar and fenugreek seeds are the most effective at reducing fasting blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c levels, compared with four other popular herbal remedies for type 2 diabetes, a recent systematic review found.

The review included 44 randomized clinical trials with more than 3,000 participants using six herbal remedies: apple cider vinegar, cinnamon, curcumin, fenugreek seeds, ginger, and saffron.

Apple cider vinegar, fenugreek seeds, curcumin (turmeric), and cinnamon resulted in statistically significant reductions in fasting blood glucose, compared with the control groups in the clinical trials. Out of all the remedies, the authors found apple cider vinegar to be the most effective for lowering fasting blood glucose levels.

The review also found that apple cider vinegar and fenugreek seeds had a statistically significant effect on reducing A1c, compared with the control groups. The authors found the herbal remedies made no difference to insulin level or homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR).

The results are published online in Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews. The authors said they hoped the review would help medical professionals and people with type 2 diabetes understand the effectiveness of different herbal remedies and consider incorporating these remedies into standard care.

“Some people use curcumin, some use ginger, some use apple cider [vinegar], but it’s not clear which is better,” said Shiv Mudgal, PhD, corresponding author of the paper and an associate professor in nursing at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in Deoghar, India.

“We thought it would be nice to get some idea about how they work and how they compete with each other,” said Subodh Kumar, MD, the first author and an associate professor in pharmacology at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in Deoghar, India.

They wanted to understand how the herbal remedies worked by including insulin level and HOMA-IR as measurable outcomes but found nothing conclusive. Instead, they speculated that the effect of apple cider vinegar and fenugreek seeds on blood glucose and A1c could be related to delayed gastric emptying, among other mechanisms.

However, the results should be interpreted with caution, said Dr. Kumar.

Apple cider vinegar had three clinical trials to back the finding, and fenugreek seeds had four studies supporting the results – fewer than the other included remedies. The authors also identified risks of bias from the randomization process and the allocation concealment process in several of the included trials.

Most of the studies included only short follow-up periods, meaning that the long-term effects of using these herbal remedies to help manage type 2 diabetes remain unclear.

The six herbal remedies included in the study were chosen out of dozens of popular complementary medicines for the strength and number of clinical trials backing their use.

The limited number included in the review is a drawback, according to Merlin Willcox, DPhil, a clinical lecturer in general practice at the University of Southampton, England, who was not involved in the research.

“It means they’ve left out stuff that’s potentially effective,” Dr. Willcox said in an interview.

Dr. Willcox, who has coauthored a review of herbal remedies for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, said he was surprised that apple cider vinegar came out on top in this analysis.

His review concluded that aloe vera leaf gel, psyllium fiber, and fenugreek seeds appeared to be the most effective at reducing A1c, compared with the control groups of the included trials, out of 18 plant-based remedies.

There were no adverse effects associated with the herbal remedies, according to Dr. Mudgal. However, the evidence for the herbal remedies included in their review also lacked substantial follow-up periods assessing their long-term effects.

“You need to look at the evidence for each individual remedy; it’s not just about what plant it is, but it’s about what preparation, what dose. All of that comes into play,” Dr. Willcox said.

Up to 3.6 million people use herbal remedies to manage type 2 diabetes in the United States, according to a 2014 study cited by the review authors. The number is much higher elsewhere: As many as two-thirds of patients with diabetes in India and Saudi Arabia incorporate herbal remedies to help manage symptoms, whereas about half of patients with diabetes in the United Kingdom use herbal medicines.

Experts warn of the risks associated with using herbal medicines to complement traditional therapies.

“I caution my patients about dietary supplements and herbals because of the lack of high-quality data demonstrating efficacy and safety,” Katherine H. Saunders, MD, DABOM, cofounder of Intellihealth and clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in an interview.

For Dr. Willcox, the risks relate to where patients get their information from. Many patients with type 2 diabetes are too scared to talk to their doctor about herbal medicines. 

“They think their doctor is going to be negative or dismissive,” Dr. Willcox said. “So patients are getting their information from family and friends or from the Internet, which is not necessarily the most reliable, evidence-based source of information.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Apple cider vinegar and fenugreek seeds are the most effective at reducing fasting blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c levels, compared with four other popular herbal remedies for type 2 diabetes, a recent systematic review found.

The review included 44 randomized clinical trials with more than 3,000 participants using six herbal remedies: apple cider vinegar, cinnamon, curcumin, fenugreek seeds, ginger, and saffron.

Apple cider vinegar, fenugreek seeds, curcumin (turmeric), and cinnamon resulted in statistically significant reductions in fasting blood glucose, compared with the control groups in the clinical trials. Out of all the remedies, the authors found apple cider vinegar to be the most effective for lowering fasting blood glucose levels.

The review also found that apple cider vinegar and fenugreek seeds had a statistically significant effect on reducing A1c, compared with the control groups. The authors found the herbal remedies made no difference to insulin level or homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR).

The results are published online in Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews. The authors said they hoped the review would help medical professionals and people with type 2 diabetes understand the effectiveness of different herbal remedies and consider incorporating these remedies into standard care.

“Some people use curcumin, some use ginger, some use apple cider [vinegar], but it’s not clear which is better,” said Shiv Mudgal, PhD, corresponding author of the paper and an associate professor in nursing at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in Deoghar, India.

“We thought it would be nice to get some idea about how they work and how they compete with each other,” said Subodh Kumar, MD, the first author and an associate professor in pharmacology at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in Deoghar, India.

They wanted to understand how the herbal remedies worked by including insulin level and HOMA-IR as measurable outcomes but found nothing conclusive. Instead, they speculated that the effect of apple cider vinegar and fenugreek seeds on blood glucose and A1c could be related to delayed gastric emptying, among other mechanisms.

However, the results should be interpreted with caution, said Dr. Kumar.

Apple cider vinegar had three clinical trials to back the finding, and fenugreek seeds had four studies supporting the results – fewer than the other included remedies. The authors also identified risks of bias from the randomization process and the allocation concealment process in several of the included trials.

Most of the studies included only short follow-up periods, meaning that the long-term effects of using these herbal remedies to help manage type 2 diabetes remain unclear.

The six herbal remedies included in the study were chosen out of dozens of popular complementary medicines for the strength and number of clinical trials backing their use.

The limited number included in the review is a drawback, according to Merlin Willcox, DPhil, a clinical lecturer in general practice at the University of Southampton, England, who was not involved in the research.

“It means they’ve left out stuff that’s potentially effective,” Dr. Willcox said in an interview.

Dr. Willcox, who has coauthored a review of herbal remedies for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, said he was surprised that apple cider vinegar came out on top in this analysis.

His review concluded that aloe vera leaf gel, psyllium fiber, and fenugreek seeds appeared to be the most effective at reducing A1c, compared with the control groups of the included trials, out of 18 plant-based remedies.

There were no adverse effects associated with the herbal remedies, according to Dr. Mudgal. However, the evidence for the herbal remedies included in their review also lacked substantial follow-up periods assessing their long-term effects.

“You need to look at the evidence for each individual remedy; it’s not just about what plant it is, but it’s about what preparation, what dose. All of that comes into play,” Dr. Willcox said.

Up to 3.6 million people use herbal remedies to manage type 2 diabetes in the United States, according to a 2014 study cited by the review authors. The number is much higher elsewhere: As many as two-thirds of patients with diabetes in India and Saudi Arabia incorporate herbal remedies to help manage symptoms, whereas about half of patients with diabetes in the United Kingdom use herbal medicines.

Experts warn of the risks associated with using herbal medicines to complement traditional therapies.

“I caution my patients about dietary supplements and herbals because of the lack of high-quality data demonstrating efficacy and safety,” Katherine H. Saunders, MD, DABOM, cofounder of Intellihealth and clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in an interview.

For Dr. Willcox, the risks relate to where patients get their information from. Many patients with type 2 diabetes are too scared to talk to their doctor about herbal medicines. 

“They think their doctor is going to be negative or dismissive,” Dr. Willcox said. “So patients are getting their information from family and friends or from the Internet, which is not necessarily the most reliable, evidence-based source of information.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Apple cider vinegar and fenugreek seeds are the most effective at reducing fasting blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c levels, compared with four other popular herbal remedies for type 2 diabetes, a recent systematic review found.

The review included 44 randomized clinical trials with more than 3,000 participants using six herbal remedies: apple cider vinegar, cinnamon, curcumin, fenugreek seeds, ginger, and saffron.

Apple cider vinegar, fenugreek seeds, curcumin (turmeric), and cinnamon resulted in statistically significant reductions in fasting blood glucose, compared with the control groups in the clinical trials. Out of all the remedies, the authors found apple cider vinegar to be the most effective for lowering fasting blood glucose levels.

The review also found that apple cider vinegar and fenugreek seeds had a statistically significant effect on reducing A1c, compared with the control groups. The authors found the herbal remedies made no difference to insulin level or homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR).

The results are published online in Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews. The authors said they hoped the review would help medical professionals and people with type 2 diabetes understand the effectiveness of different herbal remedies and consider incorporating these remedies into standard care.

“Some people use curcumin, some use ginger, some use apple cider [vinegar], but it’s not clear which is better,” said Shiv Mudgal, PhD, corresponding author of the paper and an associate professor in nursing at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in Deoghar, India.

“We thought it would be nice to get some idea about how they work and how they compete with each other,” said Subodh Kumar, MD, the first author and an associate professor in pharmacology at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in Deoghar, India.

They wanted to understand how the herbal remedies worked by including insulin level and HOMA-IR as measurable outcomes but found nothing conclusive. Instead, they speculated that the effect of apple cider vinegar and fenugreek seeds on blood glucose and A1c could be related to delayed gastric emptying, among other mechanisms.

However, the results should be interpreted with caution, said Dr. Kumar.

Apple cider vinegar had three clinical trials to back the finding, and fenugreek seeds had four studies supporting the results – fewer than the other included remedies. The authors also identified risks of bias from the randomization process and the allocation concealment process in several of the included trials.

Most of the studies included only short follow-up periods, meaning that the long-term effects of using these herbal remedies to help manage type 2 diabetes remain unclear.

The six herbal remedies included in the study were chosen out of dozens of popular complementary medicines for the strength and number of clinical trials backing their use.

The limited number included in the review is a drawback, according to Merlin Willcox, DPhil, a clinical lecturer in general practice at the University of Southampton, England, who was not involved in the research.

“It means they’ve left out stuff that’s potentially effective,” Dr. Willcox said in an interview.

Dr. Willcox, who has coauthored a review of herbal remedies for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, said he was surprised that apple cider vinegar came out on top in this analysis.

His review concluded that aloe vera leaf gel, psyllium fiber, and fenugreek seeds appeared to be the most effective at reducing A1c, compared with the control groups of the included trials, out of 18 plant-based remedies.

There were no adverse effects associated with the herbal remedies, according to Dr. Mudgal. However, the evidence for the herbal remedies included in their review also lacked substantial follow-up periods assessing their long-term effects.

“You need to look at the evidence for each individual remedy; it’s not just about what plant it is, but it’s about what preparation, what dose. All of that comes into play,” Dr. Willcox said.

Up to 3.6 million people use herbal remedies to manage type 2 diabetes in the United States, according to a 2014 study cited by the review authors. The number is much higher elsewhere: As many as two-thirds of patients with diabetes in India and Saudi Arabia incorporate herbal remedies to help manage symptoms, whereas about half of patients with diabetes in the United Kingdom use herbal medicines.

Experts warn of the risks associated with using herbal medicines to complement traditional therapies.

“I caution my patients about dietary supplements and herbals because of the lack of high-quality data demonstrating efficacy and safety,” Katherine H. Saunders, MD, DABOM, cofounder of Intellihealth and clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in an interview.

For Dr. Willcox, the risks relate to where patients get their information from. Many patients with type 2 diabetes are too scared to talk to their doctor about herbal medicines. 

“They think their doctor is going to be negative or dismissive,” Dr. Willcox said. “So patients are getting their information from family and friends or from the Internet, which is not necessarily the most reliable, evidence-based source of information.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – Adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) but without diabetes showed significant improvements in their heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations, exercise function, and weight loss when treated with a weight-reducing dose of semaglutide for 52 weeks, compared with placebo, in the randomized STEP-HFpEF trial.

The results, which also showed the treatment’s safety in these patients, “indicate that treatment with semaglutide is a valuable therapeutic approach in the management of patients with HFpEF and obesity,” Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The findings establish semaglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, as a second class of medication with proven efficacy and safety for people with HFpEF, joining two agents also proven beneficial for people with HFpEF, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), both from the class of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

When administered at the approved dose for weight loss of 2.4 mg, injected subcutaneously weekly for 52 weeks, semaglutide (Wegovy) produced an average 7.8-point incremental improvement in patients’ scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), a validated measure of symptoms and functional limitations, compared with controls who received placebo injections, as well as an average incremental weight loss from baseline, compared with placebo, of 10.7%. Both were significant effects, compared with placebo, and clinically meaningful benefits for the study’s two primary endpoints.

Simultaneously with Kosiborod’s report the results also appeared in a report posted online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A ‘paradigm shift’ for medical weight loss in cardiology

The findings from this study with 529 randomized patients immediately propelled the weight loss formulation of semaglutide into the ranks of agents used to treat and prevent cardiovascular disease events. This evolution in the indications for semaglutide will be driven not only by the STEP-HFpEF results but also by findings from the SELECT trial, which tested the same semaglutide weight-loss dose in people with obesity, established cardiovascular disease, and had positive top-line results for prevention of major cardiovascular adverse events, according to a press release from Novo Nordisk on Aug. 8.

The STEP-HFpEF and SELECT results will trigger “a paradigm shift” for cardiologists, who will now need to consider prescribing a weight-loss medication to many of their patients, agents that until now were not part of the usual pharmacologic toolbox for cardiologists, said Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. This shift will require education to bring the clinical cardiology community on board, he added in an interview.

Given that semaglutide administered at this dose already has a Food and Drug Administration–approved indication for weight loss in people with obesity or overweight plus at least one comorbidity, clinicians could immediately start using the treatment in people with obesity and HFpEF, said Dr. Kosiborod and other cardiologists.

Weekly semaglutide injections “could be considered a treatment option right now” for people with obesity and HFpEF, Dr. Kosiborod said during a press briefing.

Other experts agreed, especially because the STEP-HFpEF results confirmed that weight loss treatment with semaglutide was safe in this population.
 

‘A terrific win for patients’

The new findings are “a terrific win and game changer for patients with HFpEF,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, professor and cochief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with the study.

“The magnitude of improvement in the patient-reported health status scores are large and impressive. These data support clinical use of this agent for individuals with HFpEF with a body mass index of 30 kg/m², patients who already fall within existing indications,” Dr. Fonarow said in an interview.

“Given the improvements in clinical outcomes in the STEP-HFpEF and SELECT trials, cardiologists should be prescribing these medications to eligible patients without conditions,” he added. “The perception of [semaglutide] needs to shift and be viewed as a component of the comprehensive medical therapies provided to individuals with established cardiovascular disease or HFpEF who also have elevated body mass index to improve their clinical outcomes.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Historically, cardiologists have had a concern that weight loss was potentially harmful in people with heart failure and that obesity was protective, a phenomenon known as the “obesity paradox,” but the STEP-HFpEF data help disprove that notion, commented Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, a heart failure specialist and vice chair of clinical research in the department of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, who also was not involved in the study.
 

No signal of an obesity paradox

“There’s been a concern in the heart failure community to use weight-loss strategies in people with heart failure because of this, but this evidence provides a lot of confidence that it’s safe to use this weight loss treatment. The results show that patients feel better and lose weight with no signal of harm,” Dr. Sweitzer said in an interview.

The “encouraging findings” for semaglutide in patients with HFpEF “potentially add a much needed extra option for these patients and provide another upstream treatment for patients with signs of this condition plus a high body mass index,” commented Yigal M. Pinto, MD, PhD, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.

“How these findings translate to hard end points remains to be established and will be important in determining the role of GLP-1 agonism,” wrote Dr. Pinto, a professor and heart failure specialist at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

But Dr. Kosiborod said that the improvement seen in the KCCQ score was itself an important benefit for patients. “Heart failure is defined clinically based on symptoms,” he noted, and results in prior studies documented that patients value improvements in symptoms and physical limitations even more than they value “hard endpoints” such as survival.

The new findings, which indicate that two different and expensive classes of medications are now standard of care for many people with HFpEF and obesity – the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide – also raise concerns over patient access and affordability, as many U.S. insurers have a history of requiring prior authorization, high copays, or coverage denials for these two medical classes.

But Dr. Sweitzer and Dr. Kosiborod both said that the insurance-coverage climate seems, in just the past couple of years or so, to have dramatically improved, although it’s still not ideal.
 

Prior authorization hoops have decreased

“We still have prior-authorization hoops to jump through, but I expect these will continue to decrease over time as evidence for clinical benefits [from weight loss] continues to accumulate,” said Dr. Sweitzer.

And “the SELECT data mean that cardiologists will need to become comfortable prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists,” she added.

“It’s not okay for insurers to say we are not going to cover weight loss medications because it’s a cosmetic indication,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “Obesity appears to be very important in the pathogenesis and progression of heart failure, and if patients derive substantial benefit, they should have access to this treatment.”

The improvements in KCCQ score, as well as in several secondary and exploratory endpoints including a significant reduction in C-reactive protein (an indication of a potent anti-inflammatory effect), an average 20 m increase in 6-minute walk distance, a significant average drop in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and a drop in heart failure hospitalizations or urgent heart failure visits (although the trial was not powered to show differences in clinical events), “were the largest benefits in these outcomes we’ve seen,” compared with any other medical intervention in people with HFpEF, he noted.

“About 80% of U.S. patients with HFpEF have obesity or overweight,” Dr. Kosiborod noted. Using semaglutide on these patients “is an issue of access and insurance coverage. My hope is that these and other data will favorably change this.”

A related trial with a similar design, STEP-HFpEF DM, is still in progress and testing the same semaglutide treatment in adults with HFpEF, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, noted Dr. Kosiborod, who is also lead investigator for that study. He said those results will likely become available before the end of 2023.

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant and adviser to and has received honoraria from Novo Nordisk. He has also been a consultant to numerous other companies, received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer, honoraria from AstraZeneca, and is a stockholder in Artera Health and Saghmos Therapeutics. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CHF Solutions, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron. Dr. Sweitzer reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

AMSTERDAM – Adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) but without diabetes showed significant improvements in their heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations, exercise function, and weight loss when treated with a weight-reducing dose of semaglutide for 52 weeks, compared with placebo, in the randomized STEP-HFpEF trial.

The results, which also showed the treatment’s safety in these patients, “indicate that treatment with semaglutide is a valuable therapeutic approach in the management of patients with HFpEF and obesity,” Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The findings establish semaglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, as a second class of medication with proven efficacy and safety for people with HFpEF, joining two agents also proven beneficial for people with HFpEF, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), both from the class of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

When administered at the approved dose for weight loss of 2.4 mg, injected subcutaneously weekly for 52 weeks, semaglutide (Wegovy) produced an average 7.8-point incremental improvement in patients’ scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), a validated measure of symptoms and functional limitations, compared with controls who received placebo injections, as well as an average incremental weight loss from baseline, compared with placebo, of 10.7%. Both were significant effects, compared with placebo, and clinically meaningful benefits for the study’s two primary endpoints.

Simultaneously with Kosiborod’s report the results also appeared in a report posted online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A ‘paradigm shift’ for medical weight loss in cardiology

The findings from this study with 529 randomized patients immediately propelled the weight loss formulation of semaglutide into the ranks of agents used to treat and prevent cardiovascular disease events. This evolution in the indications for semaglutide will be driven not only by the STEP-HFpEF results but also by findings from the SELECT trial, which tested the same semaglutide weight-loss dose in people with obesity, established cardiovascular disease, and had positive top-line results for prevention of major cardiovascular adverse events, according to a press release from Novo Nordisk on Aug. 8.

The STEP-HFpEF and SELECT results will trigger “a paradigm shift” for cardiologists, who will now need to consider prescribing a weight-loss medication to many of their patients, agents that until now were not part of the usual pharmacologic toolbox for cardiologists, said Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. This shift will require education to bring the clinical cardiology community on board, he added in an interview.

Given that semaglutide administered at this dose already has a Food and Drug Administration–approved indication for weight loss in people with obesity or overweight plus at least one comorbidity, clinicians could immediately start using the treatment in people with obesity and HFpEF, said Dr. Kosiborod and other cardiologists.

Weekly semaglutide injections “could be considered a treatment option right now” for people with obesity and HFpEF, Dr. Kosiborod said during a press briefing.

Other experts agreed, especially because the STEP-HFpEF results confirmed that weight loss treatment with semaglutide was safe in this population.
 

‘A terrific win for patients’

The new findings are “a terrific win and game changer for patients with HFpEF,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, professor and cochief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with the study.

“The magnitude of improvement in the patient-reported health status scores are large and impressive. These data support clinical use of this agent for individuals with HFpEF with a body mass index of 30 kg/m², patients who already fall within existing indications,” Dr. Fonarow said in an interview.

“Given the improvements in clinical outcomes in the STEP-HFpEF and SELECT trials, cardiologists should be prescribing these medications to eligible patients without conditions,” he added. “The perception of [semaglutide] needs to shift and be viewed as a component of the comprehensive medical therapies provided to individuals with established cardiovascular disease or HFpEF who also have elevated body mass index to improve their clinical outcomes.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Historically, cardiologists have had a concern that weight loss was potentially harmful in people with heart failure and that obesity was protective, a phenomenon known as the “obesity paradox,” but the STEP-HFpEF data help disprove that notion, commented Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, a heart failure specialist and vice chair of clinical research in the department of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, who also was not involved in the study.
 

No signal of an obesity paradox

“There’s been a concern in the heart failure community to use weight-loss strategies in people with heart failure because of this, but this evidence provides a lot of confidence that it’s safe to use this weight loss treatment. The results show that patients feel better and lose weight with no signal of harm,” Dr. Sweitzer said in an interview.

The “encouraging findings” for semaglutide in patients with HFpEF “potentially add a much needed extra option for these patients and provide another upstream treatment for patients with signs of this condition plus a high body mass index,” commented Yigal M. Pinto, MD, PhD, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.

“How these findings translate to hard end points remains to be established and will be important in determining the role of GLP-1 agonism,” wrote Dr. Pinto, a professor and heart failure specialist at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

But Dr. Kosiborod said that the improvement seen in the KCCQ score was itself an important benefit for patients. “Heart failure is defined clinically based on symptoms,” he noted, and results in prior studies documented that patients value improvements in symptoms and physical limitations even more than they value “hard endpoints” such as survival.

The new findings, which indicate that two different and expensive classes of medications are now standard of care for many people with HFpEF and obesity – the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide – also raise concerns over patient access and affordability, as many U.S. insurers have a history of requiring prior authorization, high copays, or coverage denials for these two medical classes.

But Dr. Sweitzer and Dr. Kosiborod both said that the insurance-coverage climate seems, in just the past couple of years or so, to have dramatically improved, although it’s still not ideal.
 

Prior authorization hoops have decreased

“We still have prior-authorization hoops to jump through, but I expect these will continue to decrease over time as evidence for clinical benefits [from weight loss] continues to accumulate,” said Dr. Sweitzer.

And “the SELECT data mean that cardiologists will need to become comfortable prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists,” she added.

“It’s not okay for insurers to say we are not going to cover weight loss medications because it’s a cosmetic indication,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “Obesity appears to be very important in the pathogenesis and progression of heart failure, and if patients derive substantial benefit, they should have access to this treatment.”

The improvements in KCCQ score, as well as in several secondary and exploratory endpoints including a significant reduction in C-reactive protein (an indication of a potent anti-inflammatory effect), an average 20 m increase in 6-minute walk distance, a significant average drop in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and a drop in heart failure hospitalizations or urgent heart failure visits (although the trial was not powered to show differences in clinical events), “were the largest benefits in these outcomes we’ve seen,” compared with any other medical intervention in people with HFpEF, he noted.

“About 80% of U.S. patients with HFpEF have obesity or overweight,” Dr. Kosiborod noted. Using semaglutide on these patients “is an issue of access and insurance coverage. My hope is that these and other data will favorably change this.”

A related trial with a similar design, STEP-HFpEF DM, is still in progress and testing the same semaglutide treatment in adults with HFpEF, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, noted Dr. Kosiborod, who is also lead investigator for that study. He said those results will likely become available before the end of 2023.

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant and adviser to and has received honoraria from Novo Nordisk. He has also been a consultant to numerous other companies, received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer, honoraria from AstraZeneca, and is a stockholder in Artera Health and Saghmos Therapeutics. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CHF Solutions, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron. Dr. Sweitzer reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

AMSTERDAM – Adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) but without diabetes showed significant improvements in their heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations, exercise function, and weight loss when treated with a weight-reducing dose of semaglutide for 52 weeks, compared with placebo, in the randomized STEP-HFpEF trial.

The results, which also showed the treatment’s safety in these patients, “indicate that treatment with semaglutide is a valuable therapeutic approach in the management of patients with HFpEF and obesity,” Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The findings establish semaglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, as a second class of medication with proven efficacy and safety for people with HFpEF, joining two agents also proven beneficial for people with HFpEF, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), both from the class of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

When administered at the approved dose for weight loss of 2.4 mg, injected subcutaneously weekly for 52 weeks, semaglutide (Wegovy) produced an average 7.8-point incremental improvement in patients’ scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), a validated measure of symptoms and functional limitations, compared with controls who received placebo injections, as well as an average incremental weight loss from baseline, compared with placebo, of 10.7%. Both were significant effects, compared with placebo, and clinically meaningful benefits for the study’s two primary endpoints.

Simultaneously with Kosiborod’s report the results also appeared in a report posted online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A ‘paradigm shift’ for medical weight loss in cardiology

The findings from this study with 529 randomized patients immediately propelled the weight loss formulation of semaglutide into the ranks of agents used to treat and prevent cardiovascular disease events. This evolution in the indications for semaglutide will be driven not only by the STEP-HFpEF results but also by findings from the SELECT trial, which tested the same semaglutide weight-loss dose in people with obesity, established cardiovascular disease, and had positive top-line results for prevention of major cardiovascular adverse events, according to a press release from Novo Nordisk on Aug. 8.

The STEP-HFpEF and SELECT results will trigger “a paradigm shift” for cardiologists, who will now need to consider prescribing a weight-loss medication to many of their patients, agents that until now were not part of the usual pharmacologic toolbox for cardiologists, said Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. This shift will require education to bring the clinical cardiology community on board, he added in an interview.

Given that semaglutide administered at this dose already has a Food and Drug Administration–approved indication for weight loss in people with obesity or overweight plus at least one comorbidity, clinicians could immediately start using the treatment in people with obesity and HFpEF, said Dr. Kosiborod and other cardiologists.

Weekly semaglutide injections “could be considered a treatment option right now” for people with obesity and HFpEF, Dr. Kosiborod said during a press briefing.

Other experts agreed, especially because the STEP-HFpEF results confirmed that weight loss treatment with semaglutide was safe in this population.
 

‘A terrific win for patients’

The new findings are “a terrific win and game changer for patients with HFpEF,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, professor and cochief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with the study.

“The magnitude of improvement in the patient-reported health status scores are large and impressive. These data support clinical use of this agent for individuals with HFpEF with a body mass index of 30 kg/m², patients who already fall within existing indications,” Dr. Fonarow said in an interview.

“Given the improvements in clinical outcomes in the STEP-HFpEF and SELECT trials, cardiologists should be prescribing these medications to eligible patients without conditions,” he added. “The perception of [semaglutide] needs to shift and be viewed as a component of the comprehensive medical therapies provided to individuals with established cardiovascular disease or HFpEF who also have elevated body mass index to improve their clinical outcomes.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Historically, cardiologists have had a concern that weight loss was potentially harmful in people with heart failure and that obesity was protective, a phenomenon known as the “obesity paradox,” but the STEP-HFpEF data help disprove that notion, commented Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, a heart failure specialist and vice chair of clinical research in the department of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, who also was not involved in the study.
 

No signal of an obesity paradox

“There’s been a concern in the heart failure community to use weight-loss strategies in people with heart failure because of this, but this evidence provides a lot of confidence that it’s safe to use this weight loss treatment. The results show that patients feel better and lose weight with no signal of harm,” Dr. Sweitzer said in an interview.

The “encouraging findings” for semaglutide in patients with HFpEF “potentially add a much needed extra option for these patients and provide another upstream treatment for patients with signs of this condition plus a high body mass index,” commented Yigal M. Pinto, MD, PhD, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.

“How these findings translate to hard end points remains to be established and will be important in determining the role of GLP-1 agonism,” wrote Dr. Pinto, a professor and heart failure specialist at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

But Dr. Kosiborod said that the improvement seen in the KCCQ score was itself an important benefit for patients. “Heart failure is defined clinically based on symptoms,” he noted, and results in prior studies documented that patients value improvements in symptoms and physical limitations even more than they value “hard endpoints” such as survival.

The new findings, which indicate that two different and expensive classes of medications are now standard of care for many people with HFpEF and obesity – the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide – also raise concerns over patient access and affordability, as many U.S. insurers have a history of requiring prior authorization, high copays, or coverage denials for these two medical classes.

But Dr. Sweitzer and Dr. Kosiborod both said that the insurance-coverage climate seems, in just the past couple of years or so, to have dramatically improved, although it’s still not ideal.
 

Prior authorization hoops have decreased

“We still have prior-authorization hoops to jump through, but I expect these will continue to decrease over time as evidence for clinical benefits [from weight loss] continues to accumulate,” said Dr. Sweitzer.

And “the SELECT data mean that cardiologists will need to become comfortable prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists,” she added.

“It’s not okay for insurers to say we are not going to cover weight loss medications because it’s a cosmetic indication,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “Obesity appears to be very important in the pathogenesis and progression of heart failure, and if patients derive substantial benefit, they should have access to this treatment.”

The improvements in KCCQ score, as well as in several secondary and exploratory endpoints including a significant reduction in C-reactive protein (an indication of a potent anti-inflammatory effect), an average 20 m increase in 6-minute walk distance, a significant average drop in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and a drop in heart failure hospitalizations or urgent heart failure visits (although the trial was not powered to show differences in clinical events), “were the largest benefits in these outcomes we’ve seen,” compared with any other medical intervention in people with HFpEF, he noted.

“About 80% of U.S. patients with HFpEF have obesity or overweight,” Dr. Kosiborod noted. Using semaglutide on these patients “is an issue of access and insurance coverage. My hope is that these and other data will favorably change this.”

A related trial with a similar design, STEP-HFpEF DM, is still in progress and testing the same semaglutide treatment in adults with HFpEF, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, noted Dr. Kosiborod, who is also lead investigator for that study. He said those results will likely become available before the end of 2023.

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant and adviser to and has received honoraria from Novo Nordisk. He has also been a consultant to numerous other companies, received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer, honoraria from AstraZeneca, and is a stockholder in Artera Health and Saghmos Therapeutics. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CHF Solutions, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron. Dr. Sweitzer reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A stylish 40-something-year-old walks into my office looking mildly sheepish. She is a well-known actress who was recently panned by the paparazzi for having “too much cellulite” after they illegally photographed her playing with her child on a private beach.

Without a doubt, she will request semaglutide (Ozempic) before long, but first we will need to wade through the morass of social condemnation out there about Ozempic to assure her that she is being neither immoral nor reckless for considering it.

After nearly 20 years of practicing medicine with a focus on weight loss and preventive care, here is how I see the situation:

Ozempic is nothing new, people! Endocrinologists have been using this class of medication since Byetta hit the market in 2005. We have had 18 years to make informed risk-benefit analyses.

People are obsessed with the risk for pancreatitis. Any type of weight loss can cause gallstones, and this is what can trigger pancreatitis. Unless you’re the type of person who worries that your balanced Weight Watchers diet is going to cause pancreatitis, you should probably remove this risk from your calculations.

Glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are naturally occurring gut hormones that reduce inflammatory cascades and clotting risk. We are not giving a dangerous treatment (e.g., fen-phen) that increases cardiovascular risk – quite the contrary, in fact.

Just because influencers are promoting a product doesn’t mean the product is inherently worthless. One of my patients accused me of prescribing a medication that is the “laughingstock of America.” Try telling that to the scores of cardiologists who send patients to my colleagues and me to start Ozempic to help lower their patients’ risk for stroke and heart attack. Or tell this to my patient who survived an episode of rapid atrial fibrillation and was told by his cardiologist that he definitely would have died if he had not lost 30 pounds from Ozempic in the preceding year.

Sometimes it seems like society has become more judgmental about Ozempic than about plastic surgery for weight loss. If we have to choose between liposuction (which doesn’t reduce visceral fat – the dangerous type of fat) or Ozempic, the latter clearly wins because of its real health benefits.

How does it make any sense to say that this medication should be reserved for patients who already have obesity and type 2 diabetes? Why should we penalize patients who have not yet reached those thresholds by denying access to preventive care? Don’t we constantly hear about how our health care system would be much more efficient if we focused on preventive care and not just treatment?

Some people claim that we have to limit access to this medication because of drug shortages. Thankfully, the United States responds to supply and demand economics and will quickly adjust. 

I’ve had more patients than I can possibly number with severe binge eating disorders (resistant to years of therapy and medication) who finally developed healthy relationships with food while taking these types of medications. Mounjaro, I’m talking about you…

I always hear the argument that it is immoral to give these medications to patients with a history of restrictive eating patterns. Although every patient needs to be carefully evaluated, often these medications remove food as both the enemy and primary focus of every waking thought. They allow patients to refocus on other aspects of their lives – such as family, friends, hobbies, work – and regain a sense of purpose. If anyone wants to run a trial on this little hypothesis of mine, please reach out to me. 

Okay, I agree you might get a little constipated (most often described by patients as the “rabbit pellet phenomenon”), but it’s a small price to pay, no? I’ll throw in a few prunes with the prescription.

Suffice it to say, I did give my 40-something-year-old patient the medication she desired, and she has a new lease on life (as well as better blood pressure and cholesterol).

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

A stylish 40-something-year-old walks into my office looking mildly sheepish. She is a well-known actress who was recently panned by the paparazzi for having “too much cellulite” after they illegally photographed her playing with her child on a private beach.

Without a doubt, she will request semaglutide (Ozempic) before long, but first we will need to wade through the morass of social condemnation out there about Ozempic to assure her that she is being neither immoral nor reckless for considering it.

After nearly 20 years of practicing medicine with a focus on weight loss and preventive care, here is how I see the situation:

Ozempic is nothing new, people! Endocrinologists have been using this class of medication since Byetta hit the market in 2005. We have had 18 years to make informed risk-benefit analyses.

People are obsessed with the risk for pancreatitis. Any type of weight loss can cause gallstones, and this is what can trigger pancreatitis. Unless you’re the type of person who worries that your balanced Weight Watchers diet is going to cause pancreatitis, you should probably remove this risk from your calculations.

Glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are naturally occurring gut hormones that reduce inflammatory cascades and clotting risk. We are not giving a dangerous treatment (e.g., fen-phen) that increases cardiovascular risk – quite the contrary, in fact.

Just because influencers are promoting a product doesn’t mean the product is inherently worthless. One of my patients accused me of prescribing a medication that is the “laughingstock of America.” Try telling that to the scores of cardiologists who send patients to my colleagues and me to start Ozempic to help lower their patients’ risk for stroke and heart attack. Or tell this to my patient who survived an episode of rapid atrial fibrillation and was told by his cardiologist that he definitely would have died if he had not lost 30 pounds from Ozempic in the preceding year.

Sometimes it seems like society has become more judgmental about Ozempic than about plastic surgery for weight loss. If we have to choose between liposuction (which doesn’t reduce visceral fat – the dangerous type of fat) or Ozempic, the latter clearly wins because of its real health benefits.

How does it make any sense to say that this medication should be reserved for patients who already have obesity and type 2 diabetes? Why should we penalize patients who have not yet reached those thresholds by denying access to preventive care? Don’t we constantly hear about how our health care system would be much more efficient if we focused on preventive care and not just treatment?

Some people claim that we have to limit access to this medication because of drug shortages. Thankfully, the United States responds to supply and demand economics and will quickly adjust. 

I’ve had more patients than I can possibly number with severe binge eating disorders (resistant to years of therapy and medication) who finally developed healthy relationships with food while taking these types of medications. Mounjaro, I’m talking about you…

I always hear the argument that it is immoral to give these medications to patients with a history of restrictive eating patterns. Although every patient needs to be carefully evaluated, often these medications remove food as both the enemy and primary focus of every waking thought. They allow patients to refocus on other aspects of their lives – such as family, friends, hobbies, work – and regain a sense of purpose. If anyone wants to run a trial on this little hypothesis of mine, please reach out to me. 

Okay, I agree you might get a little constipated (most often described by patients as the “rabbit pellet phenomenon”), but it’s a small price to pay, no? I’ll throw in a few prunes with the prescription.

Suffice it to say, I did give my 40-something-year-old patient the medication she desired, and she has a new lease on life (as well as better blood pressure and cholesterol).

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

A stylish 40-something-year-old walks into my office looking mildly sheepish. She is a well-known actress who was recently panned by the paparazzi for having “too much cellulite” after they illegally photographed her playing with her child on a private beach.

Without a doubt, she will request semaglutide (Ozempic) before long, but first we will need to wade through the morass of social condemnation out there about Ozempic to assure her that she is being neither immoral nor reckless for considering it.

After nearly 20 years of practicing medicine with a focus on weight loss and preventive care, here is how I see the situation:

Ozempic is nothing new, people! Endocrinologists have been using this class of medication since Byetta hit the market in 2005. We have had 18 years to make informed risk-benefit analyses.

People are obsessed with the risk for pancreatitis. Any type of weight loss can cause gallstones, and this is what can trigger pancreatitis. Unless you’re the type of person who worries that your balanced Weight Watchers diet is going to cause pancreatitis, you should probably remove this risk from your calculations.

Glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are naturally occurring gut hormones that reduce inflammatory cascades and clotting risk. We are not giving a dangerous treatment (e.g., fen-phen) that increases cardiovascular risk – quite the contrary, in fact.

Just because influencers are promoting a product doesn’t mean the product is inherently worthless. One of my patients accused me of prescribing a medication that is the “laughingstock of America.” Try telling that to the scores of cardiologists who send patients to my colleagues and me to start Ozempic to help lower their patients’ risk for stroke and heart attack. Or tell this to my patient who survived an episode of rapid atrial fibrillation and was told by his cardiologist that he definitely would have died if he had not lost 30 pounds from Ozempic in the preceding year.

Sometimes it seems like society has become more judgmental about Ozempic than about plastic surgery for weight loss. If we have to choose between liposuction (which doesn’t reduce visceral fat – the dangerous type of fat) or Ozempic, the latter clearly wins because of its real health benefits.

How does it make any sense to say that this medication should be reserved for patients who already have obesity and type 2 diabetes? Why should we penalize patients who have not yet reached those thresholds by denying access to preventive care? Don’t we constantly hear about how our health care system would be much more efficient if we focused on preventive care and not just treatment?

Some people claim that we have to limit access to this medication because of drug shortages. Thankfully, the United States responds to supply and demand economics and will quickly adjust. 

I’ve had more patients than I can possibly number with severe binge eating disorders (resistant to years of therapy and medication) who finally developed healthy relationships with food while taking these types of medications. Mounjaro, I’m talking about you…

I always hear the argument that it is immoral to give these medications to patients with a history of restrictive eating patterns. Although every patient needs to be carefully evaluated, often these medications remove food as both the enemy and primary focus of every waking thought. They allow patients to refocus on other aspects of their lives – such as family, friends, hobbies, work – and regain a sense of purpose. If anyone wants to run a trial on this little hypothesis of mine, please reach out to me. 

Okay, I agree you might get a little constipated (most often described by patients as the “rabbit pellet phenomenon”), but it’s a small price to pay, no? I’ll throw in a few prunes with the prescription.

Suffice it to say, I did give my 40-something-year-old patient the medication she desired, and she has a new lease on life (as well as better blood pressure and cholesterol).

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

A new strain of COVID-19 that was identified only a week ago in the United States has prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take the rare step of issuing a formal message that it could evade vaccines or the protection of natural immunity. 

The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.

Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.

Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.

“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.

The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.

A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.

The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.

The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.

“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.

Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.

“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.

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

A new strain of COVID-19 that was identified only a week ago in the United States has prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take the rare step of issuing a formal message that it could evade vaccines or the protection of natural immunity. 

The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.

Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.

Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.

“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.

The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.

A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.

The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.

The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.

“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.

Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.

“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.

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

A new strain of COVID-19 that was identified only a week ago in the United States has prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take the rare step of issuing a formal message that it could evade vaccines or the protection of natural immunity. 

The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.

Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.

Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.

“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.

The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.

A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.

The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.

The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.

“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.

Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.

“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.

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

Doctor, if you are caring for patients with diabetes, I sure hope you know more about it than I do. The longer I live, it seems, the less I understand.

In a free society, people can do what they want, and that’s great except when it isn’t. That’s why societies develop ethics and even public laws if ethics are not strong enough to protect us from ourselves and others.
 

Sugar, sugar

When I was growing up in small-town Alabama during the Depression and World War II, we called it sugar diabetes. Eat too much sugar, you got fat; your blood sugar went up, and you spilled sugar into your urine. Diabetes was fairly rare, and so was obesity. Doctors treated it by limiting the intake of sugar (and various sweet foods), along with attempting weight loss. If that didn’t do the trick, insulin injections.

From then until now, note these trends.

• 1920: 0.2% of the population
• 1930: 0.3% of the population
• 1940: 0.4% of the population

In 2020, although 11.3% of the population was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the unknown undiagnosed proportion could be much higher.

Notice a correlation between sugar consumption and prevalence of diabetes? Of course, correlation is not causation, but at the same time, it sure as hell is not negation. Such concordance can be considered hypothesis generating. It may not be true causation, but it’s a good bet when 89% of people with diabetes have overweight or obesity.

What did the entire medical, public health, government, agriculture, nursing, food manufacturing, marketing, advertising, restaurant, and education constituencies do about this as it was happening? They observed, documented, gave lip service, and wrung their hands in public a bit. I do not believe that this is an organized active conspiracy; it would take too many players cooperating over too long a period of time. But it certainly may be a passive conspiracy, and primary care physicians and their patients are trapped.

The proper daily practice of medicine consists of one patient, one physician, one moment, and one decision. Let it be a shared decision, informed by the best evidence and taking cost into consideration. That encounter represents an opportunity, a responsibility, and a conundrum.

Individual health is subsumed under the collective health of the public. As such, a patient’s health is out of the control of both physician and patient; instead, patients are the beneficiaries or victims of the “marketplace.” Humans are frail and easily taken advantage of by the brilliant and highly motivated strategic planning and execution of Big Agriculture, Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Marketing, and Big Money-Driven Medicine and generally failed by Big Government, Big Public Health, Big Education, Big Psychology, and Big Religion.
 

Rethinking diabetes

Consider diabetes as one of many examples. What a terrific deal for capitalism. First, the system spends decades fattening us up; then, it makes massive amounts of money off of the myriad complications of the fattened populace; then it discovers (invents) long-term, very expensive, compelling treatments to slim us down, with no end in sight, and still without ever understanding the true nature of diabetes.

Gary Taubes’s great new book, “Rethinking Diabetes: What Science Reveals About Diet, Insulin, and Successful Treatments,” is being published by Alfred A. Knopf in early 2024.

It is 404 pages of (dense) text, with 401 numbered references and footnotes, a bibliography of 790 references, alphabetically arranged for easy cross-checking, and a 25-page index.

Remember Mr. Taubes’s earlier definitive historical treatises: “Good Calories, Bad Calories” (2007), “Why We Get Fat” (2010), “The Case Against Sugar” (2016), and “The Case for Keto” (2020)?

This new book is more like “Good Calories, Bad Calories”: long, dense, detailed, definitive, and of great historical reference value, including original research information from other countries in other languages. The author told me that the many early research reference sources were available only in German and that his use of generative artificial intelligence as an assistant researcher was of great value.

Nonphysician author Mr. Taubes uses his deep understanding of science and history to inform his long-honed talents of impartial investigative journalism as he attempts to understand and then explain why after all these years, the medical scientific community still does not have a sound consensus about the essence of diabetes, diet, insulin, and proper prevention and treatment at a level that is actually effective – amazing and so sad.

To signal these evolved and evolving conflicts, the book includes the following chapters:

• “Rise of the Carbohydrate-Rich and Very-Low-Carbohydrate Diets”
• “The Fear of Fat and High-Fat Diets”
• “Insulin and The End of Carbohydrate Restriction and Low Blood Sugar”

Yes, it is difficult. Imagine the bookend segments: “The Nature of Medical Knowledge” and “The Conflicts of Evidence-Based Medicine.” There is also a detailed discussion of good versus bad science spanning three long chapters.

If all that reads like a greatly confused mess to you then you’re beginning to understand. If you are a fan of an unbiased explication of the evolution of understanding the ins and outs of scientific history in richly documented detail, this is a book for you. It’s not a quick nor easy read. And don’t expect to discover whether the newest wonder drugs for weight loss and control of diabetes will be the long-term solution for people with obesity and diabetes worldwide.

Obesity and overweight are major risk factors for type 2 diabetes. About 90% of patients with diabetes have either overweight or obesity. Thus, the complications of these two conditions, which largely overlap, include atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; myocardial infarction; stroke; hypertension; metabolic syndrome; lower-extremity gangrene; chronic kidney disease; retinopathy; glaucoma; cataracts; disabling osteoarthritis; breast, endometrial, colon, and other cancers; fatty liver; sleep apnea; and peripheral neuropathy. These diseases create a major lucrative business for a wide swathe of medical and surgical specialties, plus hospital, clinic, device, pharmaceutical, and food industries.

In summary, we’ve just been through 40 years of failure to recognize the sugar-elephant in the room and intervene with serious preventive efforts. Forty years of fleshing out both the populace and the American medical-industrial complex (AMIC). Talk about a sweet spot. The only successful long-term treatment of obesity (and with it, diabetes) is prevention. Don’t emphasize losing weight. Focus on preventing excessive weight gain, right now, for the population, beginning with yourselves. Otherwise, we continue openly to perpetuate a terrific deal for the AMIC, a travesty for everyone else. Time for some industrial grade penance and a course correction.

Meanwhile, here we are living out Big Pharma’s dream of a big populace, produced by the agriculture and food industries, enjoyed by capitalism after failures of education, medicine, and public health: a seemingly endless supply of people living with big complications who are ready for big (expensive, new) medications to fix the world’s big health problems.

Dr. Lundberg is editor in chief, Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctor, if you are caring for patients with diabetes, I sure hope you know more about it than I do. The longer I live, it seems, the less I understand.

In a free society, people can do what they want, and that’s great except when it isn’t. That’s why societies develop ethics and even public laws if ethics are not strong enough to protect us from ourselves and others.
 

Sugar, sugar

When I was growing up in small-town Alabama during the Depression and World War II, we called it sugar diabetes. Eat too much sugar, you got fat; your blood sugar went up, and you spilled sugar into your urine. Diabetes was fairly rare, and so was obesity. Doctors treated it by limiting the intake of sugar (and various sweet foods), along with attempting weight loss. If that didn’t do the trick, insulin injections.

From then until now, note these trends.

• 1920: 0.2% of the population
• 1930: 0.3% of the population
• 1940: 0.4% of the population

In 2020, although 11.3% of the population was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the unknown undiagnosed proportion could be much higher.

Notice a correlation between sugar consumption and prevalence of diabetes? Of course, correlation is not causation, but at the same time, it sure as hell is not negation. Such concordance can be considered hypothesis generating. It may not be true causation, but it’s a good bet when 89% of people with diabetes have overweight or obesity.

What did the entire medical, public health, government, agriculture, nursing, food manufacturing, marketing, advertising, restaurant, and education constituencies do about this as it was happening? They observed, documented, gave lip service, and wrung their hands in public a bit. I do not believe that this is an organized active conspiracy; it would take too many players cooperating over too long a period of time. But it certainly may be a passive conspiracy, and primary care physicians and their patients are trapped.

The proper daily practice of medicine consists of one patient, one physician, one moment, and one decision. Let it be a shared decision, informed by the best evidence and taking cost into consideration. That encounter represents an opportunity, a responsibility, and a conundrum.

Individual health is subsumed under the collective health of the public. As such, a patient’s health is out of the control of both physician and patient; instead, patients are the beneficiaries or victims of the “marketplace.” Humans are frail and easily taken advantage of by the brilliant and highly motivated strategic planning and execution of Big Agriculture, Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Marketing, and Big Money-Driven Medicine and generally failed by Big Government, Big Public Health, Big Education, Big Psychology, and Big Religion.
 

Rethinking diabetes

Consider diabetes as one of many examples. What a terrific deal for capitalism. First, the system spends decades fattening us up; then, it makes massive amounts of money off of the myriad complications of the fattened populace; then it discovers (invents) long-term, very expensive, compelling treatments to slim us down, with no end in sight, and still without ever understanding the true nature of diabetes.

Gary Taubes’s great new book, “Rethinking Diabetes: What Science Reveals About Diet, Insulin, and Successful Treatments,” is being published by Alfred A. Knopf in early 2024.

It is 404 pages of (dense) text, with 401 numbered references and footnotes, a bibliography of 790 references, alphabetically arranged for easy cross-checking, and a 25-page index.

Remember Mr. Taubes’s earlier definitive historical treatises: “Good Calories, Bad Calories” (2007), “Why We Get Fat” (2010), “The Case Against Sugar” (2016), and “The Case for Keto” (2020)?

This new book is more like “Good Calories, Bad Calories”: long, dense, detailed, definitive, and of great historical reference value, including original research information from other countries in other languages. The author told me that the many early research reference sources were available only in German and that his use of generative artificial intelligence as an assistant researcher was of great value.

Nonphysician author Mr. Taubes uses his deep understanding of science and history to inform his long-honed talents of impartial investigative journalism as he attempts to understand and then explain why after all these years, the medical scientific community still does not have a sound consensus about the essence of diabetes, diet, insulin, and proper prevention and treatment at a level that is actually effective – amazing and so sad.

To signal these evolved and evolving conflicts, the book includes the following chapters:

• “Rise of the Carbohydrate-Rich and Very-Low-Carbohydrate Diets”
• “The Fear of Fat and High-Fat Diets”
• “Insulin and The End of Carbohydrate Restriction and Low Blood Sugar”

Yes, it is difficult. Imagine the bookend segments: “The Nature of Medical Knowledge” and “The Conflicts of Evidence-Based Medicine.” There is also a detailed discussion of good versus bad science spanning three long chapters.

If all that reads like a greatly confused mess to you then you’re beginning to understand. If you are a fan of an unbiased explication of the evolution of understanding the ins and outs of scientific history in richly documented detail, this is a book for you. It’s not a quick nor easy read. And don’t expect to discover whether the newest wonder drugs for weight loss and control of diabetes will be the long-term solution for people with obesity and diabetes worldwide.

Obesity and overweight are major risk factors for type 2 diabetes. About 90% of patients with diabetes have either overweight or obesity. Thus, the complications of these two conditions, which largely overlap, include atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; myocardial infarction; stroke; hypertension; metabolic syndrome; lower-extremity gangrene; chronic kidney disease; retinopathy; glaucoma; cataracts; disabling osteoarthritis; breast, endometrial, colon, and other cancers; fatty liver; sleep apnea; and peripheral neuropathy. These diseases create a major lucrative business for a wide swathe of medical and surgical specialties, plus hospital, clinic, device, pharmaceutical, and food industries.

In summary, we’ve just been through 40 years of failure to recognize the sugar-elephant in the room and intervene with serious preventive efforts. Forty years of fleshing out both the populace and the American medical-industrial complex (AMIC). Talk about a sweet spot. The only successful long-term treatment of obesity (and with it, diabetes) is prevention. Don’t emphasize losing weight. Focus on preventing excessive weight gain, right now, for the population, beginning with yourselves. Otherwise, we continue openly to perpetuate a terrific deal for the AMIC, a travesty for everyone else. Time for some industrial grade penance and a course correction.

Meanwhile, here we are living out Big Pharma’s dream of a big populace, produced by the agriculture and food industries, enjoyed by capitalism after failures of education, medicine, and public health: a seemingly endless supply of people living with big complications who are ready for big (expensive, new) medications to fix the world’s big health problems.

Dr. Lundberg is editor in chief, Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctor, if you are caring for patients with diabetes, I sure hope you know more about it than I do. The longer I live, it seems, the less I understand.

In a free society, people can do what they want, and that’s great except when it isn’t. That’s why societies develop ethics and even public laws if ethics are not strong enough to protect us from ourselves and others.
 

Sugar, sugar

When I was growing up in small-town Alabama during the Depression and World War II, we called it sugar diabetes. Eat too much sugar, you got fat; your blood sugar went up, and you spilled sugar into your urine. Diabetes was fairly rare, and so was obesity. Doctors treated it by limiting the intake of sugar (and various sweet foods), along with attempting weight loss. If that didn’t do the trick, insulin injections.

From then until now, note these trends.

• 1920: 0.2% of the population
• 1930: 0.3% of the population
• 1940: 0.4% of the population

In 2020, although 11.3% of the population was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the unknown undiagnosed proportion could be much higher.

Notice a correlation between sugar consumption and prevalence of diabetes? Of course, correlation is not causation, but at the same time, it sure as hell is not negation. Such concordance can be considered hypothesis generating. It may not be true causation, but it’s a good bet when 89% of people with diabetes have overweight or obesity.

What did the entire medical, public health, government, agriculture, nursing, food manufacturing, marketing, advertising, restaurant, and education constituencies do about this as it was happening? They observed, documented, gave lip service, and wrung their hands in public a bit. I do not believe that this is an organized active conspiracy; it would take too many players cooperating over too long a period of time. But it certainly may be a passive conspiracy, and primary care physicians and their patients are trapped.

The proper daily practice of medicine consists of one patient, one physician, one moment, and one decision. Let it be a shared decision, informed by the best evidence and taking cost into consideration. That encounter represents an opportunity, a responsibility, and a conundrum.

Individual health is subsumed under the collective health of the public. As such, a patient’s health is out of the control of both physician and patient; instead, patients are the beneficiaries or victims of the “marketplace.” Humans are frail and easily taken advantage of by the brilliant and highly motivated strategic planning and execution of Big Agriculture, Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Marketing, and Big Money-Driven Medicine and generally failed by Big Government, Big Public Health, Big Education, Big Psychology, and Big Religion.
 

Rethinking diabetes

Consider diabetes as one of many examples. What a terrific deal for capitalism. First, the system spends decades fattening us up; then, it makes massive amounts of money off of the myriad complications of the fattened populace; then it discovers (invents) long-term, very expensive, compelling treatments to slim us down, with no end in sight, and still without ever understanding the true nature of diabetes.

Gary Taubes’s great new book, “Rethinking Diabetes: What Science Reveals About Diet, Insulin, and Successful Treatments,” is being published by Alfred A. Knopf in early 2024.

It is 404 pages of (dense) text, with 401 numbered references and footnotes, a bibliography of 790 references, alphabetically arranged for easy cross-checking, and a 25-page index.

Remember Mr. Taubes’s earlier definitive historical treatises: “Good Calories, Bad Calories” (2007), “Why We Get Fat” (2010), “The Case Against Sugar” (2016), and “The Case for Keto” (2020)?

This new book is more like “Good Calories, Bad Calories”: long, dense, detailed, definitive, and of great historical reference value, including original research information from other countries in other languages. The author told me that the many early research reference sources were available only in German and that his use of generative artificial intelligence as an assistant researcher was of great value.

Nonphysician author Mr. Taubes uses his deep understanding of science and history to inform his long-honed talents of impartial investigative journalism as he attempts to understand and then explain why after all these years, the medical scientific community still does not have a sound consensus about the essence of diabetes, diet, insulin, and proper prevention and treatment at a level that is actually effective – amazing and so sad.

To signal these evolved and evolving conflicts, the book includes the following chapters:

• “Rise of the Carbohydrate-Rich and Very-Low-Carbohydrate Diets”
• “The Fear of Fat and High-Fat Diets”
• “Insulin and The End of Carbohydrate Restriction and Low Blood Sugar”

Yes, it is difficult. Imagine the bookend segments: “The Nature of Medical Knowledge” and “The Conflicts of Evidence-Based Medicine.” There is also a detailed discussion of good versus bad science spanning three long chapters.

If all that reads like a greatly confused mess to you then you’re beginning to understand. If you are a fan of an unbiased explication of the evolution of understanding the ins and outs of scientific history in richly documented detail, this is a book for you. It’s not a quick nor easy read. And don’t expect to discover whether the newest wonder drugs for weight loss and control of diabetes will be the long-term solution for people with obesity and diabetes worldwide.

Obesity and overweight are major risk factors for type 2 diabetes. About 90% of patients with diabetes have either overweight or obesity. Thus, the complications of these two conditions, which largely overlap, include atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; myocardial infarction; stroke; hypertension; metabolic syndrome; lower-extremity gangrene; chronic kidney disease; retinopathy; glaucoma; cataracts; disabling osteoarthritis; breast, endometrial, colon, and other cancers; fatty liver; sleep apnea; and peripheral neuropathy. These diseases create a major lucrative business for a wide swathe of medical and surgical specialties, plus hospital, clinic, device, pharmaceutical, and food industries.

In summary, we’ve just been through 40 years of failure to recognize the sugar-elephant in the room and intervene with serious preventive efforts. Forty years of fleshing out both the populace and the American medical-industrial complex (AMIC). Talk about a sweet spot. The only successful long-term treatment of obesity (and with it, diabetes) is prevention. Don’t emphasize losing weight. Focus on preventing excessive weight gain, right now, for the population, beginning with yourselves. Otherwise, we continue openly to perpetuate a terrific deal for the AMIC, a travesty for everyone else. Time for some industrial grade penance and a course correction.

Meanwhile, here we are living out Big Pharma’s dream of a big populace, produced by the agriculture and food industries, enjoyed by capitalism after failures of education, medicine, and public health: a seemingly endless supply of people living with big complications who are ready for big (expensive, new) medications to fix the world’s big health problems.

Dr. Lundberg is editor in chief, Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c have occurred over time among adults with type 1 diabetes as their use of diabetes technology has increased, yet there is still room for improvement, new data suggest.

The new findings are from a study involving patients at the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes Adult Clinic between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2021. They show that as technology use has increased, A1c levels have dropped in parallel. Moreover, progression from use of stand-alone continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) to automated insulin delivery systems (AIDs), which comprise insulin pumps and connected CGMs, furthered that progress.

The findings “are in agreement with American Diabetes Association standards of care, and recent international consensus recommending CGM and AID for most people with type 1 diabetes, and early initiation of diabetes technology from the onset of type 1 diabetes,” write Kagan E. Karakus, MD, of the University of Colorado’s Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, and colleagues in the article, which was published online in Diabetes Care.

“It’s very rewarding to us. We can see clearly that the uptake is going up and the A1c is dropping,” lead author Viral N. Shah, MD, of the Barbara Davis Center, told this news organization.

On the flip side, A1c levels rose significantly over the study period among nonusers of technology. “We cannot rule out provider bias for not prescribing diabetes technology among those with higher A1c or from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds,” Dr. Karakus and colleagues write.

Also of note, even with use of the most advanced AID systems available during the study period, just under half of patients were still not achieving A1c levels below 7%. “The technology helps, but it’s not perfect,” Dr. Shah observed.

This study is the first to examine the relationship of A1c with technology use over time, in contrast to prior cross-sectional studies. “The intention here was to look at the landscape over a decade,” Dr. Shah said.
 

As overall use of technology use rose, A1c levels fell

The analysis included data for 4,174 unique patients (mean number of patients, 1,988/yr); 15,903 clinic visits were included over the 8-year study period. Technology use was defined as CGM use without an AID system or with an AID system.

Over the study period, diabetes technology use increased from 26.9% to 82.7% of the clinic population (P < .001). At the same time, the overall proportion patients who achieved the A1c goal of less than 7% increased from 32.3% to 41.7%, while the mean A1c level dropped from 7.7% to 7.5% (P < .001).

But among the technology nonusers, A1c rose from 7.85% in 2014 to 8.4% in 2021 (P < .001).

Regardless of diabetes technology use, White patients (about 80% of the total study population) had significantly lower A1c than non-White patients (7.5% vs. 7.7% for technology users [P = .02]; 8.0% vs. 8.3% for nontechnology users [P < .001]).

The non-White group was too small to enable the researchers to break down the data by technology type. Nonetheless, Dr. Shah said, “As a clinician, I can say that the penetration of diabetes technology in non-White populations remains low. These are also the people more vulnerable for socioeconomic and psychosocial reasons.”

The A1c increase among technology nonusers may be a result of a statistical artifact, as the number of those individuals was much lower in 2021 than in 2014. It’s possible that those remaining individuals have exceedingly high A1c levels, bringing the average up. “It’s still not good, though,” Dr. Shah said.
 

The more technology, the lower the A1c

Over the study period, the proportion of stand-alone CGM users rose from 26.9% to 44.1%, while use of AIDs rose from 0% in 2014 and 2015 to 38.6% in 2021. The latter group included patients who used first-generation Medtronic 670G and 770G devices and second-generation Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ devices.

Between 2017 and 2021, AIDs users had significantly lower A1c levels than nontechnology users: 7.4% vs. 8.1% in 2017, and 7.3% vs. 8.4% in 2021 (P < .001 for every year). CGM users also had significantly lower A1c levels than nonusers at all time points (P < .001 per year).

The proportions achieving an A1c less than 7% differed significantly across users of CGMs, AIDs, and no technology (P < .01 for all years). In 2021, the percentage of people who achieved an A1c less than 7% were 50.9% with AIDs and 44.1% for CGMs vs, just 15.2% with no technology.
 

Work to be done: Why aren’t more achieving < 7% with AIDs?

Asked why only slightly more than half of patients who used AIDs achieved A1c levels below 7%, Dr. Shah listed three possibilities:

First, the 7% goal doesn’t apply to everyone with type 1 diabetes, including those with multiple comorbidities or with short life expectancy, for whom the recommended goal is 7.5%-8.0% to prevent hypoglycemia. “We didn’t separate out patients by A1c goals. If we add that, the number might go up,” Dr. Shah said.

Second, AID technology is continually improving, but it’s not perfect. Users still must enter carbohydrate counts and signal the devices for exercise, which can lead to errors. “It’s a wonderful technology for overnight control, but still, during the daytime, there are so many factors with the user interface and how much a person is engaged with the technology,” Dr. Shah explained.

Third, he said, “Unfortunately, obesity is increasing in type 1 diabetes, and insulin doses are increasing. Higher BMI [body mass index] and more insulin resistance can mean higher A1c. I really think for many patients, we probably will need an adjunct therapy, such as an SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2] inhibitor or a GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide-1] agonist, even though they’re not approved in type 1 diabetes, for both glycemic and metabolic control including weight. I think that’s another missing piece.”

He also pointed out, “If someone has an A1c of 7.5%, I don’t expect a huge change. But if they’re at 10%, a drop to 8% is a huge change.”

Overall, Dr. Shah said, the news from the study is good. “In the past, only 30% were achieving an A1c less than 7%. Now we’re 20% above that. ... It’s a glass half full.”

Dr. Karakus has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shah has received, through the University of Colorado, research support from Novo Nordisk, Insulet, Tandem Diabetes, and Dexcom, and honoraria from Medscape, Lifescan, Novo Nordisk, and DKSH Singapore for advisory board attendance and from Insulet and Dexcom for speaking engagements.

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

Significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c have occurred over time among adults with type 1 diabetes as their use of diabetes technology has increased, yet there is still room for improvement, new data suggest.

The new findings are from a study involving patients at the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes Adult Clinic between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2021. They show that as technology use has increased, A1c levels have dropped in parallel. Moreover, progression from use of stand-alone continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) to automated insulin delivery systems (AIDs), which comprise insulin pumps and connected CGMs, furthered that progress.

The findings “are in agreement with American Diabetes Association standards of care, and recent international consensus recommending CGM and AID for most people with type 1 diabetes, and early initiation of diabetes technology from the onset of type 1 diabetes,” write Kagan E. Karakus, MD, of the University of Colorado’s Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, and colleagues in the article, which was published online in Diabetes Care.

“It’s very rewarding to us. We can see clearly that the uptake is going up and the A1c is dropping,” lead author Viral N. Shah, MD, of the Barbara Davis Center, told this news organization.

On the flip side, A1c levels rose significantly over the study period among nonusers of technology. “We cannot rule out provider bias for not prescribing diabetes technology among those with higher A1c or from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds,” Dr. Karakus and colleagues write.

Also of note, even with use of the most advanced AID systems available during the study period, just under half of patients were still not achieving A1c levels below 7%. “The technology helps, but it’s not perfect,” Dr. Shah observed.

This study is the first to examine the relationship of A1c with technology use over time, in contrast to prior cross-sectional studies. “The intention here was to look at the landscape over a decade,” Dr. Shah said.
 

As overall use of technology use rose, A1c levels fell

The analysis included data for 4,174 unique patients (mean number of patients, 1,988/yr); 15,903 clinic visits were included over the 8-year study period. Technology use was defined as CGM use without an AID system or with an AID system.

Over the study period, diabetes technology use increased from 26.9% to 82.7% of the clinic population (P < .001). At the same time, the overall proportion patients who achieved the A1c goal of less than 7% increased from 32.3% to 41.7%, while the mean A1c level dropped from 7.7% to 7.5% (P < .001).

But among the technology nonusers, A1c rose from 7.85% in 2014 to 8.4% in 2021 (P < .001).

Regardless of diabetes technology use, White patients (about 80% of the total study population) had significantly lower A1c than non-White patients (7.5% vs. 7.7% for technology users [P = .02]; 8.0% vs. 8.3% for nontechnology users [P < .001]).

The non-White group was too small to enable the researchers to break down the data by technology type. Nonetheless, Dr. Shah said, “As a clinician, I can say that the penetration of diabetes technology in non-White populations remains low. These are also the people more vulnerable for socioeconomic and psychosocial reasons.”

The A1c increase among technology nonusers may be a result of a statistical artifact, as the number of those individuals was much lower in 2021 than in 2014. It’s possible that those remaining individuals have exceedingly high A1c levels, bringing the average up. “It’s still not good, though,” Dr. Shah said.
 

The more technology, the lower the A1c

Over the study period, the proportion of stand-alone CGM users rose from 26.9% to 44.1%, while use of AIDs rose from 0% in 2014 and 2015 to 38.6% in 2021. The latter group included patients who used first-generation Medtronic 670G and 770G devices and second-generation Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ devices.

Between 2017 and 2021, AIDs users had significantly lower A1c levels than nontechnology users: 7.4% vs. 8.1% in 2017, and 7.3% vs. 8.4% in 2021 (P < .001 for every year). CGM users also had significantly lower A1c levels than nonusers at all time points (P < .001 per year).

The proportions achieving an A1c less than 7% differed significantly across users of CGMs, AIDs, and no technology (P < .01 for all years). In 2021, the percentage of people who achieved an A1c less than 7% were 50.9% with AIDs and 44.1% for CGMs vs, just 15.2% with no technology.
 

Work to be done: Why aren’t more achieving < 7% with AIDs?

Asked why only slightly more than half of patients who used AIDs achieved A1c levels below 7%, Dr. Shah listed three possibilities:

First, the 7% goal doesn’t apply to everyone with type 1 diabetes, including those with multiple comorbidities or with short life expectancy, for whom the recommended goal is 7.5%-8.0% to prevent hypoglycemia. “We didn’t separate out patients by A1c goals. If we add that, the number might go up,” Dr. Shah said.

Second, AID technology is continually improving, but it’s not perfect. Users still must enter carbohydrate counts and signal the devices for exercise, which can lead to errors. “It’s a wonderful technology for overnight control, but still, during the daytime, there are so many factors with the user interface and how much a person is engaged with the technology,” Dr. Shah explained.

Third, he said, “Unfortunately, obesity is increasing in type 1 diabetes, and insulin doses are increasing. Higher BMI [body mass index] and more insulin resistance can mean higher A1c. I really think for many patients, we probably will need an adjunct therapy, such as an SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2] inhibitor or a GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide-1] agonist, even though they’re not approved in type 1 diabetes, for both glycemic and metabolic control including weight. I think that’s another missing piece.”

He also pointed out, “If someone has an A1c of 7.5%, I don’t expect a huge change. But if they’re at 10%, a drop to 8% is a huge change.”

Overall, Dr. Shah said, the news from the study is good. “In the past, only 30% were achieving an A1c less than 7%. Now we’re 20% above that. ... It’s a glass half full.”

Dr. Karakus has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shah has received, through the University of Colorado, research support from Novo Nordisk, Insulet, Tandem Diabetes, and Dexcom, and honoraria from Medscape, Lifescan, Novo Nordisk, and DKSH Singapore for advisory board attendance and from Insulet and Dexcom for speaking engagements.

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

Significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c have occurred over time among adults with type 1 diabetes as their use of diabetes technology has increased, yet there is still room for improvement, new data suggest.

The new findings are from a study involving patients at the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes Adult Clinic between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2021. They show that as technology use has increased, A1c levels have dropped in parallel. Moreover, progression from use of stand-alone continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) to automated insulin delivery systems (AIDs), which comprise insulin pumps and connected CGMs, furthered that progress.

The findings “are in agreement with American Diabetes Association standards of care, and recent international consensus recommending CGM and AID for most people with type 1 diabetes, and early initiation of diabetes technology from the onset of type 1 diabetes,” write Kagan E. Karakus, MD, of the University of Colorado’s Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, and colleagues in the article, which was published online in Diabetes Care.

“It’s very rewarding to us. We can see clearly that the uptake is going up and the A1c is dropping,” lead author Viral N. Shah, MD, of the Barbara Davis Center, told this news organization.

On the flip side, A1c levels rose significantly over the study period among nonusers of technology. “We cannot rule out provider bias for not prescribing diabetes technology among those with higher A1c or from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds,” Dr. Karakus and colleagues write.

Also of note, even with use of the most advanced AID systems available during the study period, just under half of patients were still not achieving A1c levels below 7%. “The technology helps, but it’s not perfect,” Dr. Shah observed.

This study is the first to examine the relationship of A1c with technology use over time, in contrast to prior cross-sectional studies. “The intention here was to look at the landscape over a decade,” Dr. Shah said.
 

As overall use of technology use rose, A1c levels fell

The analysis included data for 4,174 unique patients (mean number of patients, 1,988/yr); 15,903 clinic visits were included over the 8-year study period. Technology use was defined as CGM use without an AID system or with an AID system.

Over the study period, diabetes technology use increased from 26.9% to 82.7% of the clinic population (P < .001). At the same time, the overall proportion patients who achieved the A1c goal of less than 7% increased from 32.3% to 41.7%, while the mean A1c level dropped from 7.7% to 7.5% (P < .001).

But among the technology nonusers, A1c rose from 7.85% in 2014 to 8.4% in 2021 (P < .001).

Regardless of diabetes technology use, White patients (about 80% of the total study population) had significantly lower A1c than non-White patients (7.5% vs. 7.7% for technology users [P = .02]; 8.0% vs. 8.3% for nontechnology users [P < .001]).

The non-White group was too small to enable the researchers to break down the data by technology type. Nonetheless, Dr. Shah said, “As a clinician, I can say that the penetration of diabetes technology in non-White populations remains low. These are also the people more vulnerable for socioeconomic and psychosocial reasons.”

The A1c increase among technology nonusers may be a result of a statistical artifact, as the number of those individuals was much lower in 2021 than in 2014. It’s possible that those remaining individuals have exceedingly high A1c levels, bringing the average up. “It’s still not good, though,” Dr. Shah said.
 

The more technology, the lower the A1c

Over the study period, the proportion of stand-alone CGM users rose from 26.9% to 44.1%, while use of AIDs rose from 0% in 2014 and 2015 to 38.6% in 2021. The latter group included patients who used first-generation Medtronic 670G and 770G devices and second-generation Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ devices.

Between 2017 and 2021, AIDs users had significantly lower A1c levels than nontechnology users: 7.4% vs. 8.1% in 2017, and 7.3% vs. 8.4% in 2021 (P < .001 for every year). CGM users also had significantly lower A1c levels than nonusers at all time points (P < .001 per year).

The proportions achieving an A1c less than 7% differed significantly across users of CGMs, AIDs, and no technology (P < .01 for all years). In 2021, the percentage of people who achieved an A1c less than 7% were 50.9% with AIDs and 44.1% for CGMs vs, just 15.2% with no technology.
 

Work to be done: Why aren’t more achieving < 7% with AIDs?

Asked why only slightly more than half of patients who used AIDs achieved A1c levels below 7%, Dr. Shah listed three possibilities:

First, the 7% goal doesn’t apply to everyone with type 1 diabetes, including those with multiple comorbidities or with short life expectancy, for whom the recommended goal is 7.5%-8.0% to prevent hypoglycemia. “We didn’t separate out patients by A1c goals. If we add that, the number might go up,” Dr. Shah said.

Second, AID technology is continually improving, but it’s not perfect. Users still must enter carbohydrate counts and signal the devices for exercise, which can lead to errors. “It’s a wonderful technology for overnight control, but still, during the daytime, there are so many factors with the user interface and how much a person is engaged with the technology,” Dr. Shah explained.

Third, he said, “Unfortunately, obesity is increasing in type 1 diabetes, and insulin doses are increasing. Higher BMI [body mass index] and more insulin resistance can mean higher A1c. I really think for many patients, we probably will need an adjunct therapy, such as an SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2] inhibitor or a GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide-1] agonist, even though they’re not approved in type 1 diabetes, for both glycemic and metabolic control including weight. I think that’s another missing piece.”

He also pointed out, “If someone has an A1c of 7.5%, I don’t expect a huge change. But if they’re at 10%, a drop to 8% is a huge change.”

Overall, Dr. Shah said, the news from the study is good. “In the past, only 30% were achieving an A1c less than 7%. Now we’re 20% above that. ... It’s a glass half full.”

Dr. Karakus has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shah has received, through the University of Colorado, research support from Novo Nordisk, Insulet, Tandem Diabetes, and Dexcom, and honoraria from Medscape, Lifescan, Novo Nordisk, and DKSH Singapore for advisory board attendance and from Insulet and Dexcom for speaking engagements.

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