Clinician Reviews

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning letter to AstraZeneca over the pharmaceutical company’s advertising of the efficacy of a treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Promotional materials for the drug Breztri (budesonide/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrrolate inhaled) suggest that the drug has a positive effect on all-cause mortality for COPD patients, but the referenced clinical trial does not support that claim, the FDA letter states.

The FDA issued the warning letter on Aug. 4 and published the letter online on Aug. 15.

The sales aid highlights a 49% observed relative difference in time to all-cause mortality (ACM) over 1 year between Breztri and long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting beta agonist (LAMA/LABA) inhalers.

Because of “statistical testing hierarchy failure” as well as confounding factors such as the removal of patients from inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) prior to entering the treatment arm of the trial, “no conclusions about the effect of Breztri on ACM can be drawn from the [clinical] trial,” the FDA wrote. “To date, no drug has been shown to improve ACM in COPD.”

The Breztri sales aid also states that there was a 20% reduction of severe exacerbations in patients using Breztri compared with patients using ICS/LABA. However, in the cited clinical trial, “the reduction in severe exacerbations was not statistically significant for patients treated with Breztri relative to comparator groups,” according to the FDA.

AstraZeneca has 15 working days from the receipt of the letter to respond in writing with “any plan for discontinuing use of such communications, or for ceasing distribution of Breztri,” the agency wrote.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning letter to AstraZeneca over the pharmaceutical company’s advertising of the efficacy of a treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Promotional materials for the drug Breztri (budesonide/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrrolate inhaled) suggest that the drug has a positive effect on all-cause mortality for COPD patients, but the referenced clinical trial does not support that claim, the FDA letter states.

The FDA issued the warning letter on Aug. 4 and published the letter online on Aug. 15.

The sales aid highlights a 49% observed relative difference in time to all-cause mortality (ACM) over 1 year between Breztri and long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting beta agonist (LAMA/LABA) inhalers.

Because of “statistical testing hierarchy failure” as well as confounding factors such as the removal of patients from inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) prior to entering the treatment arm of the trial, “no conclusions about the effect of Breztri on ACM can be drawn from the [clinical] trial,” the FDA wrote. “To date, no drug has been shown to improve ACM in COPD.”

The Breztri sales aid also states that there was a 20% reduction of severe exacerbations in patients using Breztri compared with patients using ICS/LABA. However, in the cited clinical trial, “the reduction in severe exacerbations was not statistically significant for patients treated with Breztri relative to comparator groups,” according to the FDA.

AstraZeneca has 15 working days from the receipt of the letter to respond in writing with “any plan for discontinuing use of such communications, or for ceasing distribution of Breztri,” the agency wrote.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning letter to AstraZeneca over the pharmaceutical company’s advertising of the efficacy of a treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Promotional materials for the drug Breztri (budesonide/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrrolate inhaled) suggest that the drug has a positive effect on all-cause mortality for COPD patients, but the referenced clinical trial does not support that claim, the FDA letter states.

The FDA issued the warning letter on Aug. 4 and published the letter online on Aug. 15.

The sales aid highlights a 49% observed relative difference in time to all-cause mortality (ACM) over 1 year between Breztri and long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting beta agonist (LAMA/LABA) inhalers.

Because of “statistical testing hierarchy failure” as well as confounding factors such as the removal of patients from inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) prior to entering the treatment arm of the trial, “no conclusions about the effect of Breztri on ACM can be drawn from the [clinical] trial,” the FDA wrote. “To date, no drug has been shown to improve ACM in COPD.”

The Breztri sales aid also states that there was a 20% reduction of severe exacerbations in patients using Breztri compared with patients using ICS/LABA. However, in the cited clinical trial, “the reduction in severe exacerbations was not statistically significant for patients treated with Breztri relative to comparator groups,” according to the FDA.

AstraZeneca has 15 working days from the receipt of the letter to respond in writing with “any plan for discontinuing use of such communications, or for ceasing distribution of Breztri,” the agency wrote.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients reporting moderate or extreme pain a year after a myocardial infarction (MI) – even pain due to other health conditions – are more likely to die within the next 8 years than those without post-MI pain, new research suggests.

In the analysis of post-MI health data for more than 18,300 Swedish adults, those with moderate pain were 35% more likely to die from any cause during follow-up, compared with those with no pain, and those with extreme pain were more than twice as likely to die.

Furthermore, pain was a stronger predictor of mortality than smoking.

“For a long time, pain has been regarded as merely a symptom of disease rather than a disease” in its own right, Linda Vixner, PT, PhD, of Dalarna University in Falun, Sweden, said in an interview.

Updated definitions of chronic pain in the ICD-11, as well as a recent study using data from the UK Biobank showing that chronic pain is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, prompted the current study, which looks at the effect of pain on long-term survival after an MI.

“We did not expect that pain would have such a strong impact on the risk of death, and it also surprised us that the risk was more pronounced than that of smoking,” Dr. Vixner said. “Clinicians should consider pain an important cardiovascular risk factor.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

‘Experienced pain’ prognostic

The investigators analyzed data from the SWEDEHEART registry of 18,376 patients who had an MI in 2004-2013. The mean age of patients was 62 years and 75% were men. Follow-up time was 8.5 years (median, 3.37).

Self-reported levels of experienced pain according to the EuroQol five-dimension instrument were recorded 12 months after hospital discharge.

Moderate pain was reported by 38.2% of patients and extreme pain by 4.5%.

In the extreme pain category, women were overrepresented (7.5% vs. 3.6% of men), as were current smokers, and patients with diabetes, previous MI, previous stroke, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, non-ST-segment–elevation MI, and any kind of chest pain. Patients classified as physically inactive also were overrepresented in this category.

In addition, those with extreme pain had a higher body mass index and waist circumference 12 months after hospital discharge.

Most (73%) of the 7,889 patients who reported no pain at the 2-month follow-up after MI were also pain-free at the 12-month follow-up, and 65% of those experiencing pain at 2 months were also experiencing pain at 12 months.

There were 1,067 deaths. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.35 for moderate pain and 2.06 for extreme pain.

As noted, pain was a stronger mortality predictor than smoking: C-statistics for pain were 0.60, and for smoking, 0.55.

“Clinicians managing patients after MI should recognize the need to consider experienced pain as a prognostic factor comparable to persistent smoking and to address this when designing individually adjusted [cardiac rehabilitation] and secondary prevention treatments,” the authors write.

Pain should be assessed at follow-up after MI, they add, and, as Dr. Vixner suggested, it should be “acknowledged as an important risk factor.”
 

Managing risks

“These findings parallel prior studies and my own clinical experience,” American Heart Association volunteer expert Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, interim chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, told this news organization.

“There are many potential causes for patient-reported pain in the year after a heart attack,” he said, including a greater cardiovascular risk burden, more comorbid conditions, less physical activity, and chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications or opioids for pain control – all of which can contribute to the increased risk of mortality.

Factors beyond those evaluated and adjusted for in the observational study may contribute to the observed associations, he added. “Socioeconomic factors were not accounted for [and] there was no information on the types, doses, and frequency of pain medication use.”

“Clinicians managing patients with prior MI should carefully assess experienced pain and utilize this information to optimize risk factor control recommendations, inform treatment decisions, and consider in terms of prognosis,” he advised.

Further studies should evaluate whether the associations hold true for other patient populations, Dr. Fonarow said. “In addition, intervention trials could evaluate if enhanced management strategies in these higher-risk patients with self-reported pain can successfully lower the mortality risk.”

Dr. Vixner sees a role for physical activity in lowering the mortality risk.

“One of the core treatments for chronic pain is physical activity,” she said. “It positively influences quality of life, activities of daily living, pain intensity, and overall physical function, and reduces the risk of social isolation” and cardiovascular diseases.

Her team recently developed the “eVISualisation of physical activity and pain” (eVIS) intervention, which aims to promote healthy physical activity levels in persons living with chronic pain. The intervention is currently being evaluated in an ongoing registry-based, randomized controlled trial.

The study was supported by Svenska Försäkringsföreningen, Dalarna University, Region Dalarna. Dr. Vixner and coauthors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fonarow has disclosed consulting for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

Patients reporting moderate or extreme pain a year after a myocardial infarction (MI) – even pain due to other health conditions – are more likely to die within the next 8 years than those without post-MI pain, new research suggests.

In the analysis of post-MI health data for more than 18,300 Swedish adults, those with moderate pain were 35% more likely to die from any cause during follow-up, compared with those with no pain, and those with extreme pain were more than twice as likely to die.

Furthermore, pain was a stronger predictor of mortality than smoking.

“For a long time, pain has been regarded as merely a symptom of disease rather than a disease” in its own right, Linda Vixner, PT, PhD, of Dalarna University in Falun, Sweden, said in an interview.

Updated definitions of chronic pain in the ICD-11, as well as a recent study using data from the UK Biobank showing that chronic pain is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, prompted the current study, which looks at the effect of pain on long-term survival after an MI.

“We did not expect that pain would have such a strong impact on the risk of death, and it also surprised us that the risk was more pronounced than that of smoking,” Dr. Vixner said. “Clinicians should consider pain an important cardiovascular risk factor.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

‘Experienced pain’ prognostic

The investigators analyzed data from the SWEDEHEART registry of 18,376 patients who had an MI in 2004-2013. The mean age of patients was 62 years and 75% were men. Follow-up time was 8.5 years (median, 3.37).

Self-reported levels of experienced pain according to the EuroQol five-dimension instrument were recorded 12 months after hospital discharge.

Moderate pain was reported by 38.2% of patients and extreme pain by 4.5%.

In the extreme pain category, women were overrepresented (7.5% vs. 3.6% of men), as were current smokers, and patients with diabetes, previous MI, previous stroke, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, non-ST-segment–elevation MI, and any kind of chest pain. Patients classified as physically inactive also were overrepresented in this category.

In addition, those with extreme pain had a higher body mass index and waist circumference 12 months after hospital discharge.

Most (73%) of the 7,889 patients who reported no pain at the 2-month follow-up after MI were also pain-free at the 12-month follow-up, and 65% of those experiencing pain at 2 months were also experiencing pain at 12 months.

There were 1,067 deaths. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.35 for moderate pain and 2.06 for extreme pain.

As noted, pain was a stronger mortality predictor than smoking: C-statistics for pain were 0.60, and for smoking, 0.55.

“Clinicians managing patients after MI should recognize the need to consider experienced pain as a prognostic factor comparable to persistent smoking and to address this when designing individually adjusted [cardiac rehabilitation] and secondary prevention treatments,” the authors write.

Pain should be assessed at follow-up after MI, they add, and, as Dr. Vixner suggested, it should be “acknowledged as an important risk factor.”
 

Managing risks

“These findings parallel prior studies and my own clinical experience,” American Heart Association volunteer expert Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, interim chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, told this news organization.

“There are many potential causes for patient-reported pain in the year after a heart attack,” he said, including a greater cardiovascular risk burden, more comorbid conditions, less physical activity, and chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications or opioids for pain control – all of which can contribute to the increased risk of mortality.

Factors beyond those evaluated and adjusted for in the observational study may contribute to the observed associations, he added. “Socioeconomic factors were not accounted for [and] there was no information on the types, doses, and frequency of pain medication use.”

“Clinicians managing patients with prior MI should carefully assess experienced pain and utilize this information to optimize risk factor control recommendations, inform treatment decisions, and consider in terms of prognosis,” he advised.

Further studies should evaluate whether the associations hold true for other patient populations, Dr. Fonarow said. “In addition, intervention trials could evaluate if enhanced management strategies in these higher-risk patients with self-reported pain can successfully lower the mortality risk.”

Dr. Vixner sees a role for physical activity in lowering the mortality risk.

“One of the core treatments for chronic pain is physical activity,” she said. “It positively influences quality of life, activities of daily living, pain intensity, and overall physical function, and reduces the risk of social isolation” and cardiovascular diseases.

Her team recently developed the “eVISualisation of physical activity and pain” (eVIS) intervention, which aims to promote healthy physical activity levels in persons living with chronic pain. The intervention is currently being evaluated in an ongoing registry-based, randomized controlled trial.

The study was supported by Svenska Försäkringsföreningen, Dalarna University, Region Dalarna. Dr. Vixner and coauthors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fonarow has disclosed consulting for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

Patients reporting moderate or extreme pain a year after a myocardial infarction (MI) – even pain due to other health conditions – are more likely to die within the next 8 years than those without post-MI pain, new research suggests.

In the analysis of post-MI health data for more than 18,300 Swedish adults, those with moderate pain were 35% more likely to die from any cause during follow-up, compared with those with no pain, and those with extreme pain were more than twice as likely to die.

Furthermore, pain was a stronger predictor of mortality than smoking.

“For a long time, pain has been regarded as merely a symptom of disease rather than a disease” in its own right, Linda Vixner, PT, PhD, of Dalarna University in Falun, Sweden, said in an interview.

Updated definitions of chronic pain in the ICD-11, as well as a recent study using data from the UK Biobank showing that chronic pain is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, prompted the current study, which looks at the effect of pain on long-term survival after an MI.

“We did not expect that pain would have such a strong impact on the risk of death, and it also surprised us that the risk was more pronounced than that of smoking,” Dr. Vixner said. “Clinicians should consider pain an important cardiovascular risk factor.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

‘Experienced pain’ prognostic

The investigators analyzed data from the SWEDEHEART registry of 18,376 patients who had an MI in 2004-2013. The mean age of patients was 62 years and 75% were men. Follow-up time was 8.5 years (median, 3.37).

Self-reported levels of experienced pain according to the EuroQol five-dimension instrument were recorded 12 months after hospital discharge.

Moderate pain was reported by 38.2% of patients and extreme pain by 4.5%.

In the extreme pain category, women were overrepresented (7.5% vs. 3.6% of men), as were current smokers, and patients with diabetes, previous MI, previous stroke, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, non-ST-segment–elevation MI, and any kind of chest pain. Patients classified as physically inactive also were overrepresented in this category.

In addition, those with extreme pain had a higher body mass index and waist circumference 12 months after hospital discharge.

Most (73%) of the 7,889 patients who reported no pain at the 2-month follow-up after MI were also pain-free at the 12-month follow-up, and 65% of those experiencing pain at 2 months were also experiencing pain at 12 months.

There were 1,067 deaths. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.35 for moderate pain and 2.06 for extreme pain.

As noted, pain was a stronger mortality predictor than smoking: C-statistics for pain were 0.60, and for smoking, 0.55.

“Clinicians managing patients after MI should recognize the need to consider experienced pain as a prognostic factor comparable to persistent smoking and to address this when designing individually adjusted [cardiac rehabilitation] and secondary prevention treatments,” the authors write.

Pain should be assessed at follow-up after MI, they add, and, as Dr. Vixner suggested, it should be “acknowledged as an important risk factor.”
 

Managing risks

“These findings parallel prior studies and my own clinical experience,” American Heart Association volunteer expert Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, interim chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, told this news organization.

“There are many potential causes for patient-reported pain in the year after a heart attack,” he said, including a greater cardiovascular risk burden, more comorbid conditions, less physical activity, and chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications or opioids for pain control – all of which can contribute to the increased risk of mortality.

Factors beyond those evaluated and adjusted for in the observational study may contribute to the observed associations, he added. “Socioeconomic factors were not accounted for [and] there was no information on the types, doses, and frequency of pain medication use.”

“Clinicians managing patients with prior MI should carefully assess experienced pain and utilize this information to optimize risk factor control recommendations, inform treatment decisions, and consider in terms of prognosis,” he advised.

Further studies should evaluate whether the associations hold true for other patient populations, Dr. Fonarow said. “In addition, intervention trials could evaluate if enhanced management strategies in these higher-risk patients with self-reported pain can successfully lower the mortality risk.”

Dr. Vixner sees a role for physical activity in lowering the mortality risk.

“One of the core treatments for chronic pain is physical activity,” she said. “It positively influences quality of life, activities of daily living, pain intensity, and overall physical function, and reduces the risk of social isolation” and cardiovascular diseases.

Her team recently developed the “eVISualisation of physical activity and pain” (eVIS) intervention, which aims to promote healthy physical activity levels in persons living with chronic pain. The intervention is currently being evaluated in an ongoing registry-based, randomized controlled trial.

The study was supported by Svenska Försäkringsföreningen, Dalarna University, Region Dalarna. Dr. Vixner and coauthors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fonarow has disclosed consulting for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

Initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1994, metformin has been the preferred first-line glucose-lowering agent for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) owing to its effectiveness, low hypoglycemia risk, weight neutrality, long clinical track record of safety, and affordability. However, the advent of newer glucose-lowering agents with evidence-based cardiovascular (CV) and renal benefits calls into question whether metformin should continue to be the initial pharmacotherapy for all patients with T2D. To help determine whether metformin has been “dethroned” as first-line treatment for T2D, here is a brief review of recent evidence and current guideline recommendations.

Cardiovascular outcome trials transform standard of care

In 2008, the FDA issued guidance to industry to ensure that CV risk is more thoroughly addressed during development of T2D therapies. This guidance document required dedicated trials to establish CV safety of new glucose-lowering therapies. Findings from subsequent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) and subsequent large renal and heart failure (HF) outcome trials have since prompted frequent and substantial updates to major guidelines. On the basis of recent evidence from CVOT and renal trials, contemporary clinical practice guidelines have transitioned from a traditional glucocentric treatment approach to a holistic management approach that emphasizes organ protection through heart-kidney-metabolic risk reduction.

Per the 2008 FDA guidance, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were evaluated in large dedicated CVOTs. Findings from several CVOTs established GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor CV safety, and unexpectedly demonstrated reduced rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo. The LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials were the first CVOTs to report cardioprotective benefits of the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, respectively. The LEADER trial reported a 13% significant relative risk reduction for its primary composite MACE outcome, and the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial similarly reported a 14% relative risk reduction for MACE. After CVOTs on other GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors reported CV benefit, clinical practice guidelines began to recommend use of these agents in at-risk patients to mitigate CV risk.

During the period when most CVOTs were designed and conducted, a majority of trial participants were receiving metformin at baseline. Inclusion of a small subset of metformin-naive participants in these trials allowed for several post hoc and meta-analyses investigating the impact of background metformin use on the overall CV benefits reported. Depending on the trial, baseline metformin use in large GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOTs ranged from 66% to 81%. For instance, 76% of participants in the LEADER trial were receiving metformin at baseline, but a post hoc analysis found no heterogeneity for the observed CV benefit based on background metformin use. Similarly, a subgroup analysis of pooled data from the SUSTAIN-6 and PIONEER 6 trials of injectable and oral formulations of semaglutide, respectively, reported similar CV outcomes for participants, regardless of concomitant metformin use. When looking at the GLP-1 receptor agonist class overall, a meta-analysis of seven CVOTs, which included participants with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and those with multiple ASCVD risk factors, concluded that GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy reduced the overall incidence of MACE in participants not receiving concomitant metformin at baseline.

Similar analyses have examined the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors. An analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME found that empagliflozin improved CV outcomes and reduced mortality irrespective of background metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin use. Of note, this analysis suggested a greater risk reduction for incident or worsening nephropathy in patients not on concomitant metformin (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.59; P = .01), when compared with those taking metformin at baseline (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.79; P = .01). In addition, a meta-analysis of six large outcome trials found consistent benefits of SGLT2 inhibition on CV, kidney, and mortality outcomes regardless of background metformin treatment. Therefore, although CVOTs on GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors were not designed to assess the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes, available evidence supports the CV benefits of these agents independent of metformin use.
 

Individualizing care to attain cardiorenal-metabolic goals

Three dedicated SGLT2 inhibitor renal outcome trials have been published to date: CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and EMPA-KIDNEY. All three studies confirmed the positive secondary renal outcomes observed in SGLT2 inhibitor CVOTs: reduced progression of kidney disease, HF-associated hospital admissions, and CV-related death. The observed renal and CV benefits from the CREDENCE trial were consistent across different levels of kidney function. Similarly, a meta-analysis of five SGLT2 inhibitor trials of patients with HF demonstrated a decreased risk for CV-related death and admission for HF, irrespective of baseline heart function. The ongoing FLOW is the first dedicated kidney-outcome trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide) in slowing the progression and worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with T2D.

As previously noted, findings from the LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials demonstrated the beneficial effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors not only on MACE but also on secondary HF and kidney disease outcomes. These findings have supported a series of dedicated HF and kidney outcome trials further informing the standard of care for patients with these key comorbidities. Indeed, the American Diabetes Association’s 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes updated its recommendations and algorithm for the use of glucose-lowering medications in the management of T2D. The current ADA recommendations stress cardiorenal risk reduction while concurrently achieving and maintaining glycemic and weight management goals. On the basis of evolving outcome trial data, GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors with evidence of benefit are recommended for patients with established or at high risk for ASCVD. Further, the Standards preferentially recommend SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HF and/or CKD. Because evidence suggests no heterogeneity of benefit based on hemoglobin A1c for MACE outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists and no heterogeneity of benefit for HF or CKD benefits with SGLT2 inhibitors, these agents are recommended for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of the need to lower glucose.

The 2023 update to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm similarly recommends the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors to improve cardiorenal outcomes. To further emphasize the importance of prescribing agents with proven organ-protective benefits, the AACE consensus statement provides a complications-centric algorithm to guide therapeutic decisions for risk reduction in patients with key comorbidities (for instance, ASCVD, HF, CKD) and a separate glucocentric algorithm to guide selection and intensification of glucose-lowering agents in patients without key comorbidities to meet individualized glycemic targets. Within the complications-centric algorithm, AACE recommends GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of background metformin use or A1c level.

In addition to the emphasis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for organ protection, guidelines now recommend SGLT2 inhibitors as the standard-of-care therapy in patients with T2D and CKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and irrespective of ejection fraction or a diagnosis of diabetes in the setting of HF. Overall, a common thread within current guidelines is the importance of individualized therapy based on patient- and medication-specific factors.
 

Optimizing guideline-directed medical therapy

Results from the DISCOVER trial found that GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor use was less likely in the key patient subgroups most likely to benefit from therapy, including patients with peripheral artery disease and CKD. Factors contributing to underutilization of newer cardiorenal protective glucose-lowering therapies range from cost and access barriers to clinician-level barriers (for example, lack of knowledge on CKD, lack of familiarity with CKD practice guidelines). Addressing these issues and helping patients work through financial and other access barriers is essential to optimize the utilization of these therapies and improve cardiorenal and metabolic outcomes.

So, has metformin been “dethroned” as a first-line therapy for T2D? As is often the case in medicine, the answer depends on the individual patient and clinical situation. Metformin remains an important first-line treatment in combination with lifestyle interventions to help patients with T2D without key cardiorenal comorbidities achieve individualized glycemic targets. However, based on evidence demonstrating cardiorenal protective benefits and improved glycemia and weight loss, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors may be considered as first-line treatment for patients with T2D with or at high risk for ASCVD, HF, or CKD, regardless of the need for additional glucose-lowering agents and independent of background metformin. Ultimately, the choice of first-line therapy for patients with T2D should be informed by individualized treatment goals, preferences, and cost-related access. Continued efforts to increase patient access to GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment when indicated are essential to ensure optimal treatment and outcomes.

Dr. Neumiller is professor, department of pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane. He disclosed ties with Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Alicic is clinical professor, department of medicine, University of Washington; and associate director of research, Inland Northwest Washington, Providence St. Joseph Health, Spokane. She disclosed ties with Providence St. Joseph Health, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1994, metformin has been the preferred first-line glucose-lowering agent for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) owing to its effectiveness, low hypoglycemia risk, weight neutrality, long clinical track record of safety, and affordability. However, the advent of newer glucose-lowering agents with evidence-based cardiovascular (CV) and renal benefits calls into question whether metformin should continue to be the initial pharmacotherapy for all patients with T2D. To help determine whether metformin has been “dethroned” as first-line treatment for T2D, here is a brief review of recent evidence and current guideline recommendations.

Cardiovascular outcome trials transform standard of care

In 2008, the FDA issued guidance to industry to ensure that CV risk is more thoroughly addressed during development of T2D therapies. This guidance document required dedicated trials to establish CV safety of new glucose-lowering therapies. Findings from subsequent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) and subsequent large renal and heart failure (HF) outcome trials have since prompted frequent and substantial updates to major guidelines. On the basis of recent evidence from CVOT and renal trials, contemporary clinical practice guidelines have transitioned from a traditional glucocentric treatment approach to a holistic management approach that emphasizes organ protection through heart-kidney-metabolic risk reduction.

Per the 2008 FDA guidance, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were evaluated in large dedicated CVOTs. Findings from several CVOTs established GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor CV safety, and unexpectedly demonstrated reduced rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo. The LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials were the first CVOTs to report cardioprotective benefits of the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, respectively. The LEADER trial reported a 13% significant relative risk reduction for its primary composite MACE outcome, and the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial similarly reported a 14% relative risk reduction for MACE. After CVOTs on other GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors reported CV benefit, clinical practice guidelines began to recommend use of these agents in at-risk patients to mitigate CV risk.

During the period when most CVOTs were designed and conducted, a majority of trial participants were receiving metformin at baseline. Inclusion of a small subset of metformin-naive participants in these trials allowed for several post hoc and meta-analyses investigating the impact of background metformin use on the overall CV benefits reported. Depending on the trial, baseline metformin use in large GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOTs ranged from 66% to 81%. For instance, 76% of participants in the LEADER trial were receiving metformin at baseline, but a post hoc analysis found no heterogeneity for the observed CV benefit based on background metformin use. Similarly, a subgroup analysis of pooled data from the SUSTAIN-6 and PIONEER 6 trials of injectable and oral formulations of semaglutide, respectively, reported similar CV outcomes for participants, regardless of concomitant metformin use. When looking at the GLP-1 receptor agonist class overall, a meta-analysis of seven CVOTs, which included participants with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and those with multiple ASCVD risk factors, concluded that GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy reduced the overall incidence of MACE in participants not receiving concomitant metformin at baseline.

Similar analyses have examined the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors. An analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME found that empagliflozin improved CV outcomes and reduced mortality irrespective of background metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin use. Of note, this analysis suggested a greater risk reduction for incident or worsening nephropathy in patients not on concomitant metformin (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.59; P = .01), when compared with those taking metformin at baseline (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.79; P = .01). In addition, a meta-analysis of six large outcome trials found consistent benefits of SGLT2 inhibition on CV, kidney, and mortality outcomes regardless of background metformin treatment. Therefore, although CVOTs on GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors were not designed to assess the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes, available evidence supports the CV benefits of these agents independent of metformin use.
 

Individualizing care to attain cardiorenal-metabolic goals

Three dedicated SGLT2 inhibitor renal outcome trials have been published to date: CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and EMPA-KIDNEY. All three studies confirmed the positive secondary renal outcomes observed in SGLT2 inhibitor CVOTs: reduced progression of kidney disease, HF-associated hospital admissions, and CV-related death. The observed renal and CV benefits from the CREDENCE trial were consistent across different levels of kidney function. Similarly, a meta-analysis of five SGLT2 inhibitor trials of patients with HF demonstrated a decreased risk for CV-related death and admission for HF, irrespective of baseline heart function. The ongoing FLOW is the first dedicated kidney-outcome trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide) in slowing the progression and worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with T2D.

As previously noted, findings from the LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials demonstrated the beneficial effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors not only on MACE but also on secondary HF and kidney disease outcomes. These findings have supported a series of dedicated HF and kidney outcome trials further informing the standard of care for patients with these key comorbidities. Indeed, the American Diabetes Association’s 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes updated its recommendations and algorithm for the use of glucose-lowering medications in the management of T2D. The current ADA recommendations stress cardiorenal risk reduction while concurrently achieving and maintaining glycemic and weight management goals. On the basis of evolving outcome trial data, GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors with evidence of benefit are recommended for patients with established or at high risk for ASCVD. Further, the Standards preferentially recommend SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HF and/or CKD. Because evidence suggests no heterogeneity of benefit based on hemoglobin A1c for MACE outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists and no heterogeneity of benefit for HF or CKD benefits with SGLT2 inhibitors, these agents are recommended for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of the need to lower glucose.

The 2023 update to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm similarly recommends the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors to improve cardiorenal outcomes. To further emphasize the importance of prescribing agents with proven organ-protective benefits, the AACE consensus statement provides a complications-centric algorithm to guide therapeutic decisions for risk reduction in patients with key comorbidities (for instance, ASCVD, HF, CKD) and a separate glucocentric algorithm to guide selection and intensification of glucose-lowering agents in patients without key comorbidities to meet individualized glycemic targets. Within the complications-centric algorithm, AACE recommends GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of background metformin use or A1c level.

In addition to the emphasis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for organ protection, guidelines now recommend SGLT2 inhibitors as the standard-of-care therapy in patients with T2D and CKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and irrespective of ejection fraction or a diagnosis of diabetes in the setting of HF. Overall, a common thread within current guidelines is the importance of individualized therapy based on patient- and medication-specific factors.
 

Optimizing guideline-directed medical therapy

Results from the DISCOVER trial found that GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor use was less likely in the key patient subgroups most likely to benefit from therapy, including patients with peripheral artery disease and CKD. Factors contributing to underutilization of newer cardiorenal protective glucose-lowering therapies range from cost and access barriers to clinician-level barriers (for example, lack of knowledge on CKD, lack of familiarity with CKD practice guidelines). Addressing these issues and helping patients work through financial and other access barriers is essential to optimize the utilization of these therapies and improve cardiorenal and metabolic outcomes.

So, has metformin been “dethroned” as a first-line therapy for T2D? As is often the case in medicine, the answer depends on the individual patient and clinical situation. Metformin remains an important first-line treatment in combination with lifestyle interventions to help patients with T2D without key cardiorenal comorbidities achieve individualized glycemic targets. However, based on evidence demonstrating cardiorenal protective benefits and improved glycemia and weight loss, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors may be considered as first-line treatment for patients with T2D with or at high risk for ASCVD, HF, or CKD, regardless of the need for additional glucose-lowering agents and independent of background metformin. Ultimately, the choice of first-line therapy for patients with T2D should be informed by individualized treatment goals, preferences, and cost-related access. Continued efforts to increase patient access to GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment when indicated are essential to ensure optimal treatment and outcomes.

Dr. Neumiller is professor, department of pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane. He disclosed ties with Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Alicic is clinical professor, department of medicine, University of Washington; and associate director of research, Inland Northwest Washington, Providence St. Joseph Health, Spokane. She disclosed ties with Providence St. Joseph Health, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1994, metformin has been the preferred first-line glucose-lowering agent for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) owing to its effectiveness, low hypoglycemia risk, weight neutrality, long clinical track record of safety, and affordability. However, the advent of newer glucose-lowering agents with evidence-based cardiovascular (CV) and renal benefits calls into question whether metformin should continue to be the initial pharmacotherapy for all patients with T2D. To help determine whether metformin has been “dethroned” as first-line treatment for T2D, here is a brief review of recent evidence and current guideline recommendations.

Cardiovascular outcome trials transform standard of care

In 2008, the FDA issued guidance to industry to ensure that CV risk is more thoroughly addressed during development of T2D therapies. This guidance document required dedicated trials to establish CV safety of new glucose-lowering therapies. Findings from subsequent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) and subsequent large renal and heart failure (HF) outcome trials have since prompted frequent and substantial updates to major guidelines. On the basis of recent evidence from CVOT and renal trials, contemporary clinical practice guidelines have transitioned from a traditional glucocentric treatment approach to a holistic management approach that emphasizes organ protection through heart-kidney-metabolic risk reduction.

Per the 2008 FDA guidance, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were evaluated in large dedicated CVOTs. Findings from several CVOTs established GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor CV safety, and unexpectedly demonstrated reduced rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo. The LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials were the first CVOTs to report cardioprotective benefits of the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, respectively. The LEADER trial reported a 13% significant relative risk reduction for its primary composite MACE outcome, and the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial similarly reported a 14% relative risk reduction for MACE. After CVOTs on other GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors reported CV benefit, clinical practice guidelines began to recommend use of these agents in at-risk patients to mitigate CV risk.

During the period when most CVOTs were designed and conducted, a majority of trial participants were receiving metformin at baseline. Inclusion of a small subset of metformin-naive participants in these trials allowed for several post hoc and meta-analyses investigating the impact of background metformin use on the overall CV benefits reported. Depending on the trial, baseline metformin use in large GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOTs ranged from 66% to 81%. For instance, 76% of participants in the LEADER trial were receiving metformin at baseline, but a post hoc analysis found no heterogeneity for the observed CV benefit based on background metformin use. Similarly, a subgroup analysis of pooled data from the SUSTAIN-6 and PIONEER 6 trials of injectable and oral formulations of semaglutide, respectively, reported similar CV outcomes for participants, regardless of concomitant metformin use. When looking at the GLP-1 receptor agonist class overall, a meta-analysis of seven CVOTs, which included participants with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and those with multiple ASCVD risk factors, concluded that GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy reduced the overall incidence of MACE in participants not receiving concomitant metformin at baseline.

Similar analyses have examined the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors. An analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME found that empagliflozin improved CV outcomes and reduced mortality irrespective of background metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin use. Of note, this analysis suggested a greater risk reduction for incident or worsening nephropathy in patients not on concomitant metformin (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.59; P = .01), when compared with those taking metformin at baseline (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.79; P = .01). In addition, a meta-analysis of six large outcome trials found consistent benefits of SGLT2 inhibition on CV, kidney, and mortality outcomes regardless of background metformin treatment. Therefore, although CVOTs on GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors were not designed to assess the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes, available evidence supports the CV benefits of these agents independent of metformin use.
 

Individualizing care to attain cardiorenal-metabolic goals

Three dedicated SGLT2 inhibitor renal outcome trials have been published to date: CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and EMPA-KIDNEY. All three studies confirmed the positive secondary renal outcomes observed in SGLT2 inhibitor CVOTs: reduced progression of kidney disease, HF-associated hospital admissions, and CV-related death. The observed renal and CV benefits from the CREDENCE trial were consistent across different levels of kidney function. Similarly, a meta-analysis of five SGLT2 inhibitor trials of patients with HF demonstrated a decreased risk for CV-related death and admission for HF, irrespective of baseline heart function. The ongoing FLOW is the first dedicated kidney-outcome trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide) in slowing the progression and worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with T2D.

As previously noted, findings from the LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials demonstrated the beneficial effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors not only on MACE but also on secondary HF and kidney disease outcomes. These findings have supported a series of dedicated HF and kidney outcome trials further informing the standard of care for patients with these key comorbidities. Indeed, the American Diabetes Association’s 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes updated its recommendations and algorithm for the use of glucose-lowering medications in the management of T2D. The current ADA recommendations stress cardiorenal risk reduction while concurrently achieving and maintaining glycemic and weight management goals. On the basis of evolving outcome trial data, GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors with evidence of benefit are recommended for patients with established or at high risk for ASCVD. Further, the Standards preferentially recommend SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HF and/or CKD. Because evidence suggests no heterogeneity of benefit based on hemoglobin A1c for MACE outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists and no heterogeneity of benefit for HF or CKD benefits with SGLT2 inhibitors, these agents are recommended for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of the need to lower glucose.

The 2023 update to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm similarly recommends the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors to improve cardiorenal outcomes. To further emphasize the importance of prescribing agents with proven organ-protective benefits, the AACE consensus statement provides a complications-centric algorithm to guide therapeutic decisions for risk reduction in patients with key comorbidities (for instance, ASCVD, HF, CKD) and a separate glucocentric algorithm to guide selection and intensification of glucose-lowering agents in patients without key comorbidities to meet individualized glycemic targets. Within the complications-centric algorithm, AACE recommends GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of background metformin use or A1c level.

In addition to the emphasis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for organ protection, guidelines now recommend SGLT2 inhibitors as the standard-of-care therapy in patients with T2D and CKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and irrespective of ejection fraction or a diagnosis of diabetes in the setting of HF. Overall, a common thread within current guidelines is the importance of individualized therapy based on patient- and medication-specific factors.
 

Optimizing guideline-directed medical therapy

Results from the DISCOVER trial found that GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor use was less likely in the key patient subgroups most likely to benefit from therapy, including patients with peripheral artery disease and CKD. Factors contributing to underutilization of newer cardiorenal protective glucose-lowering therapies range from cost and access barriers to clinician-level barriers (for example, lack of knowledge on CKD, lack of familiarity with CKD practice guidelines). Addressing these issues and helping patients work through financial and other access barriers is essential to optimize the utilization of these therapies and improve cardiorenal and metabolic outcomes.

So, has metformin been “dethroned” as a first-line therapy for T2D? As is often the case in medicine, the answer depends on the individual patient and clinical situation. Metformin remains an important first-line treatment in combination with lifestyle interventions to help patients with T2D without key cardiorenal comorbidities achieve individualized glycemic targets. However, based on evidence demonstrating cardiorenal protective benefits and improved glycemia and weight loss, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors may be considered as first-line treatment for patients with T2D with or at high risk for ASCVD, HF, or CKD, regardless of the need for additional glucose-lowering agents and independent of background metformin. Ultimately, the choice of first-line therapy for patients with T2D should be informed by individualized treatment goals, preferences, and cost-related access. Continued efforts to increase patient access to GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment when indicated are essential to ensure optimal treatment and outcomes.

Dr. Neumiller is professor, department of pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane. He disclosed ties with Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Alicic is clinical professor, department of medicine, University of Washington; and associate director of research, Inland Northwest Washington, Providence St. Joseph Health, Spokane. She disclosed ties with Providence St. Joseph Health, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Genetic effects on abdominal obesity may be more pronounced than those on general obesity during weight regain, a new study suggests.

People with a genetic predisposition for abdominal adiposity regained more weight around their waist after weight loss than other people.

However, people with a genetic predisposition for a higher body mass index did not regain more weight after weight loss than others.

These findings are from a secondary analysis of data from participants in the Look AHEAD trial who had type 2 diabetes and overweight/obesity and had lost at least 3% of their initial weight after 1 year of intensive lifestyle intervention or control, who were followed for another 3 years.

The study showed that change in waist circumference (aka abdominal obesity) is regulated by a separate pathway from overall obesity during weight regain, the researchers report in their paper, published in Diabetes.

“These findings are the first of their kind and provide new insights into the mechanisms of weight regain,” they conclude.

“It was already known in the scientific literature that genes that are associated with abdominal fat deposition are different from the ones associated with overall obesity,” Malene Revsbech Christiansen, a PhD student, and Tuomas O. Kilpeläinen, PhD, associate professor, Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, University of Copenhagen, said in a joint email to this news organization.

Genetic variants associated with obesity are expressed in the central nervous system. However, genetic variants associated with waist circumference are expressed in the adipose tissues and might be involved in insulin sensitivity, or fat cell shape and differentiation, influencing how much adipose cells can expand in size or in number.

If those genes can function as targets for therapeutic agents, this might benefit patients who possess the genetic variants that predispose them to a higher waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for BMI (WHR-adjBMI), they said.

“However, this is a preliminary study that discovered an association between genetic variants and abdominal fat changes during weight loss,” they cautioned.

Further study is needed, they said, to test the associations in people without obesity and type 2 diabetes and to investigate this research question in people who underwent bariatric surgery or took weight-loss medications, “especially now that Wegovy has increased in popularity.”

“Genetic profiling,” they noted, “is becoming more popular as the prices go down, and future treatments are moving towards precision medicine, where treatments are tailored towards individuals rather than ‘one size fits all.’ ”

In the future, genetic tests might identify people who are more predisposed to abdominal fat deposition, hence needing more follow-up and help with lifestyle changes.

“For now, it does not seem realistic to test individuals for all these 481 [genetic] variants [predisposing to abdominal adiposity]. Each of these genetic variants predisposes, but is not deterministic, for the outcome, because of their individual small effects on waist circumference.”

“It should be stated,” they added, “that changing the diet, physical activity pattern, and behavior are still the main factors when losing weight and maintaining a healthy body.”    
 

Maintaining weight loss is the big challenge

“Lifestyle interventions typically result in an average weight loss of 7%-10 % within 6 months; however, maintaining the weight loss is a significant challenge, as participants often regain an average one-third of the lost weight within 1 year and 50%-100% within 5 years,” the researchers write.

They aimed to study whether genetic predisposition to general or abdominal obesity predicts weight gain after weight loss, based on data from 822 women and 593 men in the Look AHEAD trial.

On average, at 1 year after the intervention, the participants in the intensive lifestyle group lost 24 lbs (10.9 kg) and 3.55 inches (9 cm) around the waist, and participants in the control group lost 15 lbs (6.8 kg) pounds and 1.98 inches (5 cm) around the waist.

From year 1 to year 2, participants in the intensive lifestyle group regained 6.09 lbs and 0.98 inches around the waist, and participants in the control group lost 1.41 lbs and 0.17 inches around the waist.

From year 1 to year 4, participants in the intensive lifestyle group regained 11.05 lbs and 1.92 inches around the waist, and participants in the control group lost 2.24 lbs and 0.76 inches around the waist.

From genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in about 700,000 mainly White individuals of European origin, the researchers constructed a genetic risk score based on 894 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with high BMI and another genetic risk score based on 481 SNPs associated with high WHR-adjBMI.

Having a genetic predisposition to higher WHR-adjBMI predicted an increase in abdominal obesity after weight loss, whereas having a genetic predisposition to higher BMI did not predict weight regain.

“These results suggest that genetic effects on abdominal obesity may be more pronounced than those on general obesity during weight regain,” the researchers conclude.

The researchers were supported by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Diabetes Academy (funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation). The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Genetic effects on abdominal obesity may be more pronounced than those on general obesity during weight regain, a new study suggests.

People with a genetic predisposition for abdominal adiposity regained more weight around their waist after weight loss than other people.

However, people with a genetic predisposition for a higher body mass index did not regain more weight after weight loss than others.

These findings are from a secondary analysis of data from participants in the Look AHEAD trial who had type 2 diabetes and overweight/obesity and had lost at least 3% of their initial weight after 1 year of intensive lifestyle intervention or control, who were followed for another 3 years.

The study showed that change in waist circumference (aka abdominal obesity) is regulated by a separate pathway from overall obesity during weight regain, the researchers report in their paper, published in Diabetes.

“These findings are the first of their kind and provide new insights into the mechanisms of weight regain,” they conclude.

“It was already known in the scientific literature that genes that are associated with abdominal fat deposition are different from the ones associated with overall obesity,” Malene Revsbech Christiansen, a PhD student, and Tuomas O. Kilpeläinen, PhD, associate professor, Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, University of Copenhagen, said in a joint email to this news organization.

Genetic variants associated with obesity are expressed in the central nervous system. However, genetic variants associated with waist circumference are expressed in the adipose tissues and might be involved in insulin sensitivity, or fat cell shape and differentiation, influencing how much adipose cells can expand in size or in number.

If those genes can function as targets for therapeutic agents, this might benefit patients who possess the genetic variants that predispose them to a higher waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for BMI (WHR-adjBMI), they said.

“However, this is a preliminary study that discovered an association between genetic variants and abdominal fat changes during weight loss,” they cautioned.

Further study is needed, they said, to test the associations in people without obesity and type 2 diabetes and to investigate this research question in people who underwent bariatric surgery or took weight-loss medications, “especially now that Wegovy has increased in popularity.”

“Genetic profiling,” they noted, “is becoming more popular as the prices go down, and future treatments are moving towards precision medicine, where treatments are tailored towards individuals rather than ‘one size fits all.’ ”

In the future, genetic tests might identify people who are more predisposed to abdominal fat deposition, hence needing more follow-up and help with lifestyle changes.

“For now, it does not seem realistic to test individuals for all these 481 [genetic] variants [predisposing to abdominal adiposity]. Each of these genetic variants predisposes, but is not deterministic, for the outcome, because of their individual small effects on waist circumference.”

“It should be stated,” they added, “that changing the diet, physical activity pattern, and behavior are still the main factors when losing weight and maintaining a healthy body.”    
 

Maintaining weight loss is the big challenge

“Lifestyle interventions typically result in an average weight loss of 7%-10 % within 6 months; however, maintaining the weight loss is a significant challenge, as participants often regain an average one-third of the lost weight within 1 year and 50%-100% within 5 years,” the researchers write.

They aimed to study whether genetic predisposition to general or abdominal obesity predicts weight gain after weight loss, based on data from 822 women and 593 men in the Look AHEAD trial.

On average, at 1 year after the intervention, the participants in the intensive lifestyle group lost 24 lbs (10.9 kg) and 3.55 inches (9 cm) around the waist, and participants in the control group lost 15 lbs (6.8 kg) pounds and 1.98 inches (5 cm) around the waist.

From year 1 to year 2, participants in the intensive lifestyle group regained 6.09 lbs and 0.98 inches around the waist, and participants in the control group lost 1.41 lbs and 0.17 inches around the waist.

From year 1 to year 4, participants in the intensive lifestyle group regained 11.05 lbs and 1.92 inches around the waist, and participants in the control group lost 2.24 lbs and 0.76 inches around the waist.

From genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in about 700,000 mainly White individuals of European origin, the researchers constructed a genetic risk score based on 894 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with high BMI and another genetic risk score based on 481 SNPs associated with high WHR-adjBMI.

Having a genetic predisposition to higher WHR-adjBMI predicted an increase in abdominal obesity after weight loss, whereas having a genetic predisposition to higher BMI did not predict weight regain.

“These results suggest that genetic effects on abdominal obesity may be more pronounced than those on general obesity during weight regain,” the researchers conclude.

The researchers were supported by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Diabetes Academy (funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation). The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Genetic effects on abdominal obesity may be more pronounced than those on general obesity during weight regain, a new study suggests.

People with a genetic predisposition for abdominal adiposity regained more weight around their waist after weight loss than other people.

However, people with a genetic predisposition for a higher body mass index did not regain more weight after weight loss than others.

These findings are from a secondary analysis of data from participants in the Look AHEAD trial who had type 2 diabetes and overweight/obesity and had lost at least 3% of their initial weight after 1 year of intensive lifestyle intervention or control, who were followed for another 3 years.

The study showed that change in waist circumference (aka abdominal obesity) is regulated by a separate pathway from overall obesity during weight regain, the researchers report in their paper, published in Diabetes.

“These findings are the first of their kind and provide new insights into the mechanisms of weight regain,” they conclude.

“It was already known in the scientific literature that genes that are associated with abdominal fat deposition are different from the ones associated with overall obesity,” Malene Revsbech Christiansen, a PhD student, and Tuomas O. Kilpeläinen, PhD, associate professor, Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, University of Copenhagen, said in a joint email to this news organization.

Genetic variants associated with obesity are expressed in the central nervous system. However, genetic variants associated with waist circumference are expressed in the adipose tissues and might be involved in insulin sensitivity, or fat cell shape and differentiation, influencing how much adipose cells can expand in size or in number.

If those genes can function as targets for therapeutic agents, this might benefit patients who possess the genetic variants that predispose them to a higher waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for BMI (WHR-adjBMI), they said.

“However, this is a preliminary study that discovered an association between genetic variants and abdominal fat changes during weight loss,” they cautioned.

Further study is needed, they said, to test the associations in people without obesity and type 2 diabetes and to investigate this research question in people who underwent bariatric surgery or took weight-loss medications, “especially now that Wegovy has increased in popularity.”

“Genetic profiling,” they noted, “is becoming more popular as the prices go down, and future treatments are moving towards precision medicine, where treatments are tailored towards individuals rather than ‘one size fits all.’ ”

In the future, genetic tests might identify people who are more predisposed to abdominal fat deposition, hence needing more follow-up and help with lifestyle changes.

“For now, it does not seem realistic to test individuals for all these 481 [genetic] variants [predisposing to abdominal adiposity]. Each of these genetic variants predisposes, but is not deterministic, for the outcome, because of their individual small effects on waist circumference.”

“It should be stated,” they added, “that changing the diet, physical activity pattern, and behavior are still the main factors when losing weight and maintaining a healthy body.”    
 

Maintaining weight loss is the big challenge

“Lifestyle interventions typically result in an average weight loss of 7%-10 % within 6 months; however, maintaining the weight loss is a significant challenge, as participants often regain an average one-third of the lost weight within 1 year and 50%-100% within 5 years,” the researchers write.

They aimed to study whether genetic predisposition to general or abdominal obesity predicts weight gain after weight loss, based on data from 822 women and 593 men in the Look AHEAD trial.

On average, at 1 year after the intervention, the participants in the intensive lifestyle group lost 24 lbs (10.9 kg) and 3.55 inches (9 cm) around the waist, and participants in the control group lost 15 lbs (6.8 kg) pounds and 1.98 inches (5 cm) around the waist.

From year 1 to year 2, participants in the intensive lifestyle group regained 6.09 lbs and 0.98 inches around the waist, and participants in the control group lost 1.41 lbs and 0.17 inches around the waist.

From year 1 to year 4, participants in the intensive lifestyle group regained 11.05 lbs and 1.92 inches around the waist, and participants in the control group lost 2.24 lbs and 0.76 inches around the waist.

From genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in about 700,000 mainly White individuals of European origin, the researchers constructed a genetic risk score based on 894 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with high BMI and another genetic risk score based on 481 SNPs associated with high WHR-adjBMI.

Having a genetic predisposition to higher WHR-adjBMI predicted an increase in abdominal obesity after weight loss, whereas having a genetic predisposition to higher BMI did not predict weight regain.

“These results suggest that genetic effects on abdominal obesity may be more pronounced than those on general obesity during weight regain,” the researchers conclude.

The researchers were supported by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Diabetes Academy (funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation). The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sudden cardiac arrest is the term given to death that results from a cardiac cause and occurs within an hour of symptoms being observed. If no witnesses are present, sudden cardiac arrest is present if the person had been in apparently good health 24 hours before cardiac death. Fatality is usually a result of sustained ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia that leads to cardiac arrest.

What should primary care practitioners consider in order to detect at-risk patients in time?
 

Recognizing warning signs

Warning signs that should prompt physicians to consider an increased risk of sudden cardiac arrest include the following:

• Unexplained, brief fainting episodes that above all occur with stress, physical activity, or loud noises (for example, alarm ringing)
• Seizures without a clear pathologic EEG result (for example, epilepsy)
• Unexplained accidents or car crashes
• Heart failure or pacemaker dependency before age 50 years

“These are all indications that could point to an underlying heart disease that should be investigated by a medical professional,” explained Silke Kauferstein, PhD, head of the Center for Sudden Cardiac Arrest and Familial Arrhythmia Syndrome at the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the University Frankfurt am Main (Germany), in a podcast by the German Heart Foundation.
 

Sports rarely responsible

Sudden cardiac arrest has numerous causes. Sudden cardiac arrests in a professional sports environment always attract attention. Yet sports play a less important role in sudden cardiac arrest than is often assumed, even in young individuals.

“The incidence of sudden cardiac arrest is on average 0.7-3 per 100,000 sports players from all age groups,” said Thomas Voigtländer, MD, chair of the German Heart Foundation, in an interview. Men make up 95% of those affected, and 90% of these events occur during recreational sports.
 

Inherited disorders

The most significant risk factor for sudden cardiac arrest is age; it is often associated with coronary heart disease. This factor can be significant from as early as age 35 years. Among young individuals, sudden cardiac arrest is often a result of congenital heart diseases, such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Diseases such as long QT syndrome and Brugada syndrome can also lead to sudden cardiac arrest.

Among young sports players who experience sudden cardiac arrest, the cause is often an overlooked hereditary factor. “Cardiac screening is recommended in particular for young, high-performance athletes from around 14 years old,” said Dr. Voigtländer, who is also a cardiologist and medical director of the Agaplesion Bethanien Hospital in Frankfurt.
 

Testing of family

“If sudden cardiac arrest or an unexplained sudden death occurs at a young age in the family, the primary care practitioner must be aware that this could be due to heart diseases that could affect the rest of the family,” said Dr. Voigtländer.

In these cases, primary care practitioners must connect the other family members to specialist outpatient departments that can test for genetic factors, he added. “Many of these genetic diseases can be treated successfully if they are diagnosed promptly.”
 

Lack of knowledge

Dr. Kauferstein, who runs such a specialist outpatient department, said, “unfortunately, many affected families do not know that they should be tested as well. This lack of knowledge can also lead to fatal consequences for relatives.”

For this reason, she believes that it is crucial to provide more information to the general population. Sudden cardiac arrest is often the first sign of an underlying heart disease in young, healthy individuals. “We do see warning signals in our in-depth testing of sudden cardiac arrest cases that have often been overlooked,” said Dr. Kauferstein.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Sudden cardiac arrest is the term given to death that results from a cardiac cause and occurs within an hour of symptoms being observed. If no witnesses are present, sudden cardiac arrest is present if the person had been in apparently good health 24 hours before cardiac death. Fatality is usually a result of sustained ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia that leads to cardiac arrest.

What should primary care practitioners consider in order to detect at-risk patients in time?
 

Recognizing warning signs

Warning signs that should prompt physicians to consider an increased risk of sudden cardiac arrest include the following:

• Unexplained, brief fainting episodes that above all occur with stress, physical activity, or loud noises (for example, alarm ringing)
• Seizures without a clear pathologic EEG result (for example, epilepsy)
• Unexplained accidents or car crashes
• Heart failure or pacemaker dependency before age 50 years

“These are all indications that could point to an underlying heart disease that should be investigated by a medical professional,” explained Silke Kauferstein, PhD, head of the Center for Sudden Cardiac Arrest and Familial Arrhythmia Syndrome at the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the University Frankfurt am Main (Germany), in a podcast by the German Heart Foundation.
 

Sports rarely responsible

Sudden cardiac arrest has numerous causes. Sudden cardiac arrests in a professional sports environment always attract attention. Yet sports play a less important role in sudden cardiac arrest than is often assumed, even in young individuals.

“The incidence of sudden cardiac arrest is on average 0.7-3 per 100,000 sports players from all age groups,” said Thomas Voigtländer, MD, chair of the German Heart Foundation, in an interview. Men make up 95% of those affected, and 90% of these events occur during recreational sports.
 

Inherited disorders

The most significant risk factor for sudden cardiac arrest is age; it is often associated with coronary heart disease. This factor can be significant from as early as age 35 years. Among young individuals, sudden cardiac arrest is often a result of congenital heart diseases, such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Diseases such as long QT syndrome and Brugada syndrome can also lead to sudden cardiac arrest.

Among young sports players who experience sudden cardiac arrest, the cause is often an overlooked hereditary factor. “Cardiac screening is recommended in particular for young, high-performance athletes from around 14 years old,” said Dr. Voigtländer, who is also a cardiologist and medical director of the Agaplesion Bethanien Hospital in Frankfurt.
 

Testing of family

“If sudden cardiac arrest or an unexplained sudden death occurs at a young age in the family, the primary care practitioner must be aware that this could be due to heart diseases that could affect the rest of the family,” said Dr. Voigtländer.

In these cases, primary care practitioners must connect the other family members to specialist outpatient departments that can test for genetic factors, he added. “Many of these genetic diseases can be treated successfully if they are diagnosed promptly.”
 

Lack of knowledge

Dr. Kauferstein, who runs such a specialist outpatient department, said, “unfortunately, many affected families do not know that they should be tested as well. This lack of knowledge can also lead to fatal consequences for relatives.”

For this reason, she believes that it is crucial to provide more information to the general population. Sudden cardiac arrest is often the first sign of an underlying heart disease in young, healthy individuals. “We do see warning signals in our in-depth testing of sudden cardiac arrest cases that have often been overlooked,” said Dr. Kauferstein.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Sudden cardiac arrest is the term given to death that results from a cardiac cause and occurs within an hour of symptoms being observed. If no witnesses are present, sudden cardiac arrest is present if the person had been in apparently good health 24 hours before cardiac death. Fatality is usually a result of sustained ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia that leads to cardiac arrest.

What should primary care practitioners consider in order to detect at-risk patients in time?
 

Recognizing warning signs

Warning signs that should prompt physicians to consider an increased risk of sudden cardiac arrest include the following:

• Unexplained, brief fainting episodes that above all occur with stress, physical activity, or loud noises (for example, alarm ringing)
• Seizures without a clear pathologic EEG result (for example, epilepsy)
• Unexplained accidents or car crashes
• Heart failure or pacemaker dependency before age 50 years

“These are all indications that could point to an underlying heart disease that should be investigated by a medical professional,” explained Silke Kauferstein, PhD, head of the Center for Sudden Cardiac Arrest and Familial Arrhythmia Syndrome at the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the University Frankfurt am Main (Germany), in a podcast by the German Heart Foundation.
 

Sports rarely responsible

Sudden cardiac arrest has numerous causes. Sudden cardiac arrests in a professional sports environment always attract attention. Yet sports play a less important role in sudden cardiac arrest than is often assumed, even in young individuals.

“The incidence of sudden cardiac arrest is on average 0.7-3 per 100,000 sports players from all age groups,” said Thomas Voigtländer, MD, chair of the German Heart Foundation, in an interview. Men make up 95% of those affected, and 90% of these events occur during recreational sports.
 

Inherited disorders

The most significant risk factor for sudden cardiac arrest is age; it is often associated with coronary heart disease. This factor can be significant from as early as age 35 years. Among young individuals, sudden cardiac arrest is often a result of congenital heart diseases, such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Diseases such as long QT syndrome and Brugada syndrome can also lead to sudden cardiac arrest.

Among young sports players who experience sudden cardiac arrest, the cause is often an overlooked hereditary factor. “Cardiac screening is recommended in particular for young, high-performance athletes from around 14 years old,” said Dr. Voigtländer, who is also a cardiologist and medical director of the Agaplesion Bethanien Hospital in Frankfurt.
 

Testing of family

“If sudden cardiac arrest or an unexplained sudden death occurs at a young age in the family, the primary care practitioner must be aware that this could be due to heart diseases that could affect the rest of the family,” said Dr. Voigtländer.

In these cases, primary care practitioners must connect the other family members to specialist outpatient departments that can test for genetic factors, he added. “Many of these genetic diseases can be treated successfully if they are diagnosed promptly.”
 

Lack of knowledge

Dr. Kauferstein, who runs such a specialist outpatient department, said, “unfortunately, many affected families do not know that they should be tested as well. This lack of knowledge can also lead to fatal consequences for relatives.”

For this reason, she believes that it is crucial to provide more information to the general population. Sudden cardiac arrest is often the first sign of an underlying heart disease in young, healthy individuals. “We do see warning signals in our in-depth testing of sudden cardiac arrest cases that have often been overlooked,” said Dr. Kauferstein.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Health benefits of prolonged “water fasting” (zero calories) or Buchinger fasting (200-300 calories/day) don’t last, according to authors of a review of eight studies.

Five days of fasting lowered weight by about 6%, but this weight was regained after 3 months of regular eating, the investigators found. The article was published in Nutrition Reviews.

“Water fasting led to improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar levels, but these were short-lived,” senior author Krista A. Varady, PhD, told this news organization.

“Levels returned to baseline ... quickly after participants started eating. Most benefits disappeared in 3-4 months,” said Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

“My overall conclusion,” she said, “is that I guess you could try it, but it just seems like a lot of work, and all those metabolic benefits disappear. I would encourage someone hoping to lose weight to try intermittent fasting instead of water fasting, because there’s a lot more data to show it can help with weight management.

“People should consult their doctor if they have diabetes or any other major obesity-related conditions before doing water fasting,” Dr. Varady cautioned.

“Healthy people with obesity can probably fast safely for 5 days on their own (if they don’t have any other conditions). However, no one should undertake one of these fasts for more than 5 days without medical supervision,” she stressed.
 

Eight studies of water and Buchinger fasting

Although several favorable effects of prolonged fasting have been observed, benefits must be weighed against risks, Dr. Varady and her coauthors wrote.

Most medically supervised fasting programs have reported only minor adverse events, which included hunger, headaches, nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, and fatigue. However, more severe events have been documented, including edema, abnormal results on liver function tests, decreased bone density, and metabolic acidosis.

The researchers aimed to determine the effect of prolonged fasting on weight, blood pressure, lipid levels, and glycemic control, as well as safety and the effects of refeeding.

They examined two types of prolonged fasting: water fasting and Buchinger fasting, which involves consuming 250 mL of fruit or vegetable juice for lunch and 250 mL of soup for dinner every day of the 5- to 20-day fast.

Buchinger fasting is popular in Central Europe. Water fasting “institutes” exist in the United States, such as one in California, Dr. Varady noted.

The researchers excluded fasting during Ramadan or fasting practiced by Seventh Day Adventists.

They identified four studies of water fasting and four studies of Buchinger fasting (of which one study of 1,422 participants assessed fasting for 5, 10, 15, and 20 days).

The review showed that prolonged fasting for 5-20 days produced large increases in circulating ketones, weight loss of 2%-10%, and decreases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

People who fasted 5 days typically lost 4%-6% of their weight; those who fasted 7-10 days lost 2%-10% of their weight; and those who fasted 15-20 days lost 7%-10% of their weight.

LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels decreased in some trials.

Fasting glucose levels, fasting insulin levels, insulin resistance, and A1c decreased in adults without diabetes but remained unchanged in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Some participants experienced metabolic acidosis, headaches, insomnia, or hunger.

About two-thirds of the weight lost was of lean mass, and one-third was of fat mass. The loss of lean mass loss suggests that prolonged fasting may increase the breakdown of muscle proteins, which is a concern, the researchers noted.

Few of the trials examined the effects of refeeding. In one study, normal-weight adults lost 6% of their weight after 5 days of water-only fasting but then gained it all back after 3 months of eating regularly.

In three trials, participants regained 1%-2% of their weight 2-4 months after fasting; however, those trials instructed participants to follow a calorie-restricted diet during the refeeding period.

Three to 4 months after the fast was completed, none of the metabolic benefits were maintained, even when weight loss was maintained.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Varady has received author fees from Hachette Book Group for “The Every Other Day Diet” and from Pan Macmillan Press for “The Fastest Diet.” The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Health benefits of prolonged “water fasting” (zero calories) or Buchinger fasting (200-300 calories/day) don’t last, according to authors of a review of eight studies.

Five days of fasting lowered weight by about 6%, but this weight was regained after 3 months of regular eating, the investigators found. The article was published in Nutrition Reviews.

“Water fasting led to improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar levels, but these were short-lived,” senior author Krista A. Varady, PhD, told this news organization.

“Levels returned to baseline ... quickly after participants started eating. Most benefits disappeared in 3-4 months,” said Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

“My overall conclusion,” she said, “is that I guess you could try it, but it just seems like a lot of work, and all those metabolic benefits disappear. I would encourage someone hoping to lose weight to try intermittent fasting instead of water fasting, because there’s a lot more data to show it can help with weight management.

“People should consult their doctor if they have diabetes or any other major obesity-related conditions before doing water fasting,” Dr. Varady cautioned.

“Healthy people with obesity can probably fast safely for 5 days on their own (if they don’t have any other conditions). However, no one should undertake one of these fasts for more than 5 days without medical supervision,” she stressed.
 

Eight studies of water and Buchinger fasting

Although several favorable effects of prolonged fasting have been observed, benefits must be weighed against risks, Dr. Varady and her coauthors wrote.

Most medically supervised fasting programs have reported only minor adverse events, which included hunger, headaches, nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, and fatigue. However, more severe events have been documented, including edema, abnormal results on liver function tests, decreased bone density, and metabolic acidosis.

The researchers aimed to determine the effect of prolonged fasting on weight, blood pressure, lipid levels, and glycemic control, as well as safety and the effects of refeeding.

They examined two types of prolonged fasting: water fasting and Buchinger fasting, which involves consuming 250 mL of fruit or vegetable juice for lunch and 250 mL of soup for dinner every day of the 5- to 20-day fast.

Buchinger fasting is popular in Central Europe. Water fasting “institutes” exist in the United States, such as one in California, Dr. Varady noted.

The researchers excluded fasting during Ramadan or fasting practiced by Seventh Day Adventists.

They identified four studies of water fasting and four studies of Buchinger fasting (of which one study of 1,422 participants assessed fasting for 5, 10, 15, and 20 days).

The review showed that prolonged fasting for 5-20 days produced large increases in circulating ketones, weight loss of 2%-10%, and decreases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

People who fasted 5 days typically lost 4%-6% of their weight; those who fasted 7-10 days lost 2%-10% of their weight; and those who fasted 15-20 days lost 7%-10% of their weight.

LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels decreased in some trials.

Fasting glucose levels, fasting insulin levels, insulin resistance, and A1c decreased in adults without diabetes but remained unchanged in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Some participants experienced metabolic acidosis, headaches, insomnia, or hunger.

About two-thirds of the weight lost was of lean mass, and one-third was of fat mass. The loss of lean mass loss suggests that prolonged fasting may increase the breakdown of muscle proteins, which is a concern, the researchers noted.

Few of the trials examined the effects of refeeding. In one study, normal-weight adults lost 6% of their weight after 5 days of water-only fasting but then gained it all back after 3 months of eating regularly.

In three trials, participants regained 1%-2% of their weight 2-4 months after fasting; however, those trials instructed participants to follow a calorie-restricted diet during the refeeding period.

Three to 4 months after the fast was completed, none of the metabolic benefits were maintained, even when weight loss was maintained.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Varady has received author fees from Hachette Book Group for “The Every Other Day Diet” and from Pan Macmillan Press for “The Fastest Diet.” The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Health benefits of prolonged “water fasting” (zero calories) or Buchinger fasting (200-300 calories/day) don’t last, according to authors of a review of eight studies.

Five days of fasting lowered weight by about 6%, but this weight was regained after 3 months of regular eating, the investigators found. The article was published in Nutrition Reviews.

“Water fasting led to improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar levels, but these were short-lived,” senior author Krista A. Varady, PhD, told this news organization.

“Levels returned to baseline ... quickly after participants started eating. Most benefits disappeared in 3-4 months,” said Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

“My overall conclusion,” she said, “is that I guess you could try it, but it just seems like a lot of work, and all those metabolic benefits disappear. I would encourage someone hoping to lose weight to try intermittent fasting instead of water fasting, because there’s a lot more data to show it can help with weight management.

“People should consult their doctor if they have diabetes or any other major obesity-related conditions before doing water fasting,” Dr. Varady cautioned.

“Healthy people with obesity can probably fast safely for 5 days on their own (if they don’t have any other conditions). However, no one should undertake one of these fasts for more than 5 days without medical supervision,” she stressed.
 

Eight studies of water and Buchinger fasting

Although several favorable effects of prolonged fasting have been observed, benefits must be weighed against risks, Dr. Varady and her coauthors wrote.

Most medically supervised fasting programs have reported only minor adverse events, which included hunger, headaches, nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, and fatigue. However, more severe events have been documented, including edema, abnormal results on liver function tests, decreased bone density, and metabolic acidosis.

The researchers aimed to determine the effect of prolonged fasting on weight, blood pressure, lipid levels, and glycemic control, as well as safety and the effects of refeeding.

They examined two types of prolonged fasting: water fasting and Buchinger fasting, which involves consuming 250 mL of fruit or vegetable juice for lunch and 250 mL of soup for dinner every day of the 5- to 20-day fast.

Buchinger fasting is popular in Central Europe. Water fasting “institutes” exist in the United States, such as one in California, Dr. Varady noted.

The researchers excluded fasting during Ramadan or fasting practiced by Seventh Day Adventists.

They identified four studies of water fasting and four studies of Buchinger fasting (of which one study of 1,422 participants assessed fasting for 5, 10, 15, and 20 days).

The review showed that prolonged fasting for 5-20 days produced large increases in circulating ketones, weight loss of 2%-10%, and decreases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

People who fasted 5 days typically lost 4%-6% of their weight; those who fasted 7-10 days lost 2%-10% of their weight; and those who fasted 15-20 days lost 7%-10% of their weight.

LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels decreased in some trials.

Fasting glucose levels, fasting insulin levels, insulin resistance, and A1c decreased in adults without diabetes but remained unchanged in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Some participants experienced metabolic acidosis, headaches, insomnia, or hunger.

About two-thirds of the weight lost was of lean mass, and one-third was of fat mass. The loss of lean mass loss suggests that prolonged fasting may increase the breakdown of muscle proteins, which is a concern, the researchers noted.

Few of the trials examined the effects of refeeding. In one study, normal-weight adults lost 6% of their weight after 5 days of water-only fasting but then gained it all back after 3 months of eating regularly.

In three trials, participants regained 1%-2% of their weight 2-4 months after fasting; however, those trials instructed participants to follow a calorie-restricted diet during the refeeding period.

Three to 4 months after the fast was completed, none of the metabolic benefits were maintained, even when weight loss was maintained.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Varady has received author fees from Hachette Book Group for “The Every Other Day Diet” and from Pan Macmillan Press for “The Fastest Diet.” The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The new generation of safe and effective weight loss drugs seems to have helped boost the U.S. profile of such medications and has fueled interest in nearly half the U.S. adult population.

A recent survey of more than 1,000 U.S. adults showed that 18% were “somewhat interested” in taking a “safe, effective” weight loss drug, 27% were “very interested,” and 4% said they were already using such an agent, together constituting 49% of the surveyed adults.

The newer, more potent and generally safe agents that work by stimulating receptors to nutrient-stimulated hormones, such as incretins like glucagonlike peptide–1, seem to drive this interest.

When asked: “How much have you heard, if anything, about a new class of drugs being used for weight loss, such as Ozempic [semaglutide formulated and approved for people with type 2 diabetes], Wegovy [semaglutide for weight loss], and Mounjaro [tirzepatide, currently approved for treating only people with type 2 diabetes]?” 43% said they had heard some, or a lot, about these agents.

This was particularly true among people at least 65 years old, who had a 55% prevalence of knowing some, or a lot, about these new weight-loss agents, while an additional 26% had heard at least “a little” about them, reported staff members of KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) in a report posted online in early August. 
 

Weight loss drugs garner ‘increasing’ attention

“A new class of prescription drugs, initially developed to treat type 2 diabetes, have been garnering an increasing amount of attention due to their ability to act as highly effective weight loss drugs for overweight or obese adults,” wrote the report’s authors.

However, surveyed interest fell markedly when respondents answered further questions that hinged on certain limitations of the newer weight loss formulations.

For example, the percent interested held nearly steady, at 44%, when told the weight loss agent in question was an oral pill, but when asked about formulations requiring weekly injections the prevalence of people who had some interest, or were very interested, dropped to 23%. And when presented with the premise that they would need to take the drug chronically to keep their weight off and that stopping the agent would mean weight regain, those with “higher levels of interest” in the agent fell to 14% of the study sample.

Other deal breakers for most survey respondents were lack of a weight-loss indication approved by the Food and Drug Administration, a hypothetical that left 16% still somewhat or very interested, and lack of insurance coverage, which also dropped the higher interest levels to 16% of respondents. On the flip side of that sentiment, 80% of survey respondents believe that health insurance should cover the cost for a prescription weight loss drug for people with overweight or obesity.

The survey was designed and analyzed by public-opinion researchers at KFF and run both online and by telephone in both English and Spanish during July 11-19, 2023. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample but may have been even higher for results based on subgroup analyses.

The survey report includes no funding or disclosure information. However, KFF describes itself as “independent” and “nonpartisan” and that it “does everything based on facts and data, and we do so objectively without taking policy positions and without affiliation to any political party or external interest.”

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

The new generation of safe and effective weight loss drugs seems to have helped boost the U.S. profile of such medications and has fueled interest in nearly half the U.S. adult population.

A recent survey of more than 1,000 U.S. adults showed that 18% were “somewhat interested” in taking a “safe, effective” weight loss drug, 27% were “very interested,” and 4% said they were already using such an agent, together constituting 49% of the surveyed adults.

The newer, more potent and generally safe agents that work by stimulating receptors to nutrient-stimulated hormones, such as incretins like glucagonlike peptide–1, seem to drive this interest.

When asked: “How much have you heard, if anything, about a new class of drugs being used for weight loss, such as Ozempic [semaglutide formulated and approved for people with type 2 diabetes], Wegovy [semaglutide for weight loss], and Mounjaro [tirzepatide, currently approved for treating only people with type 2 diabetes]?” 43% said they had heard some, or a lot, about these agents.

This was particularly true among people at least 65 years old, who had a 55% prevalence of knowing some, or a lot, about these new weight-loss agents, while an additional 26% had heard at least “a little” about them, reported staff members of KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) in a report posted online in early August. 
 

Weight loss drugs garner ‘increasing’ attention

“A new class of prescription drugs, initially developed to treat type 2 diabetes, have been garnering an increasing amount of attention due to their ability to act as highly effective weight loss drugs for overweight or obese adults,” wrote the report’s authors.

However, surveyed interest fell markedly when respondents answered further questions that hinged on certain limitations of the newer weight loss formulations.

For example, the percent interested held nearly steady, at 44%, when told the weight loss agent in question was an oral pill, but when asked about formulations requiring weekly injections the prevalence of people who had some interest, or were very interested, dropped to 23%. And when presented with the premise that they would need to take the drug chronically to keep their weight off and that stopping the agent would mean weight regain, those with “higher levels of interest” in the agent fell to 14% of the study sample.

Other deal breakers for most survey respondents were lack of a weight-loss indication approved by the Food and Drug Administration, a hypothetical that left 16% still somewhat or very interested, and lack of insurance coverage, which also dropped the higher interest levels to 16% of respondents. On the flip side of that sentiment, 80% of survey respondents believe that health insurance should cover the cost for a prescription weight loss drug for people with overweight or obesity.

The survey was designed and analyzed by public-opinion researchers at KFF and run both online and by telephone in both English and Spanish during July 11-19, 2023. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample but may have been even higher for results based on subgroup analyses.

The survey report includes no funding or disclosure information. However, KFF describes itself as “independent” and “nonpartisan” and that it “does everything based on facts and data, and we do so objectively without taking policy positions and without affiliation to any political party or external interest.”

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

The new generation of safe and effective weight loss drugs seems to have helped boost the U.S. profile of such medications and has fueled interest in nearly half the U.S. adult population.

A recent survey of more than 1,000 U.S. adults showed that 18% were “somewhat interested” in taking a “safe, effective” weight loss drug, 27% were “very interested,” and 4% said they were already using such an agent, together constituting 49% of the surveyed adults.

The newer, more potent and generally safe agents that work by stimulating receptors to nutrient-stimulated hormones, such as incretins like glucagonlike peptide–1, seem to drive this interest.

When asked: “How much have you heard, if anything, about a new class of drugs being used for weight loss, such as Ozempic [semaglutide formulated and approved for people with type 2 diabetes], Wegovy [semaglutide for weight loss], and Mounjaro [tirzepatide, currently approved for treating only people with type 2 diabetes]?” 43% said they had heard some, or a lot, about these agents.

This was particularly true among people at least 65 years old, who had a 55% prevalence of knowing some, or a lot, about these new weight-loss agents, while an additional 26% had heard at least “a little” about them, reported staff members of KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) in a report posted online in early August. 
 

Weight loss drugs garner ‘increasing’ attention

“A new class of prescription drugs, initially developed to treat type 2 diabetes, have been garnering an increasing amount of attention due to their ability to act as highly effective weight loss drugs for overweight or obese adults,” wrote the report’s authors.

However, surveyed interest fell markedly when respondents answered further questions that hinged on certain limitations of the newer weight loss formulations.

For example, the percent interested held nearly steady, at 44%, when told the weight loss agent in question was an oral pill, but when asked about formulations requiring weekly injections the prevalence of people who had some interest, or were very interested, dropped to 23%. And when presented with the premise that they would need to take the drug chronically to keep their weight off and that stopping the agent would mean weight regain, those with “higher levels of interest” in the agent fell to 14% of the study sample.

Other deal breakers for most survey respondents were lack of a weight-loss indication approved by the Food and Drug Administration, a hypothetical that left 16% still somewhat or very interested, and lack of insurance coverage, which also dropped the higher interest levels to 16% of respondents. On the flip side of that sentiment, 80% of survey respondents believe that health insurance should cover the cost for a prescription weight loss drug for people with overweight or obesity.

The survey was designed and analyzed by public-opinion researchers at KFF and run both online and by telephone in both English and Spanish during July 11-19, 2023. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample but may have been even higher for results based on subgroup analyses.

The survey report includes no funding or disclosure information. However, KFF describes itself as “independent” and “nonpartisan” and that it “does everything based on facts and data, and we do so objectively without taking policy positions and without affiliation to any political party or external interest.”

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

The newest version of the COVID-19 vaccine will be available by the end of September, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The updated vaccine still needs final sign-offs from the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC.

“We anticipate that they are going to be available for most folks by the third or fourth week of September,” Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, said on a podcast hosted by former White House COVID adviser Andy Slavitt. “We are likely to see this as a recommendation as an annual COVID shot, just as we have an annual flu shot. I think that will give folks more clarity on whether they should get one or not.”

For people who are considering now whether they should get the currently available COVID vaccine or wait until the new one comes out, Dr. Cohen said that depends on a person’s individual risk. People who are 65 or older or who have multiple health conditions should go ahead and get the currently available shot if it’s been more than 6-8 months since their last dose. For all other people, it’s OK to wait for the new version.

Analysts expect low demand for the updated vaccine. About 240 million people in the United States got at least one dose when vaccines first became available in 2021, Reuters reported, but that number dropped to less than 50 million getting the most updated shot in the fall of 2022.

“Take a look at what happened last winter. It was 50 million in the U.S., and it seems likely to be lower than that, given that there’s less concern about COVID this year than last year,” Michael Yee, a health care industry analyst for the firm Jefferies, told Reuters.

Dr. Cohen noted during the podcast that the recent uptick in virus activity should be taken in context. 

“What we’re seeing right now in August of 2023 are small increases of folks getting COVID. We are still at some of the lowest hospitalizations that we’ve been at in the past 3 years,” she said. “Even a 10% increase on a very, very small number is still very small. My level of concern continues to be low.”

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

The newest version of the COVID-19 vaccine will be available by the end of September, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The updated vaccine still needs final sign-offs from the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC.

“We anticipate that they are going to be available for most folks by the third or fourth week of September,” Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, said on a podcast hosted by former White House COVID adviser Andy Slavitt. “We are likely to see this as a recommendation as an annual COVID shot, just as we have an annual flu shot. I think that will give folks more clarity on whether they should get one or not.”

For people who are considering now whether they should get the currently available COVID vaccine or wait until the new one comes out, Dr. Cohen said that depends on a person’s individual risk. People who are 65 or older or who have multiple health conditions should go ahead and get the currently available shot if it’s been more than 6-8 months since their last dose. For all other people, it’s OK to wait for the new version.

Analysts expect low demand for the updated vaccine. About 240 million people in the United States got at least one dose when vaccines first became available in 2021, Reuters reported, but that number dropped to less than 50 million getting the most updated shot in the fall of 2022.

“Take a look at what happened last winter. It was 50 million in the U.S., and it seems likely to be lower than that, given that there’s less concern about COVID this year than last year,” Michael Yee, a health care industry analyst for the firm Jefferies, told Reuters.

Dr. Cohen noted during the podcast that the recent uptick in virus activity should be taken in context. 

“What we’re seeing right now in August of 2023 are small increases of folks getting COVID. We are still at some of the lowest hospitalizations that we’ve been at in the past 3 years,” she said. “Even a 10% increase on a very, very small number is still very small. My level of concern continues to be low.”

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

The newest version of the COVID-19 vaccine will be available by the end of September, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The updated vaccine still needs final sign-offs from the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC.

“We anticipate that they are going to be available for most folks by the third or fourth week of September,” Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, said on a podcast hosted by former White House COVID adviser Andy Slavitt. “We are likely to see this as a recommendation as an annual COVID shot, just as we have an annual flu shot. I think that will give folks more clarity on whether they should get one or not.”

For people who are considering now whether they should get the currently available COVID vaccine or wait until the new one comes out, Dr. Cohen said that depends on a person’s individual risk. People who are 65 or older or who have multiple health conditions should go ahead and get the currently available shot if it’s been more than 6-8 months since their last dose. For all other people, it’s OK to wait for the new version.

Analysts expect low demand for the updated vaccine. About 240 million people in the United States got at least one dose when vaccines first became available in 2021, Reuters reported, but that number dropped to less than 50 million getting the most updated shot in the fall of 2022.

“Take a look at what happened last winter. It was 50 million in the U.S., and it seems likely to be lower than that, given that there’s less concern about COVID this year than last year,” Michael Yee, a health care industry analyst for the firm Jefferies, told Reuters.

Dr. Cohen noted during the podcast that the recent uptick in virus activity should be taken in context. 

“What we’re seeing right now in August of 2023 are small increases of folks getting COVID. We are still at some of the lowest hospitalizations that we’ve been at in the past 3 years,” she said. “Even a 10% increase on a very, very small number is still very small. My level of concern continues to be low.”

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

This patient had more than cystic acne; he had acne conglobata. AC is a severe form of inflammatory acne leading to coalescing lesions with purulent sinus tracts under the skin. It can be seen as part of the follicular tetrad syndrome of cystic acne, hidradenitis suppurativa, dissecting cellulitis, and pilonidal disease. AC is thought to be an elevated tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha response to Propionibacterium acnes (now known as Cutibacterium acnes) that leads to excessive inflammation and sterile abscesses.¹ Acne fulminans (AF) can also manifest as a purulent form of acne, but AF has associated systemic signs and symptoms that include fevers, chills, and malaise.

Due to the depth of the inflammation, AC is treated with systemic medications, most commonly isotretinoin. Isotretinoin can be started at 0.5 mg/kg (divided twice daily to enhance tolerability) and then increased to 1 mg/kg (divided twice daily) for 5 months. There is some variation in dosing regimens in practice; the target goal is 120 to 150 mg/kg over the course of treatment. In AF, the patient is pretreated with systemic steroids, and in AC, some clinicians will even prescribe systemic steroids (prednisone 0.5 mg/kg daily for the first month) along with isotretinoin.

Second-line medications include dapsone (50-150 mg/d).² Case reports describe the successful use of the TNF-alpha antagonist adalimumab, although this is not a usual practice in AC treatment.¹ Note that all of these medications have the potential for severe adverse effects and require laboratory evaluation prior to initiation.

This patient was counseled, prescribed isotretinoin (dose as above), and enrolled in the IPledge prescribing and monitoring system for isotretinoin. At 20 weeks of use, the purulent drainage ceased. The pus-filled sinus tracts and redness had resolved, although he still had thickened tissue and scarring where the tracts had been. In time, the scars will usually get flatter and softer.

If the patient’s AC were to flare, another 20-week course of isotretinoin could be prescribed after a 2-month hiatus or he could be switched to a second-line medication. Referral for any cosmetic therapy is typically delayed for another 6 months in case there is a need to treat a recurrence.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

This patient had more than cystic acne; he had acne conglobata. AC is a severe form of inflammatory acne leading to coalescing lesions with purulent sinus tracts under the skin. It can be seen as part of the follicular tetrad syndrome of cystic acne, hidradenitis suppurativa, dissecting cellulitis, and pilonidal disease. AC is thought to be an elevated tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha response to Propionibacterium acnes (now known as Cutibacterium acnes) that leads to excessive inflammation and sterile abscesses.¹ Acne fulminans (AF) can also manifest as a purulent form of acne, but AF has associated systemic signs and symptoms that include fevers, chills, and malaise.

Due to the depth of the inflammation, AC is treated with systemic medications, most commonly isotretinoin. Isotretinoin can be started at 0.5 mg/kg (divided twice daily to enhance tolerability) and then increased to 1 mg/kg (divided twice daily) for 5 months. There is some variation in dosing regimens in practice; the target goal is 120 to 150 mg/kg over the course of treatment. In AF, the patient is pretreated with systemic steroids, and in AC, some clinicians will even prescribe systemic steroids (prednisone 0.5 mg/kg daily for the first month) along with isotretinoin.

Second-line medications include dapsone (50-150 mg/d).² Case reports describe the successful use of the TNF-alpha antagonist adalimumab, although this is not a usual practice in AC treatment.¹ Note that all of these medications have the potential for severe adverse effects and require laboratory evaluation prior to initiation.

This patient was counseled, prescribed isotretinoin (dose as above), and enrolled in the IPledge prescribing and monitoring system for isotretinoin. At 20 weeks of use, the purulent drainage ceased. The pus-filled sinus tracts and redness had resolved, although he still had thickened tissue and scarring where the tracts had been. In time, the scars will usually get flatter and softer.

If the patient’s AC were to flare, another 20-week course of isotretinoin could be prescribed after a 2-month hiatus or he could be switched to a second-line medication. Referral for any cosmetic therapy is typically delayed for another 6 months in case there is a need to treat a recurrence.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

This patient had more than cystic acne; he had acne conglobata. AC is a severe form of inflammatory acne leading to coalescing lesions with purulent sinus tracts under the skin. It can be seen as part of the follicular tetrad syndrome of cystic acne, hidradenitis suppurativa, dissecting cellulitis, and pilonidal disease. AC is thought to be an elevated tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha response to Propionibacterium acnes (now known as Cutibacterium acnes) that leads to excessive inflammation and sterile abscesses.¹ Acne fulminans (AF) can also manifest as a purulent form of acne, but AF has associated systemic signs and symptoms that include fevers, chills, and malaise.

Due to the depth of the inflammation, AC is treated with systemic medications, most commonly isotretinoin. Isotretinoin can be started at 0.5 mg/kg (divided twice daily to enhance tolerability) and then increased to 1 mg/kg (divided twice daily) for 5 months. There is some variation in dosing regimens in practice; the target goal is 120 to 150 mg/kg over the course of treatment. In AF, the patient is pretreated with systemic steroids, and in AC, some clinicians will even prescribe systemic steroids (prednisone 0.5 mg/kg daily for the first month) along with isotretinoin.

Second-line medications include dapsone (50-150 mg/d).² Case reports describe the successful use of the TNF-alpha antagonist adalimumab, although this is not a usual practice in AC treatment.¹ Note that all of these medications have the potential for severe adverse effects and require laboratory evaluation prior to initiation.

This patient was counseled, prescribed isotretinoin (dose as above), and enrolled in the IPledge prescribing and monitoring system for isotretinoin. At 20 weeks of use, the purulent drainage ceased. The pus-filled sinus tracts and redness had resolved, although he still had thickened tissue and scarring where the tracts had been. In time, the scars will usually get flatter and softer.

If the patient’s AC were to flare, another 20-week course of isotretinoin could be prescribed after a 2-month hiatus or he could be switched to a second-line medication. Referral for any cosmetic therapy is typically delayed for another 6 months in case there is a need to treat a recurrence.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

The necrotic eschar on this patient’s thigh is calciphylaxis, also known as calcific uremic arteriolopathy (CUA). Most cases are seen in ESRD and start as painful erythematous, firm lesions that progress to necrotic eschars. Up to 4% of patients with ESRD who are on dialysis develop CUA.¹

The exact pathology of CUA is unknown. Calcification of the arterioles leads to ischemia and necrosis of tissue, which is not limited to the skin and can affect tissue elsewhere (eg, muscles, central nervous system, internal organs).²

Morbidity and mortality of CUA is often due to bacterial infections and sepsis related to the necrotic tissue. CUA can be treated with sodium thiosulfate (25 g in 100 mL of normal saline) infused intravenously during the last 30 minutes of dialysis treatment 3 times per week.³ Sodium thiosulfate (which acts as a calcium binder) and cinacalcet (a calcimimetic that leads to lower parathyroid hormone levels) have been used, but evidence of efficacy is limited. In a multicenter observational study involving 89 patients with chronic kidney disease and CUA, 17% of patients experienced complete wound healing, while 56% died over a median follow-up period of 5.8 months.¹ (No cause of death data were available; sodium thiosulfate and a calcimimetic were the most widely used treatment strategies.) This extrapolated to a mortality rate of 72 patients per 100 individuals over the course of 1 year (the 100 patient-years rate).¹

This patient continued her dialysis regimen and general care. She was seen by the wound care team and treated with topical wound care, including moist dressings for her open lesions. The eschars were not debrided because they showed no sign of active infection. Unfortunately, she was in extremely frail condition and died 1 month after evaluation.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

The necrotic eschar on this patient’s thigh is calciphylaxis, also known as calcific uremic arteriolopathy (CUA). Most cases are seen in ESRD and start as painful erythematous, firm lesions that progress to necrotic eschars. Up to 4% of patients with ESRD who are on dialysis develop CUA.¹

The exact pathology of CUA is unknown. Calcification of the arterioles leads to ischemia and necrosis of tissue, which is not limited to the skin and can affect tissue elsewhere (eg, muscles, central nervous system, internal organs).²

Morbidity and mortality of CUA is often due to bacterial infections and sepsis related to the necrotic tissue. CUA can be treated with sodium thiosulfate (25 g in 100 mL of normal saline) infused intravenously during the last 30 minutes of dialysis treatment 3 times per week.³ Sodium thiosulfate (which acts as a calcium binder) and cinacalcet (a calcimimetic that leads to lower parathyroid hormone levels) have been used, but evidence of efficacy is limited. In a multicenter observational study involving 89 patients with chronic kidney disease and CUA, 17% of patients experienced complete wound healing, while 56% died over a median follow-up period of 5.8 months.¹ (No cause of death data were available; sodium thiosulfate and a calcimimetic were the most widely used treatment strategies.) This extrapolated to a mortality rate of 72 patients per 100 individuals over the course of 1 year (the 100 patient-years rate).¹

This patient continued her dialysis regimen and general care. She was seen by the wound care team and treated with topical wound care, including moist dressings for her open lesions. The eschars were not debrided because they showed no sign of active infection. Unfortunately, she was in extremely frail condition and died 1 month after evaluation.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

The necrotic eschar on this patient’s thigh is calciphylaxis, also known as calcific uremic arteriolopathy (CUA). Most cases are seen in ESRD and start as painful erythematous, firm lesions that progress to necrotic eschars. Up to 4% of patients with ESRD who are on dialysis develop CUA.¹

The exact pathology of CUA is unknown. Calcification of the arterioles leads to ischemia and necrosis of tissue, which is not limited to the skin and can affect tissue elsewhere (eg, muscles, central nervous system, internal organs).²

Morbidity and mortality of CUA is often due to bacterial infections and sepsis related to the necrotic tissue. CUA can be treated with sodium thiosulfate (25 g in 100 mL of normal saline) infused intravenously during the last 30 minutes of dialysis treatment 3 times per week.³ Sodium thiosulfate (which acts as a calcium binder) and cinacalcet (a calcimimetic that leads to lower parathyroid hormone levels) have been used, but evidence of efficacy is limited. In a multicenter observational study involving 89 patients with chronic kidney disease and CUA, 17% of patients experienced complete wound healing, while 56% died over a median follow-up period of 5.8 months.¹ (No cause of death data were available; sodium thiosulfate and a calcimimetic were the most widely used treatment strategies.) This extrapolated to a mortality rate of 72 patients per 100 individuals over the course of 1 year (the 100 patient-years rate).¹

This patient continued her dialysis regimen and general care. She was seen by the wound care team and treated with topical wound care, including moist dressings for her open lesions. The eschars were not debrided because they showed no sign of active infection. Unfortunately, she was in extremely frail condition and died 1 month after evaluation.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.