MDedge Endocrinology

Charcoal won’t let high-fat diet weigh you down

Do you want to be the funniest person alive? Of course you do. It’s really simple too, just one joke can make you the greatest comedian of all time. All you have to do is go camping and cook food over a roaring campfire. When someone drops food into the fire (which they always will), get ready. Once they fish out the offending food, which is almost certainly coated in hot coals, tell them: “Ah, eat it anyway. A little texture never hurt!” Trust us, most hilarious and original gag of all time.

But before your hapless friend brushes off his hot dog and forces a laugh, consider this: Japanese researchers have found that a charcoal supplement can prevent weight gain in mice consuming a high-fat diet. Charcoal is actually quite the helpful substance, and not just for grilling. It’s been used as medicine for hundreds of years and even today is used as a treatment for drug overdose and excess gas and flatulence.

PxHere

The study involved two groups of mice: One was fed a normal diet, the other a high-fat diet. After 12 weeks, the high-fat diet mice had gained weight. At that point, edible activated charcoal was added to their diet. From that point, weight gain was similar between the two groups, and the amount of bile acid, cholesterol, triglyceride, and fatty acid excreted by the high-fat mice increased by two to four times.

The researchers supported the notion that consuming an activated charcoal supplement before or while eating fatty food could prevent weight gain from said fatty food. Which works out well for the classic American barbecue, which is traditionally both high in fat and charcoal. All you have to do is buy some extra charcoal briquettes to pass around and munch on with your friends. Now that’s a party we can get behind.
 

There’s awake, and then there’s neurologically awake

Time to toss another urban legend onto the trash heap of history. Say goodbye to the benefits of uninterrupted sleep. It’s a fraud, a fake, a myth, a hit or myth, a swing and a myth, an old wives’ tale. You can stuff it and put it on a shelf next to Bigfoot, the Slender Man, and Twinkies.

JackF/thinkstockphotos.com

We all thought we needed 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep every night, but guess who we forgot to tell? Our brains. They’ve been doing exactly the opposite all along, laughing at us the whole time. Smug SOBs.

To straighten out this mess, let’s bring in a scientist, Celia Kjaerby of the Center for Translational Neuromedicine at the University of Copenhagen: “You may think that sleep is a constant state that you are in, and then you wake up. But there is a lot more to sleep than meets the eye. We have learned that noradrenaline causes you to wake up more than 100 times a night. And that is during perfectly normal sleep.”

Those 100 or so sleep interruptions are so brief that we don’t even notice, but they are very important, according to a study conducted at the university. Those tiny little wake-up calls are “the essence for the part of sleep that makes us wake up rested and which enables us to remember what we learned the day before. ... The very short awakenings are created by waves of norepinephrine [and they] reset the brain so that it is ready to store memory when you dive back into sleep,” lead author Maiken Nedergaard, MD, explained.

The investigators compared the level of noradrenaline in sleeping mice with their electrical activity and found that the hormone constantly increased and decreased in a wavelike pattern. A high level meant that the animal was neurologically awake. Deeper valleys between the high points meant better sleep, and the mice with the “highest number of deep noradrenaline valleys were also the ones with the best memory,” the team said in their written statement.

Not just the best memory, they said, but “super memory.” That, of course, was enough to get the attention of Marvel Comics, so the next Disney superhero blockbuster will feature Nocturna, the queen of the night. Her power? Never forgets. Her archnemesis? The Insomniac. Her catchphrase? “Let me sleep on it.”

Words can hurt, literally

Growing up, we’re sure you heard the “sticks and stones” rhyme. Maybe you’ve even recited it once or twice to defend yourself. Well, forget it, because words can hurt and your brain knows it.

PxHere

In a new study published in Frontiers in Communication, Marijn Struiksma, PhD, of Utrecht University, and colleagues incorporated the use of electroencephalography (EEG) and skin conductance on 79 women to see how words (specifically insults) actually affect the human body.

Each subject was asked to read three different types of statements: an insult, a compliment, and something factual but neutral. Half of the statements contained the subject’s name and half used somebody else’s. The participants were told that these statements were collected from three men.

Nobody interacted with each other, and the setting was completely clinical, yet the results were unmistakable. The EEG showed an effect in P2 amplitude with repetitive insults, no matter who it was about. Even though the insults weren’t real and the participants were aware of it, the brain still recognized them as hurtful, coming across as “mini slaps in the face,” Dr. Struiksma noted in a written statement.

The researchers noted that more needs to be done to better understand the long-term effects that insults can have and create a deeper understanding between words and emotion, but studying the effects of insults in a real-life setting is ethically tricky. This study is a start.

So, yeah, sticks and stones can break your bones, but words will actually hurt you.

This article was updated 7/21/22.

Charcoal won’t let high-fat diet weigh you down

Do you want to be the funniest person alive? Of course you do. It’s really simple too, just one joke can make you the greatest comedian of all time. All you have to do is go camping and cook food over a roaring campfire. When someone drops food into the fire (which they always will), get ready. Once they fish out the offending food, which is almost certainly coated in hot coals, tell them: “Ah, eat it anyway. A little texture never hurt!” Trust us, most hilarious and original gag of all time.

But before your hapless friend brushes off his hot dog and forces a laugh, consider this: Japanese researchers have found that a charcoal supplement can prevent weight gain in mice consuming a high-fat diet. Charcoal is actually quite the helpful substance, and not just for grilling. It’s been used as medicine for hundreds of years and even today is used as a treatment for drug overdose and excess gas and flatulence.

PxHere

The study involved two groups of mice: One was fed a normal diet, the other a high-fat diet. After 12 weeks, the high-fat diet mice had gained weight. At that point, edible activated charcoal was added to their diet. From that point, weight gain was similar between the two groups, and the amount of bile acid, cholesterol, triglyceride, and fatty acid excreted by the high-fat mice increased by two to four times.

The researchers supported the notion that consuming an activated charcoal supplement before or while eating fatty food could prevent weight gain from said fatty food. Which works out well for the classic American barbecue, which is traditionally both high in fat and charcoal. All you have to do is buy some extra charcoal briquettes to pass around and munch on with your friends. Now that’s a party we can get behind.
 

There’s awake, and then there’s neurologically awake

Time to toss another urban legend onto the trash heap of history. Say goodbye to the benefits of uninterrupted sleep. It’s a fraud, a fake, a myth, a hit or myth, a swing and a myth, an old wives’ tale. You can stuff it and put it on a shelf next to Bigfoot, the Slender Man, and Twinkies.

JackF/thinkstockphotos.com

We all thought we needed 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep every night, but guess who we forgot to tell? Our brains. They’ve been doing exactly the opposite all along, laughing at us the whole time. Smug SOBs.

To straighten out this mess, let’s bring in a scientist, Celia Kjaerby of the Center for Translational Neuromedicine at the University of Copenhagen: “You may think that sleep is a constant state that you are in, and then you wake up. But there is a lot more to sleep than meets the eye. We have learned that noradrenaline causes you to wake up more than 100 times a night. And that is during perfectly normal sleep.”

Those 100 or so sleep interruptions are so brief that we don’t even notice, but they are very important, according to a study conducted at the university. Those tiny little wake-up calls are “the essence for the part of sleep that makes us wake up rested and which enables us to remember what we learned the day before. ... The very short awakenings are created by waves of norepinephrine [and they] reset the brain so that it is ready to store memory when you dive back into sleep,” lead author Maiken Nedergaard, MD, explained.

The investigators compared the level of noradrenaline in sleeping mice with their electrical activity and found that the hormone constantly increased and decreased in a wavelike pattern. A high level meant that the animal was neurologically awake. Deeper valleys between the high points meant better sleep, and the mice with the “highest number of deep noradrenaline valleys were also the ones with the best memory,” the team said in their written statement.

Not just the best memory, they said, but “super memory.” That, of course, was enough to get the attention of Marvel Comics, so the next Disney superhero blockbuster will feature Nocturna, the queen of the night. Her power? Never forgets. Her archnemesis? The Insomniac. Her catchphrase? “Let me sleep on it.”

Words can hurt, literally

Growing up, we’re sure you heard the “sticks and stones” rhyme. Maybe you’ve even recited it once or twice to defend yourself. Well, forget it, because words can hurt and your brain knows it.

PxHere

In a new study published in Frontiers in Communication, Marijn Struiksma, PhD, of Utrecht University, and colleagues incorporated the use of electroencephalography (EEG) and skin conductance on 79 women to see how words (specifically insults) actually affect the human body.

Each subject was asked to read three different types of statements: an insult, a compliment, and something factual but neutral. Half of the statements contained the subject’s name and half used somebody else’s. The participants were told that these statements were collected from three men.

Nobody interacted with each other, and the setting was completely clinical, yet the results were unmistakable. The EEG showed an effect in P2 amplitude with repetitive insults, no matter who it was about. Even though the insults weren’t real and the participants were aware of it, the brain still recognized them as hurtful, coming across as “mini slaps in the face,” Dr. Struiksma noted in a written statement.

The researchers noted that more needs to be done to better understand the long-term effects that insults can have and create a deeper understanding between words and emotion, but studying the effects of insults in a real-life setting is ethically tricky. This study is a start.

So, yeah, sticks and stones can break your bones, but words will actually hurt you.

This article was updated 7/21/22.

Charcoal won’t let high-fat diet weigh you down

Do you want to be the funniest person alive? Of course you do. It’s really simple too, just one joke can make you the greatest comedian of all time. All you have to do is go camping and cook food over a roaring campfire. When someone drops food into the fire (which they always will), get ready. Once they fish out the offending food, which is almost certainly coated in hot coals, tell them: “Ah, eat it anyway. A little texture never hurt!” Trust us, most hilarious and original gag of all time.

But before your hapless friend brushes off his hot dog and forces a laugh, consider this: Japanese researchers have found that a charcoal supplement can prevent weight gain in mice consuming a high-fat diet. Charcoal is actually quite the helpful substance, and not just for grilling. It’s been used as medicine for hundreds of years and even today is used as a treatment for drug overdose and excess gas and flatulence.

PxHere

The study involved two groups of mice: One was fed a normal diet, the other a high-fat diet. After 12 weeks, the high-fat diet mice had gained weight. At that point, edible activated charcoal was added to their diet. From that point, weight gain was similar between the two groups, and the amount of bile acid, cholesterol, triglyceride, and fatty acid excreted by the high-fat mice increased by two to four times.

The researchers supported the notion that consuming an activated charcoal supplement before or while eating fatty food could prevent weight gain from said fatty food. Which works out well for the classic American barbecue, which is traditionally both high in fat and charcoal. All you have to do is buy some extra charcoal briquettes to pass around and munch on with your friends. Now that’s a party we can get behind.
 

There’s awake, and then there’s neurologically awake

Time to toss another urban legend onto the trash heap of history. Say goodbye to the benefits of uninterrupted sleep. It’s a fraud, a fake, a myth, a hit or myth, a swing and a myth, an old wives’ tale. You can stuff it and put it on a shelf next to Bigfoot, the Slender Man, and Twinkies.

JackF/thinkstockphotos.com

We all thought we needed 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep every night, but guess who we forgot to tell? Our brains. They’ve been doing exactly the opposite all along, laughing at us the whole time. Smug SOBs.

To straighten out this mess, let’s bring in a scientist, Celia Kjaerby of the Center for Translational Neuromedicine at the University of Copenhagen: “You may think that sleep is a constant state that you are in, and then you wake up. But there is a lot more to sleep than meets the eye. We have learned that noradrenaline causes you to wake up more than 100 times a night. And that is during perfectly normal sleep.”

Those 100 or so sleep interruptions are so brief that we don’t even notice, but they are very important, according to a study conducted at the university. Those tiny little wake-up calls are “the essence for the part of sleep that makes us wake up rested and which enables us to remember what we learned the day before. ... The very short awakenings are created by waves of norepinephrine [and they] reset the brain so that it is ready to store memory when you dive back into sleep,” lead author Maiken Nedergaard, MD, explained.

The investigators compared the level of noradrenaline in sleeping mice with their electrical activity and found that the hormone constantly increased and decreased in a wavelike pattern. A high level meant that the animal was neurologically awake. Deeper valleys between the high points meant better sleep, and the mice with the “highest number of deep noradrenaline valleys were also the ones with the best memory,” the team said in their written statement.

Not just the best memory, they said, but “super memory.” That, of course, was enough to get the attention of Marvel Comics, so the next Disney superhero blockbuster will feature Nocturna, the queen of the night. Her power? Never forgets. Her archnemesis? The Insomniac. Her catchphrase? “Let me sleep on it.”

Words can hurt, literally

Growing up, we’re sure you heard the “sticks and stones” rhyme. Maybe you’ve even recited it once or twice to defend yourself. Well, forget it, because words can hurt and your brain knows it.

PxHere

In a new study published in Frontiers in Communication, Marijn Struiksma, PhD, of Utrecht University, and colleagues incorporated the use of electroencephalography (EEG) and skin conductance on 79 women to see how words (specifically insults) actually affect the human body.

Each subject was asked to read three different types of statements: an insult, a compliment, and something factual but neutral. Half of the statements contained the subject’s name and half used somebody else’s. The participants were told that these statements were collected from three men.

Nobody interacted with each other, and the setting was completely clinical, yet the results were unmistakable. The EEG showed an effect in P2 amplitude with repetitive insults, no matter who it was about. Even though the insults weren’t real and the participants were aware of it, the brain still recognized them as hurtful, coming across as “mini slaps in the face,” Dr. Struiksma noted in a written statement.

The researchers noted that more needs to be done to better understand the long-term effects that insults can have and create a deeper understanding between words and emotion, but studying the effects of insults in a real-life setting is ethically tricky. This study is a start.

So, yeah, sticks and stones can break your bones, but words will actually hurt you.

This article was updated 7/21/22.

Hormone therapy did not increase mortality in postmenopausal women treated for early-stage estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, but, in longitudinal data from Denmark, there was a recurrence risk with vaginal estrogen therapy among those treated with aromatase inhibitors.

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) – including vaginal dryness, burning, and urinary incontinence – is common in women treated for breast cancer. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly aromatase inhibitors, can aggravate these symptoms. Both local and systemic estrogen therapy are recommended for alleviating GSM symptoms in healthy women, but concerns have been raised about their use in women with breast cancer. Previous studies examining this have suggested possible risks for breast cancer recurrence, but those studies have had several limitations including small samples and short follow-up, particularly for vaginal estrogen therapy.

In the new study, from a national Danish cohort of 8,461 postmenopausal women diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 and treated for early-stage invasive estrogen receptor–positive nonmetastatic breast cancer, neither systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) nor local vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) were associated with an overall increased risk for either breast cancer recurrence or mortality. However, in the subset who had received an aromatase inhibitor – with or without tamoxifen – there was a statistically significant increased risk for breast cancer recurrence, but not mortality.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“The data are reassuring for the majority of women with no adjuvant therapy or tamoxifen. But for those using adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, there might be a small risk,” study lead author Søren Cold, MD, PhD, senior oncologist in the department of oncology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, Odense, said in an interview.

Moreover, Dr. Cold noted, while this study didn’t find an increased recurrence risk with MHT for women taking aromatase inhibitors, other studies have. One in particular was stopped because of harm. The reason for the difference here is likely that the previous sample was small – just 133 women.

“Our study is mainly focusing on the use of vaginal estrogen. We had so few patients using systemic menopausal hormone therapy, those data don’t mean much. ... The risk with systemic therapy has been established. The vaginal use hasn’t been thoroughly studied before,” he noted.
 

Breast cancer recurrence elevated with VET and aromatase inhibitors

The study pool was 9,710 women who underwent complete resection for estrogen-positive breast cancer and were all allocated to 5 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment or no adjuvant treatment, according to guidelines. Overall, 3,112 received no adjuvant endocrine treatment, 2,007 were treated with tamoxifen only, 403 with an aromatase inhibitor, and 2,939 with a sequence of tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor.

After exclusion of 1,249 who had received VET or MHT prior to breast cancer diagnosis, there were 6,391 not prescribed any estrogen hormonal treatment, 1,957 prescribed VET, and 133 prescribed MHT with or without VET.

During an estimated median 9.8 years’ follow-up, 1,333 women (16%) had a breast cancer recurrence. Of those, 111 had received VET, 16 MHT, and 1,206 neither. Compared with those receiving no hormonal treatment, the adjusted risk of recurrence was similar for the VET users (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.32).

However, there was an increased risk for recurrence associated with initiating VET during aromatase inhibitor treatment (HR, 1.39, 95% CI, 1.04-1.85). For women receiving MHT, the adjusted relative risk of recurrence with aromatase inhibitors wasn’t significant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.62-1.78).

Overall, compared with women who never used hormonal treatment, the absolute 10-year breast cancer recurrence risk was 19.2% for never-users of VET or MHT, 15.4% in VET users, and 17.1% in MHT users.
 

No differences found for mortality

Of the 8,461 women in the study, 40% (3,370) died during an estimated median follow-up of 15.2 years. Of those, 497 had received VET, 47 MHT, and 2,826 neither. Compared with the never-users of estrogen therapy, the adjusted HR for overall survival in VET users was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.87). The analysis stratified by adjuvant endocrine therapy didn’t show an increase in VET users by use of aromatase inhibitors (aHR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.26). The same was found for women prescribed MHT, compared with never-users (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.26).

Never-users of VET or MHT had an absolute 10-year overall survival of 73.8% versus 79.5% and 80.5% among the women who used VET or MHT, respectively.

Asked to comment, Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and E. Stewart Taylor Chair of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview: “It is important to look at this issue. These findings raise but don’t answer the question that vaginal estradiol may not be as safe as we hope it is for women with breast cancer using an aromatase inhibitor.”

However, she also pointed out that “the overall increase in risk is not enormous; mortality risk was not increased. Women need to consider that there may be some risk associated with this option in their decision making about taking it. Having a satisfying sex life is also important for many women! It is really compassionate use for quality of life, so there is always that unknown element of risk in the discussion. That unknown risk has to be balanced against the benefit that the estrogen provides.”

And, Dr. Santoro also noted that the use of prescription data poses limitations. “It cannot tell us what was going on in the minds of the patient and the prescriber. There may be differences in the prescriber’s impression of the patient’s risk of recurrence that influenced the decision to provide a prescription. ... Women using AIs [aromatase inhibitors] often get pretty severe vaginal dryness symptoms and may need more estrogen to be comfortable with intercourse, but we really cannot tell this from what is in this paper.”

Indeed, Dr. Cold said: “We admit it’s not a randomized study, but we’ve done what was possible to take [confounding] factors into account, including age, tumor size, nodal status, histology, and comorbidities.”

He suggested that a potential therapeutic approach to reducing the recurrence risk might be to switch VET-treated women to tamoxifen after 2-3 years of aromatase inhibitors.

This work was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold received support from Breast Friends for the current study. Some of the other coauthors have pharmaceutical company disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory boards for Astellas, Menogenix, Que Oncology, and Amazon Ember, and is a consultant for Ansh Labs.

Hormone therapy did not increase mortality in postmenopausal women treated for early-stage estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, but, in longitudinal data from Denmark, there was a recurrence risk with vaginal estrogen therapy among those treated with aromatase inhibitors.

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) – including vaginal dryness, burning, and urinary incontinence – is common in women treated for breast cancer. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly aromatase inhibitors, can aggravate these symptoms. Both local and systemic estrogen therapy are recommended for alleviating GSM symptoms in healthy women, but concerns have been raised about their use in women with breast cancer. Previous studies examining this have suggested possible risks for breast cancer recurrence, but those studies have had several limitations including small samples and short follow-up, particularly for vaginal estrogen therapy.

In the new study, from a national Danish cohort of 8,461 postmenopausal women diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 and treated for early-stage invasive estrogen receptor–positive nonmetastatic breast cancer, neither systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) nor local vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) were associated with an overall increased risk for either breast cancer recurrence or mortality. However, in the subset who had received an aromatase inhibitor – with or without tamoxifen – there was a statistically significant increased risk for breast cancer recurrence, but not mortality.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“The data are reassuring for the majority of women with no adjuvant therapy or tamoxifen. But for those using adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, there might be a small risk,” study lead author Søren Cold, MD, PhD, senior oncologist in the department of oncology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, Odense, said in an interview.

Moreover, Dr. Cold noted, while this study didn’t find an increased recurrence risk with MHT for women taking aromatase inhibitors, other studies have. One in particular was stopped because of harm. The reason for the difference here is likely that the previous sample was small – just 133 women.

“Our study is mainly focusing on the use of vaginal estrogen. We had so few patients using systemic menopausal hormone therapy, those data don’t mean much. ... The risk with systemic therapy has been established. The vaginal use hasn’t been thoroughly studied before,” he noted.
 

Breast cancer recurrence elevated with VET and aromatase inhibitors

The study pool was 9,710 women who underwent complete resection for estrogen-positive breast cancer and were all allocated to 5 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment or no adjuvant treatment, according to guidelines. Overall, 3,112 received no adjuvant endocrine treatment, 2,007 were treated with tamoxifen only, 403 with an aromatase inhibitor, and 2,939 with a sequence of tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor.

After exclusion of 1,249 who had received VET or MHT prior to breast cancer diagnosis, there were 6,391 not prescribed any estrogen hormonal treatment, 1,957 prescribed VET, and 133 prescribed MHT with or without VET.

During an estimated median 9.8 years’ follow-up, 1,333 women (16%) had a breast cancer recurrence. Of those, 111 had received VET, 16 MHT, and 1,206 neither. Compared with those receiving no hormonal treatment, the adjusted risk of recurrence was similar for the VET users (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.32).

However, there was an increased risk for recurrence associated with initiating VET during aromatase inhibitor treatment (HR, 1.39, 95% CI, 1.04-1.85). For women receiving MHT, the adjusted relative risk of recurrence with aromatase inhibitors wasn’t significant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.62-1.78).

Overall, compared with women who never used hormonal treatment, the absolute 10-year breast cancer recurrence risk was 19.2% for never-users of VET or MHT, 15.4% in VET users, and 17.1% in MHT users.
 

No differences found for mortality

Of the 8,461 women in the study, 40% (3,370) died during an estimated median follow-up of 15.2 years. Of those, 497 had received VET, 47 MHT, and 2,826 neither. Compared with the never-users of estrogen therapy, the adjusted HR for overall survival in VET users was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.87). The analysis stratified by adjuvant endocrine therapy didn’t show an increase in VET users by use of aromatase inhibitors (aHR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.26). The same was found for women prescribed MHT, compared with never-users (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.26).

Never-users of VET or MHT had an absolute 10-year overall survival of 73.8% versus 79.5% and 80.5% among the women who used VET or MHT, respectively.

Asked to comment, Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and E. Stewart Taylor Chair of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview: “It is important to look at this issue. These findings raise but don’t answer the question that vaginal estradiol may not be as safe as we hope it is for women with breast cancer using an aromatase inhibitor.”

However, she also pointed out that “the overall increase in risk is not enormous; mortality risk was not increased. Women need to consider that there may be some risk associated with this option in their decision making about taking it. Having a satisfying sex life is also important for many women! It is really compassionate use for quality of life, so there is always that unknown element of risk in the discussion. That unknown risk has to be balanced against the benefit that the estrogen provides.”

And, Dr. Santoro also noted that the use of prescription data poses limitations. “It cannot tell us what was going on in the minds of the patient and the prescriber. There may be differences in the prescriber’s impression of the patient’s risk of recurrence that influenced the decision to provide a prescription. ... Women using AIs [aromatase inhibitors] often get pretty severe vaginal dryness symptoms and may need more estrogen to be comfortable with intercourse, but we really cannot tell this from what is in this paper.”

Indeed, Dr. Cold said: “We admit it’s not a randomized study, but we’ve done what was possible to take [confounding] factors into account, including age, tumor size, nodal status, histology, and comorbidities.”

He suggested that a potential therapeutic approach to reducing the recurrence risk might be to switch VET-treated women to tamoxifen after 2-3 years of aromatase inhibitors.

This work was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold received support from Breast Friends for the current study. Some of the other coauthors have pharmaceutical company disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory boards for Astellas, Menogenix, Que Oncology, and Amazon Ember, and is a consultant for Ansh Labs.

Hormone therapy did not increase mortality in postmenopausal women treated for early-stage estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, but, in longitudinal data from Denmark, there was a recurrence risk with vaginal estrogen therapy among those treated with aromatase inhibitors.

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) – including vaginal dryness, burning, and urinary incontinence – is common in women treated for breast cancer. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly aromatase inhibitors, can aggravate these symptoms. Both local and systemic estrogen therapy are recommended for alleviating GSM symptoms in healthy women, but concerns have been raised about their use in women with breast cancer. Previous studies examining this have suggested possible risks for breast cancer recurrence, but those studies have had several limitations including small samples and short follow-up, particularly for vaginal estrogen therapy.

In the new study, from a national Danish cohort of 8,461 postmenopausal women diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 and treated for early-stage invasive estrogen receptor–positive nonmetastatic breast cancer, neither systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) nor local vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) were associated with an overall increased risk for either breast cancer recurrence or mortality. However, in the subset who had received an aromatase inhibitor – with or without tamoxifen – there was a statistically significant increased risk for breast cancer recurrence, but not mortality.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“The data are reassuring for the majority of women with no adjuvant therapy or tamoxifen. But for those using adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, there might be a small risk,” study lead author Søren Cold, MD, PhD, senior oncologist in the department of oncology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, Odense, said in an interview.

Moreover, Dr. Cold noted, while this study didn’t find an increased recurrence risk with MHT for women taking aromatase inhibitors, other studies have. One in particular was stopped because of harm. The reason for the difference here is likely that the previous sample was small – just 133 women.

“Our study is mainly focusing on the use of vaginal estrogen. We had so few patients using systemic menopausal hormone therapy, those data don’t mean much. ... The risk with systemic therapy has been established. The vaginal use hasn’t been thoroughly studied before,” he noted.
 

Breast cancer recurrence elevated with VET and aromatase inhibitors

The study pool was 9,710 women who underwent complete resection for estrogen-positive breast cancer and were all allocated to 5 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment or no adjuvant treatment, according to guidelines. Overall, 3,112 received no adjuvant endocrine treatment, 2,007 were treated with tamoxifen only, 403 with an aromatase inhibitor, and 2,939 with a sequence of tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor.

After exclusion of 1,249 who had received VET or MHT prior to breast cancer diagnosis, there were 6,391 not prescribed any estrogen hormonal treatment, 1,957 prescribed VET, and 133 prescribed MHT with or without VET.

During an estimated median 9.8 years’ follow-up, 1,333 women (16%) had a breast cancer recurrence. Of those, 111 had received VET, 16 MHT, and 1,206 neither. Compared with those receiving no hormonal treatment, the adjusted risk of recurrence was similar for the VET users (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.32).

However, there was an increased risk for recurrence associated with initiating VET during aromatase inhibitor treatment (HR, 1.39, 95% CI, 1.04-1.85). For women receiving MHT, the adjusted relative risk of recurrence with aromatase inhibitors wasn’t significant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.62-1.78).

Overall, compared with women who never used hormonal treatment, the absolute 10-year breast cancer recurrence risk was 19.2% for never-users of VET or MHT, 15.4% in VET users, and 17.1% in MHT users.
 

No differences found for mortality

Of the 8,461 women in the study, 40% (3,370) died during an estimated median follow-up of 15.2 years. Of those, 497 had received VET, 47 MHT, and 2,826 neither. Compared with the never-users of estrogen therapy, the adjusted HR for overall survival in VET users was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.87). The analysis stratified by adjuvant endocrine therapy didn’t show an increase in VET users by use of aromatase inhibitors (aHR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.26). The same was found for women prescribed MHT, compared with never-users (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.26).

Never-users of VET or MHT had an absolute 10-year overall survival of 73.8% versus 79.5% and 80.5% among the women who used VET or MHT, respectively.

Asked to comment, Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and E. Stewart Taylor Chair of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview: “It is important to look at this issue. These findings raise but don’t answer the question that vaginal estradiol may not be as safe as we hope it is for women with breast cancer using an aromatase inhibitor.”

However, she also pointed out that “the overall increase in risk is not enormous; mortality risk was not increased. Women need to consider that there may be some risk associated with this option in their decision making about taking it. Having a satisfying sex life is also important for many women! It is really compassionate use for quality of life, so there is always that unknown element of risk in the discussion. That unknown risk has to be balanced against the benefit that the estrogen provides.”

And, Dr. Santoro also noted that the use of prescription data poses limitations. “It cannot tell us what was going on in the minds of the patient and the prescriber. There may be differences in the prescriber’s impression of the patient’s risk of recurrence that influenced the decision to provide a prescription. ... Women using AIs [aromatase inhibitors] often get pretty severe vaginal dryness symptoms and may need more estrogen to be comfortable with intercourse, but we really cannot tell this from what is in this paper.”

Indeed, Dr. Cold said: “We admit it’s not a randomized study, but we’ve done what was possible to take [confounding] factors into account, including age, tumor size, nodal status, histology, and comorbidities.”

He suggested that a potential therapeutic approach to reducing the recurrence risk might be to switch VET-treated women to tamoxifen after 2-3 years of aromatase inhibitors.

This work was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold received support from Breast Friends for the current study. Some of the other coauthors have pharmaceutical company disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory boards for Astellas, Menogenix, Que Oncology, and Amazon Ember, and is a consultant for Ansh Labs.

I was quite sure I had multiple sclerosis when I was a medical student. I first noticed symptoms during my neurology rotation. All the signs were there: Fatigue that was getting worse in the North Carolina heat (Uhthoff sign!). A tingle running down my neck (Lhermitte sign!). Blurry vision late at night while studying pathways in Lange Neurology. “Didn’t cousin Amy have MS?” I asked my Mom. I started researching which medical specialties didn’t require dexterity. My left eyelid began twitching and didn’t stop until I rotated to ob.gyn.

Fortunately, it was not multiple sclerosis I had, but rather nosophobia, also known as Medical Student’s Disease. The combination of intense study of symptoms, spotty knowledge of diagnoses, and grade anxiety makes nosophobia common in med students. Despite its name, it doesn’t afflict only doctors. Patients often come to us convinced they have a disease but without reason. So unshakable is their belief that multiple visits are often required to disabuse them of their self-diagnosis. I sometimes have to remind myself to appear concerned even when a “melanoma” is a freckle so small I can barely see it with a dermatoscope. Or a “genital wart” is a hair follicle that looks exactly like the hundreds on the patient’s scrotum. Tougher though, are the treatment-avoiders: patients whose imagined side effects lead them to stop or refuse treatment.

I recently saw a middle-aged man with erythroderma so severe he looked like a ghillie suit of scale. He had a lifelong history of atopic dermatitis and a 2-year history of avoiding treatments. At some point, he tried all the usual remedies: cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, light therapy, boxes of topicals. The last treatment had been dupilumab, which he tried for a few weeks. “Why did you stop that one?” I asked. The injections were making him go blind, he explained. “Not blurry? Blind?” I asked. Yes, he could not see at all after each injection. Perhaps he might have dry eyes or keratitis? Sure. But blindness? It seemed an unreasonable concern. Further discussion revealed that intolerance to medication side effects was why he had stopped all his other treatments.

Nocebo, from the Latin “I shall harm,” is the dark counterpart to the placebo. Patients experience imagined, or even real, adverse effects because they believe the treatment is causing them harm. This is true even though that treatment might not be having any unwanted physiologic effect. Statins are a good example. Studies have shown that most patient-reported side effects of statins are in fact nocebo effects rather than a result of pharmacologic causes.

Yet, many patients on statins report muscle pain or other concerns as unbearable. As a consequence, some patients who might have benefited from statins might be missing out on the protective gains. Nocebo effects are exacerbated by a common bias that causes deeper regret when bad outcomes result from an action taken as compared with bad outcomes that occurred from not taking action. It’s frustrating when there’s a standard of care treatment, but our patient can’t get past their fear of harm to try it.

Despite my recommendations, my eczema patient insisted on continuing his nontreatment rather than take any risks with treatments for now. There are ways I might help, but I expect it will require additional visits to build trust. Today, the best I can do is to understand and respect him. At least he doesn’t think he has a genital wart – I’m not sure how I’d treat it if he did.

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

I was quite sure I had multiple sclerosis when I was a medical student. I first noticed symptoms during my neurology rotation. All the signs were there: Fatigue that was getting worse in the North Carolina heat (Uhthoff sign!). A tingle running down my neck (Lhermitte sign!). Blurry vision late at night while studying pathways in Lange Neurology. “Didn’t cousin Amy have MS?” I asked my Mom. I started researching which medical specialties didn’t require dexterity. My left eyelid began twitching and didn’t stop until I rotated to ob.gyn.

Fortunately, it was not multiple sclerosis I had, but rather nosophobia, also known as Medical Student’s Disease. The combination of intense study of symptoms, spotty knowledge of diagnoses, and grade anxiety makes nosophobia common in med students. Despite its name, it doesn’t afflict only doctors. Patients often come to us convinced they have a disease but without reason. So unshakable is their belief that multiple visits are often required to disabuse them of their self-diagnosis. I sometimes have to remind myself to appear concerned even when a “melanoma” is a freckle so small I can barely see it with a dermatoscope. Or a “genital wart” is a hair follicle that looks exactly like the hundreds on the patient’s scrotum. Tougher though, are the treatment-avoiders: patients whose imagined side effects lead them to stop or refuse treatment.

I recently saw a middle-aged man with erythroderma so severe he looked like a ghillie suit of scale. He had a lifelong history of atopic dermatitis and a 2-year history of avoiding treatments. At some point, he tried all the usual remedies: cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, light therapy, boxes of topicals. The last treatment had been dupilumab, which he tried for a few weeks. “Why did you stop that one?” I asked. The injections were making him go blind, he explained. “Not blurry? Blind?” I asked. Yes, he could not see at all after each injection. Perhaps he might have dry eyes or keratitis? Sure. But blindness? It seemed an unreasonable concern. Further discussion revealed that intolerance to medication side effects was why he had stopped all his other treatments.

Nocebo, from the Latin “I shall harm,” is the dark counterpart to the placebo. Patients experience imagined, or even real, adverse effects because they believe the treatment is causing them harm. This is true even though that treatment might not be having any unwanted physiologic effect. Statins are a good example. Studies have shown that most patient-reported side effects of statins are in fact nocebo effects rather than a result of pharmacologic causes.

Yet, many patients on statins report muscle pain or other concerns as unbearable. As a consequence, some patients who might have benefited from statins might be missing out on the protective gains. Nocebo effects are exacerbated by a common bias that causes deeper regret when bad outcomes result from an action taken as compared with bad outcomes that occurred from not taking action. It’s frustrating when there’s a standard of care treatment, but our patient can’t get past their fear of harm to try it.

Despite my recommendations, my eczema patient insisted on continuing his nontreatment rather than take any risks with treatments for now. There are ways I might help, but I expect it will require additional visits to build trust. Today, the best I can do is to understand and respect him. At least he doesn’t think he has a genital wart – I’m not sure how I’d treat it if he did.

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

I was quite sure I had multiple sclerosis when I was a medical student. I first noticed symptoms during my neurology rotation. All the signs were there: Fatigue that was getting worse in the North Carolina heat (Uhthoff sign!). A tingle running down my neck (Lhermitte sign!). Blurry vision late at night while studying pathways in Lange Neurology. “Didn’t cousin Amy have MS?” I asked my Mom. I started researching which medical specialties didn’t require dexterity. My left eyelid began twitching and didn’t stop until I rotated to ob.gyn.

Fortunately, it was not multiple sclerosis I had, but rather nosophobia, also known as Medical Student’s Disease. The combination of intense study of symptoms, spotty knowledge of diagnoses, and grade anxiety makes nosophobia common in med students. Despite its name, it doesn’t afflict only doctors. Patients often come to us convinced they have a disease but without reason. So unshakable is their belief that multiple visits are often required to disabuse them of their self-diagnosis. I sometimes have to remind myself to appear concerned even when a “melanoma” is a freckle so small I can barely see it with a dermatoscope. Or a “genital wart” is a hair follicle that looks exactly like the hundreds on the patient’s scrotum. Tougher though, are the treatment-avoiders: patients whose imagined side effects lead them to stop or refuse treatment.

I recently saw a middle-aged man with erythroderma so severe he looked like a ghillie suit of scale. He had a lifelong history of atopic dermatitis and a 2-year history of avoiding treatments. At some point, he tried all the usual remedies: cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, light therapy, boxes of topicals. The last treatment had been dupilumab, which he tried for a few weeks. “Why did you stop that one?” I asked. The injections were making him go blind, he explained. “Not blurry? Blind?” I asked. Yes, he could not see at all after each injection. Perhaps he might have dry eyes or keratitis? Sure. But blindness? It seemed an unreasonable concern. Further discussion revealed that intolerance to medication side effects was why he had stopped all his other treatments.

Nocebo, from the Latin “I shall harm,” is the dark counterpart to the placebo. Patients experience imagined, or even real, adverse effects because they believe the treatment is causing them harm. This is true even though that treatment might not be having any unwanted physiologic effect. Statins are a good example. Studies have shown that most patient-reported side effects of statins are in fact nocebo effects rather than a result of pharmacologic causes.

Yet, many patients on statins report muscle pain or other concerns as unbearable. As a consequence, some patients who might have benefited from statins might be missing out on the protective gains. Nocebo effects are exacerbated by a common bias that causes deeper regret when bad outcomes result from an action taken as compared with bad outcomes that occurred from not taking action. It’s frustrating when there’s a standard of care treatment, but our patient can’t get past their fear of harm to try it.

Despite my recommendations, my eczema patient insisted on continuing his nontreatment rather than take any risks with treatments for now. There are ways I might help, but I expect it will require additional visits to build trust. Today, the best I can do is to understand and respect him. At least he doesn’t think he has a genital wart – I’m not sure how I’d treat it if he did.

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

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins was linked to a lower risk of developing a subtype of diabetes that occurs after acute pancreatitis, according to a new report.

The benefits of statins depended on the consistency of usage, with regular users having a lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes than irregular users. The results were similar with low, moderate, and high statin doses, as well as in cases of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis.

“About 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop diabetes mellitus in the next 5 years, and although we can monitor for it, we can’t do anything to prevent it,” Nikhil Thiruvengadam, MD, the lead study author and a gastroenterologist at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

“This could push you as a clinician to prescribe [a statin if you have a reason to] because it could provide two benefits instead of just one,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Steady use mattered, not dose

Patients with acute pancreatitis face at least a twofold increased risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, the study authors write. Although previous studies have shown that statins can lower the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis, they haven’t been studied for the prevention of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In a collaborative study with several other universities, Dr. Thiruvengadam and colleagues examined commercial insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics database to assess the impact of statins on 118,479 patients without preexisting diabetes admitted for a first episode of acute pancreatitis between 2008 and 2020.

They compared patients who consistently used statins with irregular users and nonusers. Regular statin usage was defined as patients who had statin prescriptions filled for at least 80% of the year prior to their acute pancreatitis diagnosis. The analysis included 9,048 patients (7.6%) who used statins regularly, 27,272 (23%) who used statins irregularly, and 82,159 (69.3%) nonusers.

With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of postpancreatitis diabetes was 7.5% among regular statin users and 12.7% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 42% lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, compared with nonusers. Irregular statin users had a 15% lower risk of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In addition, the 5-year cumulative incidence of insulin-dependent postpancreatitis diabetes was 2.4% among regular statin users and 6.6% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 52% lower risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes as compared with nonusers.

Daily dosage didn’t demonstrate a linear dose-response relationship. That means high-dose statins may not be more effective in preventing diabetes as compared with lower doses, the study authors write.

Statin usage was effective across additional analyses, including sex, etiologies of pancreatitis, and in both mild and severe acute pancreatitis. According to the study authors, this suggests that a broad population of these patients may benefit from statins.

“We were pleasantly surprised by the variety of findings,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “We’re seeing strong signals, especially with consistency of usage.”
 

Ongoing studies

The results may seem paradoxical, the study authors write, given an epidemiologic association with a slight increase in new-onset diabetes with statin initiation. But, as other researchers have reported, postpancreatitis diabetes and type 2 diabetes have different clinical features and underlying pathophysiology. For example, patients with postpancreatitis diabetes have much higher rates of requiring insulin, hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, the study authors write.

In fact, postpancreatitis diabetes is thought to be driven by chronic low-grade inflammation attributable to interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Statins have been shown to reduce tumor necrosis factor–alpha secretion and the production of C-reactive protein in response to circulating interleukin-6 in hepatocytes, they write.

The results should inform long-term prospective studies of acute pancreatitis, the study authors write, as well as randomized controlled trials of statins.

In the meantime, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians who see outpatients after hospitalization for acute pancreatitis may consider using statins, particularly in those who may have another possible indication for statin therapy, such as mild hyperlipidemia.

“There appears to be a low-dose benefit, which is another reason why providers may consider using statins, though it’s not for everyone with pancreatitis,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “This could be an exploratory pathway and suggested for use in the right setting.”

The Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, is conducting an observational cohort study at more than a dozen locations across the country to investigate the incidence, etiology, and pathophysiology of diabetes after acute pancreatitis.

“Diabetes is surprisingly common after even a single attack of acute pancreatitis,” Chris Forsmark, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

Dr. Forsmark, who wasn’t involved with this study, is a member of T1DAPC and one of the principal investigators in Florida.

“The reduction of risk by 42% is quite substantial,” he said. “Like all such studies, there is risk of bias and confounding in determining the actual risk. Nonetheless, the results provide a strong reason for confirmation in other datasets and for further study.”

The study didn’t report funding support. Dr. Thiruvengadam and Dr. Forsmark report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins was linked to a lower risk of developing a subtype of diabetes that occurs after acute pancreatitis, according to a new report.

The benefits of statins depended on the consistency of usage, with regular users having a lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes than irregular users. The results were similar with low, moderate, and high statin doses, as well as in cases of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis.

“About 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop diabetes mellitus in the next 5 years, and although we can monitor for it, we can’t do anything to prevent it,” Nikhil Thiruvengadam, MD, the lead study author and a gastroenterologist at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

“This could push you as a clinician to prescribe [a statin if you have a reason to] because it could provide two benefits instead of just one,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Steady use mattered, not dose

Patients with acute pancreatitis face at least a twofold increased risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, the study authors write. Although previous studies have shown that statins can lower the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis, they haven’t been studied for the prevention of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In a collaborative study with several other universities, Dr. Thiruvengadam and colleagues examined commercial insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics database to assess the impact of statins on 118,479 patients without preexisting diabetes admitted for a first episode of acute pancreatitis between 2008 and 2020.

They compared patients who consistently used statins with irregular users and nonusers. Regular statin usage was defined as patients who had statin prescriptions filled for at least 80% of the year prior to their acute pancreatitis diagnosis. The analysis included 9,048 patients (7.6%) who used statins regularly, 27,272 (23%) who used statins irregularly, and 82,159 (69.3%) nonusers.

With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of postpancreatitis diabetes was 7.5% among regular statin users and 12.7% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 42% lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, compared with nonusers. Irregular statin users had a 15% lower risk of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In addition, the 5-year cumulative incidence of insulin-dependent postpancreatitis diabetes was 2.4% among regular statin users and 6.6% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 52% lower risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes as compared with nonusers.

Daily dosage didn’t demonstrate a linear dose-response relationship. That means high-dose statins may not be more effective in preventing diabetes as compared with lower doses, the study authors write.

Statin usage was effective across additional analyses, including sex, etiologies of pancreatitis, and in both mild and severe acute pancreatitis. According to the study authors, this suggests that a broad population of these patients may benefit from statins.

“We were pleasantly surprised by the variety of findings,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “We’re seeing strong signals, especially with consistency of usage.”
 

Ongoing studies

The results may seem paradoxical, the study authors write, given an epidemiologic association with a slight increase in new-onset diabetes with statin initiation. But, as other researchers have reported, postpancreatitis diabetes and type 2 diabetes have different clinical features and underlying pathophysiology. For example, patients with postpancreatitis diabetes have much higher rates of requiring insulin, hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, the study authors write.

In fact, postpancreatitis diabetes is thought to be driven by chronic low-grade inflammation attributable to interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Statins have been shown to reduce tumor necrosis factor–alpha secretion and the production of C-reactive protein in response to circulating interleukin-6 in hepatocytes, they write.

The results should inform long-term prospective studies of acute pancreatitis, the study authors write, as well as randomized controlled trials of statins.

In the meantime, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians who see outpatients after hospitalization for acute pancreatitis may consider using statins, particularly in those who may have another possible indication for statin therapy, such as mild hyperlipidemia.

“There appears to be a low-dose benefit, which is another reason why providers may consider using statins, though it’s not for everyone with pancreatitis,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “This could be an exploratory pathway and suggested for use in the right setting.”

The Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, is conducting an observational cohort study at more than a dozen locations across the country to investigate the incidence, etiology, and pathophysiology of diabetes after acute pancreatitis.

“Diabetes is surprisingly common after even a single attack of acute pancreatitis,” Chris Forsmark, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

Dr. Forsmark, who wasn’t involved with this study, is a member of T1DAPC and one of the principal investigators in Florida.

“The reduction of risk by 42% is quite substantial,” he said. “Like all such studies, there is risk of bias and confounding in determining the actual risk. Nonetheless, the results provide a strong reason for confirmation in other datasets and for further study.”

The study didn’t report funding support. Dr. Thiruvengadam and Dr. Forsmark report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins was linked to a lower risk of developing a subtype of diabetes that occurs after acute pancreatitis, according to a new report.

The benefits of statins depended on the consistency of usage, with regular users having a lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes than irregular users. The results were similar with low, moderate, and high statin doses, as well as in cases of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis.

“About 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop diabetes mellitus in the next 5 years, and although we can monitor for it, we can’t do anything to prevent it,” Nikhil Thiruvengadam, MD, the lead study author and a gastroenterologist at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

“This could push you as a clinician to prescribe [a statin if you have a reason to] because it could provide two benefits instead of just one,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Steady use mattered, not dose

Patients with acute pancreatitis face at least a twofold increased risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, the study authors write. Although previous studies have shown that statins can lower the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis, they haven’t been studied for the prevention of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In a collaborative study with several other universities, Dr. Thiruvengadam and colleagues examined commercial insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics database to assess the impact of statins on 118,479 patients without preexisting diabetes admitted for a first episode of acute pancreatitis between 2008 and 2020.

They compared patients who consistently used statins with irregular users and nonusers. Regular statin usage was defined as patients who had statin prescriptions filled for at least 80% of the year prior to their acute pancreatitis diagnosis. The analysis included 9,048 patients (7.6%) who used statins regularly, 27,272 (23%) who used statins irregularly, and 82,159 (69.3%) nonusers.

With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of postpancreatitis diabetes was 7.5% among regular statin users and 12.7% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 42% lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, compared with nonusers. Irregular statin users had a 15% lower risk of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In addition, the 5-year cumulative incidence of insulin-dependent postpancreatitis diabetes was 2.4% among regular statin users and 6.6% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 52% lower risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes as compared with nonusers.

Daily dosage didn’t demonstrate a linear dose-response relationship. That means high-dose statins may not be more effective in preventing diabetes as compared with lower doses, the study authors write.

Statin usage was effective across additional analyses, including sex, etiologies of pancreatitis, and in both mild and severe acute pancreatitis. According to the study authors, this suggests that a broad population of these patients may benefit from statins.

“We were pleasantly surprised by the variety of findings,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “We’re seeing strong signals, especially with consistency of usage.”
 

Ongoing studies

The results may seem paradoxical, the study authors write, given an epidemiologic association with a slight increase in new-onset diabetes with statin initiation. But, as other researchers have reported, postpancreatitis diabetes and type 2 diabetes have different clinical features and underlying pathophysiology. For example, patients with postpancreatitis diabetes have much higher rates of requiring insulin, hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, the study authors write.

In fact, postpancreatitis diabetes is thought to be driven by chronic low-grade inflammation attributable to interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Statins have been shown to reduce tumor necrosis factor–alpha secretion and the production of C-reactive protein in response to circulating interleukin-6 in hepatocytes, they write.

The results should inform long-term prospective studies of acute pancreatitis, the study authors write, as well as randomized controlled trials of statins.

In the meantime, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians who see outpatients after hospitalization for acute pancreatitis may consider using statins, particularly in those who may have another possible indication for statin therapy, such as mild hyperlipidemia.

“There appears to be a low-dose benefit, which is another reason why providers may consider using statins, though it’s not for everyone with pancreatitis,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “This could be an exploratory pathway and suggested for use in the right setting.”

The Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, is conducting an observational cohort study at more than a dozen locations across the country to investigate the incidence, etiology, and pathophysiology of diabetes after acute pancreatitis.

“Diabetes is surprisingly common after even a single attack of acute pancreatitis,” Chris Forsmark, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

Dr. Forsmark, who wasn’t involved with this study, is a member of T1DAPC and one of the principal investigators in Florida.

“The reduction of risk by 42% is quite substantial,” he said. “Like all such studies, there is risk of bias and confounding in determining the actual risk. Nonetheless, the results provide a strong reason for confirmation in other datasets and for further study.”

The study didn’t report funding support. Dr. Thiruvengadam and Dr. Forsmark report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Avocados are a rich source of fiber and healthy fat, but eating one a day for 6 months did not shrink waist size or belly fat, according to the findings of a new study.

But it did improve diet quality and led to modest lowering of total cholesterol.

More than 1,000 adults with overweight or obesity and a large waist – at least 35 inches in women and 40 inches in men – took part in this U.S. study, called the Habitual Diet and Avocado Trial (HAT).

tookapic/Pixabay

The people in the study were divided into two groups: usual diet plus one large avocado every day and usual diet with two avocados at most per month (control group).

Those in the avocado-a-day group were given a regular supply of fresh avocados along with written instructions for how to ripen and prepare them.

They had MRI scans to measure belly fat and fat around other organs at the beginning of the study and after 6 months.

After 6 months, the people who ate an avocado a day did not have less fat around their middles – the main trial outcome – compared with people in the control group.

But at 6 months, those in the avocado-a-day group had:

• No weight gain. People’s weight remained stable in both groups.
• Improved diet quality by 8 points on a 100-point scale
• A 2.9-mg/dL decrease in total cholesterol
• A 2.5-mg/dL decrease in LDL cholesterol

The study was done by researchers at Penn State University; Tufts University; Loma Linda University; and the University of California, Los Angeles, with coordinating support from Wake Forest University.

It was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

“While the avocados did not affect belly fat or weight gain, the study still provides evidence that avocados can be a beneficial addition to a well-balanced diet,” Penny M. Kris-Etherton, PhD, one of the researchers and a professor of nutritional sciences at Penn State University, University Park, said in a news release.

“Incorporating an avocado per day in this study did not cause weight gain and also caused a slight decrease in LDL cholesterol, which are all important findings for better health,” she said.

Similarly, study researcher Joan Sabaté, MD, a professor at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, said: “While one avocado a day did not lead to clinically significant improvements in abdominal fat and other cardiometabolic risk factors, consuming one avocado a day did not result in body weight gain.”

“This is positive,” he said, “because eating extra calories from avocados doesn’t impact body weight or abdominal fat, and it slightly decreases total and LDL cholesterol.”

Kristina S. Petersen, PhD, another of the researchers and an assistant professor of nutritional sciences at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, pointed out that people are generally poor at adhering to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

This study suggests that an avocado a day can improve diet quality, she noted, which “ is important because we know a higher diet quality is associated with lower risk of several diseases, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers.”

But the researchers also stressed that it is important to consider the diet as a whole.

“Consistent with prior observations, a change in dietary patterns rather than a single food or nutrient may be necessary to achieve clinically significant improvements” in belly fat and other risk factors for heart attack, stroke, and diabetes, they wrote. 

HAT was funded by the Hass Avocado Board, which also supplied the avocados.

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

Avocados are a rich source of fiber and healthy fat, but eating one a day for 6 months did not shrink waist size or belly fat, according to the findings of a new study.

But it did improve diet quality and led to modest lowering of total cholesterol.

More than 1,000 adults with overweight or obesity and a large waist – at least 35 inches in women and 40 inches in men – took part in this U.S. study, called the Habitual Diet and Avocado Trial (HAT).

tookapic/Pixabay

The people in the study were divided into two groups: usual diet plus one large avocado every day and usual diet with two avocados at most per month (control group).

Those in the avocado-a-day group were given a regular supply of fresh avocados along with written instructions for how to ripen and prepare them.

They had MRI scans to measure belly fat and fat around other organs at the beginning of the study and after 6 months.

After 6 months, the people who ate an avocado a day did not have less fat around their middles – the main trial outcome – compared with people in the control group.

But at 6 months, those in the avocado-a-day group had:

• No weight gain. People’s weight remained stable in both groups.
• Improved diet quality by 8 points on a 100-point scale
• A 2.9-mg/dL decrease in total cholesterol
• A 2.5-mg/dL decrease in LDL cholesterol

The study was done by researchers at Penn State University; Tufts University; Loma Linda University; and the University of California, Los Angeles, with coordinating support from Wake Forest University.

It was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

“While the avocados did not affect belly fat or weight gain, the study still provides evidence that avocados can be a beneficial addition to a well-balanced diet,” Penny M. Kris-Etherton, PhD, one of the researchers and a professor of nutritional sciences at Penn State University, University Park, said in a news release.

“Incorporating an avocado per day in this study did not cause weight gain and also caused a slight decrease in LDL cholesterol, which are all important findings for better health,” she said.

Similarly, study researcher Joan Sabaté, MD, a professor at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, said: “While one avocado a day did not lead to clinically significant improvements in abdominal fat and other cardiometabolic risk factors, consuming one avocado a day did not result in body weight gain.”

“This is positive,” he said, “because eating extra calories from avocados doesn’t impact body weight or abdominal fat, and it slightly decreases total and LDL cholesterol.”

Kristina S. Petersen, PhD, another of the researchers and an assistant professor of nutritional sciences at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, pointed out that people are generally poor at adhering to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

This study suggests that an avocado a day can improve diet quality, she noted, which “ is important because we know a higher diet quality is associated with lower risk of several diseases, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers.”

But the researchers also stressed that it is important to consider the diet as a whole.

“Consistent with prior observations, a change in dietary patterns rather than a single food or nutrient may be necessary to achieve clinically significant improvements” in belly fat and other risk factors for heart attack, stroke, and diabetes, they wrote. 

HAT was funded by the Hass Avocado Board, which also supplied the avocados.

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

Avocados are a rich source of fiber and healthy fat, but eating one a day for 6 months did not shrink waist size or belly fat, according to the findings of a new study.

But it did improve diet quality and led to modest lowering of total cholesterol.

More than 1,000 adults with overweight or obesity and a large waist – at least 35 inches in women and 40 inches in men – took part in this U.S. study, called the Habitual Diet and Avocado Trial (HAT).

tookapic/Pixabay

The people in the study were divided into two groups: usual diet plus one large avocado every day and usual diet with two avocados at most per month (control group).

Those in the avocado-a-day group were given a regular supply of fresh avocados along with written instructions for how to ripen and prepare them.

They had MRI scans to measure belly fat and fat around other organs at the beginning of the study and after 6 months.

After 6 months, the people who ate an avocado a day did not have less fat around their middles – the main trial outcome – compared with people in the control group.

But at 6 months, those in the avocado-a-day group had:

• No weight gain. People’s weight remained stable in both groups.
• Improved diet quality by 8 points on a 100-point scale
• A 2.9-mg/dL decrease in total cholesterol
• A 2.5-mg/dL decrease in LDL cholesterol

The study was done by researchers at Penn State University; Tufts University; Loma Linda University; and the University of California, Los Angeles, with coordinating support from Wake Forest University.

It was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

“While the avocados did not affect belly fat or weight gain, the study still provides evidence that avocados can be a beneficial addition to a well-balanced diet,” Penny M. Kris-Etherton, PhD, one of the researchers and a professor of nutritional sciences at Penn State University, University Park, said in a news release.

“Incorporating an avocado per day in this study did not cause weight gain and also caused a slight decrease in LDL cholesterol, which are all important findings for better health,” she said.

Similarly, study researcher Joan Sabaté, MD, a professor at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, said: “While one avocado a day did not lead to clinically significant improvements in abdominal fat and other cardiometabolic risk factors, consuming one avocado a day did not result in body weight gain.”

“This is positive,” he said, “because eating extra calories from avocados doesn’t impact body weight or abdominal fat, and it slightly decreases total and LDL cholesterol.”

Kristina S. Petersen, PhD, another of the researchers and an assistant professor of nutritional sciences at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, pointed out that people are generally poor at adhering to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

This study suggests that an avocado a day can improve diet quality, she noted, which “ is important because we know a higher diet quality is associated with lower risk of several diseases, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers.”

But the researchers also stressed that it is important to consider the diet as a whole.

“Consistent with prior observations, a change in dietary patterns rather than a single food or nutrient may be necessary to achieve clinically significant improvements” in belly fat and other risk factors for heart attack, stroke, and diabetes, they wrote. 

HAT was funded by the Hass Avocado Board, which also supplied the avocados.

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

Pediatric obesity is a serious problem, not only in the United States but worldwide. Unfortunately, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the epidemic of childhood obesity. Solutions for treating the millions of children and adolescents with obesity are desperately needed because prevention efforts over the past several decades have not been sufficient in slowing the steady rise in obesity prevalence.

Lifestyle modification, including dietary changes, increases in activity, and behavioral modification, are the cornerstone of any obesity treatment, but they alone are not powerful enough to treat obesity by itself in the vast majority of children and adolescents. This is because obesity is not a lifestyle choice; rather, it is a disease, and a disease that has a tremendous amount of biology driving individuals toward weight gain and the propensity toward weight regain if weight is lost.

Fortunately, the tools to treat the underlying biology driving obesity are becoming safer, more effective, and more widely used every year. The two most effective biology-based treatments for pediatric obesity are antiobesity medications and bariatric surgery. These two treatments, when accompanied by lifestyle modification, have the potential to reduce not only body weight but also treat many other risk factors, such as prediabetes, diabetes, high blood pressure, poor cholesterol, liver disease, and sleep apnea, as well as others.
 

Rise in antiobesity medications

Antiobesity medications are developing at a rapid pace. Seven medications have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults, and three medications (phentermine, orlistat, and liraglutide) are now approved for children and adolescents.

The number of antiobesity medications for use in children and adolescents is expected to expand to five, with semaglutide and phentermine-topiramate (Qsymia) both completing trials in adolescents in 2022. Each of these medications works by treating the biology that drives weight gain, whether it is decreasing impulsivity, reducing hunger and appetite hormone pathways, or improving energy regulation pathways. Weight loss at 1 year for currently FDA-approved medications in adolescents ranges from 3% to 6% on average, depending on the medications. The newer medications already FDA approved in adults that will soon, hopefully, be available in pediatrics result in 10%-16% weight loss on average.

A common parent and patient question regarding antiobesity medications is: “If I start an antiobesity medication, how long will I need to be on it?” The simple answer is: “Probably for the rest of your life.”

This can be a shock to hear, but obesity treatment is very similar to that of hypertension or diabetes. Using high blood pressure as an example: If a patient has high blood pressure (for example, 160/90 mm Hg), they will be prescribed a medication to treat it. Once blood pressure comes down to near-normal levels (for example, 120/80 mm Hg), a dose will be maintained, not removed, because that is the biological mediator keeping the blood pressure low. Removal of the medication would result in blood pressure going back to homeostasis (160/90 mm Hg in our example) in a short period of time).

The same can be said for obesity. For example, if a 16-year-old girl is prescribed liraglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, and loses 10% of her body weight at 1 year, that is great success. Why would we remove the medication that is treating the underlying biology causing successful weight loss?

In short, we would not want to do that. Even if our example patient only maintained that 10% initial weight loss, that would be very successful, just like someone maintaining their low blood pressure. As medications begin to develop at a rapid pace and become more available to pediatric patients, the messaging and conversation around anti-obesity medications must continue to focus on obesity being a biological disease and not a behavior for treatment to be effective and not stigmatized.
 

Bariatric surgery most effective treatment for pediatric obesity

Currently, the most effective treatment for pediatric obesity is bariatric surgery. The two most commonly used surgical procedures today are the sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass. Sleeve gastrectomy works by removing 75%-85% of the stomach and creating a new stomach, called a “sleeve.” Gastric bypass works by separating the stomach into two parts and connecting one part of the new stomach into the intestine.

Both surgeries are very effective at treating obesity in adolescents, with an average weight loss of 30%-35%. Surgery is not just a restrictive means of controlling body weight; it also changes key hormones for appetite and satiety that signal the brain. In fact, many of the same biological signals that are changed by surgery are the same signals being targeted by antiobesity medications. Long-term outcome of bariatric surgery in adolescents, provided by Teen-LABS, show it to be safe and maybe even more effective than in adults for treating diabetes and hypertension, with similar weight loss.
 

Does treatment outweigh the potential risks?

Although obesity surgery and antiobesity medications are more successful at treating obesity in children and adolescents than lifestyle medications, they do have some risks. Surgery, depending on the type of surgery, can cause nutritional deficiencies, reduce body mineral density, and is a life-changing medical procedure. Antiobesity medications, depending on the type, can cause nausea and vomiting and increase heart rate – and because they are relatively new, we do not fully understand the long-term impact of continued use past 1 year.

However, an important question to ask is: “Do the risks of obesity surgery and antiobesity medications outweigh the risk of having lifelong obesity?” The answer to me and many of my colleagues is: “Yes!” Although there are risks associated with the two best treatments for pediatric obesity, those risks under proper supervision of a medical professional far outweigh the risks of not properly treating obesity and allowing it to persist and get worse over many years to come. Obesity is a disease deeply rooted in biology, and we must use biology-based treatments to tackle this problem in children and adolescents, who deserve the best care and treatments possible.

Dr. Ryder is assistant professor of pediatrics and associate director of research, Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine, at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She reported receiving donations for clinical trials from Boehringer Ingelheim. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pediatric obesity is a serious problem, not only in the United States but worldwide. Unfortunately, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the epidemic of childhood obesity. Solutions for treating the millions of children and adolescents with obesity are desperately needed because prevention efforts over the past several decades have not been sufficient in slowing the steady rise in obesity prevalence.

Lifestyle modification, including dietary changes, increases in activity, and behavioral modification, are the cornerstone of any obesity treatment, but they alone are not powerful enough to treat obesity by itself in the vast majority of children and adolescents. This is because obesity is not a lifestyle choice; rather, it is a disease, and a disease that has a tremendous amount of biology driving individuals toward weight gain and the propensity toward weight regain if weight is lost.

Fortunately, the tools to treat the underlying biology driving obesity are becoming safer, more effective, and more widely used every year. The two most effective biology-based treatments for pediatric obesity are antiobesity medications and bariatric surgery. These two treatments, when accompanied by lifestyle modification, have the potential to reduce not only body weight but also treat many other risk factors, such as prediabetes, diabetes, high blood pressure, poor cholesterol, liver disease, and sleep apnea, as well as others.
 

Rise in antiobesity medications

Antiobesity medications are developing at a rapid pace. Seven medications have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults, and three medications (phentermine, orlistat, and liraglutide) are now approved for children and adolescents.

The number of antiobesity medications for use in children and adolescents is expected to expand to five, with semaglutide and phentermine-topiramate (Qsymia) both completing trials in adolescents in 2022. Each of these medications works by treating the biology that drives weight gain, whether it is decreasing impulsivity, reducing hunger and appetite hormone pathways, or improving energy regulation pathways. Weight loss at 1 year for currently FDA-approved medications in adolescents ranges from 3% to 6% on average, depending on the medications. The newer medications already FDA approved in adults that will soon, hopefully, be available in pediatrics result in 10%-16% weight loss on average.

A common parent and patient question regarding antiobesity medications is: “If I start an antiobesity medication, how long will I need to be on it?” The simple answer is: “Probably for the rest of your life.”

This can be a shock to hear, but obesity treatment is very similar to that of hypertension or diabetes. Using high blood pressure as an example: If a patient has high blood pressure (for example, 160/90 mm Hg), they will be prescribed a medication to treat it. Once blood pressure comes down to near-normal levels (for example, 120/80 mm Hg), a dose will be maintained, not removed, because that is the biological mediator keeping the blood pressure low. Removal of the medication would result in blood pressure going back to homeostasis (160/90 mm Hg in our example) in a short period of time).

The same can be said for obesity. For example, if a 16-year-old girl is prescribed liraglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, and loses 10% of her body weight at 1 year, that is great success. Why would we remove the medication that is treating the underlying biology causing successful weight loss?

In short, we would not want to do that. Even if our example patient only maintained that 10% initial weight loss, that would be very successful, just like someone maintaining their low blood pressure. As medications begin to develop at a rapid pace and become more available to pediatric patients, the messaging and conversation around anti-obesity medications must continue to focus on obesity being a biological disease and not a behavior for treatment to be effective and not stigmatized.
 

Bariatric surgery most effective treatment for pediatric obesity

Currently, the most effective treatment for pediatric obesity is bariatric surgery. The two most commonly used surgical procedures today are the sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass. Sleeve gastrectomy works by removing 75%-85% of the stomach and creating a new stomach, called a “sleeve.” Gastric bypass works by separating the stomach into two parts and connecting one part of the new stomach into the intestine.

Both surgeries are very effective at treating obesity in adolescents, with an average weight loss of 30%-35%. Surgery is not just a restrictive means of controlling body weight; it also changes key hormones for appetite and satiety that signal the brain. In fact, many of the same biological signals that are changed by surgery are the same signals being targeted by antiobesity medications. Long-term outcome of bariatric surgery in adolescents, provided by Teen-LABS, show it to be safe and maybe even more effective than in adults for treating diabetes and hypertension, with similar weight loss.
 

Does treatment outweigh the potential risks?

Although obesity surgery and antiobesity medications are more successful at treating obesity in children and adolescents than lifestyle medications, they do have some risks. Surgery, depending on the type of surgery, can cause nutritional deficiencies, reduce body mineral density, and is a life-changing medical procedure. Antiobesity medications, depending on the type, can cause nausea and vomiting and increase heart rate – and because they are relatively new, we do not fully understand the long-term impact of continued use past 1 year.

However, an important question to ask is: “Do the risks of obesity surgery and antiobesity medications outweigh the risk of having lifelong obesity?” The answer to me and many of my colleagues is: “Yes!” Although there are risks associated with the two best treatments for pediatric obesity, those risks under proper supervision of a medical professional far outweigh the risks of not properly treating obesity and allowing it to persist and get worse over many years to come. Obesity is a disease deeply rooted in biology, and we must use biology-based treatments to tackle this problem in children and adolescents, who deserve the best care and treatments possible.

Dr. Ryder is assistant professor of pediatrics and associate director of research, Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine, at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She reported receiving donations for clinical trials from Boehringer Ingelheim. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pediatric obesity is a serious problem, not only in the United States but worldwide. Unfortunately, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the epidemic of childhood obesity. Solutions for treating the millions of children and adolescents with obesity are desperately needed because prevention efforts over the past several decades have not been sufficient in slowing the steady rise in obesity prevalence.

Lifestyle modification, including dietary changes, increases in activity, and behavioral modification, are the cornerstone of any obesity treatment, but they alone are not powerful enough to treat obesity by itself in the vast majority of children and adolescents. This is because obesity is not a lifestyle choice; rather, it is a disease, and a disease that has a tremendous amount of biology driving individuals toward weight gain and the propensity toward weight regain if weight is lost.

Fortunately, the tools to treat the underlying biology driving obesity are becoming safer, more effective, and more widely used every year. The two most effective biology-based treatments for pediatric obesity are antiobesity medications and bariatric surgery. These two treatments, when accompanied by lifestyle modification, have the potential to reduce not only body weight but also treat many other risk factors, such as prediabetes, diabetes, high blood pressure, poor cholesterol, liver disease, and sleep apnea, as well as others.
 

Rise in antiobesity medications

Antiobesity medications are developing at a rapid pace. Seven medications have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults, and three medications (phentermine, orlistat, and liraglutide) are now approved for children and adolescents.

The number of antiobesity medications for use in children and adolescents is expected to expand to five, with semaglutide and phentermine-topiramate (Qsymia) both completing trials in adolescents in 2022. Each of these medications works by treating the biology that drives weight gain, whether it is decreasing impulsivity, reducing hunger and appetite hormone pathways, or improving energy regulation pathways. Weight loss at 1 year for currently FDA-approved medications in adolescents ranges from 3% to 6% on average, depending on the medications. The newer medications already FDA approved in adults that will soon, hopefully, be available in pediatrics result in 10%-16% weight loss on average.

A common parent and patient question regarding antiobesity medications is: “If I start an antiobesity medication, how long will I need to be on it?” The simple answer is: “Probably for the rest of your life.”

This can be a shock to hear, but obesity treatment is very similar to that of hypertension or diabetes. Using high blood pressure as an example: If a patient has high blood pressure (for example, 160/90 mm Hg), they will be prescribed a medication to treat it. Once blood pressure comes down to near-normal levels (for example, 120/80 mm Hg), a dose will be maintained, not removed, because that is the biological mediator keeping the blood pressure low. Removal of the medication would result in blood pressure going back to homeostasis (160/90 mm Hg in our example) in a short period of time).

The same can be said for obesity. For example, if a 16-year-old girl is prescribed liraglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, and loses 10% of her body weight at 1 year, that is great success. Why would we remove the medication that is treating the underlying biology causing successful weight loss?

In short, we would not want to do that. Even if our example patient only maintained that 10% initial weight loss, that would be very successful, just like someone maintaining their low blood pressure. As medications begin to develop at a rapid pace and become more available to pediatric patients, the messaging and conversation around anti-obesity medications must continue to focus on obesity being a biological disease and not a behavior for treatment to be effective and not stigmatized.
 

Bariatric surgery most effective treatment for pediatric obesity

Currently, the most effective treatment for pediatric obesity is bariatric surgery. The two most commonly used surgical procedures today are the sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass. Sleeve gastrectomy works by removing 75%-85% of the stomach and creating a new stomach, called a “sleeve.” Gastric bypass works by separating the stomach into two parts and connecting one part of the new stomach into the intestine.

Both surgeries are very effective at treating obesity in adolescents, with an average weight loss of 30%-35%. Surgery is not just a restrictive means of controlling body weight; it also changes key hormones for appetite and satiety that signal the brain. In fact, many of the same biological signals that are changed by surgery are the same signals being targeted by antiobesity medications. Long-term outcome of bariatric surgery in adolescents, provided by Teen-LABS, show it to be safe and maybe even more effective than in adults for treating diabetes and hypertension, with similar weight loss.
 

Does treatment outweigh the potential risks?

Although obesity surgery and antiobesity medications are more successful at treating obesity in children and adolescents than lifestyle medications, they do have some risks. Surgery, depending on the type of surgery, can cause nutritional deficiencies, reduce body mineral density, and is a life-changing medical procedure. Antiobesity medications, depending on the type, can cause nausea and vomiting and increase heart rate – and because they are relatively new, we do not fully understand the long-term impact of continued use past 1 year.

However, an important question to ask is: “Do the risks of obesity surgery and antiobesity medications outweigh the risk of having lifelong obesity?” The answer to me and many of my colleagues is: “Yes!” Although there are risks associated with the two best treatments for pediatric obesity, those risks under proper supervision of a medical professional far outweigh the risks of not properly treating obesity and allowing it to persist and get worse over many years to come. Obesity is a disease deeply rooted in biology, and we must use biology-based treatments to tackle this problem in children and adolescents, who deserve the best care and treatments possible.

Dr. Ryder is assistant professor of pediatrics and associate director of research, Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine, at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She reported receiving donations for clinical trials from Boehringer Ingelheim. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Children whose mothers have polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have increased rates of hospitalization for various conditions, including asthma, pneumonia, and ear infection, a study of more than 1 million children shows.

The associations were not particularly strong, according to the researchers. But they raise questions about the reasons for the increased risk and whether interventions such as diet, exercise, or medications could lead to healthier outcomes for children whose mothers have PCOS.

“The findings suggest that maternal PCOS may have a negative impact on offspring development, enough to lead to a measurable increase in the risk of childhood hospitalization,” study coauthor Nathalie Auger, MD, associate professor of epidemiology at University of Montreal, and colleagues reported in Human Reproduction.

“They are minor differences, just enough that we can statistically identify them. They’re not something where everyone should be worrying at this point,” Dr. Auger told this news organization.

Still, some of the hospitalizations, such as those related to infection or allergy, could be prevented with earlier ambulatory care, so some degree of greater awareness among parents and clinicians may be warranted, she said.
 

Thirteen years of follow-up

PCOS – a reproductive disorder characterized by irregular periods, increased male hormones, and metabolic complications – affects some 10% of women. People with the condition are at increased risk for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Although prior research has shown that maternal PCOS may be associated with higher body mass index and attention deficit disorder in children, data on long-term childhood health outcomes have been limited, Dr. Auger’s group noted.

To examine illness in children exposed to maternal PCOS, the investigators analyzed hospitalization rates for nearly 1.04 million children in Quebec between 2006 and 2020; 7,160 of the children had mothers with PCOS.

In all, 275,354 children were hospitalized during 13 years of follow-up, including 2,314 whose mothers had PCOS.

Children exposed to PCOS were hospitalized at a rate of 68.9 per 1,000 person-years – roughly 50% more often than the rate of 45.3 per 1,000 person-years for children not exposed to maternal PCOS.

In an analysis that adjusted for maternal characteristics, childhood hospitalization for any reason was 1.32 times more likely for children exposed to maternal PCOS.

Hospitalizations linked to infectious diseases – such as for bronchitis, bronchiolitis, pneumonia, nephritis, otitis media, or meningitis – were 1.31 times more likely among children exposed to PCOS. Allergy-related hospitalizations, such as for allergic asthma and anaphylaxis, were 1.47 times more likely, according to the researchers.

Metabolic hospitalizations were 1.59 times more likely. For gastrointestinal hospitalizations, the hazard ratio was 1.72. For central nervous system hospitalizations, it was 1.74.

The associations were stronger in earlier childhood, and results were similar for boys and girls, the investigators reported.

Hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal conditions, or malignancy were not increased.
 

‘Surprising’ links

“The findings are surprising in that some of the conditions that they showed increased risk for, like asthma and some infections, are not conditions that we think of as being typically associated with PCOS,” said Andrea E. Dunaif, MD, chief of the Hilda and J. Lester Gabrilove Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Disease at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not part of the study team.

Earlier studies of offspring of women with PCOS have suggested that children may be at increased risk for insulin resistance and obesity.

Differences in genetics, intrauterine environments, patterns of health care use by women with PCOS, and behavioral factors, such as diet and how children are raised, are variables that could have contributed to the different hospitalization rates among children exposed to maternal PCOS, Dr. Auger said.

“Everything is interconnected,” she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Auger has received a career award from Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé. Dr. Dunaif has consulted for Novo Nordisk and Fractyl Laboratories (now Fractyl Health).

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

Children whose mothers have polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have increased rates of hospitalization for various conditions, including asthma, pneumonia, and ear infection, a study of more than 1 million children shows.

The associations were not particularly strong, according to the researchers. But they raise questions about the reasons for the increased risk and whether interventions such as diet, exercise, or medications could lead to healthier outcomes for children whose mothers have PCOS.

“The findings suggest that maternal PCOS may have a negative impact on offspring development, enough to lead to a measurable increase in the risk of childhood hospitalization,” study coauthor Nathalie Auger, MD, associate professor of epidemiology at University of Montreal, and colleagues reported in Human Reproduction.

“They are minor differences, just enough that we can statistically identify them. They’re not something where everyone should be worrying at this point,” Dr. Auger told this news organization.

Still, some of the hospitalizations, such as those related to infection or allergy, could be prevented with earlier ambulatory care, so some degree of greater awareness among parents and clinicians may be warranted, she said.
 

Thirteen years of follow-up

PCOS – a reproductive disorder characterized by irregular periods, increased male hormones, and metabolic complications – affects some 10% of women. People with the condition are at increased risk for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Although prior research has shown that maternal PCOS may be associated with higher body mass index and attention deficit disorder in children, data on long-term childhood health outcomes have been limited, Dr. Auger’s group noted.

To examine illness in children exposed to maternal PCOS, the investigators analyzed hospitalization rates for nearly 1.04 million children in Quebec between 2006 and 2020; 7,160 of the children had mothers with PCOS.

In all, 275,354 children were hospitalized during 13 years of follow-up, including 2,314 whose mothers had PCOS.

Children exposed to PCOS were hospitalized at a rate of 68.9 per 1,000 person-years – roughly 50% more often than the rate of 45.3 per 1,000 person-years for children not exposed to maternal PCOS.

In an analysis that adjusted for maternal characteristics, childhood hospitalization for any reason was 1.32 times more likely for children exposed to maternal PCOS.

Hospitalizations linked to infectious diseases – such as for bronchitis, bronchiolitis, pneumonia, nephritis, otitis media, or meningitis – were 1.31 times more likely among children exposed to PCOS. Allergy-related hospitalizations, such as for allergic asthma and anaphylaxis, were 1.47 times more likely, according to the researchers.

Metabolic hospitalizations were 1.59 times more likely. For gastrointestinal hospitalizations, the hazard ratio was 1.72. For central nervous system hospitalizations, it was 1.74.

The associations were stronger in earlier childhood, and results were similar for boys and girls, the investigators reported.

Hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal conditions, or malignancy were not increased.
 

‘Surprising’ links

“The findings are surprising in that some of the conditions that they showed increased risk for, like asthma and some infections, are not conditions that we think of as being typically associated with PCOS,” said Andrea E. Dunaif, MD, chief of the Hilda and J. Lester Gabrilove Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Disease at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not part of the study team.

Earlier studies of offspring of women with PCOS have suggested that children may be at increased risk for insulin resistance and obesity.

Differences in genetics, intrauterine environments, patterns of health care use by women with PCOS, and behavioral factors, such as diet and how children are raised, are variables that could have contributed to the different hospitalization rates among children exposed to maternal PCOS, Dr. Auger said.

“Everything is interconnected,” she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Auger has received a career award from Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé. Dr. Dunaif has consulted for Novo Nordisk and Fractyl Laboratories (now Fractyl Health).

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

Children whose mothers have polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have increased rates of hospitalization for various conditions, including asthma, pneumonia, and ear infection, a study of more than 1 million children shows.

The associations were not particularly strong, according to the researchers. But they raise questions about the reasons for the increased risk and whether interventions such as diet, exercise, or medications could lead to healthier outcomes for children whose mothers have PCOS.

“The findings suggest that maternal PCOS may have a negative impact on offspring development, enough to lead to a measurable increase in the risk of childhood hospitalization,” study coauthor Nathalie Auger, MD, associate professor of epidemiology at University of Montreal, and colleagues reported in Human Reproduction.

“They are minor differences, just enough that we can statistically identify them. They’re not something where everyone should be worrying at this point,” Dr. Auger told this news organization.

Still, some of the hospitalizations, such as those related to infection or allergy, could be prevented with earlier ambulatory care, so some degree of greater awareness among parents and clinicians may be warranted, she said.
 

Thirteen years of follow-up

PCOS – a reproductive disorder characterized by irregular periods, increased male hormones, and metabolic complications – affects some 10% of women. People with the condition are at increased risk for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Although prior research has shown that maternal PCOS may be associated with higher body mass index and attention deficit disorder in children, data on long-term childhood health outcomes have been limited, Dr. Auger’s group noted.

To examine illness in children exposed to maternal PCOS, the investigators analyzed hospitalization rates for nearly 1.04 million children in Quebec between 2006 and 2020; 7,160 of the children had mothers with PCOS.

In all, 275,354 children were hospitalized during 13 years of follow-up, including 2,314 whose mothers had PCOS.

Children exposed to PCOS were hospitalized at a rate of 68.9 per 1,000 person-years – roughly 50% more often than the rate of 45.3 per 1,000 person-years for children not exposed to maternal PCOS.

In an analysis that adjusted for maternal characteristics, childhood hospitalization for any reason was 1.32 times more likely for children exposed to maternal PCOS.

Hospitalizations linked to infectious diseases – such as for bronchitis, bronchiolitis, pneumonia, nephritis, otitis media, or meningitis – were 1.31 times more likely among children exposed to PCOS. Allergy-related hospitalizations, such as for allergic asthma and anaphylaxis, were 1.47 times more likely, according to the researchers.

Metabolic hospitalizations were 1.59 times more likely. For gastrointestinal hospitalizations, the hazard ratio was 1.72. For central nervous system hospitalizations, it was 1.74.

The associations were stronger in earlier childhood, and results were similar for boys and girls, the investigators reported.

Hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal conditions, or malignancy were not increased.
 

‘Surprising’ links

“The findings are surprising in that some of the conditions that they showed increased risk for, like asthma and some infections, are not conditions that we think of as being typically associated with PCOS,” said Andrea E. Dunaif, MD, chief of the Hilda and J. Lester Gabrilove Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Disease at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not part of the study team.

Earlier studies of offspring of women with PCOS have suggested that children may be at increased risk for insulin resistance and obesity.

Differences in genetics, intrauterine environments, patterns of health care use by women with PCOS, and behavioral factors, such as diet and how children are raised, are variables that could have contributed to the different hospitalization rates among children exposed to maternal PCOS, Dr. Auger said.

“Everything is interconnected,” she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Auger has received a career award from Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé. Dr. Dunaif has consulted for Novo Nordisk and Fractyl Laboratories (now Fractyl Health).

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

When I began in private practice several eons ago, I employed only registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) in my office – as did, I think, most other physicians.

That is still the preferred way to go from an efficiency perspective, as well as the ability to delegate such tasks as blood collection and administering intramuscular injections. Unfortunately, the current state of medical practice – driven by payment reform, regulatory changes, technology costs, inflation, and other factors – has forced most independent practitioners to pivot from RNs and LPNs to medical assistants in a majority of situations.

Given this reality, it makes sense to understand how the use of medical assistants has changed private medical practice, and how the most effective MAs manage their roles and maximize their efficiency in the office.

A recent article by two physicians at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is one of the few published papers to address this issue. It presents the results of a cross-sectional study examining the MA’s experience and key factors that enhance or reduce efficiencies.

The authors sent an email survey to 86 MAs working in six clinics within the department of family medicine at the University of Michigan Medical Center, and received responses from 75 of them, including 61 who completed the entire survey. They then singled out 18 individuals deemed “most efficient” by their peers and conducted face-to-face interviews with them.

The surveys and interviews looked at how MAs identified personal strategies for efficiency, dealt with barriers to implementing those strategies, and navigated interoffice relationships, as well as how all of this affected overall job satisfaction.

All 61 respondents who completed the full survey agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and nearly all said that working in health care was “a calling” for them. About half agreed that their work was very stressful, and about the same percentage reported that there was inadequate MA staffing at their clinic. Others complained of limited pay and promotion opportunities.

The surveyed MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included good communication, strong teamwork, and workload sharing, as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and completing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy.

Other strategies identified as contributing to an efficient operation included preclinic huddles, reviews of patient records before the patient’s arrival, and completing routine office duties before the start of office hours.

Respondents were then asked to identify barriers to clinic efficiency, and most of them involved physicians who barked orders at them, did not complete paperwork or sign orders in a timely manner, and agreed to see late-arriving patients. Some MAs suggested that physicians refrain from “talking down” to them, and teach rather than criticize. They also faulted decisions affecting patient flow made by other staffers without soliciting the MAs’ input.

Despite these barriers, the authors found that most of the surveyed MAs agreed that their work was valued by doctors. “Proper training of managers to provide ... support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial,” they said.

“Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier,” they added.

At the same time, the authors noted that most survey subjects reported that their jobs were “stressful,” and believed that their stress went underrecognized by physicians. They argued that “it’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.”

Since this study involved only MAs in a family practice setting, further studies will be needed to determine whether these results translate to specialty offices – and whether the unique issues inherent in various specialty environments elicit different efficiency contributors and barriers.

Overall, though, “staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients,” the authors wrote. “Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

When I began in private practice several eons ago, I employed only registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) in my office – as did, I think, most other physicians.

That is still the preferred way to go from an efficiency perspective, as well as the ability to delegate such tasks as blood collection and administering intramuscular injections. Unfortunately, the current state of medical practice – driven by payment reform, regulatory changes, technology costs, inflation, and other factors – has forced most independent practitioners to pivot from RNs and LPNs to medical assistants in a majority of situations.

Given this reality, it makes sense to understand how the use of medical assistants has changed private medical practice, and how the most effective MAs manage their roles and maximize their efficiency in the office.

A recent article by two physicians at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is one of the few published papers to address this issue. It presents the results of a cross-sectional study examining the MA’s experience and key factors that enhance or reduce efficiencies.

The authors sent an email survey to 86 MAs working in six clinics within the department of family medicine at the University of Michigan Medical Center, and received responses from 75 of them, including 61 who completed the entire survey. They then singled out 18 individuals deemed “most efficient” by their peers and conducted face-to-face interviews with them.

The surveys and interviews looked at how MAs identified personal strategies for efficiency, dealt with barriers to implementing those strategies, and navigated interoffice relationships, as well as how all of this affected overall job satisfaction.

All 61 respondents who completed the full survey agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and nearly all said that working in health care was “a calling” for them. About half agreed that their work was very stressful, and about the same percentage reported that there was inadequate MA staffing at their clinic. Others complained of limited pay and promotion opportunities.

The surveyed MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included good communication, strong teamwork, and workload sharing, as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and completing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy.

Other strategies identified as contributing to an efficient operation included preclinic huddles, reviews of patient records before the patient’s arrival, and completing routine office duties before the start of office hours.

Respondents were then asked to identify barriers to clinic efficiency, and most of them involved physicians who barked orders at them, did not complete paperwork or sign orders in a timely manner, and agreed to see late-arriving patients. Some MAs suggested that physicians refrain from “talking down” to them, and teach rather than criticize. They also faulted decisions affecting patient flow made by other staffers without soliciting the MAs’ input.

Despite these barriers, the authors found that most of the surveyed MAs agreed that their work was valued by doctors. “Proper training of managers to provide ... support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial,” they said.

“Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier,” they added.

At the same time, the authors noted that most survey subjects reported that their jobs were “stressful,” and believed that their stress went underrecognized by physicians. They argued that “it’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.”

Since this study involved only MAs in a family practice setting, further studies will be needed to determine whether these results translate to specialty offices – and whether the unique issues inherent in various specialty environments elicit different efficiency contributors and barriers.

Overall, though, “staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients,” the authors wrote. “Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

When I began in private practice several eons ago, I employed only registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) in my office – as did, I think, most other physicians.

That is still the preferred way to go from an efficiency perspective, as well as the ability to delegate such tasks as blood collection and administering intramuscular injections. Unfortunately, the current state of medical practice – driven by payment reform, regulatory changes, technology costs, inflation, and other factors – has forced most independent practitioners to pivot from RNs and LPNs to medical assistants in a majority of situations.

Given this reality, it makes sense to understand how the use of medical assistants has changed private medical practice, and how the most effective MAs manage their roles and maximize their efficiency in the office.

A recent article by two physicians at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is one of the few published papers to address this issue. It presents the results of a cross-sectional study examining the MA’s experience and key factors that enhance or reduce efficiencies.

The authors sent an email survey to 86 MAs working in six clinics within the department of family medicine at the University of Michigan Medical Center, and received responses from 75 of them, including 61 who completed the entire survey. They then singled out 18 individuals deemed “most efficient” by their peers and conducted face-to-face interviews with them.

The surveys and interviews looked at how MAs identified personal strategies for efficiency, dealt with barriers to implementing those strategies, and navigated interoffice relationships, as well as how all of this affected overall job satisfaction.

All 61 respondents who completed the full survey agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and nearly all said that working in health care was “a calling” for them. About half agreed that their work was very stressful, and about the same percentage reported that there was inadequate MA staffing at their clinic. Others complained of limited pay and promotion opportunities.

The surveyed MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included good communication, strong teamwork, and workload sharing, as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and completing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy.

Other strategies identified as contributing to an efficient operation included preclinic huddles, reviews of patient records before the patient’s arrival, and completing routine office duties before the start of office hours.

Respondents were then asked to identify barriers to clinic efficiency, and most of them involved physicians who barked orders at them, did not complete paperwork or sign orders in a timely manner, and agreed to see late-arriving patients. Some MAs suggested that physicians refrain from “talking down” to them, and teach rather than criticize. They also faulted decisions affecting patient flow made by other staffers without soliciting the MAs’ input.

Despite these barriers, the authors found that most of the surveyed MAs agreed that their work was valued by doctors. “Proper training of managers to provide ... support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial,” they said.

“Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier,” they added.

At the same time, the authors noted that most survey subjects reported that their jobs were “stressful,” and believed that their stress went underrecognized by physicians. They argued that “it’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.”

Since this study involved only MAs in a family practice setting, further studies will be needed to determine whether these results translate to specialty offices – and whether the unique issues inherent in various specialty environments elicit different efficiency contributors and barriers.

Overall, though, “staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients,” the authors wrote. “Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Walking 10,000 steps per day may reduce the risk of death for those who have trouble regulating their blood sugar, according to the findings from a study of almost 1,700 American adults with prediabetes or diabetes.

Researchers from the University of Seville, Spain, evaluated U.S. adults with prediabetes and diabetes using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, collected between 2005 and 2006.

The findings were published this month in Diabetes Care.

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

Of the total, 1,194 adults had prediabetes, and 493 had diabetes. People with diabetes in the study were diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting blood glucose level higher than 126 mg/dL. People with prediabetes in the study were also diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting glucose level from 100 to 125 mg/dL.

Over half (56%) of prediabetic adults were male (average age 55 years), and they took an average of 8,500 steps per day. Half (51%) of the diabetic adults were also male (average age 61 years), and they took fewer steps per day – about 6,300.

The people in the study wore an accelerometer on their waist to count their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol use, diet, and use of diabetes medications.

Over 9 years, 200 people with prediabetes and 138 with diabetes died. Based on those who survived after follow-up, walking nearly 10,000 steps per day was best for reducing the risk of death from any cause for people with prediabetes and diabetes.

But about 20% of people in the study were removed from the analysis because they had invalid accelerometry data. Adults who are healthy enough to walk 10,000 steps may have different rates of death from those who aren’t, according to the study authors, who called for more research to compare these two groups.

If 10,000 steps seem like a daunting task, talking to a doctor about finding a routine that works for your physical ability could be helpful, the study authors suggest.

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

Walking 10,000 steps per day may reduce the risk of death for those who have trouble regulating their blood sugar, according to the findings from a study of almost 1,700 American adults with prediabetes or diabetes.

Researchers from the University of Seville, Spain, evaluated U.S. adults with prediabetes and diabetes using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, collected between 2005 and 2006.

The findings were published this month in Diabetes Care.

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

Of the total, 1,194 adults had prediabetes, and 493 had diabetes. People with diabetes in the study were diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting blood glucose level higher than 126 mg/dL. People with prediabetes in the study were also diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting glucose level from 100 to 125 mg/dL.

Over half (56%) of prediabetic adults were male (average age 55 years), and they took an average of 8,500 steps per day. Half (51%) of the diabetic adults were also male (average age 61 years), and they took fewer steps per day – about 6,300.

The people in the study wore an accelerometer on their waist to count their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol use, diet, and use of diabetes medications.

Over 9 years, 200 people with prediabetes and 138 with diabetes died. Based on those who survived after follow-up, walking nearly 10,000 steps per day was best for reducing the risk of death from any cause for people with prediabetes and diabetes.

But about 20% of people in the study were removed from the analysis because they had invalid accelerometry data. Adults who are healthy enough to walk 10,000 steps may have different rates of death from those who aren’t, according to the study authors, who called for more research to compare these two groups.

If 10,000 steps seem like a daunting task, talking to a doctor about finding a routine that works for your physical ability could be helpful, the study authors suggest.

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

Walking 10,000 steps per day may reduce the risk of death for those who have trouble regulating their blood sugar, according to the findings from a study of almost 1,700 American adults with prediabetes or diabetes.

Researchers from the University of Seville, Spain, evaluated U.S. adults with prediabetes and diabetes using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, collected between 2005 and 2006.

The findings were published this month in Diabetes Care.

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

Of the total, 1,194 adults had prediabetes, and 493 had diabetes. People with diabetes in the study were diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting blood glucose level higher than 126 mg/dL. People with prediabetes in the study were also diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting glucose level from 100 to 125 mg/dL.

Over half (56%) of prediabetic adults were male (average age 55 years), and they took an average of 8,500 steps per day. Half (51%) of the diabetic adults were also male (average age 61 years), and they took fewer steps per day – about 6,300.

The people in the study wore an accelerometer on their waist to count their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol use, diet, and use of diabetes medications.

Over 9 years, 200 people with prediabetes and 138 with diabetes died. Based on those who survived after follow-up, walking nearly 10,000 steps per day was best for reducing the risk of death from any cause for people with prediabetes and diabetes.

But about 20% of people in the study were removed from the analysis because they had invalid accelerometry data. Adults who are healthy enough to walk 10,000 steps may have different rates of death from those who aren’t, according to the study authors, who called for more research to compare these two groups.

If 10,000 steps seem like a daunting task, talking to a doctor about finding a routine that works for your physical ability could be helpful, the study authors suggest.

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

Two drugs have emerged as the optimal medications for treating insomnia based on the “best-available evidence,” but there are caveats.

In a comprehensive comparative-effectiveness analysis, lemborexant and eszopiclone showed the best efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability for acute and long-term insomnia treatment.

However, eszopiclone may cause substantial side effects – and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive, the researchers note.

Not surprisingly, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting benzodiazepines were effective in the acute treatment of insomnia, but they have unfavorable tolerability and safety profiles, and there are no long-term data on these issues.

For many insomnia medications, there is a “striking” and “appalling” lack of long-term data, study investigator Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, noted during a press briefing.

“This is a call for regulators to raise the bar and ask for long-term data when companies submit an application for licensing insomnia drugs,” Dr. Cipriani said.

The findings were published online  in The Lancet.
 

Prevalent, debilitating

Insomnia is highly prevalent, affecting up to 1 in 5 adults, and can have a profound impact on health, well-being, and productivity.

Sleep hygiene and cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) are recommended first-line treatments, but they are often unavailable, which often leads patients and clinicians to turn to medications.

However, “insomnia drugs are not all created equal. Even within the same drug class there are differences,” Dr. Cipriani said.

In a large-scale systematic review and network meta-analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 154 double-blind, randomized controlled trials of medications (licensed or not) used for acute and long-term treatment of insomnia in 44,089 adults (mean age, 51.7 years; 63% women).

Results showed, for the acute treatment of insomnia, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than placebo (standardized mean difference range, 0.36-0.83; high-to-moderate certainty of evidence).

In addition, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD, 0.27-0.71; moderate-to-very low certainty of evidence).

“Our results show that the melatonergic drugs melatonin and ramelteon are not really effective. The data do not support the regular use of these drugs,” co-investigator Phil Cowen, PhD, professor of psychopharmacology, University of Oxford, said at the briefing.
 

Best available evidence

What little long-term data is available suggest eszopiclone and lemborexant are more effective than placebo. Plus, eszopiclone is more effective than ramelteon and zolpidem but with “very low” certainty of evidence, the researchers report.

“There was insufficient evidence to support the prescription of benzodiazepines and zolpidem in long-term treatment,” they write.

Another problem was lack of data on other important outcomes, they add.  

“We wanted to look at hangover effects, daytime sleepiness, [and] rebound effect, but often there was no data reported in trials. We need to collect data about these outcomes because they matter to clinicians and patients,” Dr. Cipriani said.

Summing up, the researchers note the current findings represent the “best available evidence base to guide the choice about pharmacological treatment for insomnia disorder in adults and will assist in shared decisionmaking between patients, carers, and their clinicians, as well as policy makers.”

They caution, however, that all statements comparing the merits of one drug with another “should be tempered by the potential limitations of the current analysis, the quality of the available evidence, the characteristics of the patient populations, and the uncertainties that might result from choice of dose or treatment setting.”

In addition, it is important to also consider nonpharmacologic treatments for insomnia disorder, as they are supported by “high-quality evidence and recommended as first-line treatment by guidelines,” the investigator write.
 

Shared decisionmaking

In an accompanying editorial, Myrto Samara, MD, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece, agrees with the researchers that discussion with patients is key.  

“For insomnia treatment, patient-physician shared decisionmaking is crucial to decide when a pharmacological intervention is deemed necessary and which drug [is] to be given by considering the trade-offs for efficacy and side effects,” Dr. Samara writes.  

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Center. Dr. Cipriani has received research and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Pediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharma, and is the chief and principal investigator of two trials of seltorexant in depression that are sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Samara has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two drugs have emerged as the optimal medications for treating insomnia based on the “best-available evidence,” but there are caveats.

In a comprehensive comparative-effectiveness analysis, lemborexant and eszopiclone showed the best efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability for acute and long-term insomnia treatment.

However, eszopiclone may cause substantial side effects – and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive, the researchers note.

Not surprisingly, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting benzodiazepines were effective in the acute treatment of insomnia, but they have unfavorable tolerability and safety profiles, and there are no long-term data on these issues.

For many insomnia medications, there is a “striking” and “appalling” lack of long-term data, study investigator Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, noted during a press briefing.

“This is a call for regulators to raise the bar and ask for long-term data when companies submit an application for licensing insomnia drugs,” Dr. Cipriani said.

The findings were published online  in The Lancet.
 

Prevalent, debilitating

Insomnia is highly prevalent, affecting up to 1 in 5 adults, and can have a profound impact on health, well-being, and productivity.

Sleep hygiene and cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) are recommended first-line treatments, but they are often unavailable, which often leads patients and clinicians to turn to medications.

However, “insomnia drugs are not all created equal. Even within the same drug class there are differences,” Dr. Cipriani said.

In a large-scale systematic review and network meta-analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 154 double-blind, randomized controlled trials of medications (licensed or not) used for acute and long-term treatment of insomnia in 44,089 adults (mean age, 51.7 years; 63% women).

Results showed, for the acute treatment of insomnia, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than placebo (standardized mean difference range, 0.36-0.83; high-to-moderate certainty of evidence).

In addition, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD, 0.27-0.71; moderate-to-very low certainty of evidence).

“Our results show that the melatonergic drugs melatonin and ramelteon are not really effective. The data do not support the regular use of these drugs,” co-investigator Phil Cowen, PhD, professor of psychopharmacology, University of Oxford, said at the briefing.
 

Best available evidence

What little long-term data is available suggest eszopiclone and lemborexant are more effective than placebo. Plus, eszopiclone is more effective than ramelteon and zolpidem but with “very low” certainty of evidence, the researchers report.

“There was insufficient evidence to support the prescription of benzodiazepines and zolpidem in long-term treatment,” they write.

Another problem was lack of data on other important outcomes, they add.  

“We wanted to look at hangover effects, daytime sleepiness, [and] rebound effect, but often there was no data reported in trials. We need to collect data about these outcomes because they matter to clinicians and patients,” Dr. Cipriani said.

Summing up, the researchers note the current findings represent the “best available evidence base to guide the choice about pharmacological treatment for insomnia disorder in adults and will assist in shared decisionmaking between patients, carers, and their clinicians, as well as policy makers.”

They caution, however, that all statements comparing the merits of one drug with another “should be tempered by the potential limitations of the current analysis, the quality of the available evidence, the characteristics of the patient populations, and the uncertainties that might result from choice of dose or treatment setting.”

In addition, it is important to also consider nonpharmacologic treatments for insomnia disorder, as they are supported by “high-quality evidence and recommended as first-line treatment by guidelines,” the investigator write.
 

Shared decisionmaking

In an accompanying editorial, Myrto Samara, MD, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece, agrees with the researchers that discussion with patients is key.  

“For insomnia treatment, patient-physician shared decisionmaking is crucial to decide when a pharmacological intervention is deemed necessary and which drug [is] to be given by considering the trade-offs for efficacy and side effects,” Dr. Samara writes.  

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Center. Dr. Cipriani has received research and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Pediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharma, and is the chief and principal investigator of two trials of seltorexant in depression that are sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Samara has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two drugs have emerged as the optimal medications for treating insomnia based on the “best-available evidence,” but there are caveats.

In a comprehensive comparative-effectiveness analysis, lemborexant and eszopiclone showed the best efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability for acute and long-term insomnia treatment.

However, eszopiclone may cause substantial side effects – and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive, the researchers note.

Not surprisingly, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting benzodiazepines were effective in the acute treatment of insomnia, but they have unfavorable tolerability and safety profiles, and there are no long-term data on these issues.

For many insomnia medications, there is a “striking” and “appalling” lack of long-term data, study investigator Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, noted during a press briefing.

“This is a call for regulators to raise the bar and ask for long-term data when companies submit an application for licensing insomnia drugs,” Dr. Cipriani said.

The findings were published online  in The Lancet.
 

Prevalent, debilitating

Insomnia is highly prevalent, affecting up to 1 in 5 adults, and can have a profound impact on health, well-being, and productivity.

Sleep hygiene and cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) are recommended first-line treatments, but they are often unavailable, which often leads patients and clinicians to turn to medications.

However, “insomnia drugs are not all created equal. Even within the same drug class there are differences,” Dr. Cipriani said.

In a large-scale systematic review and network meta-analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 154 double-blind, randomized controlled trials of medications (licensed or not) used for acute and long-term treatment of insomnia in 44,089 adults (mean age, 51.7 years; 63% women).

Results showed, for the acute treatment of insomnia, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than placebo (standardized mean difference range, 0.36-0.83; high-to-moderate certainty of evidence).

In addition, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD, 0.27-0.71; moderate-to-very low certainty of evidence).

“Our results show that the melatonergic drugs melatonin and ramelteon are not really effective. The data do not support the regular use of these drugs,” co-investigator Phil Cowen, PhD, professor of psychopharmacology, University of Oxford, said at the briefing.
 

Best available evidence

What little long-term data is available suggest eszopiclone and lemborexant are more effective than placebo. Plus, eszopiclone is more effective than ramelteon and zolpidem but with “very low” certainty of evidence, the researchers report.

“There was insufficient evidence to support the prescription of benzodiazepines and zolpidem in long-term treatment,” they write.

Another problem was lack of data on other important outcomes, they add.  

“We wanted to look at hangover effects, daytime sleepiness, [and] rebound effect, but often there was no data reported in trials. We need to collect data about these outcomes because they matter to clinicians and patients,” Dr. Cipriani said.

Summing up, the researchers note the current findings represent the “best available evidence base to guide the choice about pharmacological treatment for insomnia disorder in adults and will assist in shared decisionmaking between patients, carers, and their clinicians, as well as policy makers.”

They caution, however, that all statements comparing the merits of one drug with another “should be tempered by the potential limitations of the current analysis, the quality of the available evidence, the characteristics of the patient populations, and the uncertainties that might result from choice of dose or treatment setting.”

In addition, it is important to also consider nonpharmacologic treatments for insomnia disorder, as they are supported by “high-quality evidence and recommended as first-line treatment by guidelines,” the investigator write.
 

Shared decisionmaking

In an accompanying editorial, Myrto Samara, MD, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece, agrees with the researchers that discussion with patients is key.  

“For insomnia treatment, patient-physician shared decisionmaking is crucial to decide when a pharmacological intervention is deemed necessary and which drug [is] to be given by considering the trade-offs for efficacy and side effects,” Dr. Samara writes.  

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Center. Dr. Cipriani has received research and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Pediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharma, and is the chief and principal investigator of two trials of seltorexant in depression that are sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Samara has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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