Diabetes

TOPLINE:

Whether they have normal weight, overweight, or obesity, individuals with metabolically healthy (MH) phenotypes show a lower frequency of impaired glucose metabolism than their unhealthy counterparts across all weight categories.

METHODOLOGY:

• The concepts of MH overweight and MH obesity refer to a subset of people who exhibit an absence of cardiometabolic risk factors despite excess body fat, but the prevalence of prediabetes has not been investigated by metabolic phenotype and body mass index (BMI).
• This study first validated the use of estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR), an index of insulin sensitivity calculated from clinical variables, in 350 individuals without diabetes (mean age, 37 years; 219 women; mean BMI, 30.3) from the EUGENE2 project who had varying glucose tolerance values originally assessed by insulin-stimulated glucose disposal.
• Researchers then stratified 2201 participants without diabetes (mean age, 46 years; White; 1290 women; mean BMI, 31.2) from the CATAMERI study according to BMI into three groups — individuals with normal weight (BMI, 18-24.9), overweight (BMI, 25-29.9), and obesity (BMI, ≥ 30).
• The men and women in each BMI group were separated into quartiles of insulin sensitivity based on eGDR index:
• In the normal weight group, men and women were defined as MH in the top three eGDR quartiles and metabolically unhealthy (MU) in the lowest quartile.
• In the overweight and obesity groups, people were defined as MH in the top eGDR quartile and MU in the lower three quartiles.
• Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), impaired fasting glucose (IFG), and combined IFG+IGT conditions (from an oral glucose tolerance test) were compared in individuals without diabetes based on MH or unhealthy phenotypes across normal weight, overweight, and obese categories.

TAKEAWAY:

• eGDR demonstrated good accuracy in detecting individuals with higher insulin sensitivity in the EUGENE2 cohort.
• The MH overweight and MH obesity groups showed comparable glycemic parameters as the MH normal weight group, whereas the MU overweight and MU obesity groups exhibited higher A1c levels and fasting and 2-hour post-load glucose than the MH normal weight group.
• The frequencies of IFG, IGT, and IFG+IGT conditions were similar among the MH normal weight, MH overweight, and MH obesity groups but were higher in the MU overweight and MU obesity groups than in the MU normal weight group.
• Furthermore, compared with those in the MH normal weight group, the odds of prediabetes were at least two times higher in the MU obesity (odds ratio [OR], 2.54; P < .001) and MU overweight (OR, 2.06; P < .001) groups but not significantly different in the MU normal weight, MH obesity, and MH overweight groups.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Overall, the results of this cross-sectional study support the notion that metabolically healthy individuals with overweight or obesity have a more favorable metabolic risk profile in comparison to metabolically unhealthy subjects with overweight or obesity.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Chiara M.A. Cefalo, MD, department of clinical and molecular medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy, and was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

There was no consensus on the parameters and cutoff values for defining metabolic health status, allowing for potential variations in results. The study design suggested an association with prevalent IFG and IGT conditions but not with incident IFG and IGT conditions. All participants in this study were White, limiting the generalizability of its findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Sapienza University of Rome and the Italian Ministry of University. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Whether they have normal weight, overweight, or obesity, individuals with metabolically healthy (MH) phenotypes show a lower frequency of impaired glucose metabolism than their unhealthy counterparts across all weight categories.

METHODOLOGY:

• The concepts of MH overweight and MH obesity refer to a subset of people who exhibit an absence of cardiometabolic risk factors despite excess body fat, but the prevalence of prediabetes has not been investigated by metabolic phenotype and body mass index (BMI).
• This study first validated the use of estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR), an index of insulin sensitivity calculated from clinical variables, in 350 individuals without diabetes (mean age, 37 years; 219 women; mean BMI, 30.3) from the EUGENE2 project who had varying glucose tolerance values originally assessed by insulin-stimulated glucose disposal.
• Researchers then stratified 2201 participants without diabetes (mean age, 46 years; White; 1290 women; mean BMI, 31.2) from the CATAMERI study according to BMI into three groups — individuals with normal weight (BMI, 18-24.9), overweight (BMI, 25-29.9), and obesity (BMI, ≥ 30).
• The men and women in each BMI group were separated into quartiles of insulin sensitivity based on eGDR index:
• In the normal weight group, men and women were defined as MH in the top three eGDR quartiles and metabolically unhealthy (MU) in the lowest quartile.
• In the overweight and obesity groups, people were defined as MH in the top eGDR quartile and MU in the lower three quartiles.
• Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), impaired fasting glucose (IFG), and combined IFG+IGT conditions (from an oral glucose tolerance test) were compared in individuals without diabetes based on MH or unhealthy phenotypes across normal weight, overweight, and obese categories.

TAKEAWAY:

• eGDR demonstrated good accuracy in detecting individuals with higher insulin sensitivity in the EUGENE2 cohort.
• The MH overweight and MH obesity groups showed comparable glycemic parameters as the MH normal weight group, whereas the MU overweight and MU obesity groups exhibited higher A1c levels and fasting and 2-hour post-load glucose than the MH normal weight group.
• The frequencies of IFG, IGT, and IFG+IGT conditions were similar among the MH normal weight, MH overweight, and MH obesity groups but were higher in the MU overweight and MU obesity groups than in the MU normal weight group.
• Furthermore, compared with those in the MH normal weight group, the odds of prediabetes were at least two times higher in the MU obesity (odds ratio [OR], 2.54; P < .001) and MU overweight (OR, 2.06; P < .001) groups but not significantly different in the MU normal weight, MH obesity, and MH overweight groups.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Overall, the results of this cross-sectional study support the notion that metabolically healthy individuals with overweight or obesity have a more favorable metabolic risk profile in comparison to metabolically unhealthy subjects with overweight or obesity.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Chiara M.A. Cefalo, MD, department of clinical and molecular medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy, and was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

There was no consensus on the parameters and cutoff values for defining metabolic health status, allowing for potential variations in results. The study design suggested an association with prevalent IFG and IGT conditions but not with incident IFG and IGT conditions. All participants in this study were White, limiting the generalizability of its findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Sapienza University of Rome and the Italian Ministry of University. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Whether they have normal weight, overweight, or obesity, individuals with metabolically healthy (MH) phenotypes show a lower frequency of impaired glucose metabolism than their unhealthy counterparts across all weight categories.

METHODOLOGY:

• The concepts of MH overweight and MH obesity refer to a subset of people who exhibit an absence of cardiometabolic risk factors despite excess body fat, but the prevalence of prediabetes has not been investigated by metabolic phenotype and body mass index (BMI).
• This study first validated the use of estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR), an index of insulin sensitivity calculated from clinical variables, in 350 individuals without diabetes (mean age, 37 years; 219 women; mean BMI, 30.3) from the EUGENE2 project who had varying glucose tolerance values originally assessed by insulin-stimulated glucose disposal.
• Researchers then stratified 2201 participants without diabetes (mean age, 46 years; White; 1290 women; mean BMI, 31.2) from the CATAMERI study according to BMI into three groups — individuals with normal weight (BMI, 18-24.9), overweight (BMI, 25-29.9), and obesity (BMI, ≥ 30).
• The men and women in each BMI group were separated into quartiles of insulin sensitivity based on eGDR index:
• In the normal weight group, men and women were defined as MH in the top three eGDR quartiles and metabolically unhealthy (MU) in the lowest quartile.
• In the overweight and obesity groups, people were defined as MH in the top eGDR quartile and MU in the lower three quartiles.
• Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), impaired fasting glucose (IFG), and combined IFG+IGT conditions (from an oral glucose tolerance test) were compared in individuals without diabetes based on MH or unhealthy phenotypes across normal weight, overweight, and obese categories.

TAKEAWAY:

• eGDR demonstrated good accuracy in detecting individuals with higher insulin sensitivity in the EUGENE2 cohort.
• The MH overweight and MH obesity groups showed comparable glycemic parameters as the MH normal weight group, whereas the MU overweight and MU obesity groups exhibited higher A1c levels and fasting and 2-hour post-load glucose than the MH normal weight group.
• The frequencies of IFG, IGT, and IFG+IGT conditions were similar among the MH normal weight, MH overweight, and MH obesity groups but were higher in the MU overweight and MU obesity groups than in the MU normal weight group.
• Furthermore, compared with those in the MH normal weight group, the odds of prediabetes were at least two times higher in the MU obesity (odds ratio [OR], 2.54; P < .001) and MU overweight (OR, 2.06; P < .001) groups but not significantly different in the MU normal weight, MH obesity, and MH overweight groups.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Overall, the results of this cross-sectional study support the notion that metabolically healthy individuals with overweight or obesity have a more favorable metabolic risk profile in comparison to metabolically unhealthy subjects with overweight or obesity.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Chiara M.A. Cefalo, MD, department of clinical and molecular medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy, and was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

There was no consensus on the parameters and cutoff values for defining metabolic health status, allowing for potential variations in results. The study design suggested an association with prevalent IFG and IGT conditions but not with incident IFG and IGT conditions. All participants in this study were White, limiting the generalizability of its findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Sapienza University of Rome and the Italian Ministry of University. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Mortality and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) among people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) aged ≥ 65 years dropped significantly from 1990 to 2019. Both were lower among women and those living in higher sociodemographic areas.

METHODOLOGY:

• A population-based study of adults aged ≥ 65 years from 21 regions and 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019, was conducted.

TAKEAWAY:

• Globally, the prevalence of T1D among people aged ≥ 65 years increased by 180% between 1990 and 2019, from 1.3 million to 3.7 million.
• The proportion of older people with T1D has consistently trended upward, from 12% of all people with T1D in 1990 to 17% in 2019.
• Age-standardized mortality from T1D among this age group significantly decreased by 25%, from 4.7/100,000 population in 1990 to 3.5/100,000 in 2019.
• Age-standardized increases in T1D prevalence have occurred in both men and women worldwide, while the increase was more rapid among men (average annual percent change, 1.00% vs 0.74%).
• Globally, T1D prevalence at least tripled in every age subgroup of those aged ≥ 65 years, and even fivefold to sixfold for those ≥ 90-95 years (0.02-0.11 million for ages 90-94 years; 0.005-0.03 million for ages ≥ 95 years).
• No decreases occurred in T1D prevalence among those aged ≥ 65 years in any of the 21 global regions.
• Three primary risk factors associated with DALYs for T1D among people aged ≥ 65 years were high fasting plasma glucose levels, low temperature, and high temperature, accounting for 103 DALYs per 100,000 people, 3/100,000 people, and 1/100,000 people, respectively, in 2019.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results suggest that T1DM is no longer a contributory factor in decreased life expectancy owing to improvements in medical care over the three decades,” the authors wrote. “Management of high fasting plasma glucose levels remains a major challenge for older people with T1D, and targeted clinical guidelines are needed.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Kaijie Yang, the Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, the Institute of Endocrinology, NHC Key Laboratory of Diagnosis and Treatment of Thyroid Diseases, First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China, and colleagues. The study was published online in the BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

Data were extrapolated from countries that have epidemiologic data. Health information systems and reporting mechanisms vary across countries and regions. Disease burden data include a time lag. Diagnosing T1D in older people can be challenging.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The authors reported no additional financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Mortality and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) among people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) aged ≥ 65 years dropped significantly from 1990 to 2019. Both were lower among women and those living in higher sociodemographic areas.

METHODOLOGY:

• A population-based study of adults aged ≥ 65 years from 21 regions and 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019, was conducted.

TAKEAWAY:

• Globally, the prevalence of T1D among people aged ≥ 65 years increased by 180% between 1990 and 2019, from 1.3 million to 3.7 million.
• The proportion of older people with T1D has consistently trended upward, from 12% of all people with T1D in 1990 to 17% in 2019.
• Age-standardized mortality from T1D among this age group significantly decreased by 25%, from 4.7/100,000 population in 1990 to 3.5/100,000 in 2019.
• Age-standardized increases in T1D prevalence have occurred in both men and women worldwide, while the increase was more rapid among men (average annual percent change, 1.00% vs 0.74%).
• Globally, T1D prevalence at least tripled in every age subgroup of those aged ≥ 65 years, and even fivefold to sixfold for those ≥ 90-95 years (0.02-0.11 million for ages 90-94 years; 0.005-0.03 million for ages ≥ 95 years).
• No decreases occurred in T1D prevalence among those aged ≥ 65 years in any of the 21 global regions.
• Three primary risk factors associated with DALYs for T1D among people aged ≥ 65 years were high fasting plasma glucose levels, low temperature, and high temperature, accounting for 103 DALYs per 100,000 people, 3/100,000 people, and 1/100,000 people, respectively, in 2019.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results suggest that T1DM is no longer a contributory factor in decreased life expectancy owing to improvements in medical care over the three decades,” the authors wrote. “Management of high fasting plasma glucose levels remains a major challenge for older people with T1D, and targeted clinical guidelines are needed.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Kaijie Yang, the Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, the Institute of Endocrinology, NHC Key Laboratory of Diagnosis and Treatment of Thyroid Diseases, First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China, and colleagues. The study was published online in the BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

Data were extrapolated from countries that have epidemiologic data. Health information systems and reporting mechanisms vary across countries and regions. Disease burden data include a time lag. Diagnosing T1D in older people can be challenging.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The authors reported no additional financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Mortality and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) among people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) aged ≥ 65 years dropped significantly from 1990 to 2019. Both were lower among women and those living in higher sociodemographic areas.

METHODOLOGY:

• A population-based study of adults aged ≥ 65 years from 21 regions and 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019, was conducted.

TAKEAWAY:

• Globally, the prevalence of T1D among people aged ≥ 65 years increased by 180% between 1990 and 2019, from 1.3 million to 3.7 million.
• The proportion of older people with T1D has consistently trended upward, from 12% of all people with T1D in 1990 to 17% in 2019.
• Age-standardized mortality from T1D among this age group significantly decreased by 25%, from 4.7/100,000 population in 1990 to 3.5/100,000 in 2019.
• Age-standardized increases in T1D prevalence have occurred in both men and women worldwide, while the increase was more rapid among men (average annual percent change, 1.00% vs 0.74%).
• Globally, T1D prevalence at least tripled in every age subgroup of those aged ≥ 65 years, and even fivefold to sixfold for those ≥ 90-95 years (0.02-0.11 million for ages 90-94 years; 0.005-0.03 million for ages ≥ 95 years).
• No decreases occurred in T1D prevalence among those aged ≥ 65 years in any of the 21 global regions.
• Three primary risk factors associated with DALYs for T1D among people aged ≥ 65 years were high fasting plasma glucose levels, low temperature, and high temperature, accounting for 103 DALYs per 100,000 people, 3/100,000 people, and 1/100,000 people, respectively, in 2019.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results suggest that T1DM is no longer a contributory factor in decreased life expectancy owing to improvements in medical care over the three decades,” the authors wrote. “Management of high fasting plasma glucose levels remains a major challenge for older people with T1D, and targeted clinical guidelines are needed.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Kaijie Yang, the Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, the Institute of Endocrinology, NHC Key Laboratory of Diagnosis and Treatment of Thyroid Diseases, First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China, and colleagues. The study was published online in the BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

Data were extrapolated from countries that have epidemiologic data. Health information systems and reporting mechanisms vary across countries and regions. Disease burden data include a time lag. Diagnosing T1D in older people can be challenging.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The authors reported no additional financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Bariatric metabolic surgery (BMS) offers a survival advantage over glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in adults with obesity and diabetes for 10 years or less, which may be explained by greater weight loss with surgery, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• There is limited evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of BMS and GLP-1 RAs in reducing mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
• This observational, retrospective cohort study analyzed the electronic medical records of Clalit Health Services, Israel’s largest healthcare organization.
• Researchers included patients aged 24 years or older who had diabetes and obesity but no prior cardiovascular disease and who either underwent BMS or received a GLP-1 RA.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, assessed by multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models. The secondary outcome was nonfatal MACE, assessed by multivariate competing risk models.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 3035 matched pairs of patients (total, 6070; mean age, 51 years; 65% women), who were followed for a median of 6.8 years.
• Among patients with diabetes for 10 years or less, those who underwent BMS had a 62% lower risk for mortality than those treated with a GLP-1 RA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38).
• The survival advantage associated with BMS vs GLP-1 RA may be explained by the greater relative decrease in body mass index in the surgery group (–31.4% vs –12.8%, respectively).
• Among patients with diabetes for more than 10 years, no survival advantage was observed for BMS over GLP-1 RA (HR, 0.65), which may be explained by the adverse effects of prolonged diabetes duration masking the benefit associated with weight loss.
• The risk for nonfatal MACE did not differ significantly between the treatment groups in both diabetes duration categories.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study suggests that BMS was associated with greater reduced mortality compared with GLP-1 RAs among individuals with a diabetes duration of 10 years or less, mediated via greater weight loss,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Dror Dicker, MD, Hasharon Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design may have introduced residual confounding despite matching and multivariable adjustment. The analyses did not account for the types of BMS or GLP-1 RAs or the level of adherence to GLP-1 RA treatment. Information regarding cause of death was unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Israel Science Foundation. Dicker reported financial relationships with Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

TOPLINE:

Bariatric metabolic surgery (BMS) offers a survival advantage over glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in adults with obesity and diabetes for 10 years or less, which may be explained by greater weight loss with surgery, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• There is limited evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of BMS and GLP-1 RAs in reducing mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
• This observational, retrospective cohort study analyzed the electronic medical records of Clalit Health Services, Israel’s largest healthcare organization.
• Researchers included patients aged 24 years or older who had diabetes and obesity but no prior cardiovascular disease and who either underwent BMS or received a GLP-1 RA.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, assessed by multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models. The secondary outcome was nonfatal MACE, assessed by multivariate competing risk models.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 3035 matched pairs of patients (total, 6070; mean age, 51 years; 65% women), who were followed for a median of 6.8 years.
• Among patients with diabetes for 10 years or less, those who underwent BMS had a 62% lower risk for mortality than those treated with a GLP-1 RA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38).
• The survival advantage associated with BMS vs GLP-1 RA may be explained by the greater relative decrease in body mass index in the surgery group (–31.4% vs –12.8%, respectively).
• Among patients with diabetes for more than 10 years, no survival advantage was observed for BMS over GLP-1 RA (HR, 0.65), which may be explained by the adverse effects of prolonged diabetes duration masking the benefit associated with weight loss.
• The risk for nonfatal MACE did not differ significantly between the treatment groups in both diabetes duration categories.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study suggests that BMS was associated with greater reduced mortality compared with GLP-1 RAs among individuals with a diabetes duration of 10 years or less, mediated via greater weight loss,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Dror Dicker, MD, Hasharon Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design may have introduced residual confounding despite matching and multivariable adjustment. The analyses did not account for the types of BMS or GLP-1 RAs or the level of adherence to GLP-1 RA treatment. Information regarding cause of death was unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Israel Science Foundation. Dicker reported financial relationships with Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

TOPLINE:

Bariatric metabolic surgery (BMS) offers a survival advantage over glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in adults with obesity and diabetes for 10 years or less, which may be explained by greater weight loss with surgery, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• There is limited evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of BMS and GLP-1 RAs in reducing mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
• This observational, retrospective cohort study analyzed the electronic medical records of Clalit Health Services, Israel’s largest healthcare organization.
• Researchers included patients aged 24 years or older who had diabetes and obesity but no prior cardiovascular disease and who either underwent BMS or received a GLP-1 RA.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, assessed by multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models. The secondary outcome was nonfatal MACE, assessed by multivariate competing risk models.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 3035 matched pairs of patients (total, 6070; mean age, 51 years; 65% women), who were followed for a median of 6.8 years.
• Among patients with diabetes for 10 years or less, those who underwent BMS had a 62% lower risk for mortality than those treated with a GLP-1 RA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38).
• The survival advantage associated with BMS vs GLP-1 RA may be explained by the greater relative decrease in body mass index in the surgery group (–31.4% vs –12.8%, respectively).
• Among patients with diabetes for more than 10 years, no survival advantage was observed for BMS over GLP-1 RA (HR, 0.65), which may be explained by the adverse effects of prolonged diabetes duration masking the benefit associated with weight loss.
• The risk for nonfatal MACE did not differ significantly between the treatment groups in both diabetes duration categories.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study suggests that BMS was associated with greater reduced mortality compared with GLP-1 RAs among individuals with a diabetes duration of 10 years or less, mediated via greater weight loss,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Dror Dicker, MD, Hasharon Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design may have introduced residual confounding despite matching and multivariable adjustment. The analyses did not account for the types of BMS or GLP-1 RAs or the level of adherence to GLP-1 RA treatment. Information regarding cause of death was unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Israel Science Foundation. Dicker reported financial relationships with Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

It seems intuitive that, because people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) generally need to avoid sugar, clinicians should recommend eating foods and using recipes containing artificial sweeteners such as sucralose instead.

Splenda, which produces sucralose and other non-sugar sweeteners (NSS), is a sponsor of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Food Hub. Earlier in 2024, the ADA settled a lawsuit regarding its former director of nutrition’s refusal to approve recipes containing sucralose (Splenda), which she believed “flew in the face of the ADA’s mission.” 

Experts agree that, while artificial sweeteners may help in certain scenarios, they can also be harmful.

“There’s not a lot of evidence that sweeteners like sucralose provide significant benefits, especially over the long term,” said Susan Swithers, PhD, professor, department of psychological sciences and associate dean for faculty affairs at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Dr. Swithers authored an article several years ago cautioning that consuming nonnutritive sweeteners in beverages not only fails to prevent disease but also is associated with an increase in risks for the same health outcomes associated with sugar-sweetened beverages, including T2D, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and stroke.

“At this point, we have pretty good evidence that these chemicals that were once touted as being completely inert are, in fact, not inert,” she said. “We know that they’re unlikely to be toxic in the short term, but they are not benign, and they have consequences. Right now, we have little understanding of the outcomes of consumption of these products chronically.”
 

What the Science Says

In 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a guideline on NSS that recommended against their use for weight control or to reduce the risk for noncommunicable diseases.

The systematic review and meta-analysis upon which the guideline is based found that high intakes of NSS were associated with increases in body mass index and, as Dr. Swithers found, risks of developing T2D, cardiovascular events, and any type of stroke, as well as hypertension, bladder cancer, and all-cause mortality.

In a press release announcing the guideline, Francesco Branca, WHO director for Nutrition and Food Safety, said, “NSS are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health.” 

The “common” NSS named by WHO included sucralose, as well as acesulfame K, aspartame, advantame, cyclamates, neotame, saccharin, stevia, and stevia derivatives.

If NSS consumption can increase T2D risk, what about people who already have T2D? 

Some research suggests that NSS may affect people with and without T2D differently, said Dr. Swithers. For example, one small study showed that sucralose enhanced glucagon-like peptide 1 release and lowered blood glucose in healthy patients but not in patients with newly diagnosed T2D.

Similarly, Jotham Suez, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of molecular microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, said in an interview that his group “showed for the first time in 2014 that disruption of the microbiome by artificial sweeteners is causally linked to disrupted glycemic control.” 

Recently, the team studied the impact of sucralose, aspartame, saccharin, and stevia in healthy adults and “were surprised to discover that all four sweeteners altered gut bacteria and the molecules they secrete,” he said. However, subsequent glucose tolerance tests in healthy humans showed varying results, “suggesting that human microbiome responses to the nonnutritive sweeteners we assessed are highly personalized and may lead to glycemic alterations in some, but not all, consumers depending on their microbes and the sweeteners they consume.” 

Nevertheless, a recent review led by researchers in Mexico concluded that sucralose consumption “is associated with various adverse health effects. Despite being considered safe following previous studies, recent research suggests possible links to systemic inflammation, metabolic diseases, disruptions in gut microbiota, liver damage, and toxic effects at the cellular level.” 

In addition, they wrote, “it is crucial to highlight the persistence of sucralose in the body, its ability to cross the placenta, and its presence in breast milk, raising concerns about prenatal and neonatal exposure.” 

Sabyasachi Sen, MD, a professor of biochemistry and molecular medicine at George Washington School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Washington, DC, has led and coauthored preclinical and clinical studies demonstrating the potential ill effects of sucralose and other artificial sweeteners. One showed that sucralose and acesulfame potassium–containing diet soda altered microbial taxa in two pilot studies in healthy young adults; another showed a connection between artificial sweeteners and inflammation.

But Dr. Sen’s current work is directed at his team’s finding that sucralose promotes the accumulation of reactive oxygen species and adipogenesis in human stem cells, he said in an interview. “It is essentially an additive that is clearly harmful to cells. Our concern is that stem cells are going to remain in the system for a long period of time. If it is causing inflammation in these cells, then that may lead to adverse outcomes.”

Ruchi Mathur, MD, director of the Diabetes Outpatient Treatment & Education Center at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, California, is the principal investigator of a recent study suggesting that non-aspartame NSS and aspartame alone may alter the structure and function of the stool and duodenal microbiomes. Levels of circulating inflammatory markers were also altered in participants who consumed artificial sweeteners, compared with control participants who did not.

In addition to these potential adverse effects, “we have to think about the fact that patients with diabetes often have other comorbidities like obesity and are at higher risk for cardiovascular disease and other conditions,” she said in an interview. “If you’re taking a patient who’s already at risk for those things and you don’t have a detailed discussion with them about pros and cons, you’re doing them a disservice.” 
 

Industry Interests

Addressing the largely negative but varying findings, Dr. Swithers said, “one of the difficulties with getting clear answers about the science is that the food and beverage industry has an interest in confusing the picture. If people are selling or using a product, the best thing is for them not have a clear reason to change their behavior. All that needs to happen is for them to be able say, ‘well, it’s not clear, and we don’t really know what’s going on, so I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing.’ Then the producers and sellers of that product have won.” 

“As Upton Sinclair said,” she added, “‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’ When organizations like ADA appear to be promoting a product like sucralose, and they’re not always being clear about disclosing the funding, I think that’s problematic.”

In fact, some recipes in the ADA’s hub that contain Splenda are marked sponsored, such as the four-ingredient peanut butter cookies; others, such as gluten-free brownies, are not — even though the latter contains “1/4 cup plus 1 tbsp” of Splenda Sugar Blend (Splenda produces several nonnutritive sweeteners, not all of which contain sucralose). Splenda is a sponsor of the ADA’s hub.
 

Consume in Moderation?

Regarding the use of Splenda products, Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, the ADA’s chief scientific and medical officer, said in an interview that “some people with diabetes are accustomed to regularly consuming sugar-sweetened products, which can make management of their diabetes more challenging. As highlighted in the ADA’s Standards of Care, nonnutritive sweeteners (containing few or no calories) may be an acceptable substitute for sweeteners that contain sugar and calories when consumed in moderation. By providing a diabetes-friendly way to prepare foods people are used to eating, we can meet people where they are in offering support to effectively manage their diabetes.”

Of course, “moderation” means different things to different people. “With sucralose in particular, you can bake with it, you can cook with it, and beverages and packaged foods contain it, so it’s easy to end up overconsuming foods that may be fine if they’re occasional treats but aren’t healthy choices to have every single day,” Dr. Swithers said. “If you’re having a cookie containing sucralose once a week, it’s not a big deal, but if you’re having a cookie or a brownie every day, that’s something different.”

“I think ‘everything in moderation’ is a very reasonable approach here,” Dr. Mathur said. “Anything too much is probably not good, and that includes sweeteners like sucralose and others.”

Dr. Suez, whose team is currently exploring the mechanisms through which gut bacteria interact with nonnutritive sweeteners in the pathogenesis of cardiometabolic diseases, was more circumspect.

“We believe that additional, long-term, and non–industry-sponsored studies in humans are needed before we can make a recommendation in favor or against the use of nonnutritive sweeteners,” he said.

“However, our results demonstrating that nonnutritive sweeteners are not inert, when taken together with a growing body of evidence on potential harms of these sweeteners, merit caution until additional studies are completed,” he added. “Our findings do not imply in any way that sugar consumption, shown to be harmful to human health in many studies, is superior to nonnutritive sweeteners. Sugar consumption should be minimized, especially in individuals with obesity or diabetes. Of all the options, unsweetened beverages, specifically water, seem to be the safest and best options.”

Dr. Sen, who also “tries to convince patients to have sparkling or cold bottled water,” instead of artificially sweetened soda, agreed. “If a diabetes patient is trying to choose between sugar and sucralose, I’m not sure which one is worse.”

Dr. Swithers, Dr. Mathur, Dr. Sen, and Dr. Suez declared no competing interests.

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

It seems intuitive that, because people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) generally need to avoid sugar, clinicians should recommend eating foods and using recipes containing artificial sweeteners such as sucralose instead.

Splenda, which produces sucralose and other non-sugar sweeteners (NSS), is a sponsor of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Food Hub. Earlier in 2024, the ADA settled a lawsuit regarding its former director of nutrition’s refusal to approve recipes containing sucralose (Splenda), which she believed “flew in the face of the ADA’s mission.” 

Experts agree that, while artificial sweeteners may help in certain scenarios, they can also be harmful.

“There’s not a lot of evidence that sweeteners like sucralose provide significant benefits, especially over the long term,” said Susan Swithers, PhD, professor, department of psychological sciences and associate dean for faculty affairs at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Dr. Swithers authored an article several years ago cautioning that consuming nonnutritive sweeteners in beverages not only fails to prevent disease but also is associated with an increase in risks for the same health outcomes associated with sugar-sweetened beverages, including T2D, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and stroke.

“At this point, we have pretty good evidence that these chemicals that were once touted as being completely inert are, in fact, not inert,” she said. “We know that they’re unlikely to be toxic in the short term, but they are not benign, and they have consequences. Right now, we have little understanding of the outcomes of consumption of these products chronically.”
 

What the Science Says

In 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a guideline on NSS that recommended against their use for weight control or to reduce the risk for noncommunicable diseases.

The systematic review and meta-analysis upon which the guideline is based found that high intakes of NSS were associated with increases in body mass index and, as Dr. Swithers found, risks of developing T2D, cardiovascular events, and any type of stroke, as well as hypertension, bladder cancer, and all-cause mortality.

In a press release announcing the guideline, Francesco Branca, WHO director for Nutrition and Food Safety, said, “NSS are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health.” 

The “common” NSS named by WHO included sucralose, as well as acesulfame K, aspartame, advantame, cyclamates, neotame, saccharin, stevia, and stevia derivatives.

If NSS consumption can increase T2D risk, what about people who already have T2D? 

Some research suggests that NSS may affect people with and without T2D differently, said Dr. Swithers. For example, one small study showed that sucralose enhanced glucagon-like peptide 1 release and lowered blood glucose in healthy patients but not in patients with newly diagnosed T2D.

Similarly, Jotham Suez, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of molecular microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, said in an interview that his group “showed for the first time in 2014 that disruption of the microbiome by artificial sweeteners is causally linked to disrupted glycemic control.” 

Recently, the team studied the impact of sucralose, aspartame, saccharin, and stevia in healthy adults and “were surprised to discover that all four sweeteners altered gut bacteria and the molecules they secrete,” he said. However, subsequent glucose tolerance tests in healthy humans showed varying results, “suggesting that human microbiome responses to the nonnutritive sweeteners we assessed are highly personalized and may lead to glycemic alterations in some, but not all, consumers depending on their microbes and the sweeteners they consume.” 

Nevertheless, a recent review led by researchers in Mexico concluded that sucralose consumption “is associated with various adverse health effects. Despite being considered safe following previous studies, recent research suggests possible links to systemic inflammation, metabolic diseases, disruptions in gut microbiota, liver damage, and toxic effects at the cellular level.” 

In addition, they wrote, “it is crucial to highlight the persistence of sucralose in the body, its ability to cross the placenta, and its presence in breast milk, raising concerns about prenatal and neonatal exposure.” 

Sabyasachi Sen, MD, a professor of biochemistry and molecular medicine at George Washington School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Washington, DC, has led and coauthored preclinical and clinical studies demonstrating the potential ill effects of sucralose and other artificial sweeteners. One showed that sucralose and acesulfame potassium–containing diet soda altered microbial taxa in two pilot studies in healthy young adults; another showed a connection between artificial sweeteners and inflammation.

But Dr. Sen’s current work is directed at his team’s finding that sucralose promotes the accumulation of reactive oxygen species and adipogenesis in human stem cells, he said in an interview. “It is essentially an additive that is clearly harmful to cells. Our concern is that stem cells are going to remain in the system for a long period of time. If it is causing inflammation in these cells, then that may lead to adverse outcomes.”

Ruchi Mathur, MD, director of the Diabetes Outpatient Treatment & Education Center at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, California, is the principal investigator of a recent study suggesting that non-aspartame NSS and aspartame alone may alter the structure and function of the stool and duodenal microbiomes. Levels of circulating inflammatory markers were also altered in participants who consumed artificial sweeteners, compared with control participants who did not.

In addition to these potential adverse effects, “we have to think about the fact that patients with diabetes often have other comorbidities like obesity and are at higher risk for cardiovascular disease and other conditions,” she said in an interview. “If you’re taking a patient who’s already at risk for those things and you don’t have a detailed discussion with them about pros and cons, you’re doing them a disservice.” 
 

Industry Interests

Addressing the largely negative but varying findings, Dr. Swithers said, “one of the difficulties with getting clear answers about the science is that the food and beverage industry has an interest in confusing the picture. If people are selling or using a product, the best thing is for them not have a clear reason to change their behavior. All that needs to happen is for them to be able say, ‘well, it’s not clear, and we don’t really know what’s going on, so I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing.’ Then the producers and sellers of that product have won.” 

“As Upton Sinclair said,” she added, “‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’ When organizations like ADA appear to be promoting a product like sucralose, and they’re not always being clear about disclosing the funding, I think that’s problematic.”

In fact, some recipes in the ADA’s hub that contain Splenda are marked sponsored, such as the four-ingredient peanut butter cookies; others, such as gluten-free brownies, are not — even though the latter contains “1/4 cup plus 1 tbsp” of Splenda Sugar Blend (Splenda produces several nonnutritive sweeteners, not all of which contain sucralose). Splenda is a sponsor of the ADA’s hub.
 

Consume in Moderation?

Regarding the use of Splenda products, Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, the ADA’s chief scientific and medical officer, said in an interview that “some people with diabetes are accustomed to regularly consuming sugar-sweetened products, which can make management of their diabetes more challenging. As highlighted in the ADA’s Standards of Care, nonnutritive sweeteners (containing few or no calories) may be an acceptable substitute for sweeteners that contain sugar and calories when consumed in moderation. By providing a diabetes-friendly way to prepare foods people are used to eating, we can meet people where they are in offering support to effectively manage their diabetes.”

Of course, “moderation” means different things to different people. “With sucralose in particular, you can bake with it, you can cook with it, and beverages and packaged foods contain it, so it’s easy to end up overconsuming foods that may be fine if they’re occasional treats but aren’t healthy choices to have every single day,” Dr. Swithers said. “If you’re having a cookie containing sucralose once a week, it’s not a big deal, but if you’re having a cookie or a brownie every day, that’s something different.”

“I think ‘everything in moderation’ is a very reasonable approach here,” Dr. Mathur said. “Anything too much is probably not good, and that includes sweeteners like sucralose and others.”

Dr. Suez, whose team is currently exploring the mechanisms through which gut bacteria interact with nonnutritive sweeteners in the pathogenesis of cardiometabolic diseases, was more circumspect.

“We believe that additional, long-term, and non–industry-sponsored studies in humans are needed before we can make a recommendation in favor or against the use of nonnutritive sweeteners,” he said.

“However, our results demonstrating that nonnutritive sweeteners are not inert, when taken together with a growing body of evidence on potential harms of these sweeteners, merit caution until additional studies are completed,” he added. “Our findings do not imply in any way that sugar consumption, shown to be harmful to human health in many studies, is superior to nonnutritive sweeteners. Sugar consumption should be minimized, especially in individuals with obesity or diabetes. Of all the options, unsweetened beverages, specifically water, seem to be the safest and best options.”

Dr. Sen, who also “tries to convince patients to have sparkling or cold bottled water,” instead of artificially sweetened soda, agreed. “If a diabetes patient is trying to choose between sugar and sucralose, I’m not sure which one is worse.”

Dr. Swithers, Dr. Mathur, Dr. Sen, and Dr. Suez declared no competing interests.

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

It seems intuitive that, because people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) generally need to avoid sugar, clinicians should recommend eating foods and using recipes containing artificial sweeteners such as sucralose instead.

Splenda, which produces sucralose and other non-sugar sweeteners (NSS), is a sponsor of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Food Hub. Earlier in 2024, the ADA settled a lawsuit regarding its former director of nutrition’s refusal to approve recipes containing sucralose (Splenda), which she believed “flew in the face of the ADA’s mission.” 

Experts agree that, while artificial sweeteners may help in certain scenarios, they can also be harmful.

“There’s not a lot of evidence that sweeteners like sucralose provide significant benefits, especially over the long term,” said Susan Swithers, PhD, professor, department of psychological sciences and associate dean for faculty affairs at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Dr. Swithers authored an article several years ago cautioning that consuming nonnutritive sweeteners in beverages not only fails to prevent disease but also is associated with an increase in risks for the same health outcomes associated with sugar-sweetened beverages, including T2D, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and stroke.

“At this point, we have pretty good evidence that these chemicals that were once touted as being completely inert are, in fact, not inert,” she said. “We know that they’re unlikely to be toxic in the short term, but they are not benign, and they have consequences. Right now, we have little understanding of the outcomes of consumption of these products chronically.”
 

What the Science Says

In 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a guideline on NSS that recommended against their use for weight control or to reduce the risk for noncommunicable diseases.

The systematic review and meta-analysis upon which the guideline is based found that high intakes of NSS were associated with increases in body mass index and, as Dr. Swithers found, risks of developing T2D, cardiovascular events, and any type of stroke, as well as hypertension, bladder cancer, and all-cause mortality.

In a press release announcing the guideline, Francesco Branca, WHO director for Nutrition and Food Safety, said, “NSS are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health.” 

The “common” NSS named by WHO included sucralose, as well as acesulfame K, aspartame, advantame, cyclamates, neotame, saccharin, stevia, and stevia derivatives.

If NSS consumption can increase T2D risk, what about people who already have T2D? 

Some research suggests that NSS may affect people with and without T2D differently, said Dr. Swithers. For example, one small study showed that sucralose enhanced glucagon-like peptide 1 release and lowered blood glucose in healthy patients but not in patients with newly diagnosed T2D.

Similarly, Jotham Suez, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of molecular microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, said in an interview that his group “showed for the first time in 2014 that disruption of the microbiome by artificial sweeteners is causally linked to disrupted glycemic control.” 

Recently, the team studied the impact of sucralose, aspartame, saccharin, and stevia in healthy adults and “were surprised to discover that all four sweeteners altered gut bacteria and the molecules they secrete,” he said. However, subsequent glucose tolerance tests in healthy humans showed varying results, “suggesting that human microbiome responses to the nonnutritive sweeteners we assessed are highly personalized and may lead to glycemic alterations in some, but not all, consumers depending on their microbes and the sweeteners they consume.” 

Nevertheless, a recent review led by researchers in Mexico concluded that sucralose consumption “is associated with various adverse health effects. Despite being considered safe following previous studies, recent research suggests possible links to systemic inflammation, metabolic diseases, disruptions in gut microbiota, liver damage, and toxic effects at the cellular level.” 

In addition, they wrote, “it is crucial to highlight the persistence of sucralose in the body, its ability to cross the placenta, and its presence in breast milk, raising concerns about prenatal and neonatal exposure.” 

Sabyasachi Sen, MD, a professor of biochemistry and molecular medicine at George Washington School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Washington, DC, has led and coauthored preclinical and clinical studies demonstrating the potential ill effects of sucralose and other artificial sweeteners. One showed that sucralose and acesulfame potassium–containing diet soda altered microbial taxa in two pilot studies in healthy young adults; another showed a connection between artificial sweeteners and inflammation.

But Dr. Sen’s current work is directed at his team’s finding that sucralose promotes the accumulation of reactive oxygen species and adipogenesis in human stem cells, he said in an interview. “It is essentially an additive that is clearly harmful to cells. Our concern is that stem cells are going to remain in the system for a long period of time. If it is causing inflammation in these cells, then that may lead to adverse outcomes.”

Ruchi Mathur, MD, director of the Diabetes Outpatient Treatment & Education Center at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, California, is the principal investigator of a recent study suggesting that non-aspartame NSS and aspartame alone may alter the structure and function of the stool and duodenal microbiomes. Levels of circulating inflammatory markers were also altered in participants who consumed artificial sweeteners, compared with control participants who did not.

In addition to these potential adverse effects, “we have to think about the fact that patients with diabetes often have other comorbidities like obesity and are at higher risk for cardiovascular disease and other conditions,” she said in an interview. “If you’re taking a patient who’s already at risk for those things and you don’t have a detailed discussion with them about pros and cons, you’re doing them a disservice.” 
 

Industry Interests

Addressing the largely negative but varying findings, Dr. Swithers said, “one of the difficulties with getting clear answers about the science is that the food and beverage industry has an interest in confusing the picture. If people are selling or using a product, the best thing is for them not have a clear reason to change their behavior. All that needs to happen is for them to be able say, ‘well, it’s not clear, and we don’t really know what’s going on, so I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing.’ Then the producers and sellers of that product have won.” 

“As Upton Sinclair said,” she added, “‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’ When organizations like ADA appear to be promoting a product like sucralose, and they’re not always being clear about disclosing the funding, I think that’s problematic.”

In fact, some recipes in the ADA’s hub that contain Splenda are marked sponsored, such as the four-ingredient peanut butter cookies; others, such as gluten-free brownies, are not — even though the latter contains “1/4 cup plus 1 tbsp” of Splenda Sugar Blend (Splenda produces several nonnutritive sweeteners, not all of which contain sucralose). Splenda is a sponsor of the ADA’s hub.
 

Consume in Moderation?

Regarding the use of Splenda products, Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, the ADA’s chief scientific and medical officer, said in an interview that “some people with diabetes are accustomed to regularly consuming sugar-sweetened products, which can make management of their diabetes more challenging. As highlighted in the ADA’s Standards of Care, nonnutritive sweeteners (containing few or no calories) may be an acceptable substitute for sweeteners that contain sugar and calories when consumed in moderation. By providing a diabetes-friendly way to prepare foods people are used to eating, we can meet people where they are in offering support to effectively manage their diabetes.”

Of course, “moderation” means different things to different people. “With sucralose in particular, you can bake with it, you can cook with it, and beverages and packaged foods contain it, so it’s easy to end up overconsuming foods that may be fine if they’re occasional treats but aren’t healthy choices to have every single day,” Dr. Swithers said. “If you’re having a cookie containing sucralose once a week, it’s not a big deal, but if you’re having a cookie or a brownie every day, that’s something different.”

“I think ‘everything in moderation’ is a very reasonable approach here,” Dr. Mathur said. “Anything too much is probably not good, and that includes sweeteners like sucralose and others.”

Dr. Suez, whose team is currently exploring the mechanisms through which gut bacteria interact with nonnutritive sweeteners in the pathogenesis of cardiometabolic diseases, was more circumspect.

“We believe that additional, long-term, and non–industry-sponsored studies in humans are needed before we can make a recommendation in favor or against the use of nonnutritive sweeteners,” he said.

“However, our results demonstrating that nonnutritive sweeteners are not inert, when taken together with a growing body of evidence on potential harms of these sweeteners, merit caution until additional studies are completed,” he added. “Our findings do not imply in any way that sugar consumption, shown to be harmful to human health in many studies, is superior to nonnutritive sweeteners. Sugar consumption should be minimized, especially in individuals with obesity or diabetes. Of all the options, unsweetened beverages, specifically water, seem to be the safest and best options.”

Dr. Sen, who also “tries to convince patients to have sparkling or cold bottled water,” instead of artificially sweetened soda, agreed. “If a diabetes patient is trying to choose between sugar and sucralose, I’m not sure which one is worse.”

Dr. Swithers, Dr. Mathur, Dr. Sen, and Dr. Suez declared no competing interests.

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

WASHINGTON – Women with autoimmune liver diseases (AILD) may face increased risks for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In particular, women with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) and primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) appear to have higher risks than women without AIH or PBC. Those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) don’t seem to have increased risks.

“We know that cardiovascular disease remains the number one cause of death, but the mortality rate for women over the last decade has plateaued, whereas in men it’s actually declining due to interventions,” said lead author Rachel Redfield, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“This is likely because we don’t have adequate risk stratification, especially for women,” she said. “We know that immune-mediated diseases — such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis — carry a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, but there’s not a lot of data on our autoimmune liver disease patients.”

Dr. Redfield

Although being a female can offer protection against some CVD risks, the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) 10-year risk score calculator recommended by the American College of Cardiology doesn’t include chronic inflammatory diseases associated with increased CVD risk, including AILD.

Dr. Redfield and colleagues conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with AIH, PBC, and PSC from 1999-2019. Using TriNetX data, the researchers looked at women with AILD who also had diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, as well as a control group of men and women with these same disorders, excluding those who used biologics, immune modulators, and steroids or had other autoimmune disorders.

The research team used 1:1 propensity-score matching for women in the study group and in the control group based on age, race, ethnicity, ASCVD risk factors, and tobacco use. Women in the study group and men in the control group were matched for age, race, ethnicity, and tobacco use.

The primary outcome was summative cardiovascular risk, including unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction, presence of coronary angioplasty implant, coronary artery bypass, percutaneous coronary intervention, and cerebral infarction.

Overall, women with AIH had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without AIH, at 25.4% versus 20.6% (P = .0007).

Specifically, women with PBC had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without PBC, at 27.05% versus 20.9% (P < .0001).

There wasn’t a significant difference in risk between women with and without PSC, at 27.5% versus 21.8% (P = .27).

When compared to men without disease, women with AIH didn’t have a statistically significant higher risk, at 25.3% versus 24.2% (P = .44). Similarly, there didn’t appear to be a significant difference between women with PBC and men without PBC, at 26.9% versus 25.9% (P = .52), or between women with PSC and men without PSC, at 27.7% versus 26.2% (P = .78).

Dr. Redfield and colleagues then compared the ASCVD-calculated risk versus database risk, finding that in each group of women with AILD — including AIH, PBC, and PSC — the ASCVD-calculated risk was around 11%, compared with database risk scores of 25% for AIH, 27% for PBC, and 28% for PSC. These database risks appeared similar to both the ASCVD and database risk percentages for men.

“So potentially there’s an oversight in women with any kind of inflammatory disease, but specifically here, autoimmune liver diseases,” she said. “We really need to enhance our risk assessment strategies to take into account their risk and optimize patient outcomes.”

Dr. Redfield noted the limitations with using TriNetX data, including coding consistency among providers and healthcare organizations, unknown patient follow-up dates, and the inability to capture various inflammatory disease phenotypes, such as autoimmune hepatitis with multiple flares, which may be associated with higher cardiovascular risks.

As an attendee of the DDW session, Kenneth Kelson, MD, a gastroenterologist with Fremont Medical Group and Washington Hospital Healthcare System in Fremont, California, noted the importance of investigating the effects of different types of statins in these patients. Although the research team looked at top-level differences among statin users, finding that women with AILD were more likely to be on a statin, they didn’t incorporate statin therapy in the propensity-score matching model.

“Lipid-soluble statins are known to cause more liver trouble, even though it’s pretty low,” Dr. Kelson said. “Whereas the water-soluble statins have a lower incidence of liver issues.”

Dr. Redfield and Dr. Kelson reported no relevant disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Women with autoimmune liver diseases (AILD) may face increased risks for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In particular, women with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) and primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) appear to have higher risks than women without AIH or PBC. Those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) don’t seem to have increased risks.

“We know that cardiovascular disease remains the number one cause of death, but the mortality rate for women over the last decade has plateaued, whereas in men it’s actually declining due to interventions,” said lead author Rachel Redfield, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“This is likely because we don’t have adequate risk stratification, especially for women,” she said. “We know that immune-mediated diseases — such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis — carry a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, but there’s not a lot of data on our autoimmune liver disease patients.”

Dr. Redfield

Although being a female can offer protection against some CVD risks, the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) 10-year risk score calculator recommended by the American College of Cardiology doesn’t include chronic inflammatory diseases associated with increased CVD risk, including AILD.

Dr. Redfield and colleagues conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with AIH, PBC, and PSC from 1999-2019. Using TriNetX data, the researchers looked at women with AILD who also had diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, as well as a control group of men and women with these same disorders, excluding those who used biologics, immune modulators, and steroids or had other autoimmune disorders.

The research team used 1:1 propensity-score matching for women in the study group and in the control group based on age, race, ethnicity, ASCVD risk factors, and tobacco use. Women in the study group and men in the control group were matched for age, race, ethnicity, and tobacco use.

The primary outcome was summative cardiovascular risk, including unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction, presence of coronary angioplasty implant, coronary artery bypass, percutaneous coronary intervention, and cerebral infarction.

Overall, women with AIH had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without AIH, at 25.4% versus 20.6% (P = .0007).

Specifically, women with PBC had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without PBC, at 27.05% versus 20.9% (P < .0001).

There wasn’t a significant difference in risk between women with and without PSC, at 27.5% versus 21.8% (P = .27).

When compared to men without disease, women with AIH didn’t have a statistically significant higher risk, at 25.3% versus 24.2% (P = .44). Similarly, there didn’t appear to be a significant difference between women with PBC and men without PBC, at 26.9% versus 25.9% (P = .52), or between women with PSC and men without PSC, at 27.7% versus 26.2% (P = .78).

Dr. Redfield and colleagues then compared the ASCVD-calculated risk versus database risk, finding that in each group of women with AILD — including AIH, PBC, and PSC — the ASCVD-calculated risk was around 11%, compared with database risk scores of 25% for AIH, 27% for PBC, and 28% for PSC. These database risks appeared similar to both the ASCVD and database risk percentages for men.

“So potentially there’s an oversight in women with any kind of inflammatory disease, but specifically here, autoimmune liver diseases,” she said. “We really need to enhance our risk assessment strategies to take into account their risk and optimize patient outcomes.”

Dr. Redfield noted the limitations with using TriNetX data, including coding consistency among providers and healthcare organizations, unknown patient follow-up dates, and the inability to capture various inflammatory disease phenotypes, such as autoimmune hepatitis with multiple flares, which may be associated with higher cardiovascular risks.

As an attendee of the DDW session, Kenneth Kelson, MD, a gastroenterologist with Fremont Medical Group and Washington Hospital Healthcare System in Fremont, California, noted the importance of investigating the effects of different types of statins in these patients. Although the research team looked at top-level differences among statin users, finding that women with AILD were more likely to be on a statin, they didn’t incorporate statin therapy in the propensity-score matching model.

“Lipid-soluble statins are known to cause more liver trouble, even though it’s pretty low,” Dr. Kelson said. “Whereas the water-soluble statins have a lower incidence of liver issues.”

Dr. Redfield and Dr. Kelson reported no relevant disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Women with autoimmune liver diseases (AILD) may face increased risks for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In particular, women with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) and primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) appear to have higher risks than women without AIH or PBC. Those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) don’t seem to have increased risks.

“We know that cardiovascular disease remains the number one cause of death, but the mortality rate for women over the last decade has plateaued, whereas in men it’s actually declining due to interventions,” said lead author Rachel Redfield, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“This is likely because we don’t have adequate risk stratification, especially for women,” she said. “We know that immune-mediated diseases — such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis — carry a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, but there’s not a lot of data on our autoimmune liver disease patients.”

Dr. Redfield

Although being a female can offer protection against some CVD risks, the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) 10-year risk score calculator recommended by the American College of Cardiology doesn’t include chronic inflammatory diseases associated with increased CVD risk, including AILD.

Dr. Redfield and colleagues conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with AIH, PBC, and PSC from 1999-2019. Using TriNetX data, the researchers looked at women with AILD who also had diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, as well as a control group of men and women with these same disorders, excluding those who used biologics, immune modulators, and steroids or had other autoimmune disorders.

The research team used 1:1 propensity-score matching for women in the study group and in the control group based on age, race, ethnicity, ASCVD risk factors, and tobacco use. Women in the study group and men in the control group were matched for age, race, ethnicity, and tobacco use.

The primary outcome was summative cardiovascular risk, including unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction, presence of coronary angioplasty implant, coronary artery bypass, percutaneous coronary intervention, and cerebral infarction.

Overall, women with AIH had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without AIH, at 25.4% versus 20.6% (P = .0007).

Specifically, women with PBC had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without PBC, at 27.05% versus 20.9% (P < .0001).

There wasn’t a significant difference in risk between women with and without PSC, at 27.5% versus 21.8% (P = .27).

When compared to men without disease, women with AIH didn’t have a statistically significant higher risk, at 25.3% versus 24.2% (P = .44). Similarly, there didn’t appear to be a significant difference between women with PBC and men without PBC, at 26.9% versus 25.9% (P = .52), or between women with PSC and men without PSC, at 27.7% versus 26.2% (P = .78).

Dr. Redfield and colleagues then compared the ASCVD-calculated risk versus database risk, finding that in each group of women with AILD — including AIH, PBC, and PSC — the ASCVD-calculated risk was around 11%, compared with database risk scores of 25% for AIH, 27% for PBC, and 28% for PSC. These database risks appeared similar to both the ASCVD and database risk percentages for men.

“So potentially there’s an oversight in women with any kind of inflammatory disease, but specifically here, autoimmune liver diseases,” she said. “We really need to enhance our risk assessment strategies to take into account their risk and optimize patient outcomes.”

Dr. Redfield noted the limitations with using TriNetX data, including coding consistency among providers and healthcare organizations, unknown patient follow-up dates, and the inability to capture various inflammatory disease phenotypes, such as autoimmune hepatitis with multiple flares, which may be associated with higher cardiovascular risks.

As an attendee of the DDW session, Kenneth Kelson, MD, a gastroenterologist with Fremont Medical Group and Washington Hospital Healthcare System in Fremont, California, noted the importance of investigating the effects of different types of statins in these patients. Although the research team looked at top-level differences among statin users, finding that women with AILD were more likely to be on a statin, they didn’t incorporate statin therapy in the propensity-score matching model.

“Lipid-soluble statins are known to cause more liver trouble, even though it’s pretty low,” Dr. Kelson said. “Whereas the water-soluble statins have a lower incidence of liver issues.”

Dr. Redfield and Dr. Kelson reported no relevant disclosures.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is the most common form of diabetes, representing more than 90% of all cases worldwide. The prevalence of T2D is increasing globally, mainly because of behavioral and social factors related to obesity, diet, and physical activity. The International Diabetes Federation estimated in its 2021 report that 537 million adults aged between 20 and 79 years have been diagnosed with diabetes worldwide. The organization predicts an increase to 643 million by 2030 and 743 million by 2045.

The main therapeutic goals for patients with T2D include adequate glycemic control and primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular and renal diseases, which represent nearly half of all deaths among adults with T2D. Despite the multiple treatment options available, 16% of adults with T2D have inadequate glycemic control, including hemoglobin A1c levels greater than 9%, even though glycemic control was the focus of the 2017 guidelines of the American College of Physicians.

Therefore, the ACP deemed it necessary to update the previous guidelines, considering new evidence on the efficacy and harms of new pharmacologic treatments in adults with T2D with the goal of reducing the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in these patients.
 

New Drugs

The pharmacologic treatments that the ACP considered while updating its guidelines include glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (that is, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, and semaglutide), a GLP-1 receptor agonist and a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist (that is, tirzepatide), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors (that is, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (that is, alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, and sitagliptin), and long-acting insulins (that is, insulin glargine and insulin degludec).

Recommendations

The ACP recommends adding an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with inadequately controlled T2D (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence). Use an SGLT-2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), CKD progression, and hospitalization resulting from heart failure, according to the document. Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, MACE, and strokes.

SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists are the only newer pharmacological treatments for T2D that have reduced all-cause mortality than placebo or usual care. In indirect comparison, SGLT-2 inhibitors probably reduce the risk for hospitalization resulting from heart failure, while GLP-1 agonists probably reduce the risk for strokes.

Neither class of drugs causes severe hypoglycemia, but both are associated with various harms, as reported in specific warnings. Both classes of drugs lead to weight loss.

Compared with long-acting insulins, SGLT-2 inhibitors can reduce, and GLP-1 agonists probably reduce, all-cause mortality. Compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists probably reduce all-cause mortality.

Compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT-2 inhibitors probably reduce MACE, as well as compared with sulfonylureas.

The ACP recommends against adding a DPP-4 inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with inadequately controlled T2D to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence).

Compared with usual therapy, DPP-4 inhibitors do not result in differences in all-cause mortality, MACE, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for chronic heart failure (CHF), CKD progression, or severe hypoglycemia. Compared with SGLT-2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors may increase hospitalization caused by CHF and probably increase the risk for MACE and CKD progression. Compared with GLP-1 agonists, they probably increase all-cause mortality and hospitalization caused by CHF and the risk for MACE. Metformin is the most common usual therapy in the studies considered.
 

Considerations for Practice

Metformin (unless contraindicated) and lifestyle modifications represent the first step in managing T2D in most patients, according to the ACP.

The choice of additional therapy requires a risk/benefit assessment and should be personalized on the basis of patient preferences, glycemic control goals, comorbidities, and the risk for hypoglycemia. SGLT-2 inhibitors can be added in patients with T2D and CHF or CKD, according to the ACP. GLP-1 agonists can be added in patients with T2D at increased risk for stroke or for whom total body weight loss is a significant therapeutic goal.

The A1c target should be considered between 7% and 8% in most adults with T2D, and de-escalation of pharmacologic treatments should be considered for A1c levels less than 6.5%. Self-monitoring of blood glucose may not be necessary in patients treated with metformin in combination with an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist, according to the ACP.

The document also holds that, in cases of adequate glycemic control with the addition of an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist, existing treatment with sulfonylureas or long-acting insulin should be reduced or stopped due to the increased risk for severe hypoglycemia.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is the most common form of diabetes, representing more than 90% of all cases worldwide. The prevalence of T2D is increasing globally, mainly because of behavioral and social factors related to obesity, diet, and physical activity. The International Diabetes Federation estimated in its 2021 report that 537 million adults aged between 20 and 79 years have been diagnosed with diabetes worldwide. The organization predicts an increase to 643 million by 2030 and 743 million by 2045.

The main therapeutic goals for patients with T2D include adequate glycemic control and primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular and renal diseases, which represent nearly half of all deaths among adults with T2D. Despite the multiple treatment options available, 16% of adults with T2D have inadequate glycemic control, including hemoglobin A1c levels greater than 9%, even though glycemic control was the focus of the 2017 guidelines of the American College of Physicians.

Therefore, the ACP deemed it necessary to update the previous guidelines, considering new evidence on the efficacy and harms of new pharmacologic treatments in adults with T2D with the goal of reducing the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in these patients.
 

New Drugs

The pharmacologic treatments that the ACP considered while updating its guidelines include glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (that is, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, and semaglutide), a GLP-1 receptor agonist and a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist (that is, tirzepatide), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors (that is, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (that is, alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, and sitagliptin), and long-acting insulins (that is, insulin glargine and insulin degludec).

Recommendations

The ACP recommends adding an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with inadequately controlled T2D (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence). Use an SGLT-2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), CKD progression, and hospitalization resulting from heart failure, according to the document. Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, MACE, and strokes.

SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists are the only newer pharmacological treatments for T2D that have reduced all-cause mortality than placebo or usual care. In indirect comparison, SGLT-2 inhibitors probably reduce the risk for hospitalization resulting from heart failure, while GLP-1 agonists probably reduce the risk for strokes.

Neither class of drugs causes severe hypoglycemia, but both are associated with various harms, as reported in specific warnings. Both classes of drugs lead to weight loss.

Compared with long-acting insulins, SGLT-2 inhibitors can reduce, and GLP-1 agonists probably reduce, all-cause mortality. Compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists probably reduce all-cause mortality.

Compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT-2 inhibitors probably reduce MACE, as well as compared with sulfonylureas.

The ACP recommends against adding a DPP-4 inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with inadequately controlled T2D to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence).

Compared with usual therapy, DPP-4 inhibitors do not result in differences in all-cause mortality, MACE, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for chronic heart failure (CHF), CKD progression, or severe hypoglycemia. Compared with SGLT-2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors may increase hospitalization caused by CHF and probably increase the risk for MACE and CKD progression. Compared with GLP-1 agonists, they probably increase all-cause mortality and hospitalization caused by CHF and the risk for MACE. Metformin is the most common usual therapy in the studies considered.
 

Considerations for Practice

Metformin (unless contraindicated) and lifestyle modifications represent the first step in managing T2D in most patients, according to the ACP.

The choice of additional therapy requires a risk/benefit assessment and should be personalized on the basis of patient preferences, glycemic control goals, comorbidities, and the risk for hypoglycemia. SGLT-2 inhibitors can be added in patients with T2D and CHF or CKD, according to the ACP. GLP-1 agonists can be added in patients with T2D at increased risk for stroke or for whom total body weight loss is a significant therapeutic goal.

The A1c target should be considered between 7% and 8% in most adults with T2D, and de-escalation of pharmacologic treatments should be considered for A1c levels less than 6.5%. Self-monitoring of blood glucose may not be necessary in patients treated with metformin in combination with an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist, according to the ACP.

The document also holds that, in cases of adequate glycemic control with the addition of an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist, existing treatment with sulfonylureas or long-acting insulin should be reduced or stopped due to the increased risk for severe hypoglycemia.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is the most common form of diabetes, representing more than 90% of all cases worldwide. The prevalence of T2D is increasing globally, mainly because of behavioral and social factors related to obesity, diet, and physical activity. The International Diabetes Federation estimated in its 2021 report that 537 million adults aged between 20 and 79 years have been diagnosed with diabetes worldwide. The organization predicts an increase to 643 million by 2030 and 743 million by 2045.

The main therapeutic goals for patients with T2D include adequate glycemic control and primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular and renal diseases, which represent nearly half of all deaths among adults with T2D. Despite the multiple treatment options available, 16% of adults with T2D have inadequate glycemic control, including hemoglobin A1c levels greater than 9%, even though glycemic control was the focus of the 2017 guidelines of the American College of Physicians.

Therefore, the ACP deemed it necessary to update the previous guidelines, considering new evidence on the efficacy and harms of new pharmacologic treatments in adults with T2D with the goal of reducing the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in these patients.
 

New Drugs

The pharmacologic treatments that the ACP considered while updating its guidelines include glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (that is, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, and semaglutide), a GLP-1 receptor agonist and a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist (that is, tirzepatide), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors (that is, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (that is, alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, and sitagliptin), and long-acting insulins (that is, insulin glargine and insulin degludec).

Recommendations

The ACP recommends adding an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with inadequately controlled T2D (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence). Use an SGLT-2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), CKD progression, and hospitalization resulting from heart failure, according to the document. Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, MACE, and strokes.

SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists are the only newer pharmacological treatments for T2D that have reduced all-cause mortality than placebo or usual care. In indirect comparison, SGLT-2 inhibitors probably reduce the risk for hospitalization resulting from heart failure, while GLP-1 agonists probably reduce the risk for strokes.

Neither class of drugs causes severe hypoglycemia, but both are associated with various harms, as reported in specific warnings. Both classes of drugs lead to weight loss.

Compared with long-acting insulins, SGLT-2 inhibitors can reduce, and GLP-1 agonists probably reduce, all-cause mortality. Compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists probably reduce all-cause mortality.

Compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT-2 inhibitors probably reduce MACE, as well as compared with sulfonylureas.

The ACP recommends against adding a DPP-4 inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with inadequately controlled T2D to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence).

Compared with usual therapy, DPP-4 inhibitors do not result in differences in all-cause mortality, MACE, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for chronic heart failure (CHF), CKD progression, or severe hypoglycemia. Compared with SGLT-2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors may increase hospitalization caused by CHF and probably increase the risk for MACE and CKD progression. Compared with GLP-1 agonists, they probably increase all-cause mortality and hospitalization caused by CHF and the risk for MACE. Metformin is the most common usual therapy in the studies considered.
 

Considerations for Practice

Metformin (unless contraindicated) and lifestyle modifications represent the first step in managing T2D in most patients, according to the ACP.

The choice of additional therapy requires a risk/benefit assessment and should be personalized on the basis of patient preferences, glycemic control goals, comorbidities, and the risk for hypoglycemia. SGLT-2 inhibitors can be added in patients with T2D and CHF or CKD, according to the ACP. GLP-1 agonists can be added in patients with T2D at increased risk for stroke or for whom total body weight loss is a significant therapeutic goal.

The A1c target should be considered between 7% and 8% in most adults with T2D, and de-escalation of pharmacologic treatments should be considered for A1c levels less than 6.5%. Self-monitoring of blood glucose may not be necessary in patients treated with metformin in combination with an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist, according to the ACP.

The document also holds that, in cases of adequate glycemic control with the addition of an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist, existing treatment with sulfonylureas or long-acting insulin should be reduced or stopped due to the increased risk for severe hypoglycemia.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

We recently shared a clinical case drawn from a family medicine practice about the effect of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on health. The widespread epidemiology and significant health consequences require a focus on the prevention and management of ACEs. 
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published an important monograph on ACEs in 2019. Although it is evidence based, most of the interventions recommended to reduce ACEs and their sequelae are larger policy and public health efforts that go well beyond the clinician’s office. Important highlights from these recommended strategies to reduce ACEs include:

• Strengthen economic support for families through policies such as the earned income tax credit and child tax credit.
• Establish routine parental work/shift times to optimize cognitive outcomes in children.
• Promote social norms for healthy families through public health campaigns and legislative efforts to reduce corporal punishment of children. Bystander training that targets boys and men has also proven effective in reducing sexual violence.
• Facilitate early in-home visitation for at-risk families as well as high-quality childcare.
• Employ social-emotional learning approaches for children and adolescents, which can improve aggressive or violent behavior, rates of substance use, and academic success.
• Connect youth to after-school programs featuring caring adults.

But clinicians still play a vital role in the prevention and management of ACEs among their patients. Akin to gathering a patient’s past medical history or family history is initiating universal ACE screening in practice and exploring related topics in conversation.

The ACEs Aware initiative in California provides a comprehensive ACE screening clinical workflow to help implement these conversations in practice, including the assessment of associated health conditions and their appropriate clinical follow-up. While it is encouraged to universally screen patients, the key screenings to prioritize for the pediatric population are “parental depression, severe stress, unhealthy drug use, domestic violence, harsh punishment, [and] food insecurity.” Moreover, a systematic review by Steen and colleagues shared insight into newer interpretations of ACE screening which relate trauma to “[...] community violence, poverty, housing instability, structural racism, environmental blight, and climate change.” 

These exposures are now being investigated for a connection to the toxic stress response. In the long term, this genetic regulatory mechanism can be affected by “high doses of cumulative adversity experienced during critical and sensitive periods of early life development — without the buffering protections of trusted, nurturing caregivers and safe, stable environments.” This micro and macro lens fosters a deeper clinician understanding of a patient’s trauma origin and can better guide appropriate clinical follow-up. 

ACE-associated health conditions can be neurologic, endocrine, metabolic, or immune system–related. Early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions can help prevent long-term health care complications, costly for both patient and the health care system. 

After the initial clinical assessment, physicians can educate patients about the ways that ACE-associated health conditions are a consequence of toxic stress exposure. From there, physicians should rely on a broader integrated health team, within the health system and the community, to offer clinical interventions and services to mitigate patients’ toxic stress. The ACEs Aware Stress Buster wheel highlights seven targets to strategize stress regulation. This wheel can be used to identify existing protective factors for patients and track treatment progress, which may buffer the negative impact of stressors and contribute to health and resilience. 

The burden of universal screenings in primary care is high. Without ACE screening, however, the opportunity to address downstream health effects from toxic stress may be lost. Dubowitz and colleagues suggest ways to successfully incorporate ACE screenings in clinical workflow:

• Utilize technology to implement a streamlined referral processing/tracking system.
• Train clinicians to respond competently to positive ACE screens.
• Gather in-network and community-based resources for patients.

In addition, prioritize screening for families with children younger than 6 years of age to begin interventions as early as possible. Primary care clinicians have the unique opportunity to provide appropriate intervention over continual care. An intervention as simple as encouraging pediatric patient involvement in after-school programs may mitigate toxic stress and prevent the development of an ACE-associated health condition. 

Dr. Vega, Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with McNeil Pharmaceuticals. Alejandra Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

We recently shared a clinical case drawn from a family medicine practice about the effect of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on health. The widespread epidemiology and significant health consequences require a focus on the prevention and management of ACEs. 
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published an important monograph on ACEs in 2019. Although it is evidence based, most of the interventions recommended to reduce ACEs and their sequelae are larger policy and public health efforts that go well beyond the clinician’s office. Important highlights from these recommended strategies to reduce ACEs include:

• Strengthen economic support for families through policies such as the earned income tax credit and child tax credit.
• Establish routine parental work/shift times to optimize cognitive outcomes in children.
• Promote social norms for healthy families through public health campaigns and legislative efforts to reduce corporal punishment of children. Bystander training that targets boys and men has also proven effective in reducing sexual violence.
• Facilitate early in-home visitation for at-risk families as well as high-quality childcare.
• Employ social-emotional learning approaches for children and adolescents, which can improve aggressive or violent behavior, rates of substance use, and academic success.
• Connect youth to after-school programs featuring caring adults.

But clinicians still play a vital role in the prevention and management of ACEs among their patients. Akin to gathering a patient’s past medical history or family history is initiating universal ACE screening in practice and exploring related topics in conversation.

The ACEs Aware initiative in California provides a comprehensive ACE screening clinical workflow to help implement these conversations in practice, including the assessment of associated health conditions and their appropriate clinical follow-up. While it is encouraged to universally screen patients, the key screenings to prioritize for the pediatric population are “parental depression, severe stress, unhealthy drug use, domestic violence, harsh punishment, [and] food insecurity.” Moreover, a systematic review by Steen and colleagues shared insight into newer interpretations of ACE screening which relate trauma to “[...] community violence, poverty, housing instability, structural racism, environmental blight, and climate change.” 

These exposures are now being investigated for a connection to the toxic stress response. In the long term, this genetic regulatory mechanism can be affected by “high doses of cumulative adversity experienced during critical and sensitive periods of early life development — without the buffering protections of trusted, nurturing caregivers and safe, stable environments.” This micro and macro lens fosters a deeper clinician understanding of a patient’s trauma origin and can better guide appropriate clinical follow-up. 

ACE-associated health conditions can be neurologic, endocrine, metabolic, or immune system–related. Early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions can help prevent long-term health care complications, costly for both patient and the health care system. 

After the initial clinical assessment, physicians can educate patients about the ways that ACE-associated health conditions are a consequence of toxic stress exposure. From there, physicians should rely on a broader integrated health team, within the health system and the community, to offer clinical interventions and services to mitigate patients’ toxic stress. The ACEs Aware Stress Buster wheel highlights seven targets to strategize stress regulation. This wheel can be used to identify existing protective factors for patients and track treatment progress, which may buffer the negative impact of stressors and contribute to health and resilience. 

The burden of universal screenings in primary care is high. Without ACE screening, however, the opportunity to address downstream health effects from toxic stress may be lost. Dubowitz and colleagues suggest ways to successfully incorporate ACE screenings in clinical workflow:

• Utilize technology to implement a streamlined referral processing/tracking system.
• Train clinicians to respond competently to positive ACE screens.
• Gather in-network and community-based resources for patients.

In addition, prioritize screening for families with children younger than 6 years of age to begin interventions as early as possible. Primary care clinicians have the unique opportunity to provide appropriate intervention over continual care. An intervention as simple as encouraging pediatric patient involvement in after-school programs may mitigate toxic stress and prevent the development of an ACE-associated health condition. 

Dr. Vega, Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with McNeil Pharmaceuticals. Alejandra Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

We recently shared a clinical case drawn from a family medicine practice about the effect of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on health. The widespread epidemiology and significant health consequences require a focus on the prevention and management of ACEs. 
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published an important monograph on ACEs in 2019. Although it is evidence based, most of the interventions recommended to reduce ACEs and their sequelae are larger policy and public health efforts that go well beyond the clinician’s office. Important highlights from these recommended strategies to reduce ACEs include:

• Strengthen economic support for families through policies such as the earned income tax credit and child tax credit.
• Establish routine parental work/shift times to optimize cognitive outcomes in children.
• Promote social norms for healthy families through public health campaigns and legislative efforts to reduce corporal punishment of children. Bystander training that targets boys and men has also proven effective in reducing sexual violence.
• Facilitate early in-home visitation for at-risk families as well as high-quality childcare.
• Employ social-emotional learning approaches for children and adolescents, which can improve aggressive or violent behavior, rates of substance use, and academic success.
• Connect youth to after-school programs featuring caring adults.

But clinicians still play a vital role in the prevention and management of ACEs among their patients. Akin to gathering a patient’s past medical history or family history is initiating universal ACE screening in practice and exploring related topics in conversation.

The ACEs Aware initiative in California provides a comprehensive ACE screening clinical workflow to help implement these conversations in practice, including the assessment of associated health conditions and their appropriate clinical follow-up. While it is encouraged to universally screen patients, the key screenings to prioritize for the pediatric population are “parental depression, severe stress, unhealthy drug use, domestic violence, harsh punishment, [and] food insecurity.” Moreover, a systematic review by Steen and colleagues shared insight into newer interpretations of ACE screening which relate trauma to “[...] community violence, poverty, housing instability, structural racism, environmental blight, and climate change.” 

These exposures are now being investigated for a connection to the toxic stress response. In the long term, this genetic regulatory mechanism can be affected by “high doses of cumulative adversity experienced during critical and sensitive periods of early life development — without the buffering protections of trusted, nurturing caregivers and safe, stable environments.” This micro and macro lens fosters a deeper clinician understanding of a patient’s trauma origin and can better guide appropriate clinical follow-up. 

ACE-associated health conditions can be neurologic, endocrine, metabolic, or immune system–related. Early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions can help prevent long-term health care complications, costly for both patient and the health care system. 

After the initial clinical assessment, physicians can educate patients about the ways that ACE-associated health conditions are a consequence of toxic stress exposure. From there, physicians should rely on a broader integrated health team, within the health system and the community, to offer clinical interventions and services to mitigate patients’ toxic stress. The ACEs Aware Stress Buster wheel highlights seven targets to strategize stress regulation. This wheel can be used to identify existing protective factors for patients and track treatment progress, which may buffer the negative impact of stressors and contribute to health and resilience. 

The burden of universal screenings in primary care is high. Without ACE screening, however, the opportunity to address downstream health effects from toxic stress may be lost. Dubowitz and colleagues suggest ways to successfully incorporate ACE screenings in clinical workflow:

• Utilize technology to implement a streamlined referral processing/tracking system.
• Train clinicians to respond competently to positive ACE screens.
• Gather in-network and community-based resources for patients.

In addition, prioritize screening for families with children younger than 6 years of age to begin interventions as early as possible. Primary care clinicians have the unique opportunity to provide appropriate intervention over continual care. An intervention as simple as encouraging pediatric patient involvement in after-school programs may mitigate toxic stress and prevent the development of an ACE-associated health condition. 

Dr. Vega, Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with McNeil Pharmaceuticals. Alejandra Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Should we now recommend continuous glucose monitoring to all our patients, even those without diabetes? Most of us would instinctively say “no” to this question, but we are seeing opinions from doctors recommending it, and in recent years, scientific literature has focused on the subject. 

Today, anyone can get an arm patch that continuously measures interstitial glucose, which is closely related to blood sugar. The information can be read on a dedicated reader or on a mobile phone by scanning the patch or, with some models, without even doing anything.

There is a consensus for prescribing continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who are treated with at least three insulin injections. Not only is the use of continuous glucose monitoring much more comfortable than self-monitoring with finger sticks, but continuous monitoring also helps reduce glycosylated hemoglobin while decreasing the risk for hypoglycemia. Recently, another indication has begun to be reimbursed in France: Type 2 diabetes under mono-insulin injection when the diabetes is not well controlled.

But alongside these situations, there are two questions that are worth considering.
 

Untreated Type 2 Diabetes 

First, is continuous glucose monitoring desirable for all patients with diabetes, even those not treated with insulin and even when blood sugar levels are well managed? Intuitively, one might think that it can’t hurt and that continuous monitoring of blood sugar can only improve things. We have some evidence supporting this idea, but the level of proof is quite weak. It is not clear that continuous monitoring can improve patients’ awareness of the impact of dietary choices or physical activity on blood sugar. Obviously, one can imagine that continuously monitoring glucose will encourage a shift toward more beneficial behaviors. But honestly, today, we do not have proof that wearing a continuous glucose monitor can improve behaviors in patients with type 2 diabetes who are treated with noninsulin antidiabetic medications.

Furthermore, a significant study has shown that while the effectiveness is more evident in patients treated with insulin, strong evidence suggests that continuous glucose monitoring could also reduce glycosylated hemoglobin in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not treated with insulin. A close examination of the results suggests that the benefits generally are less than those observed in insulin-treated patients with diabetes.

When we look at the scientific literature, two factors seem particularly important to consider if choosing to prescribe a continuous glucose monitoring sensor. The first is the method used, because the results can vary depending on the method. It appears that only self-monitoring that allows the patient to follow glucose in real time is effective, unlike blind monitoring that allows only a retrospective analysis of blood sugar levels. In the latter case, the patient wears the sensor, and after a week, 10 days, or 15 days, the results are analyzed, possibly with a health care provider. It seems that this is not very effective in improving glycosylated hemoglobin and dietary and physical activity behavior.

The second essential factor to consider is the need for an education program for the use of these sensors to be helpful. If sensors are used but nothing else is done, it does not seem logical. Seeing blood sugar levels without being able to understand them and act accordingly seems of little use. Scientific literature seems to confirm this idea. 
 

Patients Without Diabetes

Now there is another question. We have discussed patients with type 2 diabetes without insulin. It’s trendy to talk about the potential benefits of continuous glucose monitors in patients without diabetes. The idea is emerging that these monitors could be used to refine the diagnosis of diabetes or to better predict the onset of diabetes in the subsequent years.

Others claim that continuous glucose monitors are an effective way to induce a change in dietary and physical activity behaviors in patients with prediabetes. One can, for example, tell a patient, “You are at risk of developing diabetes, so by monitoring your glucose, you will change your behavior.” Honestly, the scientific data we have today do not support these ideas, and I sincerely believe that it is not advisable today to recommend, as some would like, the mass use of monitors, whether in patients with overweight or obesity, or in patients with prediabetes. This goes for suggestions for using the monitor for 7-10 days per year, in the form of a session to try to reduce the risk for diabetes by motivating patients to change their behavior. We have no evidence at all that this can work. And in my opinion, with this kind of discourse, we ultimately risk, as usual, encouraging patients who are already “fans” of self-checks and self-monitoring to get health data, even if they do not know how to interpret it. Maybe even the doctor they ask for interpretation will not be trained to interpret the results of these monitors.

Spreading the idea that monitors are useful for preventing diabetes has a side effect: It hinders progress on the essential issue. Today, one of the problems in diabetes and prediabetes is that screening is not done often enough, and 20% of patients with diabetes are still unaware of their diagnosis. The management of early diabetes or prediabetes, in my opinion, is not optimal in routine care today. So, I think that adding the idea that using monitors could be beneficial dilutes the main information.

Having said that, I sometimes offer continuous glucose monitoring to some of my patients on a case-by-case basis. I believe that with proper support and an educational program, it can be beneficial for certain patients.
 

In Practice

In summary, I am totally opposed to the normalization of the use of monitors. I think it is our role as health care professionals to warn the public that even if it is accessible — anyone can buy a reader, a sensor — it is not necessarily beneficial, and it may even distract us from what is essential. But as a specialist, I think that using a monitor within a genuine care plan seems reasonable. Ultimately, it’s just personalized medicine.

Dr. Hansel is an endocrinologist-diabetologist and nutritionist, Department of Diabetology-Endocrinology-Nutrition, Hôpital Bichat, and a university lecturer and hospital practitioner, Université Paris-Diderot, France. He discloses ties with Iriade, Sanofi-Aventis, and Amgen.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Should we now recommend continuous glucose monitoring to all our patients, even those without diabetes? Most of us would instinctively say “no” to this question, but we are seeing opinions from doctors recommending it, and in recent years, scientific literature has focused on the subject. 

Today, anyone can get an arm patch that continuously measures interstitial glucose, which is closely related to blood sugar. The information can be read on a dedicated reader or on a mobile phone by scanning the patch or, with some models, without even doing anything.

There is a consensus for prescribing continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who are treated with at least three insulin injections. Not only is the use of continuous glucose monitoring much more comfortable than self-monitoring with finger sticks, but continuous monitoring also helps reduce glycosylated hemoglobin while decreasing the risk for hypoglycemia. Recently, another indication has begun to be reimbursed in France: Type 2 diabetes under mono-insulin injection when the diabetes is not well controlled.

But alongside these situations, there are two questions that are worth considering.
 

Untreated Type 2 Diabetes 

First, is continuous glucose monitoring desirable for all patients with diabetes, even those not treated with insulin and even when blood sugar levels are well managed? Intuitively, one might think that it can’t hurt and that continuous monitoring of blood sugar can only improve things. We have some evidence supporting this idea, but the level of proof is quite weak. It is not clear that continuous monitoring can improve patients’ awareness of the impact of dietary choices or physical activity on blood sugar. Obviously, one can imagine that continuously monitoring glucose will encourage a shift toward more beneficial behaviors. But honestly, today, we do not have proof that wearing a continuous glucose monitor can improve behaviors in patients with type 2 diabetes who are treated with noninsulin antidiabetic medications.

Furthermore, a significant study has shown that while the effectiveness is more evident in patients treated with insulin, strong evidence suggests that continuous glucose monitoring could also reduce glycosylated hemoglobin in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not treated with insulin. A close examination of the results suggests that the benefits generally are less than those observed in insulin-treated patients with diabetes.

When we look at the scientific literature, two factors seem particularly important to consider if choosing to prescribe a continuous glucose monitoring sensor. The first is the method used, because the results can vary depending on the method. It appears that only self-monitoring that allows the patient to follow glucose in real time is effective, unlike blind monitoring that allows only a retrospective analysis of blood sugar levels. In the latter case, the patient wears the sensor, and after a week, 10 days, or 15 days, the results are analyzed, possibly with a health care provider. It seems that this is not very effective in improving glycosylated hemoglobin and dietary and physical activity behavior.

The second essential factor to consider is the need for an education program for the use of these sensors to be helpful. If sensors are used but nothing else is done, it does not seem logical. Seeing blood sugar levels without being able to understand them and act accordingly seems of little use. Scientific literature seems to confirm this idea. 
 

Patients Without Diabetes

Now there is another question. We have discussed patients with type 2 diabetes without insulin. It’s trendy to talk about the potential benefits of continuous glucose monitors in patients without diabetes. The idea is emerging that these monitors could be used to refine the diagnosis of diabetes or to better predict the onset of diabetes in the subsequent years.

Others claim that continuous glucose monitors are an effective way to induce a change in dietary and physical activity behaviors in patients with prediabetes. One can, for example, tell a patient, “You are at risk of developing diabetes, so by monitoring your glucose, you will change your behavior.” Honestly, the scientific data we have today do not support these ideas, and I sincerely believe that it is not advisable today to recommend, as some would like, the mass use of monitors, whether in patients with overweight or obesity, or in patients with prediabetes. This goes for suggestions for using the monitor for 7-10 days per year, in the form of a session to try to reduce the risk for diabetes by motivating patients to change their behavior. We have no evidence at all that this can work. And in my opinion, with this kind of discourse, we ultimately risk, as usual, encouraging patients who are already “fans” of self-checks and self-monitoring to get health data, even if they do not know how to interpret it. Maybe even the doctor they ask for interpretation will not be trained to interpret the results of these monitors.

Spreading the idea that monitors are useful for preventing diabetes has a side effect: It hinders progress on the essential issue. Today, one of the problems in diabetes and prediabetes is that screening is not done often enough, and 20% of patients with diabetes are still unaware of their diagnosis. The management of early diabetes or prediabetes, in my opinion, is not optimal in routine care today. So, I think that adding the idea that using monitors could be beneficial dilutes the main information.

Having said that, I sometimes offer continuous glucose monitoring to some of my patients on a case-by-case basis. I believe that with proper support and an educational program, it can be beneficial for certain patients.
 

In Practice

In summary, I am totally opposed to the normalization of the use of monitors. I think it is our role as health care professionals to warn the public that even if it is accessible — anyone can buy a reader, a sensor — it is not necessarily beneficial, and it may even distract us from what is essential. But as a specialist, I think that using a monitor within a genuine care plan seems reasonable. Ultimately, it’s just personalized medicine.

Dr. Hansel is an endocrinologist-diabetologist and nutritionist, Department of Diabetology-Endocrinology-Nutrition, Hôpital Bichat, and a university lecturer and hospital practitioner, Université Paris-Diderot, France. He discloses ties with Iriade, Sanofi-Aventis, and Amgen.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Should we now recommend continuous glucose monitoring to all our patients, even those without diabetes? Most of us would instinctively say “no” to this question, but we are seeing opinions from doctors recommending it, and in recent years, scientific literature has focused on the subject. 

Today, anyone can get an arm patch that continuously measures interstitial glucose, which is closely related to blood sugar. The information can be read on a dedicated reader or on a mobile phone by scanning the patch or, with some models, without even doing anything.

There is a consensus for prescribing continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who are treated with at least three insulin injections. Not only is the use of continuous glucose monitoring much more comfortable than self-monitoring with finger sticks, but continuous monitoring also helps reduce glycosylated hemoglobin while decreasing the risk for hypoglycemia. Recently, another indication has begun to be reimbursed in France: Type 2 diabetes under mono-insulin injection when the diabetes is not well controlled.

But alongside these situations, there are two questions that are worth considering.
 

Untreated Type 2 Diabetes 

First, is continuous glucose monitoring desirable for all patients with diabetes, even those not treated with insulin and even when blood sugar levels are well managed? Intuitively, one might think that it can’t hurt and that continuous monitoring of blood sugar can only improve things. We have some evidence supporting this idea, but the level of proof is quite weak. It is not clear that continuous monitoring can improve patients’ awareness of the impact of dietary choices or physical activity on blood sugar. Obviously, one can imagine that continuously monitoring glucose will encourage a shift toward more beneficial behaviors. But honestly, today, we do not have proof that wearing a continuous glucose monitor can improve behaviors in patients with type 2 diabetes who are treated with noninsulin antidiabetic medications.

Furthermore, a significant study has shown that while the effectiveness is more evident in patients treated with insulin, strong evidence suggests that continuous glucose monitoring could also reduce glycosylated hemoglobin in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not treated with insulin. A close examination of the results suggests that the benefits generally are less than those observed in insulin-treated patients with diabetes.

When we look at the scientific literature, two factors seem particularly important to consider if choosing to prescribe a continuous glucose monitoring sensor. The first is the method used, because the results can vary depending on the method. It appears that only self-monitoring that allows the patient to follow glucose in real time is effective, unlike blind monitoring that allows only a retrospective analysis of blood sugar levels. In the latter case, the patient wears the sensor, and after a week, 10 days, or 15 days, the results are analyzed, possibly with a health care provider. It seems that this is not very effective in improving glycosylated hemoglobin and dietary and physical activity behavior.

The second essential factor to consider is the need for an education program for the use of these sensors to be helpful. If sensors are used but nothing else is done, it does not seem logical. Seeing blood sugar levels without being able to understand them and act accordingly seems of little use. Scientific literature seems to confirm this idea. 
 

Patients Without Diabetes

Now there is another question. We have discussed patients with type 2 diabetes without insulin. It’s trendy to talk about the potential benefits of continuous glucose monitors in patients without diabetes. The idea is emerging that these monitors could be used to refine the diagnosis of diabetes or to better predict the onset of diabetes in the subsequent years.

Others claim that continuous glucose monitors are an effective way to induce a change in dietary and physical activity behaviors in patients with prediabetes. One can, for example, tell a patient, “You are at risk of developing diabetes, so by monitoring your glucose, you will change your behavior.” Honestly, the scientific data we have today do not support these ideas, and I sincerely believe that it is not advisable today to recommend, as some would like, the mass use of monitors, whether in patients with overweight or obesity, or in patients with prediabetes. This goes for suggestions for using the monitor for 7-10 days per year, in the form of a session to try to reduce the risk for diabetes by motivating patients to change their behavior. We have no evidence at all that this can work. And in my opinion, with this kind of discourse, we ultimately risk, as usual, encouraging patients who are already “fans” of self-checks and self-monitoring to get health data, even if they do not know how to interpret it. Maybe even the doctor they ask for interpretation will not be trained to interpret the results of these monitors.

Spreading the idea that monitors are useful for preventing diabetes has a side effect: It hinders progress on the essential issue. Today, one of the problems in diabetes and prediabetes is that screening is not done often enough, and 20% of patients with diabetes are still unaware of their diagnosis. The management of early diabetes or prediabetes, in my opinion, is not optimal in routine care today. So, I think that adding the idea that using monitors could be beneficial dilutes the main information.

Having said that, I sometimes offer continuous glucose monitoring to some of my patients on a case-by-case basis. I believe that with proper support and an educational program, it can be beneficial for certain patients.
 

In Practice

In summary, I am totally opposed to the normalization of the use of monitors. I think it is our role as health care professionals to warn the public that even if it is accessible — anyone can buy a reader, a sensor — it is not necessarily beneficial, and it may even distract us from what is essential. But as a specialist, I think that using a monitor within a genuine care plan seems reasonable. Ultimately, it’s just personalized medicine.

Dr. Hansel is an endocrinologist-diabetologist and nutritionist, Department of Diabetology-Endocrinology-Nutrition, Hôpital Bichat, and a university lecturer and hospital practitioner, Université Paris-Diderot, France. He discloses ties with Iriade, Sanofi-Aventis, and Amgen.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among stroke survivors with diabetes or obesity, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduced secondary stroke risk by up to 16%, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis. With benefits across administration routes, dosing regimens, type 2 diabetes status, and total and nonfatal strokes, the findings could improve GLP-1 RA implementation by stroke specialists in patients with stroke history and concurrent type 2 diabetes or obesity, authors said. The study was published online in the International Journal of Stoke.

Extending Longevity

Agents including GLP-1 RAs that have been found to reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes and patients who are overweight or obese also reduce risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke who are overweight, obese, or have metabolic disease, said American Heart Association (AHA) Chief Clinical Science Officer Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, who was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of serious long-term disability,” he added, “so medications that help to reduce that risk can play an important role in improving overall health and well-being and hopefully reducing premature mortality.”

Investigators Anastasia Adamou, MD, an internal medicine resident at AHEPA University Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, and colleagues searched MEDLINE and Scopus for cardiovascular outcome trials involving adults randomly assigned to GLP-1 RAs or placebo through November 2023, ultimately analyzing 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Among 60,380 participants in the nine studies that assessed total strokes, 2.5% of the GLP-1 RA group experienced strokes during follow-up, versus 3% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.93). Regarding secondary outcomes, the GLP-1 RA group showed a significantly lower rate of nonfatal strokes versus patients on placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95). Conversely, investigators observed no significant risk difference among the groups regarding fatal strokes, probably due to the low rate of events — 0.3% and 0.4% for treated and untreated patients, respectively.

Subgroup analyses revealed no interaction between dosing frequency and total, nonfatal, or fatal strokes. The investigators observed no difference in nonfatal strokes among participants by type 2 diabetes status and medication administration route (oral versus subcutaneous).

“The oral administration route could provide the advantage of lower local ecchymoses and allergic reactions due to subcutaneous infusions,” Dr. Adamou said in an interview. But because oral administration demands daily intake, she added, treatment adherence might be affected. “For this reason, our team performed another subgroup analysis to compare the once-a-day to the once-a-month administration. No interaction effect was again presented between the two subgroups. This outcome allows for personalization of the administration method for each patient.”

Addressing Underutilization

Despite more than 2 decades of widespread use and well-established effects on body weight, HbA1c, and cardiovascular risk, GLP-1 RAs remain underutilized, authors wrote. This is especially true in primary care, noted one study published in Clinical Diabetes.

“GLP-1 RAs have been used for many years to treat diabetic patients,” said Dr. Adamou. But because their impact on cardiovascular health regardless of diabetic status is only recently known, she said, physicians are exercising caution when prescribing this medication to patients without diabetes. “This is why more studies need to be available, especially RCTs.”

Most neurologists traditionally have left management of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders to primary care doctors, said Dr. Elkind. “However, these medications are increasingly important to vascular risk reduction and should be considered part of the stroke specialist’s armamentarium.”

Vascular neurologists can play an important role in managing metabolic disease and obesity by recommending GLP-1 RAs for patients with a history of stroke, or by initiating these medications themselves, Dr. Elkind said. “These drugs are likely to become an important part of stroke patients’ medication regimens, along with antithrombotic agents, blood pressure control, and statins. Neurologists are well-positioned to educate other physicians about the important connections among brain, heart, and metabolic health.”

To that end, he said, the AHA will update guidelines for both primary and secondary stroke prevention as warranted by evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs and other medications that could impact stroke risk in type 2 diabetes and related metabolic disorders. However, no guidelines concerning use of GLP-1 RAs for secondary stroke prevention in obesity exist. Here, said Dr. Elkind, the AHA will continue building on its innovative Cardiovascular-Kidney Metabolic Health program, which includes clinical suggestions and may include more formal clinical practice guidelines as the evidence evolves.

Among the main drivers of the initiative, he said, is the recognition that cardiovascular disease — including stroke — is the major cause of death and morbidity among patients with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders. “Stroke should be considered an important part of overall cardiovascular risk, and the findings that these drugs can help to reduce the risk of stroke specifically is an important additional reason for their use.”

Dr. Elkind and Dr. Adamou reported no conflicting interests. The authors received no financial support for the study.

Among stroke survivors with diabetes or obesity, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduced secondary stroke risk by up to 16%, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis. With benefits across administration routes, dosing regimens, type 2 diabetes status, and total and nonfatal strokes, the findings could improve GLP-1 RA implementation by stroke specialists in patients with stroke history and concurrent type 2 diabetes or obesity, authors said. The study was published online in the International Journal of Stoke.

Extending Longevity

Agents including GLP-1 RAs that have been found to reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes and patients who are overweight or obese also reduce risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke who are overweight, obese, or have metabolic disease, said American Heart Association (AHA) Chief Clinical Science Officer Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, who was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of serious long-term disability,” he added, “so medications that help to reduce that risk can play an important role in improving overall health and well-being and hopefully reducing premature mortality.”

Investigators Anastasia Adamou, MD, an internal medicine resident at AHEPA University Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, and colleagues searched MEDLINE and Scopus for cardiovascular outcome trials involving adults randomly assigned to GLP-1 RAs or placebo through November 2023, ultimately analyzing 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Among 60,380 participants in the nine studies that assessed total strokes, 2.5% of the GLP-1 RA group experienced strokes during follow-up, versus 3% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.93). Regarding secondary outcomes, the GLP-1 RA group showed a significantly lower rate of nonfatal strokes versus patients on placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95). Conversely, investigators observed no significant risk difference among the groups regarding fatal strokes, probably due to the low rate of events — 0.3% and 0.4% for treated and untreated patients, respectively.

Subgroup analyses revealed no interaction between dosing frequency and total, nonfatal, or fatal strokes. The investigators observed no difference in nonfatal strokes among participants by type 2 diabetes status and medication administration route (oral versus subcutaneous).

“The oral administration route could provide the advantage of lower local ecchymoses and allergic reactions due to subcutaneous infusions,” Dr. Adamou said in an interview. But because oral administration demands daily intake, she added, treatment adherence might be affected. “For this reason, our team performed another subgroup analysis to compare the once-a-day to the once-a-month administration. No interaction effect was again presented between the two subgroups. This outcome allows for personalization of the administration method for each patient.”

Addressing Underutilization

Despite more than 2 decades of widespread use and well-established effects on body weight, HbA1c, and cardiovascular risk, GLP-1 RAs remain underutilized, authors wrote. This is especially true in primary care, noted one study published in Clinical Diabetes.

“GLP-1 RAs have been used for many years to treat diabetic patients,” said Dr. Adamou. But because their impact on cardiovascular health regardless of diabetic status is only recently known, she said, physicians are exercising caution when prescribing this medication to patients without diabetes. “This is why more studies need to be available, especially RCTs.”

Most neurologists traditionally have left management of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders to primary care doctors, said Dr. Elkind. “However, these medications are increasingly important to vascular risk reduction and should be considered part of the stroke specialist’s armamentarium.”

Vascular neurologists can play an important role in managing metabolic disease and obesity by recommending GLP-1 RAs for patients with a history of stroke, or by initiating these medications themselves, Dr. Elkind said. “These drugs are likely to become an important part of stroke patients’ medication regimens, along with antithrombotic agents, blood pressure control, and statins. Neurologists are well-positioned to educate other physicians about the important connections among brain, heart, and metabolic health.”

To that end, he said, the AHA will update guidelines for both primary and secondary stroke prevention as warranted by evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs and other medications that could impact stroke risk in type 2 diabetes and related metabolic disorders. However, no guidelines concerning use of GLP-1 RAs for secondary stroke prevention in obesity exist. Here, said Dr. Elkind, the AHA will continue building on its innovative Cardiovascular-Kidney Metabolic Health program, which includes clinical suggestions and may include more formal clinical practice guidelines as the evidence evolves.

Among the main drivers of the initiative, he said, is the recognition that cardiovascular disease — including stroke — is the major cause of death and morbidity among patients with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders. “Stroke should be considered an important part of overall cardiovascular risk, and the findings that these drugs can help to reduce the risk of stroke specifically is an important additional reason for their use.”

Dr. Elkind and Dr. Adamou reported no conflicting interests. The authors received no financial support for the study.

Among stroke survivors with diabetes or obesity, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduced secondary stroke risk by up to 16%, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis. With benefits across administration routes, dosing regimens, type 2 diabetes status, and total and nonfatal strokes, the findings could improve GLP-1 RA implementation by stroke specialists in patients with stroke history and concurrent type 2 diabetes or obesity, authors said. The study was published online in the International Journal of Stoke.

Extending Longevity

Agents including GLP-1 RAs that have been found to reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes and patients who are overweight or obese also reduce risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke who are overweight, obese, or have metabolic disease, said American Heart Association (AHA) Chief Clinical Science Officer Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, who was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of serious long-term disability,” he added, “so medications that help to reduce that risk can play an important role in improving overall health and well-being and hopefully reducing premature mortality.”

Investigators Anastasia Adamou, MD, an internal medicine resident at AHEPA University Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, and colleagues searched MEDLINE and Scopus for cardiovascular outcome trials involving adults randomly assigned to GLP-1 RAs or placebo through November 2023, ultimately analyzing 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Among 60,380 participants in the nine studies that assessed total strokes, 2.5% of the GLP-1 RA group experienced strokes during follow-up, versus 3% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.93). Regarding secondary outcomes, the GLP-1 RA group showed a significantly lower rate of nonfatal strokes versus patients on placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95). Conversely, investigators observed no significant risk difference among the groups regarding fatal strokes, probably due to the low rate of events — 0.3% and 0.4% for treated and untreated patients, respectively.

Subgroup analyses revealed no interaction between dosing frequency and total, nonfatal, or fatal strokes. The investigators observed no difference in nonfatal strokes among participants by type 2 diabetes status and medication administration route (oral versus subcutaneous).

“The oral administration route could provide the advantage of lower local ecchymoses and allergic reactions due to subcutaneous infusions,” Dr. Adamou said in an interview. But because oral administration demands daily intake, she added, treatment adherence might be affected. “For this reason, our team performed another subgroup analysis to compare the once-a-day to the once-a-month administration. No interaction effect was again presented between the two subgroups. This outcome allows for personalization of the administration method for each patient.”

Addressing Underutilization

Despite more than 2 decades of widespread use and well-established effects on body weight, HbA1c, and cardiovascular risk, GLP-1 RAs remain underutilized, authors wrote. This is especially true in primary care, noted one study published in Clinical Diabetes.

“GLP-1 RAs have been used for many years to treat diabetic patients,” said Dr. Adamou. But because their impact on cardiovascular health regardless of diabetic status is only recently known, she said, physicians are exercising caution when prescribing this medication to patients without diabetes. “This is why more studies need to be available, especially RCTs.”

Most neurologists traditionally have left management of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders to primary care doctors, said Dr. Elkind. “However, these medications are increasingly important to vascular risk reduction and should be considered part of the stroke specialist’s armamentarium.”

Vascular neurologists can play an important role in managing metabolic disease and obesity by recommending GLP-1 RAs for patients with a history of stroke, or by initiating these medications themselves, Dr. Elkind said. “These drugs are likely to become an important part of stroke patients’ medication regimens, along with antithrombotic agents, blood pressure control, and statins. Neurologists are well-positioned to educate other physicians about the important connections among brain, heart, and metabolic health.”

To that end, he said, the AHA will update guidelines for both primary and secondary stroke prevention as warranted by evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs and other medications that could impact stroke risk in type 2 diabetes and related metabolic disorders. However, no guidelines concerning use of GLP-1 RAs for secondary stroke prevention in obesity exist. Here, said Dr. Elkind, the AHA will continue building on its innovative Cardiovascular-Kidney Metabolic Health program, which includes clinical suggestions and may include more formal clinical practice guidelines as the evidence evolves.

Among the main drivers of the initiative, he said, is the recognition that cardiovascular disease — including stroke — is the major cause of death and morbidity among patients with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders. “Stroke should be considered an important part of overall cardiovascular risk, and the findings that these drugs can help to reduce the risk of stroke specifically is an important additional reason for their use.”

Dr. Elkind and Dr. Adamou reported no conflicting interests. The authors received no financial support for the study.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.