A 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL presented to the clinic with a 1-year history of a slow-growing mass on the third toe of her right foot. As a soccer player, she experienced associated pain when kicking the ball or when wearing tight-fitting shoes. The lesion was otherwise asymptomatic. She denied any overt trauma to the area and indicated that the mass had enlarged over the previous year.

On exam, there was a nontender 8 × 8-mm firm nodule underneath the nail with associated nail dystrophy (FIGURE 1). The toe had full mobility, sensation was intact, and capillary refill time was < 2 seconds.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

A plain radiograph of the patient’s foot showed continuity with the bony cortex and medullary space, confirming the diagnosis of subungual exostosis (FIGURE 2).¹ An exostosis, or osteochondroma, is a form of benign bone tumor in which trabecular bone overgrows its normal border in a nodular pattern. When this occurs under the nail bed, it is called subungual exostosis.² Exostosis represents 10% to 15% of all benign bone tumors, making it the most common benign bone tumor.³ Generally, the age of occurrence is 10 to 15 years.³

Repetitive trauma can be a culprit. Up to 8% of exostoses occur in the foot, with the most commonly affected area being the distal medial portion of the big toe.^3,4 Repetitive trauma and infection are potential risk factors.^3,4 The affected toe may be painful, but that is not always the case.⁴ Typically, lesions are solitary; however, multiple lesions can occur.⁴

Most pediatric foot lesions are benign and involve soft tissue

Benign soft-tissue masses make up the overwhelming majority of pediatric foot lesions, accounting for 61% to 87% of all foot lesions.³ Malignancies such as chondrosarcoma can occur and can be difficult to diagnose. Rapid growth, family history, size > 5 cm, heterogenous appearance on magnetic resonance imaging, and poorly defined margins are a few characteristics that should increase suspicion for possible malignancy.⁵

The definitive treatment for subungual exostosis is surgical excision, preferably once the patient has reached skeletal maturity.

The differential diagnosis for a growth on the toe similar to the one our patient had would include pyogenic granuloma, acral fibromyxoma, periungual fibroma, and verruca vulgaris.

Pyogenic granulomas are benign vascular lesions that occur in patients of all ages. They tend to be dome-shaped and flesh-toned to violaceous red, and they are usually found on the head, neck, and extremities—­especially fingers.⁶ They are associated with trauma and are classically tender with a propensity to bleed.⁶

Acral fibromyxoma is a benign, slow-growing, predominately painless, firm mass with an affinity for the great toe; the affected area includes the nail in 50% of cases.⁷ A radiograph may show bony erosion or scalloping due to mass effect; however, there will be no continuity with the bony matrix. (Such continuity would suggest exostosis.)

Periungual fibromas are benign soft-tissue masses, which are pink to red and firm, and emerge from underneath the nails, potentially resulting in dystrophy.⁸ They can bleed and cause pain, and are strongly associated with tuberous sclerosis.⁵

Continue to: Verruca vulgaris

Verruca vulgaris, the common wart, can also manifest in the subungual region as a firm, generally painless mass. It is the most common neoplasm of the hand and fingers.⁶ Tiny black dots that correspond to thrombosed capillaries are key to identifying this lesion.

Surgical excision when patient reaches maturity

The definitive treatment for subungual exostosis is surgical excision, preferably once the patient has reached skeletal maturity. Surgery at this point is associated with decreased recurrence rates.^3,4 That said, excision may need to be performed sooner if the lesion is painful and leading to deformity.³

Our patient’s persistent pain prompted us to recommend surgical excision. She underwent a third digit exostectomy, which she tolerated without any issues. The patient was fitted with a postoperative shoe that she wore until her 2-week follow-up appointment, when her sutures were removed. The patient’s activity level progressed as tolerated. She regained full function and returned to playing soccer, without any pain, 3 months after her surgery.

A 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL presented to the clinic with a 1-year history of a slow-growing mass on the third toe of her right foot. As a soccer player, she experienced associated pain when kicking the ball or when wearing tight-fitting shoes. The lesion was otherwise asymptomatic. She denied any overt trauma to the area and indicated that the mass had enlarged over the previous year.

On exam, there was a nontender 8 × 8-mm firm nodule underneath the nail with associated nail dystrophy (FIGURE 1). The toe had full mobility, sensation was intact, and capillary refill time was < 2 seconds.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

A plain radiograph of the patient’s foot showed continuity with the bony cortex and medullary space, confirming the diagnosis of subungual exostosis (FIGURE 2).¹ An exostosis, or osteochondroma, is a form of benign bone tumor in which trabecular bone overgrows its normal border in a nodular pattern. When this occurs under the nail bed, it is called subungual exostosis.² Exostosis represents 10% to 15% of all benign bone tumors, making it the most common benign bone tumor.³ Generally, the age of occurrence is 10 to 15 years.³

Repetitive trauma can be a culprit. Up to 8% of exostoses occur in the foot, with the most commonly affected area being the distal medial portion of the big toe.^3,4 Repetitive trauma and infection are potential risk factors.^3,4 The affected toe may be painful, but that is not always the case.⁴ Typically, lesions are solitary; however, multiple lesions can occur.⁴

Most pediatric foot lesions are benign and involve soft tissue

Benign soft-tissue masses make up the overwhelming majority of pediatric foot lesions, accounting for 61% to 87% of all foot lesions.³ Malignancies such as chondrosarcoma can occur and can be difficult to diagnose. Rapid growth, family history, size > 5 cm, heterogenous appearance on magnetic resonance imaging, and poorly defined margins are a few characteristics that should increase suspicion for possible malignancy.⁵

The definitive treatment for subungual exostosis is surgical excision, preferably once the patient has reached skeletal maturity.

The differential diagnosis for a growth on the toe similar to the one our patient had would include pyogenic granuloma, acral fibromyxoma, periungual fibroma, and verruca vulgaris.

Pyogenic granulomas are benign vascular lesions that occur in patients of all ages. They tend to be dome-shaped and flesh-toned to violaceous red, and they are usually found on the head, neck, and extremities—­especially fingers.⁶ They are associated with trauma and are classically tender with a propensity to bleed.⁶

Acral fibromyxoma is a benign, slow-growing, predominately painless, firm mass with an affinity for the great toe; the affected area includes the nail in 50% of cases.⁷ A radiograph may show bony erosion or scalloping due to mass effect; however, there will be no continuity with the bony matrix. (Such continuity would suggest exostosis.)

Periungual fibromas are benign soft-tissue masses, which are pink to red and firm, and emerge from underneath the nails, potentially resulting in dystrophy.⁸ They can bleed and cause pain, and are strongly associated with tuberous sclerosis.⁵

Continue to: Verruca vulgaris

Verruca vulgaris, the common wart, can also manifest in the subungual region as a firm, generally painless mass. It is the most common neoplasm of the hand and fingers.⁶ Tiny black dots that correspond to thrombosed capillaries are key to identifying this lesion.

Surgical excision when patient reaches maturity

The definitive treatment for subungual exostosis is surgical excision, preferably once the patient has reached skeletal maturity. Surgery at this point is associated with decreased recurrence rates.^3,4 That said, excision may need to be performed sooner if the lesion is painful and leading to deformity.³

Our patient’s persistent pain prompted us to recommend surgical excision. She underwent a third digit exostectomy, which she tolerated without any issues. The patient was fitted with a postoperative shoe that she wore until her 2-week follow-up appointment, when her sutures were removed. The patient’s activity level progressed as tolerated. She regained full function and returned to playing soccer, without any pain, 3 months after her surgery.

A 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL presented to the clinic with a 1-year history of a slow-growing mass on the third toe of her right foot. As a soccer player, she experienced associated pain when kicking the ball or when wearing tight-fitting shoes. The lesion was otherwise asymptomatic. She denied any overt trauma to the area and indicated that the mass had enlarged over the previous year.

On exam, there was a nontender 8 × 8-mm firm nodule underneath the nail with associated nail dystrophy (FIGURE 1). The toe had full mobility, sensation was intact, and capillary refill time was < 2 seconds.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

A plain radiograph of the patient’s foot showed continuity with the bony cortex and medullary space, confirming the diagnosis of subungual exostosis (FIGURE 2).¹ An exostosis, or osteochondroma, is a form of benign bone tumor in which trabecular bone overgrows its normal border in a nodular pattern. When this occurs under the nail bed, it is called subungual exostosis.² Exostosis represents 10% to 15% of all benign bone tumors, making it the most common benign bone tumor.³ Generally, the age of occurrence is 10 to 15 years.³

Repetitive trauma can be a culprit. Up to 8% of exostoses occur in the foot, with the most commonly affected area being the distal medial portion of the big toe.^3,4 Repetitive trauma and infection are potential risk factors.^3,4 The affected toe may be painful, but that is not always the case.⁴ Typically, lesions are solitary; however, multiple lesions can occur.⁴

Most pediatric foot lesions are benign and involve soft tissue

Benign soft-tissue masses make up the overwhelming majority of pediatric foot lesions, accounting for 61% to 87% of all foot lesions.³ Malignancies such as chondrosarcoma can occur and can be difficult to diagnose. Rapid growth, family history, size > 5 cm, heterogenous appearance on magnetic resonance imaging, and poorly defined margins are a few characteristics that should increase suspicion for possible malignancy.⁵

The definitive treatment for subungual exostosis is surgical excision, preferably once the patient has reached skeletal maturity.

The differential diagnosis for a growth on the toe similar to the one our patient had would include pyogenic granuloma, acral fibromyxoma, periungual fibroma, and verruca vulgaris.

Pyogenic granulomas are benign vascular lesions that occur in patients of all ages. They tend to be dome-shaped and flesh-toned to violaceous red, and they are usually found on the head, neck, and extremities—­especially fingers.⁶ They are associated with trauma and are classically tender with a propensity to bleed.⁶

Acral fibromyxoma is a benign, slow-growing, predominately painless, firm mass with an affinity for the great toe; the affected area includes the nail in 50% of cases.⁷ A radiograph may show bony erosion or scalloping due to mass effect; however, there will be no continuity with the bony matrix. (Such continuity would suggest exostosis.)

Periungual fibromas are benign soft-tissue masses, which are pink to red and firm, and emerge from underneath the nails, potentially resulting in dystrophy.⁸ They can bleed and cause pain, and are strongly associated with tuberous sclerosis.⁵

Continue to: Verruca vulgaris

Verruca vulgaris, the common wart, can also manifest in the subungual region as a firm, generally painless mass. It is the most common neoplasm of the hand and fingers.⁶ Tiny black dots that correspond to thrombosed capillaries are key to identifying this lesion.

Surgical excision when patient reaches maturity

The definitive treatment for subungual exostosis is surgical excision, preferably once the patient has reached skeletal maturity. Surgery at this point is associated with decreased recurrence rates.^3,4 That said, excision may need to be performed sooner if the lesion is painful and leading to deformity.³

Our patient’s persistent pain prompted us to recommend surgical excision. She underwent a third digit exostectomy, which she tolerated without any issues. The patient was fitted with a postoperative shoe that she wore until her 2-week follow-up appointment, when her sutures were removed. The patient’s activity level progressed as tolerated. She regained full function and returned to playing soccer, without any pain, 3 months after her surgery.

Small-molecule drugs such as aspirin, albuterol, atorvastatin, and lisinopril are the backbone of disease management in family medicine.¹ However, large-molecule biological drugs such as monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) are increasingly prescribed to treat common conditions. In the past decade, MAbs comprised 20% of all drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and today they represent more than half of drugs currently in development.² Fifteen MAbs have been approved by the FDA over the past decade for asthma, atopic dermatitis (AD), hyperlipidemia, osteoporosis, and migraine prevention.³ This review details what makes MAbs unique and what you should know about them.

The uniqueness of monoclonal antibodies

MAbs are biologics, but not all biologics are MAbs—eg, adalimumab (Humira) is a MAb, but etanercept (Enbrel) is not. MAbs are therapeutic proteins made possible by hybridoma technology used to create an antibody with single specificity.^4-6 Monoclonal antibodies differ from small-molecule drugs in structure, dosing, route of administration, manufacturing, metabolism, drug interactions, and elimination (TABLE 1^7-9).

MAbs can be classified as naked, “without any drug or radioactive material attached to them,” or conjugated, “joined to a chemotherapy drug, radioactive isotope, or toxin.”¹⁰ MAbs work in several ways, including competitively inhibiting ligand-­receptor binding, receptor blockade, or cell elimination from indirect immune system activities such as antibody-dependent cell-­mediated cytotoxicity.^11,12

Monoclonal antibody uses in family medicine

Asthma

Several MAbs have been approved for use in severe asthma, including but not limited to: omalizumab (Xolair),¹³ mepolizumab (Nucala),^9,14 and dupilumab (Dupixent).¹⁵All 3 agents can be self-administered subcutaneously (SC), depending on the clinician’s assessment. The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines recommend that, prior to considering MAb therapy for a patient who has asthma, clinicians should assess the patient’s inhaler technique and adherence, treat comorbidities such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, and modify triggering factors such as smoking or allergen exposure.¹⁶ In patients with severe asthma still uncontrolled after receiving high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) or the lowest possible dose of oral corticosteroid (OCS), GINA recommends assessing for type 2 airway inflammation: blood eosinophils ≥ 150/μL, sputum eosinophils ≥ 2%, or evidence of allergen stimulation.¹⁶ If these factors are present, consider prescribing anti-immunoglobulin E (anti-IgE) (omalizumab), anti-interleukin-5 (anti-IL-5) (mepolizumab), or anti-IL-4/anti-IL-13 (dupilumab).¹⁶

Omalizumab is a humanized MAb that prevents IgE antibodies from binding to mast cells and basophils, thereby reducing inflammatory mediators.¹³ A systematic review found that, compared with placebo, omalizumab used in patients with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe asthma led to significantly fewer asthma exacerbations (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 16% vs 26%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.60; number needed to treat [NNT] = 10) and fewer hospitalizations (ARR, 0.5% vs 3%; OR = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.42; NNT = 40).¹³

Significantly more patients in the omalizumab group were able to withdraw from, or reduce, the dose of ICS. GINA recommends omalizumab for patients with positive skin sensitization, total serum IgE ≥ 30 IU/mL, weight within 30 kg to 150 kg, history of childhood asthma and recent exacerbations, and blood eosinophils ≥ 260/mcL.¹⁶ Omalizumab is also approved for use in chronic spontaneous urticaria and nasal polyps.

Mepolizumab is a humanized MAb that inhibits IL-5, effectively blocking the growth, differentiation, recruitment, activation, and survival of eosinophils.¹⁴ Mepolizumab was studied in patients with frequent exacerbations while already taking high-dose ICSs. The mean rate of clinically consequential exacerbations was significantly reduced with mepolizumab compared with placebo (0.83 vs 1.74; P < .001).¹⁷ This translates to about 1 less moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbation per year per person.

Continue to: Another trial found that...

Before considering a monoclonal antibody for asthma, assess the patient’s inhaler technique and adherence, treat comorbidities, and modify triggering factors.

Another trial found that mepolizumab reduced total OCS doses in patients with severe asthma by 50% without increasing exacerbations or worsening asthma control.¹⁸ All 3 anti-IL-5 drugs—including not only mepolizumab, but also benralizumab (Fasenra) and reslizumab (Cinqair)—appear to yield similar improvements. A 2017 systematic review found all anti-IL-5 treatments reduced rates of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (treatment with OCS for ≥ 3 days) by roughly 50% in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of ≥ 2 exacerbations in the past year.¹⁴ Mepolizumab, according to GINA, is preferred for patients with blood eosinophils ≥ 300/μL and severe exacerbations, nasal polyposis, adult-onset asthma, and maintenance OCS at baseline.¹⁶ Mepolizumab is also approved for use in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, hypereosinophilic syndrome, and rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

Dupilumab is a humanized MAb that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13, which influence multiple cell types involved in inflammation (eg, mast cells, eosinophils) and inflammatory mediators (histamine, leukotrienes, cytokines).¹⁵ In a recent study of patients with uncontrolled asthma, dupilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks compared with placebo showed a modest reduction in the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations (0.46 exacerbations vs 0.87, respectively). Dupilumab was effective in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 150/μL but was ineffective in patients with eosinophil counts < 150/μL.¹⁵

For patients ≥ 12 years old with severe eosinophilic asthma, GINA recommends using dupilumab as add-on therapy for an initial trial of 4 months at doses of 200 or 300 mg SC every 2 weeks, with preference for 300 mg SC every 2 weeks for OCS-dependent asthma. Dupilumab is approved for use in AD and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. If a biologic agent is not successful after a 4-month trial, consider a 6- to 12-month trial. If efficacy is still minimal, consider switching to an alternative biologic therapy approved for asthma.¹⁶

  ❯ Asthma: Test your skills

Subjective findings: A 19-year-old man presents to your clinic. He has a history of nasal polyps and allergic asthma. At age 18, he was given a diagnosis of severe persistent asthma. He has shortness of breath during waking hours 4 times per week, and treats each of these episodes with albuterol. He also wakes up about twice a week with shortness of breath and has some limitations in normal activities. He reports missing his prescribed fluticasone/salmeterol 500/50 μg, 1 inhalation bid, only once each month. In the last year, he has had 2 exacerbations requiring oral steroids.

Medications: Albuterol 90 μg, 1-2 inhalations, q6h prn; fluticasone/salmeterol 500/50 μg, 1 inhalation bid; tiotropium 1.25 μg, 2 puffs/d; montelukast 10 mg every morning; prednisone 10 mg/d.

Continue to: Objective data

Objective data: Patient is in no apparent distress and afebrile, and oxygen saturation on room air is 97%. Ht, 70 inches; wt, 75 kg. Labs: IgE, 15 IU/mL; serum eosinophils, 315/μL.

Which MAb would be appropriate for this patient? Given that the patient has a blood eosinophil level ≥ 300/μL and severe exacerbations, adult-onset asthma, nasal polyposis, and maintenance OCS at baseline, it would be reasonable to initiate mepolizumab 100 mg SC every 4 weeks, or dupilumab 600 mg once, then 300 mg SC every 2 weeks. Both agents can be self-administered.

Atopic dermatitis

Two MAbs—dupilumab and tralokinumab (Adbry; inhibits IL-13)—are approved for treatment of AD in adults that is uncontrolled with conventional therapy.^15,19 Dupilumab is also approved for children ≥ 6 months old.²⁰ Both MAbs are dosed at 600 mg SC, followed by 300 mg every 2 weeks. Dupilumab was compared with placebo in adult patients who had moderate-to-severe AD inadequately controlled on topical corticosteroids (TCSs), to determine the proportion of patients in each group achieving improvement of either 0 or 1 points or ≥ 2 points in the 5-point Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score from baseline to 16 weeks.²¹ Thirty-seven percent of patients receiving dupilumab 300 mg SC weekly and 38% of patients receiving dupilumab 300 mg SC every 2 weeks achieved the primary outcome, compared with 10% of those receiving placebo (P < .001).²¹ Similar IGA scores were reported when dupilumab was combined with TCS, compared with placebo.²²

In atopic dermatitis, MAbs, unlike other systemic agents, do not require frequent monitoring of factors such as blood pressure and kidney or liver function.

It would be reasonable to consider dupilumab or tralokinumab in patients with: cutaneous atrophy or ­hypothalamic-­pituitary-adrenal axis suppression with TCS, concerns of malignancy with topical calcineurin inhibitors, or problems with the alternative systemic therapies (cyclosporine-induced hypertension, nephrotoxicity, or immunosuppression; azathioprine-induced malignancy; or methotrexate-induced bone marrow suppression, renal impairment, hepatotoxicity, pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal toxicity).²³

A distinct advantage of MAbs over other systemic agents in the management of AD is that MAbs do not require frequent monitoring of blood pressure, renal or liver function, complete blood count with differential, electrolytes, or uric acid. Additionally, MAbs have fewer black box warnings and adverse reactions when compared with other systemic agents. For dupilumab, the main adverse reactions (that occurred with > 10% frequency in trials) were injection site reactions and upper respiratory tract infections.¹⁵ Antidrug antibody development occurred in 4.2%.¹⁵ Tralokinumab had > 20% incidence of upper respiratory tract infections.¹⁹

Continue to: Hyperlipidemia

Hyperlipidemia

Three MAbs are approved for use in hyperlipidemia: the angiopoietin-like protein 3 ­(ANGPTL3) inhibitor evinacumab (Evkeeza)²⁴ and 2 proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, evolocumab (Repatha)²⁵ and alirocumab (Praluent).²⁶

ANGPTL3 inhibitors block ­ANGPTL3 and reduce endothelial lipase and lipoprotein lipase activity, which in turn decreases low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ­(HDL-C), and triglyceride formation. PCSK9 inhibitors prevent PCSK9 from binding to LDL receptors, thereby maintaining the number of active LDL receptors and increasing LDL-C removal.

Evinacumab is indicated for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and is administered intravenously every 4 weeks. Evinacumab has not been evaluated for effects on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Evolocumab 140 mg SC every 2 weeks or 420 mg SC monthly has been studied in patients on statin therapy with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL. Patients on evolocumab experienced significantly less of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization compared with placebo (9.8% vs 11.3%; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; NNT = 67.²⁷

Alirocumab 75 mg SC every 2 weeks has also been studied in patients receiving statin therapy with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL. Patients taking alirocumab experienced significantly less of the composite endpoint of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina compared with placebo (9.5% vs 11.1%; HR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; NNT = 63).²⁸

Continue to: According to the 2018...

According to the 2018 AHA Cholesterol Guidelines, PCSK9 inhibitors are indicated for patients receiving maximally tolerated LDL-C-lowering therapy (statin and ezetimibe) with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL, if they have had multiple atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events or 1 major ASCVD event with multiple high-risk conditions (eg, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, history of coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention, hypertension, estimated glomerular filtration rate of 15 to 59 mL/min/1.73m²).²⁹ For patients without prior ASCVD events or high-risk conditions who are receiving maximally tolerated LDL-C-lowering therapy (statin and ezetimibe), PCSK9 inhibitors are indicated if the LDL-C remains ≥ 100 mg/dL.

Osteoporosis

The 2 MAbs approved for use in osteoporosis are the receptor activator of nuclear factor kB ligand (RANKL) inhibitor denosumab (Prolia)³⁰ and the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab (Evenity).³¹

Denosumab prevents RANKL from binding to the RANK receptor, thereby inhibiting osteoclast formation and decreasing bone resorption. Denosumab is approved for use in women and men who are at high risk of osteoporotic fracture, including those taking OCSs, men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer, and women receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

In a 3-year randomized trial, denosumab 60 mg SC every 6 months was compared with placebo in postmenopausal women with T-scores < –2.5, but not < –4.0 at the lumbar spine or total hip. Denosumab significantly reduced new radiographic vertebral fractures (2.3% vs 7.2%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.26-0.41; NNT = 21), hip fracture (0.7% vs 1.2%), and nonvertebral fracture (6.5% vs 8.0%).³² Denosumab carries an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures following discontinuation, skin infections, dermatologic reactions, and severe bone, joint, and muscle pain.

Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin, thereby increasing bone formation and, to a lesser degree, decreasing bone resorption. Romosozumab is approved for use in postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture (ie, those with a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple risk factors for fracture) or in patients who have not benefited from or are intolerant of other therapies. In one study, postmenopausal women with a T-score of –2.5 to –3.5 at the total hip or femoral neck were randomly assigned to receive either romosozumab 210 mg SC or placebo for 12 months, then each group was switched to denosumab 60 mg SC for 12 months. After the first year, prior to initiating denosumab, patients taking romosozumab experienced significantly fewer new vertebral fractures than patients taking placebo (0.5% vs 1.8%; RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16-0.47; NNT = 77); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups with nonvertebral fractures (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.53-1.05).³³

Continue to: In another study...

In another study, romosozumab 210 mg SC was compared with alendronate 70 mg weekly, followed by alendronate 70 mg weekly in both groups. Over the first 12 months, patients treated with romosozumab saw a significant reduction in the incidence of new vertebral fractures (4% vs 6.3%; RR = 0.63, P < .003; NNT = 44). Patients treated with romosozumab with alendronate added for another 12 months also saw a significant reduction in new incidence of vertebral fractures (6.2% vs 11.9%; RR = 0.52; P < .001; NNT = 18).³⁴ There was a higher risk of cardiovascular events among patients receiving romosozumab compared with those treated with alendronate, so romosozumab should not be used in individuals who have had an MI or stroke within the previous year.³⁴ Denosumab and romosozumab offer an advantage over some bisphosphonates in that they require less frequent dosing and can be used in patients with renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 35 mL/min, in which zoledronic acid is contraindicated and alendronate is not recommended; < 30 mL/min, in which risedronate and ibandronate are not recommended).

Migraine prevention

Four calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists have been approved for migraine prevention: erenumab (Aimovig),³⁵ eptinezumab (Vyepti),³⁶ fremanezumab (Ajovy),³⁷ and galcanezumab (Emgality).³⁸ CGRP is released at areas in and around the brain, causing vasodilation and inflammation that is thought to be the major causative factor for migraine headaches.³⁹

Erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab are all available in subcutaneous autoinjectors (or syringe with fremanezumab). Eptinezumab is an intravenous (IV) infusion given every 3 months.

Erenumab is available in both 70-mg and 140-mg dosing options. Fremanezumab can be given as 225 mg monthly or 675 mg quarterly. Galcanezumab has an initial loading dose of 240 mg followed by 120 mg given monthly. Erenumab targets the CGRP receptor; the others target the CGRP ligand. Eptinezumab has 100% bioavailability and reaches maximum serum concentration sooner than the other antagonists (due to its route of administration), but it must be given in an infusion center. Few insurers approve the use of eptinezumab unless a trial of least 1 of the monthly injectables has failed.

There are no head-to-head studies of the medications in this class. Additionally, differing study designs, definitions, statistical analyses, endpoints, and responder-rate calculations make it challenging to compare them directly against one another. At the very least, all of the CGRP MAbs have efficacy comparable to conventional preventive migraine medications such as propranolol, amitriptyline, and topiramate.⁴⁰

Continue to: The most commonly reported adverse...

The most commonly reported adverse effect for all 4 CGRPs is injection site reaction, which was highest with the quarterly fremanezumab dose (45%).³⁷ Constipation was most notable with the 140-mg dose of erenumab (3%)³⁵; with the other CGRP MAbs it is comparable to that seen with placebo (< 1%).

Erenumab-induced hypertension has been identified in 61 cases reported through the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) as of 2021.⁴¹ This was not reported during MAb development programs, nor was it noted during clinical trials. Blood pressure elevation was seen within 1 week of injection in nearly 50% of the cases, and nearly one-third had pre-existing hypertension.⁴¹ Due to these findings, the erenumab prescribing information was updated to include hypertension in its warnings and precautions. It is possible that hypertension could be a class effect, although trial data and posthoc studies have yet to bear that out. Since erenumab was the first CGRP antagonist brought to market (May 2018 vs September 2018 for fremanezumab and galcanezumab), it may have accumulated more FAERS reports. Nearly all studies exclude patients with older age, uncontrolled hypertension, and unstable cardiovascular disease, which could impact data.⁴¹

Overall, this class of medications is very well tolerated, easy to use (again, excluding eptinezumab), and maintains a low adverse effect profile, giving added value compared with conventional preventive migraine medications.

The American Headache Society recommends a preventive oral therapy for at least 3 months before trying an alternative medication. After treatment failure with at least 2 oral agents, CGRP MAbs are recommended.⁴² CGRP antagonists offer convenient dosing, bypass gastrointestinal metabolism (which is useful in patients with nausea/vomiting), and have fewer adverse effects than traditional oral medications.

Worth noting. Several newer oral agents have been recently approved for migraine prevention, including atogepant (Qulipta) and rimegepant (Nurtec), which are also CGRP antagonists. Rimegepant is approved for both acute migraine treatment and prevention.

Continue to: Migraine

❯ Migraine: Test your skills

Subjective findings: A 25-year-old woman presents to your clinic for management of episodic migraines with aura. Her baseline average migraine frequency is 9 headache days/month. Her migraines are becoming more frequent despite treatment. She fears IV medication use and avoids hospitals.

History: Hypertension, irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C), and depression. The patient is not pregnant or trying to get pregnant.

Medications: Current medications (for previous 4 months) include propranolol 40 mg at bedtime, linaclotide 145 μg/d, citalopram 20 mg/d, and sumatriptan 50 mg prn. Past medications include venlafaxine 150 mg po bid for 5 months.

What would be appropriate for this patient? This patient meets the criteria for using a CGRP antagonist because she has tried 2 preventive treatments for more than 60 to 90 days. Erenumab is not the best option, given the patient’s history of hypertension and IBS-C. The patient fears hospitals and IV medications, making eptinezumab a less-than-ideal choice. Depending on her insurance, fremanezumab or galcanezumab would be good options at this time.

CGRP antagonists have not been studied or evaluated in pregnancy, but if this patient becomes pregnant, a first-line agent for prevention would be propranolol, and a second-line agent would be a tricyclic antidepressant, memantine, or verapamil. Avoid ergotamines and antiepileptics (topiramate or valproate) in pregnancy.^43,44

Continue to: The challenges associated with MAbs

MAbs can be expensive (TABLE 2),⁴⁵ some prohibitively so. On a population scale, biologics account for around 40% of prescription drug spending and may cost 22 times more than small-molecule drugs.⁴⁶ Estimates in 2016 showed that MAbs comprise $90.2 billion (43%) of the biologic market.⁴⁶

MAbs also require prior authorization forms to be submitted. Prior authorization criteria vary by state and by insurance plan. In my (ES) experience, submitting letters of medical necessity justifying the need for therapy or expertise in the disease states for which the MAb is being prescribed help your patient get the medication they need.

Expect to see additional MAbs approved in the future. If the costs come down, adoption of these agents into practice will likely increase.

CORRESPONDENCE
Evelyn Sbar, MD, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 1400 South Coulter Street, Suite 5100, Amarillo, TX 79106; [email protected]

Small-molecule drugs such as aspirin, albuterol, atorvastatin, and lisinopril are the backbone of disease management in family medicine.¹ However, large-molecule biological drugs such as monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) are increasingly prescribed to treat common conditions. In the past decade, MAbs comprised 20% of all drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and today they represent more than half of drugs currently in development.² Fifteen MAbs have been approved by the FDA over the past decade for asthma, atopic dermatitis (AD), hyperlipidemia, osteoporosis, and migraine prevention.³ This review details what makes MAbs unique and what you should know about them.

The uniqueness of monoclonal antibodies

MAbs are biologics, but not all biologics are MAbs—eg, adalimumab (Humira) is a MAb, but etanercept (Enbrel) is not. MAbs are therapeutic proteins made possible by hybridoma technology used to create an antibody with single specificity.^4-6 Monoclonal antibodies differ from small-molecule drugs in structure, dosing, route of administration, manufacturing, metabolism, drug interactions, and elimination (TABLE 1^7-9).

MAbs can be classified as naked, “without any drug or radioactive material attached to them,” or conjugated, “joined to a chemotherapy drug, radioactive isotope, or toxin.”¹⁰ MAbs work in several ways, including competitively inhibiting ligand-­receptor binding, receptor blockade, or cell elimination from indirect immune system activities such as antibody-dependent cell-­mediated cytotoxicity.^11,12

Monoclonal antibody uses in family medicine

Asthma

Several MAbs have been approved for use in severe asthma, including but not limited to: omalizumab (Xolair),¹³ mepolizumab (Nucala),^9,14 and dupilumab (Dupixent).¹⁵All 3 agents can be self-administered subcutaneously (SC), depending on the clinician’s assessment. The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines recommend that, prior to considering MAb therapy for a patient who has asthma, clinicians should assess the patient’s inhaler technique and adherence, treat comorbidities such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, and modify triggering factors such as smoking or allergen exposure.¹⁶ In patients with severe asthma still uncontrolled after receiving high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) or the lowest possible dose of oral corticosteroid (OCS), GINA recommends assessing for type 2 airway inflammation: blood eosinophils ≥ 150/μL, sputum eosinophils ≥ 2%, or evidence of allergen stimulation.¹⁶ If these factors are present, consider prescribing anti-immunoglobulin E (anti-IgE) (omalizumab), anti-interleukin-5 (anti-IL-5) (mepolizumab), or anti-IL-4/anti-IL-13 (dupilumab).¹⁶

Omalizumab is a humanized MAb that prevents IgE antibodies from binding to mast cells and basophils, thereby reducing inflammatory mediators.¹³ A systematic review found that, compared with placebo, omalizumab used in patients with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe asthma led to significantly fewer asthma exacerbations (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 16% vs 26%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.60; number needed to treat [NNT] = 10) and fewer hospitalizations (ARR, 0.5% vs 3%; OR = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.42; NNT = 40).¹³

Significantly more patients in the omalizumab group were able to withdraw from, or reduce, the dose of ICS. GINA recommends omalizumab for patients with positive skin sensitization, total serum IgE ≥ 30 IU/mL, weight within 30 kg to 150 kg, history of childhood asthma and recent exacerbations, and blood eosinophils ≥ 260/mcL.¹⁶ Omalizumab is also approved for use in chronic spontaneous urticaria and nasal polyps.

Mepolizumab is a humanized MAb that inhibits IL-5, effectively blocking the growth, differentiation, recruitment, activation, and survival of eosinophils.¹⁴ Mepolizumab was studied in patients with frequent exacerbations while already taking high-dose ICSs. The mean rate of clinically consequential exacerbations was significantly reduced with mepolizumab compared with placebo (0.83 vs 1.74; P < .001).¹⁷ This translates to about 1 less moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbation per year per person.

Continue to: Another trial found that...

Before considering a monoclonal antibody for asthma, assess the patient’s inhaler technique and adherence, treat comorbidities, and modify triggering factors.

Another trial found that mepolizumab reduced total OCS doses in patients with severe asthma by 50% without increasing exacerbations or worsening asthma control.¹⁸ All 3 anti-IL-5 drugs—including not only mepolizumab, but also benralizumab (Fasenra) and reslizumab (Cinqair)—appear to yield similar improvements. A 2017 systematic review found all anti-IL-5 treatments reduced rates of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (treatment with OCS for ≥ 3 days) by roughly 50% in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of ≥ 2 exacerbations in the past year.¹⁴ Mepolizumab, according to GINA, is preferred for patients with blood eosinophils ≥ 300/μL and severe exacerbations, nasal polyposis, adult-onset asthma, and maintenance OCS at baseline.¹⁶ Mepolizumab is also approved for use in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, hypereosinophilic syndrome, and rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

Dupilumab is a humanized MAb that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13, which influence multiple cell types involved in inflammation (eg, mast cells, eosinophils) and inflammatory mediators (histamine, leukotrienes, cytokines).¹⁵ In a recent study of patients with uncontrolled asthma, dupilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks compared with placebo showed a modest reduction in the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations (0.46 exacerbations vs 0.87, respectively). Dupilumab was effective in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 150/μL but was ineffective in patients with eosinophil counts < 150/μL.¹⁵

For patients ≥ 12 years old with severe eosinophilic asthma, GINA recommends using dupilumab as add-on therapy for an initial trial of 4 months at doses of 200 or 300 mg SC every 2 weeks, with preference for 300 mg SC every 2 weeks for OCS-dependent asthma. Dupilumab is approved for use in AD and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. If a biologic agent is not successful after a 4-month trial, consider a 6- to 12-month trial. If efficacy is still minimal, consider switching to an alternative biologic therapy approved for asthma.¹⁶

  ❯ Asthma: Test your skills

Subjective findings: A 19-year-old man presents to your clinic. He has a history of nasal polyps and allergic asthma. At age 18, he was given a diagnosis of severe persistent asthma. He has shortness of breath during waking hours 4 times per week, and treats each of these episodes with albuterol. He also wakes up about twice a week with shortness of breath and has some limitations in normal activities. He reports missing his prescribed fluticasone/salmeterol 500/50 μg, 1 inhalation bid, only once each month. In the last year, he has had 2 exacerbations requiring oral steroids.

Medications: Albuterol 90 μg, 1-2 inhalations, q6h prn; fluticasone/salmeterol 500/50 μg, 1 inhalation bid; tiotropium 1.25 μg, 2 puffs/d; montelukast 10 mg every morning; prednisone 10 mg/d.

Continue to: Objective data

Objective data: Patient is in no apparent distress and afebrile, and oxygen saturation on room air is 97%. Ht, 70 inches; wt, 75 kg. Labs: IgE, 15 IU/mL; serum eosinophils, 315/μL.

Which MAb would be appropriate for this patient? Given that the patient has a blood eosinophil level ≥ 300/μL and severe exacerbations, adult-onset asthma, nasal polyposis, and maintenance OCS at baseline, it would be reasonable to initiate mepolizumab 100 mg SC every 4 weeks, or dupilumab 600 mg once, then 300 mg SC every 2 weeks. Both agents can be self-administered.

Atopic dermatitis

Two MAbs—dupilumab and tralokinumab (Adbry; inhibits IL-13)—are approved for treatment of AD in adults that is uncontrolled with conventional therapy.^15,19 Dupilumab is also approved for children ≥ 6 months old.²⁰ Both MAbs are dosed at 600 mg SC, followed by 300 mg every 2 weeks. Dupilumab was compared with placebo in adult patients who had moderate-to-severe AD inadequately controlled on topical corticosteroids (TCSs), to determine the proportion of patients in each group achieving improvement of either 0 or 1 points or ≥ 2 points in the 5-point Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score from baseline to 16 weeks.²¹ Thirty-seven percent of patients receiving dupilumab 300 mg SC weekly and 38% of patients receiving dupilumab 300 mg SC every 2 weeks achieved the primary outcome, compared with 10% of those receiving placebo (P < .001).²¹ Similar IGA scores were reported when dupilumab was combined with TCS, compared with placebo.²²

In atopic dermatitis, MAbs, unlike other systemic agents, do not require frequent monitoring of factors such as blood pressure and kidney or liver function.

It would be reasonable to consider dupilumab or tralokinumab in patients with: cutaneous atrophy or ­hypothalamic-­pituitary-adrenal axis suppression with TCS, concerns of malignancy with topical calcineurin inhibitors, or problems with the alternative systemic therapies (cyclosporine-induced hypertension, nephrotoxicity, or immunosuppression; azathioprine-induced malignancy; or methotrexate-induced bone marrow suppression, renal impairment, hepatotoxicity, pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal toxicity).²³

A distinct advantage of MAbs over other systemic agents in the management of AD is that MAbs do not require frequent monitoring of blood pressure, renal or liver function, complete blood count with differential, electrolytes, or uric acid. Additionally, MAbs have fewer black box warnings and adverse reactions when compared with other systemic agents. For dupilumab, the main adverse reactions (that occurred with > 10% frequency in trials) were injection site reactions and upper respiratory tract infections.¹⁵ Antidrug antibody development occurred in 4.2%.¹⁵ Tralokinumab had > 20% incidence of upper respiratory tract infections.¹⁹

Continue to: Hyperlipidemia

Hyperlipidemia

Three MAbs are approved for use in hyperlipidemia: the angiopoietin-like protein 3 ­(ANGPTL3) inhibitor evinacumab (Evkeeza)²⁴ and 2 proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, evolocumab (Repatha)²⁵ and alirocumab (Praluent).²⁶

ANGPTL3 inhibitors block ­ANGPTL3 and reduce endothelial lipase and lipoprotein lipase activity, which in turn decreases low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ­(HDL-C), and triglyceride formation. PCSK9 inhibitors prevent PCSK9 from binding to LDL receptors, thereby maintaining the number of active LDL receptors and increasing LDL-C removal.

Evinacumab is indicated for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and is administered intravenously every 4 weeks. Evinacumab has not been evaluated for effects on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Evolocumab 140 mg SC every 2 weeks or 420 mg SC monthly has been studied in patients on statin therapy with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL. Patients on evolocumab experienced significantly less of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization compared with placebo (9.8% vs 11.3%; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; NNT = 67.²⁷

Alirocumab 75 mg SC every 2 weeks has also been studied in patients receiving statin therapy with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL. Patients taking alirocumab experienced significantly less of the composite endpoint of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina compared with placebo (9.5% vs 11.1%; HR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; NNT = 63).²⁸

Continue to: According to the 2018...

According to the 2018 AHA Cholesterol Guidelines, PCSK9 inhibitors are indicated for patients receiving maximally tolerated LDL-C-lowering therapy (statin and ezetimibe) with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL, if they have had multiple atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events or 1 major ASCVD event with multiple high-risk conditions (eg, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, history of coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention, hypertension, estimated glomerular filtration rate of 15 to 59 mL/min/1.73m²).²⁹ For patients without prior ASCVD events or high-risk conditions who are receiving maximally tolerated LDL-C-lowering therapy (statin and ezetimibe), PCSK9 inhibitors are indicated if the LDL-C remains ≥ 100 mg/dL.

Osteoporosis

The 2 MAbs approved for use in osteoporosis are the receptor activator of nuclear factor kB ligand (RANKL) inhibitor denosumab (Prolia)³⁰ and the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab (Evenity).³¹

Denosumab prevents RANKL from binding to the RANK receptor, thereby inhibiting osteoclast formation and decreasing bone resorption. Denosumab is approved for use in women and men who are at high risk of osteoporotic fracture, including those taking OCSs, men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer, and women receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

In a 3-year randomized trial, denosumab 60 mg SC every 6 months was compared with placebo in postmenopausal women with T-scores < –2.5, but not < –4.0 at the lumbar spine or total hip. Denosumab significantly reduced new radiographic vertebral fractures (2.3% vs 7.2%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.26-0.41; NNT = 21), hip fracture (0.7% vs 1.2%), and nonvertebral fracture (6.5% vs 8.0%).³² Denosumab carries an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures following discontinuation, skin infections, dermatologic reactions, and severe bone, joint, and muscle pain.

Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin, thereby increasing bone formation and, to a lesser degree, decreasing bone resorption. Romosozumab is approved for use in postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture (ie, those with a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple risk factors for fracture) or in patients who have not benefited from or are intolerant of other therapies. In one study, postmenopausal women with a T-score of –2.5 to –3.5 at the total hip or femoral neck were randomly assigned to receive either romosozumab 210 mg SC or placebo for 12 months, then each group was switched to denosumab 60 mg SC for 12 months. After the first year, prior to initiating denosumab, patients taking romosozumab experienced significantly fewer new vertebral fractures than patients taking placebo (0.5% vs 1.8%; RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16-0.47; NNT = 77); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups with nonvertebral fractures (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.53-1.05).³³

Continue to: In another study...

In another study, romosozumab 210 mg SC was compared with alendronate 70 mg weekly, followed by alendronate 70 mg weekly in both groups. Over the first 12 months, patients treated with romosozumab saw a significant reduction in the incidence of new vertebral fractures (4% vs 6.3%; RR = 0.63, P < .003; NNT = 44). Patients treated with romosozumab with alendronate added for another 12 months also saw a significant reduction in new incidence of vertebral fractures (6.2% vs 11.9%; RR = 0.52; P < .001; NNT = 18).³⁴ There was a higher risk of cardiovascular events among patients receiving romosozumab compared with those treated with alendronate, so romosozumab should not be used in individuals who have had an MI or stroke within the previous year.³⁴ Denosumab and romosozumab offer an advantage over some bisphosphonates in that they require less frequent dosing and can be used in patients with renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 35 mL/min, in which zoledronic acid is contraindicated and alendronate is not recommended; < 30 mL/min, in which risedronate and ibandronate are not recommended).

Migraine prevention

Four calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists have been approved for migraine prevention: erenumab (Aimovig),³⁵ eptinezumab (Vyepti),³⁶ fremanezumab (Ajovy),³⁷ and galcanezumab (Emgality).³⁸ CGRP is released at areas in and around the brain, causing vasodilation and inflammation that is thought to be the major causative factor for migraine headaches.³⁹

Erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab are all available in subcutaneous autoinjectors (or syringe with fremanezumab). Eptinezumab is an intravenous (IV) infusion given every 3 months.

Erenumab is available in both 70-mg and 140-mg dosing options. Fremanezumab can be given as 225 mg monthly or 675 mg quarterly. Galcanezumab has an initial loading dose of 240 mg followed by 120 mg given monthly. Erenumab targets the CGRP receptor; the others target the CGRP ligand. Eptinezumab has 100% bioavailability and reaches maximum serum concentration sooner than the other antagonists (due to its route of administration), but it must be given in an infusion center. Few insurers approve the use of eptinezumab unless a trial of least 1 of the monthly injectables has failed.

There are no head-to-head studies of the medications in this class. Additionally, differing study designs, definitions, statistical analyses, endpoints, and responder-rate calculations make it challenging to compare them directly against one another. At the very least, all of the CGRP MAbs have efficacy comparable to conventional preventive migraine medications such as propranolol, amitriptyline, and topiramate.⁴⁰

Continue to: The most commonly reported adverse...

The most commonly reported adverse effect for all 4 CGRPs is injection site reaction, which was highest with the quarterly fremanezumab dose (45%).³⁷ Constipation was most notable with the 140-mg dose of erenumab (3%)³⁵; with the other CGRP MAbs it is comparable to that seen with placebo (< 1%).

Erenumab-induced hypertension has been identified in 61 cases reported through the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) as of 2021.⁴¹ This was not reported during MAb development programs, nor was it noted during clinical trials. Blood pressure elevation was seen within 1 week of injection in nearly 50% of the cases, and nearly one-third had pre-existing hypertension.⁴¹ Due to these findings, the erenumab prescribing information was updated to include hypertension in its warnings and precautions. It is possible that hypertension could be a class effect, although trial data and posthoc studies have yet to bear that out. Since erenumab was the first CGRP antagonist brought to market (May 2018 vs September 2018 for fremanezumab and galcanezumab), it may have accumulated more FAERS reports. Nearly all studies exclude patients with older age, uncontrolled hypertension, and unstable cardiovascular disease, which could impact data.⁴¹

Overall, this class of medications is very well tolerated, easy to use (again, excluding eptinezumab), and maintains a low adverse effect profile, giving added value compared with conventional preventive migraine medications.

The American Headache Society recommends a preventive oral therapy for at least 3 months before trying an alternative medication. After treatment failure with at least 2 oral agents, CGRP MAbs are recommended.⁴² CGRP antagonists offer convenient dosing, bypass gastrointestinal metabolism (which is useful in patients with nausea/vomiting), and have fewer adverse effects than traditional oral medications.

Worth noting. Several newer oral agents have been recently approved for migraine prevention, including atogepant (Qulipta) and rimegepant (Nurtec), which are also CGRP antagonists. Rimegepant is approved for both acute migraine treatment and prevention.

Continue to: Migraine

❯ Migraine: Test your skills

Subjective findings: A 25-year-old woman presents to your clinic for management of episodic migraines with aura. Her baseline average migraine frequency is 9 headache days/month. Her migraines are becoming more frequent despite treatment. She fears IV medication use and avoids hospitals.

History: Hypertension, irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C), and depression. The patient is not pregnant or trying to get pregnant.

Medications: Current medications (for previous 4 months) include propranolol 40 mg at bedtime, linaclotide 145 μg/d, citalopram 20 mg/d, and sumatriptan 50 mg prn. Past medications include venlafaxine 150 mg po bid for 5 months.

What would be appropriate for this patient? This patient meets the criteria for using a CGRP antagonist because she has tried 2 preventive treatments for more than 60 to 90 days. Erenumab is not the best option, given the patient’s history of hypertension and IBS-C. The patient fears hospitals and IV medications, making eptinezumab a less-than-ideal choice. Depending on her insurance, fremanezumab or galcanezumab would be good options at this time.

CGRP antagonists have not been studied or evaluated in pregnancy, but if this patient becomes pregnant, a first-line agent for prevention would be propranolol, and a second-line agent would be a tricyclic antidepressant, memantine, or verapamil. Avoid ergotamines and antiepileptics (topiramate or valproate) in pregnancy.^43,44

Continue to: The challenges associated with MAbs

MAbs can be expensive (TABLE 2),⁴⁵ some prohibitively so. On a population scale, biologics account for around 40% of prescription drug spending and may cost 22 times more than small-molecule drugs.⁴⁶ Estimates in 2016 showed that MAbs comprise $90.2 billion (43%) of the biologic market.⁴⁶

MAbs also require prior authorization forms to be submitted. Prior authorization criteria vary by state and by insurance plan. In my (ES) experience, submitting letters of medical necessity justifying the need for therapy or expertise in the disease states for which the MAb is being prescribed help your patient get the medication they need.

Expect to see additional MAbs approved in the future. If the costs come down, adoption of these agents into practice will likely increase.

CORRESPONDENCE
Evelyn Sbar, MD, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 1400 South Coulter Street, Suite 5100, Amarillo, TX 79106; [email protected]

Small-molecule drugs such as aspirin, albuterol, atorvastatin, and lisinopril are the backbone of disease management in family medicine.¹ However, large-molecule biological drugs such as monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) are increasingly prescribed to treat common conditions. In the past decade, MAbs comprised 20% of all drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and today they represent more than half of drugs currently in development.² Fifteen MAbs have been approved by the FDA over the past decade for asthma, atopic dermatitis (AD), hyperlipidemia, osteoporosis, and migraine prevention.³ This review details what makes MAbs unique and what you should know about them.

The uniqueness of monoclonal antibodies

MAbs are biologics, but not all biologics are MAbs—eg, adalimumab (Humira) is a MAb, but etanercept (Enbrel) is not. MAbs are therapeutic proteins made possible by hybridoma technology used to create an antibody with single specificity.^4-6 Monoclonal antibodies differ from small-molecule drugs in structure, dosing, route of administration, manufacturing, metabolism, drug interactions, and elimination (TABLE 1^7-9).

MAbs can be classified as naked, “without any drug or radioactive material attached to them,” or conjugated, “joined to a chemotherapy drug, radioactive isotope, or toxin.”¹⁰ MAbs work in several ways, including competitively inhibiting ligand-­receptor binding, receptor blockade, or cell elimination from indirect immune system activities such as antibody-dependent cell-­mediated cytotoxicity.^11,12

Monoclonal antibody uses in family medicine

Asthma

Several MAbs have been approved for use in severe asthma, including but not limited to: omalizumab (Xolair),¹³ mepolizumab (Nucala),^9,14 and dupilumab (Dupixent).¹⁵All 3 agents can be self-administered subcutaneously (SC), depending on the clinician’s assessment. The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines recommend that, prior to considering MAb therapy for a patient who has asthma, clinicians should assess the patient’s inhaler technique and adherence, treat comorbidities such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, and modify triggering factors such as smoking or allergen exposure.¹⁶ In patients with severe asthma still uncontrolled after receiving high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) or the lowest possible dose of oral corticosteroid (OCS), GINA recommends assessing for type 2 airway inflammation: blood eosinophils ≥ 150/μL, sputum eosinophils ≥ 2%, or evidence of allergen stimulation.¹⁶ If these factors are present, consider prescribing anti-immunoglobulin E (anti-IgE) (omalizumab), anti-interleukin-5 (anti-IL-5) (mepolizumab), or anti-IL-4/anti-IL-13 (dupilumab).¹⁶

Omalizumab is a humanized MAb that prevents IgE antibodies from binding to mast cells and basophils, thereby reducing inflammatory mediators.¹³ A systematic review found that, compared with placebo, omalizumab used in patients with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe asthma led to significantly fewer asthma exacerbations (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 16% vs 26%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.60; number needed to treat [NNT] = 10) and fewer hospitalizations (ARR, 0.5% vs 3%; OR = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.42; NNT = 40).¹³

Significantly more patients in the omalizumab group were able to withdraw from, or reduce, the dose of ICS. GINA recommends omalizumab for patients with positive skin sensitization, total serum IgE ≥ 30 IU/mL, weight within 30 kg to 150 kg, history of childhood asthma and recent exacerbations, and blood eosinophils ≥ 260/mcL.¹⁶ Omalizumab is also approved for use in chronic spontaneous urticaria and nasal polyps.

Mepolizumab is a humanized MAb that inhibits IL-5, effectively blocking the growth, differentiation, recruitment, activation, and survival of eosinophils.¹⁴ Mepolizumab was studied in patients with frequent exacerbations while already taking high-dose ICSs. The mean rate of clinically consequential exacerbations was significantly reduced with mepolizumab compared with placebo (0.83 vs 1.74; P < .001).¹⁷ This translates to about 1 less moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbation per year per person.

Continue to: Another trial found that...

Before considering a monoclonal antibody for asthma, assess the patient’s inhaler technique and adherence, treat comorbidities, and modify triggering factors.

Another trial found that mepolizumab reduced total OCS doses in patients with severe asthma by 50% without increasing exacerbations or worsening asthma control.¹⁸ All 3 anti-IL-5 drugs—including not only mepolizumab, but also benralizumab (Fasenra) and reslizumab (Cinqair)—appear to yield similar improvements. A 2017 systematic review found all anti-IL-5 treatments reduced rates of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (treatment with OCS for ≥ 3 days) by roughly 50% in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of ≥ 2 exacerbations in the past year.¹⁴ Mepolizumab, according to GINA, is preferred for patients with blood eosinophils ≥ 300/μL and severe exacerbations, nasal polyposis, adult-onset asthma, and maintenance OCS at baseline.¹⁶ Mepolizumab is also approved for use in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, hypereosinophilic syndrome, and rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

Dupilumab is a humanized MAb that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13, which influence multiple cell types involved in inflammation (eg, mast cells, eosinophils) and inflammatory mediators (histamine, leukotrienes, cytokines).¹⁵ In a recent study of patients with uncontrolled asthma, dupilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks compared with placebo showed a modest reduction in the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations (0.46 exacerbations vs 0.87, respectively). Dupilumab was effective in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 150/μL but was ineffective in patients with eosinophil counts < 150/μL.¹⁵

For patients ≥ 12 years old with severe eosinophilic asthma, GINA recommends using dupilumab as add-on therapy for an initial trial of 4 months at doses of 200 or 300 mg SC every 2 weeks, with preference for 300 mg SC every 2 weeks for OCS-dependent asthma. Dupilumab is approved for use in AD and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. If a biologic agent is not successful after a 4-month trial, consider a 6- to 12-month trial. If efficacy is still minimal, consider switching to an alternative biologic therapy approved for asthma.¹⁶

  ❯ Asthma: Test your skills

Subjective findings: A 19-year-old man presents to your clinic. He has a history of nasal polyps and allergic asthma. At age 18, he was given a diagnosis of severe persistent asthma. He has shortness of breath during waking hours 4 times per week, and treats each of these episodes with albuterol. He also wakes up about twice a week with shortness of breath and has some limitations in normal activities. He reports missing his prescribed fluticasone/salmeterol 500/50 μg, 1 inhalation bid, only once each month. In the last year, he has had 2 exacerbations requiring oral steroids.

Medications: Albuterol 90 μg, 1-2 inhalations, q6h prn; fluticasone/salmeterol 500/50 μg, 1 inhalation bid; tiotropium 1.25 μg, 2 puffs/d; montelukast 10 mg every morning; prednisone 10 mg/d.

Continue to: Objective data

Objective data: Patient is in no apparent distress and afebrile, and oxygen saturation on room air is 97%. Ht, 70 inches; wt, 75 kg. Labs: IgE, 15 IU/mL; serum eosinophils, 315/μL.

Which MAb would be appropriate for this patient? Given that the patient has a blood eosinophil level ≥ 300/μL and severe exacerbations, adult-onset asthma, nasal polyposis, and maintenance OCS at baseline, it would be reasonable to initiate mepolizumab 100 mg SC every 4 weeks, or dupilumab 600 mg once, then 300 mg SC every 2 weeks. Both agents can be self-administered.

Atopic dermatitis

Two MAbs—dupilumab and tralokinumab (Adbry; inhibits IL-13)—are approved for treatment of AD in adults that is uncontrolled with conventional therapy.^15,19 Dupilumab is also approved for children ≥ 6 months old.²⁰ Both MAbs are dosed at 600 mg SC, followed by 300 mg every 2 weeks. Dupilumab was compared with placebo in adult patients who had moderate-to-severe AD inadequately controlled on topical corticosteroids (TCSs), to determine the proportion of patients in each group achieving improvement of either 0 or 1 points or ≥ 2 points in the 5-point Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score from baseline to 16 weeks.²¹ Thirty-seven percent of patients receiving dupilumab 300 mg SC weekly and 38% of patients receiving dupilumab 300 mg SC every 2 weeks achieved the primary outcome, compared with 10% of those receiving placebo (P < .001).²¹ Similar IGA scores were reported when dupilumab was combined with TCS, compared with placebo.²²

In atopic dermatitis, MAbs, unlike other systemic agents, do not require frequent monitoring of factors such as blood pressure and kidney or liver function.

It would be reasonable to consider dupilumab or tralokinumab in patients with: cutaneous atrophy or ­hypothalamic-­pituitary-adrenal axis suppression with TCS, concerns of malignancy with topical calcineurin inhibitors, or problems with the alternative systemic therapies (cyclosporine-induced hypertension, nephrotoxicity, or immunosuppression; azathioprine-induced malignancy; or methotrexate-induced bone marrow suppression, renal impairment, hepatotoxicity, pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal toxicity).²³

A distinct advantage of MAbs over other systemic agents in the management of AD is that MAbs do not require frequent monitoring of blood pressure, renal or liver function, complete blood count with differential, electrolytes, or uric acid. Additionally, MAbs have fewer black box warnings and adverse reactions when compared with other systemic agents. For dupilumab, the main adverse reactions (that occurred with > 10% frequency in trials) were injection site reactions and upper respiratory tract infections.¹⁵ Antidrug antibody development occurred in 4.2%.¹⁵ Tralokinumab had > 20% incidence of upper respiratory tract infections.¹⁹

Continue to: Hyperlipidemia

Hyperlipidemia

Three MAbs are approved for use in hyperlipidemia: the angiopoietin-like protein 3 ­(ANGPTL3) inhibitor evinacumab (Evkeeza)²⁴ and 2 proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, evolocumab (Repatha)²⁵ and alirocumab (Praluent).²⁶

ANGPTL3 inhibitors block ­ANGPTL3 and reduce endothelial lipase and lipoprotein lipase activity, which in turn decreases low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ­(HDL-C), and triglyceride formation. PCSK9 inhibitors prevent PCSK9 from binding to LDL receptors, thereby maintaining the number of active LDL receptors and increasing LDL-C removal.

Evinacumab is indicated for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and is administered intravenously every 4 weeks. Evinacumab has not been evaluated for effects on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Evolocumab 140 mg SC every 2 weeks or 420 mg SC monthly has been studied in patients on statin therapy with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL. Patients on evolocumab experienced significantly less of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization compared with placebo (9.8% vs 11.3%; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; NNT = 67.²⁷

Alirocumab 75 mg SC every 2 weeks has also been studied in patients receiving statin therapy with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL. Patients taking alirocumab experienced significantly less of the composite endpoint of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina compared with placebo (9.5% vs 11.1%; HR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; NNT = 63).²⁸

Continue to: According to the 2018...

According to the 2018 AHA Cholesterol Guidelines, PCSK9 inhibitors are indicated for patients receiving maximally tolerated LDL-C-lowering therapy (statin and ezetimibe) with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL, if they have had multiple atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events or 1 major ASCVD event with multiple high-risk conditions (eg, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, history of coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention, hypertension, estimated glomerular filtration rate of 15 to 59 mL/min/1.73m²).²⁹ For patients without prior ASCVD events or high-risk conditions who are receiving maximally tolerated LDL-C-lowering therapy (statin and ezetimibe), PCSK9 inhibitors are indicated if the LDL-C remains ≥ 100 mg/dL.

Osteoporosis

The 2 MAbs approved for use in osteoporosis are the receptor activator of nuclear factor kB ligand (RANKL) inhibitor denosumab (Prolia)³⁰ and the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab (Evenity).³¹

Denosumab prevents RANKL from binding to the RANK receptor, thereby inhibiting osteoclast formation and decreasing bone resorption. Denosumab is approved for use in women and men who are at high risk of osteoporotic fracture, including those taking OCSs, men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer, and women receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

In a 3-year randomized trial, denosumab 60 mg SC every 6 months was compared with placebo in postmenopausal women with T-scores < –2.5, but not < –4.0 at the lumbar spine or total hip. Denosumab significantly reduced new radiographic vertebral fractures (2.3% vs 7.2%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.26-0.41; NNT = 21), hip fracture (0.7% vs 1.2%), and nonvertebral fracture (6.5% vs 8.0%).³² Denosumab carries an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures following discontinuation, skin infections, dermatologic reactions, and severe bone, joint, and muscle pain.

Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin, thereby increasing bone formation and, to a lesser degree, decreasing bone resorption. Romosozumab is approved for use in postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture (ie, those with a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple risk factors for fracture) or in patients who have not benefited from or are intolerant of other therapies. In one study, postmenopausal women with a T-score of –2.5 to –3.5 at the total hip or femoral neck were randomly assigned to receive either romosozumab 210 mg SC or placebo for 12 months, then each group was switched to denosumab 60 mg SC for 12 months. After the first year, prior to initiating denosumab, patients taking romosozumab experienced significantly fewer new vertebral fractures than patients taking placebo (0.5% vs 1.8%; RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16-0.47; NNT = 77); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups with nonvertebral fractures (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.53-1.05).³³

Continue to: In another study...

In another study, romosozumab 210 mg SC was compared with alendronate 70 mg weekly, followed by alendronate 70 mg weekly in both groups. Over the first 12 months, patients treated with romosozumab saw a significant reduction in the incidence of new vertebral fractures (4% vs 6.3%; RR = 0.63, P < .003; NNT = 44). Patients treated with romosozumab with alendronate added for another 12 months also saw a significant reduction in new incidence of vertebral fractures (6.2% vs 11.9%; RR = 0.52; P < .001; NNT = 18).³⁴ There was a higher risk of cardiovascular events among patients receiving romosozumab compared with those treated with alendronate, so romosozumab should not be used in individuals who have had an MI or stroke within the previous year.³⁴ Denosumab and romosozumab offer an advantage over some bisphosphonates in that they require less frequent dosing and can be used in patients with renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 35 mL/min, in which zoledronic acid is contraindicated and alendronate is not recommended; < 30 mL/min, in which risedronate and ibandronate are not recommended).

Migraine prevention

Four calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists have been approved for migraine prevention: erenumab (Aimovig),³⁵ eptinezumab (Vyepti),³⁶ fremanezumab (Ajovy),³⁷ and galcanezumab (Emgality).³⁸ CGRP is released at areas in and around the brain, causing vasodilation and inflammation that is thought to be the major causative factor for migraine headaches.³⁹

Erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab are all available in subcutaneous autoinjectors (or syringe with fremanezumab). Eptinezumab is an intravenous (IV) infusion given every 3 months.

Erenumab is available in both 70-mg and 140-mg dosing options. Fremanezumab can be given as 225 mg monthly or 675 mg quarterly. Galcanezumab has an initial loading dose of 240 mg followed by 120 mg given monthly. Erenumab targets the CGRP receptor; the others target the CGRP ligand. Eptinezumab has 100% bioavailability and reaches maximum serum concentration sooner than the other antagonists (due to its route of administration), but it must be given in an infusion center. Few insurers approve the use of eptinezumab unless a trial of least 1 of the monthly injectables has failed.

There are no head-to-head studies of the medications in this class. Additionally, differing study designs, definitions, statistical analyses, endpoints, and responder-rate calculations make it challenging to compare them directly against one another. At the very least, all of the CGRP MAbs have efficacy comparable to conventional preventive migraine medications such as propranolol, amitriptyline, and topiramate.⁴⁰

Continue to: The most commonly reported adverse...

The most commonly reported adverse effect for all 4 CGRPs is injection site reaction, which was highest with the quarterly fremanezumab dose (45%).³⁷ Constipation was most notable with the 140-mg dose of erenumab (3%)³⁵; with the other CGRP MAbs it is comparable to that seen with placebo (< 1%).

Erenumab-induced hypertension has been identified in 61 cases reported through the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) as of 2021.⁴¹ This was not reported during MAb development programs, nor was it noted during clinical trials. Blood pressure elevation was seen within 1 week of injection in nearly 50% of the cases, and nearly one-third had pre-existing hypertension.⁴¹ Due to these findings, the erenumab prescribing information was updated to include hypertension in its warnings and precautions. It is possible that hypertension could be a class effect, although trial data and posthoc studies have yet to bear that out. Since erenumab was the first CGRP antagonist brought to market (May 2018 vs September 2018 for fremanezumab and galcanezumab), it may have accumulated more FAERS reports. Nearly all studies exclude patients with older age, uncontrolled hypertension, and unstable cardiovascular disease, which could impact data.⁴¹

Overall, this class of medications is very well tolerated, easy to use (again, excluding eptinezumab), and maintains a low adverse effect profile, giving added value compared with conventional preventive migraine medications.

The American Headache Society recommends a preventive oral therapy for at least 3 months before trying an alternative medication. After treatment failure with at least 2 oral agents, CGRP MAbs are recommended.⁴² CGRP antagonists offer convenient dosing, bypass gastrointestinal metabolism (which is useful in patients with nausea/vomiting), and have fewer adverse effects than traditional oral medications.

Worth noting. Several newer oral agents have been recently approved for migraine prevention, including atogepant (Qulipta) and rimegepant (Nurtec), which are also CGRP antagonists. Rimegepant is approved for both acute migraine treatment and prevention.

Continue to: Migraine

❯ Migraine: Test your skills

Subjective findings: A 25-year-old woman presents to your clinic for management of episodic migraines with aura. Her baseline average migraine frequency is 9 headache days/month. Her migraines are becoming more frequent despite treatment. She fears IV medication use and avoids hospitals.

History: Hypertension, irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C), and depression. The patient is not pregnant or trying to get pregnant.

Medications: Current medications (for previous 4 months) include propranolol 40 mg at bedtime, linaclotide 145 μg/d, citalopram 20 mg/d, and sumatriptan 50 mg prn. Past medications include venlafaxine 150 mg po bid for 5 months.

What would be appropriate for this patient? This patient meets the criteria for using a CGRP antagonist because she has tried 2 preventive treatments for more than 60 to 90 days. Erenumab is not the best option, given the patient’s history of hypertension and IBS-C. The patient fears hospitals and IV medications, making eptinezumab a less-than-ideal choice. Depending on her insurance, fremanezumab or galcanezumab would be good options at this time.

CGRP antagonists have not been studied or evaluated in pregnancy, but if this patient becomes pregnant, a first-line agent for prevention would be propranolol, and a second-line agent would be a tricyclic antidepressant, memantine, or verapamil. Avoid ergotamines and antiepileptics (topiramate or valproate) in pregnancy.^43,44

Continue to: The challenges associated with MAbs

MAbs can be expensive (TABLE 2),⁴⁵ some prohibitively so. On a population scale, biologics account for around 40% of prescription drug spending and may cost 22 times more than small-molecule drugs.⁴⁶ Estimates in 2016 showed that MAbs comprise $90.2 billion (43%) of the biologic market.⁴⁶

MAbs also require prior authorization forms to be submitted. Prior authorization criteria vary by state and by insurance plan. In my (ES) experience, submitting letters of medical necessity justifying the need for therapy or expertise in the disease states for which the MAb is being prescribed help your patient get the medication they need.

Expect to see additional MAbs approved in the future. If the costs come down, adoption of these agents into practice will likely increase.

CORRESPONDENCE
Evelyn Sbar, MD, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 1400 South Coulter Street, Suite 5100, Amarillo, TX 79106; [email protected]

Many years ago, I had a patient I’ll call “Hannah,” who was well into her 80s and always came into the office with her daughter. She was a heavy smoker and had hypertension and type 2 diabetes.

At each visit, I would ask her if she still smoked and if she was interested in talking about quitting. At every visit, she would say that she was still smoking and didn’t want to quit. My response was always something along the lines of: “When you’re ready, we can talk more. But I think it is the most important thing you can do to improve your health.” From there, we would discuss any concerns she or her daughter had.

It is our longitudinal relationships with patients that allow us to plant seeds and reap the benefits over time.

A few years shy of her 100th birthday, Hannah told me she had quit smoking. I was amazed and asked her why, after all these years, she’d done it.

“I quit,” she said, “because I was tired of you nagging me, sonny!” And we both had a good laugh about that.

Hannah’s story reminds me that, as family physicians, we often have an impact on our patients in ways we don’t see in the short term. It is our longitudinal relationships with patients that allow us to plant seeds and reap the benefits over time.

It is these relationships that we can draw upon when counseling our patients with type 2 diabetes to address lifestyle issues such as exercise and a healthy diet. In this issue, McMullan et al¹ provide us with a rather hopeful review of the evidence in support of lifestyle changes. For our patients with type 2 diabetes, lifestyle changes can decrease A1C levels by 0.5% (with environmental changes related to diet)² and 0.7% (with moderate aerobic exercise).³ This is comparable to what is reported for the starting doses of most medications.⁴ In fact, a meta-analysis showed that a low-carbohydrate diet induced remission at 6 months in 32% of patients.⁵ (Caveat: The result was not controlled for weight loss as a possible confounding factor and an A1C cutoff of 6.5% was used.)

And yet, we often focus more on the various medications we can prescribe, with professional guidelines pointing the way.

Continue to: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence,⁶ American Diabetes Association,⁷ American College of Physicians,⁸ and American Academy of Family Physicians⁸ have followed the accumulating evidence that various medications improve outcomes—especially in patients at high risk or with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. They have endorsed a stepwise pharmacologic approach beginning with metformin and recommend assessing each patient’s comorbidities to guide whether to add a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or another agent. Where the groups diverge is what that second agent should be (glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, SGLT2 inhibitor, or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor).

But what about lifestyle? Each organization’s guidelines address lifestyle changes as a foundation for managing patients with type 2 diabetes. But is that call loud enough? Do we heed it well enough?

Implementing lifestyle changes in office practice can be time consuming. Many clinicians lack adequate training or experience to gain any traction with it. Also, there is skepticism about success and sustainability.

I believe change starts when we recognize that while we have a priority list for each patient encounter, so do our patients. But they may not share that list with us unless we open the door by asking questions, such as:

• Of all the things you have heard about caring for your diabetes, what would you like to work on?
• What are you currently doing and what prevents you from meeting your goals?
• How would you like me to help you?

From there, we can start small and build on successes over time. We can go the distance with our patients. In the case of Hannah, I had the honor of caring for her until she died at age 104.

Many years ago, I had a patient I’ll call “Hannah,” who was well into her 80s and always came into the office with her daughter. She was a heavy smoker and had hypertension and type 2 diabetes.

At each visit, I would ask her if she still smoked and if she was interested in talking about quitting. At every visit, she would say that she was still smoking and didn’t want to quit. My response was always something along the lines of: “When you’re ready, we can talk more. But I think it is the most important thing you can do to improve your health.” From there, we would discuss any concerns she or her daughter had.

It is our longitudinal relationships with patients that allow us to plant seeds and reap the benefits over time.

A few years shy of her 100th birthday, Hannah told me she had quit smoking. I was amazed and asked her why, after all these years, she’d done it.

“I quit,” she said, “because I was tired of you nagging me, sonny!” And we both had a good laugh about that.

Hannah’s story reminds me that, as family physicians, we often have an impact on our patients in ways we don’t see in the short term. It is our longitudinal relationships with patients that allow us to plant seeds and reap the benefits over time.

It is these relationships that we can draw upon when counseling our patients with type 2 diabetes to address lifestyle issues such as exercise and a healthy diet. In this issue, McMullan et al¹ provide us with a rather hopeful review of the evidence in support of lifestyle changes. For our patients with type 2 diabetes, lifestyle changes can decrease A1C levels by 0.5% (with environmental changes related to diet)² and 0.7% (with moderate aerobic exercise).³ This is comparable to what is reported for the starting doses of most medications.⁴ In fact, a meta-analysis showed that a low-carbohydrate diet induced remission at 6 months in 32% of patients.⁵ (Caveat: The result was not controlled for weight loss as a possible confounding factor and an A1C cutoff of 6.5% was used.)

And yet, we often focus more on the various medications we can prescribe, with professional guidelines pointing the way.

Continue to: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence,⁶ American Diabetes Association,⁷ American College of Physicians,⁸ and American Academy of Family Physicians⁸ have followed the accumulating evidence that various medications improve outcomes—especially in patients at high risk or with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. They have endorsed a stepwise pharmacologic approach beginning with metformin and recommend assessing each patient’s comorbidities to guide whether to add a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or another agent. Where the groups diverge is what that second agent should be (glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, SGLT2 inhibitor, or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor).

But what about lifestyle? Each organization’s guidelines address lifestyle changes as a foundation for managing patients with type 2 diabetes. But is that call loud enough? Do we heed it well enough?

Implementing lifestyle changes in office practice can be time consuming. Many clinicians lack adequate training or experience to gain any traction with it. Also, there is skepticism about success and sustainability.

I believe change starts when we recognize that while we have a priority list for each patient encounter, so do our patients. But they may not share that list with us unless we open the door by asking questions, such as:

• Of all the things you have heard about caring for your diabetes, what would you like to work on?
• What are you currently doing and what prevents you from meeting your goals?
• How would you like me to help you?

From there, we can start small and build on successes over time. We can go the distance with our patients. In the case of Hannah, I had the honor of caring for her until she died at age 104.

Many years ago, I had a patient I’ll call “Hannah,” who was well into her 80s and always came into the office with her daughter. She was a heavy smoker and had hypertension and type 2 diabetes.

At each visit, I would ask her if she still smoked and if she was interested in talking about quitting. At every visit, she would say that she was still smoking and didn’t want to quit. My response was always something along the lines of: “When you’re ready, we can talk more. But I think it is the most important thing you can do to improve your health.” From there, we would discuss any concerns she or her daughter had.

It is our longitudinal relationships with patients that allow us to plant seeds and reap the benefits over time.

A few years shy of her 100th birthday, Hannah told me she had quit smoking. I was amazed and asked her why, after all these years, she’d done it.

“I quit,” she said, “because I was tired of you nagging me, sonny!” And we both had a good laugh about that.

Hannah’s story reminds me that, as family physicians, we often have an impact on our patients in ways we don’t see in the short term. It is our longitudinal relationships with patients that allow us to plant seeds and reap the benefits over time.

It is these relationships that we can draw upon when counseling our patients with type 2 diabetes to address lifestyle issues such as exercise and a healthy diet. In this issue, McMullan et al¹ provide us with a rather hopeful review of the evidence in support of lifestyle changes. For our patients with type 2 diabetes, lifestyle changes can decrease A1C levels by 0.5% (with environmental changes related to diet)² and 0.7% (with moderate aerobic exercise).³ This is comparable to what is reported for the starting doses of most medications.⁴ In fact, a meta-analysis showed that a low-carbohydrate diet induced remission at 6 months in 32% of patients.⁵ (Caveat: The result was not controlled for weight loss as a possible confounding factor and an A1C cutoff of 6.5% was used.)

And yet, we often focus more on the various medications we can prescribe, with professional guidelines pointing the way.

Continue to: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence,⁶ American Diabetes Association,⁷ American College of Physicians,⁸ and American Academy of Family Physicians⁸ have followed the accumulating evidence that various medications improve outcomes—especially in patients at high risk or with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. They have endorsed a stepwise pharmacologic approach beginning with metformin and recommend assessing each patient’s comorbidities to guide whether to add a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or another agent. Where the groups diverge is what that second agent should be (glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, SGLT2 inhibitor, or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor).

But what about lifestyle? Each organization’s guidelines address lifestyle changes as a foundation for managing patients with type 2 diabetes. But is that call loud enough? Do we heed it well enough?

Implementing lifestyle changes in office practice can be time consuming. Many clinicians lack adequate training or experience to gain any traction with it. Also, there is skepticism about success and sustainability.

I believe change starts when we recognize that while we have a priority list for each patient encounter, so do our patients. But they may not share that list with us unless we open the door by asking questions, such as:

• Of all the things you have heard about caring for your diabetes, what would you like to work on?
• What are you currently doing and what prevents you from meeting your goals?
• How would you like me to help you?

From there, we can start small and build on successes over time. We can go the distance with our patients. In the case of Hannah, I had the honor of caring for her until she died at age 104.

In the 2020-2021 influenza season, there was practically no influenza circulating in the United States. This decline from seasonal expectations, described in a previous Practice Alert, was probably due to the interventions aimed at limiting the spread of ­COVID-19: masking, social distancing, working from home, and cancellation of large, crowded events.¹ In 2021-2022 influenza returned, but only in moderation.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates there were between 82,000 to 170,000 hospitalizations and 5000 to 14,000 deaths attributed to influenza.² In addition, US virologic surveillance indicates that 98.6% of specimens tested positive for influenza A.² While the vaccine’s effectiveness in 2021-2022 was far below what was desired, it still prevented a great deal of flu morbidity and mortality and reduced acute respiratory illness due to influenza A(H3N2) virus by 35% (TABLE 1).³ All vaccines for the upcoming flu season are quadrivalent, containing 2 influenza A antigens and 2 influenza B antigens (TABLES 2⁴ and 3⁵).

Vaccine effectiveness in older adults (≥ 65 years) has been very low. TABLE 4⁶ shows vaccine effectiveness in the elderly for 10 influenza seasons between 2011 and 2020.⁶ In nearly half of those seasons, the estimated vaccine effectiveness was possibly nil. All influenza vaccines licensed for use in the United States are approved for use in those ≥ 65 years of age, except live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV).

Three products were developed to address the issue of low vaccine effectiveness in the elderly. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has not expressed a preference for any specific vaccine for this age group. The high-dose qudrivalent vaccine (HD-IIV4), Fluzone, contains 4 times the antigen level of the standard-dose vaccines (SD-IIV4)—60 μg vs 15 μg. Fluzone was initially approved in 2014 as a trivalent vaccine and was approved as a quadrivalent vaccine in 2019. The adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aIIV4), Fluad, was also inititally approved as a trivalent vaccine in 2015 and as quadrivalent in 2021. Both HD-IIV4 and aIIV4 are approved only for those ≥ 65 years of age. Recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine (RIV4), Flublok, is approved for ages ≥ 18 years and is produced by a process that does not involve eggs. It contains 3 times the antigen level as SD-IIV4 vaccines.

All 3 of these vaccines (HD-IIV4, aIIV4, and RIV4) have been compared with SD-IIV4 for effectiveness in the elderly and have yielded better outcomes. However, direct comparisons among the 3 vaccines have not shown robust evidence of superiority, and ACIP is unwilling to preferentially recommend one of them at this time. At its June 2022 meeting, ACIP voted to recommend any of these 3 options over the SD-IIV 4 options for those ≥ 65 years of age, with the caveat that if only an SD-IIV4 option is available it should be administered in preference to delaying vaccination.

One other vaccine change for the upcoming season involves the cell culture–based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (ccIIV4), Flucelvax, which is now approved for those ages ≥ 6 months. It previously was approved only for ages ≥ 2 years. All unadjuvanted SD-IIV4 vaccines as well as ccIIV4 are now approved for everyone ≥ 6 months of age. LAIV continues to be approved for ages 2 through 49 years. The only influenza vaccine products that contain thimerosal are those in multidose vials (TABLE 2⁴).

Promote vaccination and infection-control practices. ACIP continues to recommend influenza vaccine for all those ages ≥ 6 months, with 2 doses for those < 9 years old not previously vaccinated with an influenza vaccine. In addition to encouraging and offering influenza vaccine to patients and staff, we can minimize the spread of influenza in the community by robust infection-control practices in the clinical setting: masking and isolation of patients with respiratory symptoms, encouraging those with symptoms to stay at home and mask when around family members, advising frequent hand washing and respiratory hygiene, and using pre- and post-exposure chemoprophylaxis as appropriate. All recommendations regarding influenza for 2022-2023 can be found on the CDC website.⁴

In the 2020-2021 influenza season, there was practically no influenza circulating in the United States. This decline from seasonal expectations, described in a previous Practice Alert, was probably due to the interventions aimed at limiting the spread of ­COVID-19: masking, social distancing, working from home, and cancellation of large, crowded events.¹ In 2021-2022 influenza returned, but only in moderation.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates there were between 82,000 to 170,000 hospitalizations and 5000 to 14,000 deaths attributed to influenza.² In addition, US virologic surveillance indicates that 98.6% of specimens tested positive for influenza A.² While the vaccine’s effectiveness in 2021-2022 was far below what was desired, it still prevented a great deal of flu morbidity and mortality and reduced acute respiratory illness due to influenza A(H3N2) virus by 35% (TABLE 1).³ All vaccines for the upcoming flu season are quadrivalent, containing 2 influenza A antigens and 2 influenza B antigens (TABLES 2⁴ and 3⁵).

Vaccine effectiveness in older adults (≥ 65 years) has been very low. TABLE 4⁶ shows vaccine effectiveness in the elderly for 10 influenza seasons between 2011 and 2020.⁶ In nearly half of those seasons, the estimated vaccine effectiveness was possibly nil. All influenza vaccines licensed for use in the United States are approved for use in those ≥ 65 years of age, except live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV).

Three products were developed to address the issue of low vaccine effectiveness in the elderly. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has not expressed a preference for any specific vaccine for this age group. The high-dose qudrivalent vaccine (HD-IIV4), Fluzone, contains 4 times the antigen level of the standard-dose vaccines (SD-IIV4)—60 μg vs 15 μg. Fluzone was initially approved in 2014 as a trivalent vaccine and was approved as a quadrivalent vaccine in 2019. The adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aIIV4), Fluad, was also inititally approved as a trivalent vaccine in 2015 and as quadrivalent in 2021. Both HD-IIV4 and aIIV4 are approved only for those ≥ 65 years of age. Recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine (RIV4), Flublok, is approved for ages ≥ 18 years and is produced by a process that does not involve eggs. It contains 3 times the antigen level as SD-IIV4 vaccines.

All 3 of these vaccines (HD-IIV4, aIIV4, and RIV4) have been compared with SD-IIV4 for effectiveness in the elderly and have yielded better outcomes. However, direct comparisons among the 3 vaccines have not shown robust evidence of superiority, and ACIP is unwilling to preferentially recommend one of them at this time. At its June 2022 meeting, ACIP voted to recommend any of these 3 options over the SD-IIV 4 options for those ≥ 65 years of age, with the caveat that if only an SD-IIV4 option is available it should be administered in preference to delaying vaccination.

One other vaccine change for the upcoming season involves the cell culture–based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (ccIIV4), Flucelvax, which is now approved for those ages ≥ 6 months. It previously was approved only for ages ≥ 2 years. All unadjuvanted SD-IIV4 vaccines as well as ccIIV4 are now approved for everyone ≥ 6 months of age. LAIV continues to be approved for ages 2 through 49 years. The only influenza vaccine products that contain thimerosal are those in multidose vials (TABLE 2⁴).

Promote vaccination and infection-control practices. ACIP continues to recommend influenza vaccine for all those ages ≥ 6 months, with 2 doses for those < 9 years old not previously vaccinated with an influenza vaccine. In addition to encouraging and offering influenza vaccine to patients and staff, we can minimize the spread of influenza in the community by robust infection-control practices in the clinical setting: masking and isolation of patients with respiratory symptoms, encouraging those with symptoms to stay at home and mask when around family members, advising frequent hand washing and respiratory hygiene, and using pre- and post-exposure chemoprophylaxis as appropriate. All recommendations regarding influenza for 2022-2023 can be found on the CDC website.⁴

In the 2020-2021 influenza season, there was practically no influenza circulating in the United States. This decline from seasonal expectations, described in a previous Practice Alert, was probably due to the interventions aimed at limiting the spread of ­COVID-19: masking, social distancing, working from home, and cancellation of large, crowded events.¹ In 2021-2022 influenza returned, but only in moderation.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates there were between 82,000 to 170,000 hospitalizations and 5000 to 14,000 deaths attributed to influenza.² In addition, US virologic surveillance indicates that 98.6% of specimens tested positive for influenza A.² While the vaccine’s effectiveness in 2021-2022 was far below what was desired, it still prevented a great deal of flu morbidity and mortality and reduced acute respiratory illness due to influenza A(H3N2) virus by 35% (TABLE 1).³ All vaccines for the upcoming flu season are quadrivalent, containing 2 influenza A antigens and 2 influenza B antigens (TABLES 2⁴ and 3⁵).

Vaccine effectiveness in older adults (≥ 65 years) has been very low. TABLE 4⁶ shows vaccine effectiveness in the elderly for 10 influenza seasons between 2011 and 2020.⁶ In nearly half of those seasons, the estimated vaccine effectiveness was possibly nil. All influenza vaccines licensed for use in the United States are approved for use in those ≥ 65 years of age, except live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV).

Three products were developed to address the issue of low vaccine effectiveness in the elderly. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has not expressed a preference for any specific vaccine for this age group. The high-dose qudrivalent vaccine (HD-IIV4), Fluzone, contains 4 times the antigen level of the standard-dose vaccines (SD-IIV4)—60 μg vs 15 μg. Fluzone was initially approved in 2014 as a trivalent vaccine and was approved as a quadrivalent vaccine in 2019. The adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aIIV4), Fluad, was also inititally approved as a trivalent vaccine in 2015 and as quadrivalent in 2021. Both HD-IIV4 and aIIV4 are approved only for those ≥ 65 years of age. Recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine (RIV4), Flublok, is approved for ages ≥ 18 years and is produced by a process that does not involve eggs. It contains 3 times the antigen level as SD-IIV4 vaccines.

All 3 of these vaccines (HD-IIV4, aIIV4, and RIV4) have been compared with SD-IIV4 for effectiveness in the elderly and have yielded better outcomes. However, direct comparisons among the 3 vaccines have not shown robust evidence of superiority, and ACIP is unwilling to preferentially recommend one of them at this time. At its June 2022 meeting, ACIP voted to recommend any of these 3 options over the SD-IIV 4 options for those ≥ 65 years of age, with the caveat that if only an SD-IIV4 option is available it should be administered in preference to delaying vaccination.

One other vaccine change for the upcoming season involves the cell culture–based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (ccIIV4), Flucelvax, which is now approved for those ages ≥ 6 months. It previously was approved only for ages ≥ 2 years. All unadjuvanted SD-IIV4 vaccines as well as ccIIV4 are now approved for everyone ≥ 6 months of age. LAIV continues to be approved for ages 2 through 49 years. The only influenza vaccine products that contain thimerosal are those in multidose vials (TABLE 2⁴).

Promote vaccination and infection-control practices. ACIP continues to recommend influenza vaccine for all those ages ≥ 6 months, with 2 doses for those < 9 years old not previously vaccinated with an influenza vaccine. In addition to encouraging and offering influenza vaccine to patients and staff, we can minimize the spread of influenza in the community by robust infection-control practices in the clinical setting: masking and isolation of patients with respiratory symptoms, encouraging those with symptoms to stay at home and mask when around family members, advising frequent hand washing and respiratory hygiene, and using pre- and post-exposure chemoprophylaxis as appropriate. All recommendations regarding influenza for 2022-2023 can be found on the CDC website.⁴

Type 2 diabetes has been increasing in incidence and prevalence over the past 20 years, with worldwide prevalence estimated at 6.28%.¹ The estimated cost of diagnosed diabetes in the United States was $327 billion in 2017; this included direct medical costs and reduced productivity.² Type 2 diabetes can be prevented in most patients, given that it is a metabolic derangement caused by a complicated interaction between a patient’s genetic predisposition and lifestyle. A consensus statement by the American Academy of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and American College of Endocrinology indicates that the recommended lifestyle modifications for diabetes include medical nutrition therapy with healthy eating patterns, regular physical activity, adequate sleep, behavioral support/counseling, and smoking cessation.³ Evidence shows that adherence to these lifestyle changes alone yields a relative reduction in type 2 diabetes mortality of 57%.⁴

IMAGE: ©ALICIA BUELOW; PATIENT IMAGE © GETTY IMAGES

In the discussion that follows, we review the current guideline recommendations for dietary modifications and physical activity and summarize their effectiveness in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We also describe practical clinical strategies to promote change in patient behavior, and examine current literature supporting intensive lifestyle changes that, if achieved, may induce disease remission.⁵

Dietary strategies

Low, or very low, carbohydrate diet  

Carbohydrates can affect blood glucose levels in varying degrees depending on their intrinsic properties such as fiber content, sugars, and starches . ⁶ According to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) 2019 consensus report, ⁶ the carbohydrate quality that generally should be recommended is high in fiber, vitamins, and minerals, and low in added sugars, fats, and sodium (processed carbohydrates) ( TABLE 1 ^7-10 ). A low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) typically has a carbohydrate content < 130 g/d or < 26% of a 2000 kcal/d diet. ¹¹ A very low–carbohydrate diet (VLCD) is 20-50 g/d or < 10% of the 2000 kcal/day diet. ¹¹

Adherence to lifestyle changes alone yields a relative reduction in type 2 diabetes mortality of 57%.

In a meta-analysis by Goldenberg et al¹¹, the LCD was shown to reduce A1C by 0.47% at 6 months (95% CI, –0.6 to –0.34) and by 0.23% at 12 months when compared with control diets. A review of multiple meta-­analyses also showed a significant reduction in A1C especially with VLCD patterns; however, the results waned at the 12-month follow-up.⁵ In addition, confounding factors were seen when comparing adherence between LCD and VLCD, with patients in the latter group having larger problems with adherence, which decreased the benefit seen in the overall group comparison.¹¹

Very low–carbohydrate/high-fat (ketogenic) diet  

Ketogenic diets generally follow a VLCD with the carbohydrate portion set at 5% to 10% of total caloric intake (generally < 30 g/d) and the rest of the calories taken up by protein (typically 1 g/kg/d) and fat (TABLE 1^7-10).¹² The fat content recommended is primarily polyunsaturated fat such as olive oil, while saturated fats such as butter and lard (animal fat) should be limited.

A recent meta-analysis by Choi et al¹² showed that in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes, the average A1C reduction was 0.62% (95% CI, –0.89 to –0.35) in the ketogenic intervention group. Another meta-analysis showed an even more significant A1C reduction at 1.07% (95% CI, –1.37 to –0.78).¹³ Concerns have been raised about the ketogenic diet, particularly as it relates to lipid metabolism and cholesterol levels; however, in the 2 referenced meta-analyses, the total cholesterol and triglyceride levels actually declined in the ketogenic intervention groups with minimal effect on LDL-C.^12,13 This may alleviate some of the concerns of lipid management with this diet.

Plant-based diet  

Popularized by Dr. T. Colin Campbell, a plant-based diet refers to a low-fat, high-fiber, whole-foods diet (whole fruits, vegetables, and naturally occurring carbohydrates, as opposed to processed foods). Examples of this type of diet include the popular vegan diet, which restricts all animal-derived products, and the vegetarian diet, which is generally limited to foods in the plant category with some addition of animal products, such as milk and cheese. Other variations of these diets exist and include other sources of protein (eg, chicken, eggs, or fish) (TABLE 1^7-10).

Continue to: A review by...

A review by Salas-Salvadó et al¹⁴ showed that a vegan diet yields an average A1C reduction of 0.41% (95% CI, –0.58 to –0.23).Several meta-analyses report similar effects on A1C with vegetarian and vegan eating patterns.^6,15,16 The ADA review notes that weight loss was more significant in the vegan group and concluded that this diet should be studied further while controlling for weight loss.⁶

Mediterranean  diet

The Mediterranean diet emphasizes vegetables, whole grains, fruits, lean meats, nuts, and olive oil. The benefits of the Mediterranean diet are well known and, as a result, the diet is recommended by organizations including the American Heart Association as part of a strategy to reduce cardiovascular risk (TABLE 1^7-10).

Mediterranean diet interventions have generally shown mixed effects on A1C reduction, weight management, and lipid control in type 2 diabetes. ⁶ The PREDIMED trial is the largest and longest randomized controlled trial to date comparing the Mediterranean diet to a low-fat diet. ¹⁷ This trial has reliably shown a reduced risk for type 2 diabetes and a trend to reduced A1C. ¹⁷ A reduction in the need for glucose-lowering medications was demonstrated in a subgroup analysis of the intervention group (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.98). ¹⁸ Also, the Mediterranean diet has shown a significant reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. ⁶

Physical activity and exercise

What do current guidelines recommend?

For most adults with type 2 diabetes, current guidelines by the ADA and by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases recommend at least 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous intensity exercise every week spread out over at least 3 days, with no more than 2 consecutive days without exercise; and resistance training at least 2 other days per week which should balance all major muscle groups (TABLE 2^19-21). The benefits of exercise for type 2 diabetes have been well reviewed: positive effects on glucose control, insulin sensitivity, cardiovascular disease, lipid profiles, skeletal muscle metabolism, and solid-organ functioning.^19,22,23

Grace et al²⁴ showed in a meta-analysis that moderate aerobic exercise reduced A1C by 0.69% (95% CI, –1.09 to –0.3) at 13 weeks, and a Cochrane review showed an average A1C reduction of 0.6% with moderate-­intensity exercise.²⁵ Borror et al²⁶ demonstrated in a systematic review that postprandial moderate-intensity aerobic exercise starting 1 hour after meals results in a reduced 24-hour prevalence of hyperglycemia (33.5% reduction vs control). A meta-analysis in China showed an average A1C reduction of 0.68% for patients performing a Tai Chi physical activity intervention.²⁷

Continue to: Consider high-intensity interval training

Multiple randomized controlled trials highlight the benefits of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) (TABLE 2^19-21) compared with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on improving A1C. A meta-analysis showed a weighted mean difference in A1C of 0.23% (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.02%).²⁸ Also, a patient could spend less time performing HIIT as opposed to MICT to achieve the same benefits. For example, a patient typically performing 30 minutes of MICT may only need to perform 15 minutes of HIIT,a time-saving option for patients.^20,22

Interrupt sedentary behavior

Risk for incident type 2 diabetes increases when someone is sedentary for more than 6 to 8 hours daily or watches TV for 3 to 4 hours (relative risk [RR] = 1.12).²⁹ Recommendations for interrupting a sedentary lifestyle include standing from a seated position at least every 30 minutes and engaging in a light activity during the break interval for at least 3 minutes.¹⁹ Most studies have reliably shown that interrupting sedentary behavior reduces postprandial and 24-hour average blood glucose levels.¹⁹ Interrupted sitting/sedentary behavior has also been shown to reduce resting blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes.³⁰

Other important lifestyle factors

Encourage 7 to 8 hours of sleep

There is a U-shaped association between glycemic control and sleep quantity based on a meta-analysis by Lee et al ³¹ that showed a 0.23% increase in A1C in patients with insufficient sleep (< 4.5-6 hours/night) and a 0.13% increase in patients with ≥ 8 hours of sleep per night. Patients should be encouraged to obtain 7 to 8 hours of sleep per night to help maximize their diabetes control.  

Address stress reduction

Although evidence for stress reduction interventions on glycemic control is mixed, there does seem to be a benefit in diminishing emotional distress in patients with diabetes. A systematic review by Noordali et al³² demonstrated that patients who received mindfulness-based interventions had improvements in stress, anxiety, and depression symptoms which resulted in improved quality of life. These psychological benefits may subsequently lead to positive behavioral changes.

Assist patients with smoking cessation 

A large meta-analysis showed that active smoking increases the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes (RR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.34-1.54).³³ Former smokers still have an increased risk (RR = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.13), but it is lower than that of current smokers, so patients should be encouraged to quit smoking.^3,33

Continue to: How can I get my patient to change?

How can I get my patient to change?

The AACE recommends using motivational interviewing, behavioral therapy consultation, and wearable feedback devices (eg, accelerometers/pedometers) to stimulate behavioral change in patients.³ Motivational interviewing is the principal counseling strategy and is supported by multiple studies showing the benefits of using this technique in a clinical encounter to induce behavioral changes.³⁴ In general, offer receptive patients intensive behavioral interventions and provide them with resources to accomplish their goals.³⁵ For example, a 7-step yearly intensive behavioral counseling intervention over 3 years showed significant improvements in activity of any intensity, reduced sedentary time, and led to favorable metabolic outcomes.³⁶ Wearable devices result in up to a 1 hour increase in physical activity per week for the wearers vs control, although there was no appreciable effect on A1C.³⁷

A meta-analysis showed that moderate aerobic exercise reduced A1C by 0.69% at 13 weeks.

One systematic review showed a 0.5% reduction in A1C (95% CI, –0.65 to –0.34) by focusing on environmental changes related to the diet, with the most effective intervention being full meal replacement for calorie control (ie, each meal was pre-made and provided to the patients based on macronutrient and caloric goals).³⁸ Additionally, diabetes self-management education includes coping strategies, problem solving, self-­advocacy, and health care system navigation, which have been shown to reduce A1C by an average of 0.6%.²¹ Patient resources are available for further assistance with lifestyle modifications (TABLE 3).

Can your patient achieve remission?

Emerging evidence suggests that patients may achieve remission from type 2 diabetes with intensive lifestyle interventions.³⁹ This is supported by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.⁵ Although there is no consensus definition for remission, in general it is reasonable to presume remission if a patient achieves normo-glycemia (A1C < 5.7%) for at least 1 year without any medication therapy.⁵ These intensive lifestyle interventions would include a mostly plant-based diet with moderate calorie restriction, appropriate and sustained physical activity, adequate sleep, and stress-reduction techniques.⁵ One study found that 46% of patients in a weight-management program across multiple primary care clinics achieved remission at 12 months.⁴⁰ A meta-analysis showed that a low-carbohydrate diet induced remission at 6 months in 32% of patients (although the result was not controlled for weight loss as a possible confounding factor and an A1C cutoff of 6.5% was used).¹¹ Thus far, most studies have focused on short-term follow-up intervals, but evidence is emerging that with intensive lifestyle interventions the effects are sustained at the 2-year mark.⁴¹

The American Academy of Clinical Endocrinologists recommends using motivational interviewing and wearable feedback devices to stimulate behavioral change in patients.

This evidence could reframe our understanding of type 2 diabetes therapy and could change the conversations we have with patients regarding their treatment. Instead of focusing on an A1C goal that is adequate for control of type 2 diabetes, we would instead focus on achieving remission.

CORRESPONDENCE
Stephen McMullan, MD, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL 32224; [email protected]

Type 2 diabetes has been increasing in incidence and prevalence over the past 20 years, with worldwide prevalence estimated at 6.28%.¹ The estimated cost of diagnosed diabetes in the United States was $327 billion in 2017; this included direct medical costs and reduced productivity.² Type 2 diabetes can be prevented in most patients, given that it is a metabolic derangement caused by a complicated interaction between a patient’s genetic predisposition and lifestyle. A consensus statement by the American Academy of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and American College of Endocrinology indicates that the recommended lifestyle modifications for diabetes include medical nutrition therapy with healthy eating patterns, regular physical activity, adequate sleep, behavioral support/counseling, and smoking cessation.³ Evidence shows that adherence to these lifestyle changes alone yields a relative reduction in type 2 diabetes mortality of 57%.⁴

IMAGE: ©ALICIA BUELOW; PATIENT IMAGE © GETTY IMAGES

In the discussion that follows, we review the current guideline recommendations for dietary modifications and physical activity and summarize their effectiveness in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We also describe practical clinical strategies to promote change in patient behavior, and examine current literature supporting intensive lifestyle changes that, if achieved, may induce disease remission.⁵

Dietary strategies

Low, or very low, carbohydrate diet  

Carbohydrates can affect blood glucose levels in varying degrees depending on their intrinsic properties such as fiber content, sugars, and starches . ⁶ According to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) 2019 consensus report, ⁶ the carbohydrate quality that generally should be recommended is high in fiber, vitamins, and minerals, and low in added sugars, fats, and sodium (processed carbohydrates) ( TABLE 1 ^7-10 ). A low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) typically has a carbohydrate content < 130 g/d or < 26% of a 2000 kcal/d diet. ¹¹ A very low–carbohydrate diet (VLCD) is 20-50 g/d or < 10% of the 2000 kcal/day diet. ¹¹

Adherence to lifestyle changes alone yields a relative reduction in type 2 diabetes mortality of 57%.

In a meta-analysis by Goldenberg et al¹¹, the LCD was shown to reduce A1C by 0.47% at 6 months (95% CI, –0.6 to –0.34) and by 0.23% at 12 months when compared with control diets. A review of multiple meta-­analyses also showed a significant reduction in A1C especially with VLCD patterns; however, the results waned at the 12-month follow-up.⁵ In addition, confounding factors were seen when comparing adherence between LCD and VLCD, with patients in the latter group having larger problems with adherence, which decreased the benefit seen in the overall group comparison.¹¹

Very low–carbohydrate/high-fat (ketogenic) diet  

Ketogenic diets generally follow a VLCD with the carbohydrate portion set at 5% to 10% of total caloric intake (generally < 30 g/d) and the rest of the calories taken up by protein (typically 1 g/kg/d) and fat (TABLE 1^7-10).¹² The fat content recommended is primarily polyunsaturated fat such as olive oil, while saturated fats such as butter and lard (animal fat) should be limited.

A recent meta-analysis by Choi et al¹² showed that in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes, the average A1C reduction was 0.62% (95% CI, –0.89 to –0.35) in the ketogenic intervention group. Another meta-analysis showed an even more significant A1C reduction at 1.07% (95% CI, –1.37 to –0.78).¹³ Concerns have been raised about the ketogenic diet, particularly as it relates to lipid metabolism and cholesterol levels; however, in the 2 referenced meta-analyses, the total cholesterol and triglyceride levels actually declined in the ketogenic intervention groups with minimal effect on LDL-C.^12,13 This may alleviate some of the concerns of lipid management with this diet.

Plant-based diet  

Popularized by Dr. T. Colin Campbell, a plant-based diet refers to a low-fat, high-fiber, whole-foods diet (whole fruits, vegetables, and naturally occurring carbohydrates, as opposed to processed foods). Examples of this type of diet include the popular vegan diet, which restricts all animal-derived products, and the vegetarian diet, which is generally limited to foods in the plant category with some addition of animal products, such as milk and cheese. Other variations of these diets exist and include other sources of protein (eg, chicken, eggs, or fish) (TABLE 1^7-10).

Continue to: A review by...

A review by Salas-Salvadó et al¹⁴ showed that a vegan diet yields an average A1C reduction of 0.41% (95% CI, –0.58 to –0.23).Several meta-analyses report similar effects on A1C with vegetarian and vegan eating patterns.^6,15,16 The ADA review notes that weight loss was more significant in the vegan group and concluded that this diet should be studied further while controlling for weight loss.⁶

Mediterranean  diet

The Mediterranean diet emphasizes vegetables, whole grains, fruits, lean meats, nuts, and olive oil. The benefits of the Mediterranean diet are well known and, as a result, the diet is recommended by organizations including the American Heart Association as part of a strategy to reduce cardiovascular risk (TABLE 1^7-10).

Mediterranean diet interventions have generally shown mixed effects on A1C reduction, weight management, and lipid control in type 2 diabetes. ⁶ The PREDIMED trial is the largest and longest randomized controlled trial to date comparing the Mediterranean diet to a low-fat diet. ¹⁷ This trial has reliably shown a reduced risk for type 2 diabetes and a trend to reduced A1C. ¹⁷ A reduction in the need for glucose-lowering medications was demonstrated in a subgroup analysis of the intervention group (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.98). ¹⁸ Also, the Mediterranean diet has shown a significant reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. ⁶

Physical activity and exercise

What do current guidelines recommend?

For most adults with type 2 diabetes, current guidelines by the ADA and by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases recommend at least 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous intensity exercise every week spread out over at least 3 days, with no more than 2 consecutive days without exercise; and resistance training at least 2 other days per week which should balance all major muscle groups (TABLE 2^19-21). The benefits of exercise for type 2 diabetes have been well reviewed: positive effects on glucose control, insulin sensitivity, cardiovascular disease, lipid profiles, skeletal muscle metabolism, and solid-organ functioning.^19,22,23

Grace et al²⁴ showed in a meta-analysis that moderate aerobic exercise reduced A1C by 0.69% (95% CI, –1.09 to –0.3) at 13 weeks, and a Cochrane review showed an average A1C reduction of 0.6% with moderate-­intensity exercise.²⁵ Borror et al²⁶ demonstrated in a systematic review that postprandial moderate-intensity aerobic exercise starting 1 hour after meals results in a reduced 24-hour prevalence of hyperglycemia (33.5% reduction vs control). A meta-analysis in China showed an average A1C reduction of 0.68% for patients performing a Tai Chi physical activity intervention.²⁷

Continue to: Consider high-intensity interval training

Multiple randomized controlled trials highlight the benefits of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) (TABLE 2^19-21) compared with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on improving A1C. A meta-analysis showed a weighted mean difference in A1C of 0.23% (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.02%).²⁸ Also, a patient could spend less time performing HIIT as opposed to MICT to achieve the same benefits. For example, a patient typically performing 30 minutes of MICT may only need to perform 15 minutes of HIIT,a time-saving option for patients.^20,22

Interrupt sedentary behavior

Risk for incident type 2 diabetes increases when someone is sedentary for more than 6 to 8 hours daily or watches TV for 3 to 4 hours (relative risk [RR] = 1.12).²⁹ Recommendations for interrupting a sedentary lifestyle include standing from a seated position at least every 30 minutes and engaging in a light activity during the break interval for at least 3 minutes.¹⁹ Most studies have reliably shown that interrupting sedentary behavior reduces postprandial and 24-hour average blood glucose levels.¹⁹ Interrupted sitting/sedentary behavior has also been shown to reduce resting blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes.³⁰

Other important lifestyle factors

Encourage 7 to 8 hours of sleep

There is a U-shaped association between glycemic control and sleep quantity based on a meta-analysis by Lee et al ³¹ that showed a 0.23% increase in A1C in patients with insufficient sleep (< 4.5-6 hours/night) and a 0.13% increase in patients with ≥ 8 hours of sleep per night. Patients should be encouraged to obtain 7 to 8 hours of sleep per night to help maximize their diabetes control.  

Address stress reduction

Although evidence for stress reduction interventions on glycemic control is mixed, there does seem to be a benefit in diminishing emotional distress in patients with diabetes. A systematic review by Noordali et al³² demonstrated that patients who received mindfulness-based interventions had improvements in stress, anxiety, and depression symptoms which resulted in improved quality of life. These psychological benefits may subsequently lead to positive behavioral changes.

Assist patients with smoking cessation 

A large meta-analysis showed that active smoking increases the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes (RR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.34-1.54).³³ Former smokers still have an increased risk (RR = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.13), but it is lower than that of current smokers, so patients should be encouraged to quit smoking.^3,33

Continue to: How can I get my patient to change?

How can I get my patient to change?

The AACE recommends using motivational interviewing, behavioral therapy consultation, and wearable feedback devices (eg, accelerometers/pedometers) to stimulate behavioral change in patients.³ Motivational interviewing is the principal counseling strategy and is supported by multiple studies showing the benefits of using this technique in a clinical encounter to induce behavioral changes.³⁴ In general, offer receptive patients intensive behavioral interventions and provide them with resources to accomplish their goals.³⁵ For example, a 7-step yearly intensive behavioral counseling intervention over 3 years showed significant improvements in activity of any intensity, reduced sedentary time, and led to favorable metabolic outcomes.³⁶ Wearable devices result in up to a 1 hour increase in physical activity per week for the wearers vs control, although there was no appreciable effect on A1C.³⁷

A meta-analysis showed that moderate aerobic exercise reduced A1C by 0.69% at 13 weeks.

One systematic review showed a 0.5% reduction in A1C (95% CI, –0.65 to –0.34) by focusing on environmental changes related to the diet, with the most effective intervention being full meal replacement for calorie control (ie, each meal was pre-made and provided to the patients based on macronutrient and caloric goals).³⁸ Additionally, diabetes self-management education includes coping strategies, problem solving, self-­advocacy, and health care system navigation, which have been shown to reduce A1C by an average of 0.6%.²¹ Patient resources are available for further assistance with lifestyle modifications (TABLE 3).

Can your patient achieve remission?

Emerging evidence suggests that patients may achieve remission from type 2 diabetes with intensive lifestyle interventions.³⁹ This is supported by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.⁵ Although there is no consensus definition for remission, in general it is reasonable to presume remission if a patient achieves normo-glycemia (A1C < 5.7%) for at least 1 year without any medication therapy.⁵ These intensive lifestyle interventions would include a mostly plant-based diet with moderate calorie restriction, appropriate and sustained physical activity, adequate sleep, and stress-reduction techniques.⁵ One study found that 46% of patients in a weight-management program across multiple primary care clinics achieved remission at 12 months.⁴⁰ A meta-analysis showed that a low-carbohydrate diet induced remission at 6 months in 32% of patients (although the result was not controlled for weight loss as a possible confounding factor and an A1C cutoff of 6.5% was used).¹¹ Thus far, most studies have focused on short-term follow-up intervals, but evidence is emerging that with intensive lifestyle interventions the effects are sustained at the 2-year mark.⁴¹

The American Academy of Clinical Endocrinologists recommends using motivational interviewing and wearable feedback devices to stimulate behavioral change in patients.

This evidence could reframe our understanding of type 2 diabetes therapy and could change the conversations we have with patients regarding their treatment. Instead of focusing on an A1C goal that is adequate for control of type 2 diabetes, we would instead focus on achieving remission.

CORRESPONDENCE
Stephen McMullan, MD, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL 32224; [email protected]

Type 2 diabetes has been increasing in incidence and prevalence over the past 20 years, with worldwide prevalence estimated at 6.28%.¹ The estimated cost of diagnosed diabetes in the United States was $327 billion in 2017; this included direct medical costs and reduced productivity.² Type 2 diabetes can be prevented in most patients, given that it is a metabolic derangement caused by a complicated interaction between a patient’s genetic predisposition and lifestyle. A consensus statement by the American Academy of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and American College of Endocrinology indicates that the recommended lifestyle modifications for diabetes include medical nutrition therapy with healthy eating patterns, regular physical activity, adequate sleep, behavioral support/counseling, and smoking cessation.³ Evidence shows that adherence to these lifestyle changes alone yields a relative reduction in type 2 diabetes mortality of 57%.⁴

IMAGE: ©ALICIA BUELOW; PATIENT IMAGE © GETTY IMAGES

In the discussion that follows, we review the current guideline recommendations for dietary modifications and physical activity and summarize their effectiveness in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We also describe practical clinical strategies to promote change in patient behavior, and examine current literature supporting intensive lifestyle changes that, if achieved, may induce disease remission.⁵

Dietary strategies

Low, or very low, carbohydrate diet  

Carbohydrates can affect blood glucose levels in varying degrees depending on their intrinsic properties such as fiber content, sugars, and starches . ⁶ According to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) 2019 consensus report, ⁶ the carbohydrate quality that generally should be recommended is high in fiber, vitamins, and minerals, and low in added sugars, fats, and sodium (processed carbohydrates) ( TABLE 1 ^7-10 ). A low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) typically has a carbohydrate content < 130 g/d or < 26% of a 2000 kcal/d diet. ¹¹ A very low–carbohydrate diet (VLCD) is 20-50 g/d or < 10% of the 2000 kcal/day diet. ¹¹

Adherence to lifestyle changes alone yields a relative reduction in type 2 diabetes mortality of 57%.

In a meta-analysis by Goldenberg et al¹¹, the LCD was shown to reduce A1C by 0.47% at 6 months (95% CI, –0.6 to –0.34) and by 0.23% at 12 months when compared with control diets. A review of multiple meta-­analyses also showed a significant reduction in A1C especially with VLCD patterns; however, the results waned at the 12-month follow-up.⁵ In addition, confounding factors were seen when comparing adherence between LCD and VLCD, with patients in the latter group having larger problems with adherence, which decreased the benefit seen in the overall group comparison.¹¹

Very low–carbohydrate/high-fat (ketogenic) diet  

Ketogenic diets generally follow a VLCD with the carbohydrate portion set at 5% to 10% of total caloric intake (generally < 30 g/d) and the rest of the calories taken up by protein (typically 1 g/kg/d) and fat (TABLE 1^7-10).¹² The fat content recommended is primarily polyunsaturated fat such as olive oil, while saturated fats such as butter and lard (animal fat) should be limited.

A recent meta-analysis by Choi et al¹² showed that in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes, the average A1C reduction was 0.62% (95% CI, –0.89 to –0.35) in the ketogenic intervention group. Another meta-analysis showed an even more significant A1C reduction at 1.07% (95% CI, –1.37 to –0.78).¹³ Concerns have been raised about the ketogenic diet, particularly as it relates to lipid metabolism and cholesterol levels; however, in the 2 referenced meta-analyses, the total cholesterol and triglyceride levels actually declined in the ketogenic intervention groups with minimal effect on LDL-C.^12,13 This may alleviate some of the concerns of lipid management with this diet.

Plant-based diet  

Popularized by Dr. T. Colin Campbell, a plant-based diet refers to a low-fat, high-fiber, whole-foods diet (whole fruits, vegetables, and naturally occurring carbohydrates, as opposed to processed foods). Examples of this type of diet include the popular vegan diet, which restricts all animal-derived products, and the vegetarian diet, which is generally limited to foods in the plant category with some addition of animal products, such as milk and cheese. Other variations of these diets exist and include other sources of protein (eg, chicken, eggs, or fish) (TABLE 1^7-10).

Continue to: A review by...

A review by Salas-Salvadó et al¹⁴ showed that a vegan diet yields an average A1C reduction of 0.41% (95% CI, –0.58 to –0.23).Several meta-analyses report similar effects on A1C with vegetarian and vegan eating patterns.^6,15,16 The ADA review notes that weight loss was more significant in the vegan group and concluded that this diet should be studied further while controlling for weight loss.⁶

Mediterranean  diet

The Mediterranean diet emphasizes vegetables, whole grains, fruits, lean meats, nuts, and olive oil. The benefits of the Mediterranean diet are well known and, as a result, the diet is recommended by organizations including the American Heart Association as part of a strategy to reduce cardiovascular risk (TABLE 1^7-10).

Mediterranean diet interventions have generally shown mixed effects on A1C reduction, weight management, and lipid control in type 2 diabetes. ⁶ The PREDIMED trial is the largest and longest randomized controlled trial to date comparing the Mediterranean diet to a low-fat diet. ¹⁷ This trial has reliably shown a reduced risk for type 2 diabetes and a trend to reduced A1C. ¹⁷ A reduction in the need for glucose-lowering medications was demonstrated in a subgroup analysis of the intervention group (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.98). ¹⁸ Also, the Mediterranean diet has shown a significant reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. ⁶

Physical activity and exercise

What do current guidelines recommend?

For most adults with type 2 diabetes, current guidelines by the ADA and by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases recommend at least 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous intensity exercise every week spread out over at least 3 days, with no more than 2 consecutive days without exercise; and resistance training at least 2 other days per week which should balance all major muscle groups (TABLE 2^19-21). The benefits of exercise for type 2 diabetes have been well reviewed: positive effects on glucose control, insulin sensitivity, cardiovascular disease, lipid profiles, skeletal muscle metabolism, and solid-organ functioning.^19,22,23

Grace et al²⁴ showed in a meta-analysis that moderate aerobic exercise reduced A1C by 0.69% (95% CI, –1.09 to –0.3) at 13 weeks, and a Cochrane review showed an average A1C reduction of 0.6% with moderate-­intensity exercise.²⁵ Borror et al²⁶ demonstrated in a systematic review that postprandial moderate-intensity aerobic exercise starting 1 hour after meals results in a reduced 24-hour prevalence of hyperglycemia (33.5% reduction vs control). A meta-analysis in China showed an average A1C reduction of 0.68% for patients performing a Tai Chi physical activity intervention.²⁷

Continue to: Consider high-intensity interval training

Multiple randomized controlled trials highlight the benefits of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) (TABLE 2^19-21) compared with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on improving A1C. A meta-analysis showed a weighted mean difference in A1C of 0.23% (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.02%).²⁸ Also, a patient could spend less time performing HIIT as opposed to MICT to achieve the same benefits. For example, a patient typically performing 30 minutes of MICT may only need to perform 15 minutes of HIIT,a time-saving option for patients.^20,22

Interrupt sedentary behavior

Risk for incident type 2 diabetes increases when someone is sedentary for more than 6 to 8 hours daily or watches TV for 3 to 4 hours (relative risk [RR] = 1.12).²⁹ Recommendations for interrupting a sedentary lifestyle include standing from a seated position at least every 30 minutes and engaging in a light activity during the break interval for at least 3 minutes.¹⁹ Most studies have reliably shown that interrupting sedentary behavior reduces postprandial and 24-hour average blood glucose levels.¹⁹ Interrupted sitting/sedentary behavior has also been shown to reduce resting blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes.³⁰

Other important lifestyle factors

Encourage 7 to 8 hours of sleep

There is a U-shaped association between glycemic control and sleep quantity based on a meta-analysis by Lee et al ³¹ that showed a 0.23% increase in A1C in patients with insufficient sleep (< 4.5-6 hours/night) and a 0.13% increase in patients with ≥ 8 hours of sleep per night. Patients should be encouraged to obtain 7 to 8 hours of sleep per night to help maximize their diabetes control.  

Address stress reduction

Although evidence for stress reduction interventions on glycemic control is mixed, there does seem to be a benefit in diminishing emotional distress in patients with diabetes. A systematic review by Noordali et al³² demonstrated that patients who received mindfulness-based interventions had improvements in stress, anxiety, and depression symptoms which resulted in improved quality of life. These psychological benefits may subsequently lead to positive behavioral changes.

Assist patients with smoking cessation 

A large meta-analysis showed that active smoking increases the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes (RR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.34-1.54).³³ Former smokers still have an increased risk (RR = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.13), but it is lower than that of current smokers, so patients should be encouraged to quit smoking.^3,33

Continue to: How can I get my patient to change?

How can I get my patient to change?

The AACE recommends using motivational interviewing, behavioral therapy consultation, and wearable feedback devices (eg, accelerometers/pedometers) to stimulate behavioral change in patients.³ Motivational interviewing is the principal counseling strategy and is supported by multiple studies showing the benefits of using this technique in a clinical encounter to induce behavioral changes.³⁴ In general, offer receptive patients intensive behavioral interventions and provide them with resources to accomplish their goals.³⁵ For example, a 7-step yearly intensive behavioral counseling intervention over 3 years showed significant improvements in activity of any intensity, reduced sedentary time, and led to favorable metabolic outcomes.³⁶ Wearable devices result in up to a 1 hour increase in physical activity per week for the wearers vs control, although there was no appreciable effect on A1C.³⁷

A meta-analysis showed that moderate aerobic exercise reduced A1C by 0.69% at 13 weeks.

One systematic review showed a 0.5% reduction in A1C (95% CI, –0.65 to –0.34) by focusing on environmental changes related to the diet, with the most effective intervention being full meal replacement for calorie control (ie, each meal was pre-made and provided to the patients based on macronutrient and caloric goals).³⁸ Additionally, diabetes self-management education includes coping strategies, problem solving, self-­advocacy, and health care system navigation, which have been shown to reduce A1C by an average of 0.6%.²¹ Patient resources are available for further assistance with lifestyle modifications (TABLE 3).

Can your patient achieve remission?

Emerging evidence suggests that patients may achieve remission from type 2 diabetes with intensive lifestyle interventions.³⁹ This is supported by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.⁵ Although there is no consensus definition for remission, in general it is reasonable to presume remission if a patient achieves normo-glycemia (A1C < 5.7%) for at least 1 year without any medication therapy.⁵ These intensive lifestyle interventions would include a mostly plant-based diet with moderate calorie restriction, appropriate and sustained physical activity, adequate sleep, and stress-reduction techniques.⁵ One study found that 46% of patients in a weight-management program across multiple primary care clinics achieved remission at 12 months.⁴⁰ A meta-analysis showed that a low-carbohydrate diet induced remission at 6 months in 32% of patients (although the result was not controlled for weight loss as a possible confounding factor and an A1C cutoff of 6.5% was used).¹¹ Thus far, most studies have focused on short-term follow-up intervals, but evidence is emerging that with intensive lifestyle interventions the effects are sustained at the 2-year mark.⁴¹

The American Academy of Clinical Endocrinologists recommends using motivational interviewing and wearable feedback devices to stimulate behavioral change in patients.

This evidence could reframe our understanding of type 2 diabetes therapy and could change the conversations we have with patients regarding their treatment. Instead of focusing on an A1C goal that is adequate for control of type 2 diabetes, we would instead focus on achieving remission.

CORRESPONDENCE
Stephen McMullan, MD, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL 32224; [email protected]

Google the word “dopamine” and you will learn that its nicknames are the “happy hormone” and the “pleasure molecule” and that it is among the most important chemicals in our brains. With The Guardian branding it “the Kim Kardashian of neurotransmitters,” dopamine has become a true pop-science darling – people across the globe have attempted to boost their mood with dopamine fasts and dopamine dressing.

A century ago, however, newly discovered dopamine was seen as an uninspiring chemical, nothing more than a precursor of noradrenaline. It took several stubborn and hardworking scientists to change that view.
 

Levodopa: An indifferent precursor

When Casimir Funk, PhD, a Polish biochemist and the discoverer of vitamins, first synthesized the dopamine precursor levodopa in 1911, he had no idea how important the molecule would prove to be in pharmacology and neurobiology. Nor did Markus Guggenheim, PhD, a Swiss biochemist, who isolated levodopa in 1913 from the seeds of a broad bean, Vicia faba. Dr. Guggenheim administered 1 g of levodopa to a rabbit, with no apparent negative consequences. He then prepared a larger dose (2.5 g) and tested it on himself. “Ten minutes after taking it, I felt very nauseous, I had to vomit twice,” he wrote in his paper. In the body, levodopa is converted into dopamine, which may act as an emetic – an effect Dr. Guggenheim didn’t understand. He simply abandoned his human study, erroneously concluding, on the basis of his animal research, that levodopa is “pharmacologically fairly indifferent.”

Around the same time, several scientists across Europe successfully synthesized dopamine, but those discoveries were shelved without much fanfare. For the next 3 decades, dopamine and levodopa were pushed into academic obscurity. Just before World War II, a group of German scientists showed that levodopa is metabolized to dopamine in the body, while another German researcher, Hermann Blaschko, MD, discovered that dopamine is an intermediary in the synthesis of noradrenaline. Even these findings, however, were not immediately accepted.

The dopamine story picked up pace in the post-war years with the observation that the hormone was present in various tissues and body fluids, although nowhere as abundantly as in the central nervous system. Intrigued, Dr. Blaschko, who (after escaping Nazi Germany, changing his name to Hugh, and starting work at Oxford [England] University) hypothesized that dopamine couldn’t be an unremarkable precursor of noradrenaline – it had to have some physiologic functions of its own. He asked his postdoctoral fellow, Oheh Hornykiewicz, MD, to test a few ideas. Dr. Hornykiewicz soon confirmed that dopamine lowered blood pressure in guinea pigs, proving that dopamine indeed had physiologic activity that was independent of other catecholamines.
 

Reserpine and rabbit ears

While Dr. Blaschko and Dr. Hornykiewicz were puzzling over dopamine’s physiologic role in the body, across the ocean at the National Heart Institute in Maryland, pharmacologist Bernard Brodie, PhD and colleagues were laying the groundwork for the discovery of dopamine’s starring role in the brain.

Spoiler alert: Dr. Brodie’s work showed that a new psychiatric drug known as reserpine was capable of fully depleting the brain’s stores of serotonin and – of greatest significance, as it turned out – mimicking the neuromuscular symptoms typical of Parkinson’s disease. The connection to dopamine would be made by new lab colleague Arvid Carlsson, MD, PhD, who would go on to win a Nobel Prize.

Derived from Rauwolfia serpentina (a plant that for centuries has been used in India for the treatment of mental illness, insomnia, and snake bites), reserpine was introduced in the West as a treatment for schizophrenia.

It worked marvels. In 1954, the press lauded the “dramatic” and seemingly “incredible”: results in treating “hopelessly insane patients.” Reserpine had a downside, however. Reports soon changed in tone regarding the drug’s severe side effects, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and, far more disturbingly, symptoms mimicking Parkinson’s disease, from muscular rigidity to tremors.

Dr. Brodie observed that, when reserpine was injected, animals became completely immobile. Serotonin nearly vanished from their brains, but bizarrely, drugs that spur serotonin production did not reverse the rabbits’ immobility.

Dr. Carlsson realized that other catecholamines must be involved in reserpine’s side effects, and he began to search for the culprits. He moved back to his native Sweden and ordered a spectrophotofluorimeter. In one of his experiments, Carlsson injected a pair of rabbits with reserpine, which caused the animals to become catatonic with flattened ears. After the researchers injected the animals with levodopa, within 15 minutes, the rabbits were hopping around, ears proudly vertical. “We were just as excited as the rabbits,” Dr. Carlsson later recalled in a 2016 interview. Dr. Carlsson realized that, because there was no noradrenaline in the rabbits’ brains, dopamine depletion must have been directly responsible for producing reserpine’s motor inhibitory effects.
 

Skeptics are silenced

In 1960, however, the medical community was not yet ready to accept that dopamine was anything but a boring intermediate between levodopa and noradrenaline. At a prestigious London symposium, Dr. Carlsson and his two colleagues presented their hypothesis that dopamine may be a neurotransmitter, thus implicating it in Parkinson’s disease. They were met with harsh criticism. Some of the experts said levodopa was nothing more than a poison. Dr. Carlsson later recalled facing “a profound and nearly unanimous skepticism regarding our points of view.”

That would soon change. Dr. Hornykiewicz, the biochemist who had earlier discovered dopamine’s BP-lowering effects, tested Dr. Carlsson’s ideas using the postmortem brains of Parkinson’s disease patients. It appeared Dr. Carlsson was right: Unlike in healthy brains, the striatum of patients with Parkinson’s disease contained almost no dopamine whatsoever. Beginning in 1961, in collaboration with neurologist Walther Birkmayer, MD, Hornykiewicz injected levodopa into 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and observed a “miraculous” (albeit temporary) amelioration of rigidity, motionlessness, and speechlessness.

By the late 1960s, levodopa and dopamine were making headlines. A 1969 New York Times article described similar stunning improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who were treated with levodopa. A patient who had arrived at a hospital unable to speak, with hands clenched and rigid expression, was suddenly able to stride into his doctor’s office and even jog around. “I might say I’m a human being,” he told reporters. Although the treatment was expensive – equivalent to $210 in 2022 – physicians were deluged with requests for “dopa.” To this day, levodopa remains a gold standard in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
 

Still misunderstood

The history of dopamine, however, is not only about Parkinson’s disease but extends to the treatment of schizophrenia and addiction. When in the1940s a French military surgeon started giving a new antihistamine drug, promethazine, to prevent shock in soldiers undergoing surgery, he noticed a bizarre side effect: the soldiers would become euphoric yet oddly calm at the same time.

After the drug was modified by adding a chlorine atom and renamed chlorpromazine, it fast became a go-to treatment for psychosis. At the time, no one made the connection to dopamine. Contemporary doctors believed that it calmed people by lowering body temperature (common treatments for mental illness back in the day included swaddling patients in cold, wet sheets). Yet just like reserpine, chlorpromazine produced range of nasty side effects that closely mimicked Parkinson’s disease. This led a Dutch pharmacologist, Jacques van Rossum, to hypothesize that dopamine receptor blockade could explain chlorpromazine’s antipsychotic effects – an idea that remains widely accepted today.

In the 1970s, dopamine was linked with addiction through research on rodents, and this novel idea caught people’s imagination over the coming decades. A story on dopamine titled, “How We Get Addicted,” made the cover of Time in 1997.

Yet as the dopamine/addiction connection became widespread, it also became oversimplified. According to a 2015 article in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, a wave of low-quality research followed – nonreplicated, insufficient – which led the authors to conclude that we are “addicted to the dopamine theory of addiction.” Just about every pleasure under the sun was being attributed to dopamine, from eating delicious foods and playing computer games to sex, music, and hot showers. As recent science shows, however, dopamine is not simply about pleasure – it’s about reward prediction, response to stress, memory, learning, and even the functioning of the immune system. Since its first synthesis in the early 20th century, dopamine has often been misunderstood and oversimplified – and it seems the story is repeating itself now.

In one of his final interviews, Dr. Carlsson, who passed away in 2018 at the age of 95, warned about playing around with dopamine and, in particular, prescribing drugs that have an inhibitory action on this neurotransmitter. “Dopamine is involved in everything that happens in our brains – all its important functions,” he said.

We should be careful how we handle such a delicate and still little-known system.

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

Google the word “dopamine” and you will learn that its nicknames are the “happy hormone” and the “pleasure molecule” and that it is among the most important chemicals in our brains. With The Guardian branding it “the Kim Kardashian of neurotransmitters,” dopamine has become a true pop-science darling – people across the globe have attempted to boost their mood with dopamine fasts and dopamine dressing.

A century ago, however, newly discovered dopamine was seen as an uninspiring chemical, nothing more than a precursor of noradrenaline. It took several stubborn and hardworking scientists to change that view.
 

Levodopa: An indifferent precursor

When Casimir Funk, PhD, a Polish biochemist and the discoverer of vitamins, first synthesized the dopamine precursor levodopa in 1911, he had no idea how important the molecule would prove to be in pharmacology and neurobiology. Nor did Markus Guggenheim, PhD, a Swiss biochemist, who isolated levodopa in 1913 from the seeds of a broad bean, Vicia faba. Dr. Guggenheim administered 1 g of levodopa to a rabbit, with no apparent negative consequences. He then prepared a larger dose (2.5 g) and tested it on himself. “Ten minutes after taking it, I felt very nauseous, I had to vomit twice,” he wrote in his paper. In the body, levodopa is converted into dopamine, which may act as an emetic – an effect Dr. Guggenheim didn’t understand. He simply abandoned his human study, erroneously concluding, on the basis of his animal research, that levodopa is “pharmacologically fairly indifferent.”

Around the same time, several scientists across Europe successfully synthesized dopamine, but those discoveries were shelved without much fanfare. For the next 3 decades, dopamine and levodopa were pushed into academic obscurity. Just before World War II, a group of German scientists showed that levodopa is metabolized to dopamine in the body, while another German researcher, Hermann Blaschko, MD, discovered that dopamine is an intermediary in the synthesis of noradrenaline. Even these findings, however, were not immediately accepted.

The dopamine story picked up pace in the post-war years with the observation that the hormone was present in various tissues and body fluids, although nowhere as abundantly as in the central nervous system. Intrigued, Dr. Blaschko, who (after escaping Nazi Germany, changing his name to Hugh, and starting work at Oxford [England] University) hypothesized that dopamine couldn’t be an unremarkable precursor of noradrenaline – it had to have some physiologic functions of its own. He asked his postdoctoral fellow, Oheh Hornykiewicz, MD, to test a few ideas. Dr. Hornykiewicz soon confirmed that dopamine lowered blood pressure in guinea pigs, proving that dopamine indeed had physiologic activity that was independent of other catecholamines.
 

Reserpine and rabbit ears

While Dr. Blaschko and Dr. Hornykiewicz were puzzling over dopamine’s physiologic role in the body, across the ocean at the National Heart Institute in Maryland, pharmacologist Bernard Brodie, PhD and colleagues were laying the groundwork for the discovery of dopamine’s starring role in the brain.

Spoiler alert: Dr. Brodie’s work showed that a new psychiatric drug known as reserpine was capable of fully depleting the brain’s stores of serotonin and – of greatest significance, as it turned out – mimicking the neuromuscular symptoms typical of Parkinson’s disease. The connection to dopamine would be made by new lab colleague Arvid Carlsson, MD, PhD, who would go on to win a Nobel Prize.

Derived from Rauwolfia serpentina (a plant that for centuries has been used in India for the treatment of mental illness, insomnia, and snake bites), reserpine was introduced in the West as a treatment for schizophrenia.

It worked marvels. In 1954, the press lauded the “dramatic” and seemingly “incredible”: results in treating “hopelessly insane patients.” Reserpine had a downside, however. Reports soon changed in tone regarding the drug’s severe side effects, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and, far more disturbingly, symptoms mimicking Parkinson’s disease, from muscular rigidity to tremors.

Dr. Brodie observed that, when reserpine was injected, animals became completely immobile. Serotonin nearly vanished from their brains, but bizarrely, drugs that spur serotonin production did not reverse the rabbits’ immobility.

Dr. Carlsson realized that other catecholamines must be involved in reserpine’s side effects, and he began to search for the culprits. He moved back to his native Sweden and ordered a spectrophotofluorimeter. In one of his experiments, Carlsson injected a pair of rabbits with reserpine, which caused the animals to become catatonic with flattened ears. After the researchers injected the animals with levodopa, within 15 minutes, the rabbits were hopping around, ears proudly vertical. “We were just as excited as the rabbits,” Dr. Carlsson later recalled in a 2016 interview. Dr. Carlsson realized that, because there was no noradrenaline in the rabbits’ brains, dopamine depletion must have been directly responsible for producing reserpine’s motor inhibitory effects.
 

Skeptics are silenced

In 1960, however, the medical community was not yet ready to accept that dopamine was anything but a boring intermediate between levodopa and noradrenaline. At a prestigious London symposium, Dr. Carlsson and his two colleagues presented their hypothesis that dopamine may be a neurotransmitter, thus implicating it in Parkinson’s disease. They were met with harsh criticism. Some of the experts said levodopa was nothing more than a poison. Dr. Carlsson later recalled facing “a profound and nearly unanimous skepticism regarding our points of view.”

That would soon change. Dr. Hornykiewicz, the biochemist who had earlier discovered dopamine’s BP-lowering effects, tested Dr. Carlsson’s ideas using the postmortem brains of Parkinson’s disease patients. It appeared Dr. Carlsson was right: Unlike in healthy brains, the striatum of patients with Parkinson’s disease contained almost no dopamine whatsoever. Beginning in 1961, in collaboration with neurologist Walther Birkmayer, MD, Hornykiewicz injected levodopa into 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and observed a “miraculous” (albeit temporary) amelioration of rigidity, motionlessness, and speechlessness.

By the late 1960s, levodopa and dopamine were making headlines. A 1969 New York Times article described similar stunning improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who were treated with levodopa. A patient who had arrived at a hospital unable to speak, with hands clenched and rigid expression, was suddenly able to stride into his doctor’s office and even jog around. “I might say I’m a human being,” he told reporters. Although the treatment was expensive – equivalent to $210 in 2022 – physicians were deluged with requests for “dopa.” To this day, levodopa remains a gold standard in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
 

Still misunderstood

The history of dopamine, however, is not only about Parkinson’s disease but extends to the treatment of schizophrenia and addiction. When in the1940s a French military surgeon started giving a new antihistamine drug, promethazine, to prevent shock in soldiers undergoing surgery, he noticed a bizarre side effect: the soldiers would become euphoric yet oddly calm at the same time.

After the drug was modified by adding a chlorine atom and renamed chlorpromazine, it fast became a go-to treatment for psychosis. At the time, no one made the connection to dopamine. Contemporary doctors believed that it calmed people by lowering body temperature (common treatments for mental illness back in the day included swaddling patients in cold, wet sheets). Yet just like reserpine, chlorpromazine produced range of nasty side effects that closely mimicked Parkinson’s disease. This led a Dutch pharmacologist, Jacques van Rossum, to hypothesize that dopamine receptor blockade could explain chlorpromazine’s antipsychotic effects – an idea that remains widely accepted today.

In the 1970s, dopamine was linked with addiction through research on rodents, and this novel idea caught people’s imagination over the coming decades. A story on dopamine titled, “How We Get Addicted,” made the cover of Time in 1997.

Yet as the dopamine/addiction connection became widespread, it also became oversimplified. According to a 2015 article in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, a wave of low-quality research followed – nonreplicated, insufficient – which led the authors to conclude that we are “addicted to the dopamine theory of addiction.” Just about every pleasure under the sun was being attributed to dopamine, from eating delicious foods and playing computer games to sex, music, and hot showers. As recent science shows, however, dopamine is not simply about pleasure – it’s about reward prediction, response to stress, memory, learning, and even the functioning of the immune system. Since its first synthesis in the early 20th century, dopamine has often been misunderstood and oversimplified – and it seems the story is repeating itself now.

In one of his final interviews, Dr. Carlsson, who passed away in 2018 at the age of 95, warned about playing around with dopamine and, in particular, prescribing drugs that have an inhibitory action on this neurotransmitter. “Dopamine is involved in everything that happens in our brains – all its important functions,” he said.

We should be careful how we handle such a delicate and still little-known system.

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

Google the word “dopamine” and you will learn that its nicknames are the “happy hormone” and the “pleasure molecule” and that it is among the most important chemicals in our brains. With The Guardian branding it “the Kim Kardashian of neurotransmitters,” dopamine has become a true pop-science darling – people across the globe have attempted to boost their mood with dopamine fasts and dopamine dressing.

A century ago, however, newly discovered dopamine was seen as an uninspiring chemical, nothing more than a precursor of noradrenaline. It took several stubborn and hardworking scientists to change that view.
 

Levodopa: An indifferent precursor

When Casimir Funk, PhD, a Polish biochemist and the discoverer of vitamins, first synthesized the dopamine precursor levodopa in 1911, he had no idea how important the molecule would prove to be in pharmacology and neurobiology. Nor did Markus Guggenheim, PhD, a Swiss biochemist, who isolated levodopa in 1913 from the seeds of a broad bean, Vicia faba. Dr. Guggenheim administered 1 g of levodopa to a rabbit, with no apparent negative consequences. He then prepared a larger dose (2.5 g) and tested it on himself. “Ten minutes after taking it, I felt very nauseous, I had to vomit twice,” he wrote in his paper. In the body, levodopa is converted into dopamine, which may act as an emetic – an effect Dr. Guggenheim didn’t understand. He simply abandoned his human study, erroneously concluding, on the basis of his animal research, that levodopa is “pharmacologically fairly indifferent.”

Around the same time, several scientists across Europe successfully synthesized dopamine, but those discoveries were shelved without much fanfare. For the next 3 decades, dopamine and levodopa were pushed into academic obscurity. Just before World War II, a group of German scientists showed that levodopa is metabolized to dopamine in the body, while another German researcher, Hermann Blaschko, MD, discovered that dopamine is an intermediary in the synthesis of noradrenaline. Even these findings, however, were not immediately accepted.

The dopamine story picked up pace in the post-war years with the observation that the hormone was present in various tissues and body fluids, although nowhere as abundantly as in the central nervous system. Intrigued, Dr. Blaschko, who (after escaping Nazi Germany, changing his name to Hugh, and starting work at Oxford [England] University) hypothesized that dopamine couldn’t be an unremarkable precursor of noradrenaline – it had to have some physiologic functions of its own. He asked his postdoctoral fellow, Oheh Hornykiewicz, MD, to test a few ideas. Dr. Hornykiewicz soon confirmed that dopamine lowered blood pressure in guinea pigs, proving that dopamine indeed had physiologic activity that was independent of other catecholamines.
 

Reserpine and rabbit ears

While Dr. Blaschko and Dr. Hornykiewicz were puzzling over dopamine’s physiologic role in the body, across the ocean at the National Heart Institute in Maryland, pharmacologist Bernard Brodie, PhD and colleagues were laying the groundwork for the discovery of dopamine’s starring role in the brain.

Spoiler alert: Dr. Brodie’s work showed that a new psychiatric drug known as reserpine was capable of fully depleting the brain’s stores of serotonin and – of greatest significance, as it turned out – mimicking the neuromuscular symptoms typical of Parkinson’s disease. The connection to dopamine would be made by new lab colleague Arvid Carlsson, MD, PhD, who would go on to win a Nobel Prize.

Derived from Rauwolfia serpentina (a plant that for centuries has been used in India for the treatment of mental illness, insomnia, and snake bites), reserpine was introduced in the West as a treatment for schizophrenia.

It worked marvels. In 1954, the press lauded the “dramatic” and seemingly “incredible”: results in treating “hopelessly insane patients.” Reserpine had a downside, however. Reports soon changed in tone regarding the drug’s severe side effects, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and, far more disturbingly, symptoms mimicking Parkinson’s disease, from muscular rigidity to tremors.

Dr. Brodie observed that, when reserpine was injected, animals became completely immobile. Serotonin nearly vanished from their brains, but bizarrely, drugs that spur serotonin production did not reverse the rabbits’ immobility.

Dr. Carlsson realized that other catecholamines must be involved in reserpine’s side effects, and he began to search for the culprits. He moved back to his native Sweden and ordered a spectrophotofluorimeter. In one of his experiments, Carlsson injected a pair of rabbits with reserpine, which caused the animals to become catatonic with flattened ears. After the researchers injected the animals with levodopa, within 15 minutes, the rabbits were hopping around, ears proudly vertical. “We were just as excited as the rabbits,” Dr. Carlsson later recalled in a 2016 interview. Dr. Carlsson realized that, because there was no noradrenaline in the rabbits’ brains, dopamine depletion must have been directly responsible for producing reserpine’s motor inhibitory effects.
 

Skeptics are silenced

In 1960, however, the medical community was not yet ready to accept that dopamine was anything but a boring intermediate between levodopa and noradrenaline. At a prestigious London symposium, Dr. Carlsson and his two colleagues presented their hypothesis that dopamine may be a neurotransmitter, thus implicating it in Parkinson’s disease. They were met with harsh criticism. Some of the experts said levodopa was nothing more than a poison. Dr. Carlsson later recalled facing “a profound and nearly unanimous skepticism regarding our points of view.”

That would soon change. Dr. Hornykiewicz, the biochemist who had earlier discovered dopamine’s BP-lowering effects, tested Dr. Carlsson’s ideas using the postmortem brains of Parkinson’s disease patients. It appeared Dr. Carlsson was right: Unlike in healthy brains, the striatum of patients with Parkinson’s disease contained almost no dopamine whatsoever. Beginning in 1961, in collaboration with neurologist Walther Birkmayer, MD, Hornykiewicz injected levodopa into 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and observed a “miraculous” (albeit temporary) amelioration of rigidity, motionlessness, and speechlessness.

By the late 1960s, levodopa and dopamine were making headlines. A 1969 New York Times article described similar stunning improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who were treated with levodopa. A patient who had arrived at a hospital unable to speak, with hands clenched and rigid expression, was suddenly able to stride into his doctor’s office and even jog around. “I might say I’m a human being,” he told reporters. Although the treatment was expensive – equivalent to $210 in 2022 – physicians were deluged with requests for “dopa.” To this day, levodopa remains a gold standard in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
 

Still misunderstood

The history of dopamine, however, is not only about Parkinson’s disease but extends to the treatment of schizophrenia and addiction. When in the1940s a French military surgeon started giving a new antihistamine drug, promethazine, to prevent shock in soldiers undergoing surgery, he noticed a bizarre side effect: the soldiers would become euphoric yet oddly calm at the same time.

After the drug was modified by adding a chlorine atom and renamed chlorpromazine, it fast became a go-to treatment for psychosis. At the time, no one made the connection to dopamine. Contemporary doctors believed that it calmed people by lowering body temperature (common treatments for mental illness back in the day included swaddling patients in cold, wet sheets). Yet just like reserpine, chlorpromazine produced range of nasty side effects that closely mimicked Parkinson’s disease. This led a Dutch pharmacologist, Jacques van Rossum, to hypothesize that dopamine receptor blockade could explain chlorpromazine’s antipsychotic effects – an idea that remains widely accepted today.

In the 1970s, dopamine was linked with addiction through research on rodents, and this novel idea caught people’s imagination over the coming decades. A story on dopamine titled, “How We Get Addicted,” made the cover of Time in 1997.

Yet as the dopamine/addiction connection became widespread, it also became oversimplified. According to a 2015 article in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, a wave of low-quality research followed – nonreplicated, insufficient – which led the authors to conclude that we are “addicted to the dopamine theory of addiction.” Just about every pleasure under the sun was being attributed to dopamine, from eating delicious foods and playing computer games to sex, music, and hot showers. As recent science shows, however, dopamine is not simply about pleasure – it’s about reward prediction, response to stress, memory, learning, and even the functioning of the immune system. Since its first synthesis in the early 20th century, dopamine has often been misunderstood and oversimplified – and it seems the story is repeating itself now.

In one of his final interviews, Dr. Carlsson, who passed away in 2018 at the age of 95, warned about playing around with dopamine and, in particular, prescribing drugs that have an inhibitory action on this neurotransmitter. “Dopamine is involved in everything that happens in our brains – all its important functions,” he said.

We should be careful how we handle such a delicate and still little-known system.

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

A single sigmoidoscopy screening significantly reduced the long-term incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a new pooled analysis of four randomized trials.

Although endoscopic screening provides an opportunity for early identification and removal of premalignant polyps, data quantifying the long-term effects of sigmoidoscopy screening are lacking, corresponding author Frederik E. Juul, MD, said in an interview.

“Sigmoidoscopy screening have been shown to reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, but it was unknown how long-lasting the effects were, and whether the effect differed by sex or age,” Dr. Juul said.

“For the first time, we were able to pool data from all four randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials and include data from recent updates from two of the trials (U.S. and Italy), which means that we were able to answer these questions better than ever before,” he said.

In the pooled analysis, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from Norway, the United States, Italy, and the United Kingdom reviewed data from four studies with at least 15 years of follow-up. The analysis included 137,493 individuals randomized to at least one sigmoidoscopy screening and 137,459 randomized to usual care.

The primary outcomes were the incidence and mortality of CRC after sigmoidoscopy screening, compared with usual care, in adults with average CRC risk aged 55-64 years. Secondary outcomes included CRC incidence and mortality based on distal versus proximal colon, sex, and older versus younger age group (55-59 years vs. 60-64 years at study enrollment).

After 15 years’ follow-up, the pooled cumulative incidence of CRC was 1.84 cases per 100 persons in the screening group versus 2.35 cases per 100 persons in the usual-care group, representing a 21% reduction in incidence among those who were screened.

The pooled cumulative CRC mortality was 0.51 deaths per 100 persons in the screening group versus 0.65 deaths per 100 persons in the usual-care group, representing a 20% reduction in CRC mortality for those who were screened, the researchers noted. The all-cause mortality was reduced by 2% in the screening group compared with usual care; the pooled cumulative all-cause mortality was 14.3 deaths per 100 persons in the screening group versus 14.6 deaths per 100 persons in the usual-care group.

In terms of secondary outcomes, the significant reductions in CRC incidence and mortality were confined to the distal colon, with no significant differences observed in the proximal colon, the researchers noted. The reasons for this difference are unclear. Previous studies of three of the four trials showed a small reduction in CRC in the proximal colon, but may be related to the longer follow-up in the analysis of four trials.

The incidence of CRC varied by gender, with an incidence reduction of 25% for men versus 16% for women. The reasons for the gender difference are yet to be undetermined, but may include differences in the quality of bowel preparation, the greater technical challenge of screening women, and the higher incidence and proportion of proximal colon cancer versus distal colon cancer in women, the researchers noted.

“The long-term benefit of one single procedure was probably what surprised us the most,” Dr. Juul said in an interview. “Not only were the cumulative incidence and mortality lower in screened individuals 15 years after the procedure, but the yearly incidence was consistently lower in screened individuals compared to usual care, even at the end of the follow-up period.

“Although a previous study in Norway had indicated a sex difference in effect, we were surprised to see this in a pooled analysis across trials in four different countries,” he added.
 

Data may drive screening guidelines

The main finding of the study is that sigmoidoscopy screening with investigation of the distal colon provides at least 15 years of protection against colorectal cancer; “this may have an impact on how often average-risk individuals needs to be screened,” Dr. Juul said in an interview.

As for additional research, ongoing studies are examining primary colonoscopy screening, including a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Juul said.“Our study investigating sigmoidoscopy screening has a longer follow-up and it will be interesting to see if primary colonoscopy screening is equally or more effective as sigmoidoscopy at 15-years follow-up.”

More research is needed on direct comparisons of different colorectal cancer screening methods such as sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, said Dr. Juul. In addition, “The optimal surveillance interval in individuals identified at screening to be low- or high-risk of developing colorectal cancer are unknown,” he said.

“Our research group is involved in trials [the EPoS trials] looking into this question, but there are still years until we have the final results,” he added.

The findings were limited by several factors including the variation in methodology among the four trials and the lower number of individuals referred for colonoscopy in the U.K. and Italian trials, lack of analysis of potential confounding variables, and less granular data from the U.K. trial because of privacy regulations, the researchers wrote.

However, the findings were strengthened by the large study population, long-term follow-up, and detailed data, and they indicate a “significant and sustained” effect of screening sigmoidoscopy for the long-term reduction of CRC incidence and mortality, the authors concluded.
 

Findings can inform shared decision-making

“Colon cancer is the third-leading cause of death in the United States in men and women, and the second-leading cause of cancer deaths if we were to combine both genders,” Noel Deep, MD, said in an interview. “Sigmoidoscopy is more acceptable as a screening tool compared to a colonoscopy because of the lower risk of bowel injury, fewer side effects and less of a bowel prep, and also less need for sedation. This current study confirms prior data, including the 2012 PLCO trial, that it [sigmoidoscopy] reduces the incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer.”

The study findings were not surprising, given the prior knowledge and evidence of the benefits of sigmoidoscopy, Dr. Deep said, who was not involved in the study. However, “the fact that a single sigmoidoscopy led to decreased incidence and decreased mortality at 15 years was surprising to me, as current models suggest increasing incidence of proximal colon adenomas and cancers, which did not seem to be the case in this study.”

The current study can help primary care physicians and advance practice clinicians in patient counseling by supporting sigmoidoscopy as an option for patients who are unwilling to commit to a full colonoscopy, Dr. Deep said. However, “the patients should be advised that abnormal findings on the sigmoidoscopy would necessitate them being referred for a colonoscopy, and also the limitations of a sigmoidoscopy in detecting polyps or cancers in the cecum, ascending colon, transverse colon and descending colon.”

Looking ahead, “I would like to see research into the appropriate age for colorectal cancer screening using sigmoidoscopy and any benefit in offering this option at an earlier age,” Dr. Deep said. He also expressed a wish to know more about the reasons for the decreased benefit of screening sigmoidoscopy in women, and the reasons for the observed difference in all-cause mortality between genders.

“I would also like to see what the results of screening colonoscopies in a general population would reveal, and if it would reveal similar benefits, and also if there would be a gender difference or age-based difference in outcomes,” he said.

The study was supported by the Health Fund of South-East Norway. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

A single sigmoidoscopy screening significantly reduced the long-term incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a new pooled analysis of four randomized trials.

Although endoscopic screening provides an opportunity for early identification and removal of premalignant polyps, data quantifying the long-term effects of sigmoidoscopy screening are lacking, corresponding author Frederik E. Juul, MD, said in an interview.

“Sigmoidoscopy screening have been shown to reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, but it was unknown how long-lasting the effects were, and whether the effect differed by sex or age,” Dr. Juul said.

“For the first time, we were able to pool data from all four randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials and include data from recent updates from two of the trials (U.S. and Italy), which means that we were able to answer these questions better than ever before,” he said.

In the pooled analysis, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from Norway, the United States, Italy, and the United Kingdom reviewed data from four studies with at least 15 years of follow-up. The analysis included 137,493 individuals randomized to at least one sigmoidoscopy screening and 137,459 randomized to usual care.

The primary outcomes were the incidence and mortality of CRC after sigmoidoscopy screening, compared with usual care, in adults with average CRC risk aged 55-64 years. Secondary outcomes included CRC incidence and mortality based on distal versus proximal colon, sex, and older versus younger age group (55-59 years vs. 60-64 years at study enrollment).

After 15 years’ follow-up, the pooled cumulative incidence of CRC was 1.84 cases per 100 persons in the screening group versus 2.35 cases per 100 persons in the usual-care group, representing a 21% reduction in incidence among those who were screened.

The pooled cumulative CRC mortality was 0.51 deaths per 100 persons in the screening group versus 0.65 deaths per 100 persons in the usual-care group, representing a 20% reduction in CRC mortality for those who were screened, the researchers noted. The all-cause mortality was reduced by 2% in the screening group compared with usual care; the pooled cumulative all-cause mortality was 14.3 deaths per 100 persons in the screening group versus 14.6 deaths per 100 persons in the usual-care group.

In terms of secondary outcomes, the significant reductions in CRC incidence and mortality were confined to the distal colon, with no significant differences observed in the proximal colon, the researchers noted. The reasons for this difference are unclear. Previous studies of three of the four trials showed a small reduction in CRC in the proximal colon, but may be related to the longer follow-up in the analysis of four trials.

The incidence of CRC varied by gender, with an incidence reduction of 25% for men versus 16% for women. The reasons for the gender difference are yet to be undetermined, but may include differences in the quality of bowel preparation, the greater technical challenge of screening women, and the higher incidence and proportion of proximal colon cancer versus distal colon cancer in women, the researchers noted.

“The long-term benefit of one single procedure was probably what surprised us the most,” Dr. Juul said in an interview. “Not only were the cumulative incidence and mortality lower in screened individuals 15 years after the procedure, but the yearly incidence was consistently lower in screened individuals compared to usual care, even at the end of the follow-up period.

“Although a previous study in Norway had indicated a sex difference in effect, we were surprised to see this in a pooled analysis across trials in four different countries,” he added.
 

Data may drive screening guidelines

The main finding of the study is that sigmoidoscopy screening with investigation of the distal colon provides at least 15 years of protection against colorectal cancer; “this may have an impact on how often average-risk individuals needs to be screened,” Dr. Juul said in an interview.

As for additional research, ongoing studies are examining primary colonoscopy screening, including a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Juul said.“Our study investigating sigmoidoscopy screening has a longer follow-up and it will be interesting to see if primary colonoscopy screening is equally or more effective as sigmoidoscopy at 15-years follow-up.”

More research is needed on direct comparisons of different colorectal cancer screening methods such as sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, said Dr. Juul. In addition, “The optimal surveillance interval in individuals identified at screening to be low- or high-risk of developing colorectal cancer are unknown,” he said.

“Our research group is involved in trials [the EPoS trials] looking into this question, but there are still years until we have the final results,” he added.

The findings were limited by several factors including the variation in methodology among the four trials and the lower number of individuals referred for colonoscopy in the U.K. and Italian trials, lack of analysis of potential confounding variables, and less granular data from the U.K. trial because of privacy regulations, the researchers wrote.

However, the findings were strengthened by the large study population, long-term follow-up, and detailed data, and they indicate a “significant and sustained” effect of screening sigmoidoscopy for the long-term reduction of CRC incidence and mortality, the authors concluded.
 

Findings can inform shared decision-making

“Colon cancer is the third-leading cause of death in the United States in men and women, and the second-leading cause of cancer deaths if we were to combine both genders,” Noel Deep, MD, said in an interview. “Sigmoidoscopy is more acceptable as a screening tool compared to a colonoscopy because of the lower risk of bowel injury, fewer side effects and less of a bowel prep, and also less need for sedation. This current study confirms prior data, including the 2012 PLCO trial, that it [sigmoidoscopy] reduces the incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer.”

The study findings were not surprising, given the prior knowledge and evidence of the benefits of sigmoidoscopy, Dr. Deep said, who was not involved in the study. However, “the fact that a single sigmoidoscopy led to decreased incidence and decreased mortality at 15 years was surprising to me, as current models suggest increasing incidence of proximal colon adenomas and cancers, which did not seem to be the case in this study.”

The current study can help primary care physicians and advance practice clinicians in patient counseling by supporting sigmoidoscopy as an option for patients who are unwilling to commit to a full colonoscopy, Dr. Deep said. However, “the patients should be advised that abnormal findings on the sigmoidoscopy would necessitate them being referred for a colonoscopy, and also the limitations of a sigmoidoscopy in detecting polyps or cancers in the cecum, ascending colon, transverse colon and descending colon.”

Looking ahead, “I would like to see research into the appropriate age for colorectal cancer screening using sigmoidoscopy and any benefit in offering this option at an earlier age,” Dr. Deep said. He also expressed a wish to know more about the reasons for the decreased benefit of screening sigmoidoscopy in women, and the reasons for the observed difference in all-cause mortality between genders.

“I would also like to see what the results of screening colonoscopies in a general population would reveal, and if it would reveal similar benefits, and also if there would be a gender difference or age-based difference in outcomes,” he said.

The study was supported by the Health Fund of South-East Norway. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

A single sigmoidoscopy screening significantly reduced the long-term incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a new pooled analysis of four randomized trials.

Although endoscopic screening provides an opportunity for early identification and removal of premalignant polyps, data quantifying the long-term effects of sigmoidoscopy screening are lacking, corresponding author Frederik E. Juul, MD, said in an interview.

“Sigmoidoscopy screening have been shown to reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, but it was unknown how long-lasting the effects were, and whether the effect differed by sex or age,” Dr. Juul said.

“For the first time, we were able to pool data from all four randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials and include data from recent updates from two of the trials (U.S. and Italy), which means that we were able to answer these questions better than ever before,” he said.

In the pooled analysis, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from Norway, the United States, Italy, and the United Kingdom reviewed data from four studies with at least 15 years of follow-up. The analysis included 137,493 individuals randomized to at least one sigmoidoscopy screening and 137,459 randomized to usual care.

The primary outcomes were the incidence and mortality of CRC after sigmoidoscopy screening, compared with usual care, in adults with average CRC risk aged 55-64 years. Secondary outcomes included CRC incidence and mortality based on distal versus proximal colon, sex, and older versus younger age group (55-59 years vs. 60-64 years at study enrollment).

After 15 years’ follow-up, the pooled cumulative incidence of CRC was 1.84 cases per 100 persons in the screening group versus 2.35 cases per 100 persons in the usual-care group, representing a 21% reduction in incidence among those who were screened.

The pooled cumulative CRC mortality was 0.51 deaths per 100 persons in the screening group versus 0.65 deaths per 100 persons in the usual-care group, representing a 20% reduction in CRC mortality for those who were screened, the researchers noted. The all-cause mortality was reduced by 2% in the screening group compared with usual care; the pooled cumulative all-cause mortality was 14.3 deaths per 100 persons in the screening group versus 14.6 deaths per 100 persons in the usual-care group.

In terms of secondary outcomes, the significant reductions in CRC incidence and mortality were confined to the distal colon, with no significant differences observed in the proximal colon, the researchers noted. The reasons for this difference are unclear. Previous studies of three of the four trials showed a small reduction in CRC in the proximal colon, but may be related to the longer follow-up in the analysis of four trials.

The incidence of CRC varied by gender, with an incidence reduction of 25% for men versus 16% for women. The reasons for the gender difference are yet to be undetermined, but may include differences in the quality of bowel preparation, the greater technical challenge of screening women, and the higher incidence and proportion of proximal colon cancer versus distal colon cancer in women, the researchers noted.

“The long-term benefit of one single procedure was probably what surprised us the most,” Dr. Juul said in an interview. “Not only were the cumulative incidence and mortality lower in screened individuals 15 years after the procedure, but the yearly incidence was consistently lower in screened individuals compared to usual care, even at the end of the follow-up period.

“Although a previous study in Norway had indicated a sex difference in effect, we were surprised to see this in a pooled analysis across trials in four different countries,” he added.
 

Data may drive screening guidelines

The main finding of the study is that sigmoidoscopy screening with investigation of the distal colon provides at least 15 years of protection against colorectal cancer; “this may have an impact on how often average-risk individuals needs to be screened,” Dr. Juul said in an interview.

As for additional research, ongoing studies are examining primary colonoscopy screening, including a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Juul said.“Our study investigating sigmoidoscopy screening has a longer follow-up and it will be interesting to see if primary colonoscopy screening is equally or more effective as sigmoidoscopy at 15-years follow-up.”

More research is needed on direct comparisons of different colorectal cancer screening methods such as sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, said Dr. Juul. In addition, “The optimal surveillance interval in individuals identified at screening to be low- or high-risk of developing colorectal cancer are unknown,” he said.

“Our research group is involved in trials [the EPoS trials] looking into this question, but there are still years until we have the final results,” he added.

The findings were limited by several factors including the variation in methodology among the four trials and the lower number of individuals referred for colonoscopy in the U.K. and Italian trials, lack of analysis of potential confounding variables, and less granular data from the U.K. trial because of privacy regulations, the researchers wrote.

However, the findings were strengthened by the large study population, long-term follow-up, and detailed data, and they indicate a “significant and sustained” effect of screening sigmoidoscopy for the long-term reduction of CRC incidence and mortality, the authors concluded.
 

Findings can inform shared decision-making

“Colon cancer is the third-leading cause of death in the United States in men and women, and the second-leading cause of cancer deaths if we were to combine both genders,” Noel Deep, MD, said in an interview. “Sigmoidoscopy is more acceptable as a screening tool compared to a colonoscopy because of the lower risk of bowel injury, fewer side effects and less of a bowel prep, and also less need for sedation. This current study confirms prior data, including the 2012 PLCO trial, that it [sigmoidoscopy] reduces the incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer.”

The study findings were not surprising, given the prior knowledge and evidence of the benefits of sigmoidoscopy, Dr. Deep said, who was not involved in the study. However, “the fact that a single sigmoidoscopy led to decreased incidence and decreased mortality at 15 years was surprising to me, as current models suggest increasing incidence of proximal colon adenomas and cancers, which did not seem to be the case in this study.”

The current study can help primary care physicians and advance practice clinicians in patient counseling by supporting sigmoidoscopy as an option for patients who are unwilling to commit to a full colonoscopy, Dr. Deep said. However, “the patients should be advised that abnormal findings on the sigmoidoscopy would necessitate them being referred for a colonoscopy, and also the limitations of a sigmoidoscopy in detecting polyps or cancers in the cecum, ascending colon, transverse colon and descending colon.”

Looking ahead, “I would like to see research into the appropriate age for colorectal cancer screening using sigmoidoscopy and any benefit in offering this option at an earlier age,” Dr. Deep said. He also expressed a wish to know more about the reasons for the decreased benefit of screening sigmoidoscopy in women, and the reasons for the observed difference in all-cause mortality between genders.

“I would also like to see what the results of screening colonoscopies in a general population would reveal, and if it would reveal similar benefits, and also if there would be a gender difference or age-based difference in outcomes,” he said.

The study was supported by the Health Fund of South-East Norway. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Each additional 10 minutes of boarding in the emergency department was associated with a 0.8-minute increase in door-to-provider time, on the basis of data from nearly 900 facilities presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The study was important to conduct at this time because ED boarding is significantly limiting ED physicians to provide optimal care, said Camila Tyminski, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., who presented the findings at the meeting.

“Boarding had steadily been rising prior to the COVID-19 pandemic due to increased ED use. As our data show, boarding had a detrimental impact on ED throughput measures, including increased door to provider time, increased length of stay of the patient discharged from the ED, and increased rate of patients that left before completion of treatment,” she said.

“It was important to understand these trends prior to 2019-2020 because the COVID-19 pandemic and national nursing shortage have drastically worsened boarding. This study provided a framework for future studies on boarding across ED’s nationally since the start of the pandemic,” she added.

“Post-pandemic, we have hit a crisis point,” lead author Anthony Napoli, MD, also of Brown University, said in an interview. “Boarding is largely a hospital capacity problem, but one key fix germane to EM [emergency medicine] is the provider in triage model (PIT). While PIT has been shown to improve efficiency of ED care, a single institution study demonstrated that it was unable to mitigate the effects of boarding. The study of the association of boarding and efficiency of ED operations and intake needed to be shown on a national scale,” he said.

The researchers reviewed cross-sectional ED operational data from the ED Department Benchmarking Alliance (EDBA), a voluntary database that includes self-reports of operational metrics from approximately half of EDs in the United States.

The data set included 892 EDs; freestanding and pediatric EDs, as well as those with missing boarding data, were excluded.

The primary outcome was boarding time, door-to-provider time (D2P), length of stay for discharged patients (LOSD) and the percentage of patients who left the hospital before treatment was complete (LBTC).

In a multivariate analysis, increased boarding time was significantly associated with longer D2P time, LOSD time, and rates of LBTC.

Overall, D2P and LOSD increased by 0.8 minutes and 2.8 minutes, respectively, for each additional 10 minutes of boarding time. LBTC rates increased by 0.1% for each additional 10 minutes of boarding time.

However, boarding did not have a significant impact on operational metrics among hospitals with fewer than 20,000 visits per year.

Although more research is needed, the results indicate that boarding reduces the throughput of nonboarded patients at a ratio of approximately 4:1. The limited impact of ED efficiency measures on operations highlights the need for hospital-based solutions to boarding, Dr. Tyminski concluded.

“Overall, we expected that there would be an association between boarding and reductions in ED intake and operational efficiency,” said Dr. Napoli in an interview. “However, we were surprised the relationship continued to be as strong in a national study of nearly a quarter of all EDs, as it did in our prior local study,” he said. “Every 10 minutes of boarding in an ED is associated with an approximate 0.1% increase in LWBS and a 3-minute increase in LOSD. Extrapolating this association across the country, we predicted that nearly one million patients may have potentially not received ED care due to boarding,” he explained. “Not only does this potentially have a huge impact on hospital finances but also the overall health of our patients,” he added.

The key takeaway from the study is that boarding is a hospital capacity management issue, said Dr. Napoli. Hospital leadership must be directly involved in plans to mitigate or eliminate it to the extent possible; until then, boarding will continue to result in inefficient ED operations, he explained.

“As ED providers, we are limited in what we can do, but one area where we might be able to make the most impact is to optimize the care and throughput of the LOSD patients,” Dr. Tyminski said. More research is needed to see if interventions to reduce boarding correspond with equivalent improvements in emergency department intake and improved ED throughput, she noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Each additional 10 minutes of boarding in the emergency department was associated with a 0.8-minute increase in door-to-provider time, on the basis of data from nearly 900 facilities presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The study was important to conduct at this time because ED boarding is significantly limiting ED physicians to provide optimal care, said Camila Tyminski, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., who presented the findings at the meeting.

“Boarding had steadily been rising prior to the COVID-19 pandemic due to increased ED use. As our data show, boarding had a detrimental impact on ED throughput measures, including increased door to provider time, increased length of stay of the patient discharged from the ED, and increased rate of patients that left before completion of treatment,” she said.

“It was important to understand these trends prior to 2019-2020 because the COVID-19 pandemic and national nursing shortage have drastically worsened boarding. This study provided a framework for future studies on boarding across ED’s nationally since the start of the pandemic,” she added.

“Post-pandemic, we have hit a crisis point,” lead author Anthony Napoli, MD, also of Brown University, said in an interview. “Boarding is largely a hospital capacity problem, but one key fix germane to EM [emergency medicine] is the provider in triage model (PIT). While PIT has been shown to improve efficiency of ED care, a single institution study demonstrated that it was unable to mitigate the effects of boarding. The study of the association of boarding and efficiency of ED operations and intake needed to be shown on a national scale,” he said.

The researchers reviewed cross-sectional ED operational data from the ED Department Benchmarking Alliance (EDBA), a voluntary database that includes self-reports of operational metrics from approximately half of EDs in the United States.

The data set included 892 EDs; freestanding and pediatric EDs, as well as those with missing boarding data, were excluded.

The primary outcome was boarding time, door-to-provider time (D2P), length of stay for discharged patients (LOSD) and the percentage of patients who left the hospital before treatment was complete (LBTC).

In a multivariate analysis, increased boarding time was significantly associated with longer D2P time, LOSD time, and rates of LBTC.

Overall, D2P and LOSD increased by 0.8 minutes and 2.8 minutes, respectively, for each additional 10 minutes of boarding time. LBTC rates increased by 0.1% for each additional 10 minutes of boarding time.

However, boarding did not have a significant impact on operational metrics among hospitals with fewer than 20,000 visits per year.

Although more research is needed, the results indicate that boarding reduces the throughput of nonboarded patients at a ratio of approximately 4:1. The limited impact of ED efficiency measures on operations highlights the need for hospital-based solutions to boarding, Dr. Tyminski concluded.

“Overall, we expected that there would be an association between boarding and reductions in ED intake and operational efficiency,” said Dr. Napoli in an interview. “However, we were surprised the relationship continued to be as strong in a national study of nearly a quarter of all EDs, as it did in our prior local study,” he said. “Every 10 minutes of boarding in an ED is associated with an approximate 0.1% increase in LWBS and a 3-minute increase in LOSD. Extrapolating this association across the country, we predicted that nearly one million patients may have potentially not received ED care due to boarding,” he explained. “Not only does this potentially have a huge impact on hospital finances but also the overall health of our patients,” he added.

The key takeaway from the study is that boarding is a hospital capacity management issue, said Dr. Napoli. Hospital leadership must be directly involved in plans to mitigate or eliminate it to the extent possible; until then, boarding will continue to result in inefficient ED operations, he explained.

“As ED providers, we are limited in what we can do, but one area where we might be able to make the most impact is to optimize the care and throughput of the LOSD patients,” Dr. Tyminski said. More research is needed to see if interventions to reduce boarding correspond with equivalent improvements in emergency department intake and improved ED throughput, she noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Each additional 10 minutes of boarding in the emergency department was associated with a 0.8-minute increase in door-to-provider time, on the basis of data from nearly 900 facilities presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The study was important to conduct at this time because ED boarding is significantly limiting ED physicians to provide optimal care, said Camila Tyminski, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., who presented the findings at the meeting.

“Boarding had steadily been rising prior to the COVID-19 pandemic due to increased ED use. As our data show, boarding had a detrimental impact on ED throughput measures, including increased door to provider time, increased length of stay of the patient discharged from the ED, and increased rate of patients that left before completion of treatment,” she said.

“It was important to understand these trends prior to 2019-2020 because the COVID-19 pandemic and national nursing shortage have drastically worsened boarding. This study provided a framework for future studies on boarding across ED’s nationally since the start of the pandemic,” she added.

“Post-pandemic, we have hit a crisis point,” lead author Anthony Napoli, MD, also of Brown University, said in an interview. “Boarding is largely a hospital capacity problem, but one key fix germane to EM [emergency medicine] is the provider in triage model (PIT). While PIT has been shown to improve efficiency of ED care, a single institution study demonstrated that it was unable to mitigate the effects of boarding. The study of the association of boarding and efficiency of ED operations and intake needed to be shown on a national scale,” he said.

The researchers reviewed cross-sectional ED operational data from the ED Department Benchmarking Alliance (EDBA), a voluntary database that includes self-reports of operational metrics from approximately half of EDs in the United States.

The data set included 892 EDs; freestanding and pediatric EDs, as well as those with missing boarding data, were excluded.

The primary outcome was boarding time, door-to-provider time (D2P), length of stay for discharged patients (LOSD) and the percentage of patients who left the hospital before treatment was complete (LBTC).

In a multivariate analysis, increased boarding time was significantly associated with longer D2P time, LOSD time, and rates of LBTC.

Overall, D2P and LOSD increased by 0.8 minutes and 2.8 minutes, respectively, for each additional 10 minutes of boarding time. LBTC rates increased by 0.1% for each additional 10 minutes of boarding time.

However, boarding did not have a significant impact on operational metrics among hospitals with fewer than 20,000 visits per year.

Although more research is needed, the results indicate that boarding reduces the throughput of nonboarded patients at a ratio of approximately 4:1. The limited impact of ED efficiency measures on operations highlights the need for hospital-based solutions to boarding, Dr. Tyminski concluded.

“Overall, we expected that there would be an association between boarding and reductions in ED intake and operational efficiency,” said Dr. Napoli in an interview. “However, we were surprised the relationship continued to be as strong in a national study of nearly a quarter of all EDs, as it did in our prior local study,” he said. “Every 10 minutes of boarding in an ED is associated with an approximate 0.1% increase in LWBS and a 3-minute increase in LOSD. Extrapolating this association across the country, we predicted that nearly one million patients may have potentially not received ED care due to boarding,” he explained. “Not only does this potentially have a huge impact on hospital finances but also the overall health of our patients,” he added.

The key takeaway from the study is that boarding is a hospital capacity management issue, said Dr. Napoli. Hospital leadership must be directly involved in plans to mitigate or eliminate it to the extent possible; until then, boarding will continue to result in inefficient ED operations, he explained.

“As ED providers, we are limited in what we can do, but one area where we might be able to make the most impact is to optimize the care and throughput of the LOSD patients,” Dr. Tyminski said. More research is needed to see if interventions to reduce boarding correspond with equivalent improvements in emergency department intake and improved ED throughput, she noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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