User login
SUSTAIN FORTE: Higher-dose semaglutide safely boosts glycemic control, weight loss
Accumulating evidence shows that
Just weeks after the Food and Drug Administration approved an increased, 2.4-mg/week dose of semaglutide (Wegovy) for the indication of weight loss, results from a new randomized study with 961 patients that directly compared the standard 1.0-mg weekly dose for glycemic control with a 2.0-mg weekly dose showed that, over 40 weeks, the higher dose produced modest incremental improvements in both A1c reduction and weight loss while maintaining safety.
“Once weekly 2.0-mg subcutaneous semaglutide [Ozempic] was superior to 1.0 mg in reducing A1c, with greater weight loss and a similar safety profile,” Juan P. Frias, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association while presenting results of the SUSTAIN FORTE trial.
Average impact of the increased efficacy was measured. In the study’s “treatment policy estimand” analysis (considered equivalent to an intention-to-treat analysis), the primary endpoint of the cut in average A1c fell by a further 0.18% among patients on the higher dose, compared with the lower-dose arm, a significant difference in patients who entered the study with an average A1c of 8.9%. The average incremental boost for weight loss on the higher dose was about 0.8 kg, a difference that just missed significance (P = .0535).
In the study’s “trial product estimand” analysis (which censors data when patients stop the study drug or add on rescue medications), the effects were slightly more robust. The 2-mg dose produced an average 0.23% incremental decrease in A1c, compared with 1 mg, and an average incremental 0.93-kg weight reduction, both significant, reported Dr. Frias, an endocrinologist and medical director of the National Research Institute in Los Angeles.
Dr. Frias highlighted that these modest average differences had a clinical impact for some patients. In the treatment product estimand analysis, the percentage of patients achieving an A1c level of less than 7.0% increased from 58% of those who received 1 mg semaglutide to 68% of those treated with 2 mg, and achievement of an A1c of less than 6.5% occurred in 39% of patients on 1 mg and in 52% of those on 2 mg.
A similar pattern existed for weight loss in the treatment product estimand. Weight loss of at least 5% happened in 51% of patients on the 1-mg dose and in 59% of those on the higher dose.
Gradual up-titration aids tolerance
“The GLP-1 receptor agonists have so many benefits, but we were concerned in the past about pushing the dose. We’ve learned more about how to do that so that patients can better tolerate it,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medicine officer of the ADA in Arlington, Va. “The challenge with the medications from this class has been tolerability.”
A key to minimizing adverse effects, especially gastrointestinal effects, from treatment with semaglutide and other GLP-1 receptor agonists has been more gradual up-titration to the target dose, Dr. Gabbay noted in an interview, and SUSTAIN FORTE took this approach. All patients started on a 0.25-mg injection of semaglutide once weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by a 0.5-mg dose once weekly for 4 weeks, and then a 1.0 mg weekly dose. Patients in the arm randomized to receive 2.0 mg had one further dose escalation after receiving the 1.0-mg dose for 4 weeks.
The result was that gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred in 31% of patients maintained for 32 weeks on the 1-mg dose (with 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment), and in 34% of patients who received the 2-mg dose for 28 weeks (and 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment). Serious adverse events of all types occurred in 5% of patients in the 1-mg arm and in 4% of those on 2 mg. Total adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in about 4.5% of patients in both arms, and discontinuations because of gastrointestinal effects occurred in about 3% of patients in both arms.
Severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred in 1 patient maintained on 1 mg weekly and in 2 patients in the 2-mg arm, while clinically significant episodes of hypoglycemia occurred in 18 patients on the 1-mg dose (4%) and in 12 of the patients on 2 mg (3%).
“It’s reassuring that the higher dose is tolerated,” commented Dr. Gabbay.
Several doses to choose from
SUSTAIN FORTE ran during 2019-2020 at about 125 centers in 10 countries, with roughly half the sites in the United States. It randomized adults with type 2 diabetes and an A1c of 8.0%-10.0% despite ongoing metformin treatment in all patients. Just over half the patients were also maintained on a sulfonylurea agent at entry. The enrolled patients had been diagnosed with diabetes for an average of about 10 years. They averaged 58 years of age, their body mass index averaged nearly 35 kg/m2, and about 58% were men.
The new evidence in support of a 2.0-mg weekly dose of semaglutide for patients with type 2 diabetes introduces a new wrinkle in a growing menu of dose options for this drug. On June 4, 2021, the FDA approved a weekly 2.4-mg dose of semaglutide for the indication of weight loss regardless of diabetes status in patients with a body mass index of 30 or higher (or in people at 27 or more with at least one weight-related comorbidity).
Dr. Gabbay suggested that, in practice, clinicians may focus more on treatment goals for individual patients rather than drug dose, especially with an agent that’s safer with slow dose titration.
In general, “clinicians establish a goal for each patient’s A1c; you use the drug dose that gets you there,” he observed.
SUSTAIN FORTE was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide. Dr. Frias has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies, he has been a speaker on behalf of Lilly, Merck, and Sanofi, and he has received research funding from Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures.
Accumulating evidence shows that
Just weeks after the Food and Drug Administration approved an increased, 2.4-mg/week dose of semaglutide (Wegovy) for the indication of weight loss, results from a new randomized study with 961 patients that directly compared the standard 1.0-mg weekly dose for glycemic control with a 2.0-mg weekly dose showed that, over 40 weeks, the higher dose produced modest incremental improvements in both A1c reduction and weight loss while maintaining safety.
“Once weekly 2.0-mg subcutaneous semaglutide [Ozempic] was superior to 1.0 mg in reducing A1c, with greater weight loss and a similar safety profile,” Juan P. Frias, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association while presenting results of the SUSTAIN FORTE trial.
Average impact of the increased efficacy was measured. In the study’s “treatment policy estimand” analysis (considered equivalent to an intention-to-treat analysis), the primary endpoint of the cut in average A1c fell by a further 0.18% among patients on the higher dose, compared with the lower-dose arm, a significant difference in patients who entered the study with an average A1c of 8.9%. The average incremental boost for weight loss on the higher dose was about 0.8 kg, a difference that just missed significance (P = .0535).
In the study’s “trial product estimand” analysis (which censors data when patients stop the study drug or add on rescue medications), the effects were slightly more robust. The 2-mg dose produced an average 0.23% incremental decrease in A1c, compared with 1 mg, and an average incremental 0.93-kg weight reduction, both significant, reported Dr. Frias, an endocrinologist and medical director of the National Research Institute in Los Angeles.
Dr. Frias highlighted that these modest average differences had a clinical impact for some patients. In the treatment product estimand analysis, the percentage of patients achieving an A1c level of less than 7.0% increased from 58% of those who received 1 mg semaglutide to 68% of those treated with 2 mg, and achievement of an A1c of less than 6.5% occurred in 39% of patients on 1 mg and in 52% of those on 2 mg.
A similar pattern existed for weight loss in the treatment product estimand. Weight loss of at least 5% happened in 51% of patients on the 1-mg dose and in 59% of those on the higher dose.
Gradual up-titration aids tolerance
“The GLP-1 receptor agonists have so many benefits, but we were concerned in the past about pushing the dose. We’ve learned more about how to do that so that patients can better tolerate it,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medicine officer of the ADA in Arlington, Va. “The challenge with the medications from this class has been tolerability.”
A key to minimizing adverse effects, especially gastrointestinal effects, from treatment with semaglutide and other GLP-1 receptor agonists has been more gradual up-titration to the target dose, Dr. Gabbay noted in an interview, and SUSTAIN FORTE took this approach. All patients started on a 0.25-mg injection of semaglutide once weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by a 0.5-mg dose once weekly for 4 weeks, and then a 1.0 mg weekly dose. Patients in the arm randomized to receive 2.0 mg had one further dose escalation after receiving the 1.0-mg dose for 4 weeks.
The result was that gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred in 31% of patients maintained for 32 weeks on the 1-mg dose (with 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment), and in 34% of patients who received the 2-mg dose for 28 weeks (and 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment). Serious adverse events of all types occurred in 5% of patients in the 1-mg arm and in 4% of those on 2 mg. Total adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in about 4.5% of patients in both arms, and discontinuations because of gastrointestinal effects occurred in about 3% of patients in both arms.
Severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred in 1 patient maintained on 1 mg weekly and in 2 patients in the 2-mg arm, while clinically significant episodes of hypoglycemia occurred in 18 patients on the 1-mg dose (4%) and in 12 of the patients on 2 mg (3%).
“It’s reassuring that the higher dose is tolerated,” commented Dr. Gabbay.
Several doses to choose from
SUSTAIN FORTE ran during 2019-2020 at about 125 centers in 10 countries, with roughly half the sites in the United States. It randomized adults with type 2 diabetes and an A1c of 8.0%-10.0% despite ongoing metformin treatment in all patients. Just over half the patients were also maintained on a sulfonylurea agent at entry. The enrolled patients had been diagnosed with diabetes for an average of about 10 years. They averaged 58 years of age, their body mass index averaged nearly 35 kg/m2, and about 58% were men.
The new evidence in support of a 2.0-mg weekly dose of semaglutide for patients with type 2 diabetes introduces a new wrinkle in a growing menu of dose options for this drug. On June 4, 2021, the FDA approved a weekly 2.4-mg dose of semaglutide for the indication of weight loss regardless of diabetes status in patients with a body mass index of 30 or higher (or in people at 27 or more with at least one weight-related comorbidity).
Dr. Gabbay suggested that, in practice, clinicians may focus more on treatment goals for individual patients rather than drug dose, especially with an agent that’s safer with slow dose titration.
In general, “clinicians establish a goal for each patient’s A1c; you use the drug dose that gets you there,” he observed.
SUSTAIN FORTE was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide. Dr. Frias has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies, he has been a speaker on behalf of Lilly, Merck, and Sanofi, and he has received research funding from Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures.
Accumulating evidence shows that
Just weeks after the Food and Drug Administration approved an increased, 2.4-mg/week dose of semaglutide (Wegovy) for the indication of weight loss, results from a new randomized study with 961 patients that directly compared the standard 1.0-mg weekly dose for glycemic control with a 2.0-mg weekly dose showed that, over 40 weeks, the higher dose produced modest incremental improvements in both A1c reduction and weight loss while maintaining safety.
“Once weekly 2.0-mg subcutaneous semaglutide [Ozempic] was superior to 1.0 mg in reducing A1c, with greater weight loss and a similar safety profile,” Juan P. Frias, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association while presenting results of the SUSTAIN FORTE trial.
Average impact of the increased efficacy was measured. In the study’s “treatment policy estimand” analysis (considered equivalent to an intention-to-treat analysis), the primary endpoint of the cut in average A1c fell by a further 0.18% among patients on the higher dose, compared with the lower-dose arm, a significant difference in patients who entered the study with an average A1c of 8.9%. The average incremental boost for weight loss on the higher dose was about 0.8 kg, a difference that just missed significance (P = .0535).
In the study’s “trial product estimand” analysis (which censors data when patients stop the study drug or add on rescue medications), the effects were slightly more robust. The 2-mg dose produced an average 0.23% incremental decrease in A1c, compared with 1 mg, and an average incremental 0.93-kg weight reduction, both significant, reported Dr. Frias, an endocrinologist and medical director of the National Research Institute in Los Angeles.
Dr. Frias highlighted that these modest average differences had a clinical impact for some patients. In the treatment product estimand analysis, the percentage of patients achieving an A1c level of less than 7.0% increased from 58% of those who received 1 mg semaglutide to 68% of those treated with 2 mg, and achievement of an A1c of less than 6.5% occurred in 39% of patients on 1 mg and in 52% of those on 2 mg.
A similar pattern existed for weight loss in the treatment product estimand. Weight loss of at least 5% happened in 51% of patients on the 1-mg dose and in 59% of those on the higher dose.
Gradual up-titration aids tolerance
“The GLP-1 receptor agonists have so many benefits, but we were concerned in the past about pushing the dose. We’ve learned more about how to do that so that patients can better tolerate it,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medicine officer of the ADA in Arlington, Va. “The challenge with the medications from this class has been tolerability.”
A key to minimizing adverse effects, especially gastrointestinal effects, from treatment with semaglutide and other GLP-1 receptor agonists has been more gradual up-titration to the target dose, Dr. Gabbay noted in an interview, and SUSTAIN FORTE took this approach. All patients started on a 0.25-mg injection of semaglutide once weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by a 0.5-mg dose once weekly for 4 weeks, and then a 1.0 mg weekly dose. Patients in the arm randomized to receive 2.0 mg had one further dose escalation after receiving the 1.0-mg dose for 4 weeks.
The result was that gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred in 31% of patients maintained for 32 weeks on the 1-mg dose (with 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment), and in 34% of patients who received the 2-mg dose for 28 weeks (and 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment). Serious adverse events of all types occurred in 5% of patients in the 1-mg arm and in 4% of those on 2 mg. Total adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in about 4.5% of patients in both arms, and discontinuations because of gastrointestinal effects occurred in about 3% of patients in both arms.
Severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred in 1 patient maintained on 1 mg weekly and in 2 patients in the 2-mg arm, while clinically significant episodes of hypoglycemia occurred in 18 patients on the 1-mg dose (4%) and in 12 of the patients on 2 mg (3%).
“It’s reassuring that the higher dose is tolerated,” commented Dr. Gabbay.
Several doses to choose from
SUSTAIN FORTE ran during 2019-2020 at about 125 centers in 10 countries, with roughly half the sites in the United States. It randomized adults with type 2 diabetes and an A1c of 8.0%-10.0% despite ongoing metformin treatment in all patients. Just over half the patients were also maintained on a sulfonylurea agent at entry. The enrolled patients had been diagnosed with diabetes for an average of about 10 years. They averaged 58 years of age, their body mass index averaged nearly 35 kg/m2, and about 58% were men.
The new evidence in support of a 2.0-mg weekly dose of semaglutide for patients with type 2 diabetes introduces a new wrinkle in a growing menu of dose options for this drug. On June 4, 2021, the FDA approved a weekly 2.4-mg dose of semaglutide for the indication of weight loss regardless of diabetes status in patients with a body mass index of 30 or higher (or in people at 27 or more with at least one weight-related comorbidity).
Dr. Gabbay suggested that, in practice, clinicians may focus more on treatment goals for individual patients rather than drug dose, especially with an agent that’s safer with slow dose titration.
In general, “clinicians establish a goal for each patient’s A1c; you use the drug dose that gets you there,” he observed.
SUSTAIN FORTE was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide. Dr. Frias has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies, he has been a speaker on behalf of Lilly, Merck, and Sanofi, and he has received research funding from Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures.
FROM ADA 2021
Artificial intelligence, COVID-19, and the future of pandemics
Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has proven of value in the COVID-19 pandemic and shows promise for mitigating future health care crises. During the pandemic’s first wave in New York, for example, Mount Sinai Health System used an algorithm to help identify patients ready for discharge. Such systems can help overburdened hospitals manage personnel and the flow of supplies in a medical crisis so they can continue to provide superior patient care.1
Pandemic applications have demonstrated AI’s potential not only to lift administrative burdens, but also to give physicians back what Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute and author of Deep Medicine, calls “the gift of time.”2 More time with patients contributes to clear communication and positive relationships, which lower the odds of medical errors, enhance patient safety, and potentially reduce physicians’ risks of certain types of litigation.3
However, physicians and health systems will need to approach AI with caution. Many unknowns remain – including potential liability risks and the potential for worsening preexisting bias. The law will need to evolve to account for AI-related liability scenarios, some of which are yet to be imagined.
Like any emerging technology, AI brings risk, but its promise of benefit should outweigh the probability of negative consequences – provided we remain aware of and mitigate the potential for AI-induced adverse events.
AI’s pandemic success limited due to fragmented data
Innovation is the key to success in any crisis, and many health care providers have shown their ability to innovate with AI during the pandemic. For example, researchers at the University of California, San Diego, health system who were designing an AI program to help doctors spot pneumonia on a chest x-ray retooled their application to assist physicians fighting coronavirus.4
Meanwhile, AI has been used to distinguish COVID-19–specific symptoms: It was a computer sifting medical records that took anosmia, loss of the sense of smell, from an anecdotal connection to an officially recognized early symptom of the virus.5 This information now helps physicians distinguish COVID-19 from influenza.
However, holding back more innovation is the fragmentation of health care data in the United States. Most AI applications for medicine rely on machine learning; that is, they train on historical patient data to recognize patterns. Therefore, “Everything that we’re doing gets better with a lot more annotated datasets,” Dr. Topol says. Unfortunately, because of our disparate systems, we don’t have centralized data.6 And even if our data were centralized, researchers lack enough reliable COVID-19 data to perfect algorithms in the short term.
Or, put in bleaker terms by the Washington Post: “One of the biggest challenges has been that much data remains siloed inside incompatible computer systems, hoarded by business interests and tangled in geopolitics.”7
The good news is that machine learning and data science platform Kaggle is hosting the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset, or CORD-19, which contains well over 100,000 scholarly articles on COVID-19, SARS, and other relevant infections.8 In lieu of a true central repository of anonymized health data, such large datasets can help train new AI applications in search of new diagnostic tools and therapies.
AI introduces new questions around liability
While AI may eventually be assigned legal personhood, it is not, in fact, a person: It is a tool wielded by individual clinicians, by teams, by health systems, even multiple systems collaborating. Our current liability laws are not ready for the era of digital medicine.
AI algorithms are not perfect. Because we know that diagnostic error is already a major allegation in malpractice claims, we must ask: What happens when a patient alleges that diagnostic error occurred because a physician or physicians leaned too heavily on AI?
In the United States, testing delays have threatened the safety of patients, physicians, and the public by delaying diagnosis of COVID-19. But again, health care providers have applied real innovation – generating novel and useful ideas and applying those ideas – to this problem. For example, researchers at Mount Sinai became the first in the country to combine AI with imaging and clinical data to produce an algorithm that can detect COVID-19 based on computed tomography scans of the chest, in combination with patient information and exposure history.9
AI in health care can help mitigate bias – or worsen it
Machine learning is only as good as the information provided to train the machine. Models trained on partial datasets can skew toward demographics that turned up more often in the data – for example, White race or men over 60. There is concern that “analyses based on faulty or biased algorithms could exacerbate existing racial gaps and other disparities in health care.”10 Already during the pandemic’s first waves, multiple AI systems used to classify x-rays have been found to show racial, gender, and socioeconomic biases.11
Such bias could create high potential for poor recommendations, including false positives and false negatives. It’s critical that system builders are able to explain and qualify their training data and that those who best understand AI-related system risks are the ones who influence health care systems or alter applications to mitigate AI-related harms.12
AI can help spot the next outbreak
More than a week before the World Health Organization released its first warning about a novel coronavirus, the AI platform BlueDot, created in Toronto, spotted an unusual cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. Meanwhile, at Boston Children’s Hospital, the AI application Healthmap was scanning social media and news sites for signs of disease cluster, and it, too, flagged the first signs of what would become the COVID-19 outbreak – days before the WHO’s first formal alert.13
These innovative applications of AI in health care demonstrate real promise in detecting future outbreaks of new viruses early. This will allow health care providers and public health officials to get information out sooner, reducing the load on health systems, and ultimately, saving lives.
Dr. Anderson is chairman and chief executive officer, The Doctors Company and TDC Group.
References
1. Gold A. “Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine” Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.
2. Topol E. “Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again” (New York: Hachette Book Group; 2019:285).
3. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.
4. Gold A. Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine. Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.
5. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.
6. Reuter E. Hundreds of AI solutions proposed for pandemic, but few are proven. MedCity News. 2020 May 28.
7. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.
8. Lee K. COVID-19 will accelerate the AI health care revolution. Wired. 2020 May 22.
9. Mei X et al. Artificial intelligence–enabled rapid diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020 May 19;26:1224-8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0931-3.
10. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.
11. Wiggers K. Researchers find evidence of racial, gender, and socioeconomic bias in chest X-ray classifiers. The Machine: Making Sense of AI. 2020 Oct 21.
12. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.
13. Sewalk K. Innovative disease surveillance platforms detected early warning signs for novel coronavirus outbreak (nCoV-2019). The Disease Daily. 2020 Jan 31.
Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has proven of value in the COVID-19 pandemic and shows promise for mitigating future health care crises. During the pandemic’s first wave in New York, for example, Mount Sinai Health System used an algorithm to help identify patients ready for discharge. Such systems can help overburdened hospitals manage personnel and the flow of supplies in a medical crisis so they can continue to provide superior patient care.1
Pandemic applications have demonstrated AI’s potential not only to lift administrative burdens, but also to give physicians back what Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute and author of Deep Medicine, calls “the gift of time.”2 More time with patients contributes to clear communication and positive relationships, which lower the odds of medical errors, enhance patient safety, and potentially reduce physicians’ risks of certain types of litigation.3
However, physicians and health systems will need to approach AI with caution. Many unknowns remain – including potential liability risks and the potential for worsening preexisting bias. The law will need to evolve to account for AI-related liability scenarios, some of which are yet to be imagined.
Like any emerging technology, AI brings risk, but its promise of benefit should outweigh the probability of negative consequences – provided we remain aware of and mitigate the potential for AI-induced adverse events.
AI’s pandemic success limited due to fragmented data
Innovation is the key to success in any crisis, and many health care providers have shown their ability to innovate with AI during the pandemic. For example, researchers at the University of California, San Diego, health system who were designing an AI program to help doctors spot pneumonia on a chest x-ray retooled their application to assist physicians fighting coronavirus.4
Meanwhile, AI has been used to distinguish COVID-19–specific symptoms: It was a computer sifting medical records that took anosmia, loss of the sense of smell, from an anecdotal connection to an officially recognized early symptom of the virus.5 This information now helps physicians distinguish COVID-19 from influenza.
However, holding back more innovation is the fragmentation of health care data in the United States. Most AI applications for medicine rely on machine learning; that is, they train on historical patient data to recognize patterns. Therefore, “Everything that we’re doing gets better with a lot more annotated datasets,” Dr. Topol says. Unfortunately, because of our disparate systems, we don’t have centralized data.6 And even if our data were centralized, researchers lack enough reliable COVID-19 data to perfect algorithms in the short term.
Or, put in bleaker terms by the Washington Post: “One of the biggest challenges has been that much data remains siloed inside incompatible computer systems, hoarded by business interests and tangled in geopolitics.”7
The good news is that machine learning and data science platform Kaggle is hosting the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset, or CORD-19, which contains well over 100,000 scholarly articles on COVID-19, SARS, and other relevant infections.8 In lieu of a true central repository of anonymized health data, such large datasets can help train new AI applications in search of new diagnostic tools and therapies.
AI introduces new questions around liability
While AI may eventually be assigned legal personhood, it is not, in fact, a person: It is a tool wielded by individual clinicians, by teams, by health systems, even multiple systems collaborating. Our current liability laws are not ready for the era of digital medicine.
AI algorithms are not perfect. Because we know that diagnostic error is already a major allegation in malpractice claims, we must ask: What happens when a patient alleges that diagnostic error occurred because a physician or physicians leaned too heavily on AI?
In the United States, testing delays have threatened the safety of patients, physicians, and the public by delaying diagnosis of COVID-19. But again, health care providers have applied real innovation – generating novel and useful ideas and applying those ideas – to this problem. For example, researchers at Mount Sinai became the first in the country to combine AI with imaging and clinical data to produce an algorithm that can detect COVID-19 based on computed tomography scans of the chest, in combination with patient information and exposure history.9
AI in health care can help mitigate bias – or worsen it
Machine learning is only as good as the information provided to train the machine. Models trained on partial datasets can skew toward demographics that turned up more often in the data – for example, White race or men over 60. There is concern that “analyses based on faulty or biased algorithms could exacerbate existing racial gaps and other disparities in health care.”10 Already during the pandemic’s first waves, multiple AI systems used to classify x-rays have been found to show racial, gender, and socioeconomic biases.11
Such bias could create high potential for poor recommendations, including false positives and false negatives. It’s critical that system builders are able to explain and qualify their training data and that those who best understand AI-related system risks are the ones who influence health care systems or alter applications to mitigate AI-related harms.12
AI can help spot the next outbreak
More than a week before the World Health Organization released its first warning about a novel coronavirus, the AI platform BlueDot, created in Toronto, spotted an unusual cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. Meanwhile, at Boston Children’s Hospital, the AI application Healthmap was scanning social media and news sites for signs of disease cluster, and it, too, flagged the first signs of what would become the COVID-19 outbreak – days before the WHO’s first formal alert.13
These innovative applications of AI in health care demonstrate real promise in detecting future outbreaks of new viruses early. This will allow health care providers and public health officials to get information out sooner, reducing the load on health systems, and ultimately, saving lives.
Dr. Anderson is chairman and chief executive officer, The Doctors Company and TDC Group.
References
1. Gold A. “Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine” Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.
2. Topol E. “Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again” (New York: Hachette Book Group; 2019:285).
3. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.
4. Gold A. Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine. Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.
5. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.
6. Reuter E. Hundreds of AI solutions proposed for pandemic, but few are proven. MedCity News. 2020 May 28.
7. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.
8. Lee K. COVID-19 will accelerate the AI health care revolution. Wired. 2020 May 22.
9. Mei X et al. Artificial intelligence–enabled rapid diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020 May 19;26:1224-8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0931-3.
10. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.
11. Wiggers K. Researchers find evidence of racial, gender, and socioeconomic bias in chest X-ray classifiers. The Machine: Making Sense of AI. 2020 Oct 21.
12. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.
13. Sewalk K. Innovative disease surveillance platforms detected early warning signs for novel coronavirus outbreak (nCoV-2019). The Disease Daily. 2020 Jan 31.
Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has proven of value in the COVID-19 pandemic and shows promise for mitigating future health care crises. During the pandemic’s first wave in New York, for example, Mount Sinai Health System used an algorithm to help identify patients ready for discharge. Such systems can help overburdened hospitals manage personnel and the flow of supplies in a medical crisis so they can continue to provide superior patient care.1
Pandemic applications have demonstrated AI’s potential not only to lift administrative burdens, but also to give physicians back what Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute and author of Deep Medicine, calls “the gift of time.”2 More time with patients contributes to clear communication and positive relationships, which lower the odds of medical errors, enhance patient safety, and potentially reduce physicians’ risks of certain types of litigation.3
However, physicians and health systems will need to approach AI with caution. Many unknowns remain – including potential liability risks and the potential for worsening preexisting bias. The law will need to evolve to account for AI-related liability scenarios, some of which are yet to be imagined.
Like any emerging technology, AI brings risk, but its promise of benefit should outweigh the probability of negative consequences – provided we remain aware of and mitigate the potential for AI-induced adverse events.
AI’s pandemic success limited due to fragmented data
Innovation is the key to success in any crisis, and many health care providers have shown their ability to innovate with AI during the pandemic. For example, researchers at the University of California, San Diego, health system who were designing an AI program to help doctors spot pneumonia on a chest x-ray retooled their application to assist physicians fighting coronavirus.4
Meanwhile, AI has been used to distinguish COVID-19–specific symptoms: It was a computer sifting medical records that took anosmia, loss of the sense of smell, from an anecdotal connection to an officially recognized early symptom of the virus.5 This information now helps physicians distinguish COVID-19 from influenza.
However, holding back more innovation is the fragmentation of health care data in the United States. Most AI applications for medicine rely on machine learning; that is, they train on historical patient data to recognize patterns. Therefore, “Everything that we’re doing gets better with a lot more annotated datasets,” Dr. Topol says. Unfortunately, because of our disparate systems, we don’t have centralized data.6 And even if our data were centralized, researchers lack enough reliable COVID-19 data to perfect algorithms in the short term.
Or, put in bleaker terms by the Washington Post: “One of the biggest challenges has been that much data remains siloed inside incompatible computer systems, hoarded by business interests and tangled in geopolitics.”7
The good news is that machine learning and data science platform Kaggle is hosting the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset, or CORD-19, which contains well over 100,000 scholarly articles on COVID-19, SARS, and other relevant infections.8 In lieu of a true central repository of anonymized health data, such large datasets can help train new AI applications in search of new diagnostic tools and therapies.
AI introduces new questions around liability
While AI may eventually be assigned legal personhood, it is not, in fact, a person: It is a tool wielded by individual clinicians, by teams, by health systems, even multiple systems collaborating. Our current liability laws are not ready for the era of digital medicine.
AI algorithms are not perfect. Because we know that diagnostic error is already a major allegation in malpractice claims, we must ask: What happens when a patient alleges that diagnostic error occurred because a physician or physicians leaned too heavily on AI?
In the United States, testing delays have threatened the safety of patients, physicians, and the public by delaying diagnosis of COVID-19. But again, health care providers have applied real innovation – generating novel and useful ideas and applying those ideas – to this problem. For example, researchers at Mount Sinai became the first in the country to combine AI with imaging and clinical data to produce an algorithm that can detect COVID-19 based on computed tomography scans of the chest, in combination with patient information and exposure history.9
AI in health care can help mitigate bias – or worsen it
Machine learning is only as good as the information provided to train the machine. Models trained on partial datasets can skew toward demographics that turned up more often in the data – for example, White race or men over 60. There is concern that “analyses based on faulty or biased algorithms could exacerbate existing racial gaps and other disparities in health care.”10 Already during the pandemic’s first waves, multiple AI systems used to classify x-rays have been found to show racial, gender, and socioeconomic biases.11
Such bias could create high potential for poor recommendations, including false positives and false negatives. It’s critical that system builders are able to explain and qualify their training data and that those who best understand AI-related system risks are the ones who influence health care systems or alter applications to mitigate AI-related harms.12
AI can help spot the next outbreak
More than a week before the World Health Organization released its first warning about a novel coronavirus, the AI platform BlueDot, created in Toronto, spotted an unusual cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. Meanwhile, at Boston Children’s Hospital, the AI application Healthmap was scanning social media and news sites for signs of disease cluster, and it, too, flagged the first signs of what would become the COVID-19 outbreak – days before the WHO’s first formal alert.13
These innovative applications of AI in health care demonstrate real promise in detecting future outbreaks of new viruses early. This will allow health care providers and public health officials to get information out sooner, reducing the load on health systems, and ultimately, saving lives.
Dr. Anderson is chairman and chief executive officer, The Doctors Company and TDC Group.
References
1. Gold A. “Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine” Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.
2. Topol E. “Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again” (New York: Hachette Book Group; 2019:285).
3. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.
4. Gold A. Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine. Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.
5. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.
6. Reuter E. Hundreds of AI solutions proposed for pandemic, but few are proven. MedCity News. 2020 May 28.
7. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.
8. Lee K. COVID-19 will accelerate the AI health care revolution. Wired. 2020 May 22.
9. Mei X et al. Artificial intelligence–enabled rapid diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020 May 19;26:1224-8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0931-3.
10. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.
11. Wiggers K. Researchers find evidence of racial, gender, and socioeconomic bias in chest X-ray classifiers. The Machine: Making Sense of AI. 2020 Oct 21.
12. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.
13. Sewalk K. Innovative disease surveillance platforms detected early warning signs for novel coronavirus outbreak (nCoV-2019). The Disease Daily. 2020 Jan 31.
‘Staggering’ doubling of type 2 diabetes in children during pandemic
The incidence of type 2 diabetes in children appears to have doubled during the COVID-19 pandemic, data from two new U.S. studies suggest, with the lead investigator of one saying she was “surprised by the staggering increase in cases of type 2 diabetes ... and the increase in severity of presentation.”
Findings from the two separate retrospective chart reviews – one conducted in Washington, D.C., and the other in Baton Rouge, La. – were presented June 25 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Although the two studies differed somewhat in the clinical parameters examined, both revealed a similar doubling of the rates of hospitalizations for type 2 diabetes among youth during 2020, compared with the same time period in 2019, as well as greater severity of metabolic disturbance.
And, as has been previously described with type 2 diabetes in youth, African American ethnicity predominated in both cohorts.
“Although we could not assess the cause of the increases in type 2 diabetes from our data, these disparities suggest that indirect effects of social distancing measures, including school closure and unemployment, are placing undue burden on underserved communities. Decreases in well-child care and fears of seeking medical care during the pandemic may have also contributed,” lead investigator of one of the studies, pediatric endocrinologist Brynn E. Marks, MD, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, said in an interview.
More hospitalizations, racial disparities aggravated by COVID-19
Lead author of the other study, Daniel S. Hsia, MD, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, said in an interview: “Since the pandemic, our data suggest that more children may be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and may require hospitalization when they are diagnosed. Looking at both datasets, there appears to be a racial disparity in type 2 diabetes diagnoses that has only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Of concern, Dr. Hsia said, “The incidence rate of type 2 diabetes in children was already on the rise before the pandemic. While there may be a brief leveling off now that children are getting regular health care and going back to school in person, I believe these rates will continue to rise especially in light of the childhood obesity rates not improving.”
Their dataset captured all youth who were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during the first full year of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March 11, 2020, to March 10, 2021, and compared those data with the time period from March 11, 2019, to March 10, 2020.
During the pandemic, the number of cases of type 2 diabetes increased by 182%, from 50 in 2019 to 141 in 2020. The average age at diagnosis was about 14 years in both time periods.
In the prepandemic period, 18 (36%) diagnosed with type 2 diabetes required inpatient admission, compared with 85 (60.3%) during the pandemic. At Children’s National, youth with suspected new-onset type 2 diabetes aren’t typically hospitalized unless they have severe hyperglycemia, ketosis, or are unable to schedule urgent outpatient follow-up, Dr. Marks noted.
The proportions of youth with new-onset type 2 diabetes who presented in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) rose from 2 (4%) prepandemic to 33 (23.4%) during the pandemic. Presentation with hyperosmolar DKA rose from 0 to 13 (9.2%).
However, during the pandemic only five youth were actively infected with SARS-CoV-2 at the time of type 2 diabetes diagnosis among the 90 tested.
Dr. Marks said: “We believe the increase in inpatient admissions was due to more severe presentation during the pandemic. ...We were surprised by the staggering increase in cases of type 2 diabetes ... and the increase in severity of presentation.”
Shift in diagnoses to type 2 diabetes
The pandemic also appears to have shifted the proportion of youth diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, compared with type 1 diabetes. Whereas 24% of youth with new-onset diabetes prepandemic had type 2 diabetes and the rest had type 1 diabetes, during pandemic the proportion with type 2 diabetes rose to 44%.
“Rates of type 2 diabetes rose steadily at a rate of 1.45 cases per month throughout the course of the pandemic, suggesting a cumulative effect of the indirect effects of social distancing measures,” Dr. Marks said.
Furthermore, she added, whereas 60% of youth diagnosed with type 2 diabetes before the pandemic were female, the rate fell to 40% during the pandemic. This trend might be because of activity levels in that, while male adolescents are typically more active, rates of exercise fell in both sexes during the pandemic but declined more sharply in males such that activity levels between the sexes became equal.
Although type 2 diabetes in youth has always been more common in ethnic minorities, the pandemic appears to have exacerbated these disparities.
While 58% of youth diagnosed with type 2 diabetes prepandemic identified as non-Hispanic Black, that proportion rose to 76.7% during the pandemic. Among Black youth with new-onset type 2 diabetes, 31 of 33 presented in DKA, and 12 of the 13 who presented in hyperosmolar DKA during the pandemic were Black.
“Strategies to promote health equity and address the undue burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on underserved communities must be developed to avoid worsening disparities and long-term health outcomes,” Dr. Marks said.
‘A microcosm’: Similar findings in a smaller population
Dr. Hsia and colleagues looked at a smaller number of patients in a shorter time period. In March–December 2019, the hospitalization rate for new-onset type 2 diabetes was 0.27% (8 out of 2,964 hospitalizations), compared with 0.62% (17 out of 2,729 hospitalizations) during the same period in 2020 (P < .048) – also more than a doubling. Age at admission, sex, and body mass index didn’t differ between the two groups.
Criteria for DKA were met by three children in 2019 versus eight in 2020, and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic syndrome in zero versus two, respectively. Mean hemoglobin A1c on admission was 12.4% in 2019 versus 13.1% in 2020 (P = .59), and mean serum glucose was 441 mg/dL versus 669 mg/dL (P = .14), respectively. Serum osmolality on admission was 314 mmol/kg in 2019 versus 335 mmol/kg in 2020 (P = .19).
“Clinically speaking the differences in the lab values were significant, but we did not have enough numbers ... to see a statistically significant difference. I think by looking at more centers, our site likely represents a microcosm of what is happening across the country,” Dr. Hsia said.
In 2019, 7 of the 8 children were African American, as were 16 of the 17 children in 2020. The other single child in each group was White.
Dr. Hsia said: “Larger studies that include more patients are needed to confirm our initial findings. More research is needed to understand why this increasing trend of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in children may be occurring [and] to better understand how stay-at-home orders and other restrictions due to COVID-19 have worsened risk factors for type 2 diabetes.”
“These include decreased physical activity, more screen time, disturbed sleep, and increased intake of processed foods, which can all lead to weight gain,” he concluded.
Dr. Marks reported receiving research support from Tandem, Dexcom, and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Dr. Hsia reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The incidence of type 2 diabetes in children appears to have doubled during the COVID-19 pandemic, data from two new U.S. studies suggest, with the lead investigator of one saying she was “surprised by the staggering increase in cases of type 2 diabetes ... and the increase in severity of presentation.”
Findings from the two separate retrospective chart reviews – one conducted in Washington, D.C., and the other in Baton Rouge, La. – were presented June 25 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Although the two studies differed somewhat in the clinical parameters examined, both revealed a similar doubling of the rates of hospitalizations for type 2 diabetes among youth during 2020, compared with the same time period in 2019, as well as greater severity of metabolic disturbance.
And, as has been previously described with type 2 diabetes in youth, African American ethnicity predominated in both cohorts.
“Although we could not assess the cause of the increases in type 2 diabetes from our data, these disparities suggest that indirect effects of social distancing measures, including school closure and unemployment, are placing undue burden on underserved communities. Decreases in well-child care and fears of seeking medical care during the pandemic may have also contributed,” lead investigator of one of the studies, pediatric endocrinologist Brynn E. Marks, MD, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, said in an interview.
More hospitalizations, racial disparities aggravated by COVID-19
Lead author of the other study, Daniel S. Hsia, MD, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, said in an interview: “Since the pandemic, our data suggest that more children may be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and may require hospitalization when they are diagnosed. Looking at both datasets, there appears to be a racial disparity in type 2 diabetes diagnoses that has only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Of concern, Dr. Hsia said, “The incidence rate of type 2 diabetes in children was already on the rise before the pandemic. While there may be a brief leveling off now that children are getting regular health care and going back to school in person, I believe these rates will continue to rise especially in light of the childhood obesity rates not improving.”
Their dataset captured all youth who were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during the first full year of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March 11, 2020, to March 10, 2021, and compared those data with the time period from March 11, 2019, to March 10, 2020.
During the pandemic, the number of cases of type 2 diabetes increased by 182%, from 50 in 2019 to 141 in 2020. The average age at diagnosis was about 14 years in both time periods.
In the prepandemic period, 18 (36%) diagnosed with type 2 diabetes required inpatient admission, compared with 85 (60.3%) during the pandemic. At Children’s National, youth with suspected new-onset type 2 diabetes aren’t typically hospitalized unless they have severe hyperglycemia, ketosis, or are unable to schedule urgent outpatient follow-up, Dr. Marks noted.
The proportions of youth with new-onset type 2 diabetes who presented in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) rose from 2 (4%) prepandemic to 33 (23.4%) during the pandemic. Presentation with hyperosmolar DKA rose from 0 to 13 (9.2%).
However, during the pandemic only five youth were actively infected with SARS-CoV-2 at the time of type 2 diabetes diagnosis among the 90 tested.
Dr. Marks said: “We believe the increase in inpatient admissions was due to more severe presentation during the pandemic. ...We were surprised by the staggering increase in cases of type 2 diabetes ... and the increase in severity of presentation.”
Shift in diagnoses to type 2 diabetes
The pandemic also appears to have shifted the proportion of youth diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, compared with type 1 diabetes. Whereas 24% of youth with new-onset diabetes prepandemic had type 2 diabetes and the rest had type 1 diabetes, during pandemic the proportion with type 2 diabetes rose to 44%.
“Rates of type 2 diabetes rose steadily at a rate of 1.45 cases per month throughout the course of the pandemic, suggesting a cumulative effect of the indirect effects of social distancing measures,” Dr. Marks said.
Furthermore, she added, whereas 60% of youth diagnosed with type 2 diabetes before the pandemic were female, the rate fell to 40% during the pandemic. This trend might be because of activity levels in that, while male adolescents are typically more active, rates of exercise fell in both sexes during the pandemic but declined more sharply in males such that activity levels between the sexes became equal.
Although type 2 diabetes in youth has always been more common in ethnic minorities, the pandemic appears to have exacerbated these disparities.
While 58% of youth diagnosed with type 2 diabetes prepandemic identified as non-Hispanic Black, that proportion rose to 76.7% during the pandemic. Among Black youth with new-onset type 2 diabetes, 31 of 33 presented in DKA, and 12 of the 13 who presented in hyperosmolar DKA during the pandemic were Black.
“Strategies to promote health equity and address the undue burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on underserved communities must be developed to avoid worsening disparities and long-term health outcomes,” Dr. Marks said.
‘A microcosm’: Similar findings in a smaller population
Dr. Hsia and colleagues looked at a smaller number of patients in a shorter time period. In March–December 2019, the hospitalization rate for new-onset type 2 diabetes was 0.27% (8 out of 2,964 hospitalizations), compared with 0.62% (17 out of 2,729 hospitalizations) during the same period in 2020 (P < .048) – also more than a doubling. Age at admission, sex, and body mass index didn’t differ between the two groups.
Criteria for DKA were met by three children in 2019 versus eight in 2020, and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic syndrome in zero versus two, respectively. Mean hemoglobin A1c on admission was 12.4% in 2019 versus 13.1% in 2020 (P = .59), and mean serum glucose was 441 mg/dL versus 669 mg/dL (P = .14), respectively. Serum osmolality on admission was 314 mmol/kg in 2019 versus 335 mmol/kg in 2020 (P = .19).
“Clinically speaking the differences in the lab values were significant, but we did not have enough numbers ... to see a statistically significant difference. I think by looking at more centers, our site likely represents a microcosm of what is happening across the country,” Dr. Hsia said.
In 2019, 7 of the 8 children were African American, as were 16 of the 17 children in 2020. The other single child in each group was White.
Dr. Hsia said: “Larger studies that include more patients are needed to confirm our initial findings. More research is needed to understand why this increasing trend of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in children may be occurring [and] to better understand how stay-at-home orders and other restrictions due to COVID-19 have worsened risk factors for type 2 diabetes.”
“These include decreased physical activity, more screen time, disturbed sleep, and increased intake of processed foods, which can all lead to weight gain,” he concluded.
Dr. Marks reported receiving research support from Tandem, Dexcom, and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Dr. Hsia reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The incidence of type 2 diabetes in children appears to have doubled during the COVID-19 pandemic, data from two new U.S. studies suggest, with the lead investigator of one saying she was “surprised by the staggering increase in cases of type 2 diabetes ... and the increase in severity of presentation.”
Findings from the two separate retrospective chart reviews – one conducted in Washington, D.C., and the other in Baton Rouge, La. – were presented June 25 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Although the two studies differed somewhat in the clinical parameters examined, both revealed a similar doubling of the rates of hospitalizations for type 2 diabetes among youth during 2020, compared with the same time period in 2019, as well as greater severity of metabolic disturbance.
And, as has been previously described with type 2 diabetes in youth, African American ethnicity predominated in both cohorts.
“Although we could not assess the cause of the increases in type 2 diabetes from our data, these disparities suggest that indirect effects of social distancing measures, including school closure and unemployment, are placing undue burden on underserved communities. Decreases in well-child care and fears of seeking medical care during the pandemic may have also contributed,” lead investigator of one of the studies, pediatric endocrinologist Brynn E. Marks, MD, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, said in an interview.
More hospitalizations, racial disparities aggravated by COVID-19
Lead author of the other study, Daniel S. Hsia, MD, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, said in an interview: “Since the pandemic, our data suggest that more children may be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and may require hospitalization when they are diagnosed. Looking at both datasets, there appears to be a racial disparity in type 2 diabetes diagnoses that has only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Of concern, Dr. Hsia said, “The incidence rate of type 2 diabetes in children was already on the rise before the pandemic. While there may be a brief leveling off now that children are getting regular health care and going back to school in person, I believe these rates will continue to rise especially in light of the childhood obesity rates not improving.”
Their dataset captured all youth who were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during the first full year of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March 11, 2020, to March 10, 2021, and compared those data with the time period from March 11, 2019, to March 10, 2020.
During the pandemic, the number of cases of type 2 diabetes increased by 182%, from 50 in 2019 to 141 in 2020. The average age at diagnosis was about 14 years in both time periods.
In the prepandemic period, 18 (36%) diagnosed with type 2 diabetes required inpatient admission, compared with 85 (60.3%) during the pandemic. At Children’s National, youth with suspected new-onset type 2 diabetes aren’t typically hospitalized unless they have severe hyperglycemia, ketosis, or are unable to schedule urgent outpatient follow-up, Dr. Marks noted.
The proportions of youth with new-onset type 2 diabetes who presented in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) rose from 2 (4%) prepandemic to 33 (23.4%) during the pandemic. Presentation with hyperosmolar DKA rose from 0 to 13 (9.2%).
However, during the pandemic only five youth were actively infected with SARS-CoV-2 at the time of type 2 diabetes diagnosis among the 90 tested.
Dr. Marks said: “We believe the increase in inpatient admissions was due to more severe presentation during the pandemic. ...We were surprised by the staggering increase in cases of type 2 diabetes ... and the increase in severity of presentation.”
Shift in diagnoses to type 2 diabetes
The pandemic also appears to have shifted the proportion of youth diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, compared with type 1 diabetes. Whereas 24% of youth with new-onset diabetes prepandemic had type 2 diabetes and the rest had type 1 diabetes, during pandemic the proportion with type 2 diabetes rose to 44%.
“Rates of type 2 diabetes rose steadily at a rate of 1.45 cases per month throughout the course of the pandemic, suggesting a cumulative effect of the indirect effects of social distancing measures,” Dr. Marks said.
Furthermore, she added, whereas 60% of youth diagnosed with type 2 diabetes before the pandemic were female, the rate fell to 40% during the pandemic. This trend might be because of activity levels in that, while male adolescents are typically more active, rates of exercise fell in both sexes during the pandemic but declined more sharply in males such that activity levels between the sexes became equal.
Although type 2 diabetes in youth has always been more common in ethnic minorities, the pandemic appears to have exacerbated these disparities.
While 58% of youth diagnosed with type 2 diabetes prepandemic identified as non-Hispanic Black, that proportion rose to 76.7% during the pandemic. Among Black youth with new-onset type 2 diabetes, 31 of 33 presented in DKA, and 12 of the 13 who presented in hyperosmolar DKA during the pandemic were Black.
“Strategies to promote health equity and address the undue burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on underserved communities must be developed to avoid worsening disparities and long-term health outcomes,” Dr. Marks said.
‘A microcosm’: Similar findings in a smaller population
Dr. Hsia and colleagues looked at a smaller number of patients in a shorter time period. In March–December 2019, the hospitalization rate for new-onset type 2 diabetes was 0.27% (8 out of 2,964 hospitalizations), compared with 0.62% (17 out of 2,729 hospitalizations) during the same period in 2020 (P < .048) – also more than a doubling. Age at admission, sex, and body mass index didn’t differ between the two groups.
Criteria for DKA were met by three children in 2019 versus eight in 2020, and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic syndrome in zero versus two, respectively. Mean hemoglobin A1c on admission was 12.4% in 2019 versus 13.1% in 2020 (P = .59), and mean serum glucose was 441 mg/dL versus 669 mg/dL (P = .14), respectively. Serum osmolality on admission was 314 mmol/kg in 2019 versus 335 mmol/kg in 2020 (P = .19).
“Clinically speaking the differences in the lab values were significant, but we did not have enough numbers ... to see a statistically significant difference. I think by looking at more centers, our site likely represents a microcosm of what is happening across the country,” Dr. Hsia said.
In 2019, 7 of the 8 children were African American, as were 16 of the 17 children in 2020. The other single child in each group was White.
Dr. Hsia said: “Larger studies that include more patients are needed to confirm our initial findings. More research is needed to understand why this increasing trend of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in children may be occurring [and] to better understand how stay-at-home orders and other restrictions due to COVID-19 have worsened risk factors for type 2 diabetes.”
“These include decreased physical activity, more screen time, disturbed sleep, and increased intake of processed foods, which can all lead to weight gain,” he concluded.
Dr. Marks reported receiving research support from Tandem, Dexcom, and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Dr. Hsia reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Stunning’ twincretin beats semaglutide for A1c, weight reduction in T2D
Tirzepatide, a novel “twincretin” agent, was superior to 1-mg semaglutide treatments for reducing both hemoglobin A1c levels and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes in a pivotal, 40-week, head-to-head trial with nearly 1,900 randomized patients, one of four positive pivotal trial results reported for tirzepatide at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
“Across all four studies we see a significant and clinically meaningful decrease in A1c, and robust weight loss. The results exceeded our expectations” for both these outcomes, said Laura Fernández Landó, MD, senior medical director for tirzepatide at Lilly, the company developing the agent, and a coauthor on the semaglutide comparison study as well as on other tirzepatide reports at the meeting.
“This opens up a new avenue for results in diabetes therapy,” Jens Juul Holst, MD, remarked in a press conference.
SURPASS-2 compared three different tirzepatide doses delivered once weekly by subcutaneous injection against a 1-mg weekly, subcutaneous dose of semaglutide (Ozempic) in 1,879 adults who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for an average of almost 9 years. All patients were already on metformin treatment that had proved inadequate for controlling their hyperglycemia; enrolled patients had an average A1c of 8.28%. The trial’s primary endpoint was change from baseline in A1c levels after 40 weeks.
Significant differences at each dose level
Patients on each of the three tirzepatide doses – 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg once weekly – showed dose-dependent reductions in A1c that, for each dose, were significantly better than the reduction achieved with semaglutide. The highest tirzepatide dose reduced A1c levels by an average of 0.45% more than what semaglutide achieved, reported first author Juan P. Frias, MD; Dr. Landó; and their coauthors.
One key secondary endpoint was weight reduction, and each of the three tirzepatide doses again produced significant incremental loss beyond what semaglutide produced. The 5-mg weekly dose of tirzepatide produced an average 1.9-kg additional weight loss, compared with semaglutide, while the 15-mg dose resulted in an average 5.5-kg loss beyond what semaglutide achieved and a total average weight loss of 11.2 kg from baseline.
The study’s additional key secondary endpoints, the percentages of patients reaching an A1c of less than 7%, and less than 5.7%, also showed significantly better numbers with tirzepatide. The highest tirzepatide dose pushed 86% of patients below the 7% mark, compared with 79% on semaglutide, and the top tirzepatide dose resulted in 46% of patients getting their A1c below 5.7%, compared with 19% of patients on semaglutide.
The findings are “stunning, I must stay, and those results included that up to half of the patients treated with high doses of tirzepatide may reach A1c levels of less than 5.7%, which is really, really unheard of,” said Dr. Holst, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Copenhagen. Along with the “weight losses at the same time of up to 12% in that patient group, we are seeing some completely unexpected and really shocking and wonderful new advances in the therapy,” added Dr. Holst.
The safety profile of tirzepatide was roughly similar to semaglutide’s and to that other agents in the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class. Concurrently with the report at the meeting, the results also appeared in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
An ‘impressive’ weight loss effect
Weight loss on tirzepatide was “impressive,” commented Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, a nephrologist affiliated with the University of Washington and executive director for research at Providence Health Care in Spokane, Wash. Another striking feature of tirzepatide’s weight-loss effect was that it did not plateau during the 40 weeks of the study, Dr. Tuttle noted in an accompanying editorial that accompanied the published report, a finding that suggests the potential for additional weight loss from continued treatment .
“The weight loss is remarkable,” commented Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta. While incremental reduction of A1c on the order of less than 0.5% is helpful, incremental weight loss of more than 10 lbs on tirzepatide, compared with semaglutide “will likely be a tie-breaker” for many clinicians and patients to favor tirzepatide over semaglutide or another GLP-1 RA agent, he said in an interview. Dr. Galindo also cited other important factors that he predicted will drive decisions on using tirzepatide or a GLP-1 RA once tirzepatide reaches the U.S. market: relative cost, access, and tolerability.
The important issue of dose
But the edge that tirzepatide showed over semaglutide for weight loss did not occur on a completely level playing field. The 1 mg/week dose of semaglutide used as the comparator in SURPASS-2 was the maximum dose available at the time the study began, but in June 2021 the Food and Drug Administration approved a 2.4 mg/week dose (Wegovy) labeled specifically for weight loss. Dr. Tuttle cited the limitation this introduces in her editorial.
“The dose issue is important,” she wrote. The doses of tirzepatide and semaglutide compared in SURPASS-2 “were not comparable in terms of weight outcomes” given that prior evidence showed that the 2.4 mg/week semaglutide dose is more appropriate for weight loss.
Dr. Tuttle also cited other factors to consider when assessing tirzepatide compared with agents in the GLP-1 RA class.
Several GLP-1 RA agents, including semaglutide, have proven efficacy for reducing rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and albuminuria, and they also slow decline in kidney function and progression of diabetic kidney disease. No details on the renal effects of tirzepatide appeared in the SURPASS-2 report. A press release from Lilly in May 2021 briefly mentioned results from a meta-analysis of several clinical studies of tirzepatide that showed a nonsignificant effect from tirzepatide on the incidence of major cardiovascular adverse events (death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina) relative to comparator groups. Results from a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial in high-risk patients treated with tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT, are not expected until 2024.
A further limitation of SURPASS-2 was the demographics of the enrolled population, which had a low (0.4%) enrollment rate of Black patients, and a high proportion (70%) of Hispanic patients, Dr. Tuttle observed.
Low rates of hypoglycemia
Another notable finding from SURPASS-2 was the low incidence of clinically significant hypoglycemic events (blood glucose levels less than 54 mg/dL), which occurred in 0.2%-1.7% of patients on tirzepatide, depending on their dose, and in 0.4% of patients on semaglutide. Two patients in the tirzepatide cohort had severe hypoglycemia.
These numbers are reassuring, said Dr. Galindo, and reflect the safety of tirzepatide’s dual, incretin-like mechanisms of action that make it a “twincretin.” The molecule acts as both a GLP-1 RA, and as glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, an incretin that stimulates insulin release when blood sugar is high but also increases glucagon levels when blood sugar levels are normal or low. This dual action may help explain the apparent increased potency tirzepatide showed for both A1c reduction and weight loss, compared with semaglutide, which acts only as a GLP-1 RA.
Some experts have cited the uncertainty introduced by the open-label design of SURPASS-2, a decision necessitated by the distinctly different delivery devices used for tirzepatide and semaglutide, explained Dr. Landó. But she highlighted that double blinding applied to the three different tirzepatide dosages tested in the trial. Dr. Landó said that Lilly plans to seek FDA approval for all three tested tirzepatide doses to give clinicians and patients flexibility in applying the treatment.
SURPASS-2 used a prolonged dose-escalation protocol designed to minimize gastrointestinal adverse effects that started patients on a 2.5 mg weekly dose that then increased by 2.5 mg increments every 4 weeks until patients reached their assigned target dose. This meant that patients did not begin receiving the 15-mg/week dose until halfway through the trial.
Several more tirzepatide trials
Reports from two other pivotal trials for tirzepatide also appeared as posters at the meeting. SURPASS-5 compared tirzepatide with placebo in 475 patients inadequately controlled with titrated insulin glargine (Lantus). SURPASS-3 randomized 1,444 patients to tirzepatide or titrated insulin degludec (Tresiba). In both studies treatment with tirzepatide led to significantly better reductions in A1c and in weight loss than the comparator treatments. Results from a third pivotal trial, SURPASS-1 which compared tirzepatide against placebo in 478 treatment-naive patients, will come in a report scheduled for the second day of the meeting.
The results from all the recent tirzepatide trials show a consistent benefit across the continuum of patients with type 2 diabetes regardless of whether it’s recent onset or well-established disease, said Dr. Landó.
The SURPASS studies were sponsored by Lilly, the company developing tirzepatide, and the reports include several authors who are Lilly employees. Dr. Landó is a Lilly employee and stockholder. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide, as well as to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, and Janssen. She has also received travel expenses from Kyokawa Hakko Kirin, and research funding from Bayer, Goldfinch Bio, and Lilly. Dr. Galindo has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, as well as to Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Valeritas, and Weight Watchers, and his institution has received grant support on his behalf from Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Dexcom. Dr. Holst had no disclosures.
Tirzepatide, a novel “twincretin” agent, was superior to 1-mg semaglutide treatments for reducing both hemoglobin A1c levels and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes in a pivotal, 40-week, head-to-head trial with nearly 1,900 randomized patients, one of four positive pivotal trial results reported for tirzepatide at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
“Across all four studies we see a significant and clinically meaningful decrease in A1c, and robust weight loss. The results exceeded our expectations” for both these outcomes, said Laura Fernández Landó, MD, senior medical director for tirzepatide at Lilly, the company developing the agent, and a coauthor on the semaglutide comparison study as well as on other tirzepatide reports at the meeting.
“This opens up a new avenue for results in diabetes therapy,” Jens Juul Holst, MD, remarked in a press conference.
SURPASS-2 compared three different tirzepatide doses delivered once weekly by subcutaneous injection against a 1-mg weekly, subcutaneous dose of semaglutide (Ozempic) in 1,879 adults who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for an average of almost 9 years. All patients were already on metformin treatment that had proved inadequate for controlling their hyperglycemia; enrolled patients had an average A1c of 8.28%. The trial’s primary endpoint was change from baseline in A1c levels after 40 weeks.
Significant differences at each dose level
Patients on each of the three tirzepatide doses – 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg once weekly – showed dose-dependent reductions in A1c that, for each dose, were significantly better than the reduction achieved with semaglutide. The highest tirzepatide dose reduced A1c levels by an average of 0.45% more than what semaglutide achieved, reported first author Juan P. Frias, MD; Dr. Landó; and their coauthors.
One key secondary endpoint was weight reduction, and each of the three tirzepatide doses again produced significant incremental loss beyond what semaglutide produced. The 5-mg weekly dose of tirzepatide produced an average 1.9-kg additional weight loss, compared with semaglutide, while the 15-mg dose resulted in an average 5.5-kg loss beyond what semaglutide achieved and a total average weight loss of 11.2 kg from baseline.
The study’s additional key secondary endpoints, the percentages of patients reaching an A1c of less than 7%, and less than 5.7%, also showed significantly better numbers with tirzepatide. The highest tirzepatide dose pushed 86% of patients below the 7% mark, compared with 79% on semaglutide, and the top tirzepatide dose resulted in 46% of patients getting their A1c below 5.7%, compared with 19% of patients on semaglutide.
The findings are “stunning, I must stay, and those results included that up to half of the patients treated with high doses of tirzepatide may reach A1c levels of less than 5.7%, which is really, really unheard of,” said Dr. Holst, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Copenhagen. Along with the “weight losses at the same time of up to 12% in that patient group, we are seeing some completely unexpected and really shocking and wonderful new advances in the therapy,” added Dr. Holst.
The safety profile of tirzepatide was roughly similar to semaglutide’s and to that other agents in the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class. Concurrently with the report at the meeting, the results also appeared in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
An ‘impressive’ weight loss effect
Weight loss on tirzepatide was “impressive,” commented Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, a nephrologist affiliated with the University of Washington and executive director for research at Providence Health Care in Spokane, Wash. Another striking feature of tirzepatide’s weight-loss effect was that it did not plateau during the 40 weeks of the study, Dr. Tuttle noted in an accompanying editorial that accompanied the published report, a finding that suggests the potential for additional weight loss from continued treatment .
“The weight loss is remarkable,” commented Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta. While incremental reduction of A1c on the order of less than 0.5% is helpful, incremental weight loss of more than 10 lbs on tirzepatide, compared with semaglutide “will likely be a tie-breaker” for many clinicians and patients to favor tirzepatide over semaglutide or another GLP-1 RA agent, he said in an interview. Dr. Galindo also cited other important factors that he predicted will drive decisions on using tirzepatide or a GLP-1 RA once tirzepatide reaches the U.S. market: relative cost, access, and tolerability.
The important issue of dose
But the edge that tirzepatide showed over semaglutide for weight loss did not occur on a completely level playing field. The 1 mg/week dose of semaglutide used as the comparator in SURPASS-2 was the maximum dose available at the time the study began, but in June 2021 the Food and Drug Administration approved a 2.4 mg/week dose (Wegovy) labeled specifically for weight loss. Dr. Tuttle cited the limitation this introduces in her editorial.
“The dose issue is important,” she wrote. The doses of tirzepatide and semaglutide compared in SURPASS-2 “were not comparable in terms of weight outcomes” given that prior evidence showed that the 2.4 mg/week semaglutide dose is more appropriate for weight loss.
Dr. Tuttle also cited other factors to consider when assessing tirzepatide compared with agents in the GLP-1 RA class.
Several GLP-1 RA agents, including semaglutide, have proven efficacy for reducing rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and albuminuria, and they also slow decline in kidney function and progression of diabetic kidney disease. No details on the renal effects of tirzepatide appeared in the SURPASS-2 report. A press release from Lilly in May 2021 briefly mentioned results from a meta-analysis of several clinical studies of tirzepatide that showed a nonsignificant effect from tirzepatide on the incidence of major cardiovascular adverse events (death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina) relative to comparator groups. Results from a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial in high-risk patients treated with tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT, are not expected until 2024.
A further limitation of SURPASS-2 was the demographics of the enrolled population, which had a low (0.4%) enrollment rate of Black patients, and a high proportion (70%) of Hispanic patients, Dr. Tuttle observed.
Low rates of hypoglycemia
Another notable finding from SURPASS-2 was the low incidence of clinically significant hypoglycemic events (blood glucose levels less than 54 mg/dL), which occurred in 0.2%-1.7% of patients on tirzepatide, depending on their dose, and in 0.4% of patients on semaglutide. Two patients in the tirzepatide cohort had severe hypoglycemia.
These numbers are reassuring, said Dr. Galindo, and reflect the safety of tirzepatide’s dual, incretin-like mechanisms of action that make it a “twincretin.” The molecule acts as both a GLP-1 RA, and as glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, an incretin that stimulates insulin release when blood sugar is high but also increases glucagon levels when blood sugar levels are normal or low. This dual action may help explain the apparent increased potency tirzepatide showed for both A1c reduction and weight loss, compared with semaglutide, which acts only as a GLP-1 RA.
Some experts have cited the uncertainty introduced by the open-label design of SURPASS-2, a decision necessitated by the distinctly different delivery devices used for tirzepatide and semaglutide, explained Dr. Landó. But she highlighted that double blinding applied to the three different tirzepatide dosages tested in the trial. Dr. Landó said that Lilly plans to seek FDA approval for all three tested tirzepatide doses to give clinicians and patients flexibility in applying the treatment.
SURPASS-2 used a prolonged dose-escalation protocol designed to minimize gastrointestinal adverse effects that started patients on a 2.5 mg weekly dose that then increased by 2.5 mg increments every 4 weeks until patients reached their assigned target dose. This meant that patients did not begin receiving the 15-mg/week dose until halfway through the trial.
Several more tirzepatide trials
Reports from two other pivotal trials for tirzepatide also appeared as posters at the meeting. SURPASS-5 compared tirzepatide with placebo in 475 patients inadequately controlled with titrated insulin glargine (Lantus). SURPASS-3 randomized 1,444 patients to tirzepatide or titrated insulin degludec (Tresiba). In both studies treatment with tirzepatide led to significantly better reductions in A1c and in weight loss than the comparator treatments. Results from a third pivotal trial, SURPASS-1 which compared tirzepatide against placebo in 478 treatment-naive patients, will come in a report scheduled for the second day of the meeting.
The results from all the recent tirzepatide trials show a consistent benefit across the continuum of patients with type 2 diabetes regardless of whether it’s recent onset or well-established disease, said Dr. Landó.
The SURPASS studies were sponsored by Lilly, the company developing tirzepatide, and the reports include several authors who are Lilly employees. Dr. Landó is a Lilly employee and stockholder. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide, as well as to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, and Janssen. She has also received travel expenses from Kyokawa Hakko Kirin, and research funding from Bayer, Goldfinch Bio, and Lilly. Dr. Galindo has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, as well as to Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Valeritas, and Weight Watchers, and his institution has received grant support on his behalf from Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Dexcom. Dr. Holst had no disclosures.
Tirzepatide, a novel “twincretin” agent, was superior to 1-mg semaglutide treatments for reducing both hemoglobin A1c levels and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes in a pivotal, 40-week, head-to-head trial with nearly 1,900 randomized patients, one of four positive pivotal trial results reported for tirzepatide at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
“Across all four studies we see a significant and clinically meaningful decrease in A1c, and robust weight loss. The results exceeded our expectations” for both these outcomes, said Laura Fernández Landó, MD, senior medical director for tirzepatide at Lilly, the company developing the agent, and a coauthor on the semaglutide comparison study as well as on other tirzepatide reports at the meeting.
“This opens up a new avenue for results in diabetes therapy,” Jens Juul Holst, MD, remarked in a press conference.
SURPASS-2 compared three different tirzepatide doses delivered once weekly by subcutaneous injection against a 1-mg weekly, subcutaneous dose of semaglutide (Ozempic) in 1,879 adults who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for an average of almost 9 years. All patients were already on metformin treatment that had proved inadequate for controlling their hyperglycemia; enrolled patients had an average A1c of 8.28%. The trial’s primary endpoint was change from baseline in A1c levels after 40 weeks.
Significant differences at each dose level
Patients on each of the three tirzepatide doses – 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg once weekly – showed dose-dependent reductions in A1c that, for each dose, were significantly better than the reduction achieved with semaglutide. The highest tirzepatide dose reduced A1c levels by an average of 0.45% more than what semaglutide achieved, reported first author Juan P. Frias, MD; Dr. Landó; and their coauthors.
One key secondary endpoint was weight reduction, and each of the three tirzepatide doses again produced significant incremental loss beyond what semaglutide produced. The 5-mg weekly dose of tirzepatide produced an average 1.9-kg additional weight loss, compared with semaglutide, while the 15-mg dose resulted in an average 5.5-kg loss beyond what semaglutide achieved and a total average weight loss of 11.2 kg from baseline.
The study’s additional key secondary endpoints, the percentages of patients reaching an A1c of less than 7%, and less than 5.7%, also showed significantly better numbers with tirzepatide. The highest tirzepatide dose pushed 86% of patients below the 7% mark, compared with 79% on semaglutide, and the top tirzepatide dose resulted in 46% of patients getting their A1c below 5.7%, compared with 19% of patients on semaglutide.
The findings are “stunning, I must stay, and those results included that up to half of the patients treated with high doses of tirzepatide may reach A1c levels of less than 5.7%, which is really, really unheard of,” said Dr. Holst, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Copenhagen. Along with the “weight losses at the same time of up to 12% in that patient group, we are seeing some completely unexpected and really shocking and wonderful new advances in the therapy,” added Dr. Holst.
The safety profile of tirzepatide was roughly similar to semaglutide’s and to that other agents in the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class. Concurrently with the report at the meeting, the results also appeared in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
An ‘impressive’ weight loss effect
Weight loss on tirzepatide was “impressive,” commented Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, a nephrologist affiliated with the University of Washington and executive director for research at Providence Health Care in Spokane, Wash. Another striking feature of tirzepatide’s weight-loss effect was that it did not plateau during the 40 weeks of the study, Dr. Tuttle noted in an accompanying editorial that accompanied the published report, a finding that suggests the potential for additional weight loss from continued treatment .
“The weight loss is remarkable,” commented Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta. While incremental reduction of A1c on the order of less than 0.5% is helpful, incremental weight loss of more than 10 lbs on tirzepatide, compared with semaglutide “will likely be a tie-breaker” for many clinicians and patients to favor tirzepatide over semaglutide or another GLP-1 RA agent, he said in an interview. Dr. Galindo also cited other important factors that he predicted will drive decisions on using tirzepatide or a GLP-1 RA once tirzepatide reaches the U.S. market: relative cost, access, and tolerability.
The important issue of dose
But the edge that tirzepatide showed over semaglutide for weight loss did not occur on a completely level playing field. The 1 mg/week dose of semaglutide used as the comparator in SURPASS-2 was the maximum dose available at the time the study began, but in June 2021 the Food and Drug Administration approved a 2.4 mg/week dose (Wegovy) labeled specifically for weight loss. Dr. Tuttle cited the limitation this introduces in her editorial.
“The dose issue is important,” she wrote. The doses of tirzepatide and semaglutide compared in SURPASS-2 “were not comparable in terms of weight outcomes” given that prior evidence showed that the 2.4 mg/week semaglutide dose is more appropriate for weight loss.
Dr. Tuttle also cited other factors to consider when assessing tirzepatide compared with agents in the GLP-1 RA class.
Several GLP-1 RA agents, including semaglutide, have proven efficacy for reducing rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and albuminuria, and they also slow decline in kidney function and progression of diabetic kidney disease. No details on the renal effects of tirzepatide appeared in the SURPASS-2 report. A press release from Lilly in May 2021 briefly mentioned results from a meta-analysis of several clinical studies of tirzepatide that showed a nonsignificant effect from tirzepatide on the incidence of major cardiovascular adverse events (death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina) relative to comparator groups. Results from a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial in high-risk patients treated with tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT, are not expected until 2024.
A further limitation of SURPASS-2 was the demographics of the enrolled population, which had a low (0.4%) enrollment rate of Black patients, and a high proportion (70%) of Hispanic patients, Dr. Tuttle observed.
Low rates of hypoglycemia
Another notable finding from SURPASS-2 was the low incidence of clinically significant hypoglycemic events (blood glucose levels less than 54 mg/dL), which occurred in 0.2%-1.7% of patients on tirzepatide, depending on their dose, and in 0.4% of patients on semaglutide. Two patients in the tirzepatide cohort had severe hypoglycemia.
These numbers are reassuring, said Dr. Galindo, and reflect the safety of tirzepatide’s dual, incretin-like mechanisms of action that make it a “twincretin.” The molecule acts as both a GLP-1 RA, and as glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, an incretin that stimulates insulin release when blood sugar is high but also increases glucagon levels when blood sugar levels are normal or low. This dual action may help explain the apparent increased potency tirzepatide showed for both A1c reduction and weight loss, compared with semaglutide, which acts only as a GLP-1 RA.
Some experts have cited the uncertainty introduced by the open-label design of SURPASS-2, a decision necessitated by the distinctly different delivery devices used for tirzepatide and semaglutide, explained Dr. Landó. But she highlighted that double blinding applied to the three different tirzepatide dosages tested in the trial. Dr. Landó said that Lilly plans to seek FDA approval for all three tested tirzepatide doses to give clinicians and patients flexibility in applying the treatment.
SURPASS-2 used a prolonged dose-escalation protocol designed to minimize gastrointestinal adverse effects that started patients on a 2.5 mg weekly dose that then increased by 2.5 mg increments every 4 weeks until patients reached their assigned target dose. This meant that patients did not begin receiving the 15-mg/week dose until halfway through the trial.
Several more tirzepatide trials
Reports from two other pivotal trials for tirzepatide also appeared as posters at the meeting. SURPASS-5 compared tirzepatide with placebo in 475 patients inadequately controlled with titrated insulin glargine (Lantus). SURPASS-3 randomized 1,444 patients to tirzepatide or titrated insulin degludec (Tresiba). In both studies treatment with tirzepatide led to significantly better reductions in A1c and in weight loss than the comparator treatments. Results from a third pivotal trial, SURPASS-1 which compared tirzepatide against placebo in 478 treatment-naive patients, will come in a report scheduled for the second day of the meeting.
The results from all the recent tirzepatide trials show a consistent benefit across the continuum of patients with type 2 diabetes regardless of whether it’s recent onset or well-established disease, said Dr. Landó.
The SURPASS studies were sponsored by Lilly, the company developing tirzepatide, and the reports include several authors who are Lilly employees. Dr. Landó is a Lilly employee and stockholder. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide, as well as to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, and Janssen. She has also received travel expenses from Kyokawa Hakko Kirin, and research funding from Bayer, Goldfinch Bio, and Lilly. Dr. Galindo has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, as well as to Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Valeritas, and Weight Watchers, and his institution has received grant support on his behalf from Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Dexcom. Dr. Holst had no disclosures.
FROM ADA 2021
Unmanaged diabetes, high blood glucose tied to COVID-19 severity
Unmanaged diabetes and high blood glucose levels are linked to more severe COVID-19 and worse rates of recovery, according to results of a retrospective study.
Patients not managing their diabetes with medication had more severe COVID-19 and length of hospitalization, compared with those who were taking medication, investigator Sudip Bajpeyi, PhD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
In addition, patients with higher blood glucose levels had more severe COVID-19 and longer hospital stays.
Those findings underscore the need to assess, monitor, and control blood glucose, especially in vulnerable populations, said Dr. Bajpeyi, director of the Metabolic, Nutrition, and Exercise Research Laboratory in the University of Texas, El Paso, who added that nearly 90% of the study subjects were Hispanic.
“As public health decisions are made, we think fasting blood glucose should be considered in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” he said in a press conference.
Links between diabetes and COVID-19
There are now many reports in medical literature that link diabetes to increased risk of COVID-19 severity, according to Ali Mossayebi, a master’s student who worked on the study. However, there are fewer studies that have looked specifically at the implications of poor diabetes management or acute glycemic control, the investigators said.
It’s known that poorly controlled diabetes can have severe health consequences, including higher risks for life-threatening comorbidities, they added.
Their retrospective study focused on medical records from 364 patients with COVID-19 admitted to a medical center in El Paso. Their mean age was 60 years, and their mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m2; 87% were Hispanic.
Acute glycemic control was assessed by fasting blood glucose at the time of hospitalization, while chronic glycemic control was assessed by hemoglobin A1c, the investigators said. Severity of COVID-19 was measured with the Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), which is based on the patient’s respiratory rate, blood pressure, and mental status.
Impact of unmanaged diabetes and high blood glucose
Severity of COVID-19 severity and length of hospital stay were significantly greater in patients with unmanaged diabetes, as compared with those who reported that they managed their diabetes with medication, Dr. Bajpeyi and coinvestigators found.
Among patients with unmanaged diabetes, the mean qSOFA score was 0.22, as compared with 0.44 for patients with managed diabetes. The mean length of hospital stay was 10.8 days for patients with unmanaged diabetes and 8.2 days for those with medication-managed diabetes, according to the abstract.
COVID-19 severity and hospital stay length were highest among patients with acute glycemia, the investigators further reported in an electronic poster that was part of the ADA meeting proceedings.
The mean qSOFA score was about 0.6 for patients with blood glucose levels of at least 126 mg/dL and A1c below 6.5%, and roughly 0.2 for those with normal blood glucose and normal A1c. Similarly, duration of hospital stay was significantly higher for patients with high blood glucose and A1c as compared with those with normal blood glucose and A1c.
Aggressive treatment needed
Findings of this study are in line with previous research showing that in-hospital hyperglycemia is a common and important marker of poor clinical outcome and mortality, with or without diabetes, according to Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, FACE, medical chair of the hospital diabetes task force at Emory Healthcare System, Atlanta.
“These patients need aggressive treatment of hyperglycemia, regardless of the diagnosis of diabetes or A1c value,” said Dr. Galindo, who was not involved in the study. “They also need outpatient follow-up after discharge, because they may develop diabetes soon after.”
Follow-up within is important because roughly 30% of patients with stress hyperglycemia (increases in blood glucose during an acute illness) will develop diabetes within a year, according to Dr. Galindo.
“We do not know in COVID-10 patients if it is only 30%,” he said, “Our thinking in our group is that it’s probably higher.”
Dr. Bajpeyi and coauthors reported no disclosures. Dr. Galindo reported disclosures related to Abbott Diabetes, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi US, Valeritas, and Dexcom.
Unmanaged diabetes and high blood glucose levels are linked to more severe COVID-19 and worse rates of recovery, according to results of a retrospective study.
Patients not managing their diabetes with medication had more severe COVID-19 and length of hospitalization, compared with those who were taking medication, investigator Sudip Bajpeyi, PhD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
In addition, patients with higher blood glucose levels had more severe COVID-19 and longer hospital stays.
Those findings underscore the need to assess, monitor, and control blood glucose, especially in vulnerable populations, said Dr. Bajpeyi, director of the Metabolic, Nutrition, and Exercise Research Laboratory in the University of Texas, El Paso, who added that nearly 90% of the study subjects were Hispanic.
“As public health decisions are made, we think fasting blood glucose should be considered in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” he said in a press conference.
Links between diabetes and COVID-19
There are now many reports in medical literature that link diabetes to increased risk of COVID-19 severity, according to Ali Mossayebi, a master’s student who worked on the study. However, there are fewer studies that have looked specifically at the implications of poor diabetes management or acute glycemic control, the investigators said.
It’s known that poorly controlled diabetes can have severe health consequences, including higher risks for life-threatening comorbidities, they added.
Their retrospective study focused on medical records from 364 patients with COVID-19 admitted to a medical center in El Paso. Their mean age was 60 years, and their mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m2; 87% were Hispanic.
Acute glycemic control was assessed by fasting blood glucose at the time of hospitalization, while chronic glycemic control was assessed by hemoglobin A1c, the investigators said. Severity of COVID-19 was measured with the Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), which is based on the patient’s respiratory rate, blood pressure, and mental status.
Impact of unmanaged diabetes and high blood glucose
Severity of COVID-19 severity and length of hospital stay were significantly greater in patients with unmanaged diabetes, as compared with those who reported that they managed their diabetes with medication, Dr. Bajpeyi and coinvestigators found.
Among patients with unmanaged diabetes, the mean qSOFA score was 0.22, as compared with 0.44 for patients with managed diabetes. The mean length of hospital stay was 10.8 days for patients with unmanaged diabetes and 8.2 days for those with medication-managed diabetes, according to the abstract.
COVID-19 severity and hospital stay length were highest among patients with acute glycemia, the investigators further reported in an electronic poster that was part of the ADA meeting proceedings.
The mean qSOFA score was about 0.6 for patients with blood glucose levels of at least 126 mg/dL and A1c below 6.5%, and roughly 0.2 for those with normal blood glucose and normal A1c. Similarly, duration of hospital stay was significantly higher for patients with high blood glucose and A1c as compared with those with normal blood glucose and A1c.
Aggressive treatment needed
Findings of this study are in line with previous research showing that in-hospital hyperglycemia is a common and important marker of poor clinical outcome and mortality, with or without diabetes, according to Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, FACE, medical chair of the hospital diabetes task force at Emory Healthcare System, Atlanta.
“These patients need aggressive treatment of hyperglycemia, regardless of the diagnosis of diabetes or A1c value,” said Dr. Galindo, who was not involved in the study. “They also need outpatient follow-up after discharge, because they may develop diabetes soon after.”
Follow-up within is important because roughly 30% of patients with stress hyperglycemia (increases in blood glucose during an acute illness) will develop diabetes within a year, according to Dr. Galindo.
“We do not know in COVID-10 patients if it is only 30%,” he said, “Our thinking in our group is that it’s probably higher.”
Dr. Bajpeyi and coauthors reported no disclosures. Dr. Galindo reported disclosures related to Abbott Diabetes, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi US, Valeritas, and Dexcom.
Unmanaged diabetes and high blood glucose levels are linked to more severe COVID-19 and worse rates of recovery, according to results of a retrospective study.
Patients not managing their diabetes with medication had more severe COVID-19 and length of hospitalization, compared with those who were taking medication, investigator Sudip Bajpeyi, PhD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
In addition, patients with higher blood glucose levels had more severe COVID-19 and longer hospital stays.
Those findings underscore the need to assess, monitor, and control blood glucose, especially in vulnerable populations, said Dr. Bajpeyi, director of the Metabolic, Nutrition, and Exercise Research Laboratory in the University of Texas, El Paso, who added that nearly 90% of the study subjects were Hispanic.
“As public health decisions are made, we think fasting blood glucose should be considered in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” he said in a press conference.
Links between diabetes and COVID-19
There are now many reports in medical literature that link diabetes to increased risk of COVID-19 severity, according to Ali Mossayebi, a master’s student who worked on the study. However, there are fewer studies that have looked specifically at the implications of poor diabetes management or acute glycemic control, the investigators said.
It’s known that poorly controlled diabetes can have severe health consequences, including higher risks for life-threatening comorbidities, they added.
Their retrospective study focused on medical records from 364 patients with COVID-19 admitted to a medical center in El Paso. Their mean age was 60 years, and their mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m2; 87% were Hispanic.
Acute glycemic control was assessed by fasting blood glucose at the time of hospitalization, while chronic glycemic control was assessed by hemoglobin A1c, the investigators said. Severity of COVID-19 was measured with the Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), which is based on the patient’s respiratory rate, blood pressure, and mental status.
Impact of unmanaged diabetes and high blood glucose
Severity of COVID-19 severity and length of hospital stay were significantly greater in patients with unmanaged diabetes, as compared with those who reported that they managed their diabetes with medication, Dr. Bajpeyi and coinvestigators found.
Among patients with unmanaged diabetes, the mean qSOFA score was 0.22, as compared with 0.44 for patients with managed diabetes. The mean length of hospital stay was 10.8 days for patients with unmanaged diabetes and 8.2 days for those with medication-managed diabetes, according to the abstract.
COVID-19 severity and hospital stay length were highest among patients with acute glycemia, the investigators further reported in an electronic poster that was part of the ADA meeting proceedings.
The mean qSOFA score was about 0.6 for patients with blood glucose levels of at least 126 mg/dL and A1c below 6.5%, and roughly 0.2 for those with normal blood glucose and normal A1c. Similarly, duration of hospital stay was significantly higher for patients with high blood glucose and A1c as compared with those with normal blood glucose and A1c.
Aggressive treatment needed
Findings of this study are in line with previous research showing that in-hospital hyperglycemia is a common and important marker of poor clinical outcome and mortality, with or without diabetes, according to Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, FACE, medical chair of the hospital diabetes task force at Emory Healthcare System, Atlanta.
“These patients need aggressive treatment of hyperglycemia, regardless of the diagnosis of diabetes or A1c value,” said Dr. Galindo, who was not involved in the study. “They also need outpatient follow-up after discharge, because they may develop diabetes soon after.”
Follow-up within is important because roughly 30% of patients with stress hyperglycemia (increases in blood glucose during an acute illness) will develop diabetes within a year, according to Dr. Galindo.
“We do not know in COVID-10 patients if it is only 30%,” he said, “Our thinking in our group is that it’s probably higher.”
Dr. Bajpeyi and coauthors reported no disclosures. Dr. Galindo reported disclosures related to Abbott Diabetes, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi US, Valeritas, and Dexcom.
FROM ADA 2020
Time-restricted eating ‘promising, but more data are needed’
Time-restricted eating – that is, reducing the number of hours a person is allowed to eat during the day – may produce a modest 1%-4% weight loss, even without cutting calories, early studies in humans suggest. But more research is needed to provide definitive evidence.
This type of intermittent fasting also appears to improve blood glucose, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, said Courtney M. Peterson, PhD, a researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, summarizing what is known about the potential weight-loss strategy at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
The best results were seen with early time-restricted eating (that is, ending the nighttime fasting early in the day) and allowing a person to eat 8-10 hours each day (for example, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), with fasting and only water allowed the remaining hours, she reported.
However, the 3 dozen or so studies in humans to date are mainly small, pilot, or single-arm studies lasting up to 3 months, and there are only three main randomized, controlled trials with 25 or more participants in each group.
Large trials with around 260 participants are needed, Dr. Peterson said, “before drawing definitive conclusions” about the weight-loss and cardiometabolic benefits of time-restricted eating.
Invited to comment, session chair Lisa S. Chow, MD, an associate professor of medicine in the endocrine and diabetes division at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, similarly said: “I think time-restricted eating is promising because of its simple message and noted weight-loss benefit, yet more data are needed.”
“Many uncertainties remain,” she added, “including the potential concern that time-restricted eating may be associated with lean [muscle] mass loss and identifying the populations most likely to benefit from time-restricted eating,” she said.
36 small studies, a review, a meta-analysis, 3 RCTs
There have been about three dozen small studies of time-restricted eating in humans, which examined 4- to 11-hour eating windows, Dr. Peterson explained.
A systematic review of 23 trials of time-restricted eating reported that, on average, participants lost 3% of their initial weight. And a meta-analysis of 19 trials in 475 participants found a –0.9 kg mean difference effect for weight loss.
However, those two analyses did not compare time-restricted eating with a control treatment, she stressed.
The largest randomized, controlled trial is a 12-week study in 271 adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in China, Dr. Peterson said.
The researchers compared three groups:
- Alternate-day modified fasting: healthy meal provided.
- Time-restricted eating: 8-hour window, healthy meal provided.
- Control: 20% calorie reduction, no meal provided.
At 4 and 12 weeks, adults in the two treatment groups lost more weight than those in the control group, but “this was not a fair comparison” because of the lack of a provided meal in the control group, Dr. Peterson pointed out.
The next largest randomized, controlled study is the 12-week TREAT trial, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine in October 2020.
The researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco, randomized 116 adults into two groups:
- 8-hour time-restricted eating from noon to 8 p.m..
- Control: three meals/day.
Time-restricted eating did not lead to greater weight loss, compared with three structured meals a day, which was not surprising, Dr. Chow said, as “participants just reported whether they were engaged in time-restricted eating in a yes/no answer.”
Moreover, “there was no objective measure of their eating window. From our study, we showed that the extent of eating window restriction matters, not just time-restricted eating participation.”
Also, in TREAT, the eating window was noon to 8 p.m. (considered late for time-restricted eating), and the trial also allowed noncaloric beverages outside the window, whereas most studies only allow water and medications.
Lastly, TREAT showed that time-restricted eating reduced weight, compared with baseline, but the weight loss was not significant, compared with the control group, and there was a wide spread of effects (that is, some lost a lot of weight, others didn’t lose much weight).
“That being said, the JAMA Internal Medicine paper is the largest paper to date of time-restricted eating randomized versus control, so its findings need to be acknowledged and recognized,” Dr. Chow said.
Peterson reported that her group recently completed a 14-week intervention in 90 adults with obesity divided into two groups:
- Control: Continuous energy restriction, self-selected ≥ 12-hour window.
- Early time-restricted eating: 8-hour window from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.
The findings will provide further insight into the benefits of time-restricted eating.
How might time-restricted eating lead to weight loss?
Dr. Peterson concluded by presenting data suggesting how time-restricted eating may induce weight loss.
In a 4-day crossover study in 11 overweight adults, time-restricted eating did not affect energy expenditure, but it lessened swings in subjective hunger, improved appetite hormones including ghrelin, and increased fat oxidation.
Most trials have reported that time-restricted eating improves one or more cardiometabolic endpoints, she noted.
Early time-restricted eating was associated with improved insulin sensitivity and secretion, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, but not better lipid levels.
In contrast, compared with eating 3 meals/day (control), late time-restricted eating (eating 1 meal/day from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.) was associated with worsened cardiometabolic health (glucose, insulin, blood pressure, and lipid levels) in an 8-week crossover study in 15 participants.
Dr. Peterson and Dr. Chow reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Time-restricted eating – that is, reducing the number of hours a person is allowed to eat during the day – may produce a modest 1%-4% weight loss, even without cutting calories, early studies in humans suggest. But more research is needed to provide definitive evidence.
This type of intermittent fasting also appears to improve blood glucose, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, said Courtney M. Peterson, PhD, a researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, summarizing what is known about the potential weight-loss strategy at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
The best results were seen with early time-restricted eating (that is, ending the nighttime fasting early in the day) and allowing a person to eat 8-10 hours each day (for example, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), with fasting and only water allowed the remaining hours, she reported.
However, the 3 dozen or so studies in humans to date are mainly small, pilot, or single-arm studies lasting up to 3 months, and there are only three main randomized, controlled trials with 25 or more participants in each group.
Large trials with around 260 participants are needed, Dr. Peterson said, “before drawing definitive conclusions” about the weight-loss and cardiometabolic benefits of time-restricted eating.
Invited to comment, session chair Lisa S. Chow, MD, an associate professor of medicine in the endocrine and diabetes division at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, similarly said: “I think time-restricted eating is promising because of its simple message and noted weight-loss benefit, yet more data are needed.”
“Many uncertainties remain,” she added, “including the potential concern that time-restricted eating may be associated with lean [muscle] mass loss and identifying the populations most likely to benefit from time-restricted eating,” she said.
36 small studies, a review, a meta-analysis, 3 RCTs
There have been about three dozen small studies of time-restricted eating in humans, which examined 4- to 11-hour eating windows, Dr. Peterson explained.
A systematic review of 23 trials of time-restricted eating reported that, on average, participants lost 3% of their initial weight. And a meta-analysis of 19 trials in 475 participants found a –0.9 kg mean difference effect for weight loss.
However, those two analyses did not compare time-restricted eating with a control treatment, she stressed.
The largest randomized, controlled trial is a 12-week study in 271 adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in China, Dr. Peterson said.
The researchers compared three groups:
- Alternate-day modified fasting: healthy meal provided.
- Time-restricted eating: 8-hour window, healthy meal provided.
- Control: 20% calorie reduction, no meal provided.
At 4 and 12 weeks, adults in the two treatment groups lost more weight than those in the control group, but “this was not a fair comparison” because of the lack of a provided meal in the control group, Dr. Peterson pointed out.
The next largest randomized, controlled study is the 12-week TREAT trial, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine in October 2020.
The researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco, randomized 116 adults into two groups:
- 8-hour time-restricted eating from noon to 8 p.m..
- Control: three meals/day.
Time-restricted eating did not lead to greater weight loss, compared with three structured meals a day, which was not surprising, Dr. Chow said, as “participants just reported whether they were engaged in time-restricted eating in a yes/no answer.”
Moreover, “there was no objective measure of their eating window. From our study, we showed that the extent of eating window restriction matters, not just time-restricted eating participation.”
Also, in TREAT, the eating window was noon to 8 p.m. (considered late for time-restricted eating), and the trial also allowed noncaloric beverages outside the window, whereas most studies only allow water and medications.
Lastly, TREAT showed that time-restricted eating reduced weight, compared with baseline, but the weight loss was not significant, compared with the control group, and there was a wide spread of effects (that is, some lost a lot of weight, others didn’t lose much weight).
“That being said, the JAMA Internal Medicine paper is the largest paper to date of time-restricted eating randomized versus control, so its findings need to be acknowledged and recognized,” Dr. Chow said.
Peterson reported that her group recently completed a 14-week intervention in 90 adults with obesity divided into two groups:
- Control: Continuous energy restriction, self-selected ≥ 12-hour window.
- Early time-restricted eating: 8-hour window from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.
The findings will provide further insight into the benefits of time-restricted eating.
How might time-restricted eating lead to weight loss?
Dr. Peterson concluded by presenting data suggesting how time-restricted eating may induce weight loss.
In a 4-day crossover study in 11 overweight adults, time-restricted eating did not affect energy expenditure, but it lessened swings in subjective hunger, improved appetite hormones including ghrelin, and increased fat oxidation.
Most trials have reported that time-restricted eating improves one or more cardiometabolic endpoints, she noted.
Early time-restricted eating was associated with improved insulin sensitivity and secretion, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, but not better lipid levels.
In contrast, compared with eating 3 meals/day (control), late time-restricted eating (eating 1 meal/day from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.) was associated with worsened cardiometabolic health (glucose, insulin, blood pressure, and lipid levels) in an 8-week crossover study in 15 participants.
Dr. Peterson and Dr. Chow reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Time-restricted eating – that is, reducing the number of hours a person is allowed to eat during the day – may produce a modest 1%-4% weight loss, even without cutting calories, early studies in humans suggest. But more research is needed to provide definitive evidence.
This type of intermittent fasting also appears to improve blood glucose, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, said Courtney M. Peterson, PhD, a researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, summarizing what is known about the potential weight-loss strategy at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
The best results were seen with early time-restricted eating (that is, ending the nighttime fasting early in the day) and allowing a person to eat 8-10 hours each day (for example, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), with fasting and only water allowed the remaining hours, she reported.
However, the 3 dozen or so studies in humans to date are mainly small, pilot, or single-arm studies lasting up to 3 months, and there are only three main randomized, controlled trials with 25 or more participants in each group.
Large trials with around 260 participants are needed, Dr. Peterson said, “before drawing definitive conclusions” about the weight-loss and cardiometabolic benefits of time-restricted eating.
Invited to comment, session chair Lisa S. Chow, MD, an associate professor of medicine in the endocrine and diabetes division at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, similarly said: “I think time-restricted eating is promising because of its simple message and noted weight-loss benefit, yet more data are needed.”
“Many uncertainties remain,” she added, “including the potential concern that time-restricted eating may be associated with lean [muscle] mass loss and identifying the populations most likely to benefit from time-restricted eating,” she said.
36 small studies, a review, a meta-analysis, 3 RCTs
There have been about three dozen small studies of time-restricted eating in humans, which examined 4- to 11-hour eating windows, Dr. Peterson explained.
A systematic review of 23 trials of time-restricted eating reported that, on average, participants lost 3% of their initial weight. And a meta-analysis of 19 trials in 475 participants found a –0.9 kg mean difference effect for weight loss.
However, those two analyses did not compare time-restricted eating with a control treatment, she stressed.
The largest randomized, controlled trial is a 12-week study in 271 adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in China, Dr. Peterson said.
The researchers compared three groups:
- Alternate-day modified fasting: healthy meal provided.
- Time-restricted eating: 8-hour window, healthy meal provided.
- Control: 20% calorie reduction, no meal provided.
At 4 and 12 weeks, adults in the two treatment groups lost more weight than those in the control group, but “this was not a fair comparison” because of the lack of a provided meal in the control group, Dr. Peterson pointed out.
The next largest randomized, controlled study is the 12-week TREAT trial, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine in October 2020.
The researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco, randomized 116 adults into two groups:
- 8-hour time-restricted eating from noon to 8 p.m..
- Control: three meals/day.
Time-restricted eating did not lead to greater weight loss, compared with three structured meals a day, which was not surprising, Dr. Chow said, as “participants just reported whether they were engaged in time-restricted eating in a yes/no answer.”
Moreover, “there was no objective measure of their eating window. From our study, we showed that the extent of eating window restriction matters, not just time-restricted eating participation.”
Also, in TREAT, the eating window was noon to 8 p.m. (considered late for time-restricted eating), and the trial also allowed noncaloric beverages outside the window, whereas most studies only allow water and medications.
Lastly, TREAT showed that time-restricted eating reduced weight, compared with baseline, but the weight loss was not significant, compared with the control group, and there was a wide spread of effects (that is, some lost a lot of weight, others didn’t lose much weight).
“That being said, the JAMA Internal Medicine paper is the largest paper to date of time-restricted eating randomized versus control, so its findings need to be acknowledged and recognized,” Dr. Chow said.
Peterson reported that her group recently completed a 14-week intervention in 90 adults with obesity divided into two groups:
- Control: Continuous energy restriction, self-selected ≥ 12-hour window.
- Early time-restricted eating: 8-hour window from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.
The findings will provide further insight into the benefits of time-restricted eating.
How might time-restricted eating lead to weight loss?
Dr. Peterson concluded by presenting data suggesting how time-restricted eating may induce weight loss.
In a 4-day crossover study in 11 overweight adults, time-restricted eating did not affect energy expenditure, but it lessened swings in subjective hunger, improved appetite hormones including ghrelin, and increased fat oxidation.
Most trials have reported that time-restricted eating improves one or more cardiometabolic endpoints, she noted.
Early time-restricted eating was associated with improved insulin sensitivity and secretion, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, but not better lipid levels.
In contrast, compared with eating 3 meals/day (control), late time-restricted eating (eating 1 meal/day from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.) was associated with worsened cardiometabolic health (glucose, insulin, blood pressure, and lipid levels) in an 8-week crossover study in 15 participants.
Dr. Peterson and Dr. Chow reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Early-onset CRC associated with longer survival
Individuals diagnosed with primary colorectal cancer (CRC) at less than 50 years of age have better survival outcomes than individuals diagnosed at 51-55 years, based on data from more than 750,000 patients.
This finding emphasizes the importance of early CRC detection in younger individuals, reported lead author En Cheng, MD, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues.
“Early-onset CRC (i.e., CRC diagnosed at age less than 50 years) has been characterized by unique clinical, genetic, and epigenetic characteristics, and thus it may be associated with different survival from CRC diagnosed among individuals older than 50 years,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Network Open. Previous studies comparing survival times across age groups have yielded inconsistent results.
To gain a better understanding, the investigator conducted a retrospective study using data from the National Cancer Database. Excluding patients with primary CRC who had concomitant diagnosis, history of other malignant tumors, noninvasive adenocarcinoma, or missing data, the final dataset included 769,871 patients. Early-onset CRC was defined by age less than 50 years, whereas later-onset CRC was defined by ages 51-55 years.
“Individuals diagnosed at age 50 years were excluded to minimize an apparent screening detection bias at age 50 years in our population, given that these individuals disproportionately presented with earlier stages,” the investigators wrote.
Initial comparisons across groups revealed several significant differences. Individuals in the early-onset group were more often women (47.3% vs. 43.8%; P < .001), members of races in the “other” category (6.9% vs. 5.9%; P < .001), and Medicaid patients (12.3% vs. 10.3%; P < .001). They were also more likely to be diagnosed with stage IV cancer (27.8% vs 24.1%; P < .001) and have rectal tumors (29.3% vs. 28.7%; P = .004).
In the unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis, patients with early-onset CRC had a lower 10-year survival rate (53.6%; 95% CI, 53.2%-54.0% vs. 54.3%; 95% CI, 53.8%-54.8%; P < .001). The fully adjusted model revealed significantly higher survival for early-onset patients, compared with later-onset patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93-0.96; P < .001) . This disparity deepened when adjusting only for stage (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.88-0.90; P < .001).
Survival was longest among patients 35-39 years (aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.84-0.92; P < .001), compared with those aged 51-55, and among early-onset individuals with stage I disease (a HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.93; P < .001) or stage II disease (a HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.90; P < .001), compared with those having the same stages of later-onset CRC. No survival advantage was observed among patients diagnosed at age 25 or younger or those with stage III or IV disease.
“Interestingly, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, owing to underlying mismatch repair deficiency, is associated with superior survival and is often diagnosed in individuals from ages 35-45 years,” the investigators noted. “In contrast, adenomatous polyposis coli syndrome is more common in individuals who are diagnosed with CRC at age younger than 20 years (10%), compared with those diagnosed at later ages (0.1%), and adenomatous polyposis coli syndrome is not associated with a survival advantage. These high penetrance syndromes could partly account for the relative heterogeneity in survival across ages among individuals with early-onset CRC.”
Cautious about interpretation
Dr. Cheng and colleagues concluded their publication with a disclaimer: “Our finding of a survival advantage associated with early-onset CRC among younger individuals should be interpreted cautiously, given that the advantage had a small magnitude and was heterogeneous by age and stage,” they wrote. “Further study is needed to understand the underlying heterogeneity of survival by age and stage among individuals with early-onset CRC.”
Kirbi L. Yelorda, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues, had a similar interpretation.
“These results offer support for effectiveness of treatment in patients diagnosed with CRC at younger ages; however, they must be interpreted within the context of epidemiological and biological factors,” Dr. Yelorda and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The findings also suggest that the recent reduction in recommended screening age by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force – from 50 years to 45 years – is warranted, they added, but screening younger patients remains unnecessary.
“While these results do not suggest that screening should start for patients younger than 45 years, they do support the benefit of early detection in young patients,” Dr. Yelorda and colleagues wrote, noting a “fairly low incidence rate” among individuals younger than 45, which is insufficient to justify the risk-to-benefit ratio and increased costs associated with expanded screening.
Important but not surprising
It’s “not surprising” that early-onset patients typically have better survival than later-onset patients, according to Joseph C. Anderson, MD, associate professor at White River Junction Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Hartford, Vt.; Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.; and the University of Connecticut, Farmington.
“They’re younger, have less comorbidities, and can tolerate chemotherapy,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview. “It’s not surprising that people do poorly with later stages. Younger people are no exception.”
Dr. Anderson, who previously coauthored an editorial weighing the pros and cons of earlier screening, noted that earlier screening is needed because of the rising incidence of late-stage diagnoses among younger patients, which, as the study found, are associated with worse outcomes.
Beyond adherence to screening recommendations, Dr. Anderson urged clinicians to be aggressive when doing a workup of CRC symptoms in younger patients, among whom delayed diagnoses are more common.
“We can’t just say it’s something more benign, like hemorrhoids, like we used to,” Dr. Anderson said. “Somebody who’s 30 years old and having rectal bleeding needs to be evaluated promptly – there can’t be a delay.”
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and Stand Up To Cancer (grant administered by the American Association for Cancer Research). The investigators disclosed relationships with Evergrande Group, Janssen, Revolution Medicines, and others. One editorialist reported serving as a member of the USPSTF when the guideline for colorectal cancer was developed, and being a coauthor on the guideline. No other disclosures were reported among editorialists. Dr. Anderson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Individuals diagnosed with primary colorectal cancer (CRC) at less than 50 years of age have better survival outcomes than individuals diagnosed at 51-55 years, based on data from more than 750,000 patients.
This finding emphasizes the importance of early CRC detection in younger individuals, reported lead author En Cheng, MD, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues.
“Early-onset CRC (i.e., CRC diagnosed at age less than 50 years) has been characterized by unique clinical, genetic, and epigenetic characteristics, and thus it may be associated with different survival from CRC diagnosed among individuals older than 50 years,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Network Open. Previous studies comparing survival times across age groups have yielded inconsistent results.
To gain a better understanding, the investigator conducted a retrospective study using data from the National Cancer Database. Excluding patients with primary CRC who had concomitant diagnosis, history of other malignant tumors, noninvasive adenocarcinoma, or missing data, the final dataset included 769,871 patients. Early-onset CRC was defined by age less than 50 years, whereas later-onset CRC was defined by ages 51-55 years.
“Individuals diagnosed at age 50 years were excluded to minimize an apparent screening detection bias at age 50 years in our population, given that these individuals disproportionately presented with earlier stages,” the investigators wrote.
Initial comparisons across groups revealed several significant differences. Individuals in the early-onset group were more often women (47.3% vs. 43.8%; P < .001), members of races in the “other” category (6.9% vs. 5.9%; P < .001), and Medicaid patients (12.3% vs. 10.3%; P < .001). They were also more likely to be diagnosed with stage IV cancer (27.8% vs 24.1%; P < .001) and have rectal tumors (29.3% vs. 28.7%; P = .004).
In the unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis, patients with early-onset CRC had a lower 10-year survival rate (53.6%; 95% CI, 53.2%-54.0% vs. 54.3%; 95% CI, 53.8%-54.8%; P < .001). The fully adjusted model revealed significantly higher survival for early-onset patients, compared with later-onset patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93-0.96; P < .001) . This disparity deepened when adjusting only for stage (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.88-0.90; P < .001).
Survival was longest among patients 35-39 years (aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.84-0.92; P < .001), compared with those aged 51-55, and among early-onset individuals with stage I disease (a HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.93; P < .001) or stage II disease (a HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.90; P < .001), compared with those having the same stages of later-onset CRC. No survival advantage was observed among patients diagnosed at age 25 or younger or those with stage III or IV disease.
“Interestingly, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, owing to underlying mismatch repair deficiency, is associated with superior survival and is often diagnosed in individuals from ages 35-45 years,” the investigators noted. “In contrast, adenomatous polyposis coli syndrome is more common in individuals who are diagnosed with CRC at age younger than 20 years (10%), compared with those diagnosed at later ages (0.1%), and adenomatous polyposis coli syndrome is not associated with a survival advantage. These high penetrance syndromes could partly account for the relative heterogeneity in survival across ages among individuals with early-onset CRC.”
Cautious about interpretation
Dr. Cheng and colleagues concluded their publication with a disclaimer: “Our finding of a survival advantage associated with early-onset CRC among younger individuals should be interpreted cautiously, given that the advantage had a small magnitude and was heterogeneous by age and stage,” they wrote. “Further study is needed to understand the underlying heterogeneity of survival by age and stage among individuals with early-onset CRC.”
Kirbi L. Yelorda, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues, had a similar interpretation.
“These results offer support for effectiveness of treatment in patients diagnosed with CRC at younger ages; however, they must be interpreted within the context of epidemiological and biological factors,” Dr. Yelorda and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The findings also suggest that the recent reduction in recommended screening age by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force – from 50 years to 45 years – is warranted, they added, but screening younger patients remains unnecessary.
“While these results do not suggest that screening should start for patients younger than 45 years, they do support the benefit of early detection in young patients,” Dr. Yelorda and colleagues wrote, noting a “fairly low incidence rate” among individuals younger than 45, which is insufficient to justify the risk-to-benefit ratio and increased costs associated with expanded screening.
Important but not surprising
It’s “not surprising” that early-onset patients typically have better survival than later-onset patients, according to Joseph C. Anderson, MD, associate professor at White River Junction Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Hartford, Vt.; Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.; and the University of Connecticut, Farmington.
“They’re younger, have less comorbidities, and can tolerate chemotherapy,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview. “It’s not surprising that people do poorly with later stages. Younger people are no exception.”
Dr. Anderson, who previously coauthored an editorial weighing the pros and cons of earlier screening, noted that earlier screening is needed because of the rising incidence of late-stage diagnoses among younger patients, which, as the study found, are associated with worse outcomes.
Beyond adherence to screening recommendations, Dr. Anderson urged clinicians to be aggressive when doing a workup of CRC symptoms in younger patients, among whom delayed diagnoses are more common.
“We can’t just say it’s something more benign, like hemorrhoids, like we used to,” Dr. Anderson said. “Somebody who’s 30 years old and having rectal bleeding needs to be evaluated promptly – there can’t be a delay.”
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and Stand Up To Cancer (grant administered by the American Association for Cancer Research). The investigators disclosed relationships with Evergrande Group, Janssen, Revolution Medicines, and others. One editorialist reported serving as a member of the USPSTF when the guideline for colorectal cancer was developed, and being a coauthor on the guideline. No other disclosures were reported among editorialists. Dr. Anderson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Individuals diagnosed with primary colorectal cancer (CRC) at less than 50 years of age have better survival outcomes than individuals diagnosed at 51-55 years, based on data from more than 750,000 patients.
This finding emphasizes the importance of early CRC detection in younger individuals, reported lead author En Cheng, MD, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues.
“Early-onset CRC (i.e., CRC diagnosed at age less than 50 years) has been characterized by unique clinical, genetic, and epigenetic characteristics, and thus it may be associated with different survival from CRC diagnosed among individuals older than 50 years,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Network Open. Previous studies comparing survival times across age groups have yielded inconsistent results.
To gain a better understanding, the investigator conducted a retrospective study using data from the National Cancer Database. Excluding patients with primary CRC who had concomitant diagnosis, history of other malignant tumors, noninvasive adenocarcinoma, or missing data, the final dataset included 769,871 patients. Early-onset CRC was defined by age less than 50 years, whereas later-onset CRC was defined by ages 51-55 years.
“Individuals diagnosed at age 50 years were excluded to minimize an apparent screening detection bias at age 50 years in our population, given that these individuals disproportionately presented with earlier stages,” the investigators wrote.
Initial comparisons across groups revealed several significant differences. Individuals in the early-onset group were more often women (47.3% vs. 43.8%; P < .001), members of races in the “other” category (6.9% vs. 5.9%; P < .001), and Medicaid patients (12.3% vs. 10.3%; P < .001). They were also more likely to be diagnosed with stage IV cancer (27.8% vs 24.1%; P < .001) and have rectal tumors (29.3% vs. 28.7%; P = .004).
In the unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis, patients with early-onset CRC had a lower 10-year survival rate (53.6%; 95% CI, 53.2%-54.0% vs. 54.3%; 95% CI, 53.8%-54.8%; P < .001). The fully adjusted model revealed significantly higher survival for early-onset patients, compared with later-onset patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93-0.96; P < .001) . This disparity deepened when adjusting only for stage (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.88-0.90; P < .001).
Survival was longest among patients 35-39 years (aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.84-0.92; P < .001), compared with those aged 51-55, and among early-onset individuals with stage I disease (a HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.93; P < .001) or stage II disease (a HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.90; P < .001), compared with those having the same stages of later-onset CRC. No survival advantage was observed among patients diagnosed at age 25 or younger or those with stage III or IV disease.
“Interestingly, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, owing to underlying mismatch repair deficiency, is associated with superior survival and is often diagnosed in individuals from ages 35-45 years,” the investigators noted. “In contrast, adenomatous polyposis coli syndrome is more common in individuals who are diagnosed with CRC at age younger than 20 years (10%), compared with those diagnosed at later ages (0.1%), and adenomatous polyposis coli syndrome is not associated with a survival advantage. These high penetrance syndromes could partly account for the relative heterogeneity in survival across ages among individuals with early-onset CRC.”
Cautious about interpretation
Dr. Cheng and colleagues concluded their publication with a disclaimer: “Our finding of a survival advantage associated with early-onset CRC among younger individuals should be interpreted cautiously, given that the advantage had a small magnitude and was heterogeneous by age and stage,” they wrote. “Further study is needed to understand the underlying heterogeneity of survival by age and stage among individuals with early-onset CRC.”
Kirbi L. Yelorda, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues, had a similar interpretation.
“These results offer support for effectiveness of treatment in patients diagnosed with CRC at younger ages; however, they must be interpreted within the context of epidemiological and biological factors,” Dr. Yelorda and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The findings also suggest that the recent reduction in recommended screening age by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force – from 50 years to 45 years – is warranted, they added, but screening younger patients remains unnecessary.
“While these results do not suggest that screening should start for patients younger than 45 years, they do support the benefit of early detection in young patients,” Dr. Yelorda and colleagues wrote, noting a “fairly low incidence rate” among individuals younger than 45, which is insufficient to justify the risk-to-benefit ratio and increased costs associated with expanded screening.
Important but not surprising
It’s “not surprising” that early-onset patients typically have better survival than later-onset patients, according to Joseph C. Anderson, MD, associate professor at White River Junction Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Hartford, Vt.; Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.; and the University of Connecticut, Farmington.
“They’re younger, have less comorbidities, and can tolerate chemotherapy,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview. “It’s not surprising that people do poorly with later stages. Younger people are no exception.”
Dr. Anderson, who previously coauthored an editorial weighing the pros and cons of earlier screening, noted that earlier screening is needed because of the rising incidence of late-stage diagnoses among younger patients, which, as the study found, are associated with worse outcomes.
Beyond adherence to screening recommendations, Dr. Anderson urged clinicians to be aggressive when doing a workup of CRC symptoms in younger patients, among whom delayed diagnoses are more common.
“We can’t just say it’s something more benign, like hemorrhoids, like we used to,” Dr. Anderson said. “Somebody who’s 30 years old and having rectal bleeding needs to be evaluated promptly – there can’t be a delay.”
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and Stand Up To Cancer (grant administered by the American Association for Cancer Research). The investigators disclosed relationships with Evergrande Group, Janssen, Revolution Medicines, and others. One editorialist reported serving as a member of the USPSTF when the guideline for colorectal cancer was developed, and being a coauthor on the guideline. No other disclosures were reported among editorialists. Dr. Anderson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Average childbirth costs more than $3,000 out of pocket with private insurance
Families with private health insurance pay around $3,000 for newborn delivery and hospitalization, while adding neonatal intensive care can push the bill closer to $5,000, based on a retrospective look at almost 400,000 episodes.
The findings suggest that privately insured families need prenatal financial counseling, as well as screening for financial hardship after delivery, reported lead author Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, assistant professor and health policy researcher in the department of pediatrics and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.
“Concern is growing regarding the high and rising financial burden of childbirth for privately insured families,” the investigators wrote in Pediatrics. “Previous studies assessing this burden have focused on out-of-pocket spending for maternal care, including hospitalizations for delivery. However, there are no recent national data on out-of-pocket spending across the childbirth episode, including both deliveries and newborn hospitalizations.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Chua and colleagues turned to Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart, comprising 12 million privately insured individuals across the United States. The investigators identified 398,410 childbirth episodes occurring between 2016 and 2019. Each episode was defined as one delivery and at least one newborn hospitalization under the same family plan.
Out-of-pocket cost included copayment plus coinsurance and deductibles. Primary outcomes included mean total out-of-pocket spending and proportion of episodes exceeding $5,000 or $10,000. Subgroup analyses compared differences in spending between episodes involving neonatal intensive care or cesarean birth.
The mean out-of-pocket spending was $2,281 for delivery and $788 for newborn hospitalization, giving a total of $3,068 per childbirth episode. Coinsurance and deductibles accounted for much of that cost, at 55.8% and 42.1%, respectively, whereas copayments accounted for a relatively minor portion (2.2%).
Almost all episodes (95%) cost more than zero dollars, while 17.1% cost more than $5,000 and 1.0% cost more than $10,000. Total mean out-of-pocket spending was higher for episodes involving cesarean birth ($3,389) or neonatal intensive care ($4,969), the latter of which cost more than $10,000 in 8.8% of episodes.
“Because details on plan benefit design were unavailable, the generalizability of findings to all privately insured Americans is unclear,” the investigators noted. “However, the proportion of childbirth episodes covered by high-deductible health plans in this study is consistent with the prevalence of such plans among Americans with employer-sponsored insurance.”
The findings suggest that financial reform is needed, Dr. Chua and colleagues concluded.
“To avoid imposing undue financial burden on families, private insurers should improve childbirth coverage,” they wrote. “An incremental step would be providing first-dollar coverage of deliveries and newborn hospitalizations before deductibles are met. Ideally, however, insurers would waive most or all cost-sharing for these hospitalizations, consistent with the approach taken by Medicaid programs and many developed countries.”
According to Madeline Sutton, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the size of the study is commendable, but some details are lacking.
“Although the overall sample size allows for a robust analysis, deciding to not report the confidence intervals in this report does not allow for understanding of [the findings with] smaller sample sizes,” Dr. Sutton said in an interview.
(Dr. Chua and colleagues noted that they did not report confidence intervals because “all differences between subgroups were significant owing to large sample sizes.”)
“Still,” Dr. Sutton went on, “this is an important study that has implications for financial counseling that may need to be a part of preconceptional, prenatal, and postnatal visits for privately insured families to help with planning and to decrease the chances of childbirth-related financial hardships. Additionally, policy-level changes that decrease or eliminate these private insurance–related childbirth-episode costs that may negatively impact some families with lower incomes, are warranted.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Chua disclosed a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, while Dr. Moniz is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Sutton had no relevant disclosures.
Families with private health insurance pay around $3,000 for newborn delivery and hospitalization, while adding neonatal intensive care can push the bill closer to $5,000, based on a retrospective look at almost 400,000 episodes.
The findings suggest that privately insured families need prenatal financial counseling, as well as screening for financial hardship after delivery, reported lead author Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, assistant professor and health policy researcher in the department of pediatrics and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.
“Concern is growing regarding the high and rising financial burden of childbirth for privately insured families,” the investigators wrote in Pediatrics. “Previous studies assessing this burden have focused on out-of-pocket spending for maternal care, including hospitalizations for delivery. However, there are no recent national data on out-of-pocket spending across the childbirth episode, including both deliveries and newborn hospitalizations.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Chua and colleagues turned to Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart, comprising 12 million privately insured individuals across the United States. The investigators identified 398,410 childbirth episodes occurring between 2016 and 2019. Each episode was defined as one delivery and at least one newborn hospitalization under the same family plan.
Out-of-pocket cost included copayment plus coinsurance and deductibles. Primary outcomes included mean total out-of-pocket spending and proportion of episodes exceeding $5,000 or $10,000. Subgroup analyses compared differences in spending between episodes involving neonatal intensive care or cesarean birth.
The mean out-of-pocket spending was $2,281 for delivery and $788 for newborn hospitalization, giving a total of $3,068 per childbirth episode. Coinsurance and deductibles accounted for much of that cost, at 55.8% and 42.1%, respectively, whereas copayments accounted for a relatively minor portion (2.2%).
Almost all episodes (95%) cost more than zero dollars, while 17.1% cost more than $5,000 and 1.0% cost more than $10,000. Total mean out-of-pocket spending was higher for episodes involving cesarean birth ($3,389) or neonatal intensive care ($4,969), the latter of which cost more than $10,000 in 8.8% of episodes.
“Because details on plan benefit design were unavailable, the generalizability of findings to all privately insured Americans is unclear,” the investigators noted. “However, the proportion of childbirth episodes covered by high-deductible health plans in this study is consistent with the prevalence of such plans among Americans with employer-sponsored insurance.”
The findings suggest that financial reform is needed, Dr. Chua and colleagues concluded.
“To avoid imposing undue financial burden on families, private insurers should improve childbirth coverage,” they wrote. “An incremental step would be providing first-dollar coverage of deliveries and newborn hospitalizations before deductibles are met. Ideally, however, insurers would waive most or all cost-sharing for these hospitalizations, consistent with the approach taken by Medicaid programs and many developed countries.”
According to Madeline Sutton, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the size of the study is commendable, but some details are lacking.
“Although the overall sample size allows for a robust analysis, deciding to not report the confidence intervals in this report does not allow for understanding of [the findings with] smaller sample sizes,” Dr. Sutton said in an interview.
(Dr. Chua and colleagues noted that they did not report confidence intervals because “all differences between subgroups were significant owing to large sample sizes.”)
“Still,” Dr. Sutton went on, “this is an important study that has implications for financial counseling that may need to be a part of preconceptional, prenatal, and postnatal visits for privately insured families to help with planning and to decrease the chances of childbirth-related financial hardships. Additionally, policy-level changes that decrease or eliminate these private insurance–related childbirth-episode costs that may negatively impact some families with lower incomes, are warranted.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Chua disclosed a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, while Dr. Moniz is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Sutton had no relevant disclosures.
Families with private health insurance pay around $3,000 for newborn delivery and hospitalization, while adding neonatal intensive care can push the bill closer to $5,000, based on a retrospective look at almost 400,000 episodes.
The findings suggest that privately insured families need prenatal financial counseling, as well as screening for financial hardship after delivery, reported lead author Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, assistant professor and health policy researcher in the department of pediatrics and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.
“Concern is growing regarding the high and rising financial burden of childbirth for privately insured families,” the investigators wrote in Pediatrics. “Previous studies assessing this burden have focused on out-of-pocket spending for maternal care, including hospitalizations for delivery. However, there are no recent national data on out-of-pocket spending across the childbirth episode, including both deliveries and newborn hospitalizations.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Chua and colleagues turned to Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart, comprising 12 million privately insured individuals across the United States. The investigators identified 398,410 childbirth episodes occurring between 2016 and 2019. Each episode was defined as one delivery and at least one newborn hospitalization under the same family plan.
Out-of-pocket cost included copayment plus coinsurance and deductibles. Primary outcomes included mean total out-of-pocket spending and proportion of episodes exceeding $5,000 or $10,000. Subgroup analyses compared differences in spending between episodes involving neonatal intensive care or cesarean birth.
The mean out-of-pocket spending was $2,281 for delivery and $788 for newborn hospitalization, giving a total of $3,068 per childbirth episode. Coinsurance and deductibles accounted for much of that cost, at 55.8% and 42.1%, respectively, whereas copayments accounted for a relatively minor portion (2.2%).
Almost all episodes (95%) cost more than zero dollars, while 17.1% cost more than $5,000 and 1.0% cost more than $10,000. Total mean out-of-pocket spending was higher for episodes involving cesarean birth ($3,389) or neonatal intensive care ($4,969), the latter of which cost more than $10,000 in 8.8% of episodes.
“Because details on plan benefit design were unavailable, the generalizability of findings to all privately insured Americans is unclear,” the investigators noted. “However, the proportion of childbirth episodes covered by high-deductible health plans in this study is consistent with the prevalence of such plans among Americans with employer-sponsored insurance.”
The findings suggest that financial reform is needed, Dr. Chua and colleagues concluded.
“To avoid imposing undue financial burden on families, private insurers should improve childbirth coverage,” they wrote. “An incremental step would be providing first-dollar coverage of deliveries and newborn hospitalizations before deductibles are met. Ideally, however, insurers would waive most or all cost-sharing for these hospitalizations, consistent with the approach taken by Medicaid programs and many developed countries.”
According to Madeline Sutton, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the size of the study is commendable, but some details are lacking.
“Although the overall sample size allows for a robust analysis, deciding to not report the confidence intervals in this report does not allow for understanding of [the findings with] smaller sample sizes,” Dr. Sutton said in an interview.
(Dr. Chua and colleagues noted that they did not report confidence intervals because “all differences between subgroups were significant owing to large sample sizes.”)
“Still,” Dr. Sutton went on, “this is an important study that has implications for financial counseling that may need to be a part of preconceptional, prenatal, and postnatal visits for privately insured families to help with planning and to decrease the chances of childbirth-related financial hardships. Additionally, policy-level changes that decrease or eliminate these private insurance–related childbirth-episode costs that may negatively impact some families with lower incomes, are warranted.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Chua disclosed a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, while Dr. Moniz is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Sutton had no relevant disclosures.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Pfizer halts distribution of stop-smoking pill Chantix
The pharmaceutical company is also recalling some lots of Chantix that may have high levels of NDMA, Reuters reported.
Pfizer told Reuters the distribution pause was ordered out of abundance of caution while further testing is conducted. The FDA approved varenicline, which is marketed as Chantix, in 2006.
“The benefits of Chantix outweigh the very low potential risks, if any, posed by nitrosamine exposure from varenicline on top of other common sources over a lifetime,” Pfizer spokesperson Steven Danehy said in an email, according to Reuters.
The FDA has not issued a recall on Chantix. In Canada, however, health authorities on June 8 instituted a recall for Champix, the name under which the drug is sold in that nation.
The Chantix website says it’s a 3- to 6-month treatment that helps people overcome the need to smoke tobacco. The website says more than 13 million people have been prescribed Chantix.
Other health concerns have been raised about Chantix, such as mental health side effects.
In 2016, however, researchers concluded Chantix did not appear to raise the risk of serious health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The pharmaceutical company is also recalling some lots of Chantix that may have high levels of NDMA, Reuters reported.
Pfizer told Reuters the distribution pause was ordered out of abundance of caution while further testing is conducted. The FDA approved varenicline, which is marketed as Chantix, in 2006.
“The benefits of Chantix outweigh the very low potential risks, if any, posed by nitrosamine exposure from varenicline on top of other common sources over a lifetime,” Pfizer spokesperson Steven Danehy said in an email, according to Reuters.
The FDA has not issued a recall on Chantix. In Canada, however, health authorities on June 8 instituted a recall for Champix, the name under which the drug is sold in that nation.
The Chantix website says it’s a 3- to 6-month treatment that helps people overcome the need to smoke tobacco. The website says more than 13 million people have been prescribed Chantix.
Other health concerns have been raised about Chantix, such as mental health side effects.
In 2016, however, researchers concluded Chantix did not appear to raise the risk of serious health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The pharmaceutical company is also recalling some lots of Chantix that may have high levels of NDMA, Reuters reported.
Pfizer told Reuters the distribution pause was ordered out of abundance of caution while further testing is conducted. The FDA approved varenicline, which is marketed as Chantix, in 2006.
“The benefits of Chantix outweigh the very low potential risks, if any, posed by nitrosamine exposure from varenicline on top of other common sources over a lifetime,” Pfizer spokesperson Steven Danehy said in an email, according to Reuters.
The FDA has not issued a recall on Chantix. In Canada, however, health authorities on June 8 instituted a recall for Champix, the name under which the drug is sold in that nation.
The Chantix website says it’s a 3- to 6-month treatment that helps people overcome the need to smoke tobacco. The website says more than 13 million people have been prescribed Chantix.
Other health concerns have been raised about Chantix, such as mental health side effects.
In 2016, however, researchers concluded Chantix did not appear to raise the risk of serious health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
In Black patients, acne scarring might not mean what you think
Treating the needs of patients of color requires an understanding of differences that may not be readily apparent, a dermatologist told colleagues. For example, of the term that may be misinterpreted in the doctor’s office.
“Scarring is not usually what they’re talking about, although they may have some of that as well. They’re [typically] talking about what we know as postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, not scarring. So right away, you have to clarify,” Amy McMichael, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, N.C., said in a presentation at the Inaugural Symposium for Inflammatory Skin Disease. “When you’re talking about scarring, do you mean the dark spots? What exactly are you concerned about?”
Dr. McMichael highlighted a 2014 study that reported the results of a survey of 208 women (51% were White; 49% were non-White), which included 51 Black, 23 Hispanic, and 16 Asian women aged 25-45 (mean age, 35) with 25 or more lesions. White women were more troubled by facial acne than were women of color (89% vs. 76%, respectively, P < .05), and they were more likely to say lesion clearance was most important to them (58% vs. 32%, respectively, P < .001).
Meanwhile, non-White women were much more likely than were White women to say that clearance of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation was most important to them (42% vs. 8%, respectively, P < .0001).
“Seventy percent of [non-White women] felt that their race and ethnicity required targeted attention [in treatment], and two-thirds desired acne treatment that was designed to meet the needs of their skin type,” Dr. McMichael said. “If you don’t address the issues, if you don’t talk about the pigmentation with them or explain how you’re going to address it, people don’t feel heard. They don’t feel like they’ve really seen a dermatologist who understands their needs.”
She added that it’s crucial to ask about over-the-counter products. “If you don’t discuss them, they’ll assume that what they’re doing is okay.” She warns her patients against using and exposing their skin and face to cocoa butter and oils such as tea tree oil.
Research has suggested that among people of color, Blacks and Hispanics are most likely to experience dyspigmentation and scarring, Dr. McMichael said. She advised colleagues to be aware of pomade acne in these two groups of patients. Pomade acne appears along the hair line and is caused by the use of hair products. She also cautioned about acne cosmetica, which can be triggered by products such as makeup, used to cover up acne and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.
As for acne treatments, Dr. McMichael highlighted a long list of familiar topical and oral agents and procedural options. Less familiar strategies include laser and light-based therapies, she said.
As for up-and-coming options, she pointed to topical minocycline, “which allows us to use an anti-inflammatory agent topically rather than orally when we’re trying to get away from using a lot of oral antibiotics.”
Also consider whether female patients have polycystic ovary syndrome, she said. “Then you might consider spironolactone. I certainly use a lot more of that these days to try to avoid long-term oral antibiotics.”
She recommended earlier use of isotretinoin in patients overall, and she urged colleagues to proceed with their standard retinoid approaches. However, she noted that she lets patients know that she’ll focus first on treating the acne itself and then work on the dark spots in later treatments. “If you give people a bleaching agent in the beginning, they’re going to stop using their main products, and they’re going to chase those dark spots. That’s just something that they can’t help doing.”
Dr. McMichael disclosed investigator and consultant relationships with multiple drug makers.
Treating the needs of patients of color requires an understanding of differences that may not be readily apparent, a dermatologist told colleagues. For example, of the term that may be misinterpreted in the doctor’s office.
“Scarring is not usually what they’re talking about, although they may have some of that as well. They’re [typically] talking about what we know as postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, not scarring. So right away, you have to clarify,” Amy McMichael, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, N.C., said in a presentation at the Inaugural Symposium for Inflammatory Skin Disease. “When you’re talking about scarring, do you mean the dark spots? What exactly are you concerned about?”
Dr. McMichael highlighted a 2014 study that reported the results of a survey of 208 women (51% were White; 49% were non-White), which included 51 Black, 23 Hispanic, and 16 Asian women aged 25-45 (mean age, 35) with 25 or more lesions. White women were more troubled by facial acne than were women of color (89% vs. 76%, respectively, P < .05), and they were more likely to say lesion clearance was most important to them (58% vs. 32%, respectively, P < .001).
Meanwhile, non-White women were much more likely than were White women to say that clearance of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation was most important to them (42% vs. 8%, respectively, P < .0001).
“Seventy percent of [non-White women] felt that their race and ethnicity required targeted attention [in treatment], and two-thirds desired acne treatment that was designed to meet the needs of their skin type,” Dr. McMichael said. “If you don’t address the issues, if you don’t talk about the pigmentation with them or explain how you’re going to address it, people don’t feel heard. They don’t feel like they’ve really seen a dermatologist who understands their needs.”
She added that it’s crucial to ask about over-the-counter products. “If you don’t discuss them, they’ll assume that what they’re doing is okay.” She warns her patients against using and exposing their skin and face to cocoa butter and oils such as tea tree oil.
Research has suggested that among people of color, Blacks and Hispanics are most likely to experience dyspigmentation and scarring, Dr. McMichael said. She advised colleagues to be aware of pomade acne in these two groups of patients. Pomade acne appears along the hair line and is caused by the use of hair products. She also cautioned about acne cosmetica, which can be triggered by products such as makeup, used to cover up acne and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.
As for acne treatments, Dr. McMichael highlighted a long list of familiar topical and oral agents and procedural options. Less familiar strategies include laser and light-based therapies, she said.
As for up-and-coming options, she pointed to topical minocycline, “which allows us to use an anti-inflammatory agent topically rather than orally when we’re trying to get away from using a lot of oral antibiotics.”
Also consider whether female patients have polycystic ovary syndrome, she said. “Then you might consider spironolactone. I certainly use a lot more of that these days to try to avoid long-term oral antibiotics.”
She recommended earlier use of isotretinoin in patients overall, and she urged colleagues to proceed with their standard retinoid approaches. However, she noted that she lets patients know that she’ll focus first on treating the acne itself and then work on the dark spots in later treatments. “If you give people a bleaching agent in the beginning, they’re going to stop using their main products, and they’re going to chase those dark spots. That’s just something that they can’t help doing.”
Dr. McMichael disclosed investigator and consultant relationships with multiple drug makers.
Treating the needs of patients of color requires an understanding of differences that may not be readily apparent, a dermatologist told colleagues. For example, of the term that may be misinterpreted in the doctor’s office.
“Scarring is not usually what they’re talking about, although they may have some of that as well. They’re [typically] talking about what we know as postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, not scarring. So right away, you have to clarify,” Amy McMichael, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, N.C., said in a presentation at the Inaugural Symposium for Inflammatory Skin Disease. “When you’re talking about scarring, do you mean the dark spots? What exactly are you concerned about?”
Dr. McMichael highlighted a 2014 study that reported the results of a survey of 208 women (51% were White; 49% were non-White), which included 51 Black, 23 Hispanic, and 16 Asian women aged 25-45 (mean age, 35) with 25 or more lesions. White women were more troubled by facial acne than were women of color (89% vs. 76%, respectively, P < .05), and they were more likely to say lesion clearance was most important to them (58% vs. 32%, respectively, P < .001).
Meanwhile, non-White women were much more likely than were White women to say that clearance of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation was most important to them (42% vs. 8%, respectively, P < .0001).
“Seventy percent of [non-White women] felt that their race and ethnicity required targeted attention [in treatment], and two-thirds desired acne treatment that was designed to meet the needs of their skin type,” Dr. McMichael said. “If you don’t address the issues, if you don’t talk about the pigmentation with them or explain how you’re going to address it, people don’t feel heard. They don’t feel like they’ve really seen a dermatologist who understands their needs.”
She added that it’s crucial to ask about over-the-counter products. “If you don’t discuss them, they’ll assume that what they’re doing is okay.” She warns her patients against using and exposing their skin and face to cocoa butter and oils such as tea tree oil.
Research has suggested that among people of color, Blacks and Hispanics are most likely to experience dyspigmentation and scarring, Dr. McMichael said. She advised colleagues to be aware of pomade acne in these two groups of patients. Pomade acne appears along the hair line and is caused by the use of hair products. She also cautioned about acne cosmetica, which can be triggered by products such as makeup, used to cover up acne and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.
As for acne treatments, Dr. McMichael highlighted a long list of familiar topical and oral agents and procedural options. Less familiar strategies include laser and light-based therapies, she said.
As for up-and-coming options, she pointed to topical minocycline, “which allows us to use an anti-inflammatory agent topically rather than orally when we’re trying to get away from using a lot of oral antibiotics.”
Also consider whether female patients have polycystic ovary syndrome, she said. “Then you might consider spironolactone. I certainly use a lot more of that these days to try to avoid long-term oral antibiotics.”
She recommended earlier use of isotretinoin in patients overall, and she urged colleagues to proceed with their standard retinoid approaches. However, she noted that she lets patients know that she’ll focus first on treating the acne itself and then work on the dark spots in later treatments. “If you give people a bleaching agent in the beginning, they’re going to stop using their main products, and they’re going to chase those dark spots. That’s just something that they can’t help doing.”
Dr. McMichael disclosed investigator and consultant relationships with multiple drug makers.
FROM SISD 2021