Clinical Topics & News

U.K. researchers have established that hypertension is associated with a 22% greater risk of severe COVID-19, with the odds of severe COVID-19 unaffected by medication type.

Hypertension “appears to be one of the commonest comorbidities in COVID-19 patients”, explained the authors of a new study, published in PLOS ONE. The authors highlighted that previous research had shown that hypertension was more prevalent in severe and fatal cases compared with all cases of COVID-19.

They pointed out, however, that whether hypertensive individuals have a higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensives, and whether the absolute level of systolic blood pressure or the type of antihypertensive medication is related to this risk, remained “unclear.”

To try to answer these questions, the research team, led by University of Cambridge researchers, analyzed data from 16,134 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 (mean age 65.3 years, 47% male, 90% white), 40% were diagnosed with essential hypertension at the analysis baseline – 22% of whom had developed severe COVID-19.

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 120 mm Hg up to 180+ mm Hg, with the reference category defined as 120-129 mm Hg, based on data from the SPRINT study, which demonstrated that intensive SBP lowering to below 120 mm Hg, as compared with the traditional threshold of 140 mm Hg, was beneficial. Diastolic blood pressure was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 60 mm Hg up to 100+ mm Hg with 80-90 mm Hg being the reference category.

In their analyses the researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, smoking status, diabetes status, socioeconomic status, and inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]), as these were proposed as potential confounders. To assess the direct effect of hypertension on COVID-19, they also adjusted for intermediate variables, including cardiovascular comorbidities and stroke, on the causal pathway between hypertension and severe COVID-19.
 

Majority of effect of hypertension on severe COVID-19 was direct

The unadjusted odds ratio of the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 was 2.33 (95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.51), the authors emphasized. They found that, after adjusting for all confounding variables, hypertension was associated with 22% higher odds of severe COVID-19 (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.33), compared with normotension.

Individuals with severe COVID-19 were marginally older, more likely to be male, and more deprived, the authors said. “They were also more likely to be hypertensive, compared with individuals without severe COVID-19, and a greater proportion of individuals with severe COVID-19 had cardiovascular comorbidities.”

The majority of the effect of hypertension on development of severe COVID-19 was “direct,” they said. However, a modest proportion of the effect was mediated via cardiovascular comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, MI, coronary heart disease, arrhythmias, and stroke. Of note, those with a history of stroke had a 47% higher risk of severe COVID-19 and those with a history of other cardiovascular comorbidities had a 30% higher risk of severe COVID-19, the authors commented.
 

J-shaped relationship

Of the total of 6,517 (40%) individuals who had a diagnosis of essential hypertension at baseline, 67% were treated (41% with monotherapy, 59% with combination therapy), and 33% were untreated.

There were similar numbers of severe COVID-19 in each medication group: ACE inhibitors, 34%; angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 36%; and “other” medications 34%.

In hypertensive individuals receiving antihypertensive medications, there was a “J-shaped relationship” between the level of blood pressure and risk of severe COVID-19 when using a systolic blood pressure level of 120-129 mm Hg as a reference – 150-159 mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.53), > 180+ mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.51).

The authors commented that there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 until systolic blood pressure “exceeded 150 mm Hg.”

They said it was an interesting finding that “very well-controlled” systolic blood pressure < 120 mm Hg was associated with a 40% (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78) greater odds of severe COVID-19. “This may be due to reverse causality, where low systolic blood pressure levels may indicate poorer health, such that the occurrence of severe COVID-19 may be related to underlying disease rather than the level of SBP per se,” they suggested.

The J-shaped association observed remained after multiple adjustments, including presence of known cardiovascular comorbidities, which suggested a possible “real effect” of low SBP on severe COVID-19, “at least in treated hypertensive individuals.”

Their analyses also identified that, compared with a “normal” diastolic blood pressure (80-90 mm Hg), having a diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg was associated with higher odds of severe COVID-19.

The association between hypertension and COVID-19 was “amplified” if the individuals were treated and their BP remained uncontrolled, the authors pointed out.

There did not appear to be any difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 between individuals taking ACE inhibitors and those taking ARBs or other antihypertensive medications, the authors said.
 

Better understanding of underlying mechanisms needed

Individuals with hypertension who tested positive for COVID-19 had “over twice” the risk of developing severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensive individuals, the authors said.

They highlighted that their findings also suggest that there are “further effects” influencing the severity of COVID-19 beyond a “dichotomous” diagnosis of hypertension.

“Individuals with a higher-than-target systolic blood pressure may be less healthy, less active, suffering more severe hypertension, or have developed drug-resistant hypertension, all suggesting that the effects of hypertension have already had detrimental physiological effects on the cardiovascular system, which in turn may offer some explanation for the higher risk of severe COVID-19 with uncontrolled SBP,” they explained.

“Hypertension is an important risk factor for COVID-19,” reiterated the authors, who emphasized that a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this increased risk is warranted in case of “more severe strains or other viruses” in the future.

The authors have declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

U.K. researchers have established that hypertension is associated with a 22% greater risk of severe COVID-19, with the odds of severe COVID-19 unaffected by medication type.

Hypertension “appears to be one of the commonest comorbidities in COVID-19 patients”, explained the authors of a new study, published in PLOS ONE. The authors highlighted that previous research had shown that hypertension was more prevalent in severe and fatal cases compared with all cases of COVID-19.

They pointed out, however, that whether hypertensive individuals have a higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensives, and whether the absolute level of systolic blood pressure or the type of antihypertensive medication is related to this risk, remained “unclear.”

To try to answer these questions, the research team, led by University of Cambridge researchers, analyzed data from 16,134 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 (mean age 65.3 years, 47% male, 90% white), 40% were diagnosed with essential hypertension at the analysis baseline – 22% of whom had developed severe COVID-19.

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 120 mm Hg up to 180+ mm Hg, with the reference category defined as 120-129 mm Hg, based on data from the SPRINT study, which demonstrated that intensive SBP lowering to below 120 mm Hg, as compared with the traditional threshold of 140 mm Hg, was beneficial. Diastolic blood pressure was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 60 mm Hg up to 100+ mm Hg with 80-90 mm Hg being the reference category.

In their analyses the researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, smoking status, diabetes status, socioeconomic status, and inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]), as these were proposed as potential confounders. To assess the direct effect of hypertension on COVID-19, they also adjusted for intermediate variables, including cardiovascular comorbidities and stroke, on the causal pathway between hypertension and severe COVID-19.
 

Majority of effect of hypertension on severe COVID-19 was direct

The unadjusted odds ratio of the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 was 2.33 (95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.51), the authors emphasized. They found that, after adjusting for all confounding variables, hypertension was associated with 22% higher odds of severe COVID-19 (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.33), compared with normotension.

Individuals with severe COVID-19 were marginally older, more likely to be male, and more deprived, the authors said. “They were also more likely to be hypertensive, compared with individuals without severe COVID-19, and a greater proportion of individuals with severe COVID-19 had cardiovascular comorbidities.”

The majority of the effect of hypertension on development of severe COVID-19 was “direct,” they said. However, a modest proportion of the effect was mediated via cardiovascular comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, MI, coronary heart disease, arrhythmias, and stroke. Of note, those with a history of stroke had a 47% higher risk of severe COVID-19 and those with a history of other cardiovascular comorbidities had a 30% higher risk of severe COVID-19, the authors commented.
 

J-shaped relationship

Of the total of 6,517 (40%) individuals who had a diagnosis of essential hypertension at baseline, 67% were treated (41% with monotherapy, 59% with combination therapy), and 33% were untreated.

There were similar numbers of severe COVID-19 in each medication group: ACE inhibitors, 34%; angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 36%; and “other” medications 34%.

In hypertensive individuals receiving antihypertensive medications, there was a “J-shaped relationship” between the level of blood pressure and risk of severe COVID-19 when using a systolic blood pressure level of 120-129 mm Hg as a reference – 150-159 mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.53), > 180+ mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.51).

The authors commented that there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 until systolic blood pressure “exceeded 150 mm Hg.”

They said it was an interesting finding that “very well-controlled” systolic blood pressure < 120 mm Hg was associated with a 40% (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78) greater odds of severe COVID-19. “This may be due to reverse causality, where low systolic blood pressure levels may indicate poorer health, such that the occurrence of severe COVID-19 may be related to underlying disease rather than the level of SBP per se,” they suggested.

The J-shaped association observed remained after multiple adjustments, including presence of known cardiovascular comorbidities, which suggested a possible “real effect” of low SBP on severe COVID-19, “at least in treated hypertensive individuals.”

Their analyses also identified that, compared with a “normal” diastolic blood pressure (80-90 mm Hg), having a diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg was associated with higher odds of severe COVID-19.

The association between hypertension and COVID-19 was “amplified” if the individuals were treated and their BP remained uncontrolled, the authors pointed out.

There did not appear to be any difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 between individuals taking ACE inhibitors and those taking ARBs or other antihypertensive medications, the authors said.
 

Better understanding of underlying mechanisms needed

Individuals with hypertension who tested positive for COVID-19 had “over twice” the risk of developing severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensive individuals, the authors said.

They highlighted that their findings also suggest that there are “further effects” influencing the severity of COVID-19 beyond a “dichotomous” diagnosis of hypertension.

“Individuals with a higher-than-target systolic blood pressure may be less healthy, less active, suffering more severe hypertension, or have developed drug-resistant hypertension, all suggesting that the effects of hypertension have already had detrimental physiological effects on the cardiovascular system, which in turn may offer some explanation for the higher risk of severe COVID-19 with uncontrolled SBP,” they explained.

“Hypertension is an important risk factor for COVID-19,” reiterated the authors, who emphasized that a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this increased risk is warranted in case of “more severe strains or other viruses” in the future.

The authors have declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

U.K. researchers have established that hypertension is associated with a 22% greater risk of severe COVID-19, with the odds of severe COVID-19 unaffected by medication type.

Hypertension “appears to be one of the commonest comorbidities in COVID-19 patients”, explained the authors of a new study, published in PLOS ONE. The authors highlighted that previous research had shown that hypertension was more prevalent in severe and fatal cases compared with all cases of COVID-19.

They pointed out, however, that whether hypertensive individuals have a higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensives, and whether the absolute level of systolic blood pressure or the type of antihypertensive medication is related to this risk, remained “unclear.”

To try to answer these questions, the research team, led by University of Cambridge researchers, analyzed data from 16,134 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 (mean age 65.3 years, 47% male, 90% white), 40% were diagnosed with essential hypertension at the analysis baseline – 22% of whom had developed severe COVID-19.

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 120 mm Hg up to 180+ mm Hg, with the reference category defined as 120-129 mm Hg, based on data from the SPRINT study, which demonstrated that intensive SBP lowering to below 120 mm Hg, as compared with the traditional threshold of 140 mm Hg, was beneficial. Diastolic blood pressure was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 60 mm Hg up to 100+ mm Hg with 80-90 mm Hg being the reference category.

In their analyses the researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, smoking status, diabetes status, socioeconomic status, and inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]), as these were proposed as potential confounders. To assess the direct effect of hypertension on COVID-19, they also adjusted for intermediate variables, including cardiovascular comorbidities and stroke, on the causal pathway between hypertension and severe COVID-19.
 

Majority of effect of hypertension on severe COVID-19 was direct

The unadjusted odds ratio of the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 was 2.33 (95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.51), the authors emphasized. They found that, after adjusting for all confounding variables, hypertension was associated with 22% higher odds of severe COVID-19 (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.33), compared with normotension.

Individuals with severe COVID-19 were marginally older, more likely to be male, and more deprived, the authors said. “They were also more likely to be hypertensive, compared with individuals without severe COVID-19, and a greater proportion of individuals with severe COVID-19 had cardiovascular comorbidities.”

The majority of the effect of hypertension on development of severe COVID-19 was “direct,” they said. However, a modest proportion of the effect was mediated via cardiovascular comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, MI, coronary heart disease, arrhythmias, and stroke. Of note, those with a history of stroke had a 47% higher risk of severe COVID-19 and those with a history of other cardiovascular comorbidities had a 30% higher risk of severe COVID-19, the authors commented.
 

J-shaped relationship

Of the total of 6,517 (40%) individuals who had a diagnosis of essential hypertension at baseline, 67% were treated (41% with monotherapy, 59% with combination therapy), and 33% were untreated.

There were similar numbers of severe COVID-19 in each medication group: ACE inhibitors, 34%; angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 36%; and “other” medications 34%.

In hypertensive individuals receiving antihypertensive medications, there was a “J-shaped relationship” between the level of blood pressure and risk of severe COVID-19 when using a systolic blood pressure level of 120-129 mm Hg as a reference – 150-159 mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.53), > 180+ mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.51).

The authors commented that there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 until systolic blood pressure “exceeded 150 mm Hg.”

They said it was an interesting finding that “very well-controlled” systolic blood pressure < 120 mm Hg was associated with a 40% (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78) greater odds of severe COVID-19. “This may be due to reverse causality, where low systolic blood pressure levels may indicate poorer health, such that the occurrence of severe COVID-19 may be related to underlying disease rather than the level of SBP per se,” they suggested.

The J-shaped association observed remained after multiple adjustments, including presence of known cardiovascular comorbidities, which suggested a possible “real effect” of low SBP on severe COVID-19, “at least in treated hypertensive individuals.”

Their analyses also identified that, compared with a “normal” diastolic blood pressure (80-90 mm Hg), having a diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg was associated with higher odds of severe COVID-19.

The association between hypertension and COVID-19 was “amplified” if the individuals were treated and their BP remained uncontrolled, the authors pointed out.

There did not appear to be any difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 between individuals taking ACE inhibitors and those taking ARBs or other antihypertensive medications, the authors said.
 

Better understanding of underlying mechanisms needed

Individuals with hypertension who tested positive for COVID-19 had “over twice” the risk of developing severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensive individuals, the authors said.

They highlighted that their findings also suggest that there are “further effects” influencing the severity of COVID-19 beyond a “dichotomous” diagnosis of hypertension.

“Individuals with a higher-than-target systolic blood pressure may be less healthy, less active, suffering more severe hypertension, or have developed drug-resistant hypertension, all suggesting that the effects of hypertension have already had detrimental physiological effects on the cardiovascular system, which in turn may offer some explanation for the higher risk of severe COVID-19 with uncontrolled SBP,” they explained.

“Hypertension is an important risk factor for COVID-19,” reiterated the authors, who emphasized that a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this increased risk is warranted in case of “more severe strains or other viruses” in the future.

The authors have declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Roughly 7% of all adult Americans may currently have had long COVID, with symptoms that have lasted 3 months or longer, according to the latest U.S. government survey done in October. More than a quarter say their condition is severe enough to significantly limit their day-to-day activities – yet the problem is only barely starting to get the attention of employers, the health care system, and policymakers.

With no cure or treatment in sight, long COVID is already burdening not only the health care system, but also the economy – and that burden is set to grow. Many experts worry about the possible long-term ripple effects, from increased spending on medical care costs to lost wages due to not being able to work, as well as the policy implications that come with addressing these issues.

“At this point, anyone who’s looking at this seriously would say this is a huge deal,” says senior Brookings Institution fellow Katie Bach, the author of a study that analyzed long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

“We need a real concerted focus on treating these people, which means both research and the clinical side, and figuring out how to build a labor market that is more inclusive of people with disabilities,” she said.

It’s not only that many people are affected. It’s that they are often affected for months and possibly even years.

The U.S. government figures suggest more than 18 million people could have symptoms of long COVID right now. The latest Household Pulse Survey by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics takes data from 41,415 people.

A preprint of a study by researchers from City University of New York, posted on medRxiv in September and based on a similar population survey done between June 30 and July 2, drew comparable results. The study has not been peer reviewed.

More than 7% of all those who answered said they had long COVID at the time of the survey, which the researchers said corresponded to approximately 18.5 million U.S. adults. The same study found that a quarter of those, or an estimated 4.7 million adults, said their daily activities were impacted “a lot.”

This can translate into pain not only for the patients, but for governments and employers, too.

In high-income countries around the world, government surveys and other studies are shedding light on the extent to which post-COVID-19 symptoms – commonly known as long COVID – are affecting populations. While results vary, they generally fall within similar ranges.

The World Health Organization estimates that between 10% and 20% of those with COVID-19 go on to have an array of medium- to long-term post-COVID-19 symptoms that range from mild to debilitating. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts that estimate at 10% to 30%; one of the latest studies published at the end of October in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 15% of U.S. adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 reported current long COVID symptoms. Elsewhere, a study from the Netherlands published in The Lancet in August found that one in eight COVID-19 cases, or 12.7%, were likely to become long COVID.

“It’s very clear that the condition is devastating people’s lives and livelihoods,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in an article for The Guardian newspaper in October.

“The world has already lost a significant number of the workforce to illness, death, fatigue, unplanned retirement due to an increase in long-term disability, which not only impacts the health system, but is a hit to the overarching economy … the impact of long COVID for all countries is very serious and needs immediate and sustained action equivalent to its scale.”
 

Global snapshot: Lasting symptoms, impact on activities

Patients describe a spectrum of persistent issues, with extreme fatigue, brain fog or cognitive problems, and shortness of breath among the most common complaints. Many also have manageable symptoms that worsen significantly after even mild physical or mental exertion.

Women appear almost twice as likely as men to get long COVID. Many patients have other medical conditions and disabilities that make them more vulnerable to the condition. Those who face greater obstacles accessing health care due to discrimination or socioeconomic inequity are at higher risk as well. 

While many are older, a large number are also in their prime working age. The Census Bureau data show that people ages 40-49 are more likely than any other group to get long COVID, which has broader implications for labor markets and the global economy. Already, experts have estimated that long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and affect multiple industries.

“Whether they’re in the financial world, the medical system, lawyers, they’re telling me they’re sitting at the computer screen and they’re unable to process the data,” said Zachary Schwartz, MD, medical director for Vancouver General Hospital’s Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic.

“That is what’s most distressing for people, in that they’re not working, they’re not making money, and they don’t know when, or if, they’re going to get better.”

Nearly a third of respondents in the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey who said they have had COVID-19 reported symptoms that lasted 3 months or longer. People between the ages of 30 and 59 were the most affected, with about 32% reporting symptoms. Across the entire adult U.S. population, the survey found that 1 in 7 adults have had long COVID at some point during the pandemic, with about 1 in 18 saying it limited their activity to some degree, and 1 in 50 saying they have faced “a lot” of limits on their activities. Any way these numbers are dissected, long COVID has impacted a large swath of the population.

Yet research into the causes and possible treatments of long COVID is just getting underway.

“The amount of energy and time devoted to it is way, way less than it should, given how many people are likely affected,” said David Cutler, PhD, professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who has written about the economic cost of long COVID. “We’re way, way underdoing it here. And I think that’s really a terrible thing.”

Population surveys and studies from around the world show that long COVID lives up to its name, with people reporting serious symptoms for months on end.

In October, Statistics Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada published early results from a questionnaire done between spring and summer 2022 that found just under 15% of adults who had a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 went on to have new or continuing symptoms 3 or more months later. Nearly half, or 47.3%, dealt with symptoms that lasted a year or more. More than one in five said their symptoms “often or always” limited their day-to-day activities, which included routine tasks such as preparing meals, doing errands and chores, and basic functions such as personal care and moving around in their homes.

Nearly three-quarters of workers or students said they missed an average of 20 days of work or school. 

“We haven’t yet been able to determine exactly when symptoms resolve,” said Rainu Kaushal, MD, the senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She is co-leading a national study on long COVID in adults and children, funded by the National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative.

“But there does seem to be, for many of the milder symptoms, resolution at about 4-6 weeks. There seems to be a second point of resolution around 6 months for certain symptoms, and then some symptoms do seem to be permanent, and those tend to be patients who have underlying conditions,” she said.
 

Reducing the risk

Given all the data so far, experts recommend urgent policy changes to help people with long COVID.

“The population needs to be prepared, that understanding long COVID is going to be a very long and difficult process,” said Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, associate professor and the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He said the government can do a great deal to help, including setting up a network of connected clinics treating long COVID, standardizing best practices, and sharing information.

“That would go a long way towards making sure that every person feels like they’re not too far away from a clinic where they can get treated for this particular condition,” he said.

But the only known way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID-19 infections in the first place, experts say. That means equitable access to tests, therapeutics, and vaccines.

“I will say that avoiding COVID remains the best treatment in the arsenal right now,” said Dr. Kaushal. This means masking, avoiding crowded places with poor ventilation and high exposure risk, and being up to date on vaccinations, she said.

A number of papers – including a large U.K. study published in May 2022, another one from July, and the JAMA study from October – all suggest that vaccinations can help reduce the risk of long COVID.

“I am absolutely of the belief that vaccination has reduced the incidence and overall amount of long COVID … [and is] still by far the best thing the public can do,” said Dr. Schwartz.

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

Roughly 7% of all adult Americans may currently have had long COVID, with symptoms that have lasted 3 months or longer, according to the latest U.S. government survey done in October. More than a quarter say their condition is severe enough to significantly limit their day-to-day activities – yet the problem is only barely starting to get the attention of employers, the health care system, and policymakers.

With no cure or treatment in sight, long COVID is already burdening not only the health care system, but also the economy – and that burden is set to grow. Many experts worry about the possible long-term ripple effects, from increased spending on medical care costs to lost wages due to not being able to work, as well as the policy implications that come with addressing these issues.

“At this point, anyone who’s looking at this seriously would say this is a huge deal,” says senior Brookings Institution fellow Katie Bach, the author of a study that analyzed long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

“We need a real concerted focus on treating these people, which means both research and the clinical side, and figuring out how to build a labor market that is more inclusive of people with disabilities,” she said.

It’s not only that many people are affected. It’s that they are often affected for months and possibly even years.

The U.S. government figures suggest more than 18 million people could have symptoms of long COVID right now. The latest Household Pulse Survey by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics takes data from 41,415 people.

A preprint of a study by researchers from City University of New York, posted on medRxiv in September and based on a similar population survey done between June 30 and July 2, drew comparable results. The study has not been peer reviewed.

More than 7% of all those who answered said they had long COVID at the time of the survey, which the researchers said corresponded to approximately 18.5 million U.S. adults. The same study found that a quarter of those, or an estimated 4.7 million adults, said their daily activities were impacted “a lot.”

This can translate into pain not only for the patients, but for governments and employers, too.

In high-income countries around the world, government surveys and other studies are shedding light on the extent to which post-COVID-19 symptoms – commonly known as long COVID – are affecting populations. While results vary, they generally fall within similar ranges.

The World Health Organization estimates that between 10% and 20% of those with COVID-19 go on to have an array of medium- to long-term post-COVID-19 symptoms that range from mild to debilitating. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts that estimate at 10% to 30%; one of the latest studies published at the end of October in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 15% of U.S. adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 reported current long COVID symptoms. Elsewhere, a study from the Netherlands published in The Lancet in August found that one in eight COVID-19 cases, or 12.7%, were likely to become long COVID.

“It’s very clear that the condition is devastating people’s lives and livelihoods,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in an article for The Guardian newspaper in October.

“The world has already lost a significant number of the workforce to illness, death, fatigue, unplanned retirement due to an increase in long-term disability, which not only impacts the health system, but is a hit to the overarching economy … the impact of long COVID for all countries is very serious and needs immediate and sustained action equivalent to its scale.”
 

Global snapshot: Lasting symptoms, impact on activities

Patients describe a spectrum of persistent issues, with extreme fatigue, brain fog or cognitive problems, and shortness of breath among the most common complaints. Many also have manageable symptoms that worsen significantly after even mild physical or mental exertion.

Women appear almost twice as likely as men to get long COVID. Many patients have other medical conditions and disabilities that make them more vulnerable to the condition. Those who face greater obstacles accessing health care due to discrimination or socioeconomic inequity are at higher risk as well. 

While many are older, a large number are also in their prime working age. The Census Bureau data show that people ages 40-49 are more likely than any other group to get long COVID, which has broader implications for labor markets and the global economy. Already, experts have estimated that long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and affect multiple industries.

“Whether they’re in the financial world, the medical system, lawyers, they’re telling me they’re sitting at the computer screen and they’re unable to process the data,” said Zachary Schwartz, MD, medical director for Vancouver General Hospital’s Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic.

“That is what’s most distressing for people, in that they’re not working, they’re not making money, and they don’t know when, or if, they’re going to get better.”

Nearly a third of respondents in the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey who said they have had COVID-19 reported symptoms that lasted 3 months or longer. People between the ages of 30 and 59 were the most affected, with about 32% reporting symptoms. Across the entire adult U.S. population, the survey found that 1 in 7 adults have had long COVID at some point during the pandemic, with about 1 in 18 saying it limited their activity to some degree, and 1 in 50 saying they have faced “a lot” of limits on their activities. Any way these numbers are dissected, long COVID has impacted a large swath of the population.

Yet research into the causes and possible treatments of long COVID is just getting underway.

“The amount of energy and time devoted to it is way, way less than it should, given how many people are likely affected,” said David Cutler, PhD, professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who has written about the economic cost of long COVID. “We’re way, way underdoing it here. And I think that’s really a terrible thing.”

Population surveys and studies from around the world show that long COVID lives up to its name, with people reporting serious symptoms for months on end.

In October, Statistics Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada published early results from a questionnaire done between spring and summer 2022 that found just under 15% of adults who had a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 went on to have new or continuing symptoms 3 or more months later. Nearly half, or 47.3%, dealt with symptoms that lasted a year or more. More than one in five said their symptoms “often or always” limited their day-to-day activities, which included routine tasks such as preparing meals, doing errands and chores, and basic functions such as personal care and moving around in their homes.

Nearly three-quarters of workers or students said they missed an average of 20 days of work or school. 

“We haven’t yet been able to determine exactly when symptoms resolve,” said Rainu Kaushal, MD, the senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She is co-leading a national study on long COVID in adults and children, funded by the National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative.

“But there does seem to be, for many of the milder symptoms, resolution at about 4-6 weeks. There seems to be a second point of resolution around 6 months for certain symptoms, and then some symptoms do seem to be permanent, and those tend to be patients who have underlying conditions,” she said.
 

Reducing the risk

Given all the data so far, experts recommend urgent policy changes to help people with long COVID.

“The population needs to be prepared, that understanding long COVID is going to be a very long and difficult process,” said Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, associate professor and the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He said the government can do a great deal to help, including setting up a network of connected clinics treating long COVID, standardizing best practices, and sharing information.

“That would go a long way towards making sure that every person feels like they’re not too far away from a clinic where they can get treated for this particular condition,” he said.

But the only known way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID-19 infections in the first place, experts say. That means equitable access to tests, therapeutics, and vaccines.

“I will say that avoiding COVID remains the best treatment in the arsenal right now,” said Dr. Kaushal. This means masking, avoiding crowded places with poor ventilation and high exposure risk, and being up to date on vaccinations, she said.

A number of papers – including a large U.K. study published in May 2022, another one from July, and the JAMA study from October – all suggest that vaccinations can help reduce the risk of long COVID.

“I am absolutely of the belief that vaccination has reduced the incidence and overall amount of long COVID … [and is] still by far the best thing the public can do,” said Dr. Schwartz.

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

Roughly 7% of all adult Americans may currently have had long COVID, with symptoms that have lasted 3 months or longer, according to the latest U.S. government survey done in October. More than a quarter say their condition is severe enough to significantly limit their day-to-day activities – yet the problem is only barely starting to get the attention of employers, the health care system, and policymakers.

With no cure or treatment in sight, long COVID is already burdening not only the health care system, but also the economy – and that burden is set to grow. Many experts worry about the possible long-term ripple effects, from increased spending on medical care costs to lost wages due to not being able to work, as well as the policy implications that come with addressing these issues.

“At this point, anyone who’s looking at this seriously would say this is a huge deal,” says senior Brookings Institution fellow Katie Bach, the author of a study that analyzed long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

“We need a real concerted focus on treating these people, which means both research and the clinical side, and figuring out how to build a labor market that is more inclusive of people with disabilities,” she said.

It’s not only that many people are affected. It’s that they are often affected for months and possibly even years.

The U.S. government figures suggest more than 18 million people could have symptoms of long COVID right now. The latest Household Pulse Survey by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics takes data from 41,415 people.

A preprint of a study by researchers from City University of New York, posted on medRxiv in September and based on a similar population survey done between June 30 and July 2, drew comparable results. The study has not been peer reviewed.

More than 7% of all those who answered said they had long COVID at the time of the survey, which the researchers said corresponded to approximately 18.5 million U.S. adults. The same study found that a quarter of those, or an estimated 4.7 million adults, said their daily activities were impacted “a lot.”

This can translate into pain not only for the patients, but for governments and employers, too.

In high-income countries around the world, government surveys and other studies are shedding light on the extent to which post-COVID-19 symptoms – commonly known as long COVID – are affecting populations. While results vary, they generally fall within similar ranges.

The World Health Organization estimates that between 10% and 20% of those with COVID-19 go on to have an array of medium- to long-term post-COVID-19 symptoms that range from mild to debilitating. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts that estimate at 10% to 30%; one of the latest studies published at the end of October in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 15% of U.S. adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 reported current long COVID symptoms. Elsewhere, a study from the Netherlands published in The Lancet in August found that one in eight COVID-19 cases, or 12.7%, were likely to become long COVID.

“It’s very clear that the condition is devastating people’s lives and livelihoods,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in an article for The Guardian newspaper in October.

“The world has already lost a significant number of the workforce to illness, death, fatigue, unplanned retirement due to an increase in long-term disability, which not only impacts the health system, but is a hit to the overarching economy … the impact of long COVID for all countries is very serious and needs immediate and sustained action equivalent to its scale.”
 

Global snapshot: Lasting symptoms, impact on activities

Patients describe a spectrum of persistent issues, with extreme fatigue, brain fog or cognitive problems, and shortness of breath among the most common complaints. Many also have manageable symptoms that worsen significantly after even mild physical or mental exertion.

Women appear almost twice as likely as men to get long COVID. Many patients have other medical conditions and disabilities that make them more vulnerable to the condition. Those who face greater obstacles accessing health care due to discrimination or socioeconomic inequity are at higher risk as well. 

While many are older, a large number are also in their prime working age. The Census Bureau data show that people ages 40-49 are more likely than any other group to get long COVID, which has broader implications for labor markets and the global economy. Already, experts have estimated that long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and affect multiple industries.

“Whether they’re in the financial world, the medical system, lawyers, they’re telling me they’re sitting at the computer screen and they’re unable to process the data,” said Zachary Schwartz, MD, medical director for Vancouver General Hospital’s Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic.

“That is what’s most distressing for people, in that they’re not working, they’re not making money, and they don’t know when, or if, they’re going to get better.”

Nearly a third of respondents in the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey who said they have had COVID-19 reported symptoms that lasted 3 months or longer. People between the ages of 30 and 59 were the most affected, with about 32% reporting symptoms. Across the entire adult U.S. population, the survey found that 1 in 7 adults have had long COVID at some point during the pandemic, with about 1 in 18 saying it limited their activity to some degree, and 1 in 50 saying they have faced “a lot” of limits on their activities. Any way these numbers are dissected, long COVID has impacted a large swath of the population.

Yet research into the causes and possible treatments of long COVID is just getting underway.

“The amount of energy and time devoted to it is way, way less than it should, given how many people are likely affected,” said David Cutler, PhD, professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who has written about the economic cost of long COVID. “We’re way, way underdoing it here. And I think that’s really a terrible thing.”

Population surveys and studies from around the world show that long COVID lives up to its name, with people reporting serious symptoms for months on end.

In October, Statistics Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada published early results from a questionnaire done between spring and summer 2022 that found just under 15% of adults who had a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 went on to have new or continuing symptoms 3 or more months later. Nearly half, or 47.3%, dealt with symptoms that lasted a year or more. More than one in five said their symptoms “often or always” limited their day-to-day activities, which included routine tasks such as preparing meals, doing errands and chores, and basic functions such as personal care and moving around in their homes.

Nearly three-quarters of workers or students said they missed an average of 20 days of work or school. 

“We haven’t yet been able to determine exactly when symptoms resolve,” said Rainu Kaushal, MD, the senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She is co-leading a national study on long COVID in adults and children, funded by the National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative.

“But there does seem to be, for many of the milder symptoms, resolution at about 4-6 weeks. There seems to be a second point of resolution around 6 months for certain symptoms, and then some symptoms do seem to be permanent, and those tend to be patients who have underlying conditions,” she said.
 

Reducing the risk

Given all the data so far, experts recommend urgent policy changes to help people with long COVID.

“The population needs to be prepared, that understanding long COVID is going to be a very long and difficult process,” said Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, associate professor and the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He said the government can do a great deal to help, including setting up a network of connected clinics treating long COVID, standardizing best practices, and sharing information.

“That would go a long way towards making sure that every person feels like they’re not too far away from a clinic where they can get treated for this particular condition,” he said.

But the only known way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID-19 infections in the first place, experts say. That means equitable access to tests, therapeutics, and vaccines.

“I will say that avoiding COVID remains the best treatment in the arsenal right now,” said Dr. Kaushal. This means masking, avoiding crowded places with poor ventilation and high exposure risk, and being up to date on vaccinations, she said.

A number of papers – including a large U.K. study published in May 2022, another one from July, and the JAMA study from October – all suggest that vaccinations can help reduce the risk of long COVID.

“I am absolutely of the belief that vaccination has reduced the incidence and overall amount of long COVID … [and is] still by far the best thing the public can do,” said Dr. Schwartz.

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

Many Americans turn to the latest big idea to lose weight – fad diets, fitness crazes, dodgy herbs and pills, bariatric surgery, just to name a few. They’re rarely the magic solution people dream of.

Now a wave of startups offer access to a new category of drugs coupled with intensive behavioral coaching online. But already concerns are emerging.

These startups, spurred by hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from blue-chip venture capital firms, have signed up well over 100,000 patients and could reach millions more. These patients pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to access new drugs, called glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, along with online coaching to encourage healthy habits.

The startups initially positioned themselves in lofty terms. “This is the last weight-loss program you’ll try,” said a 2020 marketing analysis by startup Calibrate Health, in messaging designed to reach one of its target demographics, the “working mom.” (Company spokesperson Michelle Wellington said the document does not reflect Calibrate’s current marketing strategy.)

But while doctors and patients are intrigued by the new model, some customers complain online that reality is short of the buildup: They say they got canned advice and unresponsive clinicians – and some report they couldn’t get the newest drugs.

Calibrate Health, a New York City–based startup, reported earlier in 2022 it had served 20,000 people. Another startup, Found, headquartered in San Francisco, has served 135,000 patients since July 2020, CEO Sarah Jones Simmer said in an interview. Calibrate costs patients nearly $1,600 a year, not counting the price of drugs, which can hit nearly $1,500 monthly without insurance, according to drug price savings site GoodRx. (Insurers reimburse for GLP-1agonists in limited circumstances, patients said.) Found offers a 6-month plan for nearly $600, a company spokesperson said. (That price includes generic drugs, but not the newer GLP-1 agonists, like Wegovy.)

The two companies are beneficiaries of over $200 million in combined venture funding, according to tracking by Crunchbase, a repository of venture capital investments. The firms say they’re on the vanguard of weight care, both citing the influence of biology and other scientific factors as key ingredients to their approaches.

There’s potentially a big market for these startups. Just over 4 in 10 Americans are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, driving up their risk for cardiovascular conditions and type 2 diabetes. Effective medical treatments are elusive and hard to access.

Centers that provide this specialty care “are overwhelmed,” said Fatima Stanford, MD, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General in Boston, a teaching hospital affiliated with Harvard. Her own clinic has a wait list of 3,000.

Dr. Stanford, who said she has advised several of these telemedicine startups, is bullish on their potential.

Scott Butsch, MD, director of obesity medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said the startups can offer care with less judgment and stigma than in-person peers. They’re also more convenient.

Dr. Butsch, who learned about the model through consultancies, patients, and colleagues, wonders whether the startups are operating “to strategically find which patients respond to which drug.” He said they should coordinate well with behavioral specialists, as antidepressants or other medications may be driving weight gain. “Obesity is a complex disease and requires treatments that match its complexity. I think programs that do not have a multidisciplinary team are less comprehensive and, in the long term, less effective.”

The startups market a two-pronged product: first, the new class of GLP-1 agonists. While these medications are effective at provoking weight loss, Wegovy, one of two in this class specifically approved for this purpose, is in short supply because of manufacturing difficulties, according to its maker, Novo Nordisk. Others in the category can be prescribed off label. But doctors generally aren’t familiar with the medications, Stanford said. In theory, the startups can bridge some of those gaps: They offer more specialized, knowledgeable clinicians.

Then there’s the other prong: behavioral changes. The companies use televisits and online messaging with nutritionists or coaches to help patients incorporate new diet and exercise habits. The weight loss figures achieved by participants in clinical trials for the new drugs – up to 15% of body mass – were tied to such changes, according to Novo Nordisk.

Social media sites are bursting with these startups’ ads, everywhere from podcasts to Instagram. A search of Meta’s ad library finds 40,000 ads on Facebook and Instagram between the two firms.

The ads complement people’s own postings on social media: Numerous Facebook groups are devoted to the new type of drugs – some even focused on helping patients manage side effects, like changes in their bowel movements. The buzz is quantifiable: On TikTok, mentions of the new GLP-1 agonists tripled from last June to this June, according to an analysis by investment bankers at Morgan Stanley.

There’s now a feverish, expectant appetite for these medications among the startups’ clientele. Patients often complained that their friends had obtained a drug they weren’t offered, recalled Alexandra Coults, a former pharmacist consultant for Found. Ms. Coults said patients may have perceived some sort of bait-and-switch when in reality clinical reasons – like drug contraindications – guide prescribing decisions.

Patient expectations influence care, Ms. Coults said. Customers came in with ideas shaped by the culture of fad diets and New Year’s resolutions. “Quite a few people would sign up for 1 month and not continue.”

In interviews with KHN and in online complaints, patients also questioned the quality of care they received. Some said intake – which began by filling out a form and proceeded to an online visit with a doctor – was perfunctory. Once medication began, they said, requests for counseling about side effects were slow to be answered.

Jess Garrant, a Found patient, recalled that after she was prescribed zonisamide, a generic anticonvulsant that has shown some ability to help with weight loss, she felt “absolutely weird.”

“I was up all night and my thoughts were racing,” she wrote in a blog post. She developed sores in her mouth.

She sought advice and help from Found physicians, but their replies “weren’t quick.” Nonemergency communications are routed through the company’s portal.

It took a week to complete a switch of medications and have a new prescription arrive at her home, she said. Meanwhile, she said, she went to an urgent care clinic for the mouth sores.

Found frequently prescribes generic medications – often off label – rather than just the new GLP-1 agonists, company executives said in an interview. Found said older generics like zonisamide are more accessible than the GLP-1 agonists advertised on social media and their own website. Both Dr. Butsch and Dr. Stanford said they’ve prescribed zonisamide successfully. Dr. Butsch said ramping up dosage rapidly can increase the risk of side effects.

But Kim Boyd, MD, chief medical officer of competitor Calibrate, said the older drugs “just haven’t worked.”

Patients of both companies have critiqued online and in interviews the startups’ behavioral care – which experts across the board maintain is integral to successful weight loss treatment. But some patients felt they simply had canned advice.

Other patients said they had ups and downs with their coaches. Dana Crom, an attorney, said she had gone through many coaches with Calibrate. Some were good, effective cheerleaders; others, not so good. But when kinks in the program arose, she said, the coach wasn’t able to help her navigate them. While the coach can report trouble with medications or the app, it appears those reports are no more effective than messages sent through the portal, Ms. Crom said.

And what about when her yearlong subscription ends? Ms. Crom said she’d consider continuing with Calibrate.

Relationships with coaches, given the need to change behavior, are a critical element of the business models. Patients’ results depend “on how adherent they are to lifestyle changes,” said Found’s chief medical officer, Rehka Kumar, MD.

While the startups offer care to a larger geographic footprint, it’s not clear whether the demographics of their patient populations are different from those of the traditional bricks-and-mortar model. Calibrate’s patients are overwhelmingly White; over 8 in 10 have at least an undergraduate degree; and over 8 in 10 are women, according to the company.

And its earlier marketing strategies reflected that. The September 2020 “segmentation” document laid out three types of customers the company could hope to attract: perimenopausal or menopausal women, with income ranging from $75,000 to $150,000 a year; working mothers, with a similar income; and “men.”

Isabelle Kenyon, Calibrate’s CEO, said the company now hopes to expand its reach to partner with large employers, and that will help diversify its patients.

Patients will need to be convinced that the model – more affordable, more accessible – works for them. For her part, Ms. Garrant, who no longer is using Found, reflected on her experience, writing in her blog post that she was hoping for more follow-up and a more personal approach. “I don’t think it’s a helpful way to lose weight,” she said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Many Americans turn to the latest big idea to lose weight – fad diets, fitness crazes, dodgy herbs and pills, bariatric surgery, just to name a few. They’re rarely the magic solution people dream of.

Now a wave of startups offer access to a new category of drugs coupled with intensive behavioral coaching online. But already concerns are emerging.

These startups, spurred by hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from blue-chip venture capital firms, have signed up well over 100,000 patients and could reach millions more. These patients pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to access new drugs, called glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, along with online coaching to encourage healthy habits.

The startups initially positioned themselves in lofty terms. “This is the last weight-loss program you’ll try,” said a 2020 marketing analysis by startup Calibrate Health, in messaging designed to reach one of its target demographics, the “working mom.” (Company spokesperson Michelle Wellington said the document does not reflect Calibrate’s current marketing strategy.)

But while doctors and patients are intrigued by the new model, some customers complain online that reality is short of the buildup: They say they got canned advice and unresponsive clinicians – and some report they couldn’t get the newest drugs.

Calibrate Health, a New York City–based startup, reported earlier in 2022 it had served 20,000 people. Another startup, Found, headquartered in San Francisco, has served 135,000 patients since July 2020, CEO Sarah Jones Simmer said in an interview. Calibrate costs patients nearly $1,600 a year, not counting the price of drugs, which can hit nearly $1,500 monthly without insurance, according to drug price savings site GoodRx. (Insurers reimburse for GLP-1agonists in limited circumstances, patients said.) Found offers a 6-month plan for nearly $600, a company spokesperson said. (That price includes generic drugs, but not the newer GLP-1 agonists, like Wegovy.)

The two companies are beneficiaries of over $200 million in combined venture funding, according to tracking by Crunchbase, a repository of venture capital investments. The firms say they’re on the vanguard of weight care, both citing the influence of biology and other scientific factors as key ingredients to their approaches.

There’s potentially a big market for these startups. Just over 4 in 10 Americans are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, driving up their risk for cardiovascular conditions and type 2 diabetes. Effective medical treatments are elusive and hard to access.

Centers that provide this specialty care “are overwhelmed,” said Fatima Stanford, MD, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General in Boston, a teaching hospital affiliated with Harvard. Her own clinic has a wait list of 3,000.

Dr. Stanford, who said she has advised several of these telemedicine startups, is bullish on their potential.

Scott Butsch, MD, director of obesity medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said the startups can offer care with less judgment and stigma than in-person peers. They’re also more convenient.

Dr. Butsch, who learned about the model through consultancies, patients, and colleagues, wonders whether the startups are operating “to strategically find which patients respond to which drug.” He said they should coordinate well with behavioral specialists, as antidepressants or other medications may be driving weight gain. “Obesity is a complex disease and requires treatments that match its complexity. I think programs that do not have a multidisciplinary team are less comprehensive and, in the long term, less effective.”

The startups market a two-pronged product: first, the new class of GLP-1 agonists. While these medications are effective at provoking weight loss, Wegovy, one of two in this class specifically approved for this purpose, is in short supply because of manufacturing difficulties, according to its maker, Novo Nordisk. Others in the category can be prescribed off label. But doctors generally aren’t familiar with the medications, Stanford said. In theory, the startups can bridge some of those gaps: They offer more specialized, knowledgeable clinicians.

Then there’s the other prong: behavioral changes. The companies use televisits and online messaging with nutritionists or coaches to help patients incorporate new diet and exercise habits. The weight loss figures achieved by participants in clinical trials for the new drugs – up to 15% of body mass – were tied to such changes, according to Novo Nordisk.

Social media sites are bursting with these startups’ ads, everywhere from podcasts to Instagram. A search of Meta’s ad library finds 40,000 ads on Facebook and Instagram between the two firms.

The ads complement people’s own postings on social media: Numerous Facebook groups are devoted to the new type of drugs – some even focused on helping patients manage side effects, like changes in their bowel movements. The buzz is quantifiable: On TikTok, mentions of the new GLP-1 agonists tripled from last June to this June, according to an analysis by investment bankers at Morgan Stanley.

There’s now a feverish, expectant appetite for these medications among the startups’ clientele. Patients often complained that their friends had obtained a drug they weren’t offered, recalled Alexandra Coults, a former pharmacist consultant for Found. Ms. Coults said patients may have perceived some sort of bait-and-switch when in reality clinical reasons – like drug contraindications – guide prescribing decisions.

Patient expectations influence care, Ms. Coults said. Customers came in with ideas shaped by the culture of fad diets and New Year’s resolutions. “Quite a few people would sign up for 1 month and not continue.”

In interviews with KHN and in online complaints, patients also questioned the quality of care they received. Some said intake – which began by filling out a form and proceeded to an online visit with a doctor – was perfunctory. Once medication began, they said, requests for counseling about side effects were slow to be answered.

Jess Garrant, a Found patient, recalled that after she was prescribed zonisamide, a generic anticonvulsant that has shown some ability to help with weight loss, she felt “absolutely weird.”

“I was up all night and my thoughts were racing,” she wrote in a blog post. She developed sores in her mouth.

She sought advice and help from Found physicians, but their replies “weren’t quick.” Nonemergency communications are routed through the company’s portal.

It took a week to complete a switch of medications and have a new prescription arrive at her home, she said. Meanwhile, she said, she went to an urgent care clinic for the mouth sores.

Found frequently prescribes generic medications – often off label – rather than just the new GLP-1 agonists, company executives said in an interview. Found said older generics like zonisamide are more accessible than the GLP-1 agonists advertised on social media and their own website. Both Dr. Butsch and Dr. Stanford said they’ve prescribed zonisamide successfully. Dr. Butsch said ramping up dosage rapidly can increase the risk of side effects.

But Kim Boyd, MD, chief medical officer of competitor Calibrate, said the older drugs “just haven’t worked.”

Patients of both companies have critiqued online and in interviews the startups’ behavioral care – which experts across the board maintain is integral to successful weight loss treatment. But some patients felt they simply had canned advice.

Other patients said they had ups and downs with their coaches. Dana Crom, an attorney, said she had gone through many coaches with Calibrate. Some were good, effective cheerleaders; others, not so good. But when kinks in the program arose, she said, the coach wasn’t able to help her navigate them. While the coach can report trouble with medications or the app, it appears those reports are no more effective than messages sent through the portal, Ms. Crom said.

And what about when her yearlong subscription ends? Ms. Crom said she’d consider continuing with Calibrate.

Relationships with coaches, given the need to change behavior, are a critical element of the business models. Patients’ results depend “on how adherent they are to lifestyle changes,” said Found’s chief medical officer, Rehka Kumar, MD.

While the startups offer care to a larger geographic footprint, it’s not clear whether the demographics of their patient populations are different from those of the traditional bricks-and-mortar model. Calibrate’s patients are overwhelmingly White; over 8 in 10 have at least an undergraduate degree; and over 8 in 10 are women, according to the company.

And its earlier marketing strategies reflected that. The September 2020 “segmentation” document laid out three types of customers the company could hope to attract: perimenopausal or menopausal women, with income ranging from $75,000 to $150,000 a year; working mothers, with a similar income; and “men.”

Isabelle Kenyon, Calibrate’s CEO, said the company now hopes to expand its reach to partner with large employers, and that will help diversify its patients.

Patients will need to be convinced that the model – more affordable, more accessible – works for them. For her part, Ms. Garrant, who no longer is using Found, reflected on her experience, writing in her blog post that she was hoping for more follow-up and a more personal approach. “I don’t think it’s a helpful way to lose weight,” she said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Many Americans turn to the latest big idea to lose weight – fad diets, fitness crazes, dodgy herbs and pills, bariatric surgery, just to name a few. They’re rarely the magic solution people dream of.

Now a wave of startups offer access to a new category of drugs coupled with intensive behavioral coaching online. But already concerns are emerging.

These startups, spurred by hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from blue-chip venture capital firms, have signed up well over 100,000 patients and could reach millions more. These patients pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to access new drugs, called glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, along with online coaching to encourage healthy habits.

The startups initially positioned themselves in lofty terms. “This is the last weight-loss program you’ll try,” said a 2020 marketing analysis by startup Calibrate Health, in messaging designed to reach one of its target demographics, the “working mom.” (Company spokesperson Michelle Wellington said the document does not reflect Calibrate’s current marketing strategy.)

But while doctors and patients are intrigued by the new model, some customers complain online that reality is short of the buildup: They say they got canned advice and unresponsive clinicians – and some report they couldn’t get the newest drugs.

Calibrate Health, a New York City–based startup, reported earlier in 2022 it had served 20,000 people. Another startup, Found, headquartered in San Francisco, has served 135,000 patients since July 2020, CEO Sarah Jones Simmer said in an interview. Calibrate costs patients nearly $1,600 a year, not counting the price of drugs, which can hit nearly $1,500 monthly without insurance, according to drug price savings site GoodRx. (Insurers reimburse for GLP-1agonists in limited circumstances, patients said.) Found offers a 6-month plan for nearly $600, a company spokesperson said. (That price includes generic drugs, but not the newer GLP-1 agonists, like Wegovy.)

The two companies are beneficiaries of over $200 million in combined venture funding, according to tracking by Crunchbase, a repository of venture capital investments. The firms say they’re on the vanguard of weight care, both citing the influence of biology and other scientific factors as key ingredients to their approaches.

There’s potentially a big market for these startups. Just over 4 in 10 Americans are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, driving up their risk for cardiovascular conditions and type 2 diabetes. Effective medical treatments are elusive and hard to access.

Centers that provide this specialty care “are overwhelmed,” said Fatima Stanford, MD, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General in Boston, a teaching hospital affiliated with Harvard. Her own clinic has a wait list of 3,000.

Dr. Stanford, who said she has advised several of these telemedicine startups, is bullish on their potential.

Scott Butsch, MD, director of obesity medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said the startups can offer care with less judgment and stigma than in-person peers. They’re also more convenient.

Dr. Butsch, who learned about the model through consultancies, patients, and colleagues, wonders whether the startups are operating “to strategically find which patients respond to which drug.” He said they should coordinate well with behavioral specialists, as antidepressants or other medications may be driving weight gain. “Obesity is a complex disease and requires treatments that match its complexity. I think programs that do not have a multidisciplinary team are less comprehensive and, in the long term, less effective.”

The startups market a two-pronged product: first, the new class of GLP-1 agonists. While these medications are effective at provoking weight loss, Wegovy, one of two in this class specifically approved for this purpose, is in short supply because of manufacturing difficulties, according to its maker, Novo Nordisk. Others in the category can be prescribed off label. But doctors generally aren’t familiar with the medications, Stanford said. In theory, the startups can bridge some of those gaps: They offer more specialized, knowledgeable clinicians.

Then there’s the other prong: behavioral changes. The companies use televisits and online messaging with nutritionists or coaches to help patients incorporate new diet and exercise habits. The weight loss figures achieved by participants in clinical trials for the new drugs – up to 15% of body mass – were tied to such changes, according to Novo Nordisk.

Social media sites are bursting with these startups’ ads, everywhere from podcasts to Instagram. A search of Meta’s ad library finds 40,000 ads on Facebook and Instagram between the two firms.

The ads complement people’s own postings on social media: Numerous Facebook groups are devoted to the new type of drugs – some even focused on helping patients manage side effects, like changes in their bowel movements. The buzz is quantifiable: On TikTok, mentions of the new GLP-1 agonists tripled from last June to this June, according to an analysis by investment bankers at Morgan Stanley.

There’s now a feverish, expectant appetite for these medications among the startups’ clientele. Patients often complained that their friends had obtained a drug they weren’t offered, recalled Alexandra Coults, a former pharmacist consultant for Found. Ms. Coults said patients may have perceived some sort of bait-and-switch when in reality clinical reasons – like drug contraindications – guide prescribing decisions.

Patient expectations influence care, Ms. Coults said. Customers came in with ideas shaped by the culture of fad diets and New Year’s resolutions. “Quite a few people would sign up for 1 month and not continue.”

In interviews with KHN and in online complaints, patients also questioned the quality of care they received. Some said intake – which began by filling out a form and proceeded to an online visit with a doctor – was perfunctory. Once medication began, they said, requests for counseling about side effects were slow to be answered.

Jess Garrant, a Found patient, recalled that after she was prescribed zonisamide, a generic anticonvulsant that has shown some ability to help with weight loss, she felt “absolutely weird.”

“I was up all night and my thoughts were racing,” she wrote in a blog post. She developed sores in her mouth.

She sought advice and help from Found physicians, but their replies “weren’t quick.” Nonemergency communications are routed through the company’s portal.

It took a week to complete a switch of medications and have a new prescription arrive at her home, she said. Meanwhile, she said, she went to an urgent care clinic for the mouth sores.

Found frequently prescribes generic medications – often off label – rather than just the new GLP-1 agonists, company executives said in an interview. Found said older generics like zonisamide are more accessible than the GLP-1 agonists advertised on social media and their own website. Both Dr. Butsch and Dr. Stanford said they’ve prescribed zonisamide successfully. Dr. Butsch said ramping up dosage rapidly can increase the risk of side effects.

But Kim Boyd, MD, chief medical officer of competitor Calibrate, said the older drugs “just haven’t worked.”

Patients of both companies have critiqued online and in interviews the startups’ behavioral care – which experts across the board maintain is integral to successful weight loss treatment. But some patients felt they simply had canned advice.

Other patients said they had ups and downs with their coaches. Dana Crom, an attorney, said she had gone through many coaches with Calibrate. Some were good, effective cheerleaders; others, not so good. But when kinks in the program arose, she said, the coach wasn’t able to help her navigate them. While the coach can report trouble with medications or the app, it appears those reports are no more effective than messages sent through the portal, Ms. Crom said.

And what about when her yearlong subscription ends? Ms. Crom said she’d consider continuing with Calibrate.

Relationships with coaches, given the need to change behavior, are a critical element of the business models. Patients’ results depend “on how adherent they are to lifestyle changes,” said Found’s chief medical officer, Rehka Kumar, MD.

While the startups offer care to a larger geographic footprint, it’s not clear whether the demographics of their patient populations are different from those of the traditional bricks-and-mortar model. Calibrate’s patients are overwhelmingly White; over 8 in 10 have at least an undergraduate degree; and over 8 in 10 are women, according to the company.

And its earlier marketing strategies reflected that. The September 2020 “segmentation” document laid out three types of customers the company could hope to attract: perimenopausal or menopausal women, with income ranging from $75,000 to $150,000 a year; working mothers, with a similar income; and “men.”

Isabelle Kenyon, Calibrate’s CEO, said the company now hopes to expand its reach to partner with large employers, and that will help diversify its patients.

Patients will need to be convinced that the model – more affordable, more accessible – works for them. For her part, Ms. Garrant, who no longer is using Found, reflected on her experience, writing in her blog post that she was hoping for more follow-up and a more personal approach. “I don’t think it’s a helpful way to lose weight,” she said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.

“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
 

Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes

The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.

“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
 

Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold

Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.

In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.

Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
 

Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’

“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”

Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.

The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
 

No difference by statin type

The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.

The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.

These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.

Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.

The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.

CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.

“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
 

Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes

The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.

“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
 

Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold

Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.

In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.

Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
 

Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’

“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”

Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.

The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
 

No difference by statin type

The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.

The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.

These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.

Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.

The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.

CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.

“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
 

Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes

The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.

“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
 

Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold

Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.

In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.

Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
 

Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’

“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”

Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.

The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
 

No difference by statin type

The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.

The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.

These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.

Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.

The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.

Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) by people without diabetes is becoming increasingly popular despite little evidence of benefit thus far, prompting discussion in the diabetes technology community about best practices.

Emerging uses for CGM outside of diabetes include improving glucose patterns to avoid diabetes, improving mental or physical performance, and promoting motivation for healthy behavior change. Such uses are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and not covered by health insurance, yet a growing number of people are paying digital health companies for the devices as part of wellness packages.

Click_and_Photo/Thinkstock

‘An idea whose time has come?’

Dr. Espinoza was a co-author on a review published online in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, entitled, “Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors by People Without Diabetes: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?”

The review examines several aspects of the issue, beginning with studies that used CGM to investigate glucose concentrations in people with normal fasting glucose and glucose tolerance tests. Nearly all those individuals – from populations around the world – fell in the blood glucose range of 70-140 mg/dL.

Also reviewed are studies using CGM to study effects of diet, exercise, and stress on glucose levels in people without diabetes. Subsequent sections summarize the limited data that are available suggesting potential benefit for use of CGM in metabolic disease including prediabetes and obesity, non-metabolic conditions such as steroid treatment or parenteral nutrition, health and wellness, and among elite athletes. In that last group, glucose levels in both the hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges during intensive activity have been documented.

Currently, there are four CGM devices that are FDA-approved for use in people with diabetes: FreeStyle Libre (Abbott), the implantable Eversense (Senseonics), and devices from Dexcom and Medtronic.

As Dr. Espinoza and colleagues explain in their review, most of the commercial health and wellness CGM programs, such as Nutrisense, Signos, and Supersapiens, actually use sensors made by those same manufacturers. Nutrisense and Supersapiens use the Libre, and Signos uses the Dexcom.

But, rather than the manufacturer’s apps meant for use by people with diabetes, the wellness companies pair the sensors with their own specially designed apps and typically offer additional services such as health coaching or nutrition counseling “to improve general health.”

Subscribers pay a monthly fee. Signos, for example, charges $399 for 1 month, $199/month for 3 months, or $159/month for 6 months. A prescription is required, but the company’s website says, “rest assured, an independent physician will handle the prescription for you, so you won’t need to arrange for a doctor visit. It is included in the cost of membership.”

Several consumer health product companies are now developing non-invasive glucose monitors, most often as a wristwatch, for people without diabetes to measure glucose optically from the skin in the wrist.

“It remains to be determined how accurate these new devices will be and how they will be regulated,” the researchers write.
 

What to do with the data?

The dedicated health and wellness apps typically provide average glucose and trend data but not the GMI. However, in theory users could access that metric by downloading the manufacturers’ viewing apps – for example, Clarity for Dexcom or LibreView for Libre.

Moreover, a person without diabetes could always obtain an off-label prescription from their physician for a FreeStyle Libre and purchase it at a pharmacy. At Walmart, for example, the cost for two boxes of two glucose meters with 14 days of wear each is $136.77. In that situation as well, users could download the viewing app that contains the summary data including the GMI that could potentially mislead in the setting of consistent normoglycemia.  

Dr. Espinoza said: “I think there’s certainly value in glucose levels. We know the summary metrics are useful in type 1 diabetes. We don’t know which summary metrics are going to be useful in any other disease states. We may need brand new summary metrics for other disease states where it’s not about time in range. Maybe the thing that matters is the frequency or height of spikes. We don’t have a measure for that.”

He added that despite the availability of normative data, “even people without diabetes are a fairly heterogenous group. They can still have insulin resistance, so it’s tricky. From a science standpoint, we probably need studies with hundreds of patients with well-established A1c and [insulin resistance measures], weight, and body mass index. Then and only then will we be able to give an accurate glucose profile.”

In the meantime, “more data is always a good thing, but the hard thing is figuring out what do we do with it. Maybe it’s biofeedback for behavioral modification. We don’t know yet. But these are powerful tools and maybe we should learn how to use them better.”

Dr. Shah has reported receiving research grants and participating in advisory boards for Dexcom and Sanofi US. Dr. Espinoza has reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and FDA.

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

Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) by people without diabetes is becoming increasingly popular despite little evidence of benefit thus far, prompting discussion in the diabetes technology community about best practices.

Emerging uses for CGM outside of diabetes include improving glucose patterns to avoid diabetes, improving mental or physical performance, and promoting motivation for healthy behavior change. Such uses are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and not covered by health insurance, yet a growing number of people are paying digital health companies for the devices as part of wellness packages.

Click_and_Photo/Thinkstock

‘An idea whose time has come?’

Dr. Espinoza was a co-author on a review published online in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, entitled, “Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors by People Without Diabetes: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?”

The review examines several aspects of the issue, beginning with studies that used CGM to investigate glucose concentrations in people with normal fasting glucose and glucose tolerance tests. Nearly all those individuals – from populations around the world – fell in the blood glucose range of 70-140 mg/dL.

Also reviewed are studies using CGM to study effects of diet, exercise, and stress on glucose levels in people without diabetes. Subsequent sections summarize the limited data that are available suggesting potential benefit for use of CGM in metabolic disease including prediabetes and obesity, non-metabolic conditions such as steroid treatment or parenteral nutrition, health and wellness, and among elite athletes. In that last group, glucose levels in both the hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges during intensive activity have been documented.

Currently, there are four CGM devices that are FDA-approved for use in people with diabetes: FreeStyle Libre (Abbott), the implantable Eversense (Senseonics), and devices from Dexcom and Medtronic.

As Dr. Espinoza and colleagues explain in their review, most of the commercial health and wellness CGM programs, such as Nutrisense, Signos, and Supersapiens, actually use sensors made by those same manufacturers. Nutrisense and Supersapiens use the Libre, and Signos uses the Dexcom.

But, rather than the manufacturer’s apps meant for use by people with diabetes, the wellness companies pair the sensors with their own specially designed apps and typically offer additional services such as health coaching or nutrition counseling “to improve general health.”

Subscribers pay a monthly fee. Signos, for example, charges $399 for 1 month, $199/month for 3 months, or $159/month for 6 months. A prescription is required, but the company’s website says, “rest assured, an independent physician will handle the prescription for you, so you won’t need to arrange for a doctor visit. It is included in the cost of membership.”

Several consumer health product companies are now developing non-invasive glucose monitors, most often as a wristwatch, for people without diabetes to measure glucose optically from the skin in the wrist.

“It remains to be determined how accurate these new devices will be and how they will be regulated,” the researchers write.
 

What to do with the data?

The dedicated health and wellness apps typically provide average glucose and trend data but not the GMI. However, in theory users could access that metric by downloading the manufacturers’ viewing apps – for example, Clarity for Dexcom or LibreView for Libre.

Moreover, a person without diabetes could always obtain an off-label prescription from their physician for a FreeStyle Libre and purchase it at a pharmacy. At Walmart, for example, the cost for two boxes of two glucose meters with 14 days of wear each is $136.77. In that situation as well, users could download the viewing app that contains the summary data including the GMI that could potentially mislead in the setting of consistent normoglycemia.  

Dr. Espinoza said: “I think there’s certainly value in glucose levels. We know the summary metrics are useful in type 1 diabetes. We don’t know which summary metrics are going to be useful in any other disease states. We may need brand new summary metrics for other disease states where it’s not about time in range. Maybe the thing that matters is the frequency or height of spikes. We don’t have a measure for that.”

He added that despite the availability of normative data, “even people without diabetes are a fairly heterogenous group. They can still have insulin resistance, so it’s tricky. From a science standpoint, we probably need studies with hundreds of patients with well-established A1c and [insulin resistance measures], weight, and body mass index. Then and only then will we be able to give an accurate glucose profile.”

In the meantime, “more data is always a good thing, but the hard thing is figuring out what do we do with it. Maybe it’s biofeedback for behavioral modification. We don’t know yet. But these are powerful tools and maybe we should learn how to use them better.”

Dr. Shah has reported receiving research grants and participating in advisory boards for Dexcom and Sanofi US. Dr. Espinoza has reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and FDA.

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

Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) by people without diabetes is becoming increasingly popular despite little evidence of benefit thus far, prompting discussion in the diabetes technology community about best practices.

Emerging uses for CGM outside of diabetes include improving glucose patterns to avoid diabetes, improving mental or physical performance, and promoting motivation for healthy behavior change. Such uses are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and not covered by health insurance, yet a growing number of people are paying digital health companies for the devices as part of wellness packages.

Click_and_Photo/Thinkstock

‘An idea whose time has come?’

Dr. Espinoza was a co-author on a review published online in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, entitled, “Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors by People Without Diabetes: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?”

The review examines several aspects of the issue, beginning with studies that used CGM to investigate glucose concentrations in people with normal fasting glucose and glucose tolerance tests. Nearly all those individuals – from populations around the world – fell in the blood glucose range of 70-140 mg/dL.

Also reviewed are studies using CGM to study effects of diet, exercise, and stress on glucose levels in people without diabetes. Subsequent sections summarize the limited data that are available suggesting potential benefit for use of CGM in metabolic disease including prediabetes and obesity, non-metabolic conditions such as steroid treatment or parenteral nutrition, health and wellness, and among elite athletes. In that last group, glucose levels in both the hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges during intensive activity have been documented.

Currently, there are four CGM devices that are FDA-approved for use in people with diabetes: FreeStyle Libre (Abbott), the implantable Eversense (Senseonics), and devices from Dexcom and Medtronic.

As Dr. Espinoza and colleagues explain in their review, most of the commercial health and wellness CGM programs, such as Nutrisense, Signos, and Supersapiens, actually use sensors made by those same manufacturers. Nutrisense and Supersapiens use the Libre, and Signos uses the Dexcom.

But, rather than the manufacturer’s apps meant for use by people with diabetes, the wellness companies pair the sensors with their own specially designed apps and typically offer additional services such as health coaching or nutrition counseling “to improve general health.”

Subscribers pay a monthly fee. Signos, for example, charges $399 for 1 month, $199/month for 3 months, or $159/month for 6 months. A prescription is required, but the company’s website says, “rest assured, an independent physician will handle the prescription for you, so you won’t need to arrange for a doctor visit. It is included in the cost of membership.”

Several consumer health product companies are now developing non-invasive glucose monitors, most often as a wristwatch, for people without diabetes to measure glucose optically from the skin in the wrist.

“It remains to be determined how accurate these new devices will be and how they will be regulated,” the researchers write.
 

What to do with the data?

The dedicated health and wellness apps typically provide average glucose and trend data but not the GMI. However, in theory users could access that metric by downloading the manufacturers’ viewing apps – for example, Clarity for Dexcom or LibreView for Libre.

Moreover, a person without diabetes could always obtain an off-label prescription from their physician for a FreeStyle Libre and purchase it at a pharmacy. At Walmart, for example, the cost for two boxes of two glucose meters with 14 days of wear each is $136.77. In that situation as well, users could download the viewing app that contains the summary data including the GMI that could potentially mislead in the setting of consistent normoglycemia.  

Dr. Espinoza said: “I think there’s certainly value in glucose levels. We know the summary metrics are useful in type 1 diabetes. We don’t know which summary metrics are going to be useful in any other disease states. We may need brand new summary metrics for other disease states where it’s not about time in range. Maybe the thing that matters is the frequency or height of spikes. We don’t have a measure for that.”

He added that despite the availability of normative data, “even people without diabetes are a fairly heterogenous group. They can still have insulin resistance, so it’s tricky. From a science standpoint, we probably need studies with hundreds of patients with well-established A1c and [insulin resistance measures], weight, and body mass index. Then and only then will we be able to give an accurate glucose profile.”

In the meantime, “more data is always a good thing, but the hard thing is figuring out what do we do with it. Maybe it’s biofeedback for behavioral modification. We don’t know yet. But these are powerful tools and maybe we should learn how to use them better.”

Dr. Shah has reported receiving research grants and participating in advisory boards for Dexcom and Sanofi US. Dr. Espinoza has reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and FDA.

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

SAN DIEGO – A novel glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1)/glucagon dual-receptor agonist, BI 456906, being developed by Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma, led to “impressive” weight loss in a phase 2 dosing study of patients with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes – but this is early research.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, presented the study results, including weight loss and adverse events, at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

At the highest tested dose (1.8 mg twice weekly subcutaneous injections), 57% of patients lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 35% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at 16 weeks.

In contrast, among the patients who received a 1-mg semaglutide dose as a comparator, 38% lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 16% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at study end.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

This is “very promising data as an anti-obesity compound,” said Dr. Rosenstock, professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The researchers enrolled 411 adults and randomized them into eight groups of roughly 50 patients each.

They compared six doses of BI 456906 (from 0.3 mg/week to 1.8 mg twice weekly) versus 1 mg/week of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) versus placebo.

Patients had a mean initial weight of 97 kg (214 pounds).

After 4 months, on average, patients who received the highest tested dose of BI 456906 lost 9% of their initial weight or roughly 8.7 kg (19 pounds).

Patients who received semaglutide lost 5.4% of their initial weight or roughly 5.2 kg (11.5 pounds), and patients who received placebo lost only 1.2% of their initial weight

The main adverse events were gastrointestinal.
 

‘Exciting data,’ but still early days

“This is very exciting data. It comes from another experienced company with a track record of successful products with a new compound in a class where other related compounds have shown efficacy and safety,” Dan Bessesen, MD, president of The Obesity Society, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an email.

“The degree of weight loss is impressive for a 16-week study,” Dr. Bessesen, professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, metabolism and diabetes at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, added. “The longer-term weight loss will likely be more.”

The side-effect profile is not particularly concerning and is like other drugs in this general class, he said.

However, he also noted a few caveats. This was only a phase 2 study, “so we should not make firm conclusions about efficacy from a study like this, as the number of subjects studied at each dose is relatively small and the follow-up not long.”

In addition, “the dose of semaglutide is the old ‘diabetes’ dose (1 mg) not the weight-loss dose of 2.4 mg or the new diabetes dose of 2 mg. It is not a real comparison with the maximal approved dose of semaglutide. So, we cannot say that it will be better than semaglutide.”

The next hurdle is the “need to see phase 3 studies in a larger group of patients studied for a longer time. Then [the company] will need FDA approval, so it may be a bit of time” before this drug potentially enters the marketplace.

The “bottom line” is that this potential new antiobesity/diabetes drug is “very promising, but [it is] still a little early to say where it ultimately will go.”
 

A1c results presented at EASD

To be included in this study, patients had to be 18-75 years old, have type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 25-50 kg/m², and hemoglobin A1c of 7%-10%, and be stable on metformin therapy.

The patients had a mean age of 57 years, and 57% were men. They had a mean A1c of 8.1%, a mean BMI of 34 kg/m², and a mean waist circumference of 110 cm (43 inches).

“We just recently reported at the EASD conference last month, the effect of BI 456906 on A1c lowering,” Dr. Rosenstock said.

“It looks like the [drop in] A1c plateaus at 1.9%, which is pretty good when you consider the baseline A1c is around 8%. You get down to around 6%, which is what we regard as a very robust reduction in people with type 2 diabetes on metformin.”

The current analysis showed that patients who received doses of 0.3, 0.9, 1.8, and 2.7 mg/week of the novel drug lost 1.9%, 4.4%, 6.6%, and 6.7% of their initial body weight, respectively, after 16 weeks.

The patients who received 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg twice weekly lost even more weight, 7.2% and 9% of their initial weight, respectively.

At the highest dose, on average, patients lost 13 cm (5 inches) around their waist.

Adverse events were reported by 78% of the patients, most commonly nausea (34% of patients), vomiting (18%), and diarrhea (16%).

Only 1.3% of patients had a drug-related serious adverse event. A total of 16% of patients discontinued the therapy.

Most of the “gastrointestinal adverse events leading the treatment discontinuation were possibly dose and titration related,” Dr. Rosenstock said, “and it’s highly conceivable that for future studies a slower dose escalation may mitigate the occurrence of the gastrointestinal adverse events.”

BI 456906 was coinvented with Zealand Pharma. Under the licensing agreement, Boehringer Ingelheim funds all research, development, and commercialization.

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

SAN DIEGO – A novel glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1)/glucagon dual-receptor agonist, BI 456906, being developed by Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma, led to “impressive” weight loss in a phase 2 dosing study of patients with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes – but this is early research.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, presented the study results, including weight loss and adverse events, at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

At the highest tested dose (1.8 mg twice weekly subcutaneous injections), 57% of patients lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 35% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at 16 weeks.

In contrast, among the patients who received a 1-mg semaglutide dose as a comparator, 38% lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 16% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at study end.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

This is “very promising data as an anti-obesity compound,” said Dr. Rosenstock, professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The researchers enrolled 411 adults and randomized them into eight groups of roughly 50 patients each.

They compared six doses of BI 456906 (from 0.3 mg/week to 1.8 mg twice weekly) versus 1 mg/week of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) versus placebo.

Patients had a mean initial weight of 97 kg (214 pounds).

After 4 months, on average, patients who received the highest tested dose of BI 456906 lost 9% of their initial weight or roughly 8.7 kg (19 pounds).

Patients who received semaglutide lost 5.4% of their initial weight or roughly 5.2 kg (11.5 pounds), and patients who received placebo lost only 1.2% of their initial weight

The main adverse events were gastrointestinal.
 

‘Exciting data,’ but still early days

“This is very exciting data. It comes from another experienced company with a track record of successful products with a new compound in a class where other related compounds have shown efficacy and safety,” Dan Bessesen, MD, president of The Obesity Society, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an email.

“The degree of weight loss is impressive for a 16-week study,” Dr. Bessesen, professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, metabolism and diabetes at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, added. “The longer-term weight loss will likely be more.”

The side-effect profile is not particularly concerning and is like other drugs in this general class, he said.

However, he also noted a few caveats. This was only a phase 2 study, “so we should not make firm conclusions about efficacy from a study like this, as the number of subjects studied at each dose is relatively small and the follow-up not long.”

In addition, “the dose of semaglutide is the old ‘diabetes’ dose (1 mg) not the weight-loss dose of 2.4 mg or the new diabetes dose of 2 mg. It is not a real comparison with the maximal approved dose of semaglutide. So, we cannot say that it will be better than semaglutide.”

The next hurdle is the “need to see phase 3 studies in a larger group of patients studied for a longer time. Then [the company] will need FDA approval, so it may be a bit of time” before this drug potentially enters the marketplace.

The “bottom line” is that this potential new antiobesity/diabetes drug is “very promising, but [it is] still a little early to say where it ultimately will go.”
 

A1c results presented at EASD

To be included in this study, patients had to be 18-75 years old, have type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 25-50 kg/m², and hemoglobin A1c of 7%-10%, and be stable on metformin therapy.

The patients had a mean age of 57 years, and 57% were men. They had a mean A1c of 8.1%, a mean BMI of 34 kg/m², and a mean waist circumference of 110 cm (43 inches).

“We just recently reported at the EASD conference last month, the effect of BI 456906 on A1c lowering,” Dr. Rosenstock said.

“It looks like the [drop in] A1c plateaus at 1.9%, which is pretty good when you consider the baseline A1c is around 8%. You get down to around 6%, which is what we regard as a very robust reduction in people with type 2 diabetes on metformin.”

The current analysis showed that patients who received doses of 0.3, 0.9, 1.8, and 2.7 mg/week of the novel drug lost 1.9%, 4.4%, 6.6%, and 6.7% of their initial body weight, respectively, after 16 weeks.

The patients who received 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg twice weekly lost even more weight, 7.2% and 9% of their initial weight, respectively.

At the highest dose, on average, patients lost 13 cm (5 inches) around their waist.

Adverse events were reported by 78% of the patients, most commonly nausea (34% of patients), vomiting (18%), and diarrhea (16%).

Only 1.3% of patients had a drug-related serious adverse event. A total of 16% of patients discontinued the therapy.

Most of the “gastrointestinal adverse events leading the treatment discontinuation were possibly dose and titration related,” Dr. Rosenstock said, “and it’s highly conceivable that for future studies a slower dose escalation may mitigate the occurrence of the gastrointestinal adverse events.”

BI 456906 was coinvented with Zealand Pharma. Under the licensing agreement, Boehringer Ingelheim funds all research, development, and commercialization.

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

SAN DIEGO – A novel glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1)/glucagon dual-receptor agonist, BI 456906, being developed by Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma, led to “impressive” weight loss in a phase 2 dosing study of patients with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes – but this is early research.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, presented the study results, including weight loss and adverse events, at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

At the highest tested dose (1.8 mg twice weekly subcutaneous injections), 57% of patients lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 35% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at 16 weeks.

In contrast, among the patients who received a 1-mg semaglutide dose as a comparator, 38% lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 16% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at study end.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

This is “very promising data as an anti-obesity compound,” said Dr. Rosenstock, professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The researchers enrolled 411 adults and randomized them into eight groups of roughly 50 patients each.

They compared six doses of BI 456906 (from 0.3 mg/week to 1.8 mg twice weekly) versus 1 mg/week of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) versus placebo.

Patients had a mean initial weight of 97 kg (214 pounds).

After 4 months, on average, patients who received the highest tested dose of BI 456906 lost 9% of their initial weight or roughly 8.7 kg (19 pounds).

Patients who received semaglutide lost 5.4% of their initial weight or roughly 5.2 kg (11.5 pounds), and patients who received placebo lost only 1.2% of their initial weight

The main adverse events were gastrointestinal.
 

‘Exciting data,’ but still early days

“This is very exciting data. It comes from another experienced company with a track record of successful products with a new compound in a class where other related compounds have shown efficacy and safety,” Dan Bessesen, MD, president of The Obesity Society, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an email.

“The degree of weight loss is impressive for a 16-week study,” Dr. Bessesen, professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, metabolism and diabetes at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, added. “The longer-term weight loss will likely be more.”

The side-effect profile is not particularly concerning and is like other drugs in this general class, he said.

However, he also noted a few caveats. This was only a phase 2 study, “so we should not make firm conclusions about efficacy from a study like this, as the number of subjects studied at each dose is relatively small and the follow-up not long.”

In addition, “the dose of semaglutide is the old ‘diabetes’ dose (1 mg) not the weight-loss dose of 2.4 mg or the new diabetes dose of 2 mg. It is not a real comparison with the maximal approved dose of semaglutide. So, we cannot say that it will be better than semaglutide.”

The next hurdle is the “need to see phase 3 studies in a larger group of patients studied for a longer time. Then [the company] will need FDA approval, so it may be a bit of time” before this drug potentially enters the marketplace.

The “bottom line” is that this potential new antiobesity/diabetes drug is “very promising, but [it is] still a little early to say where it ultimately will go.”
 

A1c results presented at EASD

To be included in this study, patients had to be 18-75 years old, have type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 25-50 kg/m², and hemoglobin A1c of 7%-10%, and be stable on metformin therapy.

The patients had a mean age of 57 years, and 57% were men. They had a mean A1c of 8.1%, a mean BMI of 34 kg/m², and a mean waist circumference of 110 cm (43 inches).

“We just recently reported at the EASD conference last month, the effect of BI 456906 on A1c lowering,” Dr. Rosenstock said.

“It looks like the [drop in] A1c plateaus at 1.9%, which is pretty good when you consider the baseline A1c is around 8%. You get down to around 6%, which is what we regard as a very robust reduction in people with type 2 diabetes on metformin.”

The current analysis showed that patients who received doses of 0.3, 0.9, 1.8, and 2.7 mg/week of the novel drug lost 1.9%, 4.4%, 6.6%, and 6.7% of their initial body weight, respectively, after 16 weeks.

The patients who received 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg twice weekly lost even more weight, 7.2% and 9% of their initial weight, respectively.

At the highest dose, on average, patients lost 13 cm (5 inches) around their waist.

Adverse events were reported by 78% of the patients, most commonly nausea (34% of patients), vomiting (18%), and diarrhea (16%).

Only 1.3% of patients had a drug-related serious adverse event. A total of 16% of patients discontinued the therapy.

Most of the “gastrointestinal adverse events leading the treatment discontinuation were possibly dose and titration related,” Dr. Rosenstock said, “and it’s highly conceivable that for future studies a slower dose escalation may mitigate the occurrence of the gastrointestinal adverse events.”

BI 456906 was coinvented with Zealand Pharma. Under the licensing agreement, Boehringer Ingelheim funds all research, development, and commercialization.

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

SAN DIEGO – Weight loss with tirzepatide was fairly uniform across different body mass index ranges, ages, and number of obesity-related comorbidities in patients with overweight/obesity without type 2 diabetes.

These were the main findings in a session about tirzepatide – the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist – for obesity, presented at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

In May, tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes based on the SURPASS clinical trials.

Then in June, at the American Diabetes Association 2022 annual meeting, researchers reported “unprecedented” weight loss with tirzepatide in patients without type 2 diabetes, in the phase 3 SURMOUNT-1 clinical trial.

In early October, the FDA granted fast track status (expedited review) to tirzepatide for use as an antiobesity drug.

Now these new analyses from SURMOUNT-1 show that “regardless of BMI, regardless of age, regardless of number of obesity-related complications, there was a clear dose-related weight loss that was pretty consistent across groups,” Session Chair Patrick M. O’Neil, PhD, who was not involved with this research, summarized.

“The absolute levels of these weight losses are higher than we’ve seen thus far with [antiobesity] medications,” added Dr. O’Neil, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Weight Management Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Semaglutide took things up one big notch, and this is up a little notch above that,” he said in an interview.

“I’m a psychologist. It should be remembered that in all cases, the FDA approvals are predicated to using [drugs] as an adjunct to diet and exercise change as well,” he stressed.

“I don’t think people should expect that any medication that is currently available will have a lasting effect when it’s no longer taken,” he continued.

“We don’t expect any of these [antiobesity] medications to be making any permanent physiological changes,” Dr. O’Neil added, but patients could “use this medication to help themselves make some long-lasting behavioral changes, so that when they come off the medication, hopefully they’ll be able to continue these new patterns.

“Clearly the medications are having a significant impact,” he emphasized.
 

BMI, age, comorbidity subgroups, and overall QoL in SURMOUNT-1

SURMOUNT-1 compared the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide 5, 10, and 15 mg subcutaneous once-weekly to placebo, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. The study included 2,539 adults without type 2 diabetes who had obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) or overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one obesity-related complication (hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, or cardiovascular disease).

Age subgroups

Robert F. Kushner, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that “Excessive lean mass loss is a clinical concern in elderly individuals being treated for obesity,” so it’s important to know if weight loss with tirzepatide differs by age.

The researchers performed a post hoc analysis in patients who had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) readings at baseline and week 72 (oral abstract 109).

The three age groups in the current analysis were < 50 years old (99 patients), ≥ 50 to < 65 years old (41 patients), and ≥ 65 years old (20 patients). Overall, 63% of patients were age < 50 years, 31% were age 50 to < 65 years, and 6% were ≥ 65 years.

At 72 weeks, patients taking 5, 10, and 15 mg/week tirzepatide lost 21.5%, 20.8%, and 22% of their initial body weight, respectively.

“Tirzepatide significantly lowered total body mass versus placebo regardless of age subgroups,” and it “consistently lowered fat mass, lean mass, fat-mass-to-lean-mass ratio, and visceral fat mass across age subgroups,” Dr. Kushner reported.
 

BMI subgroups

Louis J. Aronne, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, presented findings from a prespecified analysis of BMI subgroups (oral abstract 110).

The four BMI subgroups were:

• ≥ 27 to < 30 kg/m² (overweight), mean initial weight 178 pounds, mean weight reduction 29-30 pounds
• ≥ 30 to < 35 kg/m² (class 1 obesity), mean initial weight 198 pounds, mean weight reduction 33-43 pounds
• 35 to < 40 kg/m² (class 2 obesity), mean initial weight 228 pounds, mean reduction 34-56 pounds
• 40 kg/m² (class 3 obesity), mean initial weight 280 pounds, mean weight reduction 44-64 pounds

Patients with an initial BMI of ≥ 35 to < 40 kg/m² who received the 15-mg/week dose of tirzepatide had the greatest weight loss, at 24.5%, which is approximately what is seen with bariatric surgeries such as sleeve gastrectomy (25%).

The proportion of patients reaching ≥ 5% weight reduction was approximately 90% in all weight categories. “These numbers are unprecedented,” said Dr. Aronne.

In addition, overall, 73%-90% of patients receiving the 5- to 15-mg doses of tirzepatide achieved ≥ 10% body weight reduction, and “something we never thought we would see” is that 50%-78% of the patients receiving the drug lost 15% or more of their body weight.

In reply to an audience question, Dr. Aronne said it would take further study to determine who would respond well to tirzepatide.

And in reply to another question about whether it would make sense to treat to a target of a normal BMI, he said: “I think we are getting there.”

Patients in the 27- to 30-kg/m² BMI category lost about the same amount of weight at a 5-mg dose as at a higher dose, suggesting they should stick to the lower dose, which would likely also have fewer side effects, he noted.
 

Number of comorbidities

Comorbidities in SURMOUNT-1 included hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, anxiety/depression, polycystic ovary syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Of the patients with no comorbidities, 32.6% had prediabetes (oral abstract 111).

Sriram Machineni, MD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted that obesity is associated with a significantly increased risk of clustering of at least two obesity-related complications, but little is known about how this affects outcomes. 

The patients in SURMOUNT-1 were classified into three groups based on number of comorbidities:

• Zero comorbidities, 37% of patients: baseline mean age of 39, mean duration of obesity of 12 years, 29% men
• One comorbidity, 27% of patients: baseline mean age of 44, mean duration of obesity of 14 years, 31% men
• Two or more comorbidities, 36% of patients: baseline mean age of 52, duration of obesity 17 years, 37% men

Regardless of the number of comorbidities, all doses of tirzepatide resulted in a greater reduction in body weight compared with placebo.
 

Quality of life

Jiat Ling Poon, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, presented findings from patient-reported replies to questionnaires including Impact of Weight on Quality of Life–Lite (IWQOL-Lite), which assesses physical and psychosocial health, and the Short Form–36 Health Survey, which assesses physical functioning, bodily pain, vitality, role-emotional, role-physical, general health, social functioning, and mental health (oral abstract 112).

Tirzepatide at all doses resulted in significantly greater improvements in patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo.

Meanwhile, the phase 3 SURMOUNT-2 clinical trial of tirzepatide for weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes is projected to be completed in April 2023.  

The studies were funded by Eli Lilly.

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


SAN DIEGO – Weight loss with tirzepatide was fairly uniform across different body mass index ranges, ages, and number of obesity-related comorbidities in patients with overweight/obesity without type 2 diabetes.

These were the main findings in a session about tirzepatide – the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist – for obesity, presented at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

In May, tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes based on the SURPASS clinical trials.

Then in June, at the American Diabetes Association 2022 annual meeting, researchers reported “unprecedented” weight loss with tirzepatide in patients without type 2 diabetes, in the phase 3 SURMOUNT-1 clinical trial.

In early October, the FDA granted fast track status (expedited review) to tirzepatide for use as an antiobesity drug.

Now these new analyses from SURMOUNT-1 show that “regardless of BMI, regardless of age, regardless of number of obesity-related complications, there was a clear dose-related weight loss that was pretty consistent across groups,” Session Chair Patrick M. O’Neil, PhD, who was not involved with this research, summarized.

“The absolute levels of these weight losses are higher than we’ve seen thus far with [antiobesity] medications,” added Dr. O’Neil, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Weight Management Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Semaglutide took things up one big notch, and this is up a little notch above that,” he said in an interview.

“I’m a psychologist. It should be remembered that in all cases, the FDA approvals are predicated to using [drugs] as an adjunct to diet and exercise change as well,” he stressed.

“I don’t think people should expect that any medication that is currently available will have a lasting effect when it’s no longer taken,” he continued.

“We don’t expect any of these [antiobesity] medications to be making any permanent physiological changes,” Dr. O’Neil added, but patients could “use this medication to help themselves make some long-lasting behavioral changes, so that when they come off the medication, hopefully they’ll be able to continue these new patterns.

“Clearly the medications are having a significant impact,” he emphasized.
 

BMI, age, comorbidity subgroups, and overall QoL in SURMOUNT-1

SURMOUNT-1 compared the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide 5, 10, and 15 mg subcutaneous once-weekly to placebo, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. The study included 2,539 adults without type 2 diabetes who had obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) or overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one obesity-related complication (hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, or cardiovascular disease).

Age subgroups

Robert F. Kushner, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that “Excessive lean mass loss is a clinical concern in elderly individuals being treated for obesity,” so it’s important to know if weight loss with tirzepatide differs by age.

The researchers performed a post hoc analysis in patients who had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) readings at baseline and week 72 (oral abstract 109).

The three age groups in the current analysis were < 50 years old (99 patients), ≥ 50 to < 65 years old (41 patients), and ≥ 65 years old (20 patients). Overall, 63% of patients were age < 50 years, 31% were age 50 to < 65 years, and 6% were ≥ 65 years.

At 72 weeks, patients taking 5, 10, and 15 mg/week tirzepatide lost 21.5%, 20.8%, and 22% of their initial body weight, respectively.

“Tirzepatide significantly lowered total body mass versus placebo regardless of age subgroups,” and it “consistently lowered fat mass, lean mass, fat-mass-to-lean-mass ratio, and visceral fat mass across age subgroups,” Dr. Kushner reported.
 

BMI subgroups

Louis J. Aronne, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, presented findings from a prespecified analysis of BMI subgroups (oral abstract 110).

The four BMI subgroups were:

• ≥ 27 to < 30 kg/m² (overweight), mean initial weight 178 pounds, mean weight reduction 29-30 pounds
• ≥ 30 to < 35 kg/m² (class 1 obesity), mean initial weight 198 pounds, mean weight reduction 33-43 pounds
• 35 to < 40 kg/m² (class 2 obesity), mean initial weight 228 pounds, mean reduction 34-56 pounds
• 40 kg/m² (class 3 obesity), mean initial weight 280 pounds, mean weight reduction 44-64 pounds

Patients with an initial BMI of ≥ 35 to < 40 kg/m² who received the 15-mg/week dose of tirzepatide had the greatest weight loss, at 24.5%, which is approximately what is seen with bariatric surgeries such as sleeve gastrectomy (25%).

The proportion of patients reaching ≥ 5% weight reduction was approximately 90% in all weight categories. “These numbers are unprecedented,” said Dr. Aronne.

In addition, overall, 73%-90% of patients receiving the 5- to 15-mg doses of tirzepatide achieved ≥ 10% body weight reduction, and “something we never thought we would see” is that 50%-78% of the patients receiving the drug lost 15% or more of their body weight.

In reply to an audience question, Dr. Aronne said it would take further study to determine who would respond well to tirzepatide.

And in reply to another question about whether it would make sense to treat to a target of a normal BMI, he said: “I think we are getting there.”

Patients in the 27- to 30-kg/m² BMI category lost about the same amount of weight at a 5-mg dose as at a higher dose, suggesting they should stick to the lower dose, which would likely also have fewer side effects, he noted.
 

Number of comorbidities

Comorbidities in SURMOUNT-1 included hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, anxiety/depression, polycystic ovary syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Of the patients with no comorbidities, 32.6% had prediabetes (oral abstract 111).

Sriram Machineni, MD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted that obesity is associated with a significantly increased risk of clustering of at least two obesity-related complications, but little is known about how this affects outcomes. 

The patients in SURMOUNT-1 were classified into three groups based on number of comorbidities:

• Zero comorbidities, 37% of patients: baseline mean age of 39, mean duration of obesity of 12 years, 29% men
• One comorbidity, 27% of patients: baseline mean age of 44, mean duration of obesity of 14 years, 31% men
• Two or more comorbidities, 36% of patients: baseline mean age of 52, duration of obesity 17 years, 37% men

Regardless of the number of comorbidities, all doses of tirzepatide resulted in a greater reduction in body weight compared with placebo.
 

Quality of life

Jiat Ling Poon, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, presented findings from patient-reported replies to questionnaires including Impact of Weight on Quality of Life–Lite (IWQOL-Lite), which assesses physical and psychosocial health, and the Short Form–36 Health Survey, which assesses physical functioning, bodily pain, vitality, role-emotional, role-physical, general health, social functioning, and mental health (oral abstract 112).

Tirzepatide at all doses resulted in significantly greater improvements in patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo.

Meanwhile, the phase 3 SURMOUNT-2 clinical trial of tirzepatide for weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes is projected to be completed in April 2023.  

The studies were funded by Eli Lilly.

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


SAN DIEGO – Weight loss with tirzepatide was fairly uniform across different body mass index ranges, ages, and number of obesity-related comorbidities in patients with overweight/obesity without type 2 diabetes.

These were the main findings in a session about tirzepatide – the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist – for obesity, presented at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

In May, tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes based on the SURPASS clinical trials.

Then in June, at the American Diabetes Association 2022 annual meeting, researchers reported “unprecedented” weight loss with tirzepatide in patients without type 2 diabetes, in the phase 3 SURMOUNT-1 clinical trial.

In early October, the FDA granted fast track status (expedited review) to tirzepatide for use as an antiobesity drug.

Now these new analyses from SURMOUNT-1 show that “regardless of BMI, regardless of age, regardless of number of obesity-related complications, there was a clear dose-related weight loss that was pretty consistent across groups,” Session Chair Patrick M. O’Neil, PhD, who was not involved with this research, summarized.

“The absolute levels of these weight losses are higher than we’ve seen thus far with [antiobesity] medications,” added Dr. O’Neil, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Weight Management Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Semaglutide took things up one big notch, and this is up a little notch above that,” he said in an interview.

“I’m a psychologist. It should be remembered that in all cases, the FDA approvals are predicated to using [drugs] as an adjunct to diet and exercise change as well,” he stressed.

“I don’t think people should expect that any medication that is currently available will have a lasting effect when it’s no longer taken,” he continued.

“We don’t expect any of these [antiobesity] medications to be making any permanent physiological changes,” Dr. O’Neil added, but patients could “use this medication to help themselves make some long-lasting behavioral changes, so that when they come off the medication, hopefully they’ll be able to continue these new patterns.

“Clearly the medications are having a significant impact,” he emphasized.
 

BMI, age, comorbidity subgroups, and overall QoL in SURMOUNT-1

SURMOUNT-1 compared the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide 5, 10, and 15 mg subcutaneous once-weekly to placebo, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. The study included 2,539 adults without type 2 diabetes who had obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) or overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one obesity-related complication (hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, or cardiovascular disease).

Age subgroups

Robert F. Kushner, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that “Excessive lean mass loss is a clinical concern in elderly individuals being treated for obesity,” so it’s important to know if weight loss with tirzepatide differs by age.

The researchers performed a post hoc analysis in patients who had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) readings at baseline and week 72 (oral abstract 109).

The three age groups in the current analysis were < 50 years old (99 patients), ≥ 50 to < 65 years old (41 patients), and ≥ 65 years old (20 patients). Overall, 63% of patients were age < 50 years, 31% were age 50 to < 65 years, and 6% were ≥ 65 years.

At 72 weeks, patients taking 5, 10, and 15 mg/week tirzepatide lost 21.5%, 20.8%, and 22% of their initial body weight, respectively.

“Tirzepatide significantly lowered total body mass versus placebo regardless of age subgroups,” and it “consistently lowered fat mass, lean mass, fat-mass-to-lean-mass ratio, and visceral fat mass across age subgroups,” Dr. Kushner reported.
 

BMI subgroups

Louis J. Aronne, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, presented findings from a prespecified analysis of BMI subgroups (oral abstract 110).

The four BMI subgroups were:

• ≥ 27 to < 30 kg/m² (overweight), mean initial weight 178 pounds, mean weight reduction 29-30 pounds
• ≥ 30 to < 35 kg/m² (class 1 obesity), mean initial weight 198 pounds, mean weight reduction 33-43 pounds
• 35 to < 40 kg/m² (class 2 obesity), mean initial weight 228 pounds, mean reduction 34-56 pounds
• 40 kg/m² (class 3 obesity), mean initial weight 280 pounds, mean weight reduction 44-64 pounds

Patients with an initial BMI of ≥ 35 to < 40 kg/m² who received the 15-mg/week dose of tirzepatide had the greatest weight loss, at 24.5%, which is approximately what is seen with bariatric surgeries such as sleeve gastrectomy (25%).

The proportion of patients reaching ≥ 5% weight reduction was approximately 90% in all weight categories. “These numbers are unprecedented,” said Dr. Aronne.

In addition, overall, 73%-90% of patients receiving the 5- to 15-mg doses of tirzepatide achieved ≥ 10% body weight reduction, and “something we never thought we would see” is that 50%-78% of the patients receiving the drug lost 15% or more of their body weight.

In reply to an audience question, Dr. Aronne said it would take further study to determine who would respond well to tirzepatide.

And in reply to another question about whether it would make sense to treat to a target of a normal BMI, he said: “I think we are getting there.”

Patients in the 27- to 30-kg/m² BMI category lost about the same amount of weight at a 5-mg dose as at a higher dose, suggesting they should stick to the lower dose, which would likely also have fewer side effects, he noted.
 

Number of comorbidities

Comorbidities in SURMOUNT-1 included hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, anxiety/depression, polycystic ovary syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Of the patients with no comorbidities, 32.6% had prediabetes (oral abstract 111).

Sriram Machineni, MD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted that obesity is associated with a significantly increased risk of clustering of at least two obesity-related complications, but little is known about how this affects outcomes. 

The patients in SURMOUNT-1 were classified into three groups based on number of comorbidities:

• Zero comorbidities, 37% of patients: baseline mean age of 39, mean duration of obesity of 12 years, 29% men
• One comorbidity, 27% of patients: baseline mean age of 44, mean duration of obesity of 14 years, 31% men
• Two or more comorbidities, 36% of patients: baseline mean age of 52, duration of obesity 17 years, 37% men

Regardless of the number of comorbidities, all doses of tirzepatide resulted in a greater reduction in body weight compared with placebo.
 

Quality of life

Jiat Ling Poon, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, presented findings from patient-reported replies to questionnaires including Impact of Weight on Quality of Life–Lite (IWQOL-Lite), which assesses physical and psychosocial health, and the Short Form–36 Health Survey, which assesses physical functioning, bodily pain, vitality, role-emotional, role-physical, general health, social functioning, and mental health (oral abstract 112).

Tirzepatide at all doses resulted in significantly greater improvements in patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo.

Meanwhile, the phase 3 SURMOUNT-2 clinical trial of tirzepatide for weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes is projected to be completed in April 2023.  

The studies were funded by Eli Lilly.

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


CHICAGO – In patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and a usable saphenous vein segment, a surgical procedure leads to better outcomes than an endovascular approach, according results of the multinational randomized BEST-CLI trial.

In that study, conducted with two cohorts, the advantage of surgery was limited to the group with an available saphenous vein, but in this group the advantage over an endovascular approach was substantial, according to Alik Farber, MD, chief of vascular and endovascular surgery at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Bypass with adequate saphenous vein should be offered as a first-line treatment option for suitable candidates with CLTI as part of fully informed, shared decision-making,” Dr. Farber stated in presenting the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The study pursued two hypotheses, which is why CLTI patients were divided into two cohorts. For cohort 1, which was limited to CLTI patients with an available saphenous vein, it was predicted that surgery would be better than an endovascular approach. For cohort 2, which enrolled patients who needed an alternative conduit, the hypothesis was that endovascular procedures would prove superior.

The study confirmed the first hypothesis, but there was no difference between the two approaches for the composite primary outcome of major adverse limb events (MALE) in the second cohort.
 

Saphenous vein availability determined cohort

Candidates for the BEST-CLI (Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI) trial had to have CLTI producing severe ischemia and to be judged by both surgeons and cardiovascular specialists to be candidates for both types of interventions. Eligible patients were then enrolled in cohort 1 if the saphenous vein was considered the best conduit on imaging. If not, they were enrolled in cohort 2.

Patients were randomized to undergo surgical or endovascular repair only after the cohort was assigned. The primary composite MALE endpoint consisted of an adjudicated first major reintervention, such as new bypass or thrombectomy, an above-the-ankle amputation, or death from any cause.

In cohort 1, the primary composite MALE endpoint was reached in 42.6% of those in surgical arm and 57.4% in the endovascular arm, translating into a 32% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio, 0.68; P < .001) in favor of surgery at the end of a median of 2.7 years of follow-up.

The main advantage was the difference in reinterventions. The lower rate in the surgical group (9.2% vs. 23.5%), translated into a 65% relative risk reduction for this endpoint (HR, 035; P < .001).

The reduction in above-ankle amputations in the surgical group (10.4% vs. 14.9%) was also significant (HR, 0.73; P = .04), but the reduction in all-cause mortality (33.0% vs. 37.6%) was not (HR, 0.98; P = .81).

BEST-CLI involved 150 sites in North America, Europe, and New Zealand. Cohort 1, which randomized 1,434 patients, was the larger of the two. In the second cohort, only 396 patients were randomized, which Dr. Farber said “might have been underpowered.”

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with presentation of the results at the meeting.

After a median follow-up of 1.6 years in cohort 2, the slightly lower proportion of patients who reached the composite MALE endpoint in the surgical group relative to the endovascular group (42.8% vs. 47.7%) did not translate into a significant advantage (HR, 0.79; P = .12).

For the individual components, the lower rate of reinterventions in the surgical arm (14.4% vs. 25.6%) did reach statistical significance (HR, 0.47; P = .002), but both amputation (14.9% vs. 14.1%) and all-cause death (26.3% vs. 24.1%) were numerically but not significantly higher in the surgical group.

The primary safety endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). This was not significantly different in either cohort. There were also no major differences between groups in the risk of perioperative complications.

Level 1 evidence provided for intervention choice

Overall, BEST-CLI showed that both surgical and endovascular revascularizations are effective and safe, according to Dr. Farber. As a result, he suggested that both can be considered even if a saphenous vein is available when specific patient characteristics make one more attractive than another.

Yet, in a general population with an available saphenous vein, these data provide “level 1 evidence” that a surgical approach should be the dominant choice, he added.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

A quality of life (QOL) substudy of BEST-CLI did not challenge this conclusion. Rather, the main finding was that restoring circulation by either approach has a major favorable impact on patient well-being, according to Matthew Menard, MD, codirector of endovascular surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

In this substudy, presented separately from the primary BEST-CLI results, that analysis confirmed that baseline QOL was extremely poor, whether measured with a disease specific instrument such as VascuQol, or generic instruments, such as SF-12.

Surgical or endovascular treatment produced clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in every QOL measure employed, according to Dr. Menard, and this was true in either cohort.
 

Results not necessarily relevant to all

These data are likely relevant to the patients evaluated, but “it is important to consider who made it into this trial,” according to Naomi M. Hamburg, MD, section chief of vascular biology at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Not least, patients had to be candidates for either surgical or endovascular repair to get into the study, omitting those patients not deemed by the investigators to be suited for either.

In addition, Dr. Hamburg pointed out that there was a low enrollment of Blacks (20%) and women (28%), two groups for whom CTLI is a common condition.

Lastly, Dr Hamburg questioned whether specific types of anatomy might be better suited to one procedure relative to another, a variable not considered in this study. Reassured by Dr. Farber that this will be explored in subsequent analyses of BEST-CLI data, Dr. Hamburg expressed interest in learning the results.

Dr. Hamburg was among those who spoke about the growing urgency to optimize strategies for early diagnosis and treatment of CTLI. She plugged the PAD National Action Plan as one of the efforts to thwart the coming wave of CTLI expected from the steep climb in the prevalence of diabetes in the United States.

Dr. Farber reported a financial relationship with Sanifit Therapeutics. The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but received additional support from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Menard reported a financial relationship with Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hamburg reported financial relationships with Acceleron Pharma, Merck, NovoNordisk, and Sanifit.

CHICAGO – In patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and a usable saphenous vein segment, a surgical procedure leads to better outcomes than an endovascular approach, according results of the multinational randomized BEST-CLI trial.

In that study, conducted with two cohorts, the advantage of surgery was limited to the group with an available saphenous vein, but in this group the advantage over an endovascular approach was substantial, according to Alik Farber, MD, chief of vascular and endovascular surgery at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Bypass with adequate saphenous vein should be offered as a first-line treatment option for suitable candidates with CLTI as part of fully informed, shared decision-making,” Dr. Farber stated in presenting the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The study pursued two hypotheses, which is why CLTI patients were divided into two cohorts. For cohort 1, which was limited to CLTI patients with an available saphenous vein, it was predicted that surgery would be better than an endovascular approach. For cohort 2, which enrolled patients who needed an alternative conduit, the hypothesis was that endovascular procedures would prove superior.

The study confirmed the first hypothesis, but there was no difference between the two approaches for the composite primary outcome of major adverse limb events (MALE) in the second cohort.
 

Saphenous vein availability determined cohort

Candidates for the BEST-CLI (Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI) trial had to have CLTI producing severe ischemia and to be judged by both surgeons and cardiovascular specialists to be candidates for both types of interventions. Eligible patients were then enrolled in cohort 1 if the saphenous vein was considered the best conduit on imaging. If not, they were enrolled in cohort 2.

Patients were randomized to undergo surgical or endovascular repair only after the cohort was assigned. The primary composite MALE endpoint consisted of an adjudicated first major reintervention, such as new bypass or thrombectomy, an above-the-ankle amputation, or death from any cause.

In cohort 1, the primary composite MALE endpoint was reached in 42.6% of those in surgical arm and 57.4% in the endovascular arm, translating into a 32% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio, 0.68; P < .001) in favor of surgery at the end of a median of 2.7 years of follow-up.

The main advantage was the difference in reinterventions. The lower rate in the surgical group (9.2% vs. 23.5%), translated into a 65% relative risk reduction for this endpoint (HR, 035; P < .001).

The reduction in above-ankle amputations in the surgical group (10.4% vs. 14.9%) was also significant (HR, 0.73; P = .04), but the reduction in all-cause mortality (33.0% vs. 37.6%) was not (HR, 0.98; P = .81).

BEST-CLI involved 150 sites in North America, Europe, and New Zealand. Cohort 1, which randomized 1,434 patients, was the larger of the two. In the second cohort, only 396 patients were randomized, which Dr. Farber said “might have been underpowered.”

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with presentation of the results at the meeting.

After a median follow-up of 1.6 years in cohort 2, the slightly lower proportion of patients who reached the composite MALE endpoint in the surgical group relative to the endovascular group (42.8% vs. 47.7%) did not translate into a significant advantage (HR, 0.79; P = .12).

For the individual components, the lower rate of reinterventions in the surgical arm (14.4% vs. 25.6%) did reach statistical significance (HR, 0.47; P = .002), but both amputation (14.9% vs. 14.1%) and all-cause death (26.3% vs. 24.1%) were numerically but not significantly higher in the surgical group.

The primary safety endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). This was not significantly different in either cohort. There were also no major differences between groups in the risk of perioperative complications.

Level 1 evidence provided for intervention choice

Overall, BEST-CLI showed that both surgical and endovascular revascularizations are effective and safe, according to Dr. Farber. As a result, he suggested that both can be considered even if a saphenous vein is available when specific patient characteristics make one more attractive than another.

Yet, in a general population with an available saphenous vein, these data provide “level 1 evidence” that a surgical approach should be the dominant choice, he added.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

A quality of life (QOL) substudy of BEST-CLI did not challenge this conclusion. Rather, the main finding was that restoring circulation by either approach has a major favorable impact on patient well-being, according to Matthew Menard, MD, codirector of endovascular surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

In this substudy, presented separately from the primary BEST-CLI results, that analysis confirmed that baseline QOL was extremely poor, whether measured with a disease specific instrument such as VascuQol, or generic instruments, such as SF-12.

Surgical or endovascular treatment produced clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in every QOL measure employed, according to Dr. Menard, and this was true in either cohort.
 

Results not necessarily relevant to all

These data are likely relevant to the patients evaluated, but “it is important to consider who made it into this trial,” according to Naomi M. Hamburg, MD, section chief of vascular biology at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Not least, patients had to be candidates for either surgical or endovascular repair to get into the study, omitting those patients not deemed by the investigators to be suited for either.

In addition, Dr. Hamburg pointed out that there was a low enrollment of Blacks (20%) and women (28%), two groups for whom CTLI is a common condition.

Lastly, Dr Hamburg questioned whether specific types of anatomy might be better suited to one procedure relative to another, a variable not considered in this study. Reassured by Dr. Farber that this will be explored in subsequent analyses of BEST-CLI data, Dr. Hamburg expressed interest in learning the results.

Dr. Hamburg was among those who spoke about the growing urgency to optimize strategies for early diagnosis and treatment of CTLI. She plugged the PAD National Action Plan as one of the efforts to thwart the coming wave of CTLI expected from the steep climb in the prevalence of diabetes in the United States.

Dr. Farber reported a financial relationship with Sanifit Therapeutics. The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but received additional support from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Menard reported a financial relationship with Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hamburg reported financial relationships with Acceleron Pharma, Merck, NovoNordisk, and Sanifit.

CHICAGO – In patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and a usable saphenous vein segment, a surgical procedure leads to better outcomes than an endovascular approach, according results of the multinational randomized BEST-CLI trial.

In that study, conducted with two cohorts, the advantage of surgery was limited to the group with an available saphenous vein, but in this group the advantage over an endovascular approach was substantial, according to Alik Farber, MD, chief of vascular and endovascular surgery at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Bypass with adequate saphenous vein should be offered as a first-line treatment option for suitable candidates with CLTI as part of fully informed, shared decision-making,” Dr. Farber stated in presenting the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The study pursued two hypotheses, which is why CLTI patients were divided into two cohorts. For cohort 1, which was limited to CLTI patients with an available saphenous vein, it was predicted that surgery would be better than an endovascular approach. For cohort 2, which enrolled patients who needed an alternative conduit, the hypothesis was that endovascular procedures would prove superior.

The study confirmed the first hypothesis, but there was no difference between the two approaches for the composite primary outcome of major adverse limb events (MALE) in the second cohort.
 

Saphenous vein availability determined cohort

Candidates for the BEST-CLI (Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI) trial had to have CLTI producing severe ischemia and to be judged by both surgeons and cardiovascular specialists to be candidates for both types of interventions. Eligible patients were then enrolled in cohort 1 if the saphenous vein was considered the best conduit on imaging. If not, they were enrolled in cohort 2.

Patients were randomized to undergo surgical or endovascular repair only after the cohort was assigned. The primary composite MALE endpoint consisted of an adjudicated first major reintervention, such as new bypass or thrombectomy, an above-the-ankle amputation, or death from any cause.

In cohort 1, the primary composite MALE endpoint was reached in 42.6% of those in surgical arm and 57.4% in the endovascular arm, translating into a 32% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio, 0.68; P < .001) in favor of surgery at the end of a median of 2.7 years of follow-up.

The main advantage was the difference in reinterventions. The lower rate in the surgical group (9.2% vs. 23.5%), translated into a 65% relative risk reduction for this endpoint (HR, 035; P < .001).

The reduction in above-ankle amputations in the surgical group (10.4% vs. 14.9%) was also significant (HR, 0.73; P = .04), but the reduction in all-cause mortality (33.0% vs. 37.6%) was not (HR, 0.98; P = .81).

BEST-CLI involved 150 sites in North America, Europe, and New Zealand. Cohort 1, which randomized 1,434 patients, was the larger of the two. In the second cohort, only 396 patients were randomized, which Dr. Farber said “might have been underpowered.”

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with presentation of the results at the meeting.

After a median follow-up of 1.6 years in cohort 2, the slightly lower proportion of patients who reached the composite MALE endpoint in the surgical group relative to the endovascular group (42.8% vs. 47.7%) did not translate into a significant advantage (HR, 0.79; P = .12).

For the individual components, the lower rate of reinterventions in the surgical arm (14.4% vs. 25.6%) did reach statistical significance (HR, 0.47; P = .002), but both amputation (14.9% vs. 14.1%) and all-cause death (26.3% vs. 24.1%) were numerically but not significantly higher in the surgical group.

The primary safety endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). This was not significantly different in either cohort. There were also no major differences between groups in the risk of perioperative complications.

Level 1 evidence provided for intervention choice

Overall, BEST-CLI showed that both surgical and endovascular revascularizations are effective and safe, according to Dr. Farber. As a result, he suggested that both can be considered even if a saphenous vein is available when specific patient characteristics make one more attractive than another.

Yet, in a general population with an available saphenous vein, these data provide “level 1 evidence” that a surgical approach should be the dominant choice, he added.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

A quality of life (QOL) substudy of BEST-CLI did not challenge this conclusion. Rather, the main finding was that restoring circulation by either approach has a major favorable impact on patient well-being, according to Matthew Menard, MD, codirector of endovascular surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

In this substudy, presented separately from the primary BEST-CLI results, that analysis confirmed that baseline QOL was extremely poor, whether measured with a disease specific instrument such as VascuQol, or generic instruments, such as SF-12.

Surgical or endovascular treatment produced clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in every QOL measure employed, according to Dr. Menard, and this was true in either cohort.
 

Results not necessarily relevant to all

These data are likely relevant to the patients evaluated, but “it is important to consider who made it into this trial,” according to Naomi M. Hamburg, MD, section chief of vascular biology at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Not least, patients had to be candidates for either surgical or endovascular repair to get into the study, omitting those patients not deemed by the investigators to be suited for either.

In addition, Dr. Hamburg pointed out that there was a low enrollment of Blacks (20%) and women (28%), two groups for whom CTLI is a common condition.

Lastly, Dr Hamburg questioned whether specific types of anatomy might be better suited to one procedure relative to another, a variable not considered in this study. Reassured by Dr. Farber that this will be explored in subsequent analyses of BEST-CLI data, Dr. Hamburg expressed interest in learning the results.

Dr. Hamburg was among those who spoke about the growing urgency to optimize strategies for early diagnosis and treatment of CTLI. She plugged the PAD National Action Plan as one of the efforts to thwart the coming wave of CTLI expected from the steep climb in the prevalence of diabetes in the United States.

Dr. Farber reported a financial relationship with Sanifit Therapeutics. The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but received additional support from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Menard reported a financial relationship with Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hamburg reported financial relationships with Acceleron Pharma, Merck, NovoNordisk, and Sanifit.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is warning of an early surge in respiratory disease caused by multiple viruses. As influenza viruses, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), SARS-CoV-2, and rhinovirus/enterovirus simultaneously circulate, the agency cautioned that this confluence of viral activity could strain the health care system, according to a CDC Health Network Alert advisory issued Nov. 4.

“This early increase in disease incidence highlights the importance of optimizing respiratory virus prevention and treatment measures, including prompt vaccination and antiviral treatment,” the alert stated.

The CDC reports that RSV activity is increasing nationally, but in some areas – such as the South and Mountain West – cases appear to be trending downward.

Influenza cases continue to climb, with the virus activity being the highest in the South, Mid-Atlantic, and the south-central West Coast, according to CDC data. “In fact, we’re seeing the highest influenza hospitalization rates going back a decade,” said José Romero, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, during a press briefing. The agency estimates that there have been 1.6 million illnesses, 13,000 hospitalizations, and 730 deaths from the flu so far this season. As of Nov. 4, there have been two pediatric deaths.

COVID-19 cases appear to have plateaued in the past three weeks, Dr. Romero said; however, the CDC expects that there will be “high-level circulation of SARS-CoV-2 this fall and winter,” the health alert stated.

The CDC advised that all eligible individuals aged 6-months or older should be vaccinated against COVID-19 and influenza. To protect against RSV-hospitalization, high-risk children should receive the monoclonal antibody drug palivizumab (Synagis). High-risk children include infants born before 29 weeks, children younger than age 2 with chronic lung disease or hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease, and children with suppressed immune systems or neuromuscular disorders.

Any patient with confirmed or suspected flu who is hospitalized, at higher risk for influenza complications, or who has a severe or progressive illness should be treated as early as possible with antivirals, such as oral oseltamivir (Tamiflu).

Patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with increased risk of complications should also be treated with antivirals, such as nirmatrelvir and ritonavir (Paxlovid) or remdesivir (Veklury).

Patients should also be reminded to wash their hands frequently, cover coughs and sneezes, stay home when sick, and avoid close contact with people who are sick, the CDC advised.

“There’s no doubt that we will face some challenges this winter,” said Dawn O’Connell, HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, “but it’s important to remember that RSV and flu are not new, and we have safe and effective vaccines for COVID-19 and the flu.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is warning of an early surge in respiratory disease caused by multiple viruses. As influenza viruses, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), SARS-CoV-2, and rhinovirus/enterovirus simultaneously circulate, the agency cautioned that this confluence of viral activity could strain the health care system, according to a CDC Health Network Alert advisory issued Nov. 4.

“This early increase in disease incidence highlights the importance of optimizing respiratory virus prevention and treatment measures, including prompt vaccination and antiviral treatment,” the alert stated.

The CDC reports that RSV activity is increasing nationally, but in some areas – such as the South and Mountain West – cases appear to be trending downward.

Influenza cases continue to climb, with the virus activity being the highest in the South, Mid-Atlantic, and the south-central West Coast, according to CDC data. “In fact, we’re seeing the highest influenza hospitalization rates going back a decade,” said José Romero, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, during a press briefing. The agency estimates that there have been 1.6 million illnesses, 13,000 hospitalizations, and 730 deaths from the flu so far this season. As of Nov. 4, there have been two pediatric deaths.

COVID-19 cases appear to have plateaued in the past three weeks, Dr. Romero said; however, the CDC expects that there will be “high-level circulation of SARS-CoV-2 this fall and winter,” the health alert stated.

The CDC advised that all eligible individuals aged 6-months or older should be vaccinated against COVID-19 and influenza. To protect against RSV-hospitalization, high-risk children should receive the monoclonal antibody drug palivizumab (Synagis). High-risk children include infants born before 29 weeks, children younger than age 2 with chronic lung disease or hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease, and children with suppressed immune systems or neuromuscular disorders.

Any patient with confirmed or suspected flu who is hospitalized, at higher risk for influenza complications, or who has a severe or progressive illness should be treated as early as possible with antivirals, such as oral oseltamivir (Tamiflu).

Patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with increased risk of complications should also be treated with antivirals, such as nirmatrelvir and ritonavir (Paxlovid) or remdesivir (Veklury).

Patients should also be reminded to wash their hands frequently, cover coughs and sneezes, stay home when sick, and avoid close contact with people who are sick, the CDC advised.

“There’s no doubt that we will face some challenges this winter,” said Dawn O’Connell, HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, “but it’s important to remember that RSV and flu are not new, and we have safe and effective vaccines for COVID-19 and the flu.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is warning of an early surge in respiratory disease caused by multiple viruses. As influenza viruses, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), SARS-CoV-2, and rhinovirus/enterovirus simultaneously circulate, the agency cautioned that this confluence of viral activity could strain the health care system, according to a CDC Health Network Alert advisory issued Nov. 4.

“This early increase in disease incidence highlights the importance of optimizing respiratory virus prevention and treatment measures, including prompt vaccination and antiviral treatment,” the alert stated.

The CDC reports that RSV activity is increasing nationally, but in some areas – such as the South and Mountain West – cases appear to be trending downward.

Influenza cases continue to climb, with the virus activity being the highest in the South, Mid-Atlantic, and the south-central West Coast, according to CDC data. “In fact, we’re seeing the highest influenza hospitalization rates going back a decade,” said José Romero, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, during a press briefing. The agency estimates that there have been 1.6 million illnesses, 13,000 hospitalizations, and 730 deaths from the flu so far this season. As of Nov. 4, there have been two pediatric deaths.

COVID-19 cases appear to have plateaued in the past three weeks, Dr. Romero said; however, the CDC expects that there will be “high-level circulation of SARS-CoV-2 this fall and winter,” the health alert stated.

The CDC advised that all eligible individuals aged 6-months or older should be vaccinated against COVID-19 and influenza. To protect against RSV-hospitalization, high-risk children should receive the monoclonal antibody drug palivizumab (Synagis). High-risk children include infants born before 29 weeks, children younger than age 2 with chronic lung disease or hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease, and children with suppressed immune systems or neuromuscular disorders.

Any patient with confirmed or suspected flu who is hospitalized, at higher risk for influenza complications, or who has a severe or progressive illness should be treated as early as possible with antivirals, such as oral oseltamivir (Tamiflu).

Patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with increased risk of complications should also be treated with antivirals, such as nirmatrelvir and ritonavir (Paxlovid) or remdesivir (Veklury).

Patients should also be reminded to wash their hands frequently, cover coughs and sneezes, stay home when sick, and avoid close contact with people who are sick, the CDC advised.

“There’s no doubt that we will face some challenges this winter,” said Dawn O’Connell, HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, “but it’s important to remember that RSV and flu are not new, and we have safe and effective vaccines for COVID-19 and the flu.”

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

There’s some good overall news in a large analysis that looked at whether a mother’s COVID-19 infection or birth during the pandemic could affect a baby’s brain development.

Researchers studied 21,419 infants who had neurodevelopmental screening during the pandemic (from January 2020 to January 2021) and compared them with babies born before the pandemic (2015-2019).

They found in an analysis of eight studies that, generally, brain development in infants ages 6-12 months old was not changed by COVID-19.
 

Communication skill scores lower than prepandemic

However, one area did see a significant difference when they looked at answers to the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd edition (ASQ-3): Scores were lower in communication skills.

Compared with the prepandemic babies, the pandemic group of babies was more likely to have communication impairment (odds were 1.7 times higher).

Additionally, mothers’ SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with significant differences in any neurodevelopment sector in offspring, with one exception: Odds were 3.5 times higher for fine motor impairment in the pandemic baby group.

The babies in this study were either exposed in the womb to the SARS-CoV-2 infection or screened during the pandemic regardless of whether they were exposed to the virus.

The study, led by Kamran Hessami, MD, with the Maternal Fetal Care Center at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Potential reasons for lower communication skills

The study points to some factors of the pandemic that may be tied to impaired communication skills.

“Higher levels of COVID-19–related stress were reported for both mothers and fathers of infants aged 0-6 months and were associated with insensitive parenting practices, including decreased emotional responsiveness in only mothers, which could lessen the reciprocal exchanges that support language development in early childhood,” they write. “Additionally, opportunities to promote language and social development through new experiences outside the home, including visits with extended family and friends or attendance at a child care center, were lessened for many during the pandemic.”

Viviana M. Fajardo Martinez, MD, with neonatal/perinatal medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Health, told this publication her team is also studying child development before and after the pandemic over a 3-year period, and delayed communication skills is something she is seeing in clinic there.

She says some parents have been concerned, saying their babies aren’t talking enough or are behind in vocabulary.
 

Babies can catch up after 12 months

One thing she tells parents is that babies who are a bit delayed at 12 months can catch up.

Up to 18 months, they can catch up, she said, adding that they can be reevaluated then for improvement. If, at that point, the baby is not catching up, “that’s when we refer for early intervention,” she said.

Dr. Martinez also tells parents concerned about their infant’s communication skills that it’s important to talk, read, and sing to their child. She said amid pandemic stress, corners may have been cut in asking children to use language skills.

For instance, if a child points to an apple, a stressed parent may just give the child the apple instead of asking the child to request it by name and repeat the word several times.

She also said a limitation of this study is the use of the ASQ-3 questionnaire, which is filled out by parents. Answers are subjective, she notes, and sometimes differ between one child’s two parents. The questionnaire was commonly used during the pandemic because a more objective, professional evaluation has been more difficult.

However, a measure like the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development Screening Test adds objectivity and will likely give a better picture as research progresses, Dr. Martinez said. 
 

Some information missing

Andréane Lavallée, PhD, and Dani Dumitriu, MD, PhD, both with the department of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, write in an invited commentary that the overall positive message of the study “should not make researchers complacent” and results should be viewed with caution.

They point out that the precise effects of this novel virus are still unclear and the age group and variables studied may not tell the whole story.

“It should be noted that this systematic review did not consider timing of exposure during pregnancy, maternal infection severity, or exposure to various SARS-CoV-2 variants – all factors that could eventually be proven to contribute to subtle adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes,” they write.

Additionally, past pandemics “such as the 1918 Spanish flu, 1964 rubella, and 2009 H1N1” have taught researchers to watch for increases in diagnoses such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and schizophrenia in subsequent years.

“ASD is generally diagnosed at age 3-5 years (and often not until early teens), while schizophrenia is generally diagnosed in mid-to-late 20s,” the editorialists point out. The authors agree and emphasize the need for long-term studies.

Authors report no relevant financial relationships. Editorialist Dr. Dumitriu reports grants from National Institute of Mental Health, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation; and has received gift funds from Einhorn Collaborative during the conduct of the study to the Nurture Science Program, for which Dr Dumitriu serves as director. Dr. Dumitriu received personal fees from Medela outside the submitted work; and is the corresponding author for one of the studies (Shuffrey et al., 2022) included in the systematic review conducted by Dr. Hessami et al. Dr. Lavallée reports grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Martinez reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

There’s some good overall news in a large analysis that looked at whether a mother’s COVID-19 infection or birth during the pandemic could affect a baby’s brain development.

Researchers studied 21,419 infants who had neurodevelopmental screening during the pandemic (from January 2020 to January 2021) and compared them with babies born before the pandemic (2015-2019).

They found in an analysis of eight studies that, generally, brain development in infants ages 6-12 months old was not changed by COVID-19.
 

Communication skill scores lower than prepandemic

However, one area did see a significant difference when they looked at answers to the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd edition (ASQ-3): Scores were lower in communication skills.

Compared with the prepandemic babies, the pandemic group of babies was more likely to have communication impairment (odds were 1.7 times higher).

Additionally, mothers’ SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with significant differences in any neurodevelopment sector in offspring, with one exception: Odds were 3.5 times higher for fine motor impairment in the pandemic baby group.

The babies in this study were either exposed in the womb to the SARS-CoV-2 infection or screened during the pandemic regardless of whether they were exposed to the virus.

The study, led by Kamran Hessami, MD, with the Maternal Fetal Care Center at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Potential reasons for lower communication skills

The study points to some factors of the pandemic that may be tied to impaired communication skills.

“Higher levels of COVID-19–related stress were reported for both mothers and fathers of infants aged 0-6 months and were associated with insensitive parenting practices, including decreased emotional responsiveness in only mothers, which could lessen the reciprocal exchanges that support language development in early childhood,” they write. “Additionally, opportunities to promote language and social development through new experiences outside the home, including visits with extended family and friends or attendance at a child care center, were lessened for many during the pandemic.”

Viviana M. Fajardo Martinez, MD, with neonatal/perinatal medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Health, told this publication her team is also studying child development before and after the pandemic over a 3-year period, and delayed communication skills is something she is seeing in clinic there.

She says some parents have been concerned, saying their babies aren’t talking enough or are behind in vocabulary.
 

Babies can catch up after 12 months

One thing she tells parents is that babies who are a bit delayed at 12 months can catch up.

Up to 18 months, they can catch up, she said, adding that they can be reevaluated then for improvement. If, at that point, the baby is not catching up, “that’s when we refer for early intervention,” she said.

Dr. Martinez also tells parents concerned about their infant’s communication skills that it’s important to talk, read, and sing to their child. She said amid pandemic stress, corners may have been cut in asking children to use language skills.

For instance, if a child points to an apple, a stressed parent may just give the child the apple instead of asking the child to request it by name and repeat the word several times.

She also said a limitation of this study is the use of the ASQ-3 questionnaire, which is filled out by parents. Answers are subjective, she notes, and sometimes differ between one child’s two parents. The questionnaire was commonly used during the pandemic because a more objective, professional evaluation has been more difficult.

However, a measure like the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development Screening Test adds objectivity and will likely give a better picture as research progresses, Dr. Martinez said. 
 

Some information missing

Andréane Lavallée, PhD, and Dani Dumitriu, MD, PhD, both with the department of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, write in an invited commentary that the overall positive message of the study “should not make researchers complacent” and results should be viewed with caution.

They point out that the precise effects of this novel virus are still unclear and the age group and variables studied may not tell the whole story.

“It should be noted that this systematic review did not consider timing of exposure during pregnancy, maternal infection severity, or exposure to various SARS-CoV-2 variants – all factors that could eventually be proven to contribute to subtle adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes,” they write.

Additionally, past pandemics “such as the 1918 Spanish flu, 1964 rubella, and 2009 H1N1” have taught researchers to watch for increases in diagnoses such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and schizophrenia in subsequent years.

“ASD is generally diagnosed at age 3-5 years (and often not until early teens), while schizophrenia is generally diagnosed in mid-to-late 20s,” the editorialists point out. The authors agree and emphasize the need for long-term studies.

Authors report no relevant financial relationships. Editorialist Dr. Dumitriu reports grants from National Institute of Mental Health, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation; and has received gift funds from Einhorn Collaborative during the conduct of the study to the Nurture Science Program, for which Dr Dumitriu serves as director. Dr. Dumitriu received personal fees from Medela outside the submitted work; and is the corresponding author for one of the studies (Shuffrey et al., 2022) included in the systematic review conducted by Dr. Hessami et al. Dr. Lavallée reports grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Martinez reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

There’s some good overall news in a large analysis that looked at whether a mother’s COVID-19 infection or birth during the pandemic could affect a baby’s brain development.

Researchers studied 21,419 infants who had neurodevelopmental screening during the pandemic (from January 2020 to January 2021) and compared them with babies born before the pandemic (2015-2019).

They found in an analysis of eight studies that, generally, brain development in infants ages 6-12 months old was not changed by COVID-19.
 

Communication skill scores lower than prepandemic

However, one area did see a significant difference when they looked at answers to the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd edition (ASQ-3): Scores were lower in communication skills.

Compared with the prepandemic babies, the pandemic group of babies was more likely to have communication impairment (odds were 1.7 times higher).

Additionally, mothers’ SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with significant differences in any neurodevelopment sector in offspring, with one exception: Odds were 3.5 times higher for fine motor impairment in the pandemic baby group.

The babies in this study were either exposed in the womb to the SARS-CoV-2 infection or screened during the pandemic regardless of whether they were exposed to the virus.

The study, led by Kamran Hessami, MD, with the Maternal Fetal Care Center at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Potential reasons for lower communication skills

The study points to some factors of the pandemic that may be tied to impaired communication skills.

“Higher levels of COVID-19–related stress were reported for both mothers and fathers of infants aged 0-6 months and were associated with insensitive parenting practices, including decreased emotional responsiveness in only mothers, which could lessen the reciprocal exchanges that support language development in early childhood,” they write. “Additionally, opportunities to promote language and social development through new experiences outside the home, including visits with extended family and friends or attendance at a child care center, were lessened for many during the pandemic.”

Viviana M. Fajardo Martinez, MD, with neonatal/perinatal medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Health, told this publication her team is also studying child development before and after the pandemic over a 3-year period, and delayed communication skills is something she is seeing in clinic there.

She says some parents have been concerned, saying their babies aren’t talking enough or are behind in vocabulary.
 

Babies can catch up after 12 months

One thing she tells parents is that babies who are a bit delayed at 12 months can catch up.

Up to 18 months, they can catch up, she said, adding that they can be reevaluated then for improvement. If, at that point, the baby is not catching up, “that’s when we refer for early intervention,” she said.

Dr. Martinez also tells parents concerned about their infant’s communication skills that it’s important to talk, read, and sing to their child. She said amid pandemic stress, corners may have been cut in asking children to use language skills.

For instance, if a child points to an apple, a stressed parent may just give the child the apple instead of asking the child to request it by name and repeat the word several times.

She also said a limitation of this study is the use of the ASQ-3 questionnaire, which is filled out by parents. Answers are subjective, she notes, and sometimes differ between one child’s two parents. The questionnaire was commonly used during the pandemic because a more objective, professional evaluation has been more difficult.

However, a measure like the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development Screening Test adds objectivity and will likely give a better picture as research progresses, Dr. Martinez said. 
 

Some information missing

Andréane Lavallée, PhD, and Dani Dumitriu, MD, PhD, both with the department of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, write in an invited commentary that the overall positive message of the study “should not make researchers complacent” and results should be viewed with caution.

They point out that the precise effects of this novel virus are still unclear and the age group and variables studied may not tell the whole story.

“It should be noted that this systematic review did not consider timing of exposure during pregnancy, maternal infection severity, or exposure to various SARS-CoV-2 variants – all factors that could eventually be proven to contribute to subtle adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes,” they write.

Additionally, past pandemics “such as the 1918 Spanish flu, 1964 rubella, and 2009 H1N1” have taught researchers to watch for increases in diagnoses such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and schizophrenia in subsequent years.

“ASD is generally diagnosed at age 3-5 years (and often not until early teens), while schizophrenia is generally diagnosed in mid-to-late 20s,” the editorialists point out. The authors agree and emphasize the need for long-term studies.

Authors report no relevant financial relationships. Editorialist Dr. Dumitriu reports grants from National Institute of Mental Health, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation; and has received gift funds from Einhorn Collaborative during the conduct of the study to the Nurture Science Program, for which Dr Dumitriu serves as director. Dr. Dumitriu received personal fees from Medela outside the submitted work; and is the corresponding author for one of the studies (Shuffrey et al., 2022) included in the systematic review conducted by Dr. Hessami et al. Dr. Lavallée reports grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Martinez reports no relevant financial relationships.