Diabetes

TOPLINE:

Among older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of antidiabetes medications declined in the last year before death, with notable shifts from metformin and sulfonylureas toward insulin therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

Current recommendations emphasize a more liberal approach to glycemic control in people with a high burden of comorbidities and shorter life expectancy, but little is known about the changes and discontinuation patterns of diabetes medications among older adults near the end of life.

Researchers conducted an observational cohort study to assess the prescribing trends of antidiabetes medications in the final year of life among 975,407 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with T2D (mean age at death, 80.9 years; 54.3% women) who died between January 2015 and December 2019.

All medication classes available during the study period were considered, including short-acting and long-acting insulins, metformin, sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and other medications.

Analysis included temporal trends in prescribing antidiabetes medications, stratified by frailty using a validated claims-based frailty index, with scores ≥ 0.30 indicating higher frailty.

Antidiabetes medication fills were assessed within 1 year before death, examining changes across three time periods: 12 to 8 months, 8 to 4 months, and 4 to 0 months before death.

TAKEAWAY:

The proportion of older patients receiving antidiabetes medications increased slightly from 71.4% in 2015 to 72.9% in 2019, with metformin showing the largest increase from 40.7% to 46.5% (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.12) and sulfonylureas showing the largest decrease from 37.0% to 31.8% (SMD, 0.11).

The use of newer diabetes medications with cardiovascular benefits, such as GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, remained less common but showed increasing trends over time.

The use of any antidiabetes medication decreased from 66.1% in the 9 to 12 months before death to 60.8% in the last 4 months of life (P < .01), primarily due to the reduced use of metformin and sulfonylureas.

The use of both short-acting and long-acting insulin agents increased toward the end of life (from 28.0% to 32.9% and from 41.2% to 43.9%, respectively; both P < .001) , particularly among frailer individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings underscore important implications for diabetes management in patients nearing the end of life. With ~70% of patients with T2D using at least one antidiabetes medication, there is a need to consider further de-escalation or deprescribing in this vulnerable population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexander Kutz, MD, MPH, MSc, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked details on the reasons for changes in medication patterns, making it unclear whether these changes were due to clinical guidelines or to reduce adverse events. Moreover, the study could not capture transitions or substitutions between medications, information on the dosage data, and causes of death.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Some authors reported receiving personal fees or research grants from the National Institutes of Health and other institutions and a few pharmaceutical companies. One author reported acting as a principal investigator and receiving a research grant from Boehringer-Ingelheim, unrelated to the work.

 

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

TOPLINE:

Among older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of antidiabetes medications declined in the last year before death, with notable shifts from metformin and sulfonylureas toward insulin therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

Current recommendations emphasize a more liberal approach to glycemic control in people with a high burden of comorbidities and shorter life expectancy, but little is known about the changes and discontinuation patterns of diabetes medications among older adults near the end of life.

Researchers conducted an observational cohort study to assess the prescribing trends of antidiabetes medications in the final year of life among 975,407 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with T2D (mean age at death, 80.9 years; 54.3% women) who died between January 2015 and December 2019.

All medication classes available during the study period were considered, including short-acting and long-acting insulins, metformin, sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and other medications.

Analysis included temporal trends in prescribing antidiabetes medications, stratified by frailty using a validated claims-based frailty index, with scores ≥ 0.30 indicating higher frailty.

Antidiabetes medication fills were assessed within 1 year before death, examining changes across three time periods: 12 to 8 months, 8 to 4 months, and 4 to 0 months before death.

TAKEAWAY:

The proportion of older patients receiving antidiabetes medications increased slightly from 71.4% in 2015 to 72.9% in 2019, with metformin showing the largest increase from 40.7% to 46.5% (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.12) and sulfonylureas showing the largest decrease from 37.0% to 31.8% (SMD, 0.11).

The use of newer diabetes medications with cardiovascular benefits, such as GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, remained less common but showed increasing trends over time.

The use of any antidiabetes medication decreased from 66.1% in the 9 to 12 months before death to 60.8% in the last 4 months of life (P < .01), primarily due to the reduced use of metformin and sulfonylureas.

The use of both short-acting and long-acting insulin agents increased toward the end of life (from 28.0% to 32.9% and from 41.2% to 43.9%, respectively; both P < .001) , particularly among frailer individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings underscore important implications for diabetes management in patients nearing the end of life. With ~70% of patients with T2D using at least one antidiabetes medication, there is a need to consider further de-escalation or deprescribing in this vulnerable population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexander Kutz, MD, MPH, MSc, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked details on the reasons for changes in medication patterns, making it unclear whether these changes were due to clinical guidelines or to reduce adverse events. Moreover, the study could not capture transitions or substitutions between medications, information on the dosage data, and causes of death.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Some authors reported receiving personal fees or research grants from the National Institutes of Health and other institutions and a few pharmaceutical companies. One author reported acting as a principal investigator and receiving a research grant from Boehringer-Ingelheim, unrelated to the work.

 

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

TOPLINE:

Among older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of antidiabetes medications declined in the last year before death, with notable shifts from metformin and sulfonylureas toward insulin therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

Current recommendations emphasize a more liberal approach to glycemic control in people with a high burden of comorbidities and shorter life expectancy, but little is known about the changes and discontinuation patterns of diabetes medications among older adults near the end of life.

Researchers conducted an observational cohort study to assess the prescribing trends of antidiabetes medications in the final year of life among 975,407 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with T2D (mean age at death, 80.9 years; 54.3% women) who died between January 2015 and December 2019.

All medication classes available during the study period were considered, including short-acting and long-acting insulins, metformin, sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and other medications.

Analysis included temporal trends in prescribing antidiabetes medications, stratified by frailty using a validated claims-based frailty index, with scores ≥ 0.30 indicating higher frailty.

Antidiabetes medication fills were assessed within 1 year before death, examining changes across three time periods: 12 to 8 months, 8 to 4 months, and 4 to 0 months before death.

TAKEAWAY:

The proportion of older patients receiving antidiabetes medications increased slightly from 71.4% in 2015 to 72.9% in 2019, with metformin showing the largest increase from 40.7% to 46.5% (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.12) and sulfonylureas showing the largest decrease from 37.0% to 31.8% (SMD, 0.11).

The use of newer diabetes medications with cardiovascular benefits, such as GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, remained less common but showed increasing trends over time.

The use of any antidiabetes medication decreased from 66.1% in the 9 to 12 months before death to 60.8% in the last 4 months of life (P < .01), primarily due to the reduced use of metformin and sulfonylureas.

The use of both short-acting and long-acting insulin agents increased toward the end of life (from 28.0% to 32.9% and from 41.2% to 43.9%, respectively; both P < .001) , particularly among frailer individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings underscore important implications for diabetes management in patients nearing the end of life. With ~70% of patients with T2D using at least one antidiabetes medication, there is a need to consider further de-escalation or deprescribing in this vulnerable population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexander Kutz, MD, MPH, MSc, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked details on the reasons for changes in medication patterns, making it unclear whether these changes were due to clinical guidelines or to reduce adverse events. Moreover, the study could not capture transitions or substitutions between medications, information on the dosage data, and causes of death.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Some authors reported receiving personal fees or research grants from the National Institutes of Health and other institutions and a few pharmaceutical companies. One author reported acting as a principal investigator and receiving a research grant from Boehringer-Ingelheim, unrelated to the work.

 

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

TOPLINE:

Daily treatment with 1200 mg of choline alfoscerate for 12 months shows a modest yet significant improvement in cognitive function and physical health in older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and early signs of cognitive decline. 
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior studies have demonstrated the efficacy of choline alfoscerate, a phospholipid metabolite naturally found in the brain, in improving cognitive function in patients with neurodegenerative conditions, but its use in patients with T2D remains unexplored.
• Researchers at a hospital in Korea enrolled patients aged over 60 years with T2D and mild cognitive impairment (assessed by Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] scores of 25-28), who were randomly assigned to receive either 1200 mg/d choline alfoscerate or placebo for 12 months.
• The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the total MMSE score from baseline to month 6; secondary efficacy endpoints included changes in cognitive performance and quality of life, measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, at 6 and 12 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Thirty-six patients (average age, 71.8 years; 25% men) with an average diabetes duration of 12.1 years were randomized to receive choline alfoscerate (n = 18) or placebo (n = 18).
• At 6 months, there was modest but nonsignificant improvement in MMSE score with choline alfoscerate vs placebo (P = .059).
• After 12 months, the choline alfoscerate group showed an increase in the MMSE score from 26.2 to 27.1, whereas the placebo group showed a slight decline from 26.6 to 25.8, which represented a significant improvement for the treatment arm (P < .001).
• Physical health scores were significantly superior in the choline alfoscerate group vs the placebo group at 6 months (P = .014), with similar observations at 12 months (P = .039).
• No serious adverse events were reported in either group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Choline alfoscerate could be considered an anticipated therapeutic option to preserve cognitive function and subsequently physical health in elderly patients with diabetes and mild cognitive impairment,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Minji Sohn, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea, and published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.
 

LIMITATIONS:

The study population primarily comprised non–insulin-dependent patients with controlled glycemia and minimal comorbidities, which may have limited the applicability of the results to a broader population. The small sample size may have contributed to the lack of statistical significance in some outcomes. Moreover, the 12-month study duration may have not been sufficient to investigate the long-term effects of choline alfoscerate.
 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Daewoong Pharmaceutical through subcontracting with Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. The authors declared no competing interests.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Daily treatment with 1200 mg of choline alfoscerate for 12 months shows a modest yet significant improvement in cognitive function and physical health in older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and early signs of cognitive decline. 
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior studies have demonstrated the efficacy of choline alfoscerate, a phospholipid metabolite naturally found in the brain, in improving cognitive function in patients with neurodegenerative conditions, but its use in patients with T2D remains unexplored.
• Researchers at a hospital in Korea enrolled patients aged over 60 years with T2D and mild cognitive impairment (assessed by Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] scores of 25-28), who were randomly assigned to receive either 1200 mg/d choline alfoscerate or placebo for 12 months.
• The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the total MMSE score from baseline to month 6; secondary efficacy endpoints included changes in cognitive performance and quality of life, measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, at 6 and 12 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Thirty-six patients (average age, 71.8 years; 25% men) with an average diabetes duration of 12.1 years were randomized to receive choline alfoscerate (n = 18) or placebo (n = 18).
• At 6 months, there was modest but nonsignificant improvement in MMSE score with choline alfoscerate vs placebo (P = .059).
• After 12 months, the choline alfoscerate group showed an increase in the MMSE score from 26.2 to 27.1, whereas the placebo group showed a slight decline from 26.6 to 25.8, which represented a significant improvement for the treatment arm (P < .001).
• Physical health scores were significantly superior in the choline alfoscerate group vs the placebo group at 6 months (P = .014), with similar observations at 12 months (P = .039).
• No serious adverse events were reported in either group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Choline alfoscerate could be considered an anticipated therapeutic option to preserve cognitive function and subsequently physical health in elderly patients with diabetes and mild cognitive impairment,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Minji Sohn, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea, and published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.
 

LIMITATIONS:

The study population primarily comprised non–insulin-dependent patients with controlled glycemia and minimal comorbidities, which may have limited the applicability of the results to a broader population. The small sample size may have contributed to the lack of statistical significance in some outcomes. Moreover, the 12-month study duration may have not been sufficient to investigate the long-term effects of choline alfoscerate.
 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Daewoong Pharmaceutical through subcontracting with Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. The authors declared no competing interests.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Daily treatment with 1200 mg of choline alfoscerate for 12 months shows a modest yet significant improvement in cognitive function and physical health in older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and early signs of cognitive decline. 
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior studies have demonstrated the efficacy of choline alfoscerate, a phospholipid metabolite naturally found in the brain, in improving cognitive function in patients with neurodegenerative conditions, but its use in patients with T2D remains unexplored.
• Researchers at a hospital in Korea enrolled patients aged over 60 years with T2D and mild cognitive impairment (assessed by Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] scores of 25-28), who were randomly assigned to receive either 1200 mg/d choline alfoscerate or placebo for 12 months.
• The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the total MMSE score from baseline to month 6; secondary efficacy endpoints included changes in cognitive performance and quality of life, measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, at 6 and 12 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Thirty-six patients (average age, 71.8 years; 25% men) with an average diabetes duration of 12.1 years were randomized to receive choline alfoscerate (n = 18) or placebo (n = 18).
• At 6 months, there was modest but nonsignificant improvement in MMSE score with choline alfoscerate vs placebo (P = .059).
• After 12 months, the choline alfoscerate group showed an increase in the MMSE score from 26.2 to 27.1, whereas the placebo group showed a slight decline from 26.6 to 25.8, which represented a significant improvement for the treatment arm (P < .001).
• Physical health scores were significantly superior in the choline alfoscerate group vs the placebo group at 6 months (P = .014), with similar observations at 12 months (P = .039).
• No serious adverse events were reported in either group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Choline alfoscerate could be considered an anticipated therapeutic option to preserve cognitive function and subsequently physical health in elderly patients with diabetes and mild cognitive impairment,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Minji Sohn, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea, and published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.
 

LIMITATIONS:

The study population primarily comprised non–insulin-dependent patients with controlled glycemia and minimal comorbidities, which may have limited the applicability of the results to a broader population. The small sample size may have contributed to the lack of statistical significance in some outcomes. Moreover, the 12-month study duration may have not been sufficient to investigate the long-term effects of choline alfoscerate.
 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Daewoong Pharmaceutical through subcontracting with Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. The authors declared no competing interests.
 

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

A systematic review of 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) finds that, among glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and co-agonists on the market or still being investigated, the experimental drug retatrutide (Eli Lilly) produces the greatest weight loss.

The review, conducted by researchers at McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, examined three commercially available medications in the class and nine that have not yet received regulatory approval.

In healthy adults with overweight or obesity who did not have diabetes, the highest mean reductions in relative and absolute body weight were achieved with once-weekly triple glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist retatrutide, followed by the dual GIP/GLP-1 agonist tirzepatide (Eli Lilly) and lastly by the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Novo Nordisk), according to the authors.

The use of all the GLP-1s or co-agonist medications “led to decreased body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, SBP (systolic blood pressure), and DBP (diastolic blood pressure),” wrote the authors in Annals of Internal Medicine. All the medications had a similar safety profile.

The researchers did not find any head-to-head studies, so instead examined the results from 26 RCTs that enrolled more than 15,000 patients. Only trials with a treatment duration of at least 16 weeks were included, to ensure that patients had at least a month of a fixed dose.

Not surprisingly, the review found that, except for semaglutide, trials with “dual and triple agonists generally reported numerically greater mean weight losses than single GLP-1 agonists.”

They caution, however, against drawing conclusions about comparative efficacy, as the populations, control groups, and contexts of the various studies might not be directly comparable. All the trial enrollees also received lifestyle modification along with drug therapy or placebo, but the interventions and protocols varied across the studies.

The authors found that individuals on retatrutide (12-mg once-weekly injection) lost 22% of body weight from baseline after 48 weeks. Tirzepatide (15 mg once-weekly injection) recipients lost almost 18% of body weight after 72 weeks, while those on semaglutide (2.4-mg once-weekly injection) lost about 14% after 68 weeks. Both tirzepatide and semaglutide are commercially available.

Patients taking liraglutide (3-mg once-daily injection), also on the market, lost up to 6% of body weight after 26 weeks.

The authors also examined studies of investigational agents and reported that the greatest loss, aside from retatrutide, was with the dual glucagon/GLP-1 agonists survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim; 6%-15%) and mazdutide (Innovent Biologics; 7%-11%).

Orforglipron (Eli Lilly), a once-daily pill, produced weight loss of 9%-15%, depending on the dose.

The study found that four investigational drugs did not produce as much weight loss: Beinaglutide (0.2-mg injection three times daily, 6%), efpeglenatide (4- to 8-mg injection once weekly, about 7%), exenatide (10-mcg injection twice daily, 5-kg change in weight), and noiiglutide (once-daily injection, 9%).

The most common adverse events for all GLP-1s were gastrointestinal (GI), such as nausea, diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting. Across all agents, 60%-80% of patients taking the medications experienced a GI adverse event, although most were transient, according to the authors. A total of 6%-26% of patients discontinued treatment as a result of a side effect.

The authors said that no serious GI disorders, such as bowel obstruction or gastroparesis, were reported in any of the 26 trials.

The review also shows that it is likely that GLP-1s would have to be used chronically to have the greatest effect, said the authors. They noted that they found that trials “with longer treatment durations demonstrate similar weight loss results to those with shorter follow-up, reinforcing the idea that continuous treatment may be required.”

One coauthor reported receiving payments or honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Novo Nordisk. The study was carried out independently without any grant or other funding.

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

A systematic review of 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) finds that, among glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and co-agonists on the market or still being investigated, the experimental drug retatrutide (Eli Lilly) produces the greatest weight loss.

The review, conducted by researchers at McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, examined three commercially available medications in the class and nine that have not yet received regulatory approval.

In healthy adults with overweight or obesity who did not have diabetes, the highest mean reductions in relative and absolute body weight were achieved with once-weekly triple glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist retatrutide, followed by the dual GIP/GLP-1 agonist tirzepatide (Eli Lilly) and lastly by the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Novo Nordisk), according to the authors.

The use of all the GLP-1s or co-agonist medications “led to decreased body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, SBP (systolic blood pressure), and DBP (diastolic blood pressure),” wrote the authors in Annals of Internal Medicine. All the medications had a similar safety profile.

The researchers did not find any head-to-head studies, so instead examined the results from 26 RCTs that enrolled more than 15,000 patients. Only trials with a treatment duration of at least 16 weeks were included, to ensure that patients had at least a month of a fixed dose.

Not surprisingly, the review found that, except for semaglutide, trials with “dual and triple agonists generally reported numerically greater mean weight losses than single GLP-1 agonists.”

They caution, however, against drawing conclusions about comparative efficacy, as the populations, control groups, and contexts of the various studies might not be directly comparable. All the trial enrollees also received lifestyle modification along with drug therapy or placebo, but the interventions and protocols varied across the studies.

The authors found that individuals on retatrutide (12-mg once-weekly injection) lost 22% of body weight from baseline after 48 weeks. Tirzepatide (15 mg once-weekly injection) recipients lost almost 18% of body weight after 72 weeks, while those on semaglutide (2.4-mg once-weekly injection) lost about 14% after 68 weeks. Both tirzepatide and semaglutide are commercially available.

Patients taking liraglutide (3-mg once-daily injection), also on the market, lost up to 6% of body weight after 26 weeks.

The authors also examined studies of investigational agents and reported that the greatest loss, aside from retatrutide, was with the dual glucagon/GLP-1 agonists survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim; 6%-15%) and mazdutide (Innovent Biologics; 7%-11%).

Orforglipron (Eli Lilly), a once-daily pill, produced weight loss of 9%-15%, depending on the dose.

The study found that four investigational drugs did not produce as much weight loss: Beinaglutide (0.2-mg injection three times daily, 6%), efpeglenatide (4- to 8-mg injection once weekly, about 7%), exenatide (10-mcg injection twice daily, 5-kg change in weight), and noiiglutide (once-daily injection, 9%).

The most common adverse events for all GLP-1s were gastrointestinal (GI), such as nausea, diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting. Across all agents, 60%-80% of patients taking the medications experienced a GI adverse event, although most were transient, according to the authors. A total of 6%-26% of patients discontinued treatment as a result of a side effect.

The authors said that no serious GI disorders, such as bowel obstruction or gastroparesis, were reported in any of the 26 trials.

The review also shows that it is likely that GLP-1s would have to be used chronically to have the greatest effect, said the authors. They noted that they found that trials “with longer treatment durations demonstrate similar weight loss results to those with shorter follow-up, reinforcing the idea that continuous treatment may be required.”

One coauthor reported receiving payments or honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Novo Nordisk. The study was carried out independently without any grant or other funding.

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

A systematic review of 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) finds that, among glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and co-agonists on the market or still being investigated, the experimental drug retatrutide (Eli Lilly) produces the greatest weight loss.

The review, conducted by researchers at McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, examined three commercially available medications in the class and nine that have not yet received regulatory approval.

In healthy adults with overweight or obesity who did not have diabetes, the highest mean reductions in relative and absolute body weight were achieved with once-weekly triple glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist retatrutide, followed by the dual GIP/GLP-1 agonist tirzepatide (Eli Lilly) and lastly by the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Novo Nordisk), according to the authors.

The use of all the GLP-1s or co-agonist medications “led to decreased body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, SBP (systolic blood pressure), and DBP (diastolic blood pressure),” wrote the authors in Annals of Internal Medicine. All the medications had a similar safety profile.

The researchers did not find any head-to-head studies, so instead examined the results from 26 RCTs that enrolled more than 15,000 patients. Only trials with a treatment duration of at least 16 weeks were included, to ensure that patients had at least a month of a fixed dose.

Not surprisingly, the review found that, except for semaglutide, trials with “dual and triple agonists generally reported numerically greater mean weight losses than single GLP-1 agonists.”

They caution, however, against drawing conclusions about comparative efficacy, as the populations, control groups, and contexts of the various studies might not be directly comparable. All the trial enrollees also received lifestyle modification along with drug therapy or placebo, but the interventions and protocols varied across the studies.

The authors found that individuals on retatrutide (12-mg once-weekly injection) lost 22% of body weight from baseline after 48 weeks. Tirzepatide (15 mg once-weekly injection) recipients lost almost 18% of body weight after 72 weeks, while those on semaglutide (2.4-mg once-weekly injection) lost about 14% after 68 weeks. Both tirzepatide and semaglutide are commercially available.

Patients taking liraglutide (3-mg once-daily injection), also on the market, lost up to 6% of body weight after 26 weeks.

The authors also examined studies of investigational agents and reported that the greatest loss, aside from retatrutide, was with the dual glucagon/GLP-1 agonists survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim; 6%-15%) and mazdutide (Innovent Biologics; 7%-11%).

Orforglipron (Eli Lilly), a once-daily pill, produced weight loss of 9%-15%, depending on the dose.

The study found that four investigational drugs did not produce as much weight loss: Beinaglutide (0.2-mg injection three times daily, 6%), efpeglenatide (4- to 8-mg injection once weekly, about 7%), exenatide (10-mcg injection twice daily, 5-kg change in weight), and noiiglutide (once-daily injection, 9%).

The most common adverse events for all GLP-1s were gastrointestinal (GI), such as nausea, diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting. Across all agents, 60%-80% of patients taking the medications experienced a GI adverse event, although most were transient, according to the authors. A total of 6%-26% of patients discontinued treatment as a result of a side effect.

The authors said that no serious GI disorders, such as bowel obstruction or gastroparesis, were reported in any of the 26 trials.

The review also shows that it is likely that GLP-1s would have to be used chronically to have the greatest effect, said the authors. They noted that they found that trials “with longer treatment durations demonstrate similar weight loss results to those with shorter follow-up, reinforcing the idea that continuous treatment may be required.”

One coauthor reported receiving payments or honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Novo Nordisk. The study was carried out independently without any grant or other funding.

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

The woman, in severe pain from hip and knee osteoarthritis, was confined to a wheelchair and had been told that would likely be for life. To qualify for hip replacement surgery, she needed to lose 100 pounds, a seemingly impossible goal. But she wanted to try.

“We tried a couple of medicines — oral medicines off-label — topiramate, phentermine,” said Leslie Golden, MD, MPH, DABM, a family medicine physician and obesity medicine specialist in Watertown, Wisconsin, 42 miles northeast of Madison.

They weren’t enough. But then Golden turned to glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and they delivered.

“She did lose a significant amount of weight and was able to get the hip replacement,” said Golden.

It took a couple of years. However, seeing her walk into her office, rather than wheel in, “is still one of the joys of my practice,” Golden said. “She’s so grateful. She felt everyone else had written her off.”

As she told Golden: “If I fell and broke my leg today, they would take me to surgery without concern.”

Because her hip replacement was viewed as a nonemergency procedure, the accepted threshold for elective safe surgery was a body mass index (BMI) < 40. That BMI cutoff can vary from provider to provider and medical facility to medical facility but is often required for other surgeries as well, including kidney and lung transplants, gender-affirming surgery, bariatric surgery, hernia surgery, and in vitro fertilization procedures.

Golden is at the forefront of a growing trend — obesity medicine physicians collaborating with surgeons to prescribe the more effective GLP-1s and get surgery candidates to the starting line. She worked with Rajit Chakravarty, MD, an adult reconstructive surgeon who practices in Watertown and nearby Madison, to oversee the weight loss.

 

High BMIs & Surgery Issues

High BMIs have long been linked with postsurgery complications, poor wound healing, and other issues, although some research now is questioning some of those associations. Even so, surgeons have long stressed weight loss for their patients with obesity before orthopedic and other procedures.

These days, surgeons are more likely to need to have that talk. In the last decade, the age-adjusted prevalence of severe obesity — a BMI of ≥ 40 — has increased from 7.7% to 9.7% of US adults. The number of joint replacements is also rising — more than 700,000 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and more than 450,000 total hip arthroplasty (THA), according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. As the population ages, those numbers are expected to increase.

 

Making the GLP-1 Choice

GLP-1s aren’t the only choice, of course. But they’re often more effective, as Golden found, than other medications. And when his patients with obesity are offered bariatric surgery or GLP-1s, “people definitely want to avoid the bariatric surgery,” Chakravarty said.

With the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of semaglutide (Wegovy) in June 2021 for chronic weight management and then tirzepatide (Zepbound) in November 2023, interest has boomed, he said, among his surgery candidates with a high BMI.

The FDA approved Wegovy based on clinical trials, including one in which participants lost an average of 12.4% of initial body weight compared with those on placebo. It approved Zepbound based on clinical trials, including one in which those on Zepbound lost an average of 18% of their body weight, compared with those on placebo.

The wheelchair-bound woman, now 65, began with a BMI of 63, Golden said. She negotiated a cutoff of 45 with the surgeon and got the go-ahead. Currently, her BMI is 36 as she stayed on the medications.

Beyond the benefit of GLP-1s helping patients meet the BMI cutoff, some research finds fewer postoperative infections and readmissions with their use. This study found the medications did lower both, and another found reduced readmissions and complications.

 

Growing Partnerships, Increasing Success

Helping patients lose weight isn’t just about lowering the BMI, Chakravarty pointed out. The aim is to improve nutritional health — to teach patients how to eat healthfully for their needs, in turn improving other health barometers. Referring them to an obesity medicine physician helps to meet those goals.

When Daniel Wiznia, MD, a Yale Medicine orthopedic surgeon and codirector of the Avascular Necrosis Program, has a patient who must delay a TKA or THA until they meet a BMI cutoff, he refers that patient to the Yale Medicine Center for Weight Management, New Haven, Connecticut, to learn about weight loss, including the options of anti-obesity medications or bariatric surgery.

Taking the GLP-1s can be a game changer, according to Wiznia and John Morton, MD, MPH, FACS, FASMBS, Yale’s medical director of Bariatric Surgery and professor and vice chair of surgery, who is a physician-director of the center. The program includes other options, such as bariatric surgery, and emphasizes diet and other lifestyle measures. GLP-1s give about a 15% weight loss, Morton said, compared with bariatric surgery providing up to 30%.

Sarah Stombaugh, MD, a family medicine and obesity medicine physician in Charlottesville, Virginia, often gets referrals from two orthopedic surgeons in her community. One recent patient in her early 60s had a BMI of 43.2, too high to qualify for the TKA she needed. On GLP-1s, the initial goal was to decrease a weight of 244 to 225, bringing the BMI to 39.9. The woman did that, then kept losing before her surgery was scheduled, getting to a weight of 210 or a BMI of 37 and staying there for 3 months before the surgery.

She had the TKA, and 5 months out, she is doing well, Stombaugh said. “We do medical weight loss primarily with the GLP-1s because they’re simply the best, the most effective,” Stombaugh said. She does occasionally use oral medications such as naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).

Stombaugh sees the collaborating trend as still evolving. When she attends obesity medicine conferences, not all her colleagues report they are partnering with surgeons. But she predicts the practice will increase, saying the popularization of what she terms the more effective GLP-1 medications Wegovy and Zepbound is driving it. Partnering with the surgeon requires a conversation at the beginning, when the referral is made, about goals. After that, she sees her patient monthly and sends progress notes to the surgeon.

Golden collaborates with three orthopedic groups in her area, primarily for knee and hip surgeries, but has also helped patients meet the BMI cutoff before spine-related surgeries. She is helping a lung transplant patient now. She has seen several patients who must meet BMI requirements before starting in vitro fertilization, due to the need for conscious sedation for egg retrieval. She has had a few patients who had to meet a BMI cutoff for nonemergency hernia repair.

 

Insurance Issues

Insurance remains an issue for the pricey medications. “Only about a third of patients are routinely covered with insurance,” Morton said.

However, it’s improving, he said. Golden also finds about a third of private payers cover the medication but tries to use manufacturers’ coupons to help defray the costs (from about $1000 or $1400 to about $500 a month). She has sometimes gotten enough samples to get patients to their BMI goal

Morton consulted for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Olympus, Teleflex, and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The woman, in severe pain from hip and knee osteoarthritis, was confined to a wheelchair and had been told that would likely be for life. To qualify for hip replacement surgery, she needed to lose 100 pounds, a seemingly impossible goal. But she wanted to try.

“We tried a couple of medicines — oral medicines off-label — topiramate, phentermine,” said Leslie Golden, MD, MPH, DABM, a family medicine physician and obesity medicine specialist in Watertown, Wisconsin, 42 miles northeast of Madison.

They weren’t enough. But then Golden turned to glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and they delivered.

“She did lose a significant amount of weight and was able to get the hip replacement,” said Golden.

It took a couple of years. However, seeing her walk into her office, rather than wheel in, “is still one of the joys of my practice,” Golden said. “She’s so grateful. She felt everyone else had written her off.”

As she told Golden: “If I fell and broke my leg today, they would take me to surgery without concern.”

Because her hip replacement was viewed as a nonemergency procedure, the accepted threshold for elective safe surgery was a body mass index (BMI) < 40. That BMI cutoff can vary from provider to provider and medical facility to medical facility but is often required for other surgeries as well, including kidney and lung transplants, gender-affirming surgery, bariatric surgery, hernia surgery, and in vitro fertilization procedures.

Golden is at the forefront of a growing trend — obesity medicine physicians collaborating with surgeons to prescribe the more effective GLP-1s and get surgery candidates to the starting line. She worked with Rajit Chakravarty, MD, an adult reconstructive surgeon who practices in Watertown and nearby Madison, to oversee the weight loss.

 

High BMIs & Surgery Issues

High BMIs have long been linked with postsurgery complications, poor wound healing, and other issues, although some research now is questioning some of those associations. Even so, surgeons have long stressed weight loss for their patients with obesity before orthopedic and other procedures.

These days, surgeons are more likely to need to have that talk. In the last decade, the age-adjusted prevalence of severe obesity — a BMI of ≥ 40 — has increased from 7.7% to 9.7% of US adults. The number of joint replacements is also rising — more than 700,000 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and more than 450,000 total hip arthroplasty (THA), according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. As the population ages, those numbers are expected to increase.

 

Making the GLP-1 Choice

GLP-1s aren’t the only choice, of course. But they’re often more effective, as Golden found, than other medications. And when his patients with obesity are offered bariatric surgery or GLP-1s, “people definitely want to avoid the bariatric surgery,” Chakravarty said.

With the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of semaglutide (Wegovy) in June 2021 for chronic weight management and then tirzepatide (Zepbound) in November 2023, interest has boomed, he said, among his surgery candidates with a high BMI.

The FDA approved Wegovy based on clinical trials, including one in which participants lost an average of 12.4% of initial body weight compared with those on placebo. It approved Zepbound based on clinical trials, including one in which those on Zepbound lost an average of 18% of their body weight, compared with those on placebo.

The wheelchair-bound woman, now 65, began with a BMI of 63, Golden said. She negotiated a cutoff of 45 with the surgeon and got the go-ahead. Currently, her BMI is 36 as she stayed on the medications.

Beyond the benefit of GLP-1s helping patients meet the BMI cutoff, some research finds fewer postoperative infections and readmissions with their use. This study found the medications did lower both, and another found reduced readmissions and complications.

 

Growing Partnerships, Increasing Success

Helping patients lose weight isn’t just about lowering the BMI, Chakravarty pointed out. The aim is to improve nutritional health — to teach patients how to eat healthfully for their needs, in turn improving other health barometers. Referring them to an obesity medicine physician helps to meet those goals.

When Daniel Wiznia, MD, a Yale Medicine orthopedic surgeon and codirector of the Avascular Necrosis Program, has a patient who must delay a TKA or THA until they meet a BMI cutoff, he refers that patient to the Yale Medicine Center for Weight Management, New Haven, Connecticut, to learn about weight loss, including the options of anti-obesity medications or bariatric surgery.

Taking the GLP-1s can be a game changer, according to Wiznia and John Morton, MD, MPH, FACS, FASMBS, Yale’s medical director of Bariatric Surgery and professor and vice chair of surgery, who is a physician-director of the center. The program includes other options, such as bariatric surgery, and emphasizes diet and other lifestyle measures. GLP-1s give about a 15% weight loss, Morton said, compared with bariatric surgery providing up to 30%.

Sarah Stombaugh, MD, a family medicine and obesity medicine physician in Charlottesville, Virginia, often gets referrals from two orthopedic surgeons in her community. One recent patient in her early 60s had a BMI of 43.2, too high to qualify for the TKA she needed. On GLP-1s, the initial goal was to decrease a weight of 244 to 225, bringing the BMI to 39.9. The woman did that, then kept losing before her surgery was scheduled, getting to a weight of 210 or a BMI of 37 and staying there for 3 months before the surgery.

She had the TKA, and 5 months out, she is doing well, Stombaugh said. “We do medical weight loss primarily with the GLP-1s because they’re simply the best, the most effective,” Stombaugh said. She does occasionally use oral medications such as naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).

Stombaugh sees the collaborating trend as still evolving. When she attends obesity medicine conferences, not all her colleagues report they are partnering with surgeons. But she predicts the practice will increase, saying the popularization of what she terms the more effective GLP-1 medications Wegovy and Zepbound is driving it. Partnering with the surgeon requires a conversation at the beginning, when the referral is made, about goals. After that, she sees her patient monthly and sends progress notes to the surgeon.

Golden collaborates with three orthopedic groups in her area, primarily for knee and hip surgeries, but has also helped patients meet the BMI cutoff before spine-related surgeries. She is helping a lung transplant patient now. She has seen several patients who must meet BMI requirements before starting in vitro fertilization, due to the need for conscious sedation for egg retrieval. She has had a few patients who had to meet a BMI cutoff for nonemergency hernia repair.

 

Insurance Issues

Insurance remains an issue for the pricey medications. “Only about a third of patients are routinely covered with insurance,” Morton said.

However, it’s improving, he said. Golden also finds about a third of private payers cover the medication but tries to use manufacturers’ coupons to help defray the costs (from about $1000 or $1400 to about $500 a month). She has sometimes gotten enough samples to get patients to their BMI goal

Morton consulted for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Olympus, Teleflex, and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The woman, in severe pain from hip and knee osteoarthritis, was confined to a wheelchair and had been told that would likely be for life. To qualify for hip replacement surgery, she needed to lose 100 pounds, a seemingly impossible goal. But she wanted to try.

“We tried a couple of medicines — oral medicines off-label — topiramate, phentermine,” said Leslie Golden, MD, MPH, DABM, a family medicine physician and obesity medicine specialist in Watertown, Wisconsin, 42 miles northeast of Madison.

They weren’t enough. But then Golden turned to glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and they delivered.

“She did lose a significant amount of weight and was able to get the hip replacement,” said Golden.

It took a couple of years. However, seeing her walk into her office, rather than wheel in, “is still one of the joys of my practice,” Golden said. “She’s so grateful. She felt everyone else had written her off.”

As she told Golden: “If I fell and broke my leg today, they would take me to surgery without concern.”

Because her hip replacement was viewed as a nonemergency procedure, the accepted threshold for elective safe surgery was a body mass index (BMI) < 40. That BMI cutoff can vary from provider to provider and medical facility to medical facility but is often required for other surgeries as well, including kidney and lung transplants, gender-affirming surgery, bariatric surgery, hernia surgery, and in vitro fertilization procedures.

Golden is at the forefront of a growing trend — obesity medicine physicians collaborating with surgeons to prescribe the more effective GLP-1s and get surgery candidates to the starting line. She worked with Rajit Chakravarty, MD, an adult reconstructive surgeon who practices in Watertown and nearby Madison, to oversee the weight loss.

 

High BMIs & Surgery Issues

High BMIs have long been linked with postsurgery complications, poor wound healing, and other issues, although some research now is questioning some of those associations. Even so, surgeons have long stressed weight loss for their patients with obesity before orthopedic and other procedures.

These days, surgeons are more likely to need to have that talk. In the last decade, the age-adjusted prevalence of severe obesity — a BMI of ≥ 40 — has increased from 7.7% to 9.7% of US adults. The number of joint replacements is also rising — more than 700,000 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and more than 450,000 total hip arthroplasty (THA), according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. As the population ages, those numbers are expected to increase.

 

Making the GLP-1 Choice

GLP-1s aren’t the only choice, of course. But they’re often more effective, as Golden found, than other medications. And when his patients with obesity are offered bariatric surgery or GLP-1s, “people definitely want to avoid the bariatric surgery,” Chakravarty said.

With the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of semaglutide (Wegovy) in June 2021 for chronic weight management and then tirzepatide (Zepbound) in November 2023, interest has boomed, he said, among his surgery candidates with a high BMI.

The FDA approved Wegovy based on clinical trials, including one in which participants lost an average of 12.4% of initial body weight compared with those on placebo. It approved Zepbound based on clinical trials, including one in which those on Zepbound lost an average of 18% of their body weight, compared with those on placebo.

The wheelchair-bound woman, now 65, began with a BMI of 63, Golden said. She negotiated a cutoff of 45 with the surgeon and got the go-ahead. Currently, her BMI is 36 as she stayed on the medications.

Beyond the benefit of GLP-1s helping patients meet the BMI cutoff, some research finds fewer postoperative infections and readmissions with their use. This study found the medications did lower both, and another found reduced readmissions and complications.

 

Growing Partnerships, Increasing Success

Helping patients lose weight isn’t just about lowering the BMI, Chakravarty pointed out. The aim is to improve nutritional health — to teach patients how to eat healthfully for their needs, in turn improving other health barometers. Referring them to an obesity medicine physician helps to meet those goals.

When Daniel Wiznia, MD, a Yale Medicine orthopedic surgeon and codirector of the Avascular Necrosis Program, has a patient who must delay a TKA or THA until they meet a BMI cutoff, he refers that patient to the Yale Medicine Center for Weight Management, New Haven, Connecticut, to learn about weight loss, including the options of anti-obesity medications or bariatric surgery.

Taking the GLP-1s can be a game changer, according to Wiznia and John Morton, MD, MPH, FACS, FASMBS, Yale’s medical director of Bariatric Surgery and professor and vice chair of surgery, who is a physician-director of the center. The program includes other options, such as bariatric surgery, and emphasizes diet and other lifestyle measures. GLP-1s give about a 15% weight loss, Morton said, compared with bariatric surgery providing up to 30%.

Sarah Stombaugh, MD, a family medicine and obesity medicine physician in Charlottesville, Virginia, often gets referrals from two orthopedic surgeons in her community. One recent patient in her early 60s had a BMI of 43.2, too high to qualify for the TKA she needed. On GLP-1s, the initial goal was to decrease a weight of 244 to 225, bringing the BMI to 39.9. The woman did that, then kept losing before her surgery was scheduled, getting to a weight of 210 or a BMI of 37 and staying there for 3 months before the surgery.

She had the TKA, and 5 months out, she is doing well, Stombaugh said. “We do medical weight loss primarily with the GLP-1s because they’re simply the best, the most effective,” Stombaugh said. She does occasionally use oral medications such as naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).

Stombaugh sees the collaborating trend as still evolving. When she attends obesity medicine conferences, not all her colleagues report they are partnering with surgeons. But she predicts the practice will increase, saying the popularization of what she terms the more effective GLP-1 medications Wegovy and Zepbound is driving it. Partnering with the surgeon requires a conversation at the beginning, when the referral is made, about goals. After that, she sees her patient monthly and sends progress notes to the surgeon.

Golden collaborates with three orthopedic groups in her area, primarily for knee and hip surgeries, but has also helped patients meet the BMI cutoff before spine-related surgeries. She is helping a lung transplant patient now. She has seen several patients who must meet BMI requirements before starting in vitro fertilization, due to the need for conscious sedation for egg retrieval. She has had a few patients who had to meet a BMI cutoff for nonemergency hernia repair.

 

Insurance Issues

Insurance remains an issue for the pricey medications. “Only about a third of patients are routinely covered with insurance,” Morton said.

However, it’s improving, he said. Golden also finds about a third of private payers cover the medication but tries to use manufacturers’ coupons to help defray the costs (from about $1000 or $1400 to about $500 a month). She has sometimes gotten enough samples to get patients to their BMI goal

Morton consulted for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Olympus, Teleflex, and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Fragmented sleep — that is, increased wakefulness and reduced sleep efficiency — is a sign of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), a study using actigraphy showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed sleep-wake rhythms in 35 patients with MASLD (median age, 58 years; 66% were men; 80% with metabolic syndrome) and 16 matched healthy controls (median age, 61 years; 50% were men) using data collected 24/7 via actigraphy for 4 weeks.
• Sub-analyses were conducted with MASLD comparator groups: 16 patients with MASH, 8 with MASH with cirrhosis, and 11 with non-MASH–related cirrhosis.
• All participants visited the clinic at baseline, week 2, and week 4 to undergo a clinical investigation and complete questionnaires about their sleep.
• A standardized sleep hygiene education session was conducted at week 2.

TAKEAWAY:

• Actigraphy data from patients with MASLD did not reveal significant differences in bedtime, sleep-onset latency, sleep duration, wake-up time, or time in bed compared with controls.
• However, compared with controls, those with MASLD woke 55% more often at night (8.5 vs 5.5), lay awake 113% longer after having first fallen asleep (45.4 minutes vs 21.3 minutes), and slept more often and longer during the day (decreased sleep efficiency).
• Subgroup analyses showed that actigraphy-measured sleep patterns and quality were similarly impaired in patients with MASH, MASH with cirrhosis, and non–MASH-related cirrhosis.
• Patients with MASLD self-reported their fragmented sleep as shorter sleep with a delayed onset. In sleep diaries, 32% of patients with MASLD reported sleep disturbances caused by psychological stress, compared with only 6.25% of controls and 9% of patients with cirrhosis.
• The sleep education session did not change the actigraphy measures or the sleep parameters assessed with sleep questionnaires at the end of the study.

IN PRACTICE:

“We concluded from our data that sleep fragmentation plays a role in the pathogenesis of human MASLD. Whether MASLD causes sleep disorders or vice versa remains unknown. The underlying mechanism presumably involves genetics, environmental factors, and the activation of immune responses — ultimately driven by obesity and metabolic syndrome,” said corresponding author.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sofia Schaeffer, PhD, University of Basel, Switzerland, was published online in Frontiers in Network Physiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. There was a significant difference in body mass index between patients with MASLD (median, 31) and controls (median, 23.5), representing a potential confounder that could explain the differences in sleep behavior. Undetected obstructive sleep apnea could also be a confounding factor. The small number of participants limited the interpretation and generalization of the data, especially in the MASLD subgroups.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a grant from the University of Basel. One coauthor received a research grant from the University Center for Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, Basel, Switzerland. Another coauthor was employed by NovoLytiX. Schaeffer and the remaining coauthors declared that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Fragmented sleep — that is, increased wakefulness and reduced sleep efficiency — is a sign of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), a study using actigraphy showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed sleep-wake rhythms in 35 patients with MASLD (median age, 58 years; 66% were men; 80% with metabolic syndrome) and 16 matched healthy controls (median age, 61 years; 50% were men) using data collected 24/7 via actigraphy for 4 weeks.
• Sub-analyses were conducted with MASLD comparator groups: 16 patients with MASH, 8 with MASH with cirrhosis, and 11 with non-MASH–related cirrhosis.
• All participants visited the clinic at baseline, week 2, and week 4 to undergo a clinical investigation and complete questionnaires about their sleep.
• A standardized sleep hygiene education session was conducted at week 2.

TAKEAWAY:

• Actigraphy data from patients with MASLD did not reveal significant differences in bedtime, sleep-onset latency, sleep duration, wake-up time, or time in bed compared with controls.
• However, compared with controls, those with MASLD woke 55% more often at night (8.5 vs 5.5), lay awake 113% longer after having first fallen asleep (45.4 minutes vs 21.3 minutes), and slept more often and longer during the day (decreased sleep efficiency).
• Subgroup analyses showed that actigraphy-measured sleep patterns and quality were similarly impaired in patients with MASH, MASH with cirrhosis, and non–MASH-related cirrhosis.
• Patients with MASLD self-reported their fragmented sleep as shorter sleep with a delayed onset. In sleep diaries, 32% of patients with MASLD reported sleep disturbances caused by psychological stress, compared with only 6.25% of controls and 9% of patients with cirrhosis.
• The sleep education session did not change the actigraphy measures or the sleep parameters assessed with sleep questionnaires at the end of the study.

IN PRACTICE:

“We concluded from our data that sleep fragmentation plays a role in the pathogenesis of human MASLD. Whether MASLD causes sleep disorders or vice versa remains unknown. The underlying mechanism presumably involves genetics, environmental factors, and the activation of immune responses — ultimately driven by obesity and metabolic syndrome,” said corresponding author.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sofia Schaeffer, PhD, University of Basel, Switzerland, was published online in Frontiers in Network Physiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. There was a significant difference in body mass index between patients with MASLD (median, 31) and controls (median, 23.5), representing a potential confounder that could explain the differences in sleep behavior. Undetected obstructive sleep apnea could also be a confounding factor. The small number of participants limited the interpretation and generalization of the data, especially in the MASLD subgroups.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a grant from the University of Basel. One coauthor received a research grant from the University Center for Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, Basel, Switzerland. Another coauthor was employed by NovoLytiX. Schaeffer and the remaining coauthors declared that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Fragmented sleep — that is, increased wakefulness and reduced sleep efficiency — is a sign of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), a study using actigraphy showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed sleep-wake rhythms in 35 patients with MASLD (median age, 58 years; 66% were men; 80% with metabolic syndrome) and 16 matched healthy controls (median age, 61 years; 50% were men) using data collected 24/7 via actigraphy for 4 weeks.
• Sub-analyses were conducted with MASLD comparator groups: 16 patients with MASH, 8 with MASH with cirrhosis, and 11 with non-MASH–related cirrhosis.
• All participants visited the clinic at baseline, week 2, and week 4 to undergo a clinical investigation and complete questionnaires about their sleep.
• A standardized sleep hygiene education session was conducted at week 2.

TAKEAWAY:

• Actigraphy data from patients with MASLD did not reveal significant differences in bedtime, sleep-onset latency, sleep duration, wake-up time, or time in bed compared with controls.
• However, compared with controls, those with MASLD woke 55% more often at night (8.5 vs 5.5), lay awake 113% longer after having first fallen asleep (45.4 minutes vs 21.3 minutes), and slept more often and longer during the day (decreased sleep efficiency).
• Subgroup analyses showed that actigraphy-measured sleep patterns and quality were similarly impaired in patients with MASH, MASH with cirrhosis, and non–MASH-related cirrhosis.
• Patients with MASLD self-reported their fragmented sleep as shorter sleep with a delayed onset. In sleep diaries, 32% of patients with MASLD reported sleep disturbances caused by psychological stress, compared with only 6.25% of controls and 9% of patients with cirrhosis.
• The sleep education session did not change the actigraphy measures or the sleep parameters assessed with sleep questionnaires at the end of the study.

IN PRACTICE:

“We concluded from our data that sleep fragmentation plays a role in the pathogenesis of human MASLD. Whether MASLD causes sleep disorders or vice versa remains unknown. The underlying mechanism presumably involves genetics, environmental factors, and the activation of immune responses — ultimately driven by obesity and metabolic syndrome,” said corresponding author.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sofia Schaeffer, PhD, University of Basel, Switzerland, was published online in Frontiers in Network Physiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. There was a significant difference in body mass index between patients with MASLD (median, 31) and controls (median, 23.5), representing a potential confounder that could explain the differences in sleep behavior. Undetected obstructive sleep apnea could also be a confounding factor. The small number of participants limited the interpretation and generalization of the data, especially in the MASLD subgroups.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a grant from the University of Basel. One coauthor received a research grant from the University Center for Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, Basel, Switzerland. Another coauthor was employed by NovoLytiX. Schaeffer and the remaining coauthors declared that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A program combining theoretical training with free disposal containers can effectively increase knowledge and improve sharps waste disposal practices among patients with diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• A significant number of patients with diabetes administer insulin at home. Unsafe waste disposal including insulin pens, syringes, and lancets increases the risk for needle-stick injuries, microbial infections, and plastic waste accumulation, highlighting the need for safe disposal practices.
• Researchers conducted an experimental study at El-Horraya Polyclinic in Alexandria, Egypt, between November 2022 and April 2023 to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention program in improving knowledge and practices related to safe sharps disposal among patients with diabetes.
• Overall, 100 patients (median age, 61 years; 92% living in urban areas) with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes were recruited and divided into the educational intervention (n = 50) and nonintervention (n = 50) groups; majority (67%) had diabetes for more than 10 years.
• The intervention group received educational sessions addressing improper disposal risks and environmental impacts along with practical demonstrations of correct sharps disposal methods; they were also given free puncture-resistant containers to safely dispose of the sharp waste generated from diabetes management.
• Assessments were performed at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months postintervention, evaluating knowledge levels (poor: < 50%, fair: 50% to < 70%, good: 70%-100%) and practice scores (poor: 0-6, fair: 7-10, good: 11-14).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 58% of the patients used insulin pens, and approximately 75% required two doses of insulin daily.
• The median monthly disposal was 10 syringes per patient among syringe users and eight pen needles per patient among pen users.
• At baseline, there were no differences in the knowledge scores between the intervention and nonintervention groups; however, at both 2 and 4 months, the intervention group showed a significantly higher median knowledge score than the nonintervention group (P < .001 for both).
• Likewise, practice scores also showed marked improvements in the intervention group, compared with the nonintervention group at the end of the program (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“The success of the environmental education program underscores the need for targeted interventions to enhance patient knowledge and safe sharps disposal practices. By offering accessible disposal options and raising awareness, healthcare facilities can significantly contribute to preventing accidental needle-stick injuries and reducing the risk of infectious disease transmission,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hossam Mohamed Hassan Soliman, High Institute of Public Health, Alexandria University, Egypt. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Interview bias and self-reporting bias in data collection were major limitations of this study. The quasi-experimental design, lacking randomization, may have limited the strength of causal inferences.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was received for this study, and the authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A program combining theoretical training with free disposal containers can effectively increase knowledge and improve sharps waste disposal practices among patients with diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• A significant number of patients with diabetes administer insulin at home. Unsafe waste disposal including insulin pens, syringes, and lancets increases the risk for needle-stick injuries, microbial infections, and plastic waste accumulation, highlighting the need for safe disposal practices.
• Researchers conducted an experimental study at El-Horraya Polyclinic in Alexandria, Egypt, between November 2022 and April 2023 to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention program in improving knowledge and practices related to safe sharps disposal among patients with diabetes.
• Overall, 100 patients (median age, 61 years; 92% living in urban areas) with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes were recruited and divided into the educational intervention (n = 50) and nonintervention (n = 50) groups; majority (67%) had diabetes for more than 10 years.
• The intervention group received educational sessions addressing improper disposal risks and environmental impacts along with practical demonstrations of correct sharps disposal methods; they were also given free puncture-resistant containers to safely dispose of the sharp waste generated from diabetes management.
• Assessments were performed at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months postintervention, evaluating knowledge levels (poor: < 50%, fair: 50% to < 70%, good: 70%-100%) and practice scores (poor: 0-6, fair: 7-10, good: 11-14).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 58% of the patients used insulin pens, and approximately 75% required two doses of insulin daily.
• The median monthly disposal was 10 syringes per patient among syringe users and eight pen needles per patient among pen users.
• At baseline, there were no differences in the knowledge scores between the intervention and nonintervention groups; however, at both 2 and 4 months, the intervention group showed a significantly higher median knowledge score than the nonintervention group (P < .001 for both).
• Likewise, practice scores also showed marked improvements in the intervention group, compared with the nonintervention group at the end of the program (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“The success of the environmental education program underscores the need for targeted interventions to enhance patient knowledge and safe sharps disposal practices. By offering accessible disposal options and raising awareness, healthcare facilities can significantly contribute to preventing accidental needle-stick injuries and reducing the risk of infectious disease transmission,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hossam Mohamed Hassan Soliman, High Institute of Public Health, Alexandria University, Egypt. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Interview bias and self-reporting bias in data collection were major limitations of this study. The quasi-experimental design, lacking randomization, may have limited the strength of causal inferences.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was received for this study, and the authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A program combining theoretical training with free disposal containers can effectively increase knowledge and improve sharps waste disposal practices among patients with diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• A significant number of patients with diabetes administer insulin at home. Unsafe waste disposal including insulin pens, syringes, and lancets increases the risk for needle-stick injuries, microbial infections, and plastic waste accumulation, highlighting the need for safe disposal practices.
• Researchers conducted an experimental study at El-Horraya Polyclinic in Alexandria, Egypt, between November 2022 and April 2023 to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention program in improving knowledge and practices related to safe sharps disposal among patients with diabetes.
• Overall, 100 patients (median age, 61 years; 92% living in urban areas) with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes were recruited and divided into the educational intervention (n = 50) and nonintervention (n = 50) groups; majority (67%) had diabetes for more than 10 years.
• The intervention group received educational sessions addressing improper disposal risks and environmental impacts along with practical demonstrations of correct sharps disposal methods; they were also given free puncture-resistant containers to safely dispose of the sharp waste generated from diabetes management.
• Assessments were performed at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months postintervention, evaluating knowledge levels (poor: < 50%, fair: 50% to < 70%, good: 70%-100%) and practice scores (poor: 0-6, fair: 7-10, good: 11-14).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 58% of the patients used insulin pens, and approximately 75% required two doses of insulin daily.
• The median monthly disposal was 10 syringes per patient among syringe users and eight pen needles per patient among pen users.
• At baseline, there were no differences in the knowledge scores between the intervention and nonintervention groups; however, at both 2 and 4 months, the intervention group showed a significantly higher median knowledge score than the nonintervention group (P < .001 for both).
• Likewise, practice scores also showed marked improvements in the intervention group, compared with the nonintervention group at the end of the program (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“The success of the environmental education program underscores the need for targeted interventions to enhance patient knowledge and safe sharps disposal practices. By offering accessible disposal options and raising awareness, healthcare facilities can significantly contribute to preventing accidental needle-stick injuries and reducing the risk of infectious disease transmission,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hossam Mohamed Hassan Soliman, High Institute of Public Health, Alexandria University, Egypt. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Interview bias and self-reporting bias in data collection were major limitations of this study. The quasi-experimental design, lacking randomization, may have limited the strength of causal inferences.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was received for this study, and the authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

December 31, 2024

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’m Tamaan K. Osbourne-Roberts, family medicine physician and lifestyle medicine physician, here to discuss GLP-1 receptor agonist (RA) contraindications — the skinny on when not to prescribe. 

It can be hard not to think of GLP-1 RAs like Ozempic and Mounjaro as silver bullets, long-awaited miracle drugs that we should probably be putting in the water. And it’s true they have the potential to help a lot of people. 

However, there are definitely groups of patients who should not take these drugs or should take them with caution. They include the following: 

Patients with a family history of certain cancers. Given that GLP-1 RAs can increase the risk for thyroid cancer, patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 should not take these drugs.

Gut motility issues. Since one of the primary mechanisms of action for these drugs is to slow down the gut, patients with gastroparesis — diabetic or otherwise — or other gut motility issues should avoid these drugs. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease also should not use GLP-1 RAs. 

Pancreatitis. These medications can increase the risk for serious pancreatitis on their own, so use in patients who have had pancreatitis already is not recommended.

Renal impairment. An eGFR [estimated glomerular filtrationrate] below threshold, typically around 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², excludes GLP-1 RAs for some patients. Be certain to check the threshold for individual medications before prescribing. 

And finally, pregnancy. These drugs generally should not be used in pregnancy, and people of childbearing age with the ability to become pregnant should use contraception while taking these medications.

GLP-1 RAs are great medications and have the potential to revolutionize obesity medicine, but like all drugs, it’s important to use them safely. Knowing when not to prescribe them is an important step in ensuring patient safety and will help ensure they are available for those who need them.

Tamaan K. Osbourne-Roberts, MD, MBA, Denver, Colorado, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

December 31, 2024

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’m Tamaan K. Osbourne-Roberts, family medicine physician and lifestyle medicine physician, here to discuss GLP-1 receptor agonist (RA) contraindications — the skinny on when not to prescribe. 

It can be hard not to think of GLP-1 RAs like Ozempic and Mounjaro as silver bullets, long-awaited miracle drugs that we should probably be putting in the water. And it’s true they have the potential to help a lot of people. 

However, there are definitely groups of patients who should not take these drugs or should take them with caution. They include the following: 

Patients with a family history of certain cancers. Given that GLP-1 RAs can increase the risk for thyroid cancer, patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 should not take these drugs.

Gut motility issues. Since one of the primary mechanisms of action for these drugs is to slow down the gut, patients with gastroparesis — diabetic or otherwise — or other gut motility issues should avoid these drugs. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease also should not use GLP-1 RAs. 

Pancreatitis. These medications can increase the risk for serious pancreatitis on their own, so use in patients who have had pancreatitis already is not recommended.

Renal impairment. An eGFR [estimated glomerular filtrationrate] below threshold, typically around 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², excludes GLP-1 RAs for some patients. Be certain to check the threshold for individual medications before prescribing. 

And finally, pregnancy. These drugs generally should not be used in pregnancy, and people of childbearing age with the ability to become pregnant should use contraception while taking these medications.

GLP-1 RAs are great medications and have the potential to revolutionize obesity medicine, but like all drugs, it’s important to use them safely. Knowing when not to prescribe them is an important step in ensuring patient safety and will help ensure they are available for those who need them.

Tamaan K. Osbourne-Roberts, MD, MBA, Denver, Colorado, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

December 31, 2024

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’m Tamaan K. Osbourne-Roberts, family medicine physician and lifestyle medicine physician, here to discuss GLP-1 receptor agonist (RA) contraindications — the skinny on when not to prescribe. 

It can be hard not to think of GLP-1 RAs like Ozempic and Mounjaro as silver bullets, long-awaited miracle drugs that we should probably be putting in the water. And it’s true they have the potential to help a lot of people. 

However, there are definitely groups of patients who should not take these drugs or should take them with caution. They include the following: 

Patients with a family history of certain cancers. Given that GLP-1 RAs can increase the risk for thyroid cancer, patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 should not take these drugs.

Gut motility issues. Since one of the primary mechanisms of action for these drugs is to slow down the gut, patients with gastroparesis — diabetic or otherwise — or other gut motility issues should avoid these drugs. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease also should not use GLP-1 RAs. 

Pancreatitis. These medications can increase the risk for serious pancreatitis on their own, so use in patients who have had pancreatitis already is not recommended.

Renal impairment. An eGFR [estimated glomerular filtrationrate] below threshold, typically around 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², excludes GLP-1 RAs for some patients. Be certain to check the threshold for individual medications before prescribing. 

And finally, pregnancy. These drugs generally should not be used in pregnancy, and people of childbearing age with the ability to become pregnant should use contraception while taking these medications.

GLP-1 RAs are great medications and have the potential to revolutionize obesity medicine, but like all drugs, it’s important to use them safely. Knowing when not to prescribe them is an important step in ensuring patient safety and will help ensure they are available for those who need them.

Tamaan K. Osbourne-Roberts, MD, MBA, Denver, Colorado, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Long-term daily supplementation with moderate (1600 international units [IU]) or high (3200 IU) doses of vitamin D3 doesn’t reduce the risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D) among generally healthy older adults who have serum vitamin D levels sufficient for bone health.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Observational studies have consistently linked low vitamin D levels with an increased risk for T2D, and short-term randomized trials have shown a protective effect of vitamin D supplementation for those with impaired glucose metabolism but not in populations of average risk-taking low doses.
• The Finnish Vitamin D Trial, conducted from 2012 to 2018 in generally healthy men (≥ 60 years) and women (≥ 65 years) without a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, assessed the effects of 5 years of moderate and high vitamin D3 supplementation on the incidence of major chronic diseases.
• This analysis of T2D incidence included 2271 older participants (mean age, 68.2 years; 43.9% women) without self-reported use of diabetes medications at baseline.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 760), 1600 IU/d of vitamin D3 (n = 744), or 3200 IU/d of vitamin D3 (n = 767) and followed for a mean duration of 4.2 years, with T2D incidence assessed by diagnostic code from health registries.
• A representative subcohort of 505 participants underwent detailed investigations including blood sampling at months 0, 6, 12, and 24 for serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 [25(OH)D3], plasma glucose, and insulin concentrations.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference in T2D incidence was observed between groups: Placebo (5.0%; 38 people), 1600 IU/d (4.2%; 31 people), and 3200 IU/d (4.7%; 36 people; P = .731 for trend), with no appreciable sex differences.
• When stratified by body mass index (BMI), a lower incidence of T2D with vitamin D supplementation was observed among those with a BMI < 25 (with wide CIs), but not among those with a higher BMI.
• In the subcohort, no significant differences in changes in plasma glucose, insulin concentrations, BMI, or waist circumference with vitamin D3 were observed between the three treatment groups during the 24-month follow-up (P ≥ .19).
• In an analysis excluding T2D from the first 2 years, researchers observed a potentially increased risk for T2D with increasing vitamin D dose (with wide CIs).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings do not suggest benefits of long-term moderate- or high-dose vitamin D3 supplementation for incidence of type 2 diabetes or glucose metabolism or body size among generally healthy older vitamin D–sufficient men and women who were not at high risk for type 2 diabetes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jyrki K. Virtanen, University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio, and was published online in Diabetologia.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on national health registries to collect data on incident T2D events, which may have led to some T2D cases being missed. Data on serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations were available for the subcohort only, which prevented the investigation of whether vitamin D–deficient participants would have benefited from supplementation. The study was not specifically designed or powered for diabetes prevention, and information on participants’ diabetes history at baseline was not available. Wide CIs suggest uncertainty around some of the findings. Study participants were White and older, so caution is needed in generalizing results to groups of other ages, races and ethnicities, and different vitamin D levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, Juho Vainio Foundation, and other sources. Some authors reported receiving grants or travel support from pharmaceutical companies and certain institutions.

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

TOPLINE:

Long-term daily supplementation with moderate (1600 international units [IU]) or high (3200 IU) doses of vitamin D3 doesn’t reduce the risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D) among generally healthy older adults who have serum vitamin D levels sufficient for bone health.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Observational studies have consistently linked low vitamin D levels with an increased risk for T2D, and short-term randomized trials have shown a protective effect of vitamin D supplementation for those with impaired glucose metabolism but not in populations of average risk-taking low doses.
• The Finnish Vitamin D Trial, conducted from 2012 to 2018 in generally healthy men (≥ 60 years) and women (≥ 65 years) without a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, assessed the effects of 5 years of moderate and high vitamin D3 supplementation on the incidence of major chronic diseases.
• This analysis of T2D incidence included 2271 older participants (mean age, 68.2 years; 43.9% women) without self-reported use of diabetes medications at baseline.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 760), 1600 IU/d of vitamin D3 (n = 744), or 3200 IU/d of vitamin D3 (n = 767) and followed for a mean duration of 4.2 years, with T2D incidence assessed by diagnostic code from health registries.
• A representative subcohort of 505 participants underwent detailed investigations including blood sampling at months 0, 6, 12, and 24 for serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 [25(OH)D3], plasma glucose, and insulin concentrations.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference in T2D incidence was observed between groups: Placebo (5.0%; 38 people), 1600 IU/d (4.2%; 31 people), and 3200 IU/d (4.7%; 36 people; P = .731 for trend), with no appreciable sex differences.
• When stratified by body mass index (BMI), a lower incidence of T2D with vitamin D supplementation was observed among those with a BMI < 25 (with wide CIs), but not among those with a higher BMI.
• In the subcohort, no significant differences in changes in plasma glucose, insulin concentrations, BMI, or waist circumference with vitamin D3 were observed between the three treatment groups during the 24-month follow-up (P ≥ .19).
• In an analysis excluding T2D from the first 2 years, researchers observed a potentially increased risk for T2D with increasing vitamin D dose (with wide CIs).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings do not suggest benefits of long-term moderate- or high-dose vitamin D3 supplementation for incidence of type 2 diabetes or glucose metabolism or body size among generally healthy older vitamin D–sufficient men and women who were not at high risk for type 2 diabetes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jyrki K. Virtanen, University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio, and was published online in Diabetologia.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on national health registries to collect data on incident T2D events, which may have led to some T2D cases being missed. Data on serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations were available for the subcohort only, which prevented the investigation of whether vitamin D–deficient participants would have benefited from supplementation. The study was not specifically designed or powered for diabetes prevention, and information on participants’ diabetes history at baseline was not available. Wide CIs suggest uncertainty around some of the findings. Study participants were White and older, so caution is needed in generalizing results to groups of other ages, races and ethnicities, and different vitamin D levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, Juho Vainio Foundation, and other sources. Some authors reported receiving grants or travel support from pharmaceutical companies and certain institutions.

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

TOPLINE:

Long-term daily supplementation with moderate (1600 international units [IU]) or high (3200 IU) doses of vitamin D3 doesn’t reduce the risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D) among generally healthy older adults who have serum vitamin D levels sufficient for bone health.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Observational studies have consistently linked low vitamin D levels with an increased risk for T2D, and short-term randomized trials have shown a protective effect of vitamin D supplementation for those with impaired glucose metabolism but not in populations of average risk-taking low doses.
• The Finnish Vitamin D Trial, conducted from 2012 to 2018 in generally healthy men (≥ 60 years) and women (≥ 65 years) without a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, assessed the effects of 5 years of moderate and high vitamin D3 supplementation on the incidence of major chronic diseases.
• This analysis of T2D incidence included 2271 older participants (mean age, 68.2 years; 43.9% women) without self-reported use of diabetes medications at baseline.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 760), 1600 IU/d of vitamin D3 (n = 744), or 3200 IU/d of vitamin D3 (n = 767) and followed for a mean duration of 4.2 years, with T2D incidence assessed by diagnostic code from health registries.
• A representative subcohort of 505 participants underwent detailed investigations including blood sampling at months 0, 6, 12, and 24 for serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 [25(OH)D3], plasma glucose, and insulin concentrations.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference in T2D incidence was observed between groups: Placebo (5.0%; 38 people), 1600 IU/d (4.2%; 31 people), and 3200 IU/d (4.7%; 36 people; P = .731 for trend), with no appreciable sex differences.
• When stratified by body mass index (BMI), a lower incidence of T2D with vitamin D supplementation was observed among those with a BMI < 25 (with wide CIs), but not among those with a higher BMI.
• In the subcohort, no significant differences in changes in plasma glucose, insulin concentrations, BMI, or waist circumference with vitamin D3 were observed between the three treatment groups during the 24-month follow-up (P ≥ .19).
• In an analysis excluding T2D from the first 2 years, researchers observed a potentially increased risk for T2D with increasing vitamin D dose (with wide CIs).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings do not suggest benefits of long-term moderate- or high-dose vitamin D3 supplementation for incidence of type 2 diabetes or glucose metabolism or body size among generally healthy older vitamin D–sufficient men and women who were not at high risk for type 2 diabetes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jyrki K. Virtanen, University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio, and was published online in Diabetologia.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on national health registries to collect data on incident T2D events, which may have led to some T2D cases being missed. Data on serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations were available for the subcohort only, which prevented the investigation of whether vitamin D–deficient participants would have benefited from supplementation. The study was not specifically designed or powered for diabetes prevention, and information on participants’ diabetes history at baseline was not available. Wide CIs suggest uncertainty around some of the findings. Study participants were White and older, so caution is needed in generalizing results to groups of other ages, races and ethnicities, and different vitamin D levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, Juho Vainio Foundation, and other sources. Some authors reported receiving grants or travel support from pharmaceutical companies and certain institutions.

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

Estimation of cardiovascular risk (CVR) in individuals living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) was a key topic presented by Sophie Borot, MD, from Besançon University Hospital, Besançon, France, at the 40th congress of the French Society of Endocrinology. Borot highlighted the complexities of this subject, outlining several factors that contribute to its challenges.

A Heterogeneous Disease

T1D is a highly heterogeneous condition, and the patients included in studies reflect this diversity:

• The impact of blood glucose levels on CVR changes depending on diabetes duration, its history, the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes, average A1c levels over several years, and the patient’s age at diagnosis.
• A T1D diagnosis from the 1980s involved different management strategies compared with a diagnosis today.
• Patient profiles also vary based on complications such as nephropathy or cardiac autonomic neuropathy.
• Diffuse and distal arterial damage in T1D leads to more subtle and delayed pathologic events than in type 2 diabetes (T2D).
• Most clinical studies assess CVR over 10 years, but a 20- or 30-year evaluation would be more relevant.
• Patients may share CVR factors with the general population (eg, family history, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, obesity, hypertension, or elevated low-density lipoprotein [LDL] levels), raising questions about possible overlap with metabolic syndrome.
• Study criteria differ, with a focus on outcomes such as cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction and stroke, or other endpoints.
• CVR is measured using either absolute or relative values, with varying units of measurement.

A Recent Awareness

The concept of CVR in T1D is relatively new. Until the publication of the prospective Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study in 2005, it was believed that T1D control had no impact on CVR. However, follow-up results from the same cohort of 50,000 patients, published in 2022 after 30 years of observation, revealed that CVR was 20% higher in patients who received conventional hyperglycemia-targeted treatment than those undergoing intensive treatment. The CVR increases in conjunction with diabetes duration. The study also showed that even well-controlled glycemia in T1D carries CVR (primarily due to microangiopathy), and that the most critical factor for CVR is not A1c control but rather LDL cholesterol levels.

These findings were corroborated by a Danish prospective study, which demonstrated that while CVR increased in conjunction with the number of risk factors, it was 82% higher in patients with T1D than in a control group — even in the absence of risk factors.
 

Key Takeaways

At diagnosis, a fundamental difference exists between T1D and T2D in terms of the urgency to address CVR. In T2D, diabetes may have progressed for years before diagnosis, necessitating immediate CVR reduction efforts. In contrast, T1D is often diagnosed in younger patients with initially low CVR, raising questions about the optimal timing for interventions such as statin prescriptions.

Recommendations

The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines (2024) include the following recommendations:

For adults with T1D, treatment should mirror that for T2D:

• Between ages 20 and 40, statins are recommended if at least one CVR factor is present.
• For children 10 years of age or older with T1D, the LDL target is < 1.0 g/L. Statins are prescribed if LDL exceeds 1.6 g/L without CVR factors or 1.3 g/L with at least one CVR factor.

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines (2023) include the following:

• For the first time, a dedicated chapter addresses T1D. Like the American guidelines, routine statin use after age 40 is recommended.
• Before age 40, statins are prescribed if there is at least one CVR factor (microangiopathy) or a 10-year CVR ≥ 10% (based on a CVR calculator).

The International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes guidelines (2022) recommend:

• For children 10 years of age or older, the LDL target is < 1.0 g/L. Statins are recommended if LDL exceeds 1.3 g/L.

CAC Score in High CVR

The French Society of Cardiology and the French-speaking Society of Diabetology recommend incorporating the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score to refine CVR classification in high-risk patients. For those without prior cardiovascular events, LDL targets vary based on CAC and age. For example:

• High-risk patients with a CAC of 0-10 are reclassified as moderate risk, with an LDL target of < 1 g/L.
• A CAC ≥ 400 indicates very high risk, warranting coronary exploration.
• Patients under 50 years of age with a CAC of 11-100 remain high risk, with an LDL target of 0.7 g/L.

Conclusion

CVR in patients with T1D remains challenging to define. However, it is essential to consider long-term outcomes, planning for 30 or 40 years into the future. This involves educating patients about the importance of prevention, even when reassuring numbers are seen in their youth.

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

Estimation of cardiovascular risk (CVR) in individuals living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) was a key topic presented by Sophie Borot, MD, from Besançon University Hospital, Besançon, France, at the 40th congress of the French Society of Endocrinology. Borot highlighted the complexities of this subject, outlining several factors that contribute to its challenges.

A Heterogeneous Disease

T1D is a highly heterogeneous condition, and the patients included in studies reflect this diversity:

• The impact of blood glucose levels on CVR changes depending on diabetes duration, its history, the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes, average A1c levels over several years, and the patient’s age at diagnosis.
• A T1D diagnosis from the 1980s involved different management strategies compared with a diagnosis today.
• Patient profiles also vary based on complications such as nephropathy or cardiac autonomic neuropathy.
• Diffuse and distal arterial damage in T1D leads to more subtle and delayed pathologic events than in type 2 diabetes (T2D).
• Most clinical studies assess CVR over 10 years, but a 20- or 30-year evaluation would be more relevant.
• Patients may share CVR factors with the general population (eg, family history, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, obesity, hypertension, or elevated low-density lipoprotein [LDL] levels), raising questions about possible overlap with metabolic syndrome.
• Study criteria differ, with a focus on outcomes such as cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction and stroke, or other endpoints.
• CVR is measured using either absolute or relative values, with varying units of measurement.

A Recent Awareness

The concept of CVR in T1D is relatively new. Until the publication of the prospective Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study in 2005, it was believed that T1D control had no impact on CVR. However, follow-up results from the same cohort of 50,000 patients, published in 2022 after 30 years of observation, revealed that CVR was 20% higher in patients who received conventional hyperglycemia-targeted treatment than those undergoing intensive treatment. The CVR increases in conjunction with diabetes duration. The study also showed that even well-controlled glycemia in T1D carries CVR (primarily due to microangiopathy), and that the most critical factor for CVR is not A1c control but rather LDL cholesterol levels.

These findings were corroborated by a Danish prospective study, which demonstrated that while CVR increased in conjunction with the number of risk factors, it was 82% higher in patients with T1D than in a control group — even in the absence of risk factors.
 

Key Takeaways

At diagnosis, a fundamental difference exists between T1D and T2D in terms of the urgency to address CVR. In T2D, diabetes may have progressed for years before diagnosis, necessitating immediate CVR reduction efforts. In contrast, T1D is often diagnosed in younger patients with initially low CVR, raising questions about the optimal timing for interventions such as statin prescriptions.

Recommendations

The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines (2024) include the following recommendations:

For adults with T1D, treatment should mirror that for T2D:

• Between ages 20 and 40, statins are recommended if at least one CVR factor is present.
• For children 10 years of age or older with T1D, the LDL target is < 1.0 g/L. Statins are prescribed if LDL exceeds 1.6 g/L without CVR factors or 1.3 g/L with at least one CVR factor.

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines (2023) include the following:

• For the first time, a dedicated chapter addresses T1D. Like the American guidelines, routine statin use after age 40 is recommended.
• Before age 40, statins are prescribed if there is at least one CVR factor (microangiopathy) or a 10-year CVR ≥ 10% (based on a CVR calculator).

The International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes guidelines (2022) recommend:

• For children 10 years of age or older, the LDL target is < 1.0 g/L. Statins are recommended if LDL exceeds 1.3 g/L.

CAC Score in High CVR

The French Society of Cardiology and the French-speaking Society of Diabetology recommend incorporating the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score to refine CVR classification in high-risk patients. For those without prior cardiovascular events, LDL targets vary based on CAC and age. For example:

• High-risk patients with a CAC of 0-10 are reclassified as moderate risk, with an LDL target of < 1 g/L.
• A CAC ≥ 400 indicates very high risk, warranting coronary exploration.
• Patients under 50 years of age with a CAC of 11-100 remain high risk, with an LDL target of 0.7 g/L.

Conclusion

CVR in patients with T1D remains challenging to define. However, it is essential to consider long-term outcomes, planning for 30 or 40 years into the future. This involves educating patients about the importance of prevention, even when reassuring numbers are seen in their youth.

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

Estimation of cardiovascular risk (CVR) in individuals living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) was a key topic presented by Sophie Borot, MD, from Besançon University Hospital, Besançon, France, at the 40th congress of the French Society of Endocrinology. Borot highlighted the complexities of this subject, outlining several factors that contribute to its challenges.

A Heterogeneous Disease

T1D is a highly heterogeneous condition, and the patients included in studies reflect this diversity:

• The impact of blood glucose levels on CVR changes depending on diabetes duration, its history, the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes, average A1c levels over several years, and the patient’s age at diagnosis.
• A T1D diagnosis from the 1980s involved different management strategies compared with a diagnosis today.
• Patient profiles also vary based on complications such as nephropathy or cardiac autonomic neuropathy.
• Diffuse and distal arterial damage in T1D leads to more subtle and delayed pathologic events than in type 2 diabetes (T2D).
• Most clinical studies assess CVR over 10 years, but a 20- or 30-year evaluation would be more relevant.
• Patients may share CVR factors with the general population (eg, family history, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, obesity, hypertension, or elevated low-density lipoprotein [LDL] levels), raising questions about possible overlap with metabolic syndrome.
• Study criteria differ, with a focus on outcomes such as cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction and stroke, or other endpoints.
• CVR is measured using either absolute or relative values, with varying units of measurement.

A Recent Awareness

The concept of CVR in T1D is relatively new. Until the publication of the prospective Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study in 2005, it was believed that T1D control had no impact on CVR. However, follow-up results from the same cohort of 50,000 patients, published in 2022 after 30 years of observation, revealed that CVR was 20% higher in patients who received conventional hyperglycemia-targeted treatment than those undergoing intensive treatment. The CVR increases in conjunction with diabetes duration. The study also showed that even well-controlled glycemia in T1D carries CVR (primarily due to microangiopathy), and that the most critical factor for CVR is not A1c control but rather LDL cholesterol levels.

These findings were corroborated by a Danish prospective study, which demonstrated that while CVR increased in conjunction with the number of risk factors, it was 82% higher in patients with T1D than in a control group — even in the absence of risk factors.
 

Key Takeaways

At diagnosis, a fundamental difference exists between T1D and T2D in terms of the urgency to address CVR. In T2D, diabetes may have progressed for years before diagnosis, necessitating immediate CVR reduction efforts. In contrast, T1D is often diagnosed in younger patients with initially low CVR, raising questions about the optimal timing for interventions such as statin prescriptions.

Recommendations

The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines (2024) include the following recommendations:

For adults with T1D, treatment should mirror that for T2D:

• Between ages 20 and 40, statins are recommended if at least one CVR factor is present.
• For children 10 years of age or older with T1D, the LDL target is < 1.0 g/L. Statins are prescribed if LDL exceeds 1.6 g/L without CVR factors or 1.3 g/L with at least one CVR factor.

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines (2023) include the following:

• For the first time, a dedicated chapter addresses T1D. Like the American guidelines, routine statin use after age 40 is recommended.
• Before age 40, statins are prescribed if there is at least one CVR factor (microangiopathy) or a 10-year CVR ≥ 10% (based on a CVR calculator).

The International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes guidelines (2022) recommend:

• For children 10 years of age or older, the LDL target is < 1.0 g/L. Statins are recommended if LDL exceeds 1.3 g/L.

CAC Score in High CVR

The French Society of Cardiology and the French-speaking Society of Diabetology recommend incorporating the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score to refine CVR classification in high-risk patients. For those without prior cardiovascular events, LDL targets vary based on CAC and age. For example:

• High-risk patients with a CAC of 0-10 are reclassified as moderate risk, with an LDL target of < 1 g/L.
• A CAC ≥ 400 indicates very high risk, warranting coronary exploration.
• Patients under 50 years of age with a CAC of 11-100 remain high risk, with an LDL target of 0.7 g/L.

Conclusion

CVR in patients with T1D remains challenging to define. However, it is essential to consider long-term outcomes, planning for 30 or 40 years into the future. This involves educating patients about the importance of prevention, even when reassuring numbers are seen in their youth.

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

TOPLINE:

Adults aged 50 years who were born preterm have a higher risk for hypertension but lower risk for cardiovascular events than those born at term, with similar risks for diabetes, prediabetes, and dyslipidemia between groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a prospective cohort study of the Auckland Steroid Trial — the first randomized trial of antenatal corticosteroids (betamethasone) for women who were at risk for preterm birth, conducted in Auckland, New Zealand, between December 1969 and February 1974.
• They analyzed 470 participants, including 424 survivors recruited between January 2020 and May 2022 and 46 participants who died after infancy.
• The outcomes for 326 participants born preterm (mean age, 49.4 years) and 144 participants born at term (mean age, 49.2 years) were assessed using either a questionnaire, administrative datasets, or both.
• The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular events or risk factors, defined as a history of a major adverse cardiovascular event or the presence of at least one cardiovascular risk factor, including diabetes mellitus, prediabetes, treated dyslipidemia, and treated hypertension.
• The secondary outcomes included respiratory, mental health, educational, and other health outcomes, as well as components of the primary outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The composite of cardiovascular events or risk factors occurred in 34.5% of participants born preterm and 29.9% of participants born at term, with no differences in the risk factor components.
• The risk for cardiovascular events was lower in participants born preterm than in those born at term (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.33; P = .013).
• The participants born preterm had a higher risk for high blood pressure (aRR, 1.74; P = .007) and the composite of treated hypertension or self-reported diagnosis of high blood pressure (aRR, 1.63; P = .010) than those born at term.
• From randomization to the 50-year follow-up, death from any cause was more common in those born preterm than in those born at term (aRR, 2.29; P < .0001), whereas the diagnosis or treatment of a mental health disorder was less common (P = .007); no differences were observed between the groups for other outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Those aware of being born preterm also may be more likely to seek preventive treatments, potentially resulting in a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease but a greater prevalence of risk factors if defined by a treatment such as treated dyslipidemia or treated hypertension,” the authors wrote.

“In this cohort, the survival advantage of the term-born control group abated after infancy, with a higher all-cause mortality rate, compared with that of the group born preterm,” wrote Jonathan S. Litt, MD, MPH, ScD, and Henning Tiemeier, MD, PhD, in a related commentary published in Pediatrics.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anthony G. B. Walters, MBChB, Liggins Institute, Auckland, New Zealand. It was published online on December 16, 2024, in Pediatrics .

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size limited the ability to detect subtle differences between groups and the validity of subgroup analyses. Attrition bias may have occurred because of low follow-up rates among presumed survivors. Bias could have been introduced because of lack of consent for access to the administrative dataset or from missing data from the participants in the questionnaire. The lack of in-person assessments for blood pressure and blood tests, resulting from geographical dispersion over 50 years, may have led to underestimation of some outcomes. Additionally, as most participants were born moderately or late preterm, with a median gestational age of 34.1 weeks, findings may not be generalizable to those born preterm at earlier gestational ages.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported in part by the Aotearoa Foundation, the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Cure Kids New Zealand, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. The authors of both the study and the commentary reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Adults aged 50 years who were born preterm have a higher risk for hypertension but lower risk for cardiovascular events than those born at term, with similar risks for diabetes, prediabetes, and dyslipidemia between groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a prospective cohort study of the Auckland Steroid Trial — the first randomized trial of antenatal corticosteroids (betamethasone) for women who were at risk for preterm birth, conducted in Auckland, New Zealand, between December 1969 and February 1974.
• They analyzed 470 participants, including 424 survivors recruited between January 2020 and May 2022 and 46 participants who died after infancy.
• The outcomes for 326 participants born preterm (mean age, 49.4 years) and 144 participants born at term (mean age, 49.2 years) were assessed using either a questionnaire, administrative datasets, or both.
• The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular events or risk factors, defined as a history of a major adverse cardiovascular event or the presence of at least one cardiovascular risk factor, including diabetes mellitus, prediabetes, treated dyslipidemia, and treated hypertension.
• The secondary outcomes included respiratory, mental health, educational, and other health outcomes, as well as components of the primary outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The composite of cardiovascular events or risk factors occurred in 34.5% of participants born preterm and 29.9% of participants born at term, with no differences in the risk factor components.
• The risk for cardiovascular events was lower in participants born preterm than in those born at term (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.33; P = .013).
• The participants born preterm had a higher risk for high blood pressure (aRR, 1.74; P = .007) and the composite of treated hypertension or self-reported diagnosis of high blood pressure (aRR, 1.63; P = .010) than those born at term.
• From randomization to the 50-year follow-up, death from any cause was more common in those born preterm than in those born at term (aRR, 2.29; P < .0001), whereas the diagnosis or treatment of a mental health disorder was less common (P = .007); no differences were observed between the groups for other outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Those aware of being born preterm also may be more likely to seek preventive treatments, potentially resulting in a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease but a greater prevalence of risk factors if defined by a treatment such as treated dyslipidemia or treated hypertension,” the authors wrote.

“In this cohort, the survival advantage of the term-born control group abated after infancy, with a higher all-cause mortality rate, compared with that of the group born preterm,” wrote Jonathan S. Litt, MD, MPH, ScD, and Henning Tiemeier, MD, PhD, in a related commentary published in Pediatrics.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anthony G. B. Walters, MBChB, Liggins Institute, Auckland, New Zealand. It was published online on December 16, 2024, in Pediatrics .

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size limited the ability to detect subtle differences between groups and the validity of subgroup analyses. Attrition bias may have occurred because of low follow-up rates among presumed survivors. Bias could have been introduced because of lack of consent for access to the administrative dataset or from missing data from the participants in the questionnaire. The lack of in-person assessments for blood pressure and blood tests, resulting from geographical dispersion over 50 years, may have led to underestimation of some outcomes. Additionally, as most participants were born moderately or late preterm, with a median gestational age of 34.1 weeks, findings may not be generalizable to those born preterm at earlier gestational ages.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported in part by the Aotearoa Foundation, the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Cure Kids New Zealand, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. The authors of both the study and the commentary reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Adults aged 50 years who were born preterm have a higher risk for hypertension but lower risk for cardiovascular events than those born at term, with similar risks for diabetes, prediabetes, and dyslipidemia between groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a prospective cohort study of the Auckland Steroid Trial — the first randomized trial of antenatal corticosteroids (betamethasone) for women who were at risk for preterm birth, conducted in Auckland, New Zealand, between December 1969 and February 1974.
• They analyzed 470 participants, including 424 survivors recruited between January 2020 and May 2022 and 46 participants who died after infancy.
• The outcomes for 326 participants born preterm (mean age, 49.4 years) and 144 participants born at term (mean age, 49.2 years) were assessed using either a questionnaire, administrative datasets, or both.
• The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular events or risk factors, defined as a history of a major adverse cardiovascular event or the presence of at least one cardiovascular risk factor, including diabetes mellitus, prediabetes, treated dyslipidemia, and treated hypertension.
• The secondary outcomes included respiratory, mental health, educational, and other health outcomes, as well as components of the primary outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The composite of cardiovascular events or risk factors occurred in 34.5% of participants born preterm and 29.9% of participants born at term, with no differences in the risk factor components.
• The risk for cardiovascular events was lower in participants born preterm than in those born at term (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.33; P = .013).
• The participants born preterm had a higher risk for high blood pressure (aRR, 1.74; P = .007) and the composite of treated hypertension or self-reported diagnosis of high blood pressure (aRR, 1.63; P = .010) than those born at term.
• From randomization to the 50-year follow-up, death from any cause was more common in those born preterm than in those born at term (aRR, 2.29; P < .0001), whereas the diagnosis or treatment of a mental health disorder was less common (P = .007); no differences were observed between the groups for other outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Those aware of being born preterm also may be more likely to seek preventive treatments, potentially resulting in a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease but a greater prevalence of risk factors if defined by a treatment such as treated dyslipidemia or treated hypertension,” the authors wrote.

“In this cohort, the survival advantage of the term-born control group abated after infancy, with a higher all-cause mortality rate, compared with that of the group born preterm,” wrote Jonathan S. Litt, MD, MPH, ScD, and Henning Tiemeier, MD, PhD, in a related commentary published in Pediatrics.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anthony G. B. Walters, MBChB, Liggins Institute, Auckland, New Zealand. It was published online on December 16, 2024, in Pediatrics .

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size limited the ability to detect subtle differences between groups and the validity of subgroup analyses. Attrition bias may have occurred because of low follow-up rates among presumed survivors. Bias could have been introduced because of lack of consent for access to the administrative dataset or from missing data from the participants in the questionnaire. The lack of in-person assessments for blood pressure and blood tests, resulting from geographical dispersion over 50 years, may have led to underestimation of some outcomes. Additionally, as most participants were born moderately or late preterm, with a median gestational age of 34.1 weeks, findings may not be generalizable to those born preterm at earlier gestational ages.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported in part by the Aotearoa Foundation, the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Cure Kids New Zealand, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. The authors of both the study and the commentary reported no conflicts of interest.

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