Diabetes

Adults with diabetes who participated in telehealth visits reported similar levels of care, trust in the healthcare system, and patient-centered communication compared to those who had in-person visits, a cross-sectional study suggested. 

The authors urged continued integration of telehealth into diabetes care beyond December 31, 2024, when the pandemic public health emergency ends, potentially limiting such services.

The study “provides population-level evidence that telehealth can deliver care quality comparable to in-person visits in diabetes management,” lead author Young-Rock Hong, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor in the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

“Perhaps the most meaningful finding was the high utilization of telephone-only visits among older adults,” he said. “This has important policy implications, particularly as some insurers and healthcare systems have pushed to restrict telehealth coverage to video-only visits.”

“Maintaining telephone visit coverage is crucial for equitable access, especially for older adults who may be less comfortable with video technology; those with limited internet access; or patients facing other barriers to video visits,” he explained. 

The study was published online in BMJ Open.

 

Video-only, Voice-only, Both

The researchers did a secondary analysis of data from the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey, a nationally representative survey that includes information on health communication and knowledge and perceptions about all health conditions among US adults aged ≥ 18 years.

Participants had a self-reported diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The mean age was 59.4 years; 50% were women; and 53% were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Primary and secondary outcomes were use of telehealth in the last 12-months; telehealth modality; overall perception of quality of care; perceived trust in the healthcare system; and patient-centered communication score.

In the analysis of 1116 participants representing 33.6 million individuals, 48.1% reported telehealth use in the past 12 months.

Telehealth users were more likely to be younger and women with higher household incomes and health insurance coverage; live in metropolitan areas; and have multiple chronic conditions, poorer perceived health status, and more frequent physician visits than nonusers.

After adjustment, adults aged ≥ 65 years had a significantly lower likelihood of telehealth use than those ages 18-49 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.43).

Higher income and more frequent healthcare visits were predictors of telehealth usage, with no significant differences across race, education, or location. 

Those with a household income between $35,000 and $74,999 had more than double the likelihood of telehealth use (OR, 2.14) than those with incomes below $35,000.

Among telehealth users, 39.3% reported having video-only; 35%, phone (voice)-only; and 25.7%, both modalities. Among those aged ≥ 65 years, 55.5% used phone calls only and 25.5% used video only. In contrast, those aged 18-49 years had higher rates of video-only use (36.1%) and combined video/phone use (31.2%).

Healthcare provider recommendation (68.1%) was the most common reason for telehealth use, followed by convenience (57.7%), avoiding potential COVID-19 exposure (48.1%), and obtaining advice about the need for in-person care (23.6%).

Nonusers said they preferred in-person visits and also cited privacy concerns and technology challenges.

Patient-reported quality-of-care outcomes were comparable between telehealth users and nonusers, with no significant differences by telehealth modality or area of residence (urban or rural).

Around 70% of individuals with diabetes in both groups rated their quality of care as “excellent” and “very good;” fewer than 10% rated their care as “fair” and “poor.” 

Similarly, trust in the healthcare system was comparable between users and nonusers: 41.3% of telehealth users 41% of nonusers reported trusting the healthcare system “very much.” Patient-centered communication scores were also similar between users and nonusers.

Telehealth appears to be a good option from the providers’ perspective as well, according to the authors. A previous study by the team found more than 80% of US physicians intended to continue telehealth beyond the pandemic.

“The recent unanimous bipartisan passage of the Telehealth Modernization Act by the House Energy & Commerce Committee signals strong political support for extending telehealth flexibilities through 2026,” Hong said. “The bill addresses key access issues by permanently removing geographic restrictions, expanding eligible providers, and maintaining audio-only coverage — provisions that align with our study’s findings about the importance of telephone visits, particularly for older adults and underserved populations.”

There is concern that extending telehealth services might increase Medicare spending by over $2 billion, he added. “While this may be a valid concern, there is a need for more robust evidence regarding the overall value of telehealth services — ie, the ‘benefits’ they provide relative to their costs and outcomes.”

 

Reassuring, but More Research Needed

COVID prompted “dramatic shifts” in care delivery from in-person to telehealth, Kevin Peterson, MD, MPH, American Diabetes Association vice president of primary care told this news organization. “The authors’ findings provide reassurance that these changes provided for additional convenience in care delivery without being associated with compromises in patient-reported care quality.”

However, he said, “the study does not necessarily capture representative samples of rural and underserved populations, making the impact of telehealth on health equity difficult to determine.” In addition, although patient-perceived care quality did not change with telehealth delivery, the study “does not address impacts on safety, clinical outcomes, equity, costs, or other important measures.”

Furthermore, he noted, “this is an association study that occurred during the dramatic changes brought about by COVID. It may not represent provider or patient preferences that characterize the role of telehealth under more normal circumstances.”

For now, clinicians should be aware that “initial evidence suggests that telehealth can be integrated into care without significantly compromising the patient’s perception of the quality of care,” he concluded.

No funding was declared. Hong and Peterson reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Adults with diabetes who participated in telehealth visits reported similar levels of care, trust in the healthcare system, and patient-centered communication compared to those who had in-person visits, a cross-sectional study suggested. 

The authors urged continued integration of telehealth into diabetes care beyond December 31, 2024, when the pandemic public health emergency ends, potentially limiting such services.

The study “provides population-level evidence that telehealth can deliver care quality comparable to in-person visits in diabetes management,” lead author Young-Rock Hong, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor in the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

“Perhaps the most meaningful finding was the high utilization of telephone-only visits among older adults,” he said. “This has important policy implications, particularly as some insurers and healthcare systems have pushed to restrict telehealth coverage to video-only visits.”

“Maintaining telephone visit coverage is crucial for equitable access, especially for older adults who may be less comfortable with video technology; those with limited internet access; or patients facing other barriers to video visits,” he explained. 

The study was published online in BMJ Open.

 

Video-only, Voice-only, Both

The researchers did a secondary analysis of data from the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey, a nationally representative survey that includes information on health communication and knowledge and perceptions about all health conditions among US adults aged ≥ 18 years.

Participants had a self-reported diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The mean age was 59.4 years; 50% were women; and 53% were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Primary and secondary outcomes were use of telehealth in the last 12-months; telehealth modality; overall perception of quality of care; perceived trust in the healthcare system; and patient-centered communication score.

In the analysis of 1116 participants representing 33.6 million individuals, 48.1% reported telehealth use in the past 12 months.

Telehealth users were more likely to be younger and women with higher household incomes and health insurance coverage; live in metropolitan areas; and have multiple chronic conditions, poorer perceived health status, and more frequent physician visits than nonusers.

After adjustment, adults aged ≥ 65 years had a significantly lower likelihood of telehealth use than those ages 18-49 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.43).

Higher income and more frequent healthcare visits were predictors of telehealth usage, with no significant differences across race, education, or location. 

Those with a household income between $35,000 and $74,999 had more than double the likelihood of telehealth use (OR, 2.14) than those with incomes below $35,000.

Among telehealth users, 39.3% reported having video-only; 35%, phone (voice)-only; and 25.7%, both modalities. Among those aged ≥ 65 years, 55.5% used phone calls only and 25.5% used video only. In contrast, those aged 18-49 years had higher rates of video-only use (36.1%) and combined video/phone use (31.2%).

Healthcare provider recommendation (68.1%) was the most common reason for telehealth use, followed by convenience (57.7%), avoiding potential COVID-19 exposure (48.1%), and obtaining advice about the need for in-person care (23.6%).

Nonusers said they preferred in-person visits and also cited privacy concerns and technology challenges.

Patient-reported quality-of-care outcomes were comparable between telehealth users and nonusers, with no significant differences by telehealth modality or area of residence (urban or rural).

Around 70% of individuals with diabetes in both groups rated their quality of care as “excellent” and “very good;” fewer than 10% rated their care as “fair” and “poor.” 

Similarly, trust in the healthcare system was comparable between users and nonusers: 41.3% of telehealth users 41% of nonusers reported trusting the healthcare system “very much.” Patient-centered communication scores were also similar between users and nonusers.

Telehealth appears to be a good option from the providers’ perspective as well, according to the authors. A previous study by the team found more than 80% of US physicians intended to continue telehealth beyond the pandemic.

“The recent unanimous bipartisan passage of the Telehealth Modernization Act by the House Energy & Commerce Committee signals strong political support for extending telehealth flexibilities through 2026,” Hong said. “The bill addresses key access issues by permanently removing geographic restrictions, expanding eligible providers, and maintaining audio-only coverage — provisions that align with our study’s findings about the importance of telephone visits, particularly for older adults and underserved populations.”

There is concern that extending telehealth services might increase Medicare spending by over $2 billion, he added. “While this may be a valid concern, there is a need for more robust evidence regarding the overall value of telehealth services — ie, the ‘benefits’ they provide relative to their costs and outcomes.”

 

Reassuring, but More Research Needed

COVID prompted “dramatic shifts” in care delivery from in-person to telehealth, Kevin Peterson, MD, MPH, American Diabetes Association vice president of primary care told this news organization. “The authors’ findings provide reassurance that these changes provided for additional convenience in care delivery without being associated with compromises in patient-reported care quality.”

However, he said, “the study does not necessarily capture representative samples of rural and underserved populations, making the impact of telehealth on health equity difficult to determine.” In addition, although patient-perceived care quality did not change with telehealth delivery, the study “does not address impacts on safety, clinical outcomes, equity, costs, or other important measures.”

Furthermore, he noted, “this is an association study that occurred during the dramatic changes brought about by COVID. It may not represent provider or patient preferences that characterize the role of telehealth under more normal circumstances.”

For now, clinicians should be aware that “initial evidence suggests that telehealth can be integrated into care without significantly compromising the patient’s perception of the quality of care,” he concluded.

No funding was declared. Hong and Peterson reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Adults with diabetes who participated in telehealth visits reported similar levels of care, trust in the healthcare system, and patient-centered communication compared to those who had in-person visits, a cross-sectional study suggested. 

The authors urged continued integration of telehealth into diabetes care beyond December 31, 2024, when the pandemic public health emergency ends, potentially limiting such services.

The study “provides population-level evidence that telehealth can deliver care quality comparable to in-person visits in diabetes management,” lead author Young-Rock Hong, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor in the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

“Perhaps the most meaningful finding was the high utilization of telephone-only visits among older adults,” he said. “This has important policy implications, particularly as some insurers and healthcare systems have pushed to restrict telehealth coverage to video-only visits.”

“Maintaining telephone visit coverage is crucial for equitable access, especially for older adults who may be less comfortable with video technology; those with limited internet access; or patients facing other barriers to video visits,” he explained. 

The study was published online in BMJ Open.

 

Video-only, Voice-only, Both

The researchers did a secondary analysis of data from the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey, a nationally representative survey that includes information on health communication and knowledge and perceptions about all health conditions among US adults aged ≥ 18 years.

Participants had a self-reported diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The mean age was 59.4 years; 50% were women; and 53% were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Primary and secondary outcomes were use of telehealth in the last 12-months; telehealth modality; overall perception of quality of care; perceived trust in the healthcare system; and patient-centered communication score.

In the analysis of 1116 participants representing 33.6 million individuals, 48.1% reported telehealth use in the past 12 months.

Telehealth users were more likely to be younger and women with higher household incomes and health insurance coverage; live in metropolitan areas; and have multiple chronic conditions, poorer perceived health status, and more frequent physician visits than nonusers.

After adjustment, adults aged ≥ 65 years had a significantly lower likelihood of telehealth use than those ages 18-49 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.43).

Higher income and more frequent healthcare visits were predictors of telehealth usage, with no significant differences across race, education, or location. 

Those with a household income between $35,000 and $74,999 had more than double the likelihood of telehealth use (OR, 2.14) than those with incomes below $35,000.

Among telehealth users, 39.3% reported having video-only; 35%, phone (voice)-only; and 25.7%, both modalities. Among those aged ≥ 65 years, 55.5% used phone calls only and 25.5% used video only. In contrast, those aged 18-49 years had higher rates of video-only use (36.1%) and combined video/phone use (31.2%).

Healthcare provider recommendation (68.1%) was the most common reason for telehealth use, followed by convenience (57.7%), avoiding potential COVID-19 exposure (48.1%), and obtaining advice about the need for in-person care (23.6%).

Nonusers said they preferred in-person visits and also cited privacy concerns and technology challenges.

Patient-reported quality-of-care outcomes were comparable between telehealth users and nonusers, with no significant differences by telehealth modality or area of residence (urban or rural).

Around 70% of individuals with diabetes in both groups rated their quality of care as “excellent” and “very good;” fewer than 10% rated their care as “fair” and “poor.” 

Similarly, trust in the healthcare system was comparable between users and nonusers: 41.3% of telehealth users 41% of nonusers reported trusting the healthcare system “very much.” Patient-centered communication scores were also similar between users and nonusers.

Telehealth appears to be a good option from the providers’ perspective as well, according to the authors. A previous study by the team found more than 80% of US physicians intended to continue telehealth beyond the pandemic.

“The recent unanimous bipartisan passage of the Telehealth Modernization Act by the House Energy & Commerce Committee signals strong political support for extending telehealth flexibilities through 2026,” Hong said. “The bill addresses key access issues by permanently removing geographic restrictions, expanding eligible providers, and maintaining audio-only coverage — provisions that align with our study’s findings about the importance of telephone visits, particularly for older adults and underserved populations.”

There is concern that extending telehealth services might increase Medicare spending by over $2 billion, he added. “While this may be a valid concern, there is a need for more robust evidence regarding the overall value of telehealth services — ie, the ‘benefits’ they provide relative to their costs and outcomes.”

 

Reassuring, but More Research Needed

COVID prompted “dramatic shifts” in care delivery from in-person to telehealth, Kevin Peterson, MD, MPH, American Diabetes Association vice president of primary care told this news organization. “The authors’ findings provide reassurance that these changes provided for additional convenience in care delivery without being associated with compromises in patient-reported care quality.”

However, he said, “the study does not necessarily capture representative samples of rural and underserved populations, making the impact of telehealth on health equity difficult to determine.” In addition, although patient-perceived care quality did not change with telehealth delivery, the study “does not address impacts on safety, clinical outcomes, equity, costs, or other important measures.”

Furthermore, he noted, “this is an association study that occurred during the dramatic changes brought about by COVID. It may not represent provider or patient preferences that characterize the role of telehealth under more normal circumstances.”

For now, clinicians should be aware that “initial evidence suggests that telehealth can be integrated into care without significantly compromising the patient’s perception of the quality of care,” he concluded.

No funding was declared. Hong and Peterson reported no conflicts of interest.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Oral semaglutide 25 mg appears to be just as effective in promoting weight loss and other beneficial outcomes as are the investigational 50-mg oral dose and the injectable 2.4-mg dose (Wegovy), in new research.

Data from Novo Nordisk’s OASIS 4 trial suggest that “oral semaglutide 25 mg may represent an efficacious option for the treatment of overweight and obesity, particularly in patients who prefer oral administration,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the Department of Nutrition Sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2024 meeting.

In an interview, Garvey, who is also senior scientist at the UAB Nutrition Obesity Research Center, added: “There’s a principle in medicine that you always use the lowest dose that has highest efficacy, and for oral semaglutide for obesity, that appears to be the 25-mg dose. We need oral medicines to offer as an option for patients that could lead to a longer persistence in adherence to obesity medications, which is a big problem. Less than half the people maintain their adherence after a year.”

Asked to comment, session moderator and obesity researcher Joseph A. Skelton, MD, professor of pediatrics at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said that OASIS 4 was “extremely well done, especially given that we’re all concerned about the high prevalence of people stopping these medications at a year. ... I love the idea of trying to find these lower doses and increasing options for people.”

(The oral semaglutide approved for treating type 2 diabetes [Rybelsus] is sold in 7-mg and 14-mg doses.)

 

With Oral Semaglutide, Lower May Be Better

OASIS 4 was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 64-week multicenter trial involving a total of 307 participants with overweight/obesity randomized 2:1 to oral semaglutide 25 mg or placebo. Of those, 167 in the semaglutide 25 mg and 76 in the placebo groups completed the trial.

For the co–primary endpoint change in body weight at week 64 (including 52-week maintenance and 7-week follow-up periods), there was a drop of 13.6% with oral semaglutide vs just 2.2% with placebo (P < .0001), based on in-trial observation regardless of adherence. For the analysis including just the on-treatment period, those reductions were 16.6% and 2.7%, respectively (P < .0001).

For the other co–primary endpoint, 79.2% semaglutide vs 31.1% placebo lost at least 5% of their body weight, 63.0% vs 14.4% lost ≥ 10%, 50.0% vs 5.6% lost ≥ 15%, and 29.7% vs 3.3% lost ≥ 20%. All were statistically significant differences, at P < .0001.

On the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version, change from baseline scores were 16.2 with oral semaglutide vs 8.4 for placebo (P = .0006) and the proportion of participants achieving clinically meaningful increases in those scores (≥ 14.6 points) were 55.3% vs 34.8% (P = .0022).

Waist circumference was also significantly reduced from baseline with oral semaglutide, by 12.2 cm vs 2.8 cm (P < .0001). Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure dropped more with semaglutide than placebo, but not significantly. However, the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein dropped from baseline by 46.4% vs just 4.2% with placebo, a significant difference (P < .0001).

Hemoglobin A1c dropped by 0.29 percentage points vs just 0.06 with placebo (P = .0012) and fasting plasma glucose by 6.6 mg/dL, while rising by 0.4 mg/dL in the placebo group (P = .0012). Lipid levels also improved more with oral semaglutide.

Overall adverse events occurred in 93.1% on oral semaglutide and 85.3% with placebo, and gastrointestinal adverse events in 74% and 42.2%, respectively. Other types of adverse events didn’t differ between the groups. The proportions experiencing severe adverse events were less in the semaglutide group (3.9% vs 8.8%), although adverse events leading to permanent treatment discontinuation were slightly higher with oral semaglutide (6.9% vs 5.9%). There were no deaths.

The estimated treatment difference from placebo in body weight change of −11.4% in OASIS 4 (P < .0001) was similar to the –12.7% (P < .0001) seen with the 50-mg oral semaglutide dose studied in OASIS 1 and the –12.4% (P < .0001) difference with subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg in the STEP 1 trial. “All had pretty comparable efficacy,” Garvey noted.

The side-effect profiles, including frequency of gastrointestinal side effects, were also similar across the three trials. However, Garvey added, “the mean duration of nausea in those patients that experienced nausea was shorter in patients on a 25-mg dose, 13 days, whereas the mean duration of nausea was greater, 19 days, in those in OASIS 1 taking 50 mg a day.”

Garvey has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Fractyl Laboratories, Inogen, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharma; has ownership interest (stock, stock options in a publicly owned company) for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Isis, Lilly, and Novartis; serves as site principal investigator for Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Epitomee Medical, Lilly, Neurovalens, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals; and as a data monitoring committee member for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. Skelton is editor in chief of the journal Childhood Obesity.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Oral semaglutide 25 mg appears to be just as effective in promoting weight loss and other beneficial outcomes as are the investigational 50-mg oral dose and the injectable 2.4-mg dose (Wegovy), in new research.

Data from Novo Nordisk’s OASIS 4 trial suggest that “oral semaglutide 25 mg may represent an efficacious option for the treatment of overweight and obesity, particularly in patients who prefer oral administration,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the Department of Nutrition Sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2024 meeting.

In an interview, Garvey, who is also senior scientist at the UAB Nutrition Obesity Research Center, added: “There’s a principle in medicine that you always use the lowest dose that has highest efficacy, and for oral semaglutide for obesity, that appears to be the 25-mg dose. We need oral medicines to offer as an option for patients that could lead to a longer persistence in adherence to obesity medications, which is a big problem. Less than half the people maintain their adherence after a year.”

Asked to comment, session moderator and obesity researcher Joseph A. Skelton, MD, professor of pediatrics at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said that OASIS 4 was “extremely well done, especially given that we’re all concerned about the high prevalence of people stopping these medications at a year. ... I love the idea of trying to find these lower doses and increasing options for people.”

(The oral semaglutide approved for treating type 2 diabetes [Rybelsus] is sold in 7-mg and 14-mg doses.)

 

With Oral Semaglutide, Lower May Be Better

OASIS 4 was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 64-week multicenter trial involving a total of 307 participants with overweight/obesity randomized 2:1 to oral semaglutide 25 mg or placebo. Of those, 167 in the semaglutide 25 mg and 76 in the placebo groups completed the trial.

For the co–primary endpoint change in body weight at week 64 (including 52-week maintenance and 7-week follow-up periods), there was a drop of 13.6% with oral semaglutide vs just 2.2% with placebo (P < .0001), based on in-trial observation regardless of adherence. For the analysis including just the on-treatment period, those reductions were 16.6% and 2.7%, respectively (P < .0001).

For the other co–primary endpoint, 79.2% semaglutide vs 31.1% placebo lost at least 5% of their body weight, 63.0% vs 14.4% lost ≥ 10%, 50.0% vs 5.6% lost ≥ 15%, and 29.7% vs 3.3% lost ≥ 20%. All were statistically significant differences, at P < .0001.

On the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version, change from baseline scores were 16.2 with oral semaglutide vs 8.4 for placebo (P = .0006) and the proportion of participants achieving clinically meaningful increases in those scores (≥ 14.6 points) were 55.3% vs 34.8% (P = .0022).

Waist circumference was also significantly reduced from baseline with oral semaglutide, by 12.2 cm vs 2.8 cm (P < .0001). Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure dropped more with semaglutide than placebo, but not significantly. However, the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein dropped from baseline by 46.4% vs just 4.2% with placebo, a significant difference (P < .0001).

Hemoglobin A1c dropped by 0.29 percentage points vs just 0.06 with placebo (P = .0012) and fasting plasma glucose by 6.6 mg/dL, while rising by 0.4 mg/dL in the placebo group (P = .0012). Lipid levels also improved more with oral semaglutide.

Overall adverse events occurred in 93.1% on oral semaglutide and 85.3% with placebo, and gastrointestinal adverse events in 74% and 42.2%, respectively. Other types of adverse events didn’t differ between the groups. The proportions experiencing severe adverse events were less in the semaglutide group (3.9% vs 8.8%), although adverse events leading to permanent treatment discontinuation were slightly higher with oral semaglutide (6.9% vs 5.9%). There were no deaths.

The estimated treatment difference from placebo in body weight change of −11.4% in OASIS 4 (P < .0001) was similar to the –12.7% (P < .0001) seen with the 50-mg oral semaglutide dose studied in OASIS 1 and the –12.4% (P < .0001) difference with subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg in the STEP 1 trial. “All had pretty comparable efficacy,” Garvey noted.

The side-effect profiles, including frequency of gastrointestinal side effects, were also similar across the three trials. However, Garvey added, “the mean duration of nausea in those patients that experienced nausea was shorter in patients on a 25-mg dose, 13 days, whereas the mean duration of nausea was greater, 19 days, in those in OASIS 1 taking 50 mg a day.”

Garvey has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Fractyl Laboratories, Inogen, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharma; has ownership interest (stock, stock options in a publicly owned company) for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Isis, Lilly, and Novartis; serves as site principal investigator for Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Epitomee Medical, Lilly, Neurovalens, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals; and as a data monitoring committee member for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. Skelton is editor in chief of the journal Childhood Obesity.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Oral semaglutide 25 mg appears to be just as effective in promoting weight loss and other beneficial outcomes as are the investigational 50-mg oral dose and the injectable 2.4-mg dose (Wegovy), in new research.

Data from Novo Nordisk’s OASIS 4 trial suggest that “oral semaglutide 25 mg may represent an efficacious option for the treatment of overweight and obesity, particularly in patients who prefer oral administration,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the Department of Nutrition Sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2024 meeting.

In an interview, Garvey, who is also senior scientist at the UAB Nutrition Obesity Research Center, added: “There’s a principle in medicine that you always use the lowest dose that has highest efficacy, and for oral semaglutide for obesity, that appears to be the 25-mg dose. We need oral medicines to offer as an option for patients that could lead to a longer persistence in adherence to obesity medications, which is a big problem. Less than half the people maintain their adherence after a year.”

Asked to comment, session moderator and obesity researcher Joseph A. Skelton, MD, professor of pediatrics at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said that OASIS 4 was “extremely well done, especially given that we’re all concerned about the high prevalence of people stopping these medications at a year. ... I love the idea of trying to find these lower doses and increasing options for people.”

(The oral semaglutide approved for treating type 2 diabetes [Rybelsus] is sold in 7-mg and 14-mg doses.)

 

With Oral Semaglutide, Lower May Be Better

OASIS 4 was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 64-week multicenter trial involving a total of 307 participants with overweight/obesity randomized 2:1 to oral semaglutide 25 mg or placebo. Of those, 167 in the semaglutide 25 mg and 76 in the placebo groups completed the trial.

For the co–primary endpoint change in body weight at week 64 (including 52-week maintenance and 7-week follow-up periods), there was a drop of 13.6% with oral semaglutide vs just 2.2% with placebo (P < .0001), based on in-trial observation regardless of adherence. For the analysis including just the on-treatment period, those reductions were 16.6% and 2.7%, respectively (P < .0001).

For the other co–primary endpoint, 79.2% semaglutide vs 31.1% placebo lost at least 5% of their body weight, 63.0% vs 14.4% lost ≥ 10%, 50.0% vs 5.6% lost ≥ 15%, and 29.7% vs 3.3% lost ≥ 20%. All were statistically significant differences, at P < .0001.

On the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version, change from baseline scores were 16.2 with oral semaglutide vs 8.4 for placebo (P = .0006) and the proportion of participants achieving clinically meaningful increases in those scores (≥ 14.6 points) were 55.3% vs 34.8% (P = .0022).

Waist circumference was also significantly reduced from baseline with oral semaglutide, by 12.2 cm vs 2.8 cm (P < .0001). Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure dropped more with semaglutide than placebo, but not significantly. However, the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein dropped from baseline by 46.4% vs just 4.2% with placebo, a significant difference (P < .0001).

Hemoglobin A1c dropped by 0.29 percentage points vs just 0.06 with placebo (P = .0012) and fasting plasma glucose by 6.6 mg/dL, while rising by 0.4 mg/dL in the placebo group (P = .0012). Lipid levels also improved more with oral semaglutide.

Overall adverse events occurred in 93.1% on oral semaglutide and 85.3% with placebo, and gastrointestinal adverse events in 74% and 42.2%, respectively. Other types of adverse events didn’t differ between the groups. The proportions experiencing severe adverse events were less in the semaglutide group (3.9% vs 8.8%), although adverse events leading to permanent treatment discontinuation were slightly higher with oral semaglutide (6.9% vs 5.9%). There were no deaths.

The estimated treatment difference from placebo in body weight change of −11.4% in OASIS 4 (P < .0001) was similar to the –12.7% (P < .0001) seen with the 50-mg oral semaglutide dose studied in OASIS 1 and the –12.4% (P < .0001) difference with subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg in the STEP 1 trial. “All had pretty comparable efficacy,” Garvey noted.

The side-effect profiles, including frequency of gastrointestinal side effects, were also similar across the three trials. However, Garvey added, “the mean duration of nausea in those patients that experienced nausea was shorter in patients on a 25-mg dose, 13 days, whereas the mean duration of nausea was greater, 19 days, in those in OASIS 1 taking 50 mg a day.”

Garvey has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Fractyl Laboratories, Inogen, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharma; has ownership interest (stock, stock options in a publicly owned company) for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Isis, Lilly, and Novartis; serves as site principal investigator for Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Epitomee Medical, Lilly, Neurovalens, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals; and as a data monitoring committee member for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. Skelton is editor in chief of the journal Childhood Obesity.

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

TOPLINE:

Light-intensity walking reduces postprandial glucose and diastolic blood pressure in young adults with obesity and can improve insulin levels, depending on the walking pattern.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized crossover trial with 16 young adults aged 18-34 years with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 in Bangkok, Thailand, to examine the effects of different light-intensity walking patterns on postprandial cardiometabolic responses.
• Participants (mean age, 25; mean BMI, 29.8) engaged in four 7-hour experimental conditions, each involving a different activity: Uninterrupted sitting, 30-minutes of light-intensity walking, 3-minute light-intensity walking every 30 minutes, or a combination of both walking regimens. There was a 7- to 20-day washout period between each experiment period.
• Baseline and 6-hour postprandial concentrations of glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and blood pressure were measured.
• Incremental areas under the curve (iAUC) for each outcome and average blood pressure were compared between sitting and walking conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• All the walking interventions reduced postprandial glucose concentrations and diastolic blood pressure compared with uninterrupted sitting.
• Continuous 30-minute light-intensity walking alone or combined with brief 3-minute bouts also attenuated postprandial insulin concentrations.
• No significant differences were found for triglycerides iAUC and systolic blood pressure between the four experiment conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the notion that engaging in light-intensity walking, regardless of the pattern, provides benefits to glycemic control. Moreover, the timing and patterns of light-intensity physical activity may be an important factor in reducing postprandial insulin concentrations,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Waris Wongpipit, PhD, Division of Health and Physical Education, Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand, was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s small sample size of 16 participants may limit the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of the study (7-hour experimental conditions) may not reflect long-term effects. The prescribed activities and dietary profiles, along with the controlled laboratory setting, may not accurately represent real-world conditions. The lack of objective physical activity/sedentary behavior measurement to confirm compliance between conditions is a limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, Thailand Science Research and Innovation, and Chulalongkorn University. Wongpipit received grant support from these organizations. Paddy C. Dempsey is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia research fellowship. The other authors had no disclosures.

 

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:

Light-intensity walking reduces postprandial glucose and diastolic blood pressure in young adults with obesity and can improve insulin levels, depending on the walking pattern.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized crossover trial with 16 young adults aged 18-34 years with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 in Bangkok, Thailand, to examine the effects of different light-intensity walking patterns on postprandial cardiometabolic responses.
• Participants (mean age, 25; mean BMI, 29.8) engaged in four 7-hour experimental conditions, each involving a different activity: Uninterrupted sitting, 30-minutes of light-intensity walking, 3-minute light-intensity walking every 30 minutes, or a combination of both walking regimens. There was a 7- to 20-day washout period between each experiment period.
• Baseline and 6-hour postprandial concentrations of glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and blood pressure were measured.
• Incremental areas under the curve (iAUC) for each outcome and average blood pressure were compared between sitting and walking conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• All the walking interventions reduced postprandial glucose concentrations and diastolic blood pressure compared with uninterrupted sitting.
• Continuous 30-minute light-intensity walking alone or combined with brief 3-minute bouts also attenuated postprandial insulin concentrations.
• No significant differences were found for triglycerides iAUC and systolic blood pressure between the four experiment conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the notion that engaging in light-intensity walking, regardless of the pattern, provides benefits to glycemic control. Moreover, the timing and patterns of light-intensity physical activity may be an important factor in reducing postprandial insulin concentrations,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Waris Wongpipit, PhD, Division of Health and Physical Education, Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand, was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s small sample size of 16 participants may limit the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of the study (7-hour experimental conditions) may not reflect long-term effects. The prescribed activities and dietary profiles, along with the controlled laboratory setting, may not accurately represent real-world conditions. The lack of objective physical activity/sedentary behavior measurement to confirm compliance between conditions is a limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, Thailand Science Research and Innovation, and Chulalongkorn University. Wongpipit received grant support from these organizations. Paddy C. Dempsey is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia research fellowship. The other authors had no disclosures.

 

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:

Light-intensity walking reduces postprandial glucose and diastolic blood pressure in young adults with obesity and can improve insulin levels, depending on the walking pattern.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized crossover trial with 16 young adults aged 18-34 years with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 in Bangkok, Thailand, to examine the effects of different light-intensity walking patterns on postprandial cardiometabolic responses.
• Participants (mean age, 25; mean BMI, 29.8) engaged in four 7-hour experimental conditions, each involving a different activity: Uninterrupted sitting, 30-minutes of light-intensity walking, 3-minute light-intensity walking every 30 minutes, or a combination of both walking regimens. There was a 7- to 20-day washout period between each experiment period.
• Baseline and 6-hour postprandial concentrations of glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and blood pressure were measured.
• Incremental areas under the curve (iAUC) for each outcome and average blood pressure were compared between sitting and walking conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• All the walking interventions reduced postprandial glucose concentrations and diastolic blood pressure compared with uninterrupted sitting.
• Continuous 30-minute light-intensity walking alone or combined with brief 3-minute bouts also attenuated postprandial insulin concentrations.
• No significant differences were found for triglycerides iAUC and systolic blood pressure between the four experiment conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the notion that engaging in light-intensity walking, regardless of the pattern, provides benefits to glycemic control. Moreover, the timing and patterns of light-intensity physical activity may be an important factor in reducing postprandial insulin concentrations,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Waris Wongpipit, PhD, Division of Health and Physical Education, Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand, was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s small sample size of 16 participants may limit the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of the study (7-hour experimental conditions) may not reflect long-term effects. The prescribed activities and dietary profiles, along with the controlled laboratory setting, may not accurately represent real-world conditions. The lack of objective physical activity/sedentary behavior measurement to confirm compliance between conditions is a limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, Thailand Science Research and Innovation, and Chulalongkorn University. Wongpipit received grant support from these organizations. Paddy C. Dempsey is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia research fellowship. The other authors had no disclosures.

 

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.

WASHINGTON — Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduced the need for urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and gout flare therapies in people who had both type 2 diabetes (T2D) and gout, new research has found.

Data from a large US claims database showed that SGLT2i use was associated with a 31% lower rate of initiation of ULT. “This provides further support for the use of SLGT2i therapy in patients with gout, particularly those with high-risk multimorbidity and polypharmacy,” Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The first agent of the SGLT2i class, dapagliflozin, was initially approved in the United States a decade ago for treating T2D. Since then, several other “flozins” have become available, and some have also received additional indications for heart failure and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. Several prior studies have linked SGLT2i use with lower rates of gout flares as well as lower likelihood of developing gout in the first place, although not all studies have found this benefit.

Asked about the clinical implications of the new data, Challener said in an interview that “I don’t think we’re quite at the point where this is changing gout management per se, but this just helps us understand that [SGT2is] may have a role at some point, maybe as a combination on top of another agent. Or, in some patients, it really may be enough if they’re already on an SGLT2i where we don’t need to jump to adding allopurinol. Maybe they have tophi, but they were just started on an SGLT2i and they’re not flaring. Typically, you would start those patients on allopurinol, but you could potentially just monitor them if they were just started on one of those [SGLT2i] agents.” 

Asked to comment, session moderator J. Antonio Aviña-Zubieta, MD, PhD, head of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and senior scientist at Arthritis Research Canada, said in an interview: “What I can see possibly happening when there’s more evidence is that SGLT2is may be used or even become standard of care as an adjuvant therapy to decrease flares, and by that, decrease the risk of complications.”

 

Reductions in ULT, Flares, and Healthcare Visits

The new study used administrative health data from the multicenter TriNetX Diamond network of electronic medical record and claims data from 92 healthcare sites with 212 million patients. Among those with both T2D and gout who were not taking ULT at baseline, a total of 16,104 initiated SGLT2is and 16,046 initiated glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA).

Propensity score matching was conducted for demographics including age, race, and sex; comorbidities; use of emergency, inpatient, and critical care services; medications; labs; and body mass index. That yielded 11,800 individuals each in the SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA groups.

Over 5 years, 9.9% of the SGLT2i group vs 13.4% of those using GLP-1 RA had initiated ULT, a significant difference with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75). The risk for initiation of colchicine for gout flares was 4.7% with SGLT2i vs 6.0% for GLP-1 RA — also a significant difference with an HR of 0.74 (0.65-0.83).

Medical visits for gout occurred in 28.0% vs 28.4% of patients, which also reached statistical significance (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99).

Aviña-Zubieta, an author of one of the previous studies finding a reduction in gout flares with SGLT2i, said, “many patients do not want to start gout therapy until they start having more acute attacks. ... So, for a lot of people, it’s a burden taking another pill to prevent one attack. But, if you don’t treat it over time, the attacks come more often. So, can we still delay the initiation of therapy? If you’re not having that many flares, you’re decreasing the burden of the disease and polypharmacy, which I think is the potential benefit in the long run if you already have an indication for the therapy for diabetes. ... These data are supporting that.” 

Indeed, Challener said these data can help in counseling patients. “Taking your SGLT2i for your heart failure and your diabetes is also providing some benefit for your gout, and we know that there is also cardiac benefit when gout is controlled.” 

Challener and Aviña-Zubieta had no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduced the need for urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and gout flare therapies in people who had both type 2 diabetes (T2D) and gout, new research has found.

Data from a large US claims database showed that SGLT2i use was associated with a 31% lower rate of initiation of ULT. “This provides further support for the use of SLGT2i therapy in patients with gout, particularly those with high-risk multimorbidity and polypharmacy,” Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The first agent of the SGLT2i class, dapagliflozin, was initially approved in the United States a decade ago for treating T2D. Since then, several other “flozins” have become available, and some have also received additional indications for heart failure and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. Several prior studies have linked SGLT2i use with lower rates of gout flares as well as lower likelihood of developing gout in the first place, although not all studies have found this benefit.

Asked about the clinical implications of the new data, Challener said in an interview that “I don’t think we’re quite at the point where this is changing gout management per se, but this just helps us understand that [SGT2is] may have a role at some point, maybe as a combination on top of another agent. Or, in some patients, it really may be enough if they’re already on an SGLT2i where we don’t need to jump to adding allopurinol. Maybe they have tophi, but they were just started on an SGLT2i and they’re not flaring. Typically, you would start those patients on allopurinol, but you could potentially just monitor them if they were just started on one of those [SGLT2i] agents.” 

Asked to comment, session moderator J. Antonio Aviña-Zubieta, MD, PhD, head of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and senior scientist at Arthritis Research Canada, said in an interview: “What I can see possibly happening when there’s more evidence is that SGLT2is may be used or even become standard of care as an adjuvant therapy to decrease flares, and by that, decrease the risk of complications.”

 

Reductions in ULT, Flares, and Healthcare Visits

The new study used administrative health data from the multicenter TriNetX Diamond network of electronic medical record and claims data from 92 healthcare sites with 212 million patients. Among those with both T2D and gout who were not taking ULT at baseline, a total of 16,104 initiated SGLT2is and 16,046 initiated glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA).

Propensity score matching was conducted for demographics including age, race, and sex; comorbidities; use of emergency, inpatient, and critical care services; medications; labs; and body mass index. That yielded 11,800 individuals each in the SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA groups.

Over 5 years, 9.9% of the SGLT2i group vs 13.4% of those using GLP-1 RA had initiated ULT, a significant difference with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75). The risk for initiation of colchicine for gout flares was 4.7% with SGLT2i vs 6.0% for GLP-1 RA — also a significant difference with an HR of 0.74 (0.65-0.83).

Medical visits for gout occurred in 28.0% vs 28.4% of patients, which also reached statistical significance (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99).

Aviña-Zubieta, an author of one of the previous studies finding a reduction in gout flares with SGLT2i, said, “many patients do not want to start gout therapy until they start having more acute attacks. ... So, for a lot of people, it’s a burden taking another pill to prevent one attack. But, if you don’t treat it over time, the attacks come more often. So, can we still delay the initiation of therapy? If you’re not having that many flares, you’re decreasing the burden of the disease and polypharmacy, which I think is the potential benefit in the long run if you already have an indication for the therapy for diabetes. ... These data are supporting that.” 

Indeed, Challener said these data can help in counseling patients. “Taking your SGLT2i for your heart failure and your diabetes is also providing some benefit for your gout, and we know that there is also cardiac benefit when gout is controlled.” 

Challener and Aviña-Zubieta had no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduced the need for urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and gout flare therapies in people who had both type 2 diabetes (T2D) and gout, new research has found.

Data from a large US claims database showed that SGLT2i use was associated with a 31% lower rate of initiation of ULT. “This provides further support for the use of SLGT2i therapy in patients with gout, particularly those with high-risk multimorbidity and polypharmacy,” Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The first agent of the SGLT2i class, dapagliflozin, was initially approved in the United States a decade ago for treating T2D. Since then, several other “flozins” have become available, and some have also received additional indications for heart failure and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. Several prior studies have linked SGLT2i use with lower rates of gout flares as well as lower likelihood of developing gout in the first place, although not all studies have found this benefit.

Asked about the clinical implications of the new data, Challener said in an interview that “I don’t think we’re quite at the point where this is changing gout management per se, but this just helps us understand that [SGT2is] may have a role at some point, maybe as a combination on top of another agent. Or, in some patients, it really may be enough if they’re already on an SGLT2i where we don’t need to jump to adding allopurinol. Maybe they have tophi, but they were just started on an SGLT2i and they’re not flaring. Typically, you would start those patients on allopurinol, but you could potentially just monitor them if they were just started on one of those [SGLT2i] agents.” 

Asked to comment, session moderator J. Antonio Aviña-Zubieta, MD, PhD, head of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and senior scientist at Arthritis Research Canada, said in an interview: “What I can see possibly happening when there’s more evidence is that SGLT2is may be used or even become standard of care as an adjuvant therapy to decrease flares, and by that, decrease the risk of complications.”

 

Reductions in ULT, Flares, and Healthcare Visits

The new study used administrative health data from the multicenter TriNetX Diamond network of electronic medical record and claims data from 92 healthcare sites with 212 million patients. Among those with both T2D and gout who were not taking ULT at baseline, a total of 16,104 initiated SGLT2is and 16,046 initiated glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA).

Propensity score matching was conducted for demographics including age, race, and sex; comorbidities; use of emergency, inpatient, and critical care services; medications; labs; and body mass index. That yielded 11,800 individuals each in the SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA groups.

Over 5 years, 9.9% of the SGLT2i group vs 13.4% of those using GLP-1 RA had initiated ULT, a significant difference with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75). The risk for initiation of colchicine for gout flares was 4.7% with SGLT2i vs 6.0% for GLP-1 RA — also a significant difference with an HR of 0.74 (0.65-0.83).

Medical visits for gout occurred in 28.0% vs 28.4% of patients, which also reached statistical significance (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99).

Aviña-Zubieta, an author of one of the previous studies finding a reduction in gout flares with SGLT2i, said, “many patients do not want to start gout therapy until they start having more acute attacks. ... So, for a lot of people, it’s a burden taking another pill to prevent one attack. But, if you don’t treat it over time, the attacks come more often. So, can we still delay the initiation of therapy? If you’re not having that many flares, you’re decreasing the burden of the disease and polypharmacy, which I think is the potential benefit in the long run if you already have an indication for the therapy for diabetes. ... These data are supporting that.” 

Indeed, Challener said these data can help in counseling patients. “Taking your SGLT2i for your heart failure and your diabetes is also providing some benefit for your gout, and we know that there is also cardiac benefit when gout is controlled.” 

Challener and Aviña-Zubieta had no disclosures.

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

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Conditions like diabetes and dementia are common in patients who are admitted to long-term care facilities, but aggressive management of these conditions in long-term care residents is not recommended, according to a presentation given at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.

Hospitalizations for hypoglycemia are risky for patients with diabetes who are residents of long-term care facilities, particularly those aged 75 years or older, said Adam Gurau, MD, a family physician in Toronto. Gurau completed a fellowship in care of the elderly at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, Canada.

“A lot of studies have shown diabetes-related hospitalizations,” said Gurau. He cited a 2014 study that found that hypoglycemia hospitalization rates were twice as high in older patients (age, 75 years or older) as in younger patients (age, 65-74 years).

“It is important to keep in mind that our residents in long-term care are at increasing risk for hypoglycemia, and we really should try to reduce [this risk] and not use dangerous medications or potentially dangerous [means of] diabetes management,” said Gurau.

A Canadian study that examined the composite risk for emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or death within 30 days of reaching intensive glycemic control with high-risk agents (such as insulin or sulfonylureas) suggested little benefit and possible harm in using these agents in adults aged 75 years or older.

In addition, current guidelines on diabetes management encourage a different approach. “Looking at some of the more recent North American guidelines, many of them actually now recommend relaxing glycemic targets to reduce overtreatment and prevent hypoglycemia,” said Gurau.

 

Deprescribing Medications

Medication reviews present opportunities for taking a global view of a patient’s treatments and determining whether any drug can be removed from the list. “What we want to do is optimize medications,” said Gurau. “We’re not talking about adding medications. We’re talking about removing medications, which is, I think, what we should be doing.”

Some research suggests that patients are open to deprescribing. One survey examined older adults (mean age, 79.1 years) with three or more chronic conditions who had been prescribed at least five medications. The researchers found that most participants (77%) were willing to deprescribe one or more medicines if a doctor advised that it was possible. “General practitioners may be able to increase deprescribing by building trust with their patients and communicating evidence about the risks of medication use,” the researchers wrote.

About 62% of seniors living in a residential care home have a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or another dementia, according to the Alzheimer Society of Canada. Evidence suggests that nonpharmacologic approaches, such as massage and touch therapy and music, can manage neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as aggression and agitation, that are associated with dementia in older adults, noted Gurau.

“We want to focus on nonpharmacologic approaches for many of these [long-term care] residents,” said Gurau. “We have to do as much as we can to exhaust all the nonpharmacologic approaches.”

 

Preventing Hospitalizations

Another challenge to tackle in long-term care is the unnecessary transfer of residents to hospital emergency departments, according to Gurau. “In many situations, it’s worth trying as hard as we can to treat them in the nursing home, as opposed to having them go to hospital.”

Researchers estimated that 25% of the transfers from long-term care facilities in Canada to hospital emergency departments in 2014 were potentially preventable.

Urinary tract infections accounted for 30% of hospital emergency department visits for potentially preventable conditions by older patients who are residents in long-term care, according to 2013-2014 data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

“There are lots of downsides to going to the hospital [from long-term care],” Gurau told this news organization. “There are risks for infections, risks for increasing delirium and agitation [in patients with dementia], and risks for other behavior that can really impact somebody’s life.”

Gurau reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Conditions like diabetes and dementia are common in patients who are admitted to long-term care facilities, but aggressive management of these conditions in long-term care residents is not recommended, according to a presentation given at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.

Hospitalizations for hypoglycemia are risky for patients with diabetes who are residents of long-term care facilities, particularly those aged 75 years or older, said Adam Gurau, MD, a family physician in Toronto. Gurau completed a fellowship in care of the elderly at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, Canada.

“A lot of studies have shown diabetes-related hospitalizations,” said Gurau. He cited a 2014 study that found that hypoglycemia hospitalization rates were twice as high in older patients (age, 75 years or older) as in younger patients (age, 65-74 years).

“It is important to keep in mind that our residents in long-term care are at increasing risk for hypoglycemia, and we really should try to reduce [this risk] and not use dangerous medications or potentially dangerous [means of] diabetes management,” said Gurau.

A Canadian study that examined the composite risk for emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or death within 30 days of reaching intensive glycemic control with high-risk agents (such as insulin or sulfonylureas) suggested little benefit and possible harm in using these agents in adults aged 75 years or older.

In addition, current guidelines on diabetes management encourage a different approach. “Looking at some of the more recent North American guidelines, many of them actually now recommend relaxing glycemic targets to reduce overtreatment and prevent hypoglycemia,” said Gurau.

 

Deprescribing Medications

Medication reviews present opportunities for taking a global view of a patient’s treatments and determining whether any drug can be removed from the list. “What we want to do is optimize medications,” said Gurau. “We’re not talking about adding medications. We’re talking about removing medications, which is, I think, what we should be doing.”

Some research suggests that patients are open to deprescribing. One survey examined older adults (mean age, 79.1 years) with three or more chronic conditions who had been prescribed at least five medications. The researchers found that most participants (77%) were willing to deprescribe one or more medicines if a doctor advised that it was possible. “General practitioners may be able to increase deprescribing by building trust with their patients and communicating evidence about the risks of medication use,” the researchers wrote.

About 62% of seniors living in a residential care home have a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or another dementia, according to the Alzheimer Society of Canada. Evidence suggests that nonpharmacologic approaches, such as massage and touch therapy and music, can manage neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as aggression and agitation, that are associated with dementia in older adults, noted Gurau.

“We want to focus on nonpharmacologic approaches for many of these [long-term care] residents,” said Gurau. “We have to do as much as we can to exhaust all the nonpharmacologic approaches.”

 

Preventing Hospitalizations

Another challenge to tackle in long-term care is the unnecessary transfer of residents to hospital emergency departments, according to Gurau. “In many situations, it’s worth trying as hard as we can to treat them in the nursing home, as opposed to having them go to hospital.”

Researchers estimated that 25% of the transfers from long-term care facilities in Canada to hospital emergency departments in 2014 were potentially preventable.

Urinary tract infections accounted for 30% of hospital emergency department visits for potentially preventable conditions by older patients who are residents in long-term care, according to 2013-2014 data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

“There are lots of downsides to going to the hospital [from long-term care],” Gurau told this news organization. “There are risks for infections, risks for increasing delirium and agitation [in patients with dementia], and risks for other behavior that can really impact somebody’s life.”

Gurau reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Conditions like diabetes and dementia are common in patients who are admitted to long-term care facilities, but aggressive management of these conditions in long-term care residents is not recommended, according to a presentation given at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.

Hospitalizations for hypoglycemia are risky for patients with diabetes who are residents of long-term care facilities, particularly those aged 75 years or older, said Adam Gurau, MD, a family physician in Toronto. Gurau completed a fellowship in care of the elderly at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, Canada.

“A lot of studies have shown diabetes-related hospitalizations,” said Gurau. He cited a 2014 study that found that hypoglycemia hospitalization rates were twice as high in older patients (age, 75 years or older) as in younger patients (age, 65-74 years).

“It is important to keep in mind that our residents in long-term care are at increasing risk for hypoglycemia, and we really should try to reduce [this risk] and not use dangerous medications or potentially dangerous [means of] diabetes management,” said Gurau.

A Canadian study that examined the composite risk for emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or death within 30 days of reaching intensive glycemic control with high-risk agents (such as insulin or sulfonylureas) suggested little benefit and possible harm in using these agents in adults aged 75 years or older.

In addition, current guidelines on diabetes management encourage a different approach. “Looking at some of the more recent North American guidelines, many of them actually now recommend relaxing glycemic targets to reduce overtreatment and prevent hypoglycemia,” said Gurau.

 

Deprescribing Medications

Medication reviews present opportunities for taking a global view of a patient’s treatments and determining whether any drug can be removed from the list. “What we want to do is optimize medications,” said Gurau. “We’re not talking about adding medications. We’re talking about removing medications, which is, I think, what we should be doing.”

Some research suggests that patients are open to deprescribing. One survey examined older adults (mean age, 79.1 years) with three or more chronic conditions who had been prescribed at least five medications. The researchers found that most participants (77%) were willing to deprescribe one or more medicines if a doctor advised that it was possible. “General practitioners may be able to increase deprescribing by building trust with their patients and communicating evidence about the risks of medication use,” the researchers wrote.

About 62% of seniors living in a residential care home have a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or another dementia, according to the Alzheimer Society of Canada. Evidence suggests that nonpharmacologic approaches, such as massage and touch therapy and music, can manage neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as aggression and agitation, that are associated with dementia in older adults, noted Gurau.

“We want to focus on nonpharmacologic approaches for many of these [long-term care] residents,” said Gurau. “We have to do as much as we can to exhaust all the nonpharmacologic approaches.”

 

Preventing Hospitalizations

Another challenge to tackle in long-term care is the unnecessary transfer of residents to hospital emergency departments, according to Gurau. “In many situations, it’s worth trying as hard as we can to treat them in the nursing home, as opposed to having them go to hospital.”

Researchers estimated that 25% of the transfers from long-term care facilities in Canada to hospital emergency departments in 2014 were potentially preventable.

Urinary tract infections accounted for 30% of hospital emergency department visits for potentially preventable conditions by older patients who are residents in long-term care, according to 2013-2014 data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

“There are lots of downsides to going to the hospital [from long-term care],” Gurau told this news organization. “There are risks for infections, risks for increasing delirium and agitation [in patients with dementia], and risks for other behavior that can really impact somebody’s life.”

Gurau reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

PHILADELPHIA — New research provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) do not increase the risk for pancreatic cancer.

Instead, the large electronic health record (EHR) analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) found those taking GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for pancreatic cancer than peers on other antidiabetic medications. 

“Although there were previous reports suggesting possible association between pancreatic cancer and GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, this study provides reassurance that there is no observed increased incidence of pancreatic cancer in patients prescribed these medications,” said Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi, MD, a gastroenterology fellow with Aurora Healthcare in Brookfield, Wisconsin. 

He presented the study findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 

 

Important Topic

Patients with T2D are at increased risk for several malignancies, including pancreatic cancer. Given the unique mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs in the pancreas, it was important to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs and incidence of pancreatic cancer, he explained.

Using the TriNetX database, the study team identified 4.95 million antidiabetic drug naive T2D patients who were prescribed antidiabetic medications for the first time between 2005 and 2020. None had a history of pancreatic cancer. 

A total of 245,532 were prescribed a GLP-1 RA. The researchers compared GLP-1 RAs users to users of other antidiabetic medications — namely, insulin, metformin, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. 

Patients were propensity score-matched based on demographics, health determinants, lifestyle factors, medical history, family history of cancers, and acute/chronic pancreatitis. 

The risk for pancreatic cancer was significantly lower among patients on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.55), DPP-4i (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89), SGLT2i (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and sulfonylureas (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), Alchirazi reported.

The results were consistent across different groups, including patients with obesity/ overweight on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96).

Strengths of the analysis included the large and diverse cohort of propensity score-matched patients. Limitations included the retrospective design and use of claims data that did not provide granular data on pathology reports.

The study by Alchirazi and colleagues aligns with a large population-based cohort study from Israel that found no evidence that GLP-1 RAs increase risk for pancreatic cancer over 7 years following initiation.

Separately, a study of more than 1.6 million patients with T2D found that treatment with a GLP-1 RA (vs insulin or metformin) was associated with lower risks for specific types of obesity-related cancers, including pancreatic cancer.

The study had no specific funding. Alchirazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — New research provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) do not increase the risk for pancreatic cancer.

Instead, the large electronic health record (EHR) analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) found those taking GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for pancreatic cancer than peers on other antidiabetic medications. 

“Although there were previous reports suggesting possible association between pancreatic cancer and GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, this study provides reassurance that there is no observed increased incidence of pancreatic cancer in patients prescribed these medications,” said Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi, MD, a gastroenterology fellow with Aurora Healthcare in Brookfield, Wisconsin. 

He presented the study findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 

 

Important Topic

Patients with T2D are at increased risk for several malignancies, including pancreatic cancer. Given the unique mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs in the pancreas, it was important to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs and incidence of pancreatic cancer, he explained.

Using the TriNetX database, the study team identified 4.95 million antidiabetic drug naive T2D patients who were prescribed antidiabetic medications for the first time between 2005 and 2020. None had a history of pancreatic cancer. 

A total of 245,532 were prescribed a GLP-1 RA. The researchers compared GLP-1 RAs users to users of other antidiabetic medications — namely, insulin, metformin, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. 

Patients were propensity score-matched based on demographics, health determinants, lifestyle factors, medical history, family history of cancers, and acute/chronic pancreatitis. 

The risk for pancreatic cancer was significantly lower among patients on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.55), DPP-4i (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89), SGLT2i (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and sulfonylureas (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), Alchirazi reported.

The results were consistent across different groups, including patients with obesity/ overweight on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96).

Strengths of the analysis included the large and diverse cohort of propensity score-matched patients. Limitations included the retrospective design and use of claims data that did not provide granular data on pathology reports.

The study by Alchirazi and colleagues aligns with a large population-based cohort study from Israel that found no evidence that GLP-1 RAs increase risk for pancreatic cancer over 7 years following initiation.

Separately, a study of more than 1.6 million patients with T2D found that treatment with a GLP-1 RA (vs insulin or metformin) was associated with lower risks for specific types of obesity-related cancers, including pancreatic cancer.

The study had no specific funding. Alchirazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — New research provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) do not increase the risk for pancreatic cancer.

Instead, the large electronic health record (EHR) analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) found those taking GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for pancreatic cancer than peers on other antidiabetic medications. 

“Although there were previous reports suggesting possible association between pancreatic cancer and GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, this study provides reassurance that there is no observed increased incidence of pancreatic cancer in patients prescribed these medications,” said Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi, MD, a gastroenterology fellow with Aurora Healthcare in Brookfield, Wisconsin. 

He presented the study findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 

 

Important Topic

Patients with T2D are at increased risk for several malignancies, including pancreatic cancer. Given the unique mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs in the pancreas, it was important to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs and incidence of pancreatic cancer, he explained.

Using the TriNetX database, the study team identified 4.95 million antidiabetic drug naive T2D patients who were prescribed antidiabetic medications for the first time between 2005 and 2020. None had a history of pancreatic cancer. 

A total of 245,532 were prescribed a GLP-1 RA. The researchers compared GLP-1 RAs users to users of other antidiabetic medications — namely, insulin, metformin, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. 

Patients were propensity score-matched based on demographics, health determinants, lifestyle factors, medical history, family history of cancers, and acute/chronic pancreatitis. 

The risk for pancreatic cancer was significantly lower among patients on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.55), DPP-4i (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89), SGLT2i (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and sulfonylureas (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), Alchirazi reported.

The results were consistent across different groups, including patients with obesity/ overweight on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96).

Strengths of the analysis included the large and diverse cohort of propensity score-matched patients. Limitations included the retrospective design and use of claims data that did not provide granular data on pathology reports.

The study by Alchirazi and colleagues aligns with a large population-based cohort study from Israel that found no evidence that GLP-1 RAs increase risk for pancreatic cancer over 7 years following initiation.

Separately, a study of more than 1.6 million patients with T2D found that treatment with a GLP-1 RA (vs insulin or metformin) was associated with lower risks for specific types of obesity-related cancers, including pancreatic cancer.

The study had no specific funding. Alchirazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Periodontitis is a chronic inflammatory disease that triggers a local immuno-inflammatory response, potentially leading to periodontal tissue destruction and tooth loss. Affecting 1.1 billion people worldwide, periodontitis is recognized as a significant public health issue. It is also linked to a number of other conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disorders. The European Federation of Periodontology recently published a consensus report recommending that the optimal management of periodontitis should involve a collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and oral health professionals.

Diabetes and Periodontitis

A bidirectional association exists between diabetes and periodontitis. Hyperglycemia accelerates periodontitis progression by promoting inflammation and hindering the healing process, while periodontitis is associated with higher hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with diabetes and an increased risk for diabetes development in others. Intervention studies have demonstrated the positive effect of glycemic control on periodontitis and vice versa, with periodontal treatment improving A1c levels.

GPs can raise awareness of the links between these conditions as well as emphasize the benefits of addressing both metabolic and periodontal abnormalities. They should refer patients with diabetes to oral health specialists and look for signs of periodontitis, such as bleeding gums and loose teeth, in patients with diabetes and those with prediabetes.

 

Cardiovascular Diseases and Periodontitis

Cardiovascular diseases and periodontitis are linked by their epidemiological associations and common biologic mechanisms. This connection can be explained by some of their shared risk factors, such as smoking and systemic inflammatory pathways. Although no intervention studies have shown a direct reduction in cardiovascular risk from periodontal care, two studies have demonstrated improvements in surrogate markers such as blood pressure and arterial stiffness. GPs should inquire about symptoms of periodontitis in cardiovascular patients and, if necessary, refer them to oral health specialists. Periodontal treatments, whether surgical or nonsurgical, pose no risk for patients receiving well-managed secondary preventive treatments.

 

Respiratory Diseases and Periodontitis

The primary evidence linking periodontitis with chronic respiratory diseases concerns chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Individuals with periodontitis have a 33% higher risk of developing COPD, and patients with COPD and periodontitis may experience a greater decline in lung function. An established association also exists between periodontitis and obstructive sleep apnea, although the data remain inconclusive regarding a link with asthma. GPs should encourage patients with COPD to quit smoking, as it benefits both respiratory and oral health.

Finally, based on meta-analyses of COVID-19, experts note significant associations between periodontitis and the need for assisted ventilation or the risk for death during a COVID-19 infection.

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.

Periodontitis is a chronic inflammatory disease that triggers a local immuno-inflammatory response, potentially leading to periodontal tissue destruction and tooth loss. Affecting 1.1 billion people worldwide, periodontitis is recognized as a significant public health issue. It is also linked to a number of other conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disorders. The European Federation of Periodontology recently published a consensus report recommending that the optimal management of periodontitis should involve a collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and oral health professionals.

Diabetes and Periodontitis

A bidirectional association exists between diabetes and periodontitis. Hyperglycemia accelerates periodontitis progression by promoting inflammation and hindering the healing process, while periodontitis is associated with higher hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with diabetes and an increased risk for diabetes development in others. Intervention studies have demonstrated the positive effect of glycemic control on periodontitis and vice versa, with periodontal treatment improving A1c levels.

GPs can raise awareness of the links between these conditions as well as emphasize the benefits of addressing both metabolic and periodontal abnormalities. They should refer patients with diabetes to oral health specialists and look for signs of periodontitis, such as bleeding gums and loose teeth, in patients with diabetes and those with prediabetes.

 

Cardiovascular Diseases and Periodontitis

Cardiovascular diseases and periodontitis are linked by their epidemiological associations and common biologic mechanisms. This connection can be explained by some of their shared risk factors, such as smoking and systemic inflammatory pathways. Although no intervention studies have shown a direct reduction in cardiovascular risk from periodontal care, two studies have demonstrated improvements in surrogate markers such as blood pressure and arterial stiffness. GPs should inquire about symptoms of periodontitis in cardiovascular patients and, if necessary, refer them to oral health specialists. Periodontal treatments, whether surgical or nonsurgical, pose no risk for patients receiving well-managed secondary preventive treatments.

 

Respiratory Diseases and Periodontitis

The primary evidence linking periodontitis with chronic respiratory diseases concerns chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Individuals with periodontitis have a 33% higher risk of developing COPD, and patients with COPD and periodontitis may experience a greater decline in lung function. An established association also exists between periodontitis and obstructive sleep apnea, although the data remain inconclusive regarding a link with asthma. GPs should encourage patients with COPD to quit smoking, as it benefits both respiratory and oral health.

Finally, based on meta-analyses of COVID-19, experts note significant associations between periodontitis and the need for assisted ventilation or the risk for death during a COVID-19 infection.

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.

Periodontitis is a chronic inflammatory disease that triggers a local immuno-inflammatory response, potentially leading to periodontal tissue destruction and tooth loss. Affecting 1.1 billion people worldwide, periodontitis is recognized as a significant public health issue. It is also linked to a number of other conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disorders. The European Federation of Periodontology recently published a consensus report recommending that the optimal management of periodontitis should involve a collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and oral health professionals.

Diabetes and Periodontitis

A bidirectional association exists between diabetes and periodontitis. Hyperglycemia accelerates periodontitis progression by promoting inflammation and hindering the healing process, while periodontitis is associated with higher hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with diabetes and an increased risk for diabetes development in others. Intervention studies have demonstrated the positive effect of glycemic control on periodontitis and vice versa, with periodontal treatment improving A1c levels.

GPs can raise awareness of the links between these conditions as well as emphasize the benefits of addressing both metabolic and periodontal abnormalities. They should refer patients with diabetes to oral health specialists and look for signs of periodontitis, such as bleeding gums and loose teeth, in patients with diabetes and those with prediabetes.

 

Cardiovascular Diseases and Periodontitis

Cardiovascular diseases and periodontitis are linked by their epidemiological associations and common biologic mechanisms. This connection can be explained by some of their shared risk factors, such as smoking and systemic inflammatory pathways. Although no intervention studies have shown a direct reduction in cardiovascular risk from periodontal care, two studies have demonstrated improvements in surrogate markers such as blood pressure and arterial stiffness. GPs should inquire about symptoms of periodontitis in cardiovascular patients and, if necessary, refer them to oral health specialists. Periodontal treatments, whether surgical or nonsurgical, pose no risk for patients receiving well-managed secondary preventive treatments.

 

Respiratory Diseases and Periodontitis

The primary evidence linking periodontitis with chronic respiratory diseases concerns chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Individuals with periodontitis have a 33% higher risk of developing COPD, and patients with COPD and periodontitis may experience a greater decline in lung function. An established association also exists between periodontitis and obstructive sleep apnea, although the data remain inconclusive regarding a link with asthma. GPs should encourage patients with COPD to quit smoking, as it benefits both respiratory and oral health.

Finally, based on meta-analyses of COVID-19, experts note significant associations between periodontitis and the need for assisted ventilation or the risk for death during a COVID-19 infection.

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.