Obesity

TOPLINE:

Patients with sarcopenic obesity (SO) are at a greater risk for earlier death, but screening for muscle function could offer an opportunity for intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• The proportion of older adults living with high body fat and/or low muscle function and mass has risen in recent years, but sarcopenia and SO are undiagnosed conditions.
• Researchers evaluated 5888 individuals who participated in a population-based cohort study in the Netherlands: Participants were largely of European descent (98%); the mean age of participants was 69.5 years, and 56.8% were female.
• Participants were included if they had available measurements of handgrip strength and had received a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan.
• Sarcopenia was defined by researchers in JAMA Network Open as having low handgrip strength and was confirmed with a low appendicular skeletal muscle mass index; SO was defined as a body mass index (BMI) over 27, having low handgrip strength, a high fat percentage, and/or a low appendicular skeletal muscle index, which were defined as altered body composition (BC).

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with probable and confirmed sarcopenia had a higher risk for all-cause mortality than those without during the 10-year follow-up period after adjusting for age, sex, and BMI (hazard ratios [HRs], 1.29, 1.93, respectively).
• Participants with SO and one BC component were at a higher risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.94; 95% CI, 1.60-2.33).
• Participants with SO and both components of BC had almost three times the risk for mortality as those without (HR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.97-4.11).

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that screening for SO might be implemented in primary care. In addition, early nonpharmacologic interventions, such as nutrition and exercise training, should be included to delay the onset of and to treat sarcopenia, especially SO,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Yves Boirie, MD, PhD, of the Human Nutrition Unit at Université Clermont Auvergne in Clermont-Ferrand, France, is the corresponding author for this study. The study was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, the French National Research Agency, and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, among others.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers also did not consider specific causes of death. Because the most participants had European ancestry, the results cannot be generalized.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors report receiving grants from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche and Agencia Estatal de Investigación. Other authors report being members of advisory board panels for Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Nutricia Research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with sarcopenic obesity (SO) are at a greater risk for earlier death, but screening for muscle function could offer an opportunity for intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• The proportion of older adults living with high body fat and/or low muscle function and mass has risen in recent years, but sarcopenia and SO are undiagnosed conditions.
• Researchers evaluated 5888 individuals who participated in a population-based cohort study in the Netherlands: Participants were largely of European descent (98%); the mean age of participants was 69.5 years, and 56.8% were female.
• Participants were included if they had available measurements of handgrip strength and had received a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan.
• Sarcopenia was defined by researchers in JAMA Network Open as having low handgrip strength and was confirmed with a low appendicular skeletal muscle mass index; SO was defined as a body mass index (BMI) over 27, having low handgrip strength, a high fat percentage, and/or a low appendicular skeletal muscle index, which were defined as altered body composition (BC).

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with probable and confirmed sarcopenia had a higher risk for all-cause mortality than those without during the 10-year follow-up period after adjusting for age, sex, and BMI (hazard ratios [HRs], 1.29, 1.93, respectively).
• Participants with SO and one BC component were at a higher risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.94; 95% CI, 1.60-2.33).
• Participants with SO and both components of BC had almost three times the risk for mortality as those without (HR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.97-4.11).

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that screening for SO might be implemented in primary care. In addition, early nonpharmacologic interventions, such as nutrition and exercise training, should be included to delay the onset of and to treat sarcopenia, especially SO,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Yves Boirie, MD, PhD, of the Human Nutrition Unit at Université Clermont Auvergne in Clermont-Ferrand, France, is the corresponding author for this study. The study was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, the French National Research Agency, and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, among others.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers also did not consider specific causes of death. Because the most participants had European ancestry, the results cannot be generalized.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors report receiving grants from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche and Agencia Estatal de Investigación. Other authors report being members of advisory board panels for Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Nutricia Research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with sarcopenic obesity (SO) are at a greater risk for earlier death, but screening for muscle function could offer an opportunity for intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• The proportion of older adults living with high body fat and/or low muscle function and mass has risen in recent years, but sarcopenia and SO are undiagnosed conditions.
• Researchers evaluated 5888 individuals who participated in a population-based cohort study in the Netherlands: Participants were largely of European descent (98%); the mean age of participants was 69.5 years, and 56.8% were female.
• Participants were included if they had available measurements of handgrip strength and had received a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan.
• Sarcopenia was defined by researchers in JAMA Network Open as having low handgrip strength and was confirmed with a low appendicular skeletal muscle mass index; SO was defined as a body mass index (BMI) over 27, having low handgrip strength, a high fat percentage, and/or a low appendicular skeletal muscle index, which were defined as altered body composition (BC).

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with probable and confirmed sarcopenia had a higher risk for all-cause mortality than those without during the 10-year follow-up period after adjusting for age, sex, and BMI (hazard ratios [HRs], 1.29, 1.93, respectively).
• Participants with SO and one BC component were at a higher risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.94; 95% CI, 1.60-2.33).
• Participants with SO and both components of BC had almost three times the risk for mortality as those without (HR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.97-4.11).

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that screening for SO might be implemented in primary care. In addition, early nonpharmacologic interventions, such as nutrition and exercise training, should be included to delay the onset of and to treat sarcopenia, especially SO,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Yves Boirie, MD, PhD, of the Human Nutrition Unit at Université Clermont Auvergne in Clermont-Ferrand, France, is the corresponding author for this study. The study was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, the French National Research Agency, and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, among others.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers also did not consider specific causes of death. Because the most participants had European ancestry, the results cannot be generalized.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors report receiving grants from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche and Agencia Estatal de Investigación. Other authors report being members of advisory board panels for Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Nutricia Research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The inclusion of sugar-substitute sweeteners and sweetness enhancers in a sugar-reduced maintenance diet following weight loss improves weight maintenance as well as well-being in adults, with no increases in type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease risk compared with a diet excluding the sweeteners, a randomized trial showed.

The study also showed that among overweight or obese children, greater reductions in uncontrolled eating were observed among those receiving the sweeteners.

The findings counter previous reports that raised concerns about the non-sugar sweeteners, including recent research from the World Health Organization suggesting no benefits in weight control and a possible increase in the risk for type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease with the sweeteners.

METHODOLOGY:

• The findings are from an exploratory analysis of the multicenter, randomized SWEET trial.
• The trial involved 341 adults with overweight or obesity (aged 18-65 years, 71% women, body mass index [BMI] ≥ 25) and 38 children with overweight (aged 6-12 years, 60% girls, BMI-for-age > 85th percentile), recruited in Denmark, Spain, Greece, and the Netherlands through webpages, social media, newspapers, and registries.
• For the first 2 months of the trial, adults were instructed to follow a low-energy diet (the Cambridge Weight Plan) with the goal of achieving at least 5% weight loss, while children received dietary advice to maintain body weight.
• In the subsequent 10 months, adults as well as children were randomized to healthy diets that either consisted of less than 10% of calories from added sugar but permitted foods and drinks with sweeteners and sweetness enhancers, or the same diet but not allowing the use of the sweeteners or sweetness enhancers.
• Participants had weight, BMI, anthropometry, and risk markers for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease monitored at the trial’s baseline, as well as at 2, 6, and 12 months.
• In addition, participants completed food frequency questionnaires and provided urine samples to assess biomarkers of the sweeteners, fructose and sucrose, in order to measure compliance with the dietary instructions.

TAKEAWAY:

• While the sweetener and non-sweetener groups both had decreases in consumption of products high in sugar, the reduction was significantly higher in the group that allowed use of the sweeteners (P = .002).
• In the intention-to-treat analyses, adults (n = 277) permitted sweeteners showed a small but significantly greater weight loss maintenance after 1 year than the non-sweetener group (average weight loss, 7.2 kg vs 5.6 kg; P = .029).
• Among 203 participants who completed the trial, there were no differences between the groups in terms of markers for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
• There were also no differences between the groups in terms of subjective appetite sensations and appetite hormones in a subgroup of 104 patients.
• In an analysis of 22 children who completed the study, there were no differences in BMI-for-age z scores between sweetener and non-sweetener groups.
• In terms of effects on eating behavior, adults in the sweetener group reported greater diet satisfaction when eating out (P = .03), increased positive mood (P = .013), and reduced craving for sweet food (P = .034) at 6 months than in the non-sweetener group.
• Conversely, those receiving no sweeteners had a greater liking bias for sweet vs savory foods at 6 months (P = .023) and 12 months (P = .005).
• There were no differences between the groups in reported physical activity or quality of life.
• However, among children with higher uncontrolled eating scores at baseline, the uncontrolled eating scores at 12 months were significantly lower among children who were allowed the sugar-substitute sweeteners vs the non-sweetener children (P = .021).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that the inclusion of low/no energy-sweetened products may benefit children who show high levels of uncontrolled eating,” said the study’s co-lead author, Clarissa Dakin, of the Appetite Control and Energy Balance Research Group at the University of Leeds, Leeds, England, in a press statement.

“Together, these findings provide important insights for the ongoing reevaluation of food additive sweeteners by the European Food Safety Authority and other health agencies worldwide,” she said.

Coauthor Jason Halford, head of the School of Psychology at the University of Leeds, added in the press statement that “the use of low-calorie sweeteners in weight management has been questioned, in part because of the link between their use and apparent weight gain in observational studies.”

“However, increasingly, it is becoming apparent that is not the case in long-term studies,” said a study co-author in a press statement.”

SOURCE:

The findings from the two abstracts will be presented in May at the European Association for the Study of Obesity. The study abstracts were issued in advance.

LIMITATIONS:

Some of the results, particularly in children’s subgroups, were limited by the relatively low number of children, underscoring the need for future studies on the issue, the authors noted.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Halford has received research funding from the American Beverage Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The inclusion of sugar-substitute sweeteners and sweetness enhancers in a sugar-reduced maintenance diet following weight loss improves weight maintenance as well as well-being in adults, with no increases in type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease risk compared with a diet excluding the sweeteners, a randomized trial showed.

The study also showed that among overweight or obese children, greater reductions in uncontrolled eating were observed among those receiving the sweeteners.

The findings counter previous reports that raised concerns about the non-sugar sweeteners, including recent research from the World Health Organization suggesting no benefits in weight control and a possible increase in the risk for type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease with the sweeteners.

METHODOLOGY:

• The findings are from an exploratory analysis of the multicenter, randomized SWEET trial.
• The trial involved 341 adults with overweight or obesity (aged 18-65 years, 71% women, body mass index [BMI] ≥ 25) and 38 children with overweight (aged 6-12 years, 60% girls, BMI-for-age > 85th percentile), recruited in Denmark, Spain, Greece, and the Netherlands through webpages, social media, newspapers, and registries.
• For the first 2 months of the trial, adults were instructed to follow a low-energy diet (the Cambridge Weight Plan) with the goal of achieving at least 5% weight loss, while children received dietary advice to maintain body weight.
• In the subsequent 10 months, adults as well as children were randomized to healthy diets that either consisted of less than 10% of calories from added sugar but permitted foods and drinks with sweeteners and sweetness enhancers, or the same diet but not allowing the use of the sweeteners or sweetness enhancers.
• Participants had weight, BMI, anthropometry, and risk markers for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease monitored at the trial’s baseline, as well as at 2, 6, and 12 months.
• In addition, participants completed food frequency questionnaires and provided urine samples to assess biomarkers of the sweeteners, fructose and sucrose, in order to measure compliance with the dietary instructions.

TAKEAWAY:

• While the sweetener and non-sweetener groups both had decreases in consumption of products high in sugar, the reduction was significantly higher in the group that allowed use of the sweeteners (P = .002).
• In the intention-to-treat analyses, adults (n = 277) permitted sweeteners showed a small but significantly greater weight loss maintenance after 1 year than the non-sweetener group (average weight loss, 7.2 kg vs 5.6 kg; P = .029).
• Among 203 participants who completed the trial, there were no differences between the groups in terms of markers for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
• There were also no differences between the groups in terms of subjective appetite sensations and appetite hormones in a subgroup of 104 patients.
• In an analysis of 22 children who completed the study, there were no differences in BMI-for-age z scores between sweetener and non-sweetener groups.
• In terms of effects on eating behavior, adults in the sweetener group reported greater diet satisfaction when eating out (P = .03), increased positive mood (P = .013), and reduced craving for sweet food (P = .034) at 6 months than in the non-sweetener group.
• Conversely, those receiving no sweeteners had a greater liking bias for sweet vs savory foods at 6 months (P = .023) and 12 months (P = .005).
• There were no differences between the groups in reported physical activity or quality of life.
• However, among children with higher uncontrolled eating scores at baseline, the uncontrolled eating scores at 12 months were significantly lower among children who were allowed the sugar-substitute sweeteners vs the non-sweetener children (P = .021).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that the inclusion of low/no energy-sweetened products may benefit children who show high levels of uncontrolled eating,” said the study’s co-lead author, Clarissa Dakin, of the Appetite Control and Energy Balance Research Group at the University of Leeds, Leeds, England, in a press statement.

“Together, these findings provide important insights for the ongoing reevaluation of food additive sweeteners by the European Food Safety Authority and other health agencies worldwide,” she said.

Coauthor Jason Halford, head of the School of Psychology at the University of Leeds, added in the press statement that “the use of low-calorie sweeteners in weight management has been questioned, in part because of the link between their use and apparent weight gain in observational studies.”

“However, increasingly, it is becoming apparent that is not the case in long-term studies,” said a study co-author in a press statement.”

SOURCE:

The findings from the two abstracts will be presented in May at the European Association for the Study of Obesity. The study abstracts were issued in advance.

LIMITATIONS:

Some of the results, particularly in children’s subgroups, were limited by the relatively low number of children, underscoring the need for future studies on the issue, the authors noted.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Halford has received research funding from the American Beverage Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The inclusion of sugar-substitute sweeteners and sweetness enhancers in a sugar-reduced maintenance diet following weight loss improves weight maintenance as well as well-being in adults, with no increases in type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease risk compared with a diet excluding the sweeteners, a randomized trial showed.

The study also showed that among overweight or obese children, greater reductions in uncontrolled eating were observed among those receiving the sweeteners.

The findings counter previous reports that raised concerns about the non-sugar sweeteners, including recent research from the World Health Organization suggesting no benefits in weight control and a possible increase in the risk for type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease with the sweeteners.

METHODOLOGY:

• The findings are from an exploratory analysis of the multicenter, randomized SWEET trial.
• The trial involved 341 adults with overweight or obesity (aged 18-65 years, 71% women, body mass index [BMI] ≥ 25) and 38 children with overweight (aged 6-12 years, 60% girls, BMI-for-age > 85th percentile), recruited in Denmark, Spain, Greece, and the Netherlands through webpages, social media, newspapers, and registries.
• For the first 2 months of the trial, adults were instructed to follow a low-energy diet (the Cambridge Weight Plan) with the goal of achieving at least 5% weight loss, while children received dietary advice to maintain body weight.
• In the subsequent 10 months, adults as well as children were randomized to healthy diets that either consisted of less than 10% of calories from added sugar but permitted foods and drinks with sweeteners and sweetness enhancers, or the same diet but not allowing the use of the sweeteners or sweetness enhancers.
• Participants had weight, BMI, anthropometry, and risk markers for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease monitored at the trial’s baseline, as well as at 2, 6, and 12 months.
• In addition, participants completed food frequency questionnaires and provided urine samples to assess biomarkers of the sweeteners, fructose and sucrose, in order to measure compliance with the dietary instructions.

TAKEAWAY:

• While the sweetener and non-sweetener groups both had decreases in consumption of products high in sugar, the reduction was significantly higher in the group that allowed use of the sweeteners (P = .002).
• In the intention-to-treat analyses, adults (n = 277) permitted sweeteners showed a small but significantly greater weight loss maintenance after 1 year than the non-sweetener group (average weight loss, 7.2 kg vs 5.6 kg; P = .029).
• Among 203 participants who completed the trial, there were no differences between the groups in terms of markers for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
• There were also no differences between the groups in terms of subjective appetite sensations and appetite hormones in a subgroup of 104 patients.
• In an analysis of 22 children who completed the study, there were no differences in BMI-for-age z scores between sweetener and non-sweetener groups.
• In terms of effects on eating behavior, adults in the sweetener group reported greater diet satisfaction when eating out (P = .03), increased positive mood (P = .013), and reduced craving for sweet food (P = .034) at 6 months than in the non-sweetener group.
• Conversely, those receiving no sweeteners had a greater liking bias for sweet vs savory foods at 6 months (P = .023) and 12 months (P = .005).
• There were no differences between the groups in reported physical activity or quality of life.
• However, among children with higher uncontrolled eating scores at baseline, the uncontrolled eating scores at 12 months were significantly lower among children who were allowed the sugar-substitute sweeteners vs the non-sweetener children (P = .021).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that the inclusion of low/no energy-sweetened products may benefit children who show high levels of uncontrolled eating,” said the study’s co-lead author, Clarissa Dakin, of the Appetite Control and Energy Balance Research Group at the University of Leeds, Leeds, England, in a press statement.

“Together, these findings provide important insights for the ongoing reevaluation of food additive sweeteners by the European Food Safety Authority and other health agencies worldwide,” she said.

Coauthor Jason Halford, head of the School of Psychology at the University of Leeds, added in the press statement that “the use of low-calorie sweeteners in weight management has been questioned, in part because of the link between their use and apparent weight gain in observational studies.”

“However, increasingly, it is becoming apparent that is not the case in long-term studies,” said a study co-author in a press statement.”

SOURCE:

The findings from the two abstracts will be presented in May at the European Association for the Study of Obesity. The study abstracts were issued in advance.

LIMITATIONS:

Some of the results, particularly in children’s subgroups, were limited by the relatively low number of children, underscoring the need for future studies on the issue, the authors noted.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Halford has received research funding from the American Beverage Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a cardiologist specializing in obesity medicine, I often encounter patients who would greatly benefit from the new generation of weight loss drugs that work as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists. In the recently published SELECT trial results, for example, semaglutide (marketed by Novo Nordisk as Wegovy for weight loss and Ozempic for type 2 diabetes) demonstrated a 20% risk reduction of heart attacks and strokes in overweight and obese individuals without diabetes and with cardiovascular disease, establishing it as a cardiovascular disease–modifying medication in people without type 2 diabetes.

Unfortunately, the high demand for these new weight loss medications has resulted in a frustrating, long-lasting shortage. The manufacturers of the two FDA-approved drugs, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly (tirzepatide, marketed as Zepbound for weight loss and Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes), are struggling to meet the overwhelming need.

To ensure continuation of patient care, federal law allows compounding pharmacies to make “essentially a copy” of the medications that are listed as “currently in shortage” on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug shortage list. Both semaglutide and tirzepatide are on that list. For Americans who suffer from obesity and other weight-related diseases, these drugs could be a lifeline.

Despite this, the medical community has broadly criticized the utilization of compounded GLP-1 agonists, even those obtained from reputable and legitimate compounding pharmacies.

Yes, high demand has led to the emergence of unregulated companies and scammers producing substandard or counterfeit versions of these medications.

The FDA has found fraudulent products (masquerading as the weight loss drugs) and has issued warning letters to stop the distribution of illegally marketed semaglutide. “These drugs may be counterfeit, which means they could contain the wrong ingredients, contain too little, too much or no active ingredient at all, or contain other harmful ingredients,” it cautions. Some products use a similar-sounding semaglutide sodium salt, which has uncertain safety and efficacy, and had generated warnings from the FDA and state boards of pharmacy.

Many of these products are marketed directly to consumers online through websites and social media, with little to no medical oversight. This practice is a significant concern, as it may affect patient safety, and should be discouraged.

However, according to a statement from the Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding (APC), legitimate compounding pharmacies aren’t the ones selling these dubious products on the black market, particularly online. This illegal practice has garnered media attention and is sometimes incorrectly associated with legitimate pharmacy compounding.

In contrast, legal and certified versions of GLP-1 agonist medications can be obtained from well-regulated and reputable compounding pharmacies. These pharmacies must adhere to all federal and state regulations and dispense medications only with a valid prescription from a licensed physician.

Meanwhile, the APC statement notes, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have sued compounding companies in several states, questioning, among other things, the purity and potency of some compounded products.

There are different designations for compounding pharmacies: 503A and 503B. 503As are state-licensed pharmacies and physicians, and 503B pharmacies are federally regulated outsourcing facilities that are strictly regulated by the FDA. This regulation, established following a 2012 fungal meningitis outbreak linked to a compounding pharmacy, ensures higher-quality control and oversight, especially for medications intended for intravenous or epidural use. These standards exceed those required for subcutaneous injections like GLP-1 analogs.

In the face of this Wild West climate, where compounded drugs may vary in their source, formulation, potency, and purity, The Obesity Society, the Obesity Medical Association, and the Obesity Action Coalition published a joint statement that advised against the use of compounded GLP-1 agonists, citing safety concerns and lack of regulatory oversight.

This stance, while aimed at ensuring patient safety, inadvertently raises a critical issue.

By completely dismissing compounded medications, experts may unintentionally bolster the black market and overlook the needs of patients who could benefit from these medications, contrary to the intentions of the exemption provided in federal law for compounding during a drug shortage. In fact, the presence of unreliable suppliers highlights the need to direct the public toward trustworthy sources, rather than imposing a total ban on medically appropriate alternatives.

The joint statement calls compounded GLP-1 agonists “counterfeit.” This inaccurate overgeneralization probably stems from a misunderstanding of the compounding process and its regulations. Legitimate and regulated pharmacies compound base GLP-1 agonists, which are “essentially a copy” of FDA-approved medications, not counterfeits. Recognizing this is crucial for maintaining trust in both compounding pharmacies and regulatory bodies.

It is correct that “the only FDA-approved manufacturers of these medications are the companies that created the active pharmaceutical ingredients — Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly,” but the joint statement fails to mention the exemptions provided by law that allow compounding copies of the branded medications if they are on the shortage list.

Compounding pharmacies must obtain active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) from FDA-registered facilities, which are required to adhere to Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP). This ensures the APIs’ quality, potency, and purity, crucial for the safety and efficacy of compounded medications.

Compounded drugs are not FDA approved, but they aren’t inherently unsafe. Compounded medications include critical drugs such as resuscitation medications and antibiotics, and are often used in healthcare settings, especially when there’s a shortage. This raises the question of why compounded GLP-1 agonists would be treated any differently in such scenarios.

And in the case of alternative drugs for individuals with obesity who have a higher risk for cardiovascular disease, the brand-name FDA-approved alternative may be of more concern than the compounded GLP-1 agonist. The obesity societies advise: “If you cannot find or get access to a GLP-1-based treatment now, there are other treatments available,” echoing experts. While the statement doesn’t specify the names of the alternatives, experts have advised using alternatives such as Qsymia and Contrave, despite their potential cardiovascular concerns. This recommendation to the public may not represent a responsible risk-benefit analysis.

Courtesy Dr. Einav

Possible Solutions

When prescribing GLP-1 agonists for obesity treatment, doctors should consider all of the following steps to ensure patient safety and effective treatment:

Preference for FDA-approved brands: FDA-approved branded GLP-1 agonist medications should be the primary choice because of their established safety and efficacy.

Risk-benefit analysis for non–FDA-approved products: In cases where FDA-approved options are not available, doctors may consider prescribing a non–FDA-approved copy of the branded medication. Prior to this, conduct a thorough risk-benefit analysis with the patient, ensuring that they are fully informed about the potential risks and benefits of using a non–FDA-approved product.

Choosing semaglutide copies for specific cases: In patients with obesity and cardiovascular disease, the benefits of using a compounded copy of semaglutide, with its cardiovascular disease–modifying properties, may outweigh the risks compared with other FDA-approved antiobesity drugs that might pose cardiovascular risks or compared with no antiobesity treatment at all.

Informed consent and monitoring: When prescribing a non–FDA-approved version of a GLP-1 agonist, obtaining informed consent from the patient is advised. They should be made aware of the differences between the FDA-approved and nonapproved versions.

Choosing between 503A and 503B pharmacies: Prescriptions for non–FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists can be directed to either 503A or 503B compounding pharmacies. However, it’s advisable to check whether the product can be compounded by a 503B pharmacy, which is subject to an additional layer of FDA regulation, offering greater quality assurance.

Clear prescription specifications: Ensure that the prescription explicitly states that the compounded GLP-1 agonist should be the base compound without additives.

Requesting a Certificate of Analysis: To further ensure safety, request a Certificate of Analysis from the compounding pharmacy. This provides detailed quality and composition information about the product.

Ongoing monitoring: Continuously monitor the patient’s response to the medication and adjust the treatment plan as necessary, maintaining regular follow-ups.

By adhering to these guidelines, doctors can navigate the complexities of prescribing GLP-1 agonists in a way that prioritizes patient well-being, particularly in scenarios where conventional treatment options are limited.
 

Dr. Einav is a board-certified cardiologist and a Diplomate of the American Board of Obesity Medicine. He is a fellow of the American College of Cardiology and a member of the Obesity Medicine Association. He serves as the medical director of cardiometabolic health in Guthrie Lourdes in Binghamton, New York, and is the founder of myW8/Cardiometabolic Health located in Beverly Hills, California. This article solely reflects the personal views of Dr. Einav and should not be considered as representing the official stance of Guthrie Lourdes. Dr. Einav served as a promotional speaker for Novo Nordisk in 2022. As of now, he has not prescribed any compounded GLP-1 agonist medications in his medical practice.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a cardiologist specializing in obesity medicine, I often encounter patients who would greatly benefit from the new generation of weight loss drugs that work as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists. In the recently published SELECT trial results, for example, semaglutide (marketed by Novo Nordisk as Wegovy for weight loss and Ozempic for type 2 diabetes) demonstrated a 20% risk reduction of heart attacks and strokes in overweight and obese individuals without diabetes and with cardiovascular disease, establishing it as a cardiovascular disease–modifying medication in people without type 2 diabetes.

Unfortunately, the high demand for these new weight loss medications has resulted in a frustrating, long-lasting shortage. The manufacturers of the two FDA-approved drugs, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly (tirzepatide, marketed as Zepbound for weight loss and Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes), are struggling to meet the overwhelming need.

To ensure continuation of patient care, federal law allows compounding pharmacies to make “essentially a copy” of the medications that are listed as “currently in shortage” on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug shortage list. Both semaglutide and tirzepatide are on that list. For Americans who suffer from obesity and other weight-related diseases, these drugs could be a lifeline.

Despite this, the medical community has broadly criticized the utilization of compounded GLP-1 agonists, even those obtained from reputable and legitimate compounding pharmacies.

Yes, high demand has led to the emergence of unregulated companies and scammers producing substandard or counterfeit versions of these medications.

The FDA has found fraudulent products (masquerading as the weight loss drugs) and has issued warning letters to stop the distribution of illegally marketed semaglutide. “These drugs may be counterfeit, which means they could contain the wrong ingredients, contain too little, too much or no active ingredient at all, or contain other harmful ingredients,” it cautions. Some products use a similar-sounding semaglutide sodium salt, which has uncertain safety and efficacy, and had generated warnings from the FDA and state boards of pharmacy.

Many of these products are marketed directly to consumers online through websites and social media, with little to no medical oversight. This practice is a significant concern, as it may affect patient safety, and should be discouraged.

However, according to a statement from the Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding (APC), legitimate compounding pharmacies aren’t the ones selling these dubious products on the black market, particularly online. This illegal practice has garnered media attention and is sometimes incorrectly associated with legitimate pharmacy compounding.

In contrast, legal and certified versions of GLP-1 agonist medications can be obtained from well-regulated and reputable compounding pharmacies. These pharmacies must adhere to all federal and state regulations and dispense medications only with a valid prescription from a licensed physician.

Meanwhile, the APC statement notes, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have sued compounding companies in several states, questioning, among other things, the purity and potency of some compounded products.

There are different designations for compounding pharmacies: 503A and 503B. 503As are state-licensed pharmacies and physicians, and 503B pharmacies are federally regulated outsourcing facilities that are strictly regulated by the FDA. This regulation, established following a 2012 fungal meningitis outbreak linked to a compounding pharmacy, ensures higher-quality control and oversight, especially for medications intended for intravenous or epidural use. These standards exceed those required for subcutaneous injections like GLP-1 analogs.

In the face of this Wild West climate, where compounded drugs may vary in their source, formulation, potency, and purity, The Obesity Society, the Obesity Medical Association, and the Obesity Action Coalition published a joint statement that advised against the use of compounded GLP-1 agonists, citing safety concerns and lack of regulatory oversight.

This stance, while aimed at ensuring patient safety, inadvertently raises a critical issue.

By completely dismissing compounded medications, experts may unintentionally bolster the black market and overlook the needs of patients who could benefit from these medications, contrary to the intentions of the exemption provided in federal law for compounding during a drug shortage. In fact, the presence of unreliable suppliers highlights the need to direct the public toward trustworthy sources, rather than imposing a total ban on medically appropriate alternatives.

The joint statement calls compounded GLP-1 agonists “counterfeit.” This inaccurate overgeneralization probably stems from a misunderstanding of the compounding process and its regulations. Legitimate and regulated pharmacies compound base GLP-1 agonists, which are “essentially a copy” of FDA-approved medications, not counterfeits. Recognizing this is crucial for maintaining trust in both compounding pharmacies and regulatory bodies.

It is correct that “the only FDA-approved manufacturers of these medications are the companies that created the active pharmaceutical ingredients — Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly,” but the joint statement fails to mention the exemptions provided by law that allow compounding copies of the branded medications if they are on the shortage list.

Compounding pharmacies must obtain active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) from FDA-registered facilities, which are required to adhere to Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP). This ensures the APIs’ quality, potency, and purity, crucial for the safety and efficacy of compounded medications.

Compounded drugs are not FDA approved, but they aren’t inherently unsafe. Compounded medications include critical drugs such as resuscitation medications and antibiotics, and are often used in healthcare settings, especially when there’s a shortage. This raises the question of why compounded GLP-1 agonists would be treated any differently in such scenarios.

And in the case of alternative drugs for individuals with obesity who have a higher risk for cardiovascular disease, the brand-name FDA-approved alternative may be of more concern than the compounded GLP-1 agonist. The obesity societies advise: “If you cannot find or get access to a GLP-1-based treatment now, there are other treatments available,” echoing experts. While the statement doesn’t specify the names of the alternatives, experts have advised using alternatives such as Qsymia and Contrave, despite their potential cardiovascular concerns. This recommendation to the public may not represent a responsible risk-benefit analysis.

Courtesy Dr. Einav

Possible Solutions

When prescribing GLP-1 agonists for obesity treatment, doctors should consider all of the following steps to ensure patient safety and effective treatment:

Preference for FDA-approved brands: FDA-approved branded GLP-1 agonist medications should be the primary choice because of their established safety and efficacy.

Risk-benefit analysis for non–FDA-approved products: In cases where FDA-approved options are not available, doctors may consider prescribing a non–FDA-approved copy of the branded medication. Prior to this, conduct a thorough risk-benefit analysis with the patient, ensuring that they are fully informed about the potential risks and benefits of using a non–FDA-approved product.

Choosing semaglutide copies for specific cases: In patients with obesity and cardiovascular disease, the benefits of using a compounded copy of semaglutide, with its cardiovascular disease–modifying properties, may outweigh the risks compared with other FDA-approved antiobesity drugs that might pose cardiovascular risks or compared with no antiobesity treatment at all.

Informed consent and monitoring: When prescribing a non–FDA-approved version of a GLP-1 agonist, obtaining informed consent from the patient is advised. They should be made aware of the differences between the FDA-approved and nonapproved versions.

Choosing between 503A and 503B pharmacies: Prescriptions for non–FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists can be directed to either 503A or 503B compounding pharmacies. However, it’s advisable to check whether the product can be compounded by a 503B pharmacy, which is subject to an additional layer of FDA regulation, offering greater quality assurance.

Clear prescription specifications: Ensure that the prescription explicitly states that the compounded GLP-1 agonist should be the base compound without additives.

Requesting a Certificate of Analysis: To further ensure safety, request a Certificate of Analysis from the compounding pharmacy. This provides detailed quality and composition information about the product.

Ongoing monitoring: Continuously monitor the patient’s response to the medication and adjust the treatment plan as necessary, maintaining regular follow-ups.

By adhering to these guidelines, doctors can navigate the complexities of prescribing GLP-1 agonists in a way that prioritizes patient well-being, particularly in scenarios where conventional treatment options are limited.
 

Dr. Einav is a board-certified cardiologist and a Diplomate of the American Board of Obesity Medicine. He is a fellow of the American College of Cardiology and a member of the Obesity Medicine Association. He serves as the medical director of cardiometabolic health in Guthrie Lourdes in Binghamton, New York, and is the founder of myW8/Cardiometabolic Health located in Beverly Hills, California. This article solely reflects the personal views of Dr. Einav and should not be considered as representing the official stance of Guthrie Lourdes. Dr. Einav served as a promotional speaker for Novo Nordisk in 2022. As of now, he has not prescribed any compounded GLP-1 agonist medications in his medical practice.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a cardiologist specializing in obesity medicine, I often encounter patients who would greatly benefit from the new generation of weight loss drugs that work as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists. In the recently published SELECT trial results, for example, semaglutide (marketed by Novo Nordisk as Wegovy for weight loss and Ozempic for type 2 diabetes) demonstrated a 20% risk reduction of heart attacks and strokes in overweight and obese individuals without diabetes and with cardiovascular disease, establishing it as a cardiovascular disease–modifying medication in people without type 2 diabetes.

Unfortunately, the high demand for these new weight loss medications has resulted in a frustrating, long-lasting shortage. The manufacturers of the two FDA-approved drugs, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly (tirzepatide, marketed as Zepbound for weight loss and Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes), are struggling to meet the overwhelming need.

To ensure continuation of patient care, federal law allows compounding pharmacies to make “essentially a copy” of the medications that are listed as “currently in shortage” on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug shortage list. Both semaglutide and tirzepatide are on that list. For Americans who suffer from obesity and other weight-related diseases, these drugs could be a lifeline.

Despite this, the medical community has broadly criticized the utilization of compounded GLP-1 agonists, even those obtained from reputable and legitimate compounding pharmacies.

Yes, high demand has led to the emergence of unregulated companies and scammers producing substandard or counterfeit versions of these medications.

The FDA has found fraudulent products (masquerading as the weight loss drugs) and has issued warning letters to stop the distribution of illegally marketed semaglutide. “These drugs may be counterfeit, which means they could contain the wrong ingredients, contain too little, too much or no active ingredient at all, or contain other harmful ingredients,” it cautions. Some products use a similar-sounding semaglutide sodium salt, which has uncertain safety and efficacy, and had generated warnings from the FDA and state boards of pharmacy.

Many of these products are marketed directly to consumers online through websites and social media, with little to no medical oversight. This practice is a significant concern, as it may affect patient safety, and should be discouraged.

However, according to a statement from the Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding (APC), legitimate compounding pharmacies aren’t the ones selling these dubious products on the black market, particularly online. This illegal practice has garnered media attention and is sometimes incorrectly associated with legitimate pharmacy compounding.

In contrast, legal and certified versions of GLP-1 agonist medications can be obtained from well-regulated and reputable compounding pharmacies. These pharmacies must adhere to all federal and state regulations and dispense medications only with a valid prescription from a licensed physician.

Meanwhile, the APC statement notes, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have sued compounding companies in several states, questioning, among other things, the purity and potency of some compounded products.

There are different designations for compounding pharmacies: 503A and 503B. 503As are state-licensed pharmacies and physicians, and 503B pharmacies are federally regulated outsourcing facilities that are strictly regulated by the FDA. This regulation, established following a 2012 fungal meningitis outbreak linked to a compounding pharmacy, ensures higher-quality control and oversight, especially for medications intended for intravenous or epidural use. These standards exceed those required for subcutaneous injections like GLP-1 analogs.

In the face of this Wild West climate, where compounded drugs may vary in their source, formulation, potency, and purity, The Obesity Society, the Obesity Medical Association, and the Obesity Action Coalition published a joint statement that advised against the use of compounded GLP-1 agonists, citing safety concerns and lack of regulatory oversight.

This stance, while aimed at ensuring patient safety, inadvertently raises a critical issue.

By completely dismissing compounded medications, experts may unintentionally bolster the black market and overlook the needs of patients who could benefit from these medications, contrary to the intentions of the exemption provided in federal law for compounding during a drug shortage. In fact, the presence of unreliable suppliers highlights the need to direct the public toward trustworthy sources, rather than imposing a total ban on medically appropriate alternatives.

The joint statement calls compounded GLP-1 agonists “counterfeit.” This inaccurate overgeneralization probably stems from a misunderstanding of the compounding process and its regulations. Legitimate and regulated pharmacies compound base GLP-1 agonists, which are “essentially a copy” of FDA-approved medications, not counterfeits. Recognizing this is crucial for maintaining trust in both compounding pharmacies and regulatory bodies.

It is correct that “the only FDA-approved manufacturers of these medications are the companies that created the active pharmaceutical ingredients — Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly,” but the joint statement fails to mention the exemptions provided by law that allow compounding copies of the branded medications if they are on the shortage list.

Compounding pharmacies must obtain active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) from FDA-registered facilities, which are required to adhere to Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP). This ensures the APIs’ quality, potency, and purity, crucial for the safety and efficacy of compounded medications.

Compounded drugs are not FDA approved, but they aren’t inherently unsafe. Compounded medications include critical drugs such as resuscitation medications and antibiotics, and are often used in healthcare settings, especially when there’s a shortage. This raises the question of why compounded GLP-1 agonists would be treated any differently in such scenarios.

And in the case of alternative drugs for individuals with obesity who have a higher risk for cardiovascular disease, the brand-name FDA-approved alternative may be of more concern than the compounded GLP-1 agonist. The obesity societies advise: “If you cannot find or get access to a GLP-1-based treatment now, there are other treatments available,” echoing experts. While the statement doesn’t specify the names of the alternatives, experts have advised using alternatives such as Qsymia and Contrave, despite their potential cardiovascular concerns. This recommendation to the public may not represent a responsible risk-benefit analysis.

Courtesy Dr. Einav

Possible Solutions

When prescribing GLP-1 agonists for obesity treatment, doctors should consider all of the following steps to ensure patient safety and effective treatment:

Preference for FDA-approved brands: FDA-approved branded GLP-1 agonist medications should be the primary choice because of their established safety and efficacy.

Risk-benefit analysis for non–FDA-approved products: In cases where FDA-approved options are not available, doctors may consider prescribing a non–FDA-approved copy of the branded medication. Prior to this, conduct a thorough risk-benefit analysis with the patient, ensuring that they are fully informed about the potential risks and benefits of using a non–FDA-approved product.

Choosing semaglutide copies for specific cases: In patients with obesity and cardiovascular disease, the benefits of using a compounded copy of semaglutide, with its cardiovascular disease–modifying properties, may outweigh the risks compared with other FDA-approved antiobesity drugs that might pose cardiovascular risks or compared with no antiobesity treatment at all.

Informed consent and monitoring: When prescribing a non–FDA-approved version of a GLP-1 agonist, obtaining informed consent from the patient is advised. They should be made aware of the differences between the FDA-approved and nonapproved versions.

Choosing between 503A and 503B pharmacies: Prescriptions for non–FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists can be directed to either 503A or 503B compounding pharmacies. However, it’s advisable to check whether the product can be compounded by a 503B pharmacy, which is subject to an additional layer of FDA regulation, offering greater quality assurance.

Clear prescription specifications: Ensure that the prescription explicitly states that the compounded GLP-1 agonist should be the base compound without additives.

Requesting a Certificate of Analysis: To further ensure safety, request a Certificate of Analysis from the compounding pharmacy. This provides detailed quality and composition information about the product.

Ongoing monitoring: Continuously monitor the patient’s response to the medication and adjust the treatment plan as necessary, maintaining regular follow-ups.

By adhering to these guidelines, doctors can navigate the complexities of prescribing GLP-1 agonists in a way that prioritizes patient well-being, particularly in scenarios where conventional treatment options are limited.
 

Dr. Einav is a board-certified cardiologist and a Diplomate of the American Board of Obesity Medicine. He is a fellow of the American College of Cardiology and a member of the Obesity Medicine Association. He serves as the medical director of cardiometabolic health in Guthrie Lourdes in Binghamton, New York, and is the founder of myW8/Cardiometabolic Health located in Beverly Hills, California. This article solely reflects the personal views of Dr. Einav and should not be considered as representing the official stance of Guthrie Lourdes. Dr. Einav served as a promotional speaker for Novo Nordisk in 2022. As of now, he has not prescribed any compounded GLP-1 agonist medications in his medical practice.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Whether you have totally bought into the “obesity is a disease” paradigm or are still in denial, you must admit that the development of a suite of effective weight loss medications has created a tsunami of interest and economic activity in this country on a scale not seen since the Beanie Baby craze of the mid-1990s. But, obesity management is serious business. While most of those soft cuddly toys are gathering dust in shoeboxes across this country, weight loss medications are likely to be the vanguard of rapidly evolving revolution in healthcare management that will be with us for the foreseeable future.

Most thoughtful folks who purchased Beanie Babies in 1994 had no illusions and knew that in a few short years this bubble of soft cuddly toys was going to burst. However, do those of us on the front line of medical care know what the future holds for the patients who are being prescribed or are scavenging those too-good-to-be-true medications?

My guess is that in the long run we will need a combination of some serious tinkering by the pharmaceutical industry and a trek up some steep learning curves before we eventually arrive at a safe and effective chemical management for obese patients. I recently read an article by an obesity management specialist at Harvard Medical School who voiced her concerns that we are missing an opportunity to make this explosion of popularity in GLP-1 drugs into an important learning experience.

In an opinion piece in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford and her coauthors argue that we, actually the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is over-focused on weight loss in determining the efficacy of anti-obesity medications. Dr. Stanford and colleagues point out that when a patient loses weight it isn’t just fat — it is complex process that may include muscle and bone mineralization as well. She has consulted for at least one obesity-drug manufacturer and says that these companies have the resources to produce data on body composition that could help clinicians create management plans that would address the patients’ overall health. However, the FDA has not demanded this broader and deeper assessment of general health when reviewing the drug trials.

I don’t think we can blame the patients for not asking whether they will healthier while taking these medications. They have already spent a lifetime, even if it is just a decade, of suffering as the “fat one.” A new outfit and a look in the mirror can’t help but make them feel better ... in the short term anyway. We as physicians must shoulder some of the blame for focusing on weight. Our spoken or unspoken message has been “Lose weight and you will be healthier.” We may make our message sound more professional by tossing around terms like “BMI,” but as Dr. Stanford points out, “we have known BMI is a flawed metric for a long time.”

There is the notion that obese people have had to build more muscle to help them carry around the extra weight, so that we should expect them to lose that extra muscle along with the fat. However, in older adults there is an entity called sarcopenic obesity, in which the patient doesn’t have that extra muscle to lose.

In a brief Internet research venture, I could find little on the subject of muscle loss and GLP-1s, other than “it can happen.” And, nothing on the effect in adolescents. And that is one of Dr. Stanford’s points. We just don’t know. She said that looking at body composition can be costly and not something that the clinician can do. However, as far as muscle mass is concerned, we need to be alert to the potential for loss. Simple assessments of strength can help us tailor our management to the specific patient’s need.

The bottom line is this ... now that we have effective medications for “weight loss,” we need to redefine the relationship between weight and health. “We” means us as clinicians. It means the folks at FDA. And, if we can improve our messaging, it will osmose to the rest of the population. Just because you’ve dropped two dress sizes doesn’t mean you’re healthy.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Whether you have totally bought into the “obesity is a disease” paradigm or are still in denial, you must admit that the development of a suite of effective weight loss medications has created a tsunami of interest and economic activity in this country on a scale not seen since the Beanie Baby craze of the mid-1990s. But, obesity management is serious business. While most of those soft cuddly toys are gathering dust in shoeboxes across this country, weight loss medications are likely to be the vanguard of rapidly evolving revolution in healthcare management that will be with us for the foreseeable future.

Most thoughtful folks who purchased Beanie Babies in 1994 had no illusions and knew that in a few short years this bubble of soft cuddly toys was going to burst. However, do those of us on the front line of medical care know what the future holds for the patients who are being prescribed or are scavenging those too-good-to-be-true medications?

My guess is that in the long run we will need a combination of some serious tinkering by the pharmaceutical industry and a trek up some steep learning curves before we eventually arrive at a safe and effective chemical management for obese patients. I recently read an article by an obesity management specialist at Harvard Medical School who voiced her concerns that we are missing an opportunity to make this explosion of popularity in GLP-1 drugs into an important learning experience.

In an opinion piece in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford and her coauthors argue that we, actually the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is over-focused on weight loss in determining the efficacy of anti-obesity medications. Dr. Stanford and colleagues point out that when a patient loses weight it isn’t just fat — it is complex process that may include muscle and bone mineralization as well. She has consulted for at least one obesity-drug manufacturer and says that these companies have the resources to produce data on body composition that could help clinicians create management plans that would address the patients’ overall health. However, the FDA has not demanded this broader and deeper assessment of general health when reviewing the drug trials.

I don’t think we can blame the patients for not asking whether they will healthier while taking these medications. They have already spent a lifetime, even if it is just a decade, of suffering as the “fat one.” A new outfit and a look in the mirror can’t help but make them feel better ... in the short term anyway. We as physicians must shoulder some of the blame for focusing on weight. Our spoken or unspoken message has been “Lose weight and you will be healthier.” We may make our message sound more professional by tossing around terms like “BMI,” but as Dr. Stanford points out, “we have known BMI is a flawed metric for a long time.”

There is the notion that obese people have had to build more muscle to help them carry around the extra weight, so that we should expect them to lose that extra muscle along with the fat. However, in older adults there is an entity called sarcopenic obesity, in which the patient doesn’t have that extra muscle to lose.

In a brief Internet research venture, I could find little on the subject of muscle loss and GLP-1s, other than “it can happen.” And, nothing on the effect in adolescents. And that is one of Dr. Stanford’s points. We just don’t know. She said that looking at body composition can be costly and not something that the clinician can do. However, as far as muscle mass is concerned, we need to be alert to the potential for loss. Simple assessments of strength can help us tailor our management to the specific patient’s need.

The bottom line is this ... now that we have effective medications for “weight loss,” we need to redefine the relationship between weight and health. “We” means us as clinicians. It means the folks at FDA. And, if we can improve our messaging, it will osmose to the rest of the population. Just because you’ve dropped two dress sizes doesn’t mean you’re healthy.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Whether you have totally bought into the “obesity is a disease” paradigm or are still in denial, you must admit that the development of a suite of effective weight loss medications has created a tsunami of interest and economic activity in this country on a scale not seen since the Beanie Baby craze of the mid-1990s. But, obesity management is serious business. While most of those soft cuddly toys are gathering dust in shoeboxes across this country, weight loss medications are likely to be the vanguard of rapidly evolving revolution in healthcare management that will be with us for the foreseeable future.

Most thoughtful folks who purchased Beanie Babies in 1994 had no illusions and knew that in a few short years this bubble of soft cuddly toys was going to burst. However, do those of us on the front line of medical care know what the future holds for the patients who are being prescribed or are scavenging those too-good-to-be-true medications?

My guess is that in the long run we will need a combination of some serious tinkering by the pharmaceutical industry and a trek up some steep learning curves before we eventually arrive at a safe and effective chemical management for obese patients. I recently read an article by an obesity management specialist at Harvard Medical School who voiced her concerns that we are missing an opportunity to make this explosion of popularity in GLP-1 drugs into an important learning experience.

In an opinion piece in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford and her coauthors argue that we, actually the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is over-focused on weight loss in determining the efficacy of anti-obesity medications. Dr. Stanford and colleagues point out that when a patient loses weight it isn’t just fat — it is complex process that may include muscle and bone mineralization as well. She has consulted for at least one obesity-drug manufacturer and says that these companies have the resources to produce data on body composition that could help clinicians create management plans that would address the patients’ overall health. However, the FDA has not demanded this broader and deeper assessment of general health when reviewing the drug trials.

I don’t think we can blame the patients for not asking whether they will healthier while taking these medications. They have already spent a lifetime, even if it is just a decade, of suffering as the “fat one.” A new outfit and a look in the mirror can’t help but make them feel better ... in the short term anyway. We as physicians must shoulder some of the blame for focusing on weight. Our spoken or unspoken message has been “Lose weight and you will be healthier.” We may make our message sound more professional by tossing around terms like “BMI,” but as Dr. Stanford points out, “we have known BMI is a flawed metric for a long time.”

There is the notion that obese people have had to build more muscle to help them carry around the extra weight, so that we should expect them to lose that extra muscle along with the fat. However, in older adults there is an entity called sarcopenic obesity, in which the patient doesn’t have that extra muscle to lose.

In a brief Internet research venture, I could find little on the subject of muscle loss and GLP-1s, other than “it can happen.” And, nothing on the effect in adolescents. And that is one of Dr. Stanford’s points. We just don’t know. She said that looking at body composition can be costly and not something that the clinician can do. However, as far as muscle mass is concerned, we need to be alert to the potential for loss. Simple assessments of strength can help us tailor our management to the specific patient’s need.

The bottom line is this ... now that we have effective medications for “weight loss,” we need to redefine the relationship between weight and health. “We” means us as clinicians. It means the folks at FDA. And, if we can improve our messaging, it will osmose to the rest of the population. Just because you’ve dropped two dress sizes doesn’t mean you’re healthy.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

TOPLINE:

Higher urinary magnesium loss, as indicated by an elevated magnesium depletion score (MDS), may be an independent risk factor for metabolic syndrome in US adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Increasing evidence suggests that chronic hypomagnesemia may play a role in the pathogenesis of metabolic disorders, including overweight and obesity, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.
• Researchers examined the relationship between magnesium status and metabolic syndrome in 15,565 US adults (mean age, 47 years; half women) participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2018), of whom 5438 had metabolic syndrome (mean age, 55 years).
• Magnesium deficiency was predicted by MDS, a four-factor score that aggregates diuretic use (one point), proton pump inhibitor (one point), kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate; one or two points), and heavy  (one point).
• MDS was categorized into six levels (by scores 0-5), with a higher MDS indicating a more severe magnesium deficiency.
• Metabolic syndrome was defined according to the National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treatment Panel III report.

TAKEAWAY:

• The proportion of patients with MDS ≥ 2 was higher in the group with vs without metabolic syndrome (P < .05).
• Even after adjusting for potential confounding factors, each 1-unit increase in the MDS increased the odds of metabolic syndrome by about 30% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45).
• A dose-response relationship was observed between MDS and metabolic syndrome, with MDS level 1 being associated with 1.28-fold higher odds of metabolic syndrome (95% CI, 1.06-1.55) than MDS level 0; further escalation in the odds was noted for MDS levels 2, 3, and 4.
• The association between metabolic syndrome and MDS remained consistent across all population subgroups defined by age, gender, race (except Mexican American), body mass index, drinking status, or smoking status.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is possible to prevent and reduce MetS [metabolic syndrome] by supplementing with magnesium supplements or encouraging higher magnesium intake diet because the diet is a factor that can be changed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xiaohao Wang, Department of Geriatrics, the First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Southern University of Science and Technology (Shenzhen People’s Hospital), Shenzhen, China. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study found no significant link between MDS level 5 and metabolic syndrome, likely due to the small sample size at this level. The study could not draw any causal relationship between metabolic syndrome and MDS owing to its cross-sectional nature. It also could not determine whether MDS was a better marker of magnesium deficiency than serum magnesium levels. MDS is a categorical, not continuous, variable.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Natural Science Foundation of Shenzhen City, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher urinary magnesium loss, as indicated by an elevated magnesium depletion score (MDS), may be an independent risk factor for metabolic syndrome in US adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Increasing evidence suggests that chronic hypomagnesemia may play a role in the pathogenesis of metabolic disorders, including overweight and obesity, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.
• Researchers examined the relationship between magnesium status and metabolic syndrome in 15,565 US adults (mean age, 47 years; half women) participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2018), of whom 5438 had metabolic syndrome (mean age, 55 years).
• Magnesium deficiency was predicted by MDS, a four-factor score that aggregates diuretic use (one point), proton pump inhibitor (one point), kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate; one or two points), and heavy  (one point).
• MDS was categorized into six levels (by scores 0-5), with a higher MDS indicating a more severe magnesium deficiency.
• Metabolic syndrome was defined according to the National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treatment Panel III report.

TAKEAWAY:

• The proportion of patients with MDS ≥ 2 was higher in the group with vs without metabolic syndrome (P < .05).
• Even after adjusting for potential confounding factors, each 1-unit increase in the MDS increased the odds of metabolic syndrome by about 30% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45).
• A dose-response relationship was observed between MDS and metabolic syndrome, with MDS level 1 being associated with 1.28-fold higher odds of metabolic syndrome (95% CI, 1.06-1.55) than MDS level 0; further escalation in the odds was noted for MDS levels 2, 3, and 4.
• The association between metabolic syndrome and MDS remained consistent across all population subgroups defined by age, gender, race (except Mexican American), body mass index, drinking status, or smoking status.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is possible to prevent and reduce MetS [metabolic syndrome] by supplementing with magnesium supplements or encouraging higher magnesium intake diet because the diet is a factor that can be changed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xiaohao Wang, Department of Geriatrics, the First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Southern University of Science and Technology (Shenzhen People’s Hospital), Shenzhen, China. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study found no significant link between MDS level 5 and metabolic syndrome, likely due to the small sample size at this level. The study could not draw any causal relationship between metabolic syndrome and MDS owing to its cross-sectional nature. It also could not determine whether MDS was a better marker of magnesium deficiency than serum magnesium levels. MDS is a categorical, not continuous, variable.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Natural Science Foundation of Shenzhen City, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher urinary magnesium loss, as indicated by an elevated magnesium depletion score (MDS), may be an independent risk factor for metabolic syndrome in US adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Increasing evidence suggests that chronic hypomagnesemia may play a role in the pathogenesis of metabolic disorders, including overweight and obesity, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.
• Researchers examined the relationship between magnesium status and metabolic syndrome in 15,565 US adults (mean age, 47 years; half women) participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2018), of whom 5438 had metabolic syndrome (mean age, 55 years).
• Magnesium deficiency was predicted by MDS, a four-factor score that aggregates diuretic use (one point), proton pump inhibitor (one point), kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate; one or two points), and heavy  (one point).
• MDS was categorized into six levels (by scores 0-5), with a higher MDS indicating a more severe magnesium deficiency.
• Metabolic syndrome was defined according to the National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treatment Panel III report.

TAKEAWAY:

• The proportion of patients with MDS ≥ 2 was higher in the group with vs without metabolic syndrome (P < .05).
• Even after adjusting for potential confounding factors, each 1-unit increase in the MDS increased the odds of metabolic syndrome by about 30% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45).
• A dose-response relationship was observed between MDS and metabolic syndrome, with MDS level 1 being associated with 1.28-fold higher odds of metabolic syndrome (95% CI, 1.06-1.55) than MDS level 0; further escalation in the odds was noted for MDS levels 2, 3, and 4.
• The association between metabolic syndrome and MDS remained consistent across all population subgroups defined by age, gender, race (except Mexican American), body mass index, drinking status, or smoking status.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is possible to prevent and reduce MetS [metabolic syndrome] by supplementing with magnesium supplements or encouraging higher magnesium intake diet because the diet is a factor that can be changed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xiaohao Wang, Department of Geriatrics, the First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Southern University of Science and Technology (Shenzhen People’s Hospital), Shenzhen, China. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study found no significant link between MDS level 5 and metabolic syndrome, likely due to the small sample size at this level. The study could not draw any causal relationship between metabolic syndrome and MDS owing to its cross-sectional nature. It also could not determine whether MDS was a better marker of magnesium deficiency than serum magnesium levels. MDS is a categorical, not continuous, variable.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Natural Science Foundation of Shenzhen City, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid rising concern about the potential long-term costs of using glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists to treat obesity, some insurers are making access to bariatric surgery easier.

While the relationship may not be entirely causal, data do suggest that at least for now, these new agents for treating obesity including semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound) are not cost-effective, whereas the surgery is.

According to GoodRx, Wegovy (semaglutide) has a list price of about $1350 for a 28-day supply. And the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) said that the average cost of bariatric surgery ranges between $17,000 and $26,000. But ASMBS added that third-party payers will recover those costs within 2-4 years due to reduction or elimination of obesity-related conditions and associated treatment costs, with an approximate 29% healthcare cost reduction at 5 years.

Recently, for example, Geisinger Health of Pennsylvania and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts expanded body mass index (BMI) eligibility for bariatric surgery procedures, while Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan dropped prior authorization requirements for several services, including bariatric surgery.

While most major health insurers cover Wegovy for obesity treatment, they typically require prior authorization and/or trials of other therapies first. Recently, some employers have denied coverage for the medications for treating obesity. Medicare does not cover these drugs. Coverage varies across state Medicaid plans.

“For years, insurers…have played games with the surgery, making people jump through hoops, hoping that they would just give up and go away. And now that health plans are getting concerned about [the cost of] drugs for obesity, and they’re getting so much attention, they’re thinking oh, maybe we shouldn’t be playing these games anymore,” obesity policy expert Ted Kyle, RPh, founder of ConscienHealth, told this news organization.

However, Christopher Doubet Still, DO, director of Nutrition and Weight Management at Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that Geisinger Health Plan’s change in May 2023 to lower the BMI surgery eligibility cutoff from 35 kg/m2 to 30 kg/m2 for people with comorbidities was not related to the cost of GLP-1 drugs.

“To date, bariatric surgery remains the most effective, enduring treatment of obesity, and most importantly, its comorbid medical problems. So that was really the reasoning. The weight loss is secondary to the profound medical benefits of bariatric surgery. I think that was the impetus of that change, not having really anything to do at the time with GLP-1s,” Dr. Still said.

The Geisinger Health Plan does not currently cover antiobesity medications, although Geisinger Health Plan Family, a state Medicaid plan, does because Pennsylvania is now one of a handful of states that cover the medications through Medicaid.
 

The Equation Keeps Changing

Health economist James Chambers, PhD, of Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organizations, “when you think about the value of a treatment, you don’t look at it in isolation. You’re looking at the difference in cost and benefits. So now that you have these expensive drugs, it’s not that surgeries become less expensive, but it does make you interpret the cost differently. When diet and exercise and counseling were the only real options, surgeries seemed like a much more expensive intervention. But with the advent of the GLP-1s, then, maybe plans consider the costs of surgery a little bit differently.”

And that equation is likely to change further, Dr. Still noted.

“I just think we’re dealing with a short-term financial problem because there’s basically only two main medications so the prices are high, but as more medications come on the market, the prices will come down,” he said.

Cristy Ms. Gallagher, MPAff, research project director of the STOP Obesity Alliance at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, Washington, DC, agreed.

“We have a lot of data on obesity treatment coverage from before 2023. But then this [GLP-1] explosion happened in 2023…The health payers are out there trying to figure out coverage, and they’re trying to figure out what this is going to look like for them,” Ms. Gallagher said.

However, she pointed out, “there is no treatment that fits everyone. The GLP-1s won’t work for every person because of the different stages of obesity, the side effects, and then because of the coverage. I think that you will not see a decrease in bariatric surgery in the near term, by any means.”

Ms. Gallagher also noted that although the data now suggest people will have to keep taking the drugs for life, there may be other future approaches.

“Once a person hits their goal weight, maybe then they could be transferred to a different pill form that might be cheaper, something that’s sort of more of a maintenance drug. I think that is a huge unknown right now,” she said.

And Mr. Kyle said that while bariatric surgery does provide the most durable benefit, “weight regain after surgery is a fact of life. People are still healthier 5 years later, but they do have some weight regain. And in those cases, you might want to follow-up with medicines…It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition any more than surgical treatment of cancer, surgical oncology is an either/or with medical oncology.”
 

A New View of Obesity

According to Mr. Kyle, all this attention on the new medications “is prompting people to rethink or think differently about obesity and consider it more carefully as a chronic medical condition and not a condition of appearance and behavior. And that’s all good, whether you’re thinking about it from the standpoint of bariatric surgery or from the standpoint of medical treatment of obesity because then people start considering options more rationally.”

This shifting view of obesity has meant that bariatric surgeons and medical obesity specialists are starting to work more collaboratively, he said.

“There is a trend that I detect toward more integrated approaches to obesity,” Mr. Kyle said.

He added, “We now have more tools. And we’re in the messy middle of figuring out how, as a practical matter, to use them.”

And as far as insurance coverage, “people are going to make mistakes. They are making mistakes. But I have been the eternal optimist, and I have faith that people are also figuring it out. It would be hard to do worse.”

For now, any initiatives to increase bariatric surgery rates in the GLP-1 era haven’t yet had an impact, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery President Marina S. Kurian, MD, told this news organization in a statement.

“While we have heard of some insurers possibly changing their requirements for bariatric surgery, we have not seen a significant rise in procedures related to changes in insurance coverage for either antiobesity medications or metabolic and bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kurian said.

Mr. Kyle had accepted speaking or professional fees from Novo Nordisk, Behringer Ingelheim, Nutrisystem, Roman Health, and Emerald Lake Safety. Dr. Still was on the speaker’s bureau and did clinical trials for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Chambers and Gallagher had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid rising concern about the potential long-term costs of using glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists to treat obesity, some insurers are making access to bariatric surgery easier.

While the relationship may not be entirely causal, data do suggest that at least for now, these new agents for treating obesity including semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound) are not cost-effective, whereas the surgery is.

According to GoodRx, Wegovy (semaglutide) has a list price of about $1350 for a 28-day supply. And the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) said that the average cost of bariatric surgery ranges between $17,000 and $26,000. But ASMBS added that third-party payers will recover those costs within 2-4 years due to reduction or elimination of obesity-related conditions and associated treatment costs, with an approximate 29% healthcare cost reduction at 5 years.

Recently, for example, Geisinger Health of Pennsylvania and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts expanded body mass index (BMI) eligibility for bariatric surgery procedures, while Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan dropped prior authorization requirements for several services, including bariatric surgery.

While most major health insurers cover Wegovy for obesity treatment, they typically require prior authorization and/or trials of other therapies first. Recently, some employers have denied coverage for the medications for treating obesity. Medicare does not cover these drugs. Coverage varies across state Medicaid plans.

“For years, insurers…have played games with the surgery, making people jump through hoops, hoping that they would just give up and go away. And now that health plans are getting concerned about [the cost of] drugs for obesity, and they’re getting so much attention, they’re thinking oh, maybe we shouldn’t be playing these games anymore,” obesity policy expert Ted Kyle, RPh, founder of ConscienHealth, told this news organization.

However, Christopher Doubet Still, DO, director of Nutrition and Weight Management at Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that Geisinger Health Plan’s change in May 2023 to lower the BMI surgery eligibility cutoff from 35 kg/m2 to 30 kg/m2 for people with comorbidities was not related to the cost of GLP-1 drugs.

“To date, bariatric surgery remains the most effective, enduring treatment of obesity, and most importantly, its comorbid medical problems. So that was really the reasoning. The weight loss is secondary to the profound medical benefits of bariatric surgery. I think that was the impetus of that change, not having really anything to do at the time with GLP-1s,” Dr. Still said.

The Geisinger Health Plan does not currently cover antiobesity medications, although Geisinger Health Plan Family, a state Medicaid plan, does because Pennsylvania is now one of a handful of states that cover the medications through Medicaid.
 

The Equation Keeps Changing

Health economist James Chambers, PhD, of Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organizations, “when you think about the value of a treatment, you don’t look at it in isolation. You’re looking at the difference in cost and benefits. So now that you have these expensive drugs, it’s not that surgeries become less expensive, but it does make you interpret the cost differently. When diet and exercise and counseling were the only real options, surgeries seemed like a much more expensive intervention. But with the advent of the GLP-1s, then, maybe plans consider the costs of surgery a little bit differently.”

And that equation is likely to change further, Dr. Still noted.

“I just think we’re dealing with a short-term financial problem because there’s basically only two main medications so the prices are high, but as more medications come on the market, the prices will come down,” he said.

Cristy Ms. Gallagher, MPAff, research project director of the STOP Obesity Alliance at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, Washington, DC, agreed.

“We have a lot of data on obesity treatment coverage from before 2023. But then this [GLP-1] explosion happened in 2023…The health payers are out there trying to figure out coverage, and they’re trying to figure out what this is going to look like for them,” Ms. Gallagher said.

However, she pointed out, “there is no treatment that fits everyone. The GLP-1s won’t work for every person because of the different stages of obesity, the side effects, and then because of the coverage. I think that you will not see a decrease in bariatric surgery in the near term, by any means.”

Ms. Gallagher also noted that although the data now suggest people will have to keep taking the drugs for life, there may be other future approaches.

“Once a person hits their goal weight, maybe then they could be transferred to a different pill form that might be cheaper, something that’s sort of more of a maintenance drug. I think that is a huge unknown right now,” she said.

And Mr. Kyle said that while bariatric surgery does provide the most durable benefit, “weight regain after surgery is a fact of life. People are still healthier 5 years later, but they do have some weight regain. And in those cases, you might want to follow-up with medicines…It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition any more than surgical treatment of cancer, surgical oncology is an either/or with medical oncology.”
 

A New View of Obesity

According to Mr. Kyle, all this attention on the new medications “is prompting people to rethink or think differently about obesity and consider it more carefully as a chronic medical condition and not a condition of appearance and behavior. And that’s all good, whether you’re thinking about it from the standpoint of bariatric surgery or from the standpoint of medical treatment of obesity because then people start considering options more rationally.”

This shifting view of obesity has meant that bariatric surgeons and medical obesity specialists are starting to work more collaboratively, he said.

“There is a trend that I detect toward more integrated approaches to obesity,” Mr. Kyle said.

He added, “We now have more tools. And we’re in the messy middle of figuring out how, as a practical matter, to use them.”

And as far as insurance coverage, “people are going to make mistakes. They are making mistakes. But I have been the eternal optimist, and I have faith that people are also figuring it out. It would be hard to do worse.”

For now, any initiatives to increase bariatric surgery rates in the GLP-1 era haven’t yet had an impact, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery President Marina S. Kurian, MD, told this news organization in a statement.

“While we have heard of some insurers possibly changing their requirements for bariatric surgery, we have not seen a significant rise in procedures related to changes in insurance coverage for either antiobesity medications or metabolic and bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kurian said.

Mr. Kyle had accepted speaking or professional fees from Novo Nordisk, Behringer Ingelheim, Nutrisystem, Roman Health, and Emerald Lake Safety. Dr. Still was on the speaker’s bureau and did clinical trials for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Chambers and Gallagher had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid rising concern about the potential long-term costs of using glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists to treat obesity, some insurers are making access to bariatric surgery easier.

While the relationship may not be entirely causal, data do suggest that at least for now, these new agents for treating obesity including semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound) are not cost-effective, whereas the surgery is.

According to GoodRx, Wegovy (semaglutide) has a list price of about $1350 for a 28-day supply. And the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) said that the average cost of bariatric surgery ranges between $17,000 and $26,000. But ASMBS added that third-party payers will recover those costs within 2-4 years due to reduction or elimination of obesity-related conditions and associated treatment costs, with an approximate 29% healthcare cost reduction at 5 years.

Recently, for example, Geisinger Health of Pennsylvania and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts expanded body mass index (BMI) eligibility for bariatric surgery procedures, while Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan dropped prior authorization requirements for several services, including bariatric surgery.

While most major health insurers cover Wegovy for obesity treatment, they typically require prior authorization and/or trials of other therapies first. Recently, some employers have denied coverage for the medications for treating obesity. Medicare does not cover these drugs. Coverage varies across state Medicaid plans.

“For years, insurers…have played games with the surgery, making people jump through hoops, hoping that they would just give up and go away. And now that health plans are getting concerned about [the cost of] drugs for obesity, and they’re getting so much attention, they’re thinking oh, maybe we shouldn’t be playing these games anymore,” obesity policy expert Ted Kyle, RPh, founder of ConscienHealth, told this news organization.

However, Christopher Doubet Still, DO, director of Nutrition and Weight Management at Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that Geisinger Health Plan’s change in May 2023 to lower the BMI surgery eligibility cutoff from 35 kg/m2 to 30 kg/m2 for people with comorbidities was not related to the cost of GLP-1 drugs.

“To date, bariatric surgery remains the most effective, enduring treatment of obesity, and most importantly, its comorbid medical problems. So that was really the reasoning. The weight loss is secondary to the profound medical benefits of bariatric surgery. I think that was the impetus of that change, not having really anything to do at the time with GLP-1s,” Dr. Still said.

The Geisinger Health Plan does not currently cover antiobesity medications, although Geisinger Health Plan Family, a state Medicaid plan, does because Pennsylvania is now one of a handful of states that cover the medications through Medicaid.
 

The Equation Keeps Changing

Health economist James Chambers, PhD, of Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organizations, “when you think about the value of a treatment, you don’t look at it in isolation. You’re looking at the difference in cost and benefits. So now that you have these expensive drugs, it’s not that surgeries become less expensive, but it does make you interpret the cost differently. When diet and exercise and counseling were the only real options, surgeries seemed like a much more expensive intervention. But with the advent of the GLP-1s, then, maybe plans consider the costs of surgery a little bit differently.”

And that equation is likely to change further, Dr. Still noted.

“I just think we’re dealing with a short-term financial problem because there’s basically only two main medications so the prices are high, but as more medications come on the market, the prices will come down,” he said.

Cristy Ms. Gallagher, MPAff, research project director of the STOP Obesity Alliance at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, Washington, DC, agreed.

“We have a lot of data on obesity treatment coverage from before 2023. But then this [GLP-1] explosion happened in 2023…The health payers are out there trying to figure out coverage, and they’re trying to figure out what this is going to look like for them,” Ms. Gallagher said.

However, she pointed out, “there is no treatment that fits everyone. The GLP-1s won’t work for every person because of the different stages of obesity, the side effects, and then because of the coverage. I think that you will not see a decrease in bariatric surgery in the near term, by any means.”

Ms. Gallagher also noted that although the data now suggest people will have to keep taking the drugs for life, there may be other future approaches.

“Once a person hits their goal weight, maybe then they could be transferred to a different pill form that might be cheaper, something that’s sort of more of a maintenance drug. I think that is a huge unknown right now,” she said.

And Mr. Kyle said that while bariatric surgery does provide the most durable benefit, “weight regain after surgery is a fact of life. People are still healthier 5 years later, but they do have some weight regain. And in those cases, you might want to follow-up with medicines…It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition any more than surgical treatment of cancer, surgical oncology is an either/or with medical oncology.”
 

A New View of Obesity

According to Mr. Kyle, all this attention on the new medications “is prompting people to rethink or think differently about obesity and consider it more carefully as a chronic medical condition and not a condition of appearance and behavior. And that’s all good, whether you’re thinking about it from the standpoint of bariatric surgery or from the standpoint of medical treatment of obesity because then people start considering options more rationally.”

This shifting view of obesity has meant that bariatric surgeons and medical obesity specialists are starting to work more collaboratively, he said.

“There is a trend that I detect toward more integrated approaches to obesity,” Mr. Kyle said.

He added, “We now have more tools. And we’re in the messy middle of figuring out how, as a practical matter, to use them.”

And as far as insurance coverage, “people are going to make mistakes. They are making mistakes. But I have been the eternal optimist, and I have faith that people are also figuring it out. It would be hard to do worse.”

For now, any initiatives to increase bariatric surgery rates in the GLP-1 era haven’t yet had an impact, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery President Marina S. Kurian, MD, told this news organization in a statement.

“While we have heard of some insurers possibly changing their requirements for bariatric surgery, we have not seen a significant rise in procedures related to changes in insurance coverage for either antiobesity medications or metabolic and bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kurian said.

Mr. Kyle had accepted speaking or professional fees from Novo Nordisk, Behringer Ingelheim, Nutrisystem, Roman Health, and Emerald Lake Safety. Dr. Still was on the speaker’s bureau and did clinical trials for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Chambers and Gallagher had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The addition of supervised exercise to obesity pharmacotherapy has shown greater potential for maintaining weight loss and improving body composition after treatment termination than pharmacotherapy alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite significant weight loss achieved with incretin-based obesity pharmacotherapies, their high costs and gastrointestinal adverse events lead to high discontinuation rates with subsequent regaining of weight and body fat.
• Researchers investigated if a strategy involving both exercise and , a -like peptide-1 receptor agonist, was better than either intervention alone in terms of maintaining weight loss and body composition after treatment termination.
• They conducted a 1-year posttreatment analysis of the S-LiTE study, including 109 adults with obesity (age, 18-65 years; body mass index, 32-43) who completed an 8-week low-calorie diet resulting in ≥ 5% weight loss.
• Participants were then randomly allocated to a 52-week weight loss maintenance intervention with either liraglutide or placebo alone or liraglutide or placebo plus supervised exercise.
• The primary outcome was the change in body weight (kg) from randomization to 1 year after the termination of weight maintenance intervention (0-104 weeks), and the secondary outcome was the change in body-fat percentage from 0 to 104 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• From week 0 to week 104, supervised exercise plus liraglutide led to 5.1 kg lower weight gain (P = .040) and a 2.3%-point greater decrease in body-fat percentage (P = .026) than liraglutide alone.
• During the 1 year after treatment termination (52-104 weeks), those in the liraglutide group regained 6 kg (95% CI, 2.1-10.0) more than those who were in the supervised exercise plus placebo group, and 2.5 kg (95% CI, -1.5 to 6.5) more than those who received supervised exercise plus liraglutide.
• After 1 year of treatment termination (week 104), the supervised exercise plus liraglutide group had significantly higher odds of maintaining a weight loss of ≥ 10% of initial body weight than the liraglutide (odds ratio [OR], 4.2; 95% CI, 1.6-10.8) or placebo (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.4-21.3) groups.
• The combination of exercise and liraglutide also improved physical functioning along with energy and fatigue scores.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future lifestyle-based treatments during obesity pharmacotherapy may further improve body weight and composition outcomes, with an additional focus on strategies and tools to maintain healthy physical activity habits after termination of pharmacotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, with lead author Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in eClinicalMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Fewer participants from the placebo group took part in this posttreatment study. Across all treatment groups, participants who attended the posttreatment study had a better mean treatment response during the active treatment than those who did not attend.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Helsefonden. Some authors declared participating in advisory boards and receiving research grants and lecture fees from various sources including Novo Nordisk.

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

TOPLINE:

The addition of supervised exercise to obesity pharmacotherapy has shown greater potential for maintaining weight loss and improving body composition after treatment termination than pharmacotherapy alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite significant weight loss achieved with incretin-based obesity pharmacotherapies, their high costs and gastrointestinal adverse events lead to high discontinuation rates with subsequent regaining of weight and body fat.
• Researchers investigated if a strategy involving both exercise and , a -like peptide-1 receptor agonist, was better than either intervention alone in terms of maintaining weight loss and body composition after treatment termination.
• They conducted a 1-year posttreatment analysis of the S-LiTE study, including 109 adults with obesity (age, 18-65 years; body mass index, 32-43) who completed an 8-week low-calorie diet resulting in ≥ 5% weight loss.
• Participants were then randomly allocated to a 52-week weight loss maintenance intervention with either liraglutide or placebo alone or liraglutide or placebo plus supervised exercise.
• The primary outcome was the change in body weight (kg) from randomization to 1 year after the termination of weight maintenance intervention (0-104 weeks), and the secondary outcome was the change in body-fat percentage from 0 to 104 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• From week 0 to week 104, supervised exercise plus liraglutide led to 5.1 kg lower weight gain (P = .040) and a 2.3%-point greater decrease in body-fat percentage (P = .026) than liraglutide alone.
• During the 1 year after treatment termination (52-104 weeks), those in the liraglutide group regained 6 kg (95% CI, 2.1-10.0) more than those who were in the supervised exercise plus placebo group, and 2.5 kg (95% CI, -1.5 to 6.5) more than those who received supervised exercise plus liraglutide.
• After 1 year of treatment termination (week 104), the supervised exercise plus liraglutide group had significantly higher odds of maintaining a weight loss of ≥ 10% of initial body weight than the liraglutide (odds ratio [OR], 4.2; 95% CI, 1.6-10.8) or placebo (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.4-21.3) groups.
• The combination of exercise and liraglutide also improved physical functioning along with energy and fatigue scores.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future lifestyle-based treatments during obesity pharmacotherapy may further improve body weight and composition outcomes, with an additional focus on strategies and tools to maintain healthy physical activity habits after termination of pharmacotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, with lead author Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in eClinicalMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Fewer participants from the placebo group took part in this posttreatment study. Across all treatment groups, participants who attended the posttreatment study had a better mean treatment response during the active treatment than those who did not attend.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Helsefonden. Some authors declared participating in advisory boards and receiving research grants and lecture fees from various sources including Novo Nordisk.

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

TOPLINE:

The addition of supervised exercise to obesity pharmacotherapy has shown greater potential for maintaining weight loss and improving body composition after treatment termination than pharmacotherapy alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite significant weight loss achieved with incretin-based obesity pharmacotherapies, their high costs and gastrointestinal adverse events lead to high discontinuation rates with subsequent regaining of weight and body fat.
• Researchers investigated if a strategy involving both exercise and , a -like peptide-1 receptor agonist, was better than either intervention alone in terms of maintaining weight loss and body composition after treatment termination.
• They conducted a 1-year posttreatment analysis of the S-LiTE study, including 109 adults with obesity (age, 18-65 years; body mass index, 32-43) who completed an 8-week low-calorie diet resulting in ≥ 5% weight loss.
• Participants were then randomly allocated to a 52-week weight loss maintenance intervention with either liraglutide or placebo alone or liraglutide or placebo plus supervised exercise.
• The primary outcome was the change in body weight (kg) from randomization to 1 year after the termination of weight maintenance intervention (0-104 weeks), and the secondary outcome was the change in body-fat percentage from 0 to 104 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• From week 0 to week 104, supervised exercise plus liraglutide led to 5.1 kg lower weight gain (P = .040) and a 2.3%-point greater decrease in body-fat percentage (P = .026) than liraglutide alone.
• During the 1 year after treatment termination (52-104 weeks), those in the liraglutide group regained 6 kg (95% CI, 2.1-10.0) more than those who were in the supervised exercise plus placebo group, and 2.5 kg (95% CI, -1.5 to 6.5) more than those who received supervised exercise plus liraglutide.
• After 1 year of treatment termination (week 104), the supervised exercise plus liraglutide group had significantly higher odds of maintaining a weight loss of ≥ 10% of initial body weight than the liraglutide (odds ratio [OR], 4.2; 95% CI, 1.6-10.8) or placebo (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.4-21.3) groups.
• The combination of exercise and liraglutide also improved physical functioning along with energy and fatigue scores.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future lifestyle-based treatments during obesity pharmacotherapy may further improve body weight and composition outcomes, with an additional focus on strategies and tools to maintain healthy physical activity habits after termination of pharmacotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, with lead author Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in eClinicalMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Fewer participants from the placebo group took part in this posttreatment study. Across all treatment groups, participants who attended the posttreatment study had a better mean treatment response during the active treatment than those who did not attend.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Helsefonden. Some authors declared participating in advisory boards and receiving research grants and lecture fees from various sources including Novo Nordisk.

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

A novel vibrating capsule that signals a postprandial feeling of fullness reduced both food and energy intake and lowered weight gain in animal studies, said researchers who are developing it as a more affordable treatment for obesity.

The capsule, called the Vibrating Ingestible BioElectronic Stimulator (VIBES), is the size of a large adult multivitamin pill and is meant to be swallowed before a meal. The VIBES capsule works by stimulating gastric stretch receptors that signal the brain through the vagal nerve and stimulate a sense of satiety.

“Application of mechanoreceptor biology could transform our capacity to help patients suffering from nutritional disorders,” wrote Shriya S. Srinivasan, PhD, at Harvard University, Boston, and her coauthors. Srinivasan, founder and director of the Biohybrid Organs and Neuroprosthetics (BIONIC) Lab, led the team that designed and prototyped the VIBES capsule.

In a pig model, the VIBES activated mechanoreceptors and triggered gastric mucosal receptors, the researchers reported. Across 108 meals, swine treated with VIBES had nearly 40% reduced food intake compared to controls given a sham pill, with no apparent neural adaptation observed.

The research was published online in Science Advances.
 

Satiety Signaling in Obesity Treatment

Caroline M. Apovian, MD, codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study, said the concept of creating the illusion of satiety is not a new one.

She was part of team that showed medically meaningful weight loss at 2 years with a surgically implanted device that intermittently blocked the vagus nerves near the junction of the stomach and esophagus. “So we’ve been aware of the potential of things like this to produce a sense of satiety and weight loss,” she said.

However, Dr. Apovian believed that a capsule such as VIBES faces a number of hurdles before it is widely used in the clinic, even if it is successfully tested on humans.

She pointed to a superabsorbent hydrogel device, Plenity (Gelesis), delivered as three oral capsules that expand with water in the stomach to create a feeling of satiety. While approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it is not widely used, she said, as there are “hurdles” for patients to overcome, particularly in obtaining it from the pharmacy.

The VIBES capsule would in theory be acceptable to patients, Apovian said, but they are “overwhelmed by the media attention” on medications such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, which promise dramatic weight loss, far higher than the sorts of figures VIBES could achieve.

Nevertheless, the capsule could form a part of the obesity treatment armamentarium, with the idea that it could be combined with “an agent that would act more centrally to change the body weight setpoint,” she said.

Allan Geliebter, PhD, professor, department of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said that the thinking behind the capsule is a “clever, original approach,” but he is personally skeptical that people will take them.

“It’s the largest possible capsule that’s on the market today that is approved by the FDA for swallowing,” he said, and people “have to assume it’s going to come out the other end.”

“I think it will,” Dr. Geliebter added, “but if you’re taking at least two of these a day, what’s the guarantee one won’t get stuck along the ride?”

And when it does come out, “maybe it will be visible, maybe not,” but either way, “I can see people being anxious.”

He agreed with Dr. Apovian that the arrival of GLP-1 agonists has made obesity “a tough market to compete in right now,” although he noted that the drugs “do have side effects, and not everybody tolerates them.”

The VIBES Approach

The authors noted that another approved satiety device, intragastic balloons, also were designed to induce early satiety through distension of the stomach, but they do not lead to sustained changes in hunger or eating behavior due to neural adaptation to the continuing distension.

Moreover, some balloons have been withdrawn due to safety concerns, including several deaths.

The team reasoned a mechanism or device “capable of selective mechanoreceptor activation would pose great clinical value.”

Dr. Srinivasan explained: “While vibration has been known to create proprioceptive illusions in muscles, to our knowledge, no one has tried this in the stomach.”

“Given my penchant for mechanoreceptor physiology, I was curious to see if stretch receptors in the smooth muscle could be manipulated by mechanostimulation.”

The team designed an orally ingestible 3D-printed capsule in three sections, one of which allows entry of gastric fluid to dissolve a glucose layer. This causes the release of a spring-loaded pogo pin that completes a circuit to activate the vibrating motor.

Initial testing demonstrated that the capsule, which is the size of a triple zero pill, vibrated for an average of 38.3 minutes, which was deemed acceptable as “meals are generally consumed in a 20- to 30-min window and gastric contents undergo primary mixing in approximately an hour,” the authors wrote.

Immersing the capsule in simulated gastric fluid for 24 hours and simulated intestinal fluid for 10 days at 37 °C didn’t lead to changes in the capsule; thus, it “would not damage the gastrointestinal tract even if it were to reside in the stomach for a full day or in the intestines for over a week,” the authors wrote.

Testing VIBES Satiety in Swine

To test the capsule’s performance as a potential obesity treatment, the researchers turned to a model of Yorkshire pigs ages 4-6 months. Their “gastric anatomy is similar to that of humans,” the authors wrote, and they have been widely used to evaluate biomedical devices.

The researchers found that the vibration from the capsule not only induced the afferent neural activation of gastric mechanoreceptors sensitive to stomach distention but also triggered gastric secretory activity via by what the authors call “stroking” of the gastric mucosa.

To examine the impact of the capsule on hunger and feeding behavior, they monitored the food intake of four pigs in each of three conditions:

• No treatment (control)
• Treated with a sham capsule tethered via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (PEG-control)
• Treated with a VIBES capsule tethered via a PEG tube

After 2 weeks, VIBES-treated pigs consumed an average of 58.1% of their meals (n = 108 meals), PEG-control pigs consumed 84.1% (n = 100 meals), and the control group consumed 78.4% (n = 96) meals among PEG-only swine.

Per animal on average, the capsule reduced intake by 31% (P < .001), and the energy consumed per meal for each treated animal was significantly lower than that in the control period (P < .001), with no significant difference between the control and PEG-only groups (P < .1).

In a cross-over experiment, treating the swine for three meals, leaving them untreated for three meals, then treating them for another three revealed that intake increased by 38% during the untreated window.

The crossover results suggest the capsule “functions through temporal vagal activation, with little neural adaptation or long-term effect,” the team wrote.

Weight gain in VIBES-treated pigs was also significantly lower than that in the control and in the PEG-control groups (P < .05).

“Together, these data suggest that the VIBES pill significantly decreases food intake and slows the rate of weight gain in a large animal model,” the team wrote.

The VIBES capsule passed out of the treated pigs after an average of 4.4 days vs 8.3 days for a sham pill. As the “pigs generally take 7-9 days to excrete a given meal,” Dr. Srinivasan noted, “4 days is actually quite fast.”

“In humans, we expect this to pass on the same timescale as a regular meal,” she said, or approximately 24 hours. With no safety concerns identified in the study, Dr. Srinivasan did not expect there to be any significant concern over having multiple devices in the intestines from ingesting one with every meal.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, and MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering, alongside support to individual authors via a Schmidt Science Fellowship and a National Science Foundation grant to the Computing Research Association for the CIFellows Project.

Dr. Srinivasan and two coauthors were coinventors on a patent application (application filed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology describing the developments discussed here). Another author declared a consulting relationship with Novo Nordisk.

No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel vibrating capsule that signals a postprandial feeling of fullness reduced both food and energy intake and lowered weight gain in animal studies, said researchers who are developing it as a more affordable treatment for obesity.

The capsule, called the Vibrating Ingestible BioElectronic Stimulator (VIBES), is the size of a large adult multivitamin pill and is meant to be swallowed before a meal. The VIBES capsule works by stimulating gastric stretch receptors that signal the brain through the vagal nerve and stimulate a sense of satiety.

“Application of mechanoreceptor biology could transform our capacity to help patients suffering from nutritional disorders,” wrote Shriya S. Srinivasan, PhD, at Harvard University, Boston, and her coauthors. Srinivasan, founder and director of the Biohybrid Organs and Neuroprosthetics (BIONIC) Lab, led the team that designed and prototyped the VIBES capsule.

In a pig model, the VIBES activated mechanoreceptors and triggered gastric mucosal receptors, the researchers reported. Across 108 meals, swine treated with VIBES had nearly 40% reduced food intake compared to controls given a sham pill, with no apparent neural adaptation observed.

The research was published online in Science Advances.
 

Satiety Signaling in Obesity Treatment

Caroline M. Apovian, MD, codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study, said the concept of creating the illusion of satiety is not a new one.

She was part of team that showed medically meaningful weight loss at 2 years with a surgically implanted device that intermittently blocked the vagus nerves near the junction of the stomach and esophagus. “So we’ve been aware of the potential of things like this to produce a sense of satiety and weight loss,” she said.

However, Dr. Apovian believed that a capsule such as VIBES faces a number of hurdles before it is widely used in the clinic, even if it is successfully tested on humans.

She pointed to a superabsorbent hydrogel device, Plenity (Gelesis), delivered as three oral capsules that expand with water in the stomach to create a feeling of satiety. While approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it is not widely used, she said, as there are “hurdles” for patients to overcome, particularly in obtaining it from the pharmacy.

The VIBES capsule would in theory be acceptable to patients, Apovian said, but they are “overwhelmed by the media attention” on medications such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, which promise dramatic weight loss, far higher than the sorts of figures VIBES could achieve.

Nevertheless, the capsule could form a part of the obesity treatment armamentarium, with the idea that it could be combined with “an agent that would act more centrally to change the body weight setpoint,” she said.

Allan Geliebter, PhD, professor, department of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said that the thinking behind the capsule is a “clever, original approach,” but he is personally skeptical that people will take them.

“It’s the largest possible capsule that’s on the market today that is approved by the FDA for swallowing,” he said, and people “have to assume it’s going to come out the other end.”

“I think it will,” Dr. Geliebter added, “but if you’re taking at least two of these a day, what’s the guarantee one won’t get stuck along the ride?”

And when it does come out, “maybe it will be visible, maybe not,” but either way, “I can see people being anxious.”

He agreed with Dr. Apovian that the arrival of GLP-1 agonists has made obesity “a tough market to compete in right now,” although he noted that the drugs “do have side effects, and not everybody tolerates them.”

The VIBES Approach

The authors noted that another approved satiety device, intragastic balloons, also were designed to induce early satiety through distension of the stomach, but they do not lead to sustained changes in hunger or eating behavior due to neural adaptation to the continuing distension.

Moreover, some balloons have been withdrawn due to safety concerns, including several deaths.

The team reasoned a mechanism or device “capable of selective mechanoreceptor activation would pose great clinical value.”

Dr. Srinivasan explained: “While vibration has been known to create proprioceptive illusions in muscles, to our knowledge, no one has tried this in the stomach.”

“Given my penchant for mechanoreceptor physiology, I was curious to see if stretch receptors in the smooth muscle could be manipulated by mechanostimulation.”

The team designed an orally ingestible 3D-printed capsule in three sections, one of which allows entry of gastric fluid to dissolve a glucose layer. This causes the release of a spring-loaded pogo pin that completes a circuit to activate the vibrating motor.

Initial testing demonstrated that the capsule, which is the size of a triple zero pill, vibrated for an average of 38.3 minutes, which was deemed acceptable as “meals are generally consumed in a 20- to 30-min window and gastric contents undergo primary mixing in approximately an hour,” the authors wrote.

Immersing the capsule in simulated gastric fluid for 24 hours and simulated intestinal fluid for 10 days at 37 °C didn’t lead to changes in the capsule; thus, it “would not damage the gastrointestinal tract even if it were to reside in the stomach for a full day or in the intestines for over a week,” the authors wrote.

Testing VIBES Satiety in Swine

To test the capsule’s performance as a potential obesity treatment, the researchers turned to a model of Yorkshire pigs ages 4-6 months. Their “gastric anatomy is similar to that of humans,” the authors wrote, and they have been widely used to evaluate biomedical devices.

The researchers found that the vibration from the capsule not only induced the afferent neural activation of gastric mechanoreceptors sensitive to stomach distention but also triggered gastric secretory activity via by what the authors call “stroking” of the gastric mucosa.

To examine the impact of the capsule on hunger and feeding behavior, they monitored the food intake of four pigs in each of three conditions:

• No treatment (control)
• Treated with a sham capsule tethered via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (PEG-control)
• Treated with a VIBES capsule tethered via a PEG tube

After 2 weeks, VIBES-treated pigs consumed an average of 58.1% of their meals (n = 108 meals), PEG-control pigs consumed 84.1% (n = 100 meals), and the control group consumed 78.4% (n = 96) meals among PEG-only swine.

Per animal on average, the capsule reduced intake by 31% (P < .001), and the energy consumed per meal for each treated animal was significantly lower than that in the control period (P < .001), with no significant difference between the control and PEG-only groups (P < .1).

In a cross-over experiment, treating the swine for three meals, leaving them untreated for three meals, then treating them for another three revealed that intake increased by 38% during the untreated window.

The crossover results suggest the capsule “functions through temporal vagal activation, with little neural adaptation or long-term effect,” the team wrote.

Weight gain in VIBES-treated pigs was also significantly lower than that in the control and in the PEG-control groups (P < .05).

“Together, these data suggest that the VIBES pill significantly decreases food intake and slows the rate of weight gain in a large animal model,” the team wrote.

The VIBES capsule passed out of the treated pigs after an average of 4.4 days vs 8.3 days for a sham pill. As the “pigs generally take 7-9 days to excrete a given meal,” Dr. Srinivasan noted, “4 days is actually quite fast.”

“In humans, we expect this to pass on the same timescale as a regular meal,” she said, or approximately 24 hours. With no safety concerns identified in the study, Dr. Srinivasan did not expect there to be any significant concern over having multiple devices in the intestines from ingesting one with every meal.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, and MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering, alongside support to individual authors via a Schmidt Science Fellowship and a National Science Foundation grant to the Computing Research Association for the CIFellows Project.

Dr. Srinivasan and two coauthors were coinventors on a patent application (application filed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology describing the developments discussed here). Another author declared a consulting relationship with Novo Nordisk.

No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel vibrating capsule that signals a postprandial feeling of fullness reduced both food and energy intake and lowered weight gain in animal studies, said researchers who are developing it as a more affordable treatment for obesity.

The capsule, called the Vibrating Ingestible BioElectronic Stimulator (VIBES), is the size of a large adult multivitamin pill and is meant to be swallowed before a meal. The VIBES capsule works by stimulating gastric stretch receptors that signal the brain through the vagal nerve and stimulate a sense of satiety.

“Application of mechanoreceptor biology could transform our capacity to help patients suffering from nutritional disorders,” wrote Shriya S. Srinivasan, PhD, at Harvard University, Boston, and her coauthors. Srinivasan, founder and director of the Biohybrid Organs and Neuroprosthetics (BIONIC) Lab, led the team that designed and prototyped the VIBES capsule.

In a pig model, the VIBES activated mechanoreceptors and triggered gastric mucosal receptors, the researchers reported. Across 108 meals, swine treated with VIBES had nearly 40% reduced food intake compared to controls given a sham pill, with no apparent neural adaptation observed.

The research was published online in Science Advances.
 

Satiety Signaling in Obesity Treatment

Caroline M. Apovian, MD, codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study, said the concept of creating the illusion of satiety is not a new one.

She was part of team that showed medically meaningful weight loss at 2 years with a surgically implanted device that intermittently blocked the vagus nerves near the junction of the stomach and esophagus. “So we’ve been aware of the potential of things like this to produce a sense of satiety and weight loss,” she said.

However, Dr. Apovian believed that a capsule such as VIBES faces a number of hurdles before it is widely used in the clinic, even if it is successfully tested on humans.

She pointed to a superabsorbent hydrogel device, Plenity (Gelesis), delivered as three oral capsules that expand with water in the stomach to create a feeling of satiety. While approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it is not widely used, she said, as there are “hurdles” for patients to overcome, particularly in obtaining it from the pharmacy.

The VIBES capsule would in theory be acceptable to patients, Apovian said, but they are “overwhelmed by the media attention” on medications such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, which promise dramatic weight loss, far higher than the sorts of figures VIBES could achieve.

Nevertheless, the capsule could form a part of the obesity treatment armamentarium, with the idea that it could be combined with “an agent that would act more centrally to change the body weight setpoint,” she said.

Allan Geliebter, PhD, professor, department of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said that the thinking behind the capsule is a “clever, original approach,” but he is personally skeptical that people will take them.

“It’s the largest possible capsule that’s on the market today that is approved by the FDA for swallowing,” he said, and people “have to assume it’s going to come out the other end.”

“I think it will,” Dr. Geliebter added, “but if you’re taking at least two of these a day, what’s the guarantee one won’t get stuck along the ride?”

And when it does come out, “maybe it will be visible, maybe not,” but either way, “I can see people being anxious.”

He agreed with Dr. Apovian that the arrival of GLP-1 agonists has made obesity “a tough market to compete in right now,” although he noted that the drugs “do have side effects, and not everybody tolerates them.”

The VIBES Approach

The authors noted that another approved satiety device, intragastic balloons, also were designed to induce early satiety through distension of the stomach, but they do not lead to sustained changes in hunger or eating behavior due to neural adaptation to the continuing distension.

Moreover, some balloons have been withdrawn due to safety concerns, including several deaths.

The team reasoned a mechanism or device “capable of selective mechanoreceptor activation would pose great clinical value.”

Dr. Srinivasan explained: “While vibration has been known to create proprioceptive illusions in muscles, to our knowledge, no one has tried this in the stomach.”

“Given my penchant for mechanoreceptor physiology, I was curious to see if stretch receptors in the smooth muscle could be manipulated by mechanostimulation.”

The team designed an orally ingestible 3D-printed capsule in three sections, one of which allows entry of gastric fluid to dissolve a glucose layer. This causes the release of a spring-loaded pogo pin that completes a circuit to activate the vibrating motor.

Initial testing demonstrated that the capsule, which is the size of a triple zero pill, vibrated for an average of 38.3 minutes, which was deemed acceptable as “meals are generally consumed in a 20- to 30-min window and gastric contents undergo primary mixing in approximately an hour,” the authors wrote.

Immersing the capsule in simulated gastric fluid for 24 hours and simulated intestinal fluid for 10 days at 37 °C didn’t lead to changes in the capsule; thus, it “would not damage the gastrointestinal tract even if it were to reside in the stomach for a full day or in the intestines for over a week,” the authors wrote.

Testing VIBES Satiety in Swine

To test the capsule’s performance as a potential obesity treatment, the researchers turned to a model of Yorkshire pigs ages 4-6 months. Their “gastric anatomy is similar to that of humans,” the authors wrote, and they have been widely used to evaluate biomedical devices.

The researchers found that the vibration from the capsule not only induced the afferent neural activation of gastric mechanoreceptors sensitive to stomach distention but also triggered gastric secretory activity via by what the authors call “stroking” of the gastric mucosa.

To examine the impact of the capsule on hunger and feeding behavior, they monitored the food intake of four pigs in each of three conditions:

• No treatment (control)
• Treated with a sham capsule tethered via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (PEG-control)
• Treated with a VIBES capsule tethered via a PEG tube

After 2 weeks, VIBES-treated pigs consumed an average of 58.1% of their meals (n = 108 meals), PEG-control pigs consumed 84.1% (n = 100 meals), and the control group consumed 78.4% (n = 96) meals among PEG-only swine.

Per animal on average, the capsule reduced intake by 31% (P < .001), and the energy consumed per meal for each treated animal was significantly lower than that in the control period (P < .001), with no significant difference between the control and PEG-only groups (P < .1).

In a cross-over experiment, treating the swine for three meals, leaving them untreated for three meals, then treating them for another three revealed that intake increased by 38% during the untreated window.

The crossover results suggest the capsule “functions through temporal vagal activation, with little neural adaptation or long-term effect,” the team wrote.

Weight gain in VIBES-treated pigs was also significantly lower than that in the control and in the PEG-control groups (P < .05).

“Together, these data suggest that the VIBES pill significantly decreases food intake and slows the rate of weight gain in a large animal model,” the team wrote.

The VIBES capsule passed out of the treated pigs after an average of 4.4 days vs 8.3 days for a sham pill. As the “pigs generally take 7-9 days to excrete a given meal,” Dr. Srinivasan noted, “4 days is actually quite fast.”

“In humans, we expect this to pass on the same timescale as a regular meal,” she said, or approximately 24 hours. With no safety concerns identified in the study, Dr. Srinivasan did not expect there to be any significant concern over having multiple devices in the intestines from ingesting one with every meal.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, and MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering, alongside support to individual authors via a Schmidt Science Fellowship and a National Science Foundation grant to the Computing Research Association for the CIFellows Project.

Dr. Srinivasan and two coauthors were coinventors on a patent application (application filed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology describing the developments discussed here). Another author declared a consulting relationship with Novo Nordisk.

No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adolescents with moderate to severe obesity, a nutritionally balanced, very low-calorie diet with the monitoring of a dietitian shows high adherence and safety, with significant weight loss over the course of a month and common, but mild side effects.

More research is needed to understand which patients are best suited for the diet; “however, given the associated rapid weight loss, the use of [very low-energy diets] should be emphasized in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of severe obesity and obesity-related complications in adolescents, especially before pharmacological or surgical intervention,” first author Megan Gow, PhD, of Children’s Hospital Westmead Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Westmead, Australia, said in a press statement. 

The study will be presented in May at the upcoming European Congress on Obesity, in Venice, Italy.

While very low-calorie diets have been shown to promote rapid weight loss in adolescents, research is lacking on general side effects and acceptability of the regimens. Data is also lacking on important issues including the diet’s effect on growth, heart health, and psychological wellbeing. 

To investigate, Dr. Gow and colleagues conducted a subanalysis of the 52-week Fast Track to Health study evaluating the acceptability of different dietary plans for adolescents with obesity.

The analysis included 141 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 17 years with moderate to severe obesity (average body mass index, 35 kg/m²) and at least one obesity-related complication, such as high blood pressure or insulin resistance.

The participants were placed on a nutritionally balanced very low-energy diet consisting of 800 calories per day. 

The diet involved one of two regimens — either four Optifast-formulated meal replacement products per day, including shakes, soups, bars, and/or dessert, along with low carbohydrate vegetables, such as broccoli, celery, capsicum, mushrooms, and tomatoes, with one teaspoon of vegetable oil, or a regimen of three Optifast-formulated meal replacements and one meal consisting of 100-150 g lean cooked meat, low-carbohydrate vegetables, and one teaspoon of vegetable oil.

Participants, about half of whom were women, also received dietitian support at least weekly. 

After 4 weeks, most of the adolescents, ie, 134 of the 141, with an average age of 14.9 years, completed the diet, with an average weight loss of 5.5 kg or 12 pounds (P < .001).

Most patients (95%) experienced at least one side effect, and 70% reported at least 3 of the side effects, with the most common side effects including hunger, fatigue, headache, irritability, loose stools, constipation, nausea, and a lack of concentration.

Viral infections occurred in seven participants.

While most side effects occurred at the end of week 1, the development of side effects earlier, at day 3-4, was associated with higher levels of weight loss at the 4-week cut-off, which the authors noted could suggest a greater adherence to the diet at that stage.

One adverse event occurred, consisting of a single fainting episode determined to be potentially related to the dietary intervention.

In surveys, the adolescents gave the intervention an acceptability rating of 61 on a scale of 100, the score was 53 of 100 in terms of being “enjoyable to follow.”

The most-liked aspects of the intervention were losing weight (described by 34% of participants) and the prescriptive structure (listed by 28% of participants).

The least-liked aspects included the diet’s restrictive nature, described by 45% of participants, and the taste of meal replacement products, listed by 20% of participants.
 

Alternative to Weight Loss Drugs?

While weight loss drugs are transforming the obesity treatment and semaglutide is now approved for adolescents as young as age 12 years, “access to these medications is limited, and not all families want to commence on medication for their child›s obesity,” Dr. Gow said.

As an alternative, a very low-energy diet, with the interaction of a dietitian, can enable adolescents “to develop a healthier relationship with food, including encouraging the consumption of more fruits and vegetables in their diet, not only to assist in weight loss but for good health,” she said.
 

Very Low-Calorie Diet Concerns for Adolescents Addressed

Early studies suggested concerns of health effects from very low-calorie diets in adolescents, including potential cardiac effects; however, subsequent studies, including a systematic review published by Dr. Gow and her team, have shown that such results were likely the result of nutritional deficiencies in the diets, which can be overcome with careful food selection and dietary counseling.

Another key concern has been a potential effect on growth, but Dr. Gow noted that “in our short-term study we saw small increase in height (0.1 cm), and other more recent studies suggest that a short-term very low-energy diet does not impact growth.”

And in an earlier pilot study, the authors also found an association between the very low-calorie diet and an improvement in the quality of life for youth with type 2 diabetes.

A key caveat with the findings is that participants in the study all received supervision and monitoring from a trained dietitian, and Gow noted that that element is essential.

“We therefore do not recommend adolescents in the community undertake this type of diet without appropriate support,” she said.

“Close monitoring of adolescents by a health professional following a very low-energy diet is essential to ensure that the very low-energy diet is leading to holistic health benefits for the individual.”

Following the 4-week regimen, participants were randomized to transition to interventions of either continuous energy restriction or intermittent energy restriction over the 52 weeks, and further findings from the study will be presented at the obesity meeting in May.

The authors had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adolescents with moderate to severe obesity, a nutritionally balanced, very low-calorie diet with the monitoring of a dietitian shows high adherence and safety, with significant weight loss over the course of a month and common, but mild side effects.

More research is needed to understand which patients are best suited for the diet; “however, given the associated rapid weight loss, the use of [very low-energy diets] should be emphasized in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of severe obesity and obesity-related complications in adolescents, especially before pharmacological or surgical intervention,” first author Megan Gow, PhD, of Children’s Hospital Westmead Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Westmead, Australia, said in a press statement. 

The study will be presented in May at the upcoming European Congress on Obesity, in Venice, Italy.

While very low-calorie diets have been shown to promote rapid weight loss in adolescents, research is lacking on general side effects and acceptability of the regimens. Data is also lacking on important issues including the diet’s effect on growth, heart health, and psychological wellbeing. 

To investigate, Dr. Gow and colleagues conducted a subanalysis of the 52-week Fast Track to Health study evaluating the acceptability of different dietary plans for adolescents with obesity.

The analysis included 141 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 17 years with moderate to severe obesity (average body mass index, 35 kg/m²) and at least one obesity-related complication, such as high blood pressure or insulin resistance.

The participants were placed on a nutritionally balanced very low-energy diet consisting of 800 calories per day. 

The diet involved one of two regimens — either four Optifast-formulated meal replacement products per day, including shakes, soups, bars, and/or dessert, along with low carbohydrate vegetables, such as broccoli, celery, capsicum, mushrooms, and tomatoes, with one teaspoon of vegetable oil, or a regimen of three Optifast-formulated meal replacements and one meal consisting of 100-150 g lean cooked meat, low-carbohydrate vegetables, and one teaspoon of vegetable oil.

Participants, about half of whom were women, also received dietitian support at least weekly. 

After 4 weeks, most of the adolescents, ie, 134 of the 141, with an average age of 14.9 years, completed the diet, with an average weight loss of 5.5 kg or 12 pounds (P < .001).

Most patients (95%) experienced at least one side effect, and 70% reported at least 3 of the side effects, with the most common side effects including hunger, fatigue, headache, irritability, loose stools, constipation, nausea, and a lack of concentration.

Viral infections occurred in seven participants.

While most side effects occurred at the end of week 1, the development of side effects earlier, at day 3-4, was associated with higher levels of weight loss at the 4-week cut-off, which the authors noted could suggest a greater adherence to the diet at that stage.

One adverse event occurred, consisting of a single fainting episode determined to be potentially related to the dietary intervention.

In surveys, the adolescents gave the intervention an acceptability rating of 61 on a scale of 100, the score was 53 of 100 in terms of being “enjoyable to follow.”

The most-liked aspects of the intervention were losing weight (described by 34% of participants) and the prescriptive structure (listed by 28% of participants).

The least-liked aspects included the diet’s restrictive nature, described by 45% of participants, and the taste of meal replacement products, listed by 20% of participants.
 

Alternative to Weight Loss Drugs?

While weight loss drugs are transforming the obesity treatment and semaglutide is now approved for adolescents as young as age 12 years, “access to these medications is limited, and not all families want to commence on medication for their child›s obesity,” Dr. Gow said.

As an alternative, a very low-energy diet, with the interaction of a dietitian, can enable adolescents “to develop a healthier relationship with food, including encouraging the consumption of more fruits and vegetables in their diet, not only to assist in weight loss but for good health,” she said.
 

Very Low-Calorie Diet Concerns for Adolescents Addressed

Early studies suggested concerns of health effects from very low-calorie diets in adolescents, including potential cardiac effects; however, subsequent studies, including a systematic review published by Dr. Gow and her team, have shown that such results were likely the result of nutritional deficiencies in the diets, which can be overcome with careful food selection and dietary counseling.

Another key concern has been a potential effect on growth, but Dr. Gow noted that “in our short-term study we saw small increase in height (0.1 cm), and other more recent studies suggest that a short-term very low-energy diet does not impact growth.”

And in an earlier pilot study, the authors also found an association between the very low-calorie diet and an improvement in the quality of life for youth with type 2 diabetes.

A key caveat with the findings is that participants in the study all received supervision and monitoring from a trained dietitian, and Gow noted that that element is essential.

“We therefore do not recommend adolescents in the community undertake this type of diet without appropriate support,” she said.

“Close monitoring of adolescents by a health professional following a very low-energy diet is essential to ensure that the very low-energy diet is leading to holistic health benefits for the individual.”

Following the 4-week regimen, participants were randomized to transition to interventions of either continuous energy restriction or intermittent energy restriction over the 52 weeks, and further findings from the study will be presented at the obesity meeting in May.

The authors had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adolescents with moderate to severe obesity, a nutritionally balanced, very low-calorie diet with the monitoring of a dietitian shows high adherence and safety, with significant weight loss over the course of a month and common, but mild side effects.

More research is needed to understand which patients are best suited for the diet; “however, given the associated rapid weight loss, the use of [very low-energy diets] should be emphasized in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of severe obesity and obesity-related complications in adolescents, especially before pharmacological or surgical intervention,” first author Megan Gow, PhD, of Children’s Hospital Westmead Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Westmead, Australia, said in a press statement. 

The study will be presented in May at the upcoming European Congress on Obesity, in Venice, Italy.

While very low-calorie diets have been shown to promote rapid weight loss in adolescents, research is lacking on general side effects and acceptability of the regimens. Data is also lacking on important issues including the diet’s effect on growth, heart health, and psychological wellbeing. 

To investigate, Dr. Gow and colleagues conducted a subanalysis of the 52-week Fast Track to Health study evaluating the acceptability of different dietary plans for adolescents with obesity.

The analysis included 141 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 17 years with moderate to severe obesity (average body mass index, 35 kg/m²) and at least one obesity-related complication, such as high blood pressure or insulin resistance.

The participants were placed on a nutritionally balanced very low-energy diet consisting of 800 calories per day. 

The diet involved one of two regimens — either four Optifast-formulated meal replacement products per day, including shakes, soups, bars, and/or dessert, along with low carbohydrate vegetables, such as broccoli, celery, capsicum, mushrooms, and tomatoes, with one teaspoon of vegetable oil, or a regimen of three Optifast-formulated meal replacements and one meal consisting of 100-150 g lean cooked meat, low-carbohydrate vegetables, and one teaspoon of vegetable oil.

Participants, about half of whom were women, also received dietitian support at least weekly. 

After 4 weeks, most of the adolescents, ie, 134 of the 141, with an average age of 14.9 years, completed the diet, with an average weight loss of 5.5 kg or 12 pounds (P < .001).

Most patients (95%) experienced at least one side effect, and 70% reported at least 3 of the side effects, with the most common side effects including hunger, fatigue, headache, irritability, loose stools, constipation, nausea, and a lack of concentration.

Viral infections occurred in seven participants.

While most side effects occurred at the end of week 1, the development of side effects earlier, at day 3-4, was associated with higher levels of weight loss at the 4-week cut-off, which the authors noted could suggest a greater adherence to the diet at that stage.

One adverse event occurred, consisting of a single fainting episode determined to be potentially related to the dietary intervention.

In surveys, the adolescents gave the intervention an acceptability rating of 61 on a scale of 100, the score was 53 of 100 in terms of being “enjoyable to follow.”

The most-liked aspects of the intervention were losing weight (described by 34% of participants) and the prescriptive structure (listed by 28% of participants).

The least-liked aspects included the diet’s restrictive nature, described by 45% of participants, and the taste of meal replacement products, listed by 20% of participants.
 

Alternative to Weight Loss Drugs?

While weight loss drugs are transforming the obesity treatment and semaglutide is now approved for adolescents as young as age 12 years, “access to these medications is limited, and not all families want to commence on medication for their child›s obesity,” Dr. Gow said.

As an alternative, a very low-energy diet, with the interaction of a dietitian, can enable adolescents “to develop a healthier relationship with food, including encouraging the consumption of more fruits and vegetables in their diet, not only to assist in weight loss but for good health,” she said.
 

Very Low-Calorie Diet Concerns for Adolescents Addressed

Early studies suggested concerns of health effects from very low-calorie diets in adolescents, including potential cardiac effects; however, subsequent studies, including a systematic review published by Dr. Gow and her team, have shown that such results were likely the result of nutritional deficiencies in the diets, which can be overcome with careful food selection and dietary counseling.

Another key concern has been a potential effect on growth, but Dr. Gow noted that “in our short-term study we saw small increase in height (0.1 cm), and other more recent studies suggest that a short-term very low-energy diet does not impact growth.”

And in an earlier pilot study, the authors also found an association between the very low-calorie diet and an improvement in the quality of life for youth with type 2 diabetes.

A key caveat with the findings is that participants in the study all received supervision and monitoring from a trained dietitian, and Gow noted that that element is essential.

“We therefore do not recommend adolescents in the community undertake this type of diet without appropriate support,” she said.

“Close monitoring of adolescents by a health professional following a very low-energy diet is essential to ensure that the very low-energy diet is leading to holistic health benefits for the individual.”

Following the 4-week regimen, participants were randomized to transition to interventions of either continuous energy restriction or intermittent energy restriction over the 52 weeks, and further findings from the study will be presented at the obesity meeting in May.

The authors had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.