User login
GLP-1 RA Therapy for Alcohol Use Disorder?
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Akshay B. Jain, MD: Today we are very excited to have Dr. Leggio join us all the way from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He is an addiction physician scientist in the intramural research program at NIH. Welcome, Dr. Leggio. Thanks for joining us.
Lorenzo Leggio, MD, PhD: Thank you so much.
Dr. Jain: We’ll get right into this. Your session was, in my mind, extremely informative. The session looked at glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) therapy and its potential effects on mitigating alcohol misuse syndrome, so, reduction of alcohol addiction potentially.
We’ve seen in some previous clinical trials, including many from your group, that alcohol use is known to be reduced — the overall risk of incidence, as well as recurrence of alcohol use — in individuals who are on GLP-1 RA therapy.
Can you share more insights about the data already out there?
Dr. Leggio: At the preclinical level, we have a very robust line of studies, experiments, and publications looking at the effect of GLP-1 RAs, starting from exenatide up to, more recently, semaglutide. They show that these GLP-1 RAs do reduce alcohol drinking. They used different animal models of excessive alcohol drinking, using different species — for example, mice, rats, nonhuman primates — models that reflect the excessive alcohol drinking behavior that we see in patients, like physical alcohol dependence or binge-like alcohol drinking, and other behaviors in animal models that reflect the human condition.
In addition to that, we recently have seen an increase in human evidence that GLP-1 RAs may reduce alcohol drinking. For example, there is some anecdotal evidence and some analyses using social media showing that people on GLP-1 RAs report drinking less alcohol.
There are also some pharmacoepidemiology studies which are very intriguing and quite promising. In this case, people have been looking at electronic medical records; they have used the pharmacoepidemiology approaches to match patients on GLP-1 RAs because of diabetes or obesity, and have compared and matched to patients on different drugs as the controls.
A study was recently published Nature Communications by a group in Cleveland in collaboration with Dr. Nora Volkow from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. This study shows the association between being on a GLP-1 RA and the lower incidence of alcohol use disorder and lower drinking.
There is also some promise from prospective randomized clinical trials. In particular, there was one clinical trial from Denmark, a well-known and -conducted clinical trial where they looked at exenatide, and they didn’t see an effect of exenatide compared with placebo in the main analysis. But in a subanalysis, they did see that exenatide reduced alcohol drinking, but only in patients with alcohol use disorder and obesity.
This suggests that these medications may work for some patients and not for other patients. That’s fine, because just like in any other field in medicine, including diabetes, obesity, hypertension, Parkinson’s, and depression, not all medications work for everybody. If these medications will work for alcohol addiction, we do not expect that they will work for everybody.
One ongoing question in the field is to try to identify the phenotypes or the subgroup of people who may be more responsive to these medications.
Dr. Jain: This is such a fascinating field, and all these studies are coming out. In your review of all the literature so far, do you think this is dose dependent? Also, we see that, for instance, with certain individuals, when they take GLP-1 RA therapy, they might have a lot of gastrointestinal (GI) side effects. Recent studies have shown that the rate of these GI side effects does not necessarily correlate with the amount of weight loss. In the alcohol addiction field, do you think that the GI side effects, things like nausea, could also have a potential role in mitigating the alcohol addiction?
Dr. Leggio: This is a great question. They may play a role; they may contribute, too, but we don’t think that they are the driving mechanism of why people drink less, for at least a couple of reasons.
One is that, similar to the obesity field, the data we have so far don’t necessarily show a relationship between the GI side effects and the reduction in drinking. Plus, the reduction in drinking is likely to happen later when many GI side effects are gone or attenuated.
The second reason is from the neuroscience field. We are starting to better understand the mechanism at the brain level as to how these medications work. We don’t see that the nausea or, more generally, not feeling well — malaise, etc. — are driving mechanisms for how these medications work.
Again, it’s not to discount completely that the GI side effects may play a role, but I would say that, if anything, they may be more contributing to. And if they do, that will not be unique to this class of medication. For example, we have three medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for alcohol use disorder.
One challenge we have in the addiction field is that many people don’t know that these medications exist — many primary care providers don’t know — and they are completely underutilized. Everybody here who is listening to us knows that roughly 85% of people with diabetes receive a medication for diabetes. For alcohol use disorder, the number is 2%. These are medications approved by the FDA.
One of them is naltrexone, which does give GI symptoms — in particular, nausea and vomiting. The other medication is acamprosate, which does give diarrhea.
You have medications approved for alcohol disorder where you do have some GI symptoms, but they are not the mechanism either for how these medications help people to curb craving and reduce alcohol drinking.
Dr. Jain: What about the dose-dependent action? Do you think that GLP-1 RAs, at a lower dose, may not have an effect on alcohol use disorder vs at a higher dose, or is everyone a little different?
Dr. Leggio: That’s a wonderful question. The short answer is, we don’t know, to be honest. Now, in some of the animal studies — my team has been in collaboration with other scientists in the NIH intramural research program, and also with scientists in academia, for example, at Scripps, UCLA — we see a dose response where the higher the dose, the higher the effect of the drug. In this case, semaglutide reduced binge drinking in a rat model of a physical alcohol dependence.
That said, I would be very cautious about claiming, based on the rodent data, that humans will have a dose response. It’s an open question. We really don’t know. Some of the pharmacoepidemiology data suggested that even lower doses — for example, using semaglutide for diabetes without going up to the obesity dose — may be just as effective as a higher dose in reducing the incidence of alcohol use disorder.
It’s important also to keep in mind that the pharmacoepidemiology data are always an association. Reduction in alcohol disorder is associated with the prescription GLP-1 RA, but they don’t really replace the more gold-standard, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. Nonetheless, with the pharmacoepidemiology data, I think there is an argument to at least hypothesize that people may respond well, even to lower doses.
This also may be important from a safety standpoint.
Basically, we need to wait for results in the next years to come from randomized clinical trials to better unfold the question about doses. For example, just anecdotally, I will tell you that in the clinical trial we are conducting right now at the NIH Intramural Research Program, for which I’m the principal investigator (PI), we are going up to 2.4 mg — the highest dose of semaglutide.
We are collaborating with Kyle Simmons, PhD, from Oklahoma State University. Our two studies are not like a two-site clinical trial, but they are harmonized. In Dr. Simmons’ clinical trial, they’re going up to 1.0 mg. We are excited about this team approach because the trials are slightly different, but they’re harmonized to the point that, once the studies are done, we’ll be able to combine and compare data to better answer the question about dosing, and many other questions.
Dr. Jain: From a clinical perspective, we see that many people who are battling alcohol use disorder may not have obesity. They might actually be on the leaner side, and hence, we may not want to use a high dose of GLP-1 RA therapy. It’ll be very exciting to see when these results come out.
This brings me to the next question. I think everyone would love to know why this happens. Why is GLP-1 RA having this effect on alcohol use disorder? I know that your group has done many animal studies, as you pointed out, and one of the postulated theories was the effect on the GABA neurotransmission pathway.
Can you tell us more about what you feel is the underlying mechanism of action here?
Dr. Leggio: I will start by saying that we don’t fully know. There are many open questions. If I can sidetrack for one second: We come up with the idea that, first of all, alcohol use disorder and substance use disorder are addictive behaviors, addictive disorders. We define addiction as a brain disease.
Granted that addiction is a brain disease, it doesn’t mean that addiction works just in the brain in isolation. As we all know, the brain works in concert with the rest of the body. One specific approach my team has been taking is working on the analogy and the similarities between obesity and addiction to try to understand how the body-brain connection, such as the gut-brain-neuroendocrine pathway, may play a role in patients with addiction.
With that in mind, a large amount of work in my lab in the past 20 years — since I’ve been a PI — has been focused on studying this neuroendocrine pathways related to the gut-brain axis. For example, we have done work on insulin and leptin, primarily; we had done work on ghrelin, and since 2015 on the GLP-1 RAs.
With that in mind, the framework we are working on, which is also substantiated by many studies done by our team and other teams in the neuroscience field, kind of supports the idea that, similar to what we see in obesity, these medications may work by affecting what we call reward processing, or the seeking for addictive drugs, such as alcohol, and also the drugs such as the stimulants, opioids, nicotine, and so on.
The idea is that the mechanism is driven by the ability of the medication — semaglutide and all the GLP-1 RAs — to reduce the rewarding properties of alcohol and drugs. To maybe make the example more pragmatic, what does that mean? It means, for example, that a patient who typically has 10 drinks per day in the afternoon and night, while they are on the medication they may feel the lack of need to drink up to 10 to feel the same reward.
They may be able to stop after two or three drinks, which means a significant harm reduction and a beneficial outcome. This also brings us to another mechanism, which may be related to society. We don’t fully understand how much the society mechanism, including society mechanism related to GI motility, may also play a role.
With that said, we don’t think that the effect of the GLP-1 RAs is merely due to alcohol being a calorie-based nutrient because, in fact, we see alcohol as an addictive drug, not as a nutrient. Also, the GLP-1 RAs, at least in animal models, seem to work on other addictive drugs that don’t have calories, such as nicotine, and possibly with cannabis, opioids, and stimulants.
Then on the molecular level, our team recently showed, in collaboration with Dr. Marisa Roberto from Scripps in La Jolla, California, that semaglutide may in fact change the GABA transmission at the level of some brain regions, such as the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex. These are brain regions that are well-established hubs that play a role in the mechanism underlying addiction.
There are also some very exciting recent data showing how these medications may work not just on GABA or just on dopamine, which is the canonical way we conceive of reward processing, but by working on both by modulating GABA transmission — for example, at the ventral tegmental area and dopamine transmission at the nucleus accumbens.
Bottom line, if I summarize all of this, is that the mechanism is not fully understood, but there is definitely a contribution of this medication to effect and reward processing, possibly by altering the balance between GABA and dopamine. There are still some unknown questions, such as, are these mechanisms all brain driven or are they signaling from the periphery to the brain, or maybe both?
Also, as we all know, there are many differences across all these GLP-1 analogs in brain penetrance. Whether the drug needs to go to the brain to have an effect on alcohol drinking, cocaine seeking, or smoking is really an open question.
Dr. Jain: This is so thought-provoking. I guess the more we uncover, the more mesmerized we get with all the potential crosstalk. There is a large amount of overlap in the brain with each of these different things and how it all interplays with each other.
Speaking of interplay, I’m thinking about how many people prone to having alcohol use disorder can potentially develop complications, one of these being chronic pancreatitis. This is a well-known complication that can occur in people having alcohol addiction. Along that same line, we know that previous history of pancreatitis is considered a use-with-caution, or we don’t want to use GLP-1 RA therapy in people who have had pancreatitis.
Now it becomes this quagmire where people may have chronic pancreatitis, but we may want to consider GLP-1 RA therapy for management of alcohol use disorder. What are your thoughts about this, and the safety, potentially, in using it in these patients?
Dr. Leggio: This is another wonderful question. That’s definitely a top priority in our mind, to address these kinds of questions. For example, our RCT does have, as core primary outcomes, not only the efficacy defined as a reduction in alcohol drinking, but also safety.
The reason is exactly what you just explained. There are many unanswered questions, including whether giving a GLP-1 RA and alcohol together may have synergistic effects and increase the likelihood of having pancreatitis.
The good news is that, so far, based on the published literature, including the RCT done with exenatide in Denmark and published in 2022 and also the ongoing clinical trials — including my own clinical trial, but of course we are blind — pancreatitis has not been coming out as an adverse event.
However, it’s also true that it often happens in clinical medication development. Of course, we screen and select our population well. For example, we do exclude people who have a history of pancreatitis. We exclude people with high lipase or with any of the clinical symptomatology that makes us concerned about these people having pancreatitis.
As often happens when you move a medication from clinical trials to clinical practice, we still need to understand whether this medication works in patients. I’m just speculating, but even if the clinical trials do not raise red flags in terms of increased risk for some side effects such as pancreatitis, I think it will be very important for practitioners to keep a close eye on the death risk regardless.
It’s very interesting that it’s similar to alcohol liver disease. With pancreatitis, not every single patient with alcohol addiction has pancreatitis. We don’t really fully understand why some people develop pancreatitis and some people do not. The point being that there are many patients with alcohol addiction who don’t have pancreatitis and may benefit from these medications if they work. Again, we have to prove that in patients.
On the other side, as we all know, pancreatitis is a potentially life-threatening condition for those people who either have it or are at risk for it. I think we have to be very careful before we consider giving them a GLP-1 RA.
One could argue that alcohol is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in the world. For example, right now, alcohol is the leading cause of liver disease. It’s the main reason for liver transplantation in our country. Alcohol is affecting thousands of people in terms of death and emergency room visits.
You could argue that the downside is not treating these people and they die because of alcohol addiction. A GLP-1 RA is not going to be for everybody. I will remind everybody that (1) we do have FDA-approved medications for alcohol addiction; and (2) there are also other medications not approved by the FDA, but with a proven efficacy in some clinical trials — for example, topiramate and gabapentin — and they’ve been endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association.
There is also some evidence for another medication, baclofen, which has been endorsed by the American College of Gastroenterology for patients with alcohol addiction and liver disease.
The point I’m making is that it’s not that either we use the GLP-1 RAs or we have no other tools. We have other tools. I think we have to personalize the treatment based on the patient’s profile from a safety standpoint and from a phenotypic standpoint.
Dr. Jain: I love that thought. I think individualization is the key here.
We know that people with diabetes have a higher risk for pancreatitis by virtue of having diabetes. People with obesity also have a higher risk for pancreatitis by virtue of having obesity. These are the two conditions where we are using a large amount of GLP-1 RA therapy. Again, the idea is looking at the person in front of us and then deciding, based on their past medical history and their current risk, whether or not a medication is a right fit for them.
I think more individualization here will come as we start using these medications that might be having potential effects on different organ systems. You mentioned a little bit about the liver, so a thought came in my mind. We know that people with diabetes who have alcohol use disorder are at a higher risk for potential hypoglycemia. If they have events when they have increased consumption of alcohol, there can be more hypoglycemia.
We now could potentially be using semaglutide or other GLP-1 RA therapy for management of alcohol use disorder. In your own experience in the studies that you’ve done or the literature that’s out there, has that been associated with an even higher risk for hypoglycemia?
Dr. Leggio: It’s a wonderful question. I’m not aware of any formal and published report of that association. That said, your thinking from a physiopathologist standpoint makes total sense. I could not agree more. The fact that nothing has been published, at least to my knowledge, doesn’t mean that the death risk doesn’t exist. In fact, I agree with you that it does exist.
Alcohol use disorder is interesting and tricky clinically because chronically, alcohol addiction or alcohol use disorder is associated with an increased risk for diabetes. Acutely, as you point out; and this could be with or without alcohol use disorder. An episode of a high volume of binge drinking may lead to hypoglycemia.
This is one of the reasons why people may show up to the emergency room with intoxication, and one of the symptoms detected at the emergency room is that they also have hypoglycemia in addition to vomiting, nausea, and everything else that we see in patients with acute intoxication.
Similar to the discussion about pancreatitis, as we work on understanding the possible role of GLP-1 RA in patients with alcohol use disorder, we do have to keep a close eye on the risk for hypoglycemia. The short answer is that this is not well established, but based on the simple concept of “first, do no harm,” I think we need to track that very carefully.
In the ongoing clinical trial we’re doing in Maryland in my program at the NIH, we do just that. We are tracking glucose levels. Of course, patients come to clinic weekly, so unless they have symptoms, typically we don’t see anything at the time.
More important, we educate our patients when they go through the consent process. We tell them that this medication per se does not give hypoglycemia. In fact, we’re including people with diabetes, so for people on other medications like metformin, we explain to them that technically such a risk should not exist, but because you’re drinking alcohol in excessive amounts, you do have a potential higher risk. We just don’t know how significant that risk could be.
We do a large amount of education at baseline when they enroll in our study. We also educate our patients on how to recognize early on the potential risk for hypoglycemia, exactly for the reasons you said. We explain to them the unknown potential that the GLP-1 RAs and alcohol together may synergize and give hypoglycemia.
Dr. Jain: I don’t know if you got this feeling at the ADA conference, but I felt, when attending all these sessions, that it seems like GLP-1 RA is the gift that keeps giving. We see the effect on diabetes, obesity, metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease, possibly with Alzheimer’s, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and so many things.
Now, of course, there’s potential use in alcohol use disorder. Do you think that using GLP-1 RA therapy is ready for prime time? Do you think we are now ready to prescribe this in people with alcohol use disorder?
Dr. Leggio: I would say we’re not there yet. As I mentioned at the beginning, the evidence keeps on growing. It’s getting stronger and stronger because the positive data keep on coming up. We have data from animal models, including the different species, ranging from rodents to nonhuman primates. We have anecdotal evidence and machine-learning approaches using, for example, big data and social media data. Now we have pharmacoepidemiology data and some small, initial, but still good randomized clinical trials.
What we are missing is the final step of having a substantial number of prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials to really prove or disprove whether these medications work, and to also better understand which patients may respond to these medications.
The good news is that there are many ongoing clinical trials. We are conducting a clinical trial in Maryland at the NIH. Dr. Simmons is doing a clinical trial at Oklahoma State University. Dr. Christian Hendershot at UNC is conducting a study at Chapel Hill. Dr. Josh Gowin is doing a study in Colorado. Dr. Anders Fink-Jensen is doing a study in Denmark. The momentum is very high.
I’m only mentioning those people who are doing alcohol-semaglutide clinical trials. There are also people doing clinical trials on smoking, stimulants, and opioids. There are actually some very fresh, still unpublished data from Penn State that were presented publicly at conferences, showing how these drugs may reduce opioid craving, which is, of course, critically important, given that we’re in the middle of a fentanyl pandemic that is killing one person every 7 minutes, for example, in Baltimore. It’s very alarming and we need more treatments.
The bottom line is that it’s very promising, but we need to wait for these clinical trials to have a definitive answer. I would say that if you have a patient with diabetes, obesity, and also alcohol addiction, and they are on semaglutide or any other GLP-1 RA, and in addition to using the medication for diabetes and obesity, they also have a beneficial effect on their alcohol drinking, then that’s fantastic. At the end of the day, that’s the mission we all share: helping people.
If it’s someone without obesity and diabetes, personally, at this stage, I will go with other medications that either have FDA approval or at least very solid evidence of efficacy from RCTs rather than going with the GLP-1 RA, at least until I see more definitive data from randomized clinical trials.
There is a large amount of hope. We are hoping that these clinical trials will be positive. We are very enthusiastic and we’re also very thrilled to see that Novo Nordisk recently launched a gigantic multisite clinical trial with — I forgot how many sites, but it’s very large across Europe, America, and maybe other continents as well.
Their primary outcome is improvement in alcohol-related liver disease, but they’re also looking at alcohol drinking as a secondary outcome. That’s very important because, unlike in the diabetes field, in the addiction field, we do struggle to build partnership with the private sector because sometimes the addiction field is not seen as an appetitive field from pharma.
We all know that the best success in any medication development story is when you put academia, the government, and pharma together. Think about the COVID-19 vaccine development. That’s unfortunately the exception rather than rule in the addiction field.
With the company doing a large clinical trial in the alcohol field, although they focus more on the liver but they also looked at drinking, I really hope we’ll see more and more companies in the private sector take more and more interest in addiction. Also, I hope to see more and more partnership between the private sector, the government, and academia.
Dr. Jain: Such exciting times, indeed. We can’t wait enough for the results of these and many other trials to come out. Dr. Leggio, it was an absolute delight chatting with you today. Thank you so much for joining us from ADA 2024.
Akshay B. Jain, MD, Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Abbott; Acerus; AstraZeneca; Amgen; Bausch Healthcare; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Care to Know; CCRN; Connected in Motion; CPD Network; Dexcom; Diabetes Canada; Eli Lilly; GSK; HLS Therapeutics; Janssen; Master Clinician Alliance; MDBriefcase; Merck; Medtronic; Moderna; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Partners in Progressive Medical Education; Pfizer; Sanofi Aventis; Timed Right; WebMD. Received research grants/research support from: Abbott; Amgen; Novo Nordisk. Received consulting fees from: Abbott; Acerus; AstraZeneca; Amgen; Bausch Healthcare; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Dexcom; Eli Lilly; Gilead Sciences; GSK; HLS Therapeutics; Insulet; Janssen; Medtronic; Novo Nordisk; Partners in Progressive Medical Education; PocketPills; Roche; Sanofi Aventis; Takeda. Lorenzo Leggio, MD, PhD, Clinical Director, Deputy Scientific Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse Intramural Research Program, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, Maryland, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a US federal employee for: National Institutes of Health. He had received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: UK Medical Council on Alcohol for his service as editor-in-chief for Alcohol and Alcoholism and received royalties from Rutledge as an editor for a textbook.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Akshay B. Jain, MD: Today we are very excited to have Dr. Leggio join us all the way from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He is an addiction physician scientist in the intramural research program at NIH. Welcome, Dr. Leggio. Thanks for joining us.
Lorenzo Leggio, MD, PhD: Thank you so much.
Dr. Jain: We’ll get right into this. Your session was, in my mind, extremely informative. The session looked at glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) therapy and its potential effects on mitigating alcohol misuse syndrome, so, reduction of alcohol addiction potentially.
We’ve seen in some previous clinical trials, including many from your group, that alcohol use is known to be reduced — the overall risk of incidence, as well as recurrence of alcohol use — in individuals who are on GLP-1 RA therapy.
Can you share more insights about the data already out there?
Dr. Leggio: At the preclinical level, we have a very robust line of studies, experiments, and publications looking at the effect of GLP-1 RAs, starting from exenatide up to, more recently, semaglutide. They show that these GLP-1 RAs do reduce alcohol drinking. They used different animal models of excessive alcohol drinking, using different species — for example, mice, rats, nonhuman primates — models that reflect the excessive alcohol drinking behavior that we see in patients, like physical alcohol dependence or binge-like alcohol drinking, and other behaviors in animal models that reflect the human condition.
In addition to that, we recently have seen an increase in human evidence that GLP-1 RAs may reduce alcohol drinking. For example, there is some anecdotal evidence and some analyses using social media showing that people on GLP-1 RAs report drinking less alcohol.
There are also some pharmacoepidemiology studies which are very intriguing and quite promising. In this case, people have been looking at electronic medical records; they have used the pharmacoepidemiology approaches to match patients on GLP-1 RAs because of diabetes or obesity, and have compared and matched to patients on different drugs as the controls.
A study was recently published Nature Communications by a group in Cleveland in collaboration with Dr. Nora Volkow from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. This study shows the association between being on a GLP-1 RA and the lower incidence of alcohol use disorder and lower drinking.
There is also some promise from prospective randomized clinical trials. In particular, there was one clinical trial from Denmark, a well-known and -conducted clinical trial where they looked at exenatide, and they didn’t see an effect of exenatide compared with placebo in the main analysis. But in a subanalysis, they did see that exenatide reduced alcohol drinking, but only in patients with alcohol use disorder and obesity.
This suggests that these medications may work for some patients and not for other patients. That’s fine, because just like in any other field in medicine, including diabetes, obesity, hypertension, Parkinson’s, and depression, not all medications work for everybody. If these medications will work for alcohol addiction, we do not expect that they will work for everybody.
One ongoing question in the field is to try to identify the phenotypes or the subgroup of people who may be more responsive to these medications.
Dr. Jain: This is such a fascinating field, and all these studies are coming out. In your review of all the literature so far, do you think this is dose dependent? Also, we see that, for instance, with certain individuals, when they take GLP-1 RA therapy, they might have a lot of gastrointestinal (GI) side effects. Recent studies have shown that the rate of these GI side effects does not necessarily correlate with the amount of weight loss. In the alcohol addiction field, do you think that the GI side effects, things like nausea, could also have a potential role in mitigating the alcohol addiction?
Dr. Leggio: This is a great question. They may play a role; they may contribute, too, but we don’t think that they are the driving mechanism of why people drink less, for at least a couple of reasons.
One is that, similar to the obesity field, the data we have so far don’t necessarily show a relationship between the GI side effects and the reduction in drinking. Plus, the reduction in drinking is likely to happen later when many GI side effects are gone or attenuated.
The second reason is from the neuroscience field. We are starting to better understand the mechanism at the brain level as to how these medications work. We don’t see that the nausea or, more generally, not feeling well — malaise, etc. — are driving mechanisms for how these medications work.
Again, it’s not to discount completely that the GI side effects may play a role, but I would say that, if anything, they may be more contributing to. And if they do, that will not be unique to this class of medication. For example, we have three medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for alcohol use disorder.
One challenge we have in the addiction field is that many people don’t know that these medications exist — many primary care providers don’t know — and they are completely underutilized. Everybody here who is listening to us knows that roughly 85% of people with diabetes receive a medication for diabetes. For alcohol use disorder, the number is 2%. These are medications approved by the FDA.
One of them is naltrexone, which does give GI symptoms — in particular, nausea and vomiting. The other medication is acamprosate, which does give diarrhea.
You have medications approved for alcohol disorder where you do have some GI symptoms, but they are not the mechanism either for how these medications help people to curb craving and reduce alcohol drinking.
Dr. Jain: What about the dose-dependent action? Do you think that GLP-1 RAs, at a lower dose, may not have an effect on alcohol use disorder vs at a higher dose, or is everyone a little different?
Dr. Leggio: That’s a wonderful question. The short answer is, we don’t know, to be honest. Now, in some of the animal studies — my team has been in collaboration with other scientists in the NIH intramural research program, and also with scientists in academia, for example, at Scripps, UCLA — we see a dose response where the higher the dose, the higher the effect of the drug. In this case, semaglutide reduced binge drinking in a rat model of a physical alcohol dependence.
That said, I would be very cautious about claiming, based on the rodent data, that humans will have a dose response. It’s an open question. We really don’t know. Some of the pharmacoepidemiology data suggested that even lower doses — for example, using semaglutide for diabetes without going up to the obesity dose — may be just as effective as a higher dose in reducing the incidence of alcohol use disorder.
It’s important also to keep in mind that the pharmacoepidemiology data are always an association. Reduction in alcohol disorder is associated with the prescription GLP-1 RA, but they don’t really replace the more gold-standard, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. Nonetheless, with the pharmacoepidemiology data, I think there is an argument to at least hypothesize that people may respond well, even to lower doses.
This also may be important from a safety standpoint.
Basically, we need to wait for results in the next years to come from randomized clinical trials to better unfold the question about doses. For example, just anecdotally, I will tell you that in the clinical trial we are conducting right now at the NIH Intramural Research Program, for which I’m the principal investigator (PI), we are going up to 2.4 mg — the highest dose of semaglutide.
We are collaborating with Kyle Simmons, PhD, from Oklahoma State University. Our two studies are not like a two-site clinical trial, but they are harmonized. In Dr. Simmons’ clinical trial, they’re going up to 1.0 mg. We are excited about this team approach because the trials are slightly different, but they’re harmonized to the point that, once the studies are done, we’ll be able to combine and compare data to better answer the question about dosing, and many other questions.
Dr. Jain: From a clinical perspective, we see that many people who are battling alcohol use disorder may not have obesity. They might actually be on the leaner side, and hence, we may not want to use a high dose of GLP-1 RA therapy. It’ll be very exciting to see when these results come out.
This brings me to the next question. I think everyone would love to know why this happens. Why is GLP-1 RA having this effect on alcohol use disorder? I know that your group has done many animal studies, as you pointed out, and one of the postulated theories was the effect on the GABA neurotransmission pathway.
Can you tell us more about what you feel is the underlying mechanism of action here?
Dr. Leggio: I will start by saying that we don’t fully know. There are many open questions. If I can sidetrack for one second: We come up with the idea that, first of all, alcohol use disorder and substance use disorder are addictive behaviors, addictive disorders. We define addiction as a brain disease.
Granted that addiction is a brain disease, it doesn’t mean that addiction works just in the brain in isolation. As we all know, the brain works in concert with the rest of the body. One specific approach my team has been taking is working on the analogy and the similarities between obesity and addiction to try to understand how the body-brain connection, such as the gut-brain-neuroendocrine pathway, may play a role in patients with addiction.
With that in mind, a large amount of work in my lab in the past 20 years — since I’ve been a PI — has been focused on studying this neuroendocrine pathways related to the gut-brain axis. For example, we have done work on insulin and leptin, primarily; we had done work on ghrelin, and since 2015 on the GLP-1 RAs.
With that in mind, the framework we are working on, which is also substantiated by many studies done by our team and other teams in the neuroscience field, kind of supports the idea that, similar to what we see in obesity, these medications may work by affecting what we call reward processing, or the seeking for addictive drugs, such as alcohol, and also the drugs such as the stimulants, opioids, nicotine, and so on.
The idea is that the mechanism is driven by the ability of the medication — semaglutide and all the GLP-1 RAs — to reduce the rewarding properties of alcohol and drugs. To maybe make the example more pragmatic, what does that mean? It means, for example, that a patient who typically has 10 drinks per day in the afternoon and night, while they are on the medication they may feel the lack of need to drink up to 10 to feel the same reward.
They may be able to stop after two or three drinks, which means a significant harm reduction and a beneficial outcome. This also brings us to another mechanism, which may be related to society. We don’t fully understand how much the society mechanism, including society mechanism related to GI motility, may also play a role.
With that said, we don’t think that the effect of the GLP-1 RAs is merely due to alcohol being a calorie-based nutrient because, in fact, we see alcohol as an addictive drug, not as a nutrient. Also, the GLP-1 RAs, at least in animal models, seem to work on other addictive drugs that don’t have calories, such as nicotine, and possibly with cannabis, opioids, and stimulants.
Then on the molecular level, our team recently showed, in collaboration with Dr. Marisa Roberto from Scripps in La Jolla, California, that semaglutide may in fact change the GABA transmission at the level of some brain regions, such as the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex. These are brain regions that are well-established hubs that play a role in the mechanism underlying addiction.
There are also some very exciting recent data showing how these medications may work not just on GABA or just on dopamine, which is the canonical way we conceive of reward processing, but by working on both by modulating GABA transmission — for example, at the ventral tegmental area and dopamine transmission at the nucleus accumbens.
Bottom line, if I summarize all of this, is that the mechanism is not fully understood, but there is definitely a contribution of this medication to effect and reward processing, possibly by altering the balance between GABA and dopamine. There are still some unknown questions, such as, are these mechanisms all brain driven or are they signaling from the periphery to the brain, or maybe both?
Also, as we all know, there are many differences across all these GLP-1 analogs in brain penetrance. Whether the drug needs to go to the brain to have an effect on alcohol drinking, cocaine seeking, or smoking is really an open question.
Dr. Jain: This is so thought-provoking. I guess the more we uncover, the more mesmerized we get with all the potential crosstalk. There is a large amount of overlap in the brain with each of these different things and how it all interplays with each other.
Speaking of interplay, I’m thinking about how many people prone to having alcohol use disorder can potentially develop complications, one of these being chronic pancreatitis. This is a well-known complication that can occur in people having alcohol addiction. Along that same line, we know that previous history of pancreatitis is considered a use-with-caution, or we don’t want to use GLP-1 RA therapy in people who have had pancreatitis.
Now it becomes this quagmire where people may have chronic pancreatitis, but we may want to consider GLP-1 RA therapy for management of alcohol use disorder. What are your thoughts about this, and the safety, potentially, in using it in these patients?
Dr. Leggio: This is another wonderful question. That’s definitely a top priority in our mind, to address these kinds of questions. For example, our RCT does have, as core primary outcomes, not only the efficacy defined as a reduction in alcohol drinking, but also safety.
The reason is exactly what you just explained. There are many unanswered questions, including whether giving a GLP-1 RA and alcohol together may have synergistic effects and increase the likelihood of having pancreatitis.
The good news is that, so far, based on the published literature, including the RCT done with exenatide in Denmark and published in 2022 and also the ongoing clinical trials — including my own clinical trial, but of course we are blind — pancreatitis has not been coming out as an adverse event.
However, it’s also true that it often happens in clinical medication development. Of course, we screen and select our population well. For example, we do exclude people who have a history of pancreatitis. We exclude people with high lipase or with any of the clinical symptomatology that makes us concerned about these people having pancreatitis.
As often happens when you move a medication from clinical trials to clinical practice, we still need to understand whether this medication works in patients. I’m just speculating, but even if the clinical trials do not raise red flags in terms of increased risk for some side effects such as pancreatitis, I think it will be very important for practitioners to keep a close eye on the death risk regardless.
It’s very interesting that it’s similar to alcohol liver disease. With pancreatitis, not every single patient with alcohol addiction has pancreatitis. We don’t really fully understand why some people develop pancreatitis and some people do not. The point being that there are many patients with alcohol addiction who don’t have pancreatitis and may benefit from these medications if they work. Again, we have to prove that in patients.
On the other side, as we all know, pancreatitis is a potentially life-threatening condition for those people who either have it or are at risk for it. I think we have to be very careful before we consider giving them a GLP-1 RA.
One could argue that alcohol is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in the world. For example, right now, alcohol is the leading cause of liver disease. It’s the main reason for liver transplantation in our country. Alcohol is affecting thousands of people in terms of death and emergency room visits.
You could argue that the downside is not treating these people and they die because of alcohol addiction. A GLP-1 RA is not going to be for everybody. I will remind everybody that (1) we do have FDA-approved medications for alcohol addiction; and (2) there are also other medications not approved by the FDA, but with a proven efficacy in some clinical trials — for example, topiramate and gabapentin — and they’ve been endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association.
There is also some evidence for another medication, baclofen, which has been endorsed by the American College of Gastroenterology for patients with alcohol addiction and liver disease.
The point I’m making is that it’s not that either we use the GLP-1 RAs or we have no other tools. We have other tools. I think we have to personalize the treatment based on the patient’s profile from a safety standpoint and from a phenotypic standpoint.
Dr. Jain: I love that thought. I think individualization is the key here.
We know that people with diabetes have a higher risk for pancreatitis by virtue of having diabetes. People with obesity also have a higher risk for pancreatitis by virtue of having obesity. These are the two conditions where we are using a large amount of GLP-1 RA therapy. Again, the idea is looking at the person in front of us and then deciding, based on their past medical history and their current risk, whether or not a medication is a right fit for them.
I think more individualization here will come as we start using these medications that might be having potential effects on different organ systems. You mentioned a little bit about the liver, so a thought came in my mind. We know that people with diabetes who have alcohol use disorder are at a higher risk for potential hypoglycemia. If they have events when they have increased consumption of alcohol, there can be more hypoglycemia.
We now could potentially be using semaglutide or other GLP-1 RA therapy for management of alcohol use disorder. In your own experience in the studies that you’ve done or the literature that’s out there, has that been associated with an even higher risk for hypoglycemia?
Dr. Leggio: It’s a wonderful question. I’m not aware of any formal and published report of that association. That said, your thinking from a physiopathologist standpoint makes total sense. I could not agree more. The fact that nothing has been published, at least to my knowledge, doesn’t mean that the death risk doesn’t exist. In fact, I agree with you that it does exist.
Alcohol use disorder is interesting and tricky clinically because chronically, alcohol addiction or alcohol use disorder is associated with an increased risk for diabetes. Acutely, as you point out; and this could be with or without alcohol use disorder. An episode of a high volume of binge drinking may lead to hypoglycemia.
This is one of the reasons why people may show up to the emergency room with intoxication, and one of the symptoms detected at the emergency room is that they also have hypoglycemia in addition to vomiting, nausea, and everything else that we see in patients with acute intoxication.
Similar to the discussion about pancreatitis, as we work on understanding the possible role of GLP-1 RA in patients with alcohol use disorder, we do have to keep a close eye on the risk for hypoglycemia. The short answer is that this is not well established, but based on the simple concept of “first, do no harm,” I think we need to track that very carefully.
In the ongoing clinical trial we’re doing in Maryland in my program at the NIH, we do just that. We are tracking glucose levels. Of course, patients come to clinic weekly, so unless they have symptoms, typically we don’t see anything at the time.
More important, we educate our patients when they go through the consent process. We tell them that this medication per se does not give hypoglycemia. In fact, we’re including people with diabetes, so for people on other medications like metformin, we explain to them that technically such a risk should not exist, but because you’re drinking alcohol in excessive amounts, you do have a potential higher risk. We just don’t know how significant that risk could be.
We do a large amount of education at baseline when they enroll in our study. We also educate our patients on how to recognize early on the potential risk for hypoglycemia, exactly for the reasons you said. We explain to them the unknown potential that the GLP-1 RAs and alcohol together may synergize and give hypoglycemia.
Dr. Jain: I don’t know if you got this feeling at the ADA conference, but I felt, when attending all these sessions, that it seems like GLP-1 RA is the gift that keeps giving. We see the effect on diabetes, obesity, metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease, possibly with Alzheimer’s, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and so many things.
Now, of course, there’s potential use in alcohol use disorder. Do you think that using GLP-1 RA therapy is ready for prime time? Do you think we are now ready to prescribe this in people with alcohol use disorder?
Dr. Leggio: I would say we’re not there yet. As I mentioned at the beginning, the evidence keeps on growing. It’s getting stronger and stronger because the positive data keep on coming up. We have data from animal models, including the different species, ranging from rodents to nonhuman primates. We have anecdotal evidence and machine-learning approaches using, for example, big data and social media data. Now we have pharmacoepidemiology data and some small, initial, but still good randomized clinical trials.
What we are missing is the final step of having a substantial number of prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials to really prove or disprove whether these medications work, and to also better understand which patients may respond to these medications.
The good news is that there are many ongoing clinical trials. We are conducting a clinical trial in Maryland at the NIH. Dr. Simmons is doing a clinical trial at Oklahoma State University. Dr. Christian Hendershot at UNC is conducting a study at Chapel Hill. Dr. Josh Gowin is doing a study in Colorado. Dr. Anders Fink-Jensen is doing a study in Denmark. The momentum is very high.
I’m only mentioning those people who are doing alcohol-semaglutide clinical trials. There are also people doing clinical trials on smoking, stimulants, and opioids. There are actually some very fresh, still unpublished data from Penn State that were presented publicly at conferences, showing how these drugs may reduce opioid craving, which is, of course, critically important, given that we’re in the middle of a fentanyl pandemic that is killing one person every 7 minutes, for example, in Baltimore. It’s very alarming and we need more treatments.
The bottom line is that it’s very promising, but we need to wait for these clinical trials to have a definitive answer. I would say that if you have a patient with diabetes, obesity, and also alcohol addiction, and they are on semaglutide or any other GLP-1 RA, and in addition to using the medication for diabetes and obesity, they also have a beneficial effect on their alcohol drinking, then that’s fantastic. At the end of the day, that’s the mission we all share: helping people.
If it’s someone without obesity and diabetes, personally, at this stage, I will go with other medications that either have FDA approval or at least very solid evidence of efficacy from RCTs rather than going with the GLP-1 RA, at least until I see more definitive data from randomized clinical trials.
There is a large amount of hope. We are hoping that these clinical trials will be positive. We are very enthusiastic and we’re also very thrilled to see that Novo Nordisk recently launched a gigantic multisite clinical trial with — I forgot how many sites, but it’s very large across Europe, America, and maybe other continents as well.
Their primary outcome is improvement in alcohol-related liver disease, but they’re also looking at alcohol drinking as a secondary outcome. That’s very important because, unlike in the diabetes field, in the addiction field, we do struggle to build partnership with the private sector because sometimes the addiction field is not seen as an appetitive field from pharma.
We all know that the best success in any medication development story is when you put academia, the government, and pharma together. Think about the COVID-19 vaccine development. That’s unfortunately the exception rather than rule in the addiction field.
With the company doing a large clinical trial in the alcohol field, although they focus more on the liver but they also looked at drinking, I really hope we’ll see more and more companies in the private sector take more and more interest in addiction. Also, I hope to see more and more partnership between the private sector, the government, and academia.
Dr. Jain: Such exciting times, indeed. We can’t wait enough for the results of these and many other trials to come out. Dr. Leggio, it was an absolute delight chatting with you today. Thank you so much for joining us from ADA 2024.
Akshay B. Jain, MD, Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Abbott; Acerus; AstraZeneca; Amgen; Bausch Healthcare; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Care to Know; CCRN; Connected in Motion; CPD Network; Dexcom; Diabetes Canada; Eli Lilly; GSK; HLS Therapeutics; Janssen; Master Clinician Alliance; MDBriefcase; Merck; Medtronic; Moderna; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Partners in Progressive Medical Education; Pfizer; Sanofi Aventis; Timed Right; WebMD. Received research grants/research support from: Abbott; Amgen; Novo Nordisk. Received consulting fees from: Abbott; Acerus; AstraZeneca; Amgen; Bausch Healthcare; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Dexcom; Eli Lilly; Gilead Sciences; GSK; HLS Therapeutics; Insulet; Janssen; Medtronic; Novo Nordisk; Partners in Progressive Medical Education; PocketPills; Roche; Sanofi Aventis; Takeda. Lorenzo Leggio, MD, PhD, Clinical Director, Deputy Scientific Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse Intramural Research Program, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, Maryland, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a US federal employee for: National Institutes of Health. He had received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: UK Medical Council on Alcohol for his service as editor-in-chief for Alcohol and Alcoholism and received royalties from Rutledge as an editor for a textbook.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Akshay B. Jain, MD: Today we are very excited to have Dr. Leggio join us all the way from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He is an addiction physician scientist in the intramural research program at NIH. Welcome, Dr. Leggio. Thanks for joining us.
Lorenzo Leggio, MD, PhD: Thank you so much.
Dr. Jain: We’ll get right into this. Your session was, in my mind, extremely informative. The session looked at glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) therapy and its potential effects on mitigating alcohol misuse syndrome, so, reduction of alcohol addiction potentially.
We’ve seen in some previous clinical trials, including many from your group, that alcohol use is known to be reduced — the overall risk of incidence, as well as recurrence of alcohol use — in individuals who are on GLP-1 RA therapy.
Can you share more insights about the data already out there?
Dr. Leggio: At the preclinical level, we have a very robust line of studies, experiments, and publications looking at the effect of GLP-1 RAs, starting from exenatide up to, more recently, semaglutide. They show that these GLP-1 RAs do reduce alcohol drinking. They used different animal models of excessive alcohol drinking, using different species — for example, mice, rats, nonhuman primates — models that reflect the excessive alcohol drinking behavior that we see in patients, like physical alcohol dependence or binge-like alcohol drinking, and other behaviors in animal models that reflect the human condition.
In addition to that, we recently have seen an increase in human evidence that GLP-1 RAs may reduce alcohol drinking. For example, there is some anecdotal evidence and some analyses using social media showing that people on GLP-1 RAs report drinking less alcohol.
There are also some pharmacoepidemiology studies which are very intriguing and quite promising. In this case, people have been looking at electronic medical records; they have used the pharmacoepidemiology approaches to match patients on GLP-1 RAs because of diabetes or obesity, and have compared and matched to patients on different drugs as the controls.
A study was recently published Nature Communications by a group in Cleveland in collaboration with Dr. Nora Volkow from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. This study shows the association between being on a GLP-1 RA and the lower incidence of alcohol use disorder and lower drinking.
There is also some promise from prospective randomized clinical trials. In particular, there was one clinical trial from Denmark, a well-known and -conducted clinical trial where they looked at exenatide, and they didn’t see an effect of exenatide compared with placebo in the main analysis. But in a subanalysis, they did see that exenatide reduced alcohol drinking, but only in patients with alcohol use disorder and obesity.
This suggests that these medications may work for some patients and not for other patients. That’s fine, because just like in any other field in medicine, including diabetes, obesity, hypertension, Parkinson’s, and depression, not all medications work for everybody. If these medications will work for alcohol addiction, we do not expect that they will work for everybody.
One ongoing question in the field is to try to identify the phenotypes or the subgroup of people who may be more responsive to these medications.
Dr. Jain: This is such a fascinating field, and all these studies are coming out. In your review of all the literature so far, do you think this is dose dependent? Also, we see that, for instance, with certain individuals, when they take GLP-1 RA therapy, they might have a lot of gastrointestinal (GI) side effects. Recent studies have shown that the rate of these GI side effects does not necessarily correlate with the amount of weight loss. In the alcohol addiction field, do you think that the GI side effects, things like nausea, could also have a potential role in mitigating the alcohol addiction?
Dr. Leggio: This is a great question. They may play a role; they may contribute, too, but we don’t think that they are the driving mechanism of why people drink less, for at least a couple of reasons.
One is that, similar to the obesity field, the data we have so far don’t necessarily show a relationship between the GI side effects and the reduction in drinking. Plus, the reduction in drinking is likely to happen later when many GI side effects are gone or attenuated.
The second reason is from the neuroscience field. We are starting to better understand the mechanism at the brain level as to how these medications work. We don’t see that the nausea or, more generally, not feeling well — malaise, etc. — are driving mechanisms for how these medications work.
Again, it’s not to discount completely that the GI side effects may play a role, but I would say that, if anything, they may be more contributing to. And if they do, that will not be unique to this class of medication. For example, we have three medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for alcohol use disorder.
One challenge we have in the addiction field is that many people don’t know that these medications exist — many primary care providers don’t know — and they are completely underutilized. Everybody here who is listening to us knows that roughly 85% of people with diabetes receive a medication for diabetes. For alcohol use disorder, the number is 2%. These are medications approved by the FDA.
One of them is naltrexone, which does give GI symptoms — in particular, nausea and vomiting. The other medication is acamprosate, which does give diarrhea.
You have medications approved for alcohol disorder where you do have some GI symptoms, but they are not the mechanism either for how these medications help people to curb craving and reduce alcohol drinking.
Dr. Jain: What about the dose-dependent action? Do you think that GLP-1 RAs, at a lower dose, may not have an effect on alcohol use disorder vs at a higher dose, or is everyone a little different?
Dr. Leggio: That’s a wonderful question. The short answer is, we don’t know, to be honest. Now, in some of the animal studies — my team has been in collaboration with other scientists in the NIH intramural research program, and also with scientists in academia, for example, at Scripps, UCLA — we see a dose response where the higher the dose, the higher the effect of the drug. In this case, semaglutide reduced binge drinking in a rat model of a physical alcohol dependence.
That said, I would be very cautious about claiming, based on the rodent data, that humans will have a dose response. It’s an open question. We really don’t know. Some of the pharmacoepidemiology data suggested that even lower doses — for example, using semaglutide for diabetes without going up to the obesity dose — may be just as effective as a higher dose in reducing the incidence of alcohol use disorder.
It’s important also to keep in mind that the pharmacoepidemiology data are always an association. Reduction in alcohol disorder is associated with the prescription GLP-1 RA, but they don’t really replace the more gold-standard, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. Nonetheless, with the pharmacoepidemiology data, I think there is an argument to at least hypothesize that people may respond well, even to lower doses.
This also may be important from a safety standpoint.
Basically, we need to wait for results in the next years to come from randomized clinical trials to better unfold the question about doses. For example, just anecdotally, I will tell you that in the clinical trial we are conducting right now at the NIH Intramural Research Program, for which I’m the principal investigator (PI), we are going up to 2.4 mg — the highest dose of semaglutide.
We are collaborating with Kyle Simmons, PhD, from Oklahoma State University. Our two studies are not like a two-site clinical trial, but they are harmonized. In Dr. Simmons’ clinical trial, they’re going up to 1.0 mg. We are excited about this team approach because the trials are slightly different, but they’re harmonized to the point that, once the studies are done, we’ll be able to combine and compare data to better answer the question about dosing, and many other questions.
Dr. Jain: From a clinical perspective, we see that many people who are battling alcohol use disorder may not have obesity. They might actually be on the leaner side, and hence, we may not want to use a high dose of GLP-1 RA therapy. It’ll be very exciting to see when these results come out.
This brings me to the next question. I think everyone would love to know why this happens. Why is GLP-1 RA having this effect on alcohol use disorder? I know that your group has done many animal studies, as you pointed out, and one of the postulated theories was the effect on the GABA neurotransmission pathway.
Can you tell us more about what you feel is the underlying mechanism of action here?
Dr. Leggio: I will start by saying that we don’t fully know. There are many open questions. If I can sidetrack for one second: We come up with the idea that, first of all, alcohol use disorder and substance use disorder are addictive behaviors, addictive disorders. We define addiction as a brain disease.
Granted that addiction is a brain disease, it doesn’t mean that addiction works just in the brain in isolation. As we all know, the brain works in concert with the rest of the body. One specific approach my team has been taking is working on the analogy and the similarities between obesity and addiction to try to understand how the body-brain connection, such as the gut-brain-neuroendocrine pathway, may play a role in patients with addiction.
With that in mind, a large amount of work in my lab in the past 20 years — since I’ve been a PI — has been focused on studying this neuroendocrine pathways related to the gut-brain axis. For example, we have done work on insulin and leptin, primarily; we had done work on ghrelin, and since 2015 on the GLP-1 RAs.
With that in mind, the framework we are working on, which is also substantiated by many studies done by our team and other teams in the neuroscience field, kind of supports the idea that, similar to what we see in obesity, these medications may work by affecting what we call reward processing, or the seeking for addictive drugs, such as alcohol, and also the drugs such as the stimulants, opioids, nicotine, and so on.
The idea is that the mechanism is driven by the ability of the medication — semaglutide and all the GLP-1 RAs — to reduce the rewarding properties of alcohol and drugs. To maybe make the example more pragmatic, what does that mean? It means, for example, that a patient who typically has 10 drinks per day in the afternoon and night, while they are on the medication they may feel the lack of need to drink up to 10 to feel the same reward.
They may be able to stop after two or three drinks, which means a significant harm reduction and a beneficial outcome. This also brings us to another mechanism, which may be related to society. We don’t fully understand how much the society mechanism, including society mechanism related to GI motility, may also play a role.
With that said, we don’t think that the effect of the GLP-1 RAs is merely due to alcohol being a calorie-based nutrient because, in fact, we see alcohol as an addictive drug, not as a nutrient. Also, the GLP-1 RAs, at least in animal models, seem to work on other addictive drugs that don’t have calories, such as nicotine, and possibly with cannabis, opioids, and stimulants.
Then on the molecular level, our team recently showed, in collaboration with Dr. Marisa Roberto from Scripps in La Jolla, California, that semaglutide may in fact change the GABA transmission at the level of some brain regions, such as the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex. These are brain regions that are well-established hubs that play a role in the mechanism underlying addiction.
There are also some very exciting recent data showing how these medications may work not just on GABA or just on dopamine, which is the canonical way we conceive of reward processing, but by working on both by modulating GABA transmission — for example, at the ventral tegmental area and dopamine transmission at the nucleus accumbens.
Bottom line, if I summarize all of this, is that the mechanism is not fully understood, but there is definitely a contribution of this medication to effect and reward processing, possibly by altering the balance between GABA and dopamine. There are still some unknown questions, such as, are these mechanisms all brain driven or are they signaling from the periphery to the brain, or maybe both?
Also, as we all know, there are many differences across all these GLP-1 analogs in brain penetrance. Whether the drug needs to go to the brain to have an effect on alcohol drinking, cocaine seeking, or smoking is really an open question.
Dr. Jain: This is so thought-provoking. I guess the more we uncover, the more mesmerized we get with all the potential crosstalk. There is a large amount of overlap in the brain with each of these different things and how it all interplays with each other.
Speaking of interplay, I’m thinking about how many people prone to having alcohol use disorder can potentially develop complications, one of these being chronic pancreatitis. This is a well-known complication that can occur in people having alcohol addiction. Along that same line, we know that previous history of pancreatitis is considered a use-with-caution, or we don’t want to use GLP-1 RA therapy in people who have had pancreatitis.
Now it becomes this quagmire where people may have chronic pancreatitis, but we may want to consider GLP-1 RA therapy for management of alcohol use disorder. What are your thoughts about this, and the safety, potentially, in using it in these patients?
Dr. Leggio: This is another wonderful question. That’s definitely a top priority in our mind, to address these kinds of questions. For example, our RCT does have, as core primary outcomes, not only the efficacy defined as a reduction in alcohol drinking, but also safety.
The reason is exactly what you just explained. There are many unanswered questions, including whether giving a GLP-1 RA and alcohol together may have synergistic effects and increase the likelihood of having pancreatitis.
The good news is that, so far, based on the published literature, including the RCT done with exenatide in Denmark and published in 2022 and also the ongoing clinical trials — including my own clinical trial, but of course we are blind — pancreatitis has not been coming out as an adverse event.
However, it’s also true that it often happens in clinical medication development. Of course, we screen and select our population well. For example, we do exclude people who have a history of pancreatitis. We exclude people with high lipase or with any of the clinical symptomatology that makes us concerned about these people having pancreatitis.
As often happens when you move a medication from clinical trials to clinical practice, we still need to understand whether this medication works in patients. I’m just speculating, but even if the clinical trials do not raise red flags in terms of increased risk for some side effects such as pancreatitis, I think it will be very important for practitioners to keep a close eye on the death risk regardless.
It’s very interesting that it’s similar to alcohol liver disease. With pancreatitis, not every single patient with alcohol addiction has pancreatitis. We don’t really fully understand why some people develop pancreatitis and some people do not. The point being that there are many patients with alcohol addiction who don’t have pancreatitis and may benefit from these medications if they work. Again, we have to prove that in patients.
On the other side, as we all know, pancreatitis is a potentially life-threatening condition for those people who either have it or are at risk for it. I think we have to be very careful before we consider giving them a GLP-1 RA.
One could argue that alcohol is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in the world. For example, right now, alcohol is the leading cause of liver disease. It’s the main reason for liver transplantation in our country. Alcohol is affecting thousands of people in terms of death and emergency room visits.
You could argue that the downside is not treating these people and they die because of alcohol addiction. A GLP-1 RA is not going to be for everybody. I will remind everybody that (1) we do have FDA-approved medications for alcohol addiction; and (2) there are also other medications not approved by the FDA, but with a proven efficacy in some clinical trials — for example, topiramate and gabapentin — and they’ve been endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association.
There is also some evidence for another medication, baclofen, which has been endorsed by the American College of Gastroenterology for patients with alcohol addiction and liver disease.
The point I’m making is that it’s not that either we use the GLP-1 RAs or we have no other tools. We have other tools. I think we have to personalize the treatment based on the patient’s profile from a safety standpoint and from a phenotypic standpoint.
Dr. Jain: I love that thought. I think individualization is the key here.
We know that people with diabetes have a higher risk for pancreatitis by virtue of having diabetes. People with obesity also have a higher risk for pancreatitis by virtue of having obesity. These are the two conditions where we are using a large amount of GLP-1 RA therapy. Again, the idea is looking at the person in front of us and then deciding, based on their past medical history and their current risk, whether or not a medication is a right fit for them.
I think more individualization here will come as we start using these medications that might be having potential effects on different organ systems. You mentioned a little bit about the liver, so a thought came in my mind. We know that people with diabetes who have alcohol use disorder are at a higher risk for potential hypoglycemia. If they have events when they have increased consumption of alcohol, there can be more hypoglycemia.
We now could potentially be using semaglutide or other GLP-1 RA therapy for management of alcohol use disorder. In your own experience in the studies that you’ve done or the literature that’s out there, has that been associated with an even higher risk for hypoglycemia?
Dr. Leggio: It’s a wonderful question. I’m not aware of any formal and published report of that association. That said, your thinking from a physiopathologist standpoint makes total sense. I could not agree more. The fact that nothing has been published, at least to my knowledge, doesn’t mean that the death risk doesn’t exist. In fact, I agree with you that it does exist.
Alcohol use disorder is interesting and tricky clinically because chronically, alcohol addiction or alcohol use disorder is associated with an increased risk for diabetes. Acutely, as you point out; and this could be with or without alcohol use disorder. An episode of a high volume of binge drinking may lead to hypoglycemia.
This is one of the reasons why people may show up to the emergency room with intoxication, and one of the symptoms detected at the emergency room is that they also have hypoglycemia in addition to vomiting, nausea, and everything else that we see in patients with acute intoxication.
Similar to the discussion about pancreatitis, as we work on understanding the possible role of GLP-1 RA in patients with alcohol use disorder, we do have to keep a close eye on the risk for hypoglycemia. The short answer is that this is not well established, but based on the simple concept of “first, do no harm,” I think we need to track that very carefully.
In the ongoing clinical trial we’re doing in Maryland in my program at the NIH, we do just that. We are tracking glucose levels. Of course, patients come to clinic weekly, so unless they have symptoms, typically we don’t see anything at the time.
More important, we educate our patients when they go through the consent process. We tell them that this medication per se does not give hypoglycemia. In fact, we’re including people with diabetes, so for people on other medications like metformin, we explain to them that technically such a risk should not exist, but because you’re drinking alcohol in excessive amounts, you do have a potential higher risk. We just don’t know how significant that risk could be.
We do a large amount of education at baseline when they enroll in our study. We also educate our patients on how to recognize early on the potential risk for hypoglycemia, exactly for the reasons you said. We explain to them the unknown potential that the GLP-1 RAs and alcohol together may synergize and give hypoglycemia.
Dr. Jain: I don’t know if you got this feeling at the ADA conference, but I felt, when attending all these sessions, that it seems like GLP-1 RA is the gift that keeps giving. We see the effect on diabetes, obesity, metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease, possibly with Alzheimer’s, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and so many things.
Now, of course, there’s potential use in alcohol use disorder. Do you think that using GLP-1 RA therapy is ready for prime time? Do you think we are now ready to prescribe this in people with alcohol use disorder?
Dr. Leggio: I would say we’re not there yet. As I mentioned at the beginning, the evidence keeps on growing. It’s getting stronger and stronger because the positive data keep on coming up. We have data from animal models, including the different species, ranging from rodents to nonhuman primates. We have anecdotal evidence and machine-learning approaches using, for example, big data and social media data. Now we have pharmacoepidemiology data and some small, initial, but still good randomized clinical trials.
What we are missing is the final step of having a substantial number of prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials to really prove or disprove whether these medications work, and to also better understand which patients may respond to these medications.
The good news is that there are many ongoing clinical trials. We are conducting a clinical trial in Maryland at the NIH. Dr. Simmons is doing a clinical trial at Oklahoma State University. Dr. Christian Hendershot at UNC is conducting a study at Chapel Hill. Dr. Josh Gowin is doing a study in Colorado. Dr. Anders Fink-Jensen is doing a study in Denmark. The momentum is very high.
I’m only mentioning those people who are doing alcohol-semaglutide clinical trials. There are also people doing clinical trials on smoking, stimulants, and opioids. There are actually some very fresh, still unpublished data from Penn State that were presented publicly at conferences, showing how these drugs may reduce opioid craving, which is, of course, critically important, given that we’re in the middle of a fentanyl pandemic that is killing one person every 7 minutes, for example, in Baltimore. It’s very alarming and we need more treatments.
The bottom line is that it’s very promising, but we need to wait for these clinical trials to have a definitive answer. I would say that if you have a patient with diabetes, obesity, and also alcohol addiction, and they are on semaglutide or any other GLP-1 RA, and in addition to using the medication for diabetes and obesity, they also have a beneficial effect on their alcohol drinking, then that’s fantastic. At the end of the day, that’s the mission we all share: helping people.
If it’s someone without obesity and diabetes, personally, at this stage, I will go with other medications that either have FDA approval or at least very solid evidence of efficacy from RCTs rather than going with the GLP-1 RA, at least until I see more definitive data from randomized clinical trials.
There is a large amount of hope. We are hoping that these clinical trials will be positive. We are very enthusiastic and we’re also very thrilled to see that Novo Nordisk recently launched a gigantic multisite clinical trial with — I forgot how many sites, but it’s very large across Europe, America, and maybe other continents as well.
Their primary outcome is improvement in alcohol-related liver disease, but they’re also looking at alcohol drinking as a secondary outcome. That’s very important because, unlike in the diabetes field, in the addiction field, we do struggle to build partnership with the private sector because sometimes the addiction field is not seen as an appetitive field from pharma.
We all know that the best success in any medication development story is when you put academia, the government, and pharma together. Think about the COVID-19 vaccine development. That’s unfortunately the exception rather than rule in the addiction field.
With the company doing a large clinical trial in the alcohol field, although they focus more on the liver but they also looked at drinking, I really hope we’ll see more and more companies in the private sector take more and more interest in addiction. Also, I hope to see more and more partnership between the private sector, the government, and academia.
Dr. Jain: Such exciting times, indeed. We can’t wait enough for the results of these and many other trials to come out. Dr. Leggio, it was an absolute delight chatting with you today. Thank you so much for joining us from ADA 2024.
Akshay B. Jain, MD, Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Abbott; Acerus; AstraZeneca; Amgen; Bausch Healthcare; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Care to Know; CCRN; Connected in Motion; CPD Network; Dexcom; Diabetes Canada; Eli Lilly; GSK; HLS Therapeutics; Janssen; Master Clinician Alliance; MDBriefcase; Merck; Medtronic; Moderna; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Partners in Progressive Medical Education; Pfizer; Sanofi Aventis; Timed Right; WebMD. Received research grants/research support from: Abbott; Amgen; Novo Nordisk. Received consulting fees from: Abbott; Acerus; AstraZeneca; Amgen; Bausch Healthcare; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Dexcom; Eli Lilly; Gilead Sciences; GSK; HLS Therapeutics; Insulet; Janssen; Medtronic; Novo Nordisk; Partners in Progressive Medical Education; PocketPills; Roche; Sanofi Aventis; Takeda. Lorenzo Leggio, MD, PhD, Clinical Director, Deputy Scientific Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse Intramural Research Program, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, Maryland, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a US federal employee for: National Institutes of Health. He had received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: UK Medical Council on Alcohol for his service as editor-in-chief for Alcohol and Alcoholism and received royalties from Rutledge as an editor for a textbook.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ADA 2024
SURMOUNT-OSA Results: ‘Impressive’ in Improving Sleep Apnea
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Akshay B. Jain, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver, Canada, and with me is a very special guest. Today we have Dr. James Kim, a primary care physician working in Calgary, Canada. Both Dr. Kim and I were fortunate to attend the recently concluded American Diabetes Association annual conference in Orlando in June.
We thought we could share with you some of the key learnings that we found very insightful and clinically quite relevant. We were hoping to bring our own conclusion regarding what these findings were, both from a primary care perspective and an endocrinology perspective.
There were so many different studies that, frankly, it was difficult to pick them, but we handpicked a few studies we felt we could do a bit of a deeper dive on, and we’ll talk about each of these studies.
Welcome, Dr. Kim, and thanks for joining us.
James W. Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you so much, Dr Jain. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Dr. Jain: Probably the best place to start would be with the SURMOUNT-OSA study. This was highlighted at the American Diabetes Association conference. Essentially, it looked at people who are living with obesity who also had obstructive sleep apnea.
This was a randomized controlled trial where individuals tested either got tirzepatide (trade name, Mounjaro) or placebo treatment. They looked at the change in their apnea-hypopnea index at the end of the study.
This included both people who were using CPAP machines and those who were not using CPAP machines at baseline. We do know that many individuals with sleep apnea may not use these machines.
That was a big reduction.
Dr. Kim, what’s the relevance of this study in primary care?
Dr. Kim: Oh, it’s massive. Obstructive sleep apnea is probably one of the most underdiagnosed yet huge cardiac risk factors that we tend to overlook in primary care. We sometimes say, oh, it’s just sleep apnea; what’s the big deal? We know it’s a big problem. We know that more than 50% of people with type 2 diabetes have obstructive sleep apnea, and some studies have even quoted that 90% of their population cohorts had sleep apnea. This is a big deal.
What do we know so far? We know that obstructive sleep apnea, which I’m just going to call OSA, increases the risk for hypertension, bad cholesterol, and worsening blood glucose in terms of A1c and fasting glucose, which eventually leads to myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, stroke, and eventually cardiovascular death.
We also know that people with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk for OSA. There seems to be a bidirectional relationship between diabetes and OSA. It seems like weight plays the biggest role in terms of developing OSA, and numerous studies have shown this.
Also, thankfully, some of the studies showed that weight loss improves not just OSA but also blood pressure, cholesterol, blood glucose, and insulin sensitivities. These have been fascinating. We see these patients every single day. If you think about it in your population, for 50%-90% of the patients to have OSA is a large number. If you haven’t seen a person with OSA this week, you probably missed them, very likely.
Therefore, the SURMOUNT-OSA trial was quite fascinating with, as you mentioned, 50%-60% reduction in the severity of OSA, which is very impressive. Even more impressive, I think, is that for about 50% of the patients on tirzepatide, the OSA improves so much that they may not even need to be on CPAP machines.
Those who were on CPAP may not need to be on CPAP any longer. These are huge data, especially for primary care, because as you mentioned, we see these people every single day.
Dr. Jain: Thanks for pointing that out. Clearly, it’s very clinically relevant. I think the most important takeaway for me from this study was the correlation between weight loss and AHI improvement.
Clearly, it showed that placebo had about a 6% drop in AHI, whereas there was a 60% drop in the tirzepatide group, so you can see that it’s significantly different. The placebo group did not have any significant degree of weight loss, whereas the tirzepatide group had nearly 20% weight loss. This again goes to show that there is a very close correlation between weight loss and improvement in OSA.
What’s very important to note is that we’ve seen this in the past as well. We had seen some of these data with other GLP-1 agents, but the extent of improvement that we have seen in the SURMOUNT-OSA trial is significantly more than what we’ve seen in previous studies. There is a ray of hope now where we have medical management to offer people who are living with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea.
Dr. Kim: I want to add that, from a primary care perspective, this study also showed the improvement of the sleep apnea–related symptoms as well. The biggest problem with sleep apnea — or at least what patients’ spouses complain of, is the person snoring too much; it’s a symptom.
It’s the next-day symptoms that really do disturb people, like chronic fatigue. I have numerous patients who say that, once they’ve been treated for sleep apnea, they feel like a brand-new person. They have sudden bursts of energy that they never felt before, and over 50% of these people have huge improvements in the symptoms as well.
This is a huge trial. The only thing that I wish this study included were people with mild obstructive sleep apnea who were symptomatic. I do understand that, with other studies in this population, the data have been conflicting, but it would have been really awesome if they had those patients included. However, it is still a significant study for primary care.
Dr. Jain: That’s a really good point. Fatigue improves and overall quality of life improves. That’s very important from a primary care perspective.
From an endocrinology perspective, we know that management of sleep apnea can often lead to improvement in male hypogonadism, polycystic ovary syndrome, and insulin resistance. The amount of insulin required, or the number of medications needed for managing diabetes, can improve. Hypertension can improve as well. There are multiple benefits that you can get from appropriate management of sleep apnea.
Thanks, Dr. Kim. We really appreciate your insights on SURMOUNT-OSA.
Dr. Jain is a clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Kim is a clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary in Alberta. Both disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Akshay B. Jain, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver, Canada, and with me is a very special guest. Today we have Dr. James Kim, a primary care physician working in Calgary, Canada. Both Dr. Kim and I were fortunate to attend the recently concluded American Diabetes Association annual conference in Orlando in June.
We thought we could share with you some of the key learnings that we found very insightful and clinically quite relevant. We were hoping to bring our own conclusion regarding what these findings were, both from a primary care perspective and an endocrinology perspective.
There were so many different studies that, frankly, it was difficult to pick them, but we handpicked a few studies we felt we could do a bit of a deeper dive on, and we’ll talk about each of these studies.
Welcome, Dr. Kim, and thanks for joining us.
James W. Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you so much, Dr Jain. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Dr. Jain: Probably the best place to start would be with the SURMOUNT-OSA study. This was highlighted at the American Diabetes Association conference. Essentially, it looked at people who are living with obesity who also had obstructive sleep apnea.
This was a randomized controlled trial where individuals tested either got tirzepatide (trade name, Mounjaro) or placebo treatment. They looked at the change in their apnea-hypopnea index at the end of the study.
This included both people who were using CPAP machines and those who were not using CPAP machines at baseline. We do know that many individuals with sleep apnea may not use these machines.
That was a big reduction.
Dr. Kim, what’s the relevance of this study in primary care?
Dr. Kim: Oh, it’s massive. Obstructive sleep apnea is probably one of the most underdiagnosed yet huge cardiac risk factors that we tend to overlook in primary care. We sometimes say, oh, it’s just sleep apnea; what’s the big deal? We know it’s a big problem. We know that more than 50% of people with type 2 diabetes have obstructive sleep apnea, and some studies have even quoted that 90% of their population cohorts had sleep apnea. This is a big deal.
What do we know so far? We know that obstructive sleep apnea, which I’m just going to call OSA, increases the risk for hypertension, bad cholesterol, and worsening blood glucose in terms of A1c and fasting glucose, which eventually leads to myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, stroke, and eventually cardiovascular death.
We also know that people with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk for OSA. There seems to be a bidirectional relationship between diabetes and OSA. It seems like weight plays the biggest role in terms of developing OSA, and numerous studies have shown this.
Also, thankfully, some of the studies showed that weight loss improves not just OSA but also blood pressure, cholesterol, blood glucose, and insulin sensitivities. These have been fascinating. We see these patients every single day. If you think about it in your population, for 50%-90% of the patients to have OSA is a large number. If you haven’t seen a person with OSA this week, you probably missed them, very likely.
Therefore, the SURMOUNT-OSA trial was quite fascinating with, as you mentioned, 50%-60% reduction in the severity of OSA, which is very impressive. Even more impressive, I think, is that for about 50% of the patients on tirzepatide, the OSA improves so much that they may not even need to be on CPAP machines.
Those who were on CPAP may not need to be on CPAP any longer. These are huge data, especially for primary care, because as you mentioned, we see these people every single day.
Dr. Jain: Thanks for pointing that out. Clearly, it’s very clinically relevant. I think the most important takeaway for me from this study was the correlation between weight loss and AHI improvement.
Clearly, it showed that placebo had about a 6% drop in AHI, whereas there was a 60% drop in the tirzepatide group, so you can see that it’s significantly different. The placebo group did not have any significant degree of weight loss, whereas the tirzepatide group had nearly 20% weight loss. This again goes to show that there is a very close correlation between weight loss and improvement in OSA.
What’s very important to note is that we’ve seen this in the past as well. We had seen some of these data with other GLP-1 agents, but the extent of improvement that we have seen in the SURMOUNT-OSA trial is significantly more than what we’ve seen in previous studies. There is a ray of hope now where we have medical management to offer people who are living with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea.
Dr. Kim: I want to add that, from a primary care perspective, this study also showed the improvement of the sleep apnea–related symptoms as well. The biggest problem with sleep apnea — or at least what patients’ spouses complain of, is the person snoring too much; it’s a symptom.
It’s the next-day symptoms that really do disturb people, like chronic fatigue. I have numerous patients who say that, once they’ve been treated for sleep apnea, they feel like a brand-new person. They have sudden bursts of energy that they never felt before, and over 50% of these people have huge improvements in the symptoms as well.
This is a huge trial. The only thing that I wish this study included were people with mild obstructive sleep apnea who were symptomatic. I do understand that, with other studies in this population, the data have been conflicting, but it would have been really awesome if they had those patients included. However, it is still a significant study for primary care.
Dr. Jain: That’s a really good point. Fatigue improves and overall quality of life improves. That’s very important from a primary care perspective.
From an endocrinology perspective, we know that management of sleep apnea can often lead to improvement in male hypogonadism, polycystic ovary syndrome, and insulin resistance. The amount of insulin required, or the number of medications needed for managing diabetes, can improve. Hypertension can improve as well. There are multiple benefits that you can get from appropriate management of sleep apnea.
Thanks, Dr. Kim. We really appreciate your insights on SURMOUNT-OSA.
Dr. Jain is a clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Kim is a clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary in Alberta. Both disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Akshay B. Jain, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver, Canada, and with me is a very special guest. Today we have Dr. James Kim, a primary care physician working in Calgary, Canada. Both Dr. Kim and I were fortunate to attend the recently concluded American Diabetes Association annual conference in Orlando in June.
We thought we could share with you some of the key learnings that we found very insightful and clinically quite relevant. We were hoping to bring our own conclusion regarding what these findings were, both from a primary care perspective and an endocrinology perspective.
There were so many different studies that, frankly, it was difficult to pick them, but we handpicked a few studies we felt we could do a bit of a deeper dive on, and we’ll talk about each of these studies.
Welcome, Dr. Kim, and thanks for joining us.
James W. Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you so much, Dr Jain. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Dr. Jain: Probably the best place to start would be with the SURMOUNT-OSA study. This was highlighted at the American Diabetes Association conference. Essentially, it looked at people who are living with obesity who also had obstructive sleep apnea.
This was a randomized controlled trial where individuals tested either got tirzepatide (trade name, Mounjaro) or placebo treatment. They looked at the change in their apnea-hypopnea index at the end of the study.
This included both people who were using CPAP machines and those who were not using CPAP machines at baseline. We do know that many individuals with sleep apnea may not use these machines.
That was a big reduction.
Dr. Kim, what’s the relevance of this study in primary care?
Dr. Kim: Oh, it’s massive. Obstructive sleep apnea is probably one of the most underdiagnosed yet huge cardiac risk factors that we tend to overlook in primary care. We sometimes say, oh, it’s just sleep apnea; what’s the big deal? We know it’s a big problem. We know that more than 50% of people with type 2 diabetes have obstructive sleep apnea, and some studies have even quoted that 90% of their population cohorts had sleep apnea. This is a big deal.
What do we know so far? We know that obstructive sleep apnea, which I’m just going to call OSA, increases the risk for hypertension, bad cholesterol, and worsening blood glucose in terms of A1c and fasting glucose, which eventually leads to myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, stroke, and eventually cardiovascular death.
We also know that people with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk for OSA. There seems to be a bidirectional relationship between diabetes and OSA. It seems like weight plays the biggest role in terms of developing OSA, and numerous studies have shown this.
Also, thankfully, some of the studies showed that weight loss improves not just OSA but also blood pressure, cholesterol, blood glucose, and insulin sensitivities. These have been fascinating. We see these patients every single day. If you think about it in your population, for 50%-90% of the patients to have OSA is a large number. If you haven’t seen a person with OSA this week, you probably missed them, very likely.
Therefore, the SURMOUNT-OSA trial was quite fascinating with, as you mentioned, 50%-60% reduction in the severity of OSA, which is very impressive. Even more impressive, I think, is that for about 50% of the patients on tirzepatide, the OSA improves so much that they may not even need to be on CPAP machines.
Those who were on CPAP may not need to be on CPAP any longer. These are huge data, especially for primary care, because as you mentioned, we see these people every single day.
Dr. Jain: Thanks for pointing that out. Clearly, it’s very clinically relevant. I think the most important takeaway for me from this study was the correlation between weight loss and AHI improvement.
Clearly, it showed that placebo had about a 6% drop in AHI, whereas there was a 60% drop in the tirzepatide group, so you can see that it’s significantly different. The placebo group did not have any significant degree of weight loss, whereas the tirzepatide group had nearly 20% weight loss. This again goes to show that there is a very close correlation between weight loss and improvement in OSA.
What’s very important to note is that we’ve seen this in the past as well. We had seen some of these data with other GLP-1 agents, but the extent of improvement that we have seen in the SURMOUNT-OSA trial is significantly more than what we’ve seen in previous studies. There is a ray of hope now where we have medical management to offer people who are living with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea.
Dr. Kim: I want to add that, from a primary care perspective, this study also showed the improvement of the sleep apnea–related symptoms as well. The biggest problem with sleep apnea — or at least what patients’ spouses complain of, is the person snoring too much; it’s a symptom.
It’s the next-day symptoms that really do disturb people, like chronic fatigue. I have numerous patients who say that, once they’ve been treated for sleep apnea, they feel like a brand-new person. They have sudden bursts of energy that they never felt before, and over 50% of these people have huge improvements in the symptoms as well.
This is a huge trial. The only thing that I wish this study included were people with mild obstructive sleep apnea who were symptomatic. I do understand that, with other studies in this population, the data have been conflicting, but it would have been really awesome if they had those patients included. However, it is still a significant study for primary care.
Dr. Jain: That’s a really good point. Fatigue improves and overall quality of life improves. That’s very important from a primary care perspective.
From an endocrinology perspective, we know that management of sleep apnea can often lead to improvement in male hypogonadism, polycystic ovary syndrome, and insulin resistance. The amount of insulin required, or the number of medications needed for managing diabetes, can improve. Hypertension can improve as well. There are multiple benefits that you can get from appropriate management of sleep apnea.
Thanks, Dr. Kim. We really appreciate your insights on SURMOUNT-OSA.
Dr. Jain is a clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Kim is a clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary in Alberta. Both disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Inhaled Insulin Aids Patients With Fear of Needles
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Akshay B. Jain, MD: I’m Dr. Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist from Vancouver, and I’m joined by Dr. James Kim, a primary care physician from Calgary, Canada.
Both Dr. Kim and I attended ADA 2024. We went over all our learnings and decided that there was a whole heap of clinical pearls that we learned from the conference. We thought it would be awesome if we could share our learnings with all of you, both from a primary care lens and from an endocrinology perspective.
One study Dr. Kim and I learned about, and we think has some definite nuances in management of people living with diabetes, regards inhaled insulin. When we have patients in our clinic who have perhaps failed multiple oral agents or have very high blood sugars, we obviously want to consider starting them on insulin for type 2 diabetes.
Sometimes there is a significant barrier, which is related to the needles. There’s an actual term for this: trypanophobia — a fear of needles.
Enter now inhaled insulin. We saw studies at the ADA 2024 conference that looked at a new inhaled insulin called Afrezza. Afrezza essentially is a short-acting insulin, so it’s kind of like a prandial insulin derivative, where it can be inhaled by an individual and it will work for mealtime control of blood sugars.
Dr. Kim, in your practice, how often do you see people not wanting to take shots, and has this been a big barrier for you in starting insulin?
James W. Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you for having me. To answer your question, absolutely I encounter this on a weekly basis — and I’m not even an endocrinologist. I just have an interest in diabetes. There are a number of patients that I think will benefit massively with insulin but they’re needle-phobic. You taught me that word, but I can never pronounce it, so my apologies for not remembering that phobia. I’m just going to call it needle phobia because I’m a simple-minded person.
The needle phobia is massive. I think there’s a definite fear of the needle, but there’s also a fear of failure. As soon as an injection is mentioned, many patients feel they failed miserably. There’s an emotional roller coaster that happens.
I’m sure, Dr. Jain, you have seen many patients, especially from Asia, who would say: “Oh, my auntie got on insulin and 3 months later, she got a kidney transplant.” “My uncle started on insulin and he unfortunately passed away a couple of months later.” Unfortunately, they’re blaming many of those things on insulin.
I also have a number of patients who said they were on insulin before many years ago, and they experienced some severe hypoglycemic events, and they don’t want to get on the insulin ever again. This is unfortunate because you know that if those patients, those aunties and uncles, were on insulin long before, maybe we could have saved their legs and kidneys, and potentially death.
Now we have advanced so much with insulin that hypoglycemia does occur, but much less than before. We still have many barriers when it comes to insulin initiations. Therefore, having this idea of inhaled insulin is fantastic, and I think we can get many more patients on insulin — the medication they actually need.
Dr. Jain: Absolutely. From the studies on inhaled insulin at ADA 2024, the key thing I found very interesting, regarding the pharmacokinetics of the insulin, was that it’s working very quickly. It starts working within minutes of administering it.
Additionally, it lasts in the body only for a shorter duration of time, compared with other injectable short-acting insulins, so it lasts in the body. The active insulin time is roughly about 2 hours or so, based on the studies, which in my mind opens up a whole world of possibilities because it means that people can take another correctional insulin if the blood sugars are still high after taking their first inhaled dose. You can take another dose subsequently without worrying about stacking of insulin.
Many of us are familiar with this term, which is if you take two shots of short-acting insulin too close to each other, the insulin doses might add up and there can be a big drop in the blood sugars; it’s called stacking of insulin. This can be potentially avoided.
Similarly, if you take your dinnertime inhaled insulin and the sugars are still high around bedtime, you could take a smaller dose of the inhaled insulin and not worry about middle-of-the-night hypoglycemia because the effect of the insulin would be only for a little while.
That’s one key learning that I found very helpful. The other important thing that I found was that this is not for everyone, so there are some restrictions. Essentially, the contraindication is that people who have asthma or COPD cannot be prescribed an inhaled insulin.
What are your thoughts, Dr. Kim, based on this for your practice in primary care?
Dr. Kim: It is very fascinating, for sure. I cannot wait to get hold of this insulin. I can already think of some patients who may benefit. You’ve mentioned the asthma and COPD patients, and that makes more sense because there is an actual airway problem.
I also wonder what will happen to patients who have restrictive airway disease, where asthma and COPD fall under obstructive airway disease. What if they have obesity, where it’s really pressing into the diaphragm, and where they may not be able to take the deep breath in? How will they react?
What about someone who’s got a cold, someone who has postnasal drip, or someone who tends to cough frequently? What about egg allergies? There are many question marks around this insulin before initiating these medications. There is excitement, but there are also many questions at the same time.
Dr. Jain: I think these are very important, practical considerations that we’ll uncover as we start using more of this in clinical practice. The other important thing to note is that the presenters told us it’s important to monitor pulmonary function tests. It’s important to get a baseline pulmonary function test, and then we have to do another one in 6 months, followed by annually thereafter.
If, at any point of time, the FEV1 drops by 20% or more, then that would be an indication for discontinuation of the inhaled insulin. The pulmonary function test does not need to be one of those fancier ones. The study group would just do office spirometries. I’m wondering, Dr. Kim, in primary care, do you think this could potentially be a rate-limiting factor?
Dr. Kim: In Alberta, where I reside, no. Spirometry is very easily accessible in the province. For example, in Calgary alone, we have a population of about 1.3 million people. We have over 13 or 15 companies that can do this spirometry. We can get these things done literally within a week or 2.
However, I am aware that, in other provinces in Canada, it can definitely be a huge rate-limiting factor. Not everyone has the office-based spirometry, and definitely not within the primary care office. It has to be referred out to these private companies, most likely, and some of the rural areas will have to rely on the provincial hospitals, where the access can be even more challenging.
On the day of the actual spirometry, if the person has a cough or is not feeling well, it’s going to be a problem because you don’t want the spirometry to be infected with a whole bunch of viruses. You’ll have to cancel that and it can be a bit of an issue.
Dr. Jain: Many of our viewers are from the United States and other parts of the world, and spirometry is quite easily accessible in most places. As an endocrinologist, I must confess that it’s been a long time since I’ve even ordered a spirometry or any clinical form of pulmonary function test. Once I start using the inhaled insulin, I’ll need to start brushing up on my pulmonary function test knowledge.
I think these are exciting times. At least we’ve got something to offer to people who would have otherwise not taken any insulin at all. There’s certainly that hope that now there’s a different way to administer this, and hopefully it can only get better from here on.
Dr. Jain is a clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Kim is a clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary in Alberta. Both disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Akshay B. Jain, MD: I’m Dr. Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist from Vancouver, and I’m joined by Dr. James Kim, a primary care physician from Calgary, Canada.
Both Dr. Kim and I attended ADA 2024. We went over all our learnings and decided that there was a whole heap of clinical pearls that we learned from the conference. We thought it would be awesome if we could share our learnings with all of you, both from a primary care lens and from an endocrinology perspective.
One study Dr. Kim and I learned about, and we think has some definite nuances in management of people living with diabetes, regards inhaled insulin. When we have patients in our clinic who have perhaps failed multiple oral agents or have very high blood sugars, we obviously want to consider starting them on insulin for type 2 diabetes.
Sometimes there is a significant barrier, which is related to the needles. There’s an actual term for this: trypanophobia — a fear of needles.
Enter now inhaled insulin. We saw studies at the ADA 2024 conference that looked at a new inhaled insulin called Afrezza. Afrezza essentially is a short-acting insulin, so it’s kind of like a prandial insulin derivative, where it can be inhaled by an individual and it will work for mealtime control of blood sugars.
Dr. Kim, in your practice, how often do you see people not wanting to take shots, and has this been a big barrier for you in starting insulin?
James W. Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you for having me. To answer your question, absolutely I encounter this on a weekly basis — and I’m not even an endocrinologist. I just have an interest in diabetes. There are a number of patients that I think will benefit massively with insulin but they’re needle-phobic. You taught me that word, but I can never pronounce it, so my apologies for not remembering that phobia. I’m just going to call it needle phobia because I’m a simple-minded person.
The needle phobia is massive. I think there’s a definite fear of the needle, but there’s also a fear of failure. As soon as an injection is mentioned, many patients feel they failed miserably. There’s an emotional roller coaster that happens.
I’m sure, Dr. Jain, you have seen many patients, especially from Asia, who would say: “Oh, my auntie got on insulin and 3 months later, she got a kidney transplant.” “My uncle started on insulin and he unfortunately passed away a couple of months later.” Unfortunately, they’re blaming many of those things on insulin.
I also have a number of patients who said they were on insulin before many years ago, and they experienced some severe hypoglycemic events, and they don’t want to get on the insulin ever again. This is unfortunate because you know that if those patients, those aunties and uncles, were on insulin long before, maybe we could have saved their legs and kidneys, and potentially death.
Now we have advanced so much with insulin that hypoglycemia does occur, but much less than before. We still have many barriers when it comes to insulin initiations. Therefore, having this idea of inhaled insulin is fantastic, and I think we can get many more patients on insulin — the medication they actually need.
Dr. Jain: Absolutely. From the studies on inhaled insulin at ADA 2024, the key thing I found very interesting, regarding the pharmacokinetics of the insulin, was that it’s working very quickly. It starts working within minutes of administering it.
Additionally, it lasts in the body only for a shorter duration of time, compared with other injectable short-acting insulins, so it lasts in the body. The active insulin time is roughly about 2 hours or so, based on the studies, which in my mind opens up a whole world of possibilities because it means that people can take another correctional insulin if the blood sugars are still high after taking their first inhaled dose. You can take another dose subsequently without worrying about stacking of insulin.
Many of us are familiar with this term, which is if you take two shots of short-acting insulin too close to each other, the insulin doses might add up and there can be a big drop in the blood sugars; it’s called stacking of insulin. This can be potentially avoided.
Similarly, if you take your dinnertime inhaled insulin and the sugars are still high around bedtime, you could take a smaller dose of the inhaled insulin and not worry about middle-of-the-night hypoglycemia because the effect of the insulin would be only for a little while.
That’s one key learning that I found very helpful. The other important thing that I found was that this is not for everyone, so there are some restrictions. Essentially, the contraindication is that people who have asthma or COPD cannot be prescribed an inhaled insulin.
What are your thoughts, Dr. Kim, based on this for your practice in primary care?
Dr. Kim: It is very fascinating, for sure. I cannot wait to get hold of this insulin. I can already think of some patients who may benefit. You’ve mentioned the asthma and COPD patients, and that makes more sense because there is an actual airway problem.
I also wonder what will happen to patients who have restrictive airway disease, where asthma and COPD fall under obstructive airway disease. What if they have obesity, where it’s really pressing into the diaphragm, and where they may not be able to take the deep breath in? How will they react?
What about someone who’s got a cold, someone who has postnasal drip, or someone who tends to cough frequently? What about egg allergies? There are many question marks around this insulin before initiating these medications. There is excitement, but there are also many questions at the same time.
Dr. Jain: I think these are very important, practical considerations that we’ll uncover as we start using more of this in clinical practice. The other important thing to note is that the presenters told us it’s important to monitor pulmonary function tests. It’s important to get a baseline pulmonary function test, and then we have to do another one in 6 months, followed by annually thereafter.
If, at any point of time, the FEV1 drops by 20% or more, then that would be an indication for discontinuation of the inhaled insulin. The pulmonary function test does not need to be one of those fancier ones. The study group would just do office spirometries. I’m wondering, Dr. Kim, in primary care, do you think this could potentially be a rate-limiting factor?
Dr. Kim: In Alberta, where I reside, no. Spirometry is very easily accessible in the province. For example, in Calgary alone, we have a population of about 1.3 million people. We have over 13 or 15 companies that can do this spirometry. We can get these things done literally within a week or 2.
However, I am aware that, in other provinces in Canada, it can definitely be a huge rate-limiting factor. Not everyone has the office-based spirometry, and definitely not within the primary care office. It has to be referred out to these private companies, most likely, and some of the rural areas will have to rely on the provincial hospitals, where the access can be even more challenging.
On the day of the actual spirometry, if the person has a cough or is not feeling well, it’s going to be a problem because you don’t want the spirometry to be infected with a whole bunch of viruses. You’ll have to cancel that and it can be a bit of an issue.
Dr. Jain: Many of our viewers are from the United States and other parts of the world, and spirometry is quite easily accessible in most places. As an endocrinologist, I must confess that it’s been a long time since I’ve even ordered a spirometry or any clinical form of pulmonary function test. Once I start using the inhaled insulin, I’ll need to start brushing up on my pulmonary function test knowledge.
I think these are exciting times. At least we’ve got something to offer to people who would have otherwise not taken any insulin at all. There’s certainly that hope that now there’s a different way to administer this, and hopefully it can only get better from here on.
Dr. Jain is a clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Kim is a clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary in Alberta. Both disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Akshay B. Jain, MD: I’m Dr. Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist from Vancouver, and I’m joined by Dr. James Kim, a primary care physician from Calgary, Canada.
Both Dr. Kim and I attended ADA 2024. We went over all our learnings and decided that there was a whole heap of clinical pearls that we learned from the conference. We thought it would be awesome if we could share our learnings with all of you, both from a primary care lens and from an endocrinology perspective.
One study Dr. Kim and I learned about, and we think has some definite nuances in management of people living with diabetes, regards inhaled insulin. When we have patients in our clinic who have perhaps failed multiple oral agents or have very high blood sugars, we obviously want to consider starting them on insulin for type 2 diabetes.
Sometimes there is a significant barrier, which is related to the needles. There’s an actual term for this: trypanophobia — a fear of needles.
Enter now inhaled insulin. We saw studies at the ADA 2024 conference that looked at a new inhaled insulin called Afrezza. Afrezza essentially is a short-acting insulin, so it’s kind of like a prandial insulin derivative, where it can be inhaled by an individual and it will work for mealtime control of blood sugars.
Dr. Kim, in your practice, how often do you see people not wanting to take shots, and has this been a big barrier for you in starting insulin?
James W. Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you for having me. To answer your question, absolutely I encounter this on a weekly basis — and I’m not even an endocrinologist. I just have an interest in diabetes. There are a number of patients that I think will benefit massively with insulin but they’re needle-phobic. You taught me that word, but I can never pronounce it, so my apologies for not remembering that phobia. I’m just going to call it needle phobia because I’m a simple-minded person.
The needle phobia is massive. I think there’s a definite fear of the needle, but there’s also a fear of failure. As soon as an injection is mentioned, many patients feel they failed miserably. There’s an emotional roller coaster that happens.
I’m sure, Dr. Jain, you have seen many patients, especially from Asia, who would say: “Oh, my auntie got on insulin and 3 months later, she got a kidney transplant.” “My uncle started on insulin and he unfortunately passed away a couple of months later.” Unfortunately, they’re blaming many of those things on insulin.
I also have a number of patients who said they were on insulin before many years ago, and they experienced some severe hypoglycemic events, and they don’t want to get on the insulin ever again. This is unfortunate because you know that if those patients, those aunties and uncles, were on insulin long before, maybe we could have saved their legs and kidneys, and potentially death.
Now we have advanced so much with insulin that hypoglycemia does occur, but much less than before. We still have many barriers when it comes to insulin initiations. Therefore, having this idea of inhaled insulin is fantastic, and I think we can get many more patients on insulin — the medication they actually need.
Dr. Jain: Absolutely. From the studies on inhaled insulin at ADA 2024, the key thing I found very interesting, regarding the pharmacokinetics of the insulin, was that it’s working very quickly. It starts working within minutes of administering it.
Additionally, it lasts in the body only for a shorter duration of time, compared with other injectable short-acting insulins, so it lasts in the body. The active insulin time is roughly about 2 hours or so, based on the studies, which in my mind opens up a whole world of possibilities because it means that people can take another correctional insulin if the blood sugars are still high after taking their first inhaled dose. You can take another dose subsequently without worrying about stacking of insulin.
Many of us are familiar with this term, which is if you take two shots of short-acting insulin too close to each other, the insulin doses might add up and there can be a big drop in the blood sugars; it’s called stacking of insulin. This can be potentially avoided.
Similarly, if you take your dinnertime inhaled insulin and the sugars are still high around bedtime, you could take a smaller dose of the inhaled insulin and not worry about middle-of-the-night hypoglycemia because the effect of the insulin would be only for a little while.
That’s one key learning that I found very helpful. The other important thing that I found was that this is not for everyone, so there are some restrictions. Essentially, the contraindication is that people who have asthma or COPD cannot be prescribed an inhaled insulin.
What are your thoughts, Dr. Kim, based on this for your practice in primary care?
Dr. Kim: It is very fascinating, for sure. I cannot wait to get hold of this insulin. I can already think of some patients who may benefit. You’ve mentioned the asthma and COPD patients, and that makes more sense because there is an actual airway problem.
I also wonder what will happen to patients who have restrictive airway disease, where asthma and COPD fall under obstructive airway disease. What if they have obesity, where it’s really pressing into the diaphragm, and where they may not be able to take the deep breath in? How will they react?
What about someone who’s got a cold, someone who has postnasal drip, or someone who tends to cough frequently? What about egg allergies? There are many question marks around this insulin before initiating these medications. There is excitement, but there are also many questions at the same time.
Dr. Jain: I think these are very important, practical considerations that we’ll uncover as we start using more of this in clinical practice. The other important thing to note is that the presenters told us it’s important to monitor pulmonary function tests. It’s important to get a baseline pulmonary function test, and then we have to do another one in 6 months, followed by annually thereafter.
If, at any point of time, the FEV1 drops by 20% or more, then that would be an indication for discontinuation of the inhaled insulin. The pulmonary function test does not need to be one of those fancier ones. The study group would just do office spirometries. I’m wondering, Dr. Kim, in primary care, do you think this could potentially be a rate-limiting factor?
Dr. Kim: In Alberta, where I reside, no. Spirometry is very easily accessible in the province. For example, in Calgary alone, we have a population of about 1.3 million people. We have over 13 or 15 companies that can do this spirometry. We can get these things done literally within a week or 2.
However, I am aware that, in other provinces in Canada, it can definitely be a huge rate-limiting factor. Not everyone has the office-based spirometry, and definitely not within the primary care office. It has to be referred out to these private companies, most likely, and some of the rural areas will have to rely on the provincial hospitals, where the access can be even more challenging.
On the day of the actual spirometry, if the person has a cough or is not feeling well, it’s going to be a problem because you don’t want the spirometry to be infected with a whole bunch of viruses. You’ll have to cancel that and it can be a bit of an issue.
Dr. Jain: Many of our viewers are from the United States and other parts of the world, and spirometry is quite easily accessible in most places. As an endocrinologist, I must confess that it’s been a long time since I’ve even ordered a spirometry or any clinical form of pulmonary function test. Once I start using the inhaled insulin, I’ll need to start brushing up on my pulmonary function test knowledge.
I think these are exciting times. At least we’ve got something to offer to people who would have otherwise not taken any insulin at all. There’s certainly that hope that now there’s a different way to administer this, and hopefully it can only get better from here on.
Dr. Jain is a clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Kim is a clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary in Alberta. Both disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ADA 2024
‘Gift That Keeps Giving’: The Impact of GLP-1 in Asthma
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Akshay B. Jain, MD: Welcome back to Medscape at ADA 2024, where Dr. James Kim, primary care physician from Calgary, Alberta, will be joining me in deciphering the key highlights at the ADA conference and bringing our own clinical twist into what the relevance would be for people like you and I to take back to our clinics.
Welcome back, Dr. Kim.
James Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you very much. It’s nice to be back.
Dr. Jain: This was a diabetes conference, so obviously we are very pancreas focused. At this conference, we went outside our general area of territory, going outside of the pancreas and delving into other organ states. What I found fascinating were some data regarding the effects of incretin therapy on the lung, and in particular, some of the restrictive lung disorders.
Dr. Kim, you attended these sessions as well. Can you tell us a little bit more about the results that were discussed?
Dr. Kim: This is an interesting field. The moderator of the session went up and said that there has been no time in any previous ADA sessions where the lung issue was actually discussed. This was the first time ever.
They had some of the world leaders in this field, so it was really awesome to see them. Just to paint a picture of these obese asthmatic patients, they are challenging cases because, as you know, the main therapy for any asthmatic patient is inhaled corticosteroid.
Patients who are obese have quite a bit of a steroid resistance. Therefore, they end up being on many medications that sometimes are off label, and many end up on biologics as well. Therefore, the respiratory world has been seeking therapies for these obese asthmatic patients who are likely to be steroid resistant because these people are also likely to end up on an oral steroid as well.
Dr. Jain, you know the effect of the steroids much better than I do, and it’s like a laundry list. We really don’t want our patients to be on oral steroids.
In the past few years, GLP-1 has been studied quite extensively in the lung, especially in the world of asthma, and also in COPD. What’s really fascinating is that the GLP-1 receptors have been found to be quite abundant in the airway. Some studies show that the highest concentration of GLP-1 lies in the airway, whereas some studies have said that it’s the third most common area to find the GLP-1.
It is not a surprise that GLP-1 is being studied in managing the airway, especially airway inflammation in asthma and COPD patients. The preliminary data have been quite encouraging. They also discussed that there are new medications coming out that seem to be incretin based, so we’ll wait to see what those studies show.
There are two current phase 3 trials being held at the moment. One is using semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous and another one is using metformin to reduce the airway inflammation in these asthmatic patients and also in some COPD patients. We’ll look forward to these results.
Dr. Jain: That’s really important to note because we see that there is a high density of these receptors in the airways, and hitherto we had no idea about the overall effect. Now, we’re looking at, as you mentioned, individuals with obesity who have asthma, so there are both the restrictive and obstructive components in the lung coming into play here.
From an endocrinology perspective, I’m thinking that this could be multiple effects of the GLP-1 receptor agonists, where on one hand you’re managing the obesity and you’re working along that line, and on the other hand, it could have local anti-inflammatory effects in the lung. Hence, there could be potential improvement in the overall pulmonary function of these individuals.
Dr. Kim: We are seeing this in primary care. Ever since I found out this information, I have started numerous patients, who are obese, asthmatic patients who do not have diabetes, on GLP-1 therapies, and their pulmonary function tests have improved significantly.
As a matter of fact, one of my personal friends is a severe asthmatic patient. She ends up being on oral steroids about three times a year. There was even one day when I saw her in one of my classes and she was dyspneic. She was short of breath.
I introduced her to one of my colleagues who’s a respirologist and very much into the impact of the incretins and asthma, and she was started on a GLP-1 receptor agonist. She lost about 30 pounds of weight, but now she is labeled as a mild asthmatic. Her pulmonary function test is completely normal. She hasn’t touched an oral steroid for a couple of years now.
That is a huge success story and I’m seeing that even in my own clinic as well. It’s a huge win for the respiratory world.
Dr. Jain: I think from an endocrinology perspective as well, if we are initiating GLP-1 receptor agonists or medications in that class, where we use it for management of obesity, sooner or later we do hit a stage where people will plateau with their weight loss. They won’t have any additional weight loss.
We tell individuals at that time that the fact that they’re able to maintain the weight loss still means that the medication is working from the obesity perspective. For individuals who also have asthma, it would be a good point to tell them that it could still have potential effects on reducing inflammation ongoing. Hence, even though they may not be losing any additional weight, it would still be helpful to continue on these medications from a pulmonary perspective.
Dr. Kim: Right now these pleiotropic effects of GLP-1 agents are absolutely mind-blowing. I mentioned in one of my respiratory presentations to a bunch of respirologists that diabetes is taking over the world, including the respiratory world. Well, you can imagine what their faces were like. However, they were quite impressed at that, and they were very excited with what these two phase 3 trials will show.
Dr. Jain: I think, based on the ADA 2024 conference, GLP-1 receptor agonists continue to be the gift that keeps giving. We have the effects on diabetes, obesity, kidney function, liver protection, lungs, and Alzheimer’s. We saw some sessions about potential use in people with alcohol misuse disorder or gambling problems. Clearly, there’s a large amount of research that›s being done with these agents.
Perhaps when you and I talk about ADA 2025, we might be able to talk about some more pleiotropic benefits outside the pancreas. Until then, please do check out our other videos from ADA 2024. Thanks for joining us again, Dr. Kim.
Dr. Kim: Thank you very much for having me.
Dr. Jain, clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, and endocrinologist, TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, has disclosed ties with Abbott, Acerus, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bausch Healthcare, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Care to Know, CCRN, Connected in Motion, CPD Network, Dexcom, Diabetes Canada, Eli Lilly, GSK, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen, Master Clinician Alliance, MDBriefcase, Merck, Medtronic, Moderna, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Partners in Progressive Medical Education, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Timed Right, WebMD, Gilead Sciences, Insulet, PocketPills, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Kim, clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, has disclosed ties with Abbott, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Embecta, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Linpharma, Novo Nordisk, Miravo, Otsuka, Pfizer, Teva, Takeda, and Sanofi, and Partners in Progressive Medical Education.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Akshay B. Jain, MD: Welcome back to Medscape at ADA 2024, where Dr. James Kim, primary care physician from Calgary, Alberta, will be joining me in deciphering the key highlights at the ADA conference and bringing our own clinical twist into what the relevance would be for people like you and I to take back to our clinics.
Welcome back, Dr. Kim.
James Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you very much. It’s nice to be back.
Dr. Jain: This was a diabetes conference, so obviously we are very pancreas focused. At this conference, we went outside our general area of territory, going outside of the pancreas and delving into other organ states. What I found fascinating were some data regarding the effects of incretin therapy on the lung, and in particular, some of the restrictive lung disorders.
Dr. Kim, you attended these sessions as well. Can you tell us a little bit more about the results that were discussed?
Dr. Kim: This is an interesting field. The moderator of the session went up and said that there has been no time in any previous ADA sessions where the lung issue was actually discussed. This was the first time ever.
They had some of the world leaders in this field, so it was really awesome to see them. Just to paint a picture of these obese asthmatic patients, they are challenging cases because, as you know, the main therapy for any asthmatic patient is inhaled corticosteroid.
Patients who are obese have quite a bit of a steroid resistance. Therefore, they end up being on many medications that sometimes are off label, and many end up on biologics as well. Therefore, the respiratory world has been seeking therapies for these obese asthmatic patients who are likely to be steroid resistant because these people are also likely to end up on an oral steroid as well.
Dr. Jain, you know the effect of the steroids much better than I do, and it’s like a laundry list. We really don’t want our patients to be on oral steroids.
In the past few years, GLP-1 has been studied quite extensively in the lung, especially in the world of asthma, and also in COPD. What’s really fascinating is that the GLP-1 receptors have been found to be quite abundant in the airway. Some studies show that the highest concentration of GLP-1 lies in the airway, whereas some studies have said that it’s the third most common area to find the GLP-1.
It is not a surprise that GLP-1 is being studied in managing the airway, especially airway inflammation in asthma and COPD patients. The preliminary data have been quite encouraging. They also discussed that there are new medications coming out that seem to be incretin based, so we’ll wait to see what those studies show.
There are two current phase 3 trials being held at the moment. One is using semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous and another one is using metformin to reduce the airway inflammation in these asthmatic patients and also in some COPD patients. We’ll look forward to these results.
Dr. Jain: That’s really important to note because we see that there is a high density of these receptors in the airways, and hitherto we had no idea about the overall effect. Now, we’re looking at, as you mentioned, individuals with obesity who have asthma, so there are both the restrictive and obstructive components in the lung coming into play here.
From an endocrinology perspective, I’m thinking that this could be multiple effects of the GLP-1 receptor agonists, where on one hand you’re managing the obesity and you’re working along that line, and on the other hand, it could have local anti-inflammatory effects in the lung. Hence, there could be potential improvement in the overall pulmonary function of these individuals.
Dr. Kim: We are seeing this in primary care. Ever since I found out this information, I have started numerous patients, who are obese, asthmatic patients who do not have diabetes, on GLP-1 therapies, and their pulmonary function tests have improved significantly.
As a matter of fact, one of my personal friends is a severe asthmatic patient. She ends up being on oral steroids about three times a year. There was even one day when I saw her in one of my classes and she was dyspneic. She was short of breath.
I introduced her to one of my colleagues who’s a respirologist and very much into the impact of the incretins and asthma, and she was started on a GLP-1 receptor agonist. She lost about 30 pounds of weight, but now she is labeled as a mild asthmatic. Her pulmonary function test is completely normal. She hasn’t touched an oral steroid for a couple of years now.
That is a huge success story and I’m seeing that even in my own clinic as well. It’s a huge win for the respiratory world.
Dr. Jain: I think from an endocrinology perspective as well, if we are initiating GLP-1 receptor agonists or medications in that class, where we use it for management of obesity, sooner or later we do hit a stage where people will plateau with their weight loss. They won’t have any additional weight loss.
We tell individuals at that time that the fact that they’re able to maintain the weight loss still means that the medication is working from the obesity perspective. For individuals who also have asthma, it would be a good point to tell them that it could still have potential effects on reducing inflammation ongoing. Hence, even though they may not be losing any additional weight, it would still be helpful to continue on these medications from a pulmonary perspective.
Dr. Kim: Right now these pleiotropic effects of GLP-1 agents are absolutely mind-blowing. I mentioned in one of my respiratory presentations to a bunch of respirologists that diabetes is taking over the world, including the respiratory world. Well, you can imagine what their faces were like. However, they were quite impressed at that, and they were very excited with what these two phase 3 trials will show.
Dr. Jain: I think, based on the ADA 2024 conference, GLP-1 receptor agonists continue to be the gift that keeps giving. We have the effects on diabetes, obesity, kidney function, liver protection, lungs, and Alzheimer’s. We saw some sessions about potential use in people with alcohol misuse disorder or gambling problems. Clearly, there’s a large amount of research that›s being done with these agents.
Perhaps when you and I talk about ADA 2025, we might be able to talk about some more pleiotropic benefits outside the pancreas. Until then, please do check out our other videos from ADA 2024. Thanks for joining us again, Dr. Kim.
Dr. Kim: Thank you very much for having me.
Dr. Jain, clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, and endocrinologist, TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, has disclosed ties with Abbott, Acerus, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bausch Healthcare, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Care to Know, CCRN, Connected in Motion, CPD Network, Dexcom, Diabetes Canada, Eli Lilly, GSK, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen, Master Clinician Alliance, MDBriefcase, Merck, Medtronic, Moderna, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Partners in Progressive Medical Education, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Timed Right, WebMD, Gilead Sciences, Insulet, PocketPills, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Kim, clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, has disclosed ties with Abbott, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Embecta, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Linpharma, Novo Nordisk, Miravo, Otsuka, Pfizer, Teva, Takeda, and Sanofi, and Partners in Progressive Medical Education.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Akshay B. Jain, MD: Welcome back to Medscape at ADA 2024, where Dr. James Kim, primary care physician from Calgary, Alberta, will be joining me in deciphering the key highlights at the ADA conference and bringing our own clinical twist into what the relevance would be for people like you and I to take back to our clinics.
Welcome back, Dr. Kim.
James Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you very much. It’s nice to be back.
Dr. Jain: This was a diabetes conference, so obviously we are very pancreas focused. At this conference, we went outside our general area of territory, going outside of the pancreas and delving into other organ states. What I found fascinating were some data regarding the effects of incretin therapy on the lung, and in particular, some of the restrictive lung disorders.
Dr. Kim, you attended these sessions as well. Can you tell us a little bit more about the results that were discussed?
Dr. Kim: This is an interesting field. The moderator of the session went up and said that there has been no time in any previous ADA sessions where the lung issue was actually discussed. This was the first time ever.
They had some of the world leaders in this field, so it was really awesome to see them. Just to paint a picture of these obese asthmatic patients, they are challenging cases because, as you know, the main therapy for any asthmatic patient is inhaled corticosteroid.
Patients who are obese have quite a bit of a steroid resistance. Therefore, they end up being on many medications that sometimes are off label, and many end up on biologics as well. Therefore, the respiratory world has been seeking therapies for these obese asthmatic patients who are likely to be steroid resistant because these people are also likely to end up on an oral steroid as well.
Dr. Jain, you know the effect of the steroids much better than I do, and it’s like a laundry list. We really don’t want our patients to be on oral steroids.
In the past few years, GLP-1 has been studied quite extensively in the lung, especially in the world of asthma, and also in COPD. What’s really fascinating is that the GLP-1 receptors have been found to be quite abundant in the airway. Some studies show that the highest concentration of GLP-1 lies in the airway, whereas some studies have said that it’s the third most common area to find the GLP-1.
It is not a surprise that GLP-1 is being studied in managing the airway, especially airway inflammation in asthma and COPD patients. The preliminary data have been quite encouraging. They also discussed that there are new medications coming out that seem to be incretin based, so we’ll wait to see what those studies show.
There are two current phase 3 trials being held at the moment. One is using semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous and another one is using metformin to reduce the airway inflammation in these asthmatic patients and also in some COPD patients. We’ll look forward to these results.
Dr. Jain: That’s really important to note because we see that there is a high density of these receptors in the airways, and hitherto we had no idea about the overall effect. Now, we’re looking at, as you mentioned, individuals with obesity who have asthma, so there are both the restrictive and obstructive components in the lung coming into play here.
From an endocrinology perspective, I’m thinking that this could be multiple effects of the GLP-1 receptor agonists, where on one hand you’re managing the obesity and you’re working along that line, and on the other hand, it could have local anti-inflammatory effects in the lung. Hence, there could be potential improvement in the overall pulmonary function of these individuals.
Dr. Kim: We are seeing this in primary care. Ever since I found out this information, I have started numerous patients, who are obese, asthmatic patients who do not have diabetes, on GLP-1 therapies, and their pulmonary function tests have improved significantly.
As a matter of fact, one of my personal friends is a severe asthmatic patient. She ends up being on oral steroids about three times a year. There was even one day when I saw her in one of my classes and she was dyspneic. She was short of breath.
I introduced her to one of my colleagues who’s a respirologist and very much into the impact of the incretins and asthma, and she was started on a GLP-1 receptor agonist. She lost about 30 pounds of weight, but now she is labeled as a mild asthmatic. Her pulmonary function test is completely normal. She hasn’t touched an oral steroid for a couple of years now.
That is a huge success story and I’m seeing that even in my own clinic as well. It’s a huge win for the respiratory world.
Dr. Jain: I think from an endocrinology perspective as well, if we are initiating GLP-1 receptor agonists or medications in that class, where we use it for management of obesity, sooner or later we do hit a stage where people will plateau with their weight loss. They won’t have any additional weight loss.
We tell individuals at that time that the fact that they’re able to maintain the weight loss still means that the medication is working from the obesity perspective. For individuals who also have asthma, it would be a good point to tell them that it could still have potential effects on reducing inflammation ongoing. Hence, even though they may not be losing any additional weight, it would still be helpful to continue on these medications from a pulmonary perspective.
Dr. Kim: Right now these pleiotropic effects of GLP-1 agents are absolutely mind-blowing. I mentioned in one of my respiratory presentations to a bunch of respirologists that diabetes is taking over the world, including the respiratory world. Well, you can imagine what their faces were like. However, they were quite impressed at that, and they were very excited with what these two phase 3 trials will show.
Dr. Jain: I think, based on the ADA 2024 conference, GLP-1 receptor agonists continue to be the gift that keeps giving. We have the effects on diabetes, obesity, kidney function, liver protection, lungs, and Alzheimer’s. We saw some sessions about potential use in people with alcohol misuse disorder or gambling problems. Clearly, there’s a large amount of research that›s being done with these agents.
Perhaps when you and I talk about ADA 2025, we might be able to talk about some more pleiotropic benefits outside the pancreas. Until then, please do check out our other videos from ADA 2024. Thanks for joining us again, Dr. Kim.
Dr. Kim: Thank you very much for having me.
Dr. Jain, clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, and endocrinologist, TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, has disclosed ties with Abbott, Acerus, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bausch Healthcare, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Care to Know, CCRN, Connected in Motion, CPD Network, Dexcom, Diabetes Canada, Eli Lilly, GSK, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen, Master Clinician Alliance, MDBriefcase, Merck, Medtronic, Moderna, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Partners in Progressive Medical Education, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Timed Right, WebMD, Gilead Sciences, Insulet, PocketPills, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Kim, clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, has disclosed ties with Abbott, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Embecta, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Linpharma, Novo Nordisk, Miravo, Otsuka, Pfizer, Teva, Takeda, and Sanofi, and Partners in Progressive Medical Education.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Top 5 Medications That Can Increase Blood Glucose Levels
It’s that time of the year, when social media is rife with many top 5 and top 10 lists. Let’s revisit some of the most commonly used medications known to increase glucose levels and look at some practical tips on overcoming these.
1. Glucocorticoids
Without a doubt, corticosteroids are at the top of the list when it comes to the potential for increasing blood glucose levels. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy is known to lead to new-onset diabetes (steroid-induced diabetes). Similarly, people with preexisting diabetes may notice significant worsening of glycemic control when they start on glucocorticoid therapy. The extent of glucose elevation depends on their glycemic status prior to initiation on steroids, the dose and duration of glucocorticoid therapy, and comorbid conditions, among other factors.
Management tip: For those with previously well-controlled diabetes or borderline diabetes, glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia may be managed by metformin with or without sulfonylurea therapy, especially if corticosteroid treatment is low-dose and for a shorter duration. However, for many individuals with preexisting poorly controlled diabetes or those initiated on high-dose corticosteroids, insulin therapy would perhaps be the treatment of choice. Glucocorticoid therapy generally leads to more pronounced postprandial hyperglycemia compared with fasting hyperglycemia; hence, the use of short-acting insulin therapy or perhaps NPH insulin in the morning might be a better option for many individuals. Dietary modification plays an important role in limiting the extent of postprandial hyperglycemia. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices may also be very helpful for understanding glycemic excursions and how to adjust insulin. In individuals for whom glucocorticoid therapy is tapered down, it is important to adjust the dose of medications with potential to cause hypoglycemia, such as insulin/sulfonylurea therapy, as the degree of hyperglycemia may decrease with decreased dose of the glucocorticoid therapy.
2. Antipsychotic Therapy
Antipsychotic medications can be obesogenic; between 15% and 72% of people who take second-generation antipsychotics experience weight gain of 7% or more. Increases in weight are not the only factor contributing to an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Antipsychotics are thought to cause downregulation of intracellular insulin signaling, leading to insulin resistance. At the same time, there seems to be a direct effect on the pancreatic beta cells. Antagonism of the dopamine D2, serotonin 5-HT2C, and muscarinic M3 receptors impairs beta-cell response to changes in blood glucose. In addition to the pharmacologic effects, cell culture experiments have shown that antipsychotics increase apoptosis of beta cells. Increased weight and concomitant development of type 2 diabetes is seen particularly in agents that exhibit high muscarinic M3 and histamine H1 receptor blockade. The effect on glucose metabolism is seen the most with agents such as clozapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol and the least with agents such as ziprasidone.
Management tip: Given the ongoing change in the understanding of increases in weight and their association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a metabolically safer approach involves starting with medications that have a lower propensity for weight gain, and the partial agonists/third-generation antipsychotics as a family presently have the best overall data.
3. Thiazide Diuretics
Thiazide diuretics are commonly used for the management of hypertension and are associated with metabolic complications including hypokalemia; higher cholesterol, triglycerides, and other circulating lipids; and elevated glucose. It’s thought that the reduced potassium level occurring as a result of these medications might contribute to new-onset diabetes. The hypokalemia occurring from these medications is thought to lead to a decrease in insulin secretion and sensitivity, which is dose dependent. Studies show that the number needed to harm for chlorthalidone-induced diabetes is 29 over 1 year. There is believed to be no additional risk beyond 1 year.
Management tip: It’s important to monitor potassium levels for those initiated on thiazide diuretics. If hypokalemia occurs, it would be pertinent to correct the hypokalemia with potassium supplements to mitigate the risk for new-onset diabetes.
4. Statin Therapy
Statin therapy is thought to be associated with decreased insulin sensitivity and impairment in insulin secretion. The overall incidence of diabetes is pegged to be between 9% and 12% on statin therapy on the basis of meta-analysis studies, and higher on the basis of population-based studies. Overall, the estimated number needed to harm is: 1 out of every 255 patients on statin therapy for 4 years may develop new-onset diabetes. Compare this with the extremely strong evidence for number needed to treat being 39 for 5 years with statin therapy in patients with preexisting heart disease to prevent one occurrence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction.
Management tip: Although statins are associated with a small incident increase in the risk of developing diabetes, the potential benefits of using statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease significantly outweigh any of the potential risks associated with hyperglycemia. This is an important discussion to have with patients who are reluctant to use statin therapy because of the potential risk for new-onset diabetes as a side effect.
5. Beta-Blockers
Beta-blockers are another commonly used group of medications for managing hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia. Nonvasodilating beta-blockers such as metoprolol and atenolol are more likely to be associated with increases in A1c, mean plasma glucose, body weight, and triglycerides compared with vasodilating beta-blockers such as carvedilol, nebivolol, and labetalol (Bakris GL et al; Giugliano D et al). Similarly, studies have also shown that atenolol and metoprolol are associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia compared with carvedilol. People on beta-blockers may have masking of some of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, such as tremor, irritability, and palpitations, while other symptoms such as diaphoresis may remain unaffected on beta-blockers.
Management tip: Education on recognizing and managing hypoglycemia would be important when starting patients on beta-blockers if they are on preexisting insulin/sulfonylurea therapy. Use of CGM devices may be helpful if there is a high risk for hypoglycemia, especially as symptoms of hypoglycemia are often masked.
Honorable Mention
Several other medications — including antiretroviral therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and interferon alpha — are associated with worsening glycemic control and new-onset diabetes. Consider these agents’ effects on blood glucose, especially in people with an elevated risk of developing diabetes or those with preexisting diabetes, when prescribing.
A special mention should also be made of androgen deprivation therapy. These include treatment options like goserelin and leuprolide, which are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapies and are commonly used for prostate cancer management. Depending on the patient, these agents may be used for prolonged duration. Androgen deprivation therapy, by definition, decreases testosterone levels in men, thereby leading to worsening insulin resistance. Increase in fat mass and concomitant muscle wasting have been associated with the use of these medications; these, in turn, lead to peripheral insulin resistance. Nearly 1 out of every 5 men treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy may be prone to developing worsening of A1c by 1% or more.
Management tip: Men on androgen deprivation therapy should be encouraged to participate in regular physical activity to reduce the burden of insulin resistance and to promote cardiovascular health.
Drug-induced diabetes is potentially reversible in many cases. Similarly, worsening of glycemic control due to medications in people with preexisting diabetes may also attenuate once the effect of the drug wears off. Blood glucose should be monitored on an ongoing basis so that diabetes medications can be adjusted. For some individuals, however, the worsening of glycemic status may be more chronic and may require long-term use of antihyperglycemic agents, especially if the benefits of continuation of the medication leading to hyperglycemia far exceed any potential risks.
Dr. Jain is Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, Fraser River Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s that time of the year, when social media is rife with many top 5 and top 10 lists. Let’s revisit some of the most commonly used medications known to increase glucose levels and look at some practical tips on overcoming these.
1. Glucocorticoids
Without a doubt, corticosteroids are at the top of the list when it comes to the potential for increasing blood glucose levels. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy is known to lead to new-onset diabetes (steroid-induced diabetes). Similarly, people with preexisting diabetes may notice significant worsening of glycemic control when they start on glucocorticoid therapy. The extent of glucose elevation depends on their glycemic status prior to initiation on steroids, the dose and duration of glucocorticoid therapy, and comorbid conditions, among other factors.
Management tip: For those with previously well-controlled diabetes or borderline diabetes, glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia may be managed by metformin with or without sulfonylurea therapy, especially if corticosteroid treatment is low-dose and for a shorter duration. However, for many individuals with preexisting poorly controlled diabetes or those initiated on high-dose corticosteroids, insulin therapy would perhaps be the treatment of choice. Glucocorticoid therapy generally leads to more pronounced postprandial hyperglycemia compared with fasting hyperglycemia; hence, the use of short-acting insulin therapy or perhaps NPH insulin in the morning might be a better option for many individuals. Dietary modification plays an important role in limiting the extent of postprandial hyperglycemia. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices may also be very helpful for understanding glycemic excursions and how to adjust insulin. In individuals for whom glucocorticoid therapy is tapered down, it is important to adjust the dose of medications with potential to cause hypoglycemia, such as insulin/sulfonylurea therapy, as the degree of hyperglycemia may decrease with decreased dose of the glucocorticoid therapy.
2. Antipsychotic Therapy
Antipsychotic medications can be obesogenic; between 15% and 72% of people who take second-generation antipsychotics experience weight gain of 7% or more. Increases in weight are not the only factor contributing to an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Antipsychotics are thought to cause downregulation of intracellular insulin signaling, leading to insulin resistance. At the same time, there seems to be a direct effect on the pancreatic beta cells. Antagonism of the dopamine D2, serotonin 5-HT2C, and muscarinic M3 receptors impairs beta-cell response to changes in blood glucose. In addition to the pharmacologic effects, cell culture experiments have shown that antipsychotics increase apoptosis of beta cells. Increased weight and concomitant development of type 2 diabetes is seen particularly in agents that exhibit high muscarinic M3 and histamine H1 receptor blockade. The effect on glucose metabolism is seen the most with agents such as clozapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol and the least with agents such as ziprasidone.
Management tip: Given the ongoing change in the understanding of increases in weight and their association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a metabolically safer approach involves starting with medications that have a lower propensity for weight gain, and the partial agonists/third-generation antipsychotics as a family presently have the best overall data.
3. Thiazide Diuretics
Thiazide diuretics are commonly used for the management of hypertension and are associated with metabolic complications including hypokalemia; higher cholesterol, triglycerides, and other circulating lipids; and elevated glucose. It’s thought that the reduced potassium level occurring as a result of these medications might contribute to new-onset diabetes. The hypokalemia occurring from these medications is thought to lead to a decrease in insulin secretion and sensitivity, which is dose dependent. Studies show that the number needed to harm for chlorthalidone-induced diabetes is 29 over 1 year. There is believed to be no additional risk beyond 1 year.
Management tip: It’s important to monitor potassium levels for those initiated on thiazide diuretics. If hypokalemia occurs, it would be pertinent to correct the hypokalemia with potassium supplements to mitigate the risk for new-onset diabetes.
4. Statin Therapy
Statin therapy is thought to be associated with decreased insulin sensitivity and impairment in insulin secretion. The overall incidence of diabetes is pegged to be between 9% and 12% on statin therapy on the basis of meta-analysis studies, and higher on the basis of population-based studies. Overall, the estimated number needed to harm is: 1 out of every 255 patients on statin therapy for 4 years may develop new-onset diabetes. Compare this with the extremely strong evidence for number needed to treat being 39 for 5 years with statin therapy in patients with preexisting heart disease to prevent one occurrence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction.
Management tip: Although statins are associated with a small incident increase in the risk of developing diabetes, the potential benefits of using statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease significantly outweigh any of the potential risks associated with hyperglycemia. This is an important discussion to have with patients who are reluctant to use statin therapy because of the potential risk for new-onset diabetes as a side effect.
5. Beta-Blockers
Beta-blockers are another commonly used group of medications for managing hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia. Nonvasodilating beta-blockers such as metoprolol and atenolol are more likely to be associated with increases in A1c, mean plasma glucose, body weight, and triglycerides compared with vasodilating beta-blockers such as carvedilol, nebivolol, and labetalol (Bakris GL et al; Giugliano D et al). Similarly, studies have also shown that atenolol and metoprolol are associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia compared with carvedilol. People on beta-blockers may have masking of some of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, such as tremor, irritability, and palpitations, while other symptoms such as diaphoresis may remain unaffected on beta-blockers.
Management tip: Education on recognizing and managing hypoglycemia would be important when starting patients on beta-blockers if they are on preexisting insulin/sulfonylurea therapy. Use of CGM devices may be helpful if there is a high risk for hypoglycemia, especially as symptoms of hypoglycemia are often masked.
Honorable Mention
Several other medications — including antiretroviral therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and interferon alpha — are associated with worsening glycemic control and new-onset diabetes. Consider these agents’ effects on blood glucose, especially in people with an elevated risk of developing diabetes or those with preexisting diabetes, when prescribing.
A special mention should also be made of androgen deprivation therapy. These include treatment options like goserelin and leuprolide, which are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapies and are commonly used for prostate cancer management. Depending on the patient, these agents may be used for prolonged duration. Androgen deprivation therapy, by definition, decreases testosterone levels in men, thereby leading to worsening insulin resistance. Increase in fat mass and concomitant muscle wasting have been associated with the use of these medications; these, in turn, lead to peripheral insulin resistance. Nearly 1 out of every 5 men treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy may be prone to developing worsening of A1c by 1% or more.
Management tip: Men on androgen deprivation therapy should be encouraged to participate in regular physical activity to reduce the burden of insulin resistance and to promote cardiovascular health.
Drug-induced diabetes is potentially reversible in many cases. Similarly, worsening of glycemic control due to medications in people with preexisting diabetes may also attenuate once the effect of the drug wears off. Blood glucose should be monitored on an ongoing basis so that diabetes medications can be adjusted. For some individuals, however, the worsening of glycemic status may be more chronic and may require long-term use of antihyperglycemic agents, especially if the benefits of continuation of the medication leading to hyperglycemia far exceed any potential risks.
Dr. Jain is Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, Fraser River Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s that time of the year, when social media is rife with many top 5 and top 10 lists. Let’s revisit some of the most commonly used medications known to increase glucose levels and look at some practical tips on overcoming these.
1. Glucocorticoids
Without a doubt, corticosteroids are at the top of the list when it comes to the potential for increasing blood glucose levels. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy is known to lead to new-onset diabetes (steroid-induced diabetes). Similarly, people with preexisting diabetes may notice significant worsening of glycemic control when they start on glucocorticoid therapy. The extent of glucose elevation depends on their glycemic status prior to initiation on steroids, the dose and duration of glucocorticoid therapy, and comorbid conditions, among other factors.
Management tip: For those with previously well-controlled diabetes or borderline diabetes, glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia may be managed by metformin with or without sulfonylurea therapy, especially if corticosteroid treatment is low-dose and for a shorter duration. However, for many individuals with preexisting poorly controlled diabetes or those initiated on high-dose corticosteroids, insulin therapy would perhaps be the treatment of choice. Glucocorticoid therapy generally leads to more pronounced postprandial hyperglycemia compared with fasting hyperglycemia; hence, the use of short-acting insulin therapy or perhaps NPH insulin in the morning might be a better option for many individuals. Dietary modification plays an important role in limiting the extent of postprandial hyperglycemia. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices may also be very helpful for understanding glycemic excursions and how to adjust insulin. In individuals for whom glucocorticoid therapy is tapered down, it is important to adjust the dose of medications with potential to cause hypoglycemia, such as insulin/sulfonylurea therapy, as the degree of hyperglycemia may decrease with decreased dose of the glucocorticoid therapy.
2. Antipsychotic Therapy
Antipsychotic medications can be obesogenic; between 15% and 72% of people who take second-generation antipsychotics experience weight gain of 7% or more. Increases in weight are not the only factor contributing to an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Antipsychotics are thought to cause downregulation of intracellular insulin signaling, leading to insulin resistance. At the same time, there seems to be a direct effect on the pancreatic beta cells. Antagonism of the dopamine D2, serotonin 5-HT2C, and muscarinic M3 receptors impairs beta-cell response to changes in blood glucose. In addition to the pharmacologic effects, cell culture experiments have shown that antipsychotics increase apoptosis of beta cells. Increased weight and concomitant development of type 2 diabetes is seen particularly in agents that exhibit high muscarinic M3 and histamine H1 receptor blockade. The effect on glucose metabolism is seen the most with agents such as clozapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol and the least with agents such as ziprasidone.
Management tip: Given the ongoing change in the understanding of increases in weight and their association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a metabolically safer approach involves starting with medications that have a lower propensity for weight gain, and the partial agonists/third-generation antipsychotics as a family presently have the best overall data.
3. Thiazide Diuretics
Thiazide diuretics are commonly used for the management of hypertension and are associated with metabolic complications including hypokalemia; higher cholesterol, triglycerides, and other circulating lipids; and elevated glucose. It’s thought that the reduced potassium level occurring as a result of these medications might contribute to new-onset diabetes. The hypokalemia occurring from these medications is thought to lead to a decrease in insulin secretion and sensitivity, which is dose dependent. Studies show that the number needed to harm for chlorthalidone-induced diabetes is 29 over 1 year. There is believed to be no additional risk beyond 1 year.
Management tip: It’s important to monitor potassium levels for those initiated on thiazide diuretics. If hypokalemia occurs, it would be pertinent to correct the hypokalemia with potassium supplements to mitigate the risk for new-onset diabetes.
4. Statin Therapy
Statin therapy is thought to be associated with decreased insulin sensitivity and impairment in insulin secretion. The overall incidence of diabetes is pegged to be between 9% and 12% on statin therapy on the basis of meta-analysis studies, and higher on the basis of population-based studies. Overall, the estimated number needed to harm is: 1 out of every 255 patients on statin therapy for 4 years may develop new-onset diabetes. Compare this with the extremely strong evidence for number needed to treat being 39 for 5 years with statin therapy in patients with preexisting heart disease to prevent one occurrence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction.
Management tip: Although statins are associated with a small incident increase in the risk of developing diabetes, the potential benefits of using statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease significantly outweigh any of the potential risks associated with hyperglycemia. This is an important discussion to have with patients who are reluctant to use statin therapy because of the potential risk for new-onset diabetes as a side effect.
5. Beta-Blockers
Beta-blockers are another commonly used group of medications for managing hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia. Nonvasodilating beta-blockers such as metoprolol and atenolol are more likely to be associated with increases in A1c, mean plasma glucose, body weight, and triglycerides compared with vasodilating beta-blockers such as carvedilol, nebivolol, and labetalol (Bakris GL et al; Giugliano D et al). Similarly, studies have also shown that atenolol and metoprolol are associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia compared with carvedilol. People on beta-blockers may have masking of some of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, such as tremor, irritability, and palpitations, while other symptoms such as diaphoresis may remain unaffected on beta-blockers.
Management tip: Education on recognizing and managing hypoglycemia would be important when starting patients on beta-blockers if they are on preexisting insulin/sulfonylurea therapy. Use of CGM devices may be helpful if there is a high risk for hypoglycemia, especially as symptoms of hypoglycemia are often masked.
Honorable Mention
Several other medications — including antiretroviral therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and interferon alpha — are associated with worsening glycemic control and new-onset diabetes. Consider these agents’ effects on blood glucose, especially in people with an elevated risk of developing diabetes or those with preexisting diabetes, when prescribing.
A special mention should also be made of androgen deprivation therapy. These include treatment options like goserelin and leuprolide, which are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapies and are commonly used for prostate cancer management. Depending on the patient, these agents may be used for prolonged duration. Androgen deprivation therapy, by definition, decreases testosterone levels in men, thereby leading to worsening insulin resistance. Increase in fat mass and concomitant muscle wasting have been associated with the use of these medications; these, in turn, lead to peripheral insulin resistance. Nearly 1 out of every 5 men treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy may be prone to developing worsening of A1c by 1% or more.
Management tip: Men on androgen deprivation therapy should be encouraged to participate in regular physical activity to reduce the burden of insulin resistance and to promote cardiovascular health.
Drug-induced diabetes is potentially reversible in many cases. Similarly, worsening of glycemic control due to medications in people with preexisting diabetes may also attenuate once the effect of the drug wears off. Blood glucose should be monitored on an ongoing basis so that diabetes medications can be adjusted. For some individuals, however, the worsening of glycemic status may be more chronic and may require long-term use of antihyperglycemic agents, especially if the benefits of continuation of the medication leading to hyperglycemia far exceed any potential risks.
Dr. Jain is Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, Fraser River Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Plant-based or animal-based diet: Which is better?
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.
We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.
Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.
Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets.
Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.
That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.
Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”
I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.
Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?
Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.
Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.
The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.
Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.
Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?
Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.
Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.
There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.
If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.
If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.
The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”
The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.
Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.
Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.
I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.
Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.
Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?
Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.
We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.
I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.
I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.
That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.
Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?
Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.
Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.
In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.
There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.
Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.
We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.
Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.
Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets.
Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.
That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.
Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”
I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.
Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?
Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.
Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.
The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.
Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.
Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?
Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.
Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.
There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.
If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.
If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.
The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”
The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.
Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.
Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.
I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.
Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.
Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?
Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.
We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.
I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.
I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.
That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.
Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?
Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.
Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.
In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.
There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.
Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.
We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.
Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.
Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets.
Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.
That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.
Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”
I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.
Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?
Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.
Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.
The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.
Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.
Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?
Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.
Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.
There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.
If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.
If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.
The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”
The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.
Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.
Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.
I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.
Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.
Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?
Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.
We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.
I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.
I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.
That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.
Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?
Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.
Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.
In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.
There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.
Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.