Clinical Endocrinology News

TOPLINE:

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is more cost-effective, and achieves and sustains greater weight loss, than semaglutide over a 5-year period in patients with class II obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a Markov cohort model to assess the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide vs ESG over 5 years in people with class II obesity (body mass index [BMI], 35-39.9), with the model costs based on the US healthcare system.
• A 45-year-old patient with a BMI of 37 was included as the base case in this study.
• The model simulated hypothetical patients with class II obesity who received ESG, semaglutide, or no treatment (reference group with zero treatment costs).
• The model derived clinical data for the first year from two randomized clinical trials, STEP 1 (semaglutide) and MERIT (ESG); for the following years, data were derived from published studies and publicly available data sources.
• Study outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

TAKEAWAY:

• ESG led to better weight loss outcomes (BMI, 31.7 vs 33.0) and added 0.06 more QALYs relative to semaglutide in the modelled patients over the 5-year time horizon; about 20% of the patients receiving semaglutide dropped out owing to medication intolerance or other reasons.
• The semaglutide treatment was $33,583 more expensive than the ESG treatment over the 5-year period.
• ESG became more cost-effective than semaglutide at 2 years and remained so over a 5-year time horizon, with an ICER of — $595,532 per QALY for the base case.
• The annual price of semaglutide would need to be reduced from $13,618 to $3591 to achieve nondominance compared with ESG.

IN PRACTICE:

“The strategic choice of cost saving yet effective treatment such as ESG compared with semaglutide for specific patient groups could help alleviate the potential budget strain expected from the use of semaglutide,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Muhammad Haseeb, MD, MSc, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, led this study, which was published online on April 12, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not look at benefits associated with improvements in comorbidities from either treatment strategy, and the model used did not account for any microlevel follow-up costs such as routine clinic visits. The authors acknowledged that semaglutide’s prices may fall in the future when more anti-obesity drugs get approved.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health. Some authors declared receiving personal fees, royalty payments, and/or grants and having other ties with several sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is more cost-effective, and achieves and sustains greater weight loss, than semaglutide over a 5-year period in patients with class II obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a Markov cohort model to assess the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide vs ESG over 5 years in people with class II obesity (body mass index [BMI], 35-39.9), with the model costs based on the US healthcare system.
• A 45-year-old patient with a BMI of 37 was included as the base case in this study.
• The model simulated hypothetical patients with class II obesity who received ESG, semaglutide, or no treatment (reference group with zero treatment costs).
• The model derived clinical data for the first year from two randomized clinical trials, STEP 1 (semaglutide) and MERIT (ESG); for the following years, data were derived from published studies and publicly available data sources.
• Study outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

TAKEAWAY:

• ESG led to better weight loss outcomes (BMI, 31.7 vs 33.0) and added 0.06 more QALYs relative to semaglutide in the modelled patients over the 5-year time horizon; about 20% of the patients receiving semaglutide dropped out owing to medication intolerance or other reasons.
• The semaglutide treatment was $33,583 more expensive than the ESG treatment over the 5-year period.
• ESG became more cost-effective than semaglutide at 2 years and remained so over a 5-year time horizon, with an ICER of — $595,532 per QALY for the base case.
• The annual price of semaglutide would need to be reduced from $13,618 to $3591 to achieve nondominance compared with ESG.

IN PRACTICE:

“The strategic choice of cost saving yet effective treatment such as ESG compared with semaglutide for specific patient groups could help alleviate the potential budget strain expected from the use of semaglutide,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Muhammad Haseeb, MD, MSc, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, led this study, which was published online on April 12, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not look at benefits associated with improvements in comorbidities from either treatment strategy, and the model used did not account for any microlevel follow-up costs such as routine clinic visits. The authors acknowledged that semaglutide’s prices may fall in the future when more anti-obesity drugs get approved.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health. Some authors declared receiving personal fees, royalty payments, and/or grants and having other ties with several sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is more cost-effective, and achieves and sustains greater weight loss, than semaglutide over a 5-year period in patients with class II obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a Markov cohort model to assess the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide vs ESG over 5 years in people with class II obesity (body mass index [BMI], 35-39.9), with the model costs based on the US healthcare system.
• A 45-year-old patient with a BMI of 37 was included as the base case in this study.
• The model simulated hypothetical patients with class II obesity who received ESG, semaglutide, or no treatment (reference group with zero treatment costs).
• The model derived clinical data for the first year from two randomized clinical trials, STEP 1 (semaglutide) and MERIT (ESG); for the following years, data were derived from published studies and publicly available data sources.
• Study outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

TAKEAWAY:

• ESG led to better weight loss outcomes (BMI, 31.7 vs 33.0) and added 0.06 more QALYs relative to semaglutide in the modelled patients over the 5-year time horizon; about 20% of the patients receiving semaglutide dropped out owing to medication intolerance or other reasons.
• The semaglutide treatment was $33,583 more expensive than the ESG treatment over the 5-year period.
• ESG became more cost-effective than semaglutide at 2 years and remained so over a 5-year time horizon, with an ICER of — $595,532 per QALY for the base case.
• The annual price of semaglutide would need to be reduced from $13,618 to $3591 to achieve nondominance compared with ESG.

IN PRACTICE:

“The strategic choice of cost saving yet effective treatment such as ESG compared with semaglutide for specific patient groups could help alleviate the potential budget strain expected from the use of semaglutide,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Muhammad Haseeb, MD, MSc, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, led this study, which was published online on April 12, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not look at benefits associated with improvements in comorbidities from either treatment strategy, and the model used did not account for any microlevel follow-up costs such as routine clinic visits. The authors acknowledged that semaglutide’s prices may fall in the future when more anti-obesity drugs get approved.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health. Some authors declared receiving personal fees, royalty payments, and/or grants and having other ties with several sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

No significant association was found between the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and thyroid cancer over nearly 4 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• A cohort study using data from nationwide registers in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden between 2007 and 2021 included 145,410 patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 291,667 propensity score-matched patients initiating dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors as active comparators.
• Additional analysis included 111,744 who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 148,179 patients initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
• Overall, mean follow-up time was 3.9 years, with 25% followed for more than 6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common individual GLP-1 RAs were liraglutide (57.3%) and semaglutide (32.9%).
• During follow-up, there were 76 incident thyroid cancer cases among GLP-1 RA users and 184 cases in DPP4 inhibitor users, giving incidence rates per 10,000 of 1.33 and 1.46, respectively, a nonsignificant difference (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.66-1.31).
• Papillary thyroid cancer was the most common thyroid cancer subtype, followed by follicular and medullary, with no significant increases in risk with GLP-1 RAs by cancer type, although the numbers were small.
• In the SGLT2 inhibitor comparison, there was also no significantly increased thyroid cancer risk for GLP-1 RAs (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.65-2.05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the upper limit of the confidence interval, the findings are incompatible with more than a 31% increased relative risk of thyroid cancer. In absolute terms, this translates to no more than 0.36 excess cases per 10 000 person-years, a figure that should be interpreted against the background incidence of 1.46 per 10,000 person-years among the comparator group in the study populations.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Björn Pasternak, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues. It was published online on April 10, 2024, in The BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

Relatively short follow-up for cancer risk. Risk by individual GLP-1 RA not analyzed. Small event numbers. Observational, with potential for residual confounding and time-release bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Pasternak was supported by a consolidator investigator grant from Karolinska Institutet. Some of the coauthors had industry disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

No significant association was found between the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and thyroid cancer over nearly 4 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• A cohort study using data from nationwide registers in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden between 2007 and 2021 included 145,410 patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 291,667 propensity score-matched patients initiating dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors as active comparators.
• Additional analysis included 111,744 who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 148,179 patients initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
• Overall, mean follow-up time was 3.9 years, with 25% followed for more than 6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common individual GLP-1 RAs were liraglutide (57.3%) and semaglutide (32.9%).
• During follow-up, there were 76 incident thyroid cancer cases among GLP-1 RA users and 184 cases in DPP4 inhibitor users, giving incidence rates per 10,000 of 1.33 and 1.46, respectively, a nonsignificant difference (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.66-1.31).
• Papillary thyroid cancer was the most common thyroid cancer subtype, followed by follicular and medullary, with no significant increases in risk with GLP-1 RAs by cancer type, although the numbers were small.
• In the SGLT2 inhibitor comparison, there was also no significantly increased thyroid cancer risk for GLP-1 RAs (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.65-2.05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the upper limit of the confidence interval, the findings are incompatible with more than a 31% increased relative risk of thyroid cancer. In absolute terms, this translates to no more than 0.36 excess cases per 10 000 person-years, a figure that should be interpreted against the background incidence of 1.46 per 10,000 person-years among the comparator group in the study populations.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Björn Pasternak, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues. It was published online on April 10, 2024, in The BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

Relatively short follow-up for cancer risk. Risk by individual GLP-1 RA not analyzed. Small event numbers. Observational, with potential for residual confounding and time-release bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Pasternak was supported by a consolidator investigator grant from Karolinska Institutet. Some of the coauthors had industry disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

No significant association was found between the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and thyroid cancer over nearly 4 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• A cohort study using data from nationwide registers in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden between 2007 and 2021 included 145,410 patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 291,667 propensity score-matched patients initiating dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors as active comparators.
• Additional analysis included 111,744 who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 148,179 patients initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
• Overall, mean follow-up time was 3.9 years, with 25% followed for more than 6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common individual GLP-1 RAs were liraglutide (57.3%) and semaglutide (32.9%).
• During follow-up, there were 76 incident thyroid cancer cases among GLP-1 RA users and 184 cases in DPP4 inhibitor users, giving incidence rates per 10,000 of 1.33 and 1.46, respectively, a nonsignificant difference (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.66-1.31).
• Papillary thyroid cancer was the most common thyroid cancer subtype, followed by follicular and medullary, with no significant increases in risk with GLP-1 RAs by cancer type, although the numbers were small.
• In the SGLT2 inhibitor comparison, there was also no significantly increased thyroid cancer risk for GLP-1 RAs (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.65-2.05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the upper limit of the confidence interval, the findings are incompatible with more than a 31% increased relative risk of thyroid cancer. In absolute terms, this translates to no more than 0.36 excess cases per 10 000 person-years, a figure that should be interpreted against the background incidence of 1.46 per 10,000 person-years among the comparator group in the study populations.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Björn Pasternak, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues. It was published online on April 10, 2024, in The BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

Relatively short follow-up for cancer risk. Risk by individual GLP-1 RA not analyzed. Small event numbers. Observational, with potential for residual confounding and time-release bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Pasternak was supported by a consolidator investigator grant from Karolinska Institutet. Some of the coauthors had industry disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You are what you eat, as the adage goes. But a growing body of evidence indicates that it’s not just what and how much you eat that influence your health. How fast and when you eat also play a role.

Research now indicates that these two factors may affect the risk for gastrointestinal problems, obesity, and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Because meal timing and speed of consumption are modifiable, they present new opportunities to change patient behavior to help prevent and perhaps address these conditions.

Not So Fast

Most people are well acquainted with the short-term gastrointestinal effects of eating too quickly, which include indigestion, gas, bloating, and nausea. But regularly eating too fast can cause long-term consequences.

Obtaining a sense of fullness is key to staving off overeating and excess caloric intake. However, it takes approximately 20 minutes for the stomach to alert the brain to feelings of fullness. Eat too quickly and the fullness signaling might not set in until you’ve consumed more calories than intended. Research links this habit to excess body weight.

The practice also can lead to gastrointestinal diseases over the long term because overeating causes food to remain in the stomach longer, thus prolonging the time that the gastric mucosa is exposed to gastric acids.

A study of 10,893 adults in Korea reported that those with the fastest eating speed (< 5 min/meal) had a 1.7 times greater likelihood of endoscopic erosive gastritis than those with the slowest times (≥ 15 min/meal). Faster eating also was linked to increased risk for functional dyspepsia in a study involving 89 young-adult female military cadets in Korea with relatively controlled eating patterns.

On the extreme end of the spectrum, researchers who performed an assessment of a competitive speed eater speculated that the observed physiological accommodation required for the role (expanding the stomach to form a large flaccid sac) makes speed eaters vulnerable to morbid obesity, gastroparesis, intractable nausea and vomiting, and the need for gastrectomy.

The risk for metabolic changes and eventual development of T2D also appear to be linked to how quickly food is consumed.

Two clinical studies conducted in Japan — a cohort study of 2050 male factory workers and a nationwide study with 197,825 participants — identified a significant association between faster eating and T2D and insulin resistance. A case-control study involving 234 patients with new onset T2D and 468 controls from Lithuania linked faster eating to a greater than twofold risk for T2D. And a Chinese cross-sectional study of 7972 adults indicated that faster eating significantly increased the risk for metabolic syndrome, elevated blood pressure, and central obesity in adults.

Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain why fast eating may upset metabolic processes, including a delayed sense of fullness contributing to spiking postprandial glucose levels, lack of time for mastication causing higher glucose concentrations, and the triggering of specific cytokines (eg, interleukin-1 beta and interleukin-6) that lead to insulin resistance. It is also possible that the association is the result of people who eat quickly having relatively higher body weights, which translates to a higher risk for T2D.

However, there’s an opportunity in the association of rapid meal consumption with gastrointestinal and metabolic diseases, as people can slow the speed at which they eat so they feel full before they overeat.

A 2019 study in which 21 participants were instructed to eat a 600-kcal meal at a “normal” or “slow” pace (6 minutes or 24 minutes) found that the latter group reported feeling fuller while consuming fewer calories.

This approach may not work for all patients, however. There’s evidence to suggest that tactics to slow down eating may not limit the energy intake of those who are already overweight or obese.

Patients with obesity may physiologically differ in their processing of food, according to Michael Camilleri, MD, consultant in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“We have demonstrated that about 20%-25% of people with obesity actually have rapid gastric emptying,” he told this news organization. “As a result, they don’t feel full after they eat a meal and that might impact the total volume of food that they eat before they really feel full.”

The Ideal Time to Eat

It’s not only the speed at which individuals eat that may influence outcomes but when they take their meals. Research indicates that eating earlier in the day to align meals with the body’s circadian rhythms in metabolism offers health benefits.

“The focus would be to eat a meal that syncs during those daytime hours,” Collin Popp, PhD, MS, RD, a research scientist at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York, told this news organization. “I typically suggest patients have their largest meal in the morning, whether that’s a large or medium-sized breakfast, or a big lunch.”

A recent cross-sectional study of 2050 participants found that having the largest meal at lunch protected against obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.71), whereas having it at dinner increased the risk for obesity (OR, 1.67) and led to higher body mass index.

Consuming the majority of calories in meals earlier in the day may have metabolic health benefits, as well.

A 2015 randomized controlled trial involving 18 adults with obesity and T2D found that eating a high-energy breakfast and a low-energy dinner leads to reduced hyperglycemia throughout the day compared with eating a low-energy breakfast and a high-energy dinner.

Time-restricted eating (TRE), a form of intermittent fasting, also can improve metabolic health depending on the time of day.

A 2023 meta-analysis found that TRE was more effective at reducing fasting glucose levels in participants who were overweight and obese if done earlier rather than later in the day. Similarly, a 2022 study involving 82 healthy patients without diabetes or obesity found that early TRE was more effective than mid-day TRE at improving insulin sensitivity and that it improved fasting glucose and reduced total body mass and adiposity, while mid-day TRE did not.

A study that analyzed the effects of TRE in eight adult men with overweight and prediabetes found “better insulin resistance when the window of food consumption was earlier in the day,» noted endocrinologist Beverly Tchang, MD, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine with a focus on obesity medication.

Patients May Benefit From Behavioral Interventions

Patients potentially negatively affected by eating too quickly or at late hours may benefit from adopting behavioral interventions to address these tendencies. To determine if a patient is a candidate for such interventions, Dr. Popp recommends starting with a simple conversation.

“When I first meet patients, I always ask them to describe to me a typical day for how they eat — when they’re eating, what they’re eating, the food quality, who are they with — to see if there’s social aspects to it. Then try and make the recommendations based on that,” said Dr. Popp, whose work focuses on biobehavioral interventions for the treatment and prevention of obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic outcomes.

Dr. Tchang said she encourages her patients to be mindful of hunger and fullness cues.

“Eat if you’re hungry; don’t force yourself to eat if you’re not hungry,” she said. “If you’re not sure whether you’re hungry or not, speak to a doctor because this points to an abnormality in your appetite-regulation system, which can be helped with GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide 1] receptor agonists.”

Adjusting what patients eat can help them improve their meal timing.

“For example, we know that a high-fiber diet or a diet that has a large amount of fat in it tends to empty from the stomach slower,” Dr. Camilleri said. “That might give a sensation of fullness that lasts longer and that might prevent, for instance, the ingestion of the next meal.”

Those trying to eat more slowly are advised to seek out foods that are hard in texture and minimally processed.

A study involving 50 patients with healthy weights found that hard foods are consumed more slowly than soft foods and that energy intake is lowest with hard, minimally processed foods. Combining hard-textured foods with explicit instructions to reduce eating speed has also been shown to be an effective strategy. For those inclined to seek out technology-based solution, evidence suggests that a self-monitoring wearable device can slow the eating rate.

Although the evidence is mounting that the timing and duration of meals have an impact on certain chronic diseases, clinicians should remember that these two factors are far from the most important contributors, Dr. Popp said.

“We also have to consider total caloric intake, food quality, sleep, alcohol use, smoking, and physical activity,” he said. “Meal timing should be considered as under the umbrella of health that is important for a lot of folks.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You are what you eat, as the adage goes. But a growing body of evidence indicates that it’s not just what and how much you eat that influence your health. How fast and when you eat also play a role.

Research now indicates that these two factors may affect the risk for gastrointestinal problems, obesity, and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Because meal timing and speed of consumption are modifiable, they present new opportunities to change patient behavior to help prevent and perhaps address these conditions.

Not So Fast

Most people are well acquainted with the short-term gastrointestinal effects of eating too quickly, which include indigestion, gas, bloating, and nausea. But regularly eating too fast can cause long-term consequences.

Obtaining a sense of fullness is key to staving off overeating and excess caloric intake. However, it takes approximately 20 minutes for the stomach to alert the brain to feelings of fullness. Eat too quickly and the fullness signaling might not set in until you’ve consumed more calories than intended. Research links this habit to excess body weight.

The practice also can lead to gastrointestinal diseases over the long term because overeating causes food to remain in the stomach longer, thus prolonging the time that the gastric mucosa is exposed to gastric acids.

A study of 10,893 adults in Korea reported that those with the fastest eating speed (< 5 min/meal) had a 1.7 times greater likelihood of endoscopic erosive gastritis than those with the slowest times (≥ 15 min/meal). Faster eating also was linked to increased risk for functional dyspepsia in a study involving 89 young-adult female military cadets in Korea with relatively controlled eating patterns.

On the extreme end of the spectrum, researchers who performed an assessment of a competitive speed eater speculated that the observed physiological accommodation required for the role (expanding the stomach to form a large flaccid sac) makes speed eaters vulnerable to morbid obesity, gastroparesis, intractable nausea and vomiting, and the need for gastrectomy.

The risk for metabolic changes and eventual development of T2D also appear to be linked to how quickly food is consumed.

Two clinical studies conducted in Japan — a cohort study of 2050 male factory workers and a nationwide study with 197,825 participants — identified a significant association between faster eating and T2D and insulin resistance. A case-control study involving 234 patients with new onset T2D and 468 controls from Lithuania linked faster eating to a greater than twofold risk for T2D. And a Chinese cross-sectional study of 7972 adults indicated that faster eating significantly increased the risk for metabolic syndrome, elevated blood pressure, and central obesity in adults.

Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain why fast eating may upset metabolic processes, including a delayed sense of fullness contributing to spiking postprandial glucose levels, lack of time for mastication causing higher glucose concentrations, and the triggering of specific cytokines (eg, interleukin-1 beta and interleukin-6) that lead to insulin resistance. It is also possible that the association is the result of people who eat quickly having relatively higher body weights, which translates to a higher risk for T2D.

However, there’s an opportunity in the association of rapid meal consumption with gastrointestinal and metabolic diseases, as people can slow the speed at which they eat so they feel full before they overeat.

A 2019 study in which 21 participants were instructed to eat a 600-kcal meal at a “normal” or “slow” pace (6 minutes or 24 minutes) found that the latter group reported feeling fuller while consuming fewer calories.

This approach may not work for all patients, however. There’s evidence to suggest that tactics to slow down eating may not limit the energy intake of those who are already overweight or obese.

Patients with obesity may physiologically differ in their processing of food, according to Michael Camilleri, MD, consultant in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“We have demonstrated that about 20%-25% of people with obesity actually have rapid gastric emptying,” he told this news organization. “As a result, they don’t feel full after they eat a meal and that might impact the total volume of food that they eat before they really feel full.”

The Ideal Time to Eat

It’s not only the speed at which individuals eat that may influence outcomes but when they take their meals. Research indicates that eating earlier in the day to align meals with the body’s circadian rhythms in metabolism offers health benefits.

“The focus would be to eat a meal that syncs during those daytime hours,” Collin Popp, PhD, MS, RD, a research scientist at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York, told this news organization. “I typically suggest patients have their largest meal in the morning, whether that’s a large or medium-sized breakfast, or a big lunch.”

A recent cross-sectional study of 2050 participants found that having the largest meal at lunch protected against obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.71), whereas having it at dinner increased the risk for obesity (OR, 1.67) and led to higher body mass index.

Consuming the majority of calories in meals earlier in the day may have metabolic health benefits, as well.

A 2015 randomized controlled trial involving 18 adults with obesity and T2D found that eating a high-energy breakfast and a low-energy dinner leads to reduced hyperglycemia throughout the day compared with eating a low-energy breakfast and a high-energy dinner.

Time-restricted eating (TRE), a form of intermittent fasting, also can improve metabolic health depending on the time of day.

A 2023 meta-analysis found that TRE was more effective at reducing fasting glucose levels in participants who were overweight and obese if done earlier rather than later in the day. Similarly, a 2022 study involving 82 healthy patients without diabetes or obesity found that early TRE was more effective than mid-day TRE at improving insulin sensitivity and that it improved fasting glucose and reduced total body mass and adiposity, while mid-day TRE did not.

A study that analyzed the effects of TRE in eight adult men with overweight and prediabetes found “better insulin resistance when the window of food consumption was earlier in the day,» noted endocrinologist Beverly Tchang, MD, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine with a focus on obesity medication.

Patients May Benefit From Behavioral Interventions

Patients potentially negatively affected by eating too quickly or at late hours may benefit from adopting behavioral interventions to address these tendencies. To determine if a patient is a candidate for such interventions, Dr. Popp recommends starting with a simple conversation.

“When I first meet patients, I always ask them to describe to me a typical day for how they eat — when they’re eating, what they’re eating, the food quality, who are they with — to see if there’s social aspects to it. Then try and make the recommendations based on that,” said Dr. Popp, whose work focuses on biobehavioral interventions for the treatment and prevention of obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic outcomes.

Dr. Tchang said she encourages her patients to be mindful of hunger and fullness cues.

“Eat if you’re hungry; don’t force yourself to eat if you’re not hungry,” she said. “If you’re not sure whether you’re hungry or not, speak to a doctor because this points to an abnormality in your appetite-regulation system, which can be helped with GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide 1] receptor agonists.”

Adjusting what patients eat can help them improve their meal timing.

“For example, we know that a high-fiber diet or a diet that has a large amount of fat in it tends to empty from the stomach slower,” Dr. Camilleri said. “That might give a sensation of fullness that lasts longer and that might prevent, for instance, the ingestion of the next meal.”

Those trying to eat more slowly are advised to seek out foods that are hard in texture and minimally processed.

A study involving 50 patients with healthy weights found that hard foods are consumed more slowly than soft foods and that energy intake is lowest with hard, minimally processed foods. Combining hard-textured foods with explicit instructions to reduce eating speed has also been shown to be an effective strategy. For those inclined to seek out technology-based solution, evidence suggests that a self-monitoring wearable device can slow the eating rate.

Although the evidence is mounting that the timing and duration of meals have an impact on certain chronic diseases, clinicians should remember that these two factors are far from the most important contributors, Dr. Popp said.

“We also have to consider total caloric intake, food quality, sleep, alcohol use, smoking, and physical activity,” he said. “Meal timing should be considered as under the umbrella of health that is important for a lot of folks.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You are what you eat, as the adage goes. But a growing body of evidence indicates that it’s not just what and how much you eat that influence your health. How fast and when you eat also play a role.

Research now indicates that these two factors may affect the risk for gastrointestinal problems, obesity, and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Because meal timing and speed of consumption are modifiable, they present new opportunities to change patient behavior to help prevent and perhaps address these conditions.

Not So Fast

Most people are well acquainted with the short-term gastrointestinal effects of eating too quickly, which include indigestion, gas, bloating, and nausea. But regularly eating too fast can cause long-term consequences.

Obtaining a sense of fullness is key to staving off overeating and excess caloric intake. However, it takes approximately 20 minutes for the stomach to alert the brain to feelings of fullness. Eat too quickly and the fullness signaling might not set in until you’ve consumed more calories than intended. Research links this habit to excess body weight.

The practice also can lead to gastrointestinal diseases over the long term because overeating causes food to remain in the stomach longer, thus prolonging the time that the gastric mucosa is exposed to gastric acids.

A study of 10,893 adults in Korea reported that those with the fastest eating speed (< 5 min/meal) had a 1.7 times greater likelihood of endoscopic erosive gastritis than those with the slowest times (≥ 15 min/meal). Faster eating also was linked to increased risk for functional dyspepsia in a study involving 89 young-adult female military cadets in Korea with relatively controlled eating patterns.

On the extreme end of the spectrum, researchers who performed an assessment of a competitive speed eater speculated that the observed physiological accommodation required for the role (expanding the stomach to form a large flaccid sac) makes speed eaters vulnerable to morbid obesity, gastroparesis, intractable nausea and vomiting, and the need for gastrectomy.

The risk for metabolic changes and eventual development of T2D also appear to be linked to how quickly food is consumed.

Two clinical studies conducted in Japan — a cohort study of 2050 male factory workers and a nationwide study with 197,825 participants — identified a significant association between faster eating and T2D and insulin resistance. A case-control study involving 234 patients with new onset T2D and 468 controls from Lithuania linked faster eating to a greater than twofold risk for T2D. And a Chinese cross-sectional study of 7972 adults indicated that faster eating significantly increased the risk for metabolic syndrome, elevated blood pressure, and central obesity in adults.

Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain why fast eating may upset metabolic processes, including a delayed sense of fullness contributing to spiking postprandial glucose levels, lack of time for mastication causing higher glucose concentrations, and the triggering of specific cytokines (eg, interleukin-1 beta and interleukin-6) that lead to insulin resistance. It is also possible that the association is the result of people who eat quickly having relatively higher body weights, which translates to a higher risk for T2D.

However, there’s an opportunity in the association of rapid meal consumption with gastrointestinal and metabolic diseases, as people can slow the speed at which they eat so they feel full before they overeat.

A 2019 study in which 21 participants were instructed to eat a 600-kcal meal at a “normal” or “slow” pace (6 minutes or 24 minutes) found that the latter group reported feeling fuller while consuming fewer calories.

This approach may not work for all patients, however. There’s evidence to suggest that tactics to slow down eating may not limit the energy intake of those who are already overweight or obese.

Patients with obesity may physiologically differ in their processing of food, according to Michael Camilleri, MD, consultant in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“We have demonstrated that about 20%-25% of people with obesity actually have rapid gastric emptying,” he told this news organization. “As a result, they don’t feel full after they eat a meal and that might impact the total volume of food that they eat before they really feel full.”

The Ideal Time to Eat

It’s not only the speed at which individuals eat that may influence outcomes but when they take their meals. Research indicates that eating earlier in the day to align meals with the body’s circadian rhythms in metabolism offers health benefits.

“The focus would be to eat a meal that syncs during those daytime hours,” Collin Popp, PhD, MS, RD, a research scientist at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York, told this news organization. “I typically suggest patients have their largest meal in the morning, whether that’s a large or medium-sized breakfast, or a big lunch.”

A recent cross-sectional study of 2050 participants found that having the largest meal at lunch protected against obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.71), whereas having it at dinner increased the risk for obesity (OR, 1.67) and led to higher body mass index.

Consuming the majority of calories in meals earlier in the day may have metabolic health benefits, as well.

A 2015 randomized controlled trial involving 18 adults with obesity and T2D found that eating a high-energy breakfast and a low-energy dinner leads to reduced hyperglycemia throughout the day compared with eating a low-energy breakfast and a high-energy dinner.

Time-restricted eating (TRE), a form of intermittent fasting, also can improve metabolic health depending on the time of day.

A 2023 meta-analysis found that TRE was more effective at reducing fasting glucose levels in participants who were overweight and obese if done earlier rather than later in the day. Similarly, a 2022 study involving 82 healthy patients without diabetes or obesity found that early TRE was more effective than mid-day TRE at improving insulin sensitivity and that it improved fasting glucose and reduced total body mass and adiposity, while mid-day TRE did not.

A study that analyzed the effects of TRE in eight adult men with overweight and prediabetes found “better insulin resistance when the window of food consumption was earlier in the day,» noted endocrinologist Beverly Tchang, MD, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine with a focus on obesity medication.

Patients May Benefit From Behavioral Interventions

Patients potentially negatively affected by eating too quickly or at late hours may benefit from adopting behavioral interventions to address these tendencies. To determine if a patient is a candidate for such interventions, Dr. Popp recommends starting with a simple conversation.

“When I first meet patients, I always ask them to describe to me a typical day for how they eat — when they’re eating, what they’re eating, the food quality, who are they with — to see if there’s social aspects to it. Then try and make the recommendations based on that,” said Dr. Popp, whose work focuses on biobehavioral interventions for the treatment and prevention of obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic outcomes.

Dr. Tchang said she encourages her patients to be mindful of hunger and fullness cues.

“Eat if you’re hungry; don’t force yourself to eat if you’re not hungry,” she said. “If you’re not sure whether you’re hungry or not, speak to a doctor because this points to an abnormality in your appetite-regulation system, which can be helped with GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide 1] receptor agonists.”

Adjusting what patients eat can help them improve their meal timing.

“For example, we know that a high-fiber diet or a diet that has a large amount of fat in it tends to empty from the stomach slower,” Dr. Camilleri said. “That might give a sensation of fullness that lasts longer and that might prevent, for instance, the ingestion of the next meal.”

Those trying to eat more slowly are advised to seek out foods that are hard in texture and minimally processed.

A study involving 50 patients with healthy weights found that hard foods are consumed more slowly than soft foods and that energy intake is lowest with hard, minimally processed foods. Combining hard-textured foods with explicit instructions to reduce eating speed has also been shown to be an effective strategy. For those inclined to seek out technology-based solution, evidence suggests that a self-monitoring wearable device can slow the eating rate.

Although the evidence is mounting that the timing and duration of meals have an impact on certain chronic diseases, clinicians should remember that these two factors are far from the most important contributors, Dr. Popp said.

“We also have to consider total caloric intake, food quality, sleep, alcohol use, smoking, and physical activity,” he said. “Meal timing should be considered as under the umbrella of health that is important for a lot of folks.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Hormone Therapy (HT) is a good option for most women over age 65, despite entrenched fears about HT safety, according to findings from a new study published in Menopause.

The study, led by Seo H. Baik, PhD, of Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, National Library of Medicine, in Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues is based on the health records of 10 million senior women on Medicare from 2007 to 2020. It concludes there are important health benefits with HT beyond age 65 and the effects of using HT after age 65 vary by type of therapy, route of administration, and dose.
 

Controversial Since Women’s Health Initiative

Use of HT after age 65 has been controversial in light of the findings of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study in 2002. Since that study, many women have decided against HT, especially after age 65, because of fears of increased risks for cancers and heart disease.

Baik et al. concluded that, compared with never using or stopping use of HT before the age of 65 years, the use of estrogen alone beyond age 65 years was associated with the following significant risk reductions: mortality (19%); breast cancer (16%); lung cancer (13%); colorectal cancer (12%); congestive heart failure (5%); venous thromboembolism (5%); atrial fibrillation (4%); acute myocardial infarction (11%); and dementia (2%).

The authors further found that estrogen plus progestin was associated with significant risk reductions in endometrial cancer (45%); ovarian cancer (21%); ischemic heart disease (5%); congestive heart failure (5%); and venous thromboembolism (5%).

Estrogen plus progesterone, however, was linked with risk reduction only in congestive heart failure (4%).

Reassuring Results

“These results should provide additional reassurance to women about hormone therapy,” said Lisa C, Larkin, MD, president of The Menopause Society. “This data is largely consistent with the WHI data as we understand it today — that for the majority of women with symptoms transitioning through menopause, hormone therapy is the most effective treatment and has benefits that outweigh risks.”

There may be some exceptions, she noted, particularly in older women with high risk for cardiovascular disease and stroke. Among those women, she explained, the risks of HT may outweigh the benefits and it may be appropriate to stop hormone therapy.

“In these older women with specific risk factors, the discussion of continuing or stopping HT is nuanced and complex and must involve shared decision-making,” she said.

Elevated Breast Cancer Risk Can be Mitigated

With a therapy combining estrogen and progestogen, both estrogen plus progestin and estrogen plus progesterone were associated with a 10%-19% increased risk of breast cancer, but the authors say that risk can be mitigated using low doses of transdermal or vaginal estrogen plus progestin.

“In general, risk reductions appear to be greater with low rather than medium or high doses, vaginal or transdermal rather than oral preparations, and with E2 (estradiol) rather than conjugated estrogen,” the authors write.

The authors report that over 14 years of follow-up (from 2007 to 2020), the proportion of senior women taking any HT-containing estrogen dropped by half, from 11.4% to 5.5%. E2 has largely replaced conjugated estrogen (CEE); and vaginal administration largely replaced oral.

Controversy Remains

Even with these results, hormone use will remain controversial, Dr. Larkin said, without enormous efforts to educate. Menopausal HT therapy in young 50-year-old women having symptoms is still controversial — despite the large body of evidence supporting safety and benefit in the majority of women, she said.

“For the last 25 years we have completely neglected education of clinicians about menopause and the data on hormone therapy,” she said. “As a result, most of the clinicians practicing do not understand the data and remain very negative about hormones even in younger women. The decades of lack of education of clinicians about menopause is one of the major reasons far too many young, healthy, 50-year-old women with symptoms are not getting the care they need [hormone therapy] at menopause.” Instead, she says, women are told to take supplements because some providers think hormone therapy is too dangerous.

Lauren Streicher, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, and founding director of the Northwestern Medical Center for Sexual Medicine and Menopause, both in Chicago, says, “In the WHI, 70% of the women were over the age of 65 when they initiated therapy, which partially accounts for the negative outcomes. In addition, in WHI, everyone was taking oral [HT]. This (current) data is very reassuring — and validating — for women who would like to continue taking HT.”

Dr. Streicher says women who would like to start HT after 65 should be counseled on individual risks and after cardiac health is evaluated. But, she notes, this study did not address that.

‘Best Time to Stop HT is When You Die’

She says in her practice she will counsel women who are on HT and would like to continue after age 65 the way she always has: “If someone is taking HT and has no specific reason to stop, there is no reason to stop at some arbitrary age or time and that if they do, they will lose many of the benefits,” particularly bone, cognitive, cardiovascular, and vulvovaginal benefits, she explained. “The best time to stop HT is when you die,” Dr. Streicher said, “And, given the reduction in mortality in women who take HT, that will be at a much older age than women who don’t take HT.”

So will these new data be convincing?

“It will convince the already convinced — menopause experts who follow the data. It is the rare menopause expert that tells women to stop HT,” Dr. Streicher said.

However, she said, “The overwhelming majority of clinicians in the US currently do not prescribe HT. Sadly, I don’t think this will change much.”

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Larkin consults for several women’s health companies including Mayne Pharma, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson, Grail, Pfizer, and Solv Wellness. Dr. Streicher reports no relevant financial relationships.

Hormone Therapy (HT) is a good option for most women over age 65, despite entrenched fears about HT safety, according to findings from a new study published in Menopause.

The study, led by Seo H. Baik, PhD, of Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, National Library of Medicine, in Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues is based on the health records of 10 million senior women on Medicare from 2007 to 2020. It concludes there are important health benefits with HT beyond age 65 and the effects of using HT after age 65 vary by type of therapy, route of administration, and dose.
 

Controversial Since Women’s Health Initiative

Use of HT after age 65 has been controversial in light of the findings of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study in 2002. Since that study, many women have decided against HT, especially after age 65, because of fears of increased risks for cancers and heart disease.

Baik et al. concluded that, compared with never using or stopping use of HT before the age of 65 years, the use of estrogen alone beyond age 65 years was associated with the following significant risk reductions: mortality (19%); breast cancer (16%); lung cancer (13%); colorectal cancer (12%); congestive heart failure (5%); venous thromboembolism (5%); atrial fibrillation (4%); acute myocardial infarction (11%); and dementia (2%).

The authors further found that estrogen plus progestin was associated with significant risk reductions in endometrial cancer (45%); ovarian cancer (21%); ischemic heart disease (5%); congestive heart failure (5%); and venous thromboembolism (5%).

Estrogen plus progesterone, however, was linked with risk reduction only in congestive heart failure (4%).

Reassuring Results

“These results should provide additional reassurance to women about hormone therapy,” said Lisa C, Larkin, MD, president of The Menopause Society. “This data is largely consistent with the WHI data as we understand it today — that for the majority of women with symptoms transitioning through menopause, hormone therapy is the most effective treatment and has benefits that outweigh risks.”

There may be some exceptions, she noted, particularly in older women with high risk for cardiovascular disease and stroke. Among those women, she explained, the risks of HT may outweigh the benefits and it may be appropriate to stop hormone therapy.

“In these older women with specific risk factors, the discussion of continuing or stopping HT is nuanced and complex and must involve shared decision-making,” she said.

Elevated Breast Cancer Risk Can be Mitigated

With a therapy combining estrogen and progestogen, both estrogen plus progestin and estrogen plus progesterone were associated with a 10%-19% increased risk of breast cancer, but the authors say that risk can be mitigated using low doses of transdermal or vaginal estrogen plus progestin.

“In general, risk reductions appear to be greater with low rather than medium or high doses, vaginal or transdermal rather than oral preparations, and with E2 (estradiol) rather than conjugated estrogen,” the authors write.

The authors report that over 14 years of follow-up (from 2007 to 2020), the proportion of senior women taking any HT-containing estrogen dropped by half, from 11.4% to 5.5%. E2 has largely replaced conjugated estrogen (CEE); and vaginal administration largely replaced oral.

Controversy Remains

Even with these results, hormone use will remain controversial, Dr. Larkin said, without enormous efforts to educate. Menopausal HT therapy in young 50-year-old women having symptoms is still controversial — despite the large body of evidence supporting safety and benefit in the majority of women, she said.

“For the last 25 years we have completely neglected education of clinicians about menopause and the data on hormone therapy,” she said. “As a result, most of the clinicians practicing do not understand the data and remain very negative about hormones even in younger women. The decades of lack of education of clinicians about menopause is one of the major reasons far too many young, healthy, 50-year-old women with symptoms are not getting the care they need [hormone therapy] at menopause.” Instead, she says, women are told to take supplements because some providers think hormone therapy is too dangerous.

Lauren Streicher, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, and founding director of the Northwestern Medical Center for Sexual Medicine and Menopause, both in Chicago, says, “In the WHI, 70% of the women were over the age of 65 when they initiated therapy, which partially accounts for the negative outcomes. In addition, in WHI, everyone was taking oral [HT]. This (current) data is very reassuring — and validating — for women who would like to continue taking HT.”

Dr. Streicher says women who would like to start HT after 65 should be counseled on individual risks and after cardiac health is evaluated. But, she notes, this study did not address that.

‘Best Time to Stop HT is When You Die’

She says in her practice she will counsel women who are on HT and would like to continue after age 65 the way she always has: “If someone is taking HT and has no specific reason to stop, there is no reason to stop at some arbitrary age or time and that if they do, they will lose many of the benefits,” particularly bone, cognitive, cardiovascular, and vulvovaginal benefits, she explained. “The best time to stop HT is when you die,” Dr. Streicher said, “And, given the reduction in mortality in women who take HT, that will be at a much older age than women who don’t take HT.”

So will these new data be convincing?

“It will convince the already convinced — menopause experts who follow the data. It is the rare menopause expert that tells women to stop HT,” Dr. Streicher said.

However, she said, “The overwhelming majority of clinicians in the US currently do not prescribe HT. Sadly, I don’t think this will change much.”

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Larkin consults for several women’s health companies including Mayne Pharma, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson, Grail, Pfizer, and Solv Wellness. Dr. Streicher reports no relevant financial relationships.

Hormone Therapy (HT) is a good option for most women over age 65, despite entrenched fears about HT safety, according to findings from a new study published in Menopause.

The study, led by Seo H. Baik, PhD, of Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, National Library of Medicine, in Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues is based on the health records of 10 million senior women on Medicare from 2007 to 2020. It concludes there are important health benefits with HT beyond age 65 and the effects of using HT after age 65 vary by type of therapy, route of administration, and dose.
 

Controversial Since Women’s Health Initiative

Use of HT after age 65 has been controversial in light of the findings of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study in 2002. Since that study, many women have decided against HT, especially after age 65, because of fears of increased risks for cancers and heart disease.

Baik et al. concluded that, compared with never using or stopping use of HT before the age of 65 years, the use of estrogen alone beyond age 65 years was associated with the following significant risk reductions: mortality (19%); breast cancer (16%); lung cancer (13%); colorectal cancer (12%); congestive heart failure (5%); venous thromboembolism (5%); atrial fibrillation (4%); acute myocardial infarction (11%); and dementia (2%).

The authors further found that estrogen plus progestin was associated with significant risk reductions in endometrial cancer (45%); ovarian cancer (21%); ischemic heart disease (5%); congestive heart failure (5%); and venous thromboembolism (5%).

Estrogen plus progesterone, however, was linked with risk reduction only in congestive heart failure (4%).

Reassuring Results

“These results should provide additional reassurance to women about hormone therapy,” said Lisa C, Larkin, MD, president of The Menopause Society. “This data is largely consistent with the WHI data as we understand it today — that for the majority of women with symptoms transitioning through menopause, hormone therapy is the most effective treatment and has benefits that outweigh risks.”

There may be some exceptions, she noted, particularly in older women with high risk for cardiovascular disease and stroke. Among those women, she explained, the risks of HT may outweigh the benefits and it may be appropriate to stop hormone therapy.

“In these older women with specific risk factors, the discussion of continuing or stopping HT is nuanced and complex and must involve shared decision-making,” she said.

Elevated Breast Cancer Risk Can be Mitigated

With a therapy combining estrogen and progestogen, both estrogen plus progestin and estrogen plus progesterone were associated with a 10%-19% increased risk of breast cancer, but the authors say that risk can be mitigated using low doses of transdermal or vaginal estrogen plus progestin.

“In general, risk reductions appear to be greater with low rather than medium or high doses, vaginal or transdermal rather than oral preparations, and with E2 (estradiol) rather than conjugated estrogen,” the authors write.

The authors report that over 14 years of follow-up (from 2007 to 2020), the proportion of senior women taking any HT-containing estrogen dropped by half, from 11.4% to 5.5%. E2 has largely replaced conjugated estrogen (CEE); and vaginal administration largely replaced oral.

Controversy Remains

Even with these results, hormone use will remain controversial, Dr. Larkin said, without enormous efforts to educate. Menopausal HT therapy in young 50-year-old women having symptoms is still controversial — despite the large body of evidence supporting safety and benefit in the majority of women, she said.

“For the last 25 years we have completely neglected education of clinicians about menopause and the data on hormone therapy,” she said. “As a result, most of the clinicians practicing do not understand the data and remain very negative about hormones even in younger women. The decades of lack of education of clinicians about menopause is one of the major reasons far too many young, healthy, 50-year-old women with symptoms are not getting the care they need [hormone therapy] at menopause.” Instead, she says, women are told to take supplements because some providers think hormone therapy is too dangerous.

Lauren Streicher, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, and founding director of the Northwestern Medical Center for Sexual Medicine and Menopause, both in Chicago, says, “In the WHI, 70% of the women were over the age of 65 when they initiated therapy, which partially accounts for the negative outcomes. In addition, in WHI, everyone was taking oral [HT]. This (current) data is very reassuring — and validating — for women who would like to continue taking HT.”

Dr. Streicher says women who would like to start HT after 65 should be counseled on individual risks and after cardiac health is evaluated. But, she notes, this study did not address that.

‘Best Time to Stop HT is When You Die’

She says in her practice she will counsel women who are on HT and would like to continue after age 65 the way she always has: “If someone is taking HT and has no specific reason to stop, there is no reason to stop at some arbitrary age or time and that if they do, they will lose many of the benefits,” particularly bone, cognitive, cardiovascular, and vulvovaginal benefits, she explained. “The best time to stop HT is when you die,” Dr. Streicher said, “And, given the reduction in mortality in women who take HT, that will be at a much older age than women who don’t take HT.”

So will these new data be convincing?

“It will convince the already convinced — menopause experts who follow the data. It is the rare menopause expert that tells women to stop HT,” Dr. Streicher said.

However, she said, “The overwhelming majority of clinicians in the US currently do not prescribe HT. Sadly, I don’t think this will change much.”

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Larkin consults for several women’s health companies including Mayne Pharma, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson, Grail, Pfizer, and Solv Wellness. Dr. Streicher reports no relevant financial relationships.

A rigorously conducted trial in men with androgenetic alopecia found that low-dose oral minoxidil was as effective in promoting hair growth as was topical minoxidil.

Oral minoxidil, 5 mg once a day, “did not demonstrate superiority” over topical minoxidil, 5%, applied twice a day, after 24 weeks, reported Mariana Alvares Penha, MD, of the department of dermatology at São Paulo State University, in Botucatu, Brazil, and coauthors. Their randomized, controlled, double-blind study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Topical minoxidil is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for androgenetic alopecia (AGA), but there has been increasing interest worldwide in the use of low-dose oral minoxidil, a vasodilator approved as an antihypertensive, as an alternative treatment.

The trial “is important information that’s never been elucidated before,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. The data, he added, can be used to reassure patients who do not want to take the oral form of the drug that a topical is just as effective.

“This study does let us counsel patients better and really give them the evidence,” said Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was also asked to comment on the results.

Both Dr. Lipner and Dr. Friedman said the study was well-designed.

The investigators enrolled 90 men aged 18-55; 68 completed the trial. Most had mild to moderate AGA. Men were excluded if they had received treatment for alopecia in the previous 6 months, a history of hair transplant, cardiopathy, nephropathy, dermatoses involving the scalp, any clinical conditions causing hair loss, or hypersensitivity to minoxidil.

They were randomized to receive either 5 mg of oral minoxidil a day, plus a placebo solution to apply to the scalp, or topical minoxidil solution (5%) applied twice a day plus placebo capsules. They were told to take a capsule at bedtime and to apply 1 mL of the solution to dry hair in the morning and at night.

The final analysis included 35 men in the topical group and 33 in the oral group (mean age, 36.6 years). Seven people in the topical group and 11 in the oral group were not able to attend the final appointment at 24 weeks. Three additional patients in the topical group dropped out for insomnia, hair shedding, and scalp eczema, while one dropped out of the oral group because of headache.

At 24 weeks, the percentage increase in terminal hair density in the oral minoxidil group was 27% higher (P = .005) in the vertex and 13% higher (P = .15) in the frontal scalp, compared with the topical-treated group.

Total hair density increased by 2% in the oral group compared with topical treatment in the vertex and decreased by 0.2% in the frontal area compared with topical treatment. None of these differences were statistically significant.

Three dermatologists blinded to the treatments, who analyzed photographs, determined that 60% of the men in the oral group and 48% in the topical group had clinical improvement in the frontal area, which was not statistically significant. More orally-treated patients had improvement in the vertex area: 70% compared with 46% of those on topical treatment (P = .04).

Hypertrichosis, Headache

Of the original 90 patients in the trial, more men taking oral minoxidil had hypertrichosis: 49% compared with 25% in the topical formulation group. Headache was also more common among those on oral minoxidil: six cases (14%) vs. one case (2%) among those on topical minoxidil. There was no difference in mean arterial blood pressure or resting heart rate between the two groups. Transient hair loss was more common with topical treatment, but it was not significant.

Dr. Friedman said that the study results would not change how he practices, but that it would give him data to use to inform patients who do not want to take oral minoxidil. He generally prescribes the oral form, unless patients do not want to take it or there is a medical contraindication, which he said is rare.

“I personally think oral is superior to topical,” mainly “because the patient’s actually using it,” said Dr. Friedman. “They’re more likely to take a pill a day versus apply something topically twice a day,” he added.

Both Dr. Lipner and Dr. Friedman said that they doubted that individuals could — or would want to — follow the twice-daily topical regimen used in the trial.

“In real life, not in the clinical trial scenario, it may be very hard for patients to comply with putting on the topical minoxidil twice a day or even once a day,” Dr. Lipner said.

However, she continues to prescribe more topical minoxidil than oral, because she believes “there’s less potential for side effects.” For patients who can adhere to the topical regimen, the study shows that they will get results, said Dr. Lipner.

Dr. Friedman, however, said that for patients who are looking at a lifetime of medication, “an oral will always win out on a topical to the scalp from an adherence perspective.”

The study was supported by the Brazilian Dermatology Society Support Fund. Dr. Penha reported receiving grants from the fund; no other disclosures were reported. Dr. Friedman and Dr. Lipner reported no conflicts related to minoxidil.

A rigorously conducted trial in men with androgenetic alopecia found that low-dose oral minoxidil was as effective in promoting hair growth as was topical minoxidil.

Oral minoxidil, 5 mg once a day, “did not demonstrate superiority” over topical minoxidil, 5%, applied twice a day, after 24 weeks, reported Mariana Alvares Penha, MD, of the department of dermatology at São Paulo State University, in Botucatu, Brazil, and coauthors. Their randomized, controlled, double-blind study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Topical minoxidil is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for androgenetic alopecia (AGA), but there has been increasing interest worldwide in the use of low-dose oral minoxidil, a vasodilator approved as an antihypertensive, as an alternative treatment.

The trial “is important information that’s never been elucidated before,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. The data, he added, can be used to reassure patients who do not want to take the oral form of the drug that a topical is just as effective.

“This study does let us counsel patients better and really give them the evidence,” said Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was also asked to comment on the results.

Both Dr. Lipner and Dr. Friedman said the study was well-designed.

The investigators enrolled 90 men aged 18-55; 68 completed the trial. Most had mild to moderate AGA. Men were excluded if they had received treatment for alopecia in the previous 6 months, a history of hair transplant, cardiopathy, nephropathy, dermatoses involving the scalp, any clinical conditions causing hair loss, or hypersensitivity to minoxidil.

They were randomized to receive either 5 mg of oral minoxidil a day, plus a placebo solution to apply to the scalp, or topical minoxidil solution (5%) applied twice a day plus placebo capsules. They were told to take a capsule at bedtime and to apply 1 mL of the solution to dry hair in the morning and at night.

The final analysis included 35 men in the topical group and 33 in the oral group (mean age, 36.6 years). Seven people in the topical group and 11 in the oral group were not able to attend the final appointment at 24 weeks. Three additional patients in the topical group dropped out for insomnia, hair shedding, and scalp eczema, while one dropped out of the oral group because of headache.

At 24 weeks, the percentage increase in terminal hair density in the oral minoxidil group was 27% higher (P = .005) in the vertex and 13% higher (P = .15) in the frontal scalp, compared with the topical-treated group.

Total hair density increased by 2% in the oral group compared with topical treatment in the vertex and decreased by 0.2% in the frontal area compared with topical treatment. None of these differences were statistically significant.

Three dermatologists blinded to the treatments, who analyzed photographs, determined that 60% of the men in the oral group and 48% in the topical group had clinical improvement in the frontal area, which was not statistically significant. More orally-treated patients had improvement in the vertex area: 70% compared with 46% of those on topical treatment (P = .04).

Hypertrichosis, Headache

Of the original 90 patients in the trial, more men taking oral minoxidil had hypertrichosis: 49% compared with 25% in the topical formulation group. Headache was also more common among those on oral minoxidil: six cases (14%) vs. one case (2%) among those on topical minoxidil. There was no difference in mean arterial blood pressure or resting heart rate between the two groups. Transient hair loss was more common with topical treatment, but it was not significant.

Dr. Friedman said that the study results would not change how he practices, but that it would give him data to use to inform patients who do not want to take oral minoxidil. He generally prescribes the oral form, unless patients do not want to take it or there is a medical contraindication, which he said is rare.

“I personally think oral is superior to topical,” mainly “because the patient’s actually using it,” said Dr. Friedman. “They’re more likely to take a pill a day versus apply something topically twice a day,” he added.

Both Dr. Lipner and Dr. Friedman said that they doubted that individuals could — or would want to — follow the twice-daily topical regimen used in the trial.

“In real life, not in the clinical trial scenario, it may be very hard for patients to comply with putting on the topical minoxidil twice a day or even once a day,” Dr. Lipner said.

However, she continues to prescribe more topical minoxidil than oral, because she believes “there’s less potential for side effects.” For patients who can adhere to the topical regimen, the study shows that they will get results, said Dr. Lipner.

Dr. Friedman, however, said that for patients who are looking at a lifetime of medication, “an oral will always win out on a topical to the scalp from an adherence perspective.”

The study was supported by the Brazilian Dermatology Society Support Fund. Dr. Penha reported receiving grants from the fund; no other disclosures were reported. Dr. Friedman and Dr. Lipner reported no conflicts related to minoxidil.

A rigorously conducted trial in men with androgenetic alopecia found that low-dose oral minoxidil was as effective in promoting hair growth as was topical minoxidil.

Oral minoxidil, 5 mg once a day, “did not demonstrate superiority” over topical minoxidil, 5%, applied twice a day, after 24 weeks, reported Mariana Alvares Penha, MD, of the department of dermatology at São Paulo State University, in Botucatu, Brazil, and coauthors. Their randomized, controlled, double-blind study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Topical minoxidil is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for androgenetic alopecia (AGA), but there has been increasing interest worldwide in the use of low-dose oral minoxidil, a vasodilator approved as an antihypertensive, as an alternative treatment.

The trial “is important information that’s never been elucidated before,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. The data, he added, can be used to reassure patients who do not want to take the oral form of the drug that a topical is just as effective.

“This study does let us counsel patients better and really give them the evidence,” said Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was also asked to comment on the results.

Both Dr. Lipner and Dr. Friedman said the study was well-designed.

The investigators enrolled 90 men aged 18-55; 68 completed the trial. Most had mild to moderate AGA. Men were excluded if they had received treatment for alopecia in the previous 6 months, a history of hair transplant, cardiopathy, nephropathy, dermatoses involving the scalp, any clinical conditions causing hair loss, or hypersensitivity to minoxidil.

They were randomized to receive either 5 mg of oral minoxidil a day, plus a placebo solution to apply to the scalp, or topical minoxidil solution (5%) applied twice a day plus placebo capsules. They were told to take a capsule at bedtime and to apply 1 mL of the solution to dry hair in the morning and at night.

The final analysis included 35 men in the topical group and 33 in the oral group (mean age, 36.6 years). Seven people in the topical group and 11 in the oral group were not able to attend the final appointment at 24 weeks. Three additional patients in the topical group dropped out for insomnia, hair shedding, and scalp eczema, while one dropped out of the oral group because of headache.

At 24 weeks, the percentage increase in terminal hair density in the oral minoxidil group was 27% higher (P = .005) in the vertex and 13% higher (P = .15) in the frontal scalp, compared with the topical-treated group.

Total hair density increased by 2% in the oral group compared with topical treatment in the vertex and decreased by 0.2% in the frontal area compared with topical treatment. None of these differences were statistically significant.

Three dermatologists blinded to the treatments, who analyzed photographs, determined that 60% of the men in the oral group and 48% in the topical group had clinical improvement in the frontal area, which was not statistically significant. More orally-treated patients had improvement in the vertex area: 70% compared with 46% of those on topical treatment (P = .04).

Hypertrichosis, Headache

Of the original 90 patients in the trial, more men taking oral minoxidil had hypertrichosis: 49% compared with 25% in the topical formulation group. Headache was also more common among those on oral minoxidil: six cases (14%) vs. one case (2%) among those on topical minoxidil. There was no difference in mean arterial blood pressure or resting heart rate between the two groups. Transient hair loss was more common with topical treatment, but it was not significant.

Dr. Friedman said that the study results would not change how he practices, but that it would give him data to use to inform patients who do not want to take oral minoxidil. He generally prescribes the oral form, unless patients do not want to take it or there is a medical contraindication, which he said is rare.

“I personally think oral is superior to topical,” mainly “because the patient’s actually using it,” said Dr. Friedman. “They’re more likely to take a pill a day versus apply something topically twice a day,” he added.

Both Dr. Lipner and Dr. Friedman said that they doubted that individuals could — or would want to — follow the twice-daily topical regimen used in the trial.

“In real life, not in the clinical trial scenario, it may be very hard for patients to comply with putting on the topical minoxidil twice a day or even once a day,” Dr. Lipner said.

However, she continues to prescribe more topical minoxidil than oral, because she believes “there’s less potential for side effects.” For patients who can adhere to the topical regimen, the study shows that they will get results, said Dr. Lipner.

Dr. Friedman, however, said that for patients who are looking at a lifetime of medication, “an oral will always win out on a topical to the scalp from an adherence perspective.”

The study was supported by the Brazilian Dermatology Society Support Fund. Dr. Penha reported receiving grants from the fund; no other disclosures were reported. Dr. Friedman and Dr. Lipner reported no conflicts related to minoxidil.

SAN DIEGO — A liquid biopsy assay that combines a microRNA signature and a well-known biomarker for pancreatic cancer has demonstrated an accuracy of 97% for detecting stage I/II pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the most common type of pancreatic cancer.

It is quite encouraging to know we have a blood test that could potentially find this disease early, said Ajay Goel, PhD, a molecular diagnostics specialist at City of Hope in Duarte, California, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

Dr. Goel and colleagues developed a signature for pancreatic cancer based on microRNAs identified in the exomes shed from pancreatic cancers and cell-free DNA markers found in the blood of patients with the disease.

Their initial assay tested blood samples for this signature in a training cohort of 252 people in Japan, approximately 60% of whom had pancreatic cancer. The rest were healthy controls. The assay was then tested in validation cohorts of 400 subjects, half with pancreatic cancer and half controls, in China and South Korea.

In both the initial and validation tests, the microRNA assay had an accuracy of about 90% for stage I/II pancreatic cancer, already far better than commercially available assays.

In an additional validation cohort in the United States with 139 patients with pancreatic cancer and 193 controls at six centers across the country, the researchers found that adding carbohydrate antigen 19-9 — a well-known marker of pancreatic cancer — to the assay boosted the test’s accuracy to 97%.

The test performed the same whether the tumor was in the head or tail of the pancreas.

“We are very excited about this data,” said Dr. Goel.

The technology was recently licensed to Pharus Diagnostics for commercial development, which will likely include a prospective screening trial, he told this news organization.

Because pancreatic cancer is fairly uncommon, Dr. Goel did not anticipate the test being used for general screening but rather for screening high-risk patients such as those with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, a family history of pancreatic cancer, or predisposing genetic mutations.

“It should be a very inexpensive test; it doesn’t cost us much to do in the lab,” he added.

Study moderator Ryan Corcoran, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal (GI) oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, saw the potential.

“As a GI oncologist, I know how lethal and hard to treat pancreatic cancer is,” he said. A test that could reliably detect pancreatic cancer early, with an acceptable false-positive rate, would be extremely useful.

“The cure rate is many, many times higher,” if we detect it before it has a chance to spread, he explained.

In the meantime, Dr. Goel said there’s more work to be done.

Almost 4,000 subjects have been enrolled in ongoing validation efforts, and efforts are underway to use the test to screen thousands of banked blood samples from the PLCO, a prospective cancer screening trial in healthy subjects.

The researchers also want to see if the test can distinguish benign pancreatic cysts from ones that turn cancerous.

The idea is to find the earliest possible signs of this disease to see if we can find it not “at the moment of clinical diagnosis, but possibly 6 months, 1 year, 2 years earlier” than with radiologic imaging, Dr. Goel said.

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Goel is a consultant for Pharus Diagnostics and Cellomics. Dr. Corcoran is a consultant for, has grants from, and/or holds stock in numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Revolution Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A liquid biopsy assay that combines a microRNA signature and a well-known biomarker for pancreatic cancer has demonstrated an accuracy of 97% for detecting stage I/II pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the most common type of pancreatic cancer.

It is quite encouraging to know we have a blood test that could potentially find this disease early, said Ajay Goel, PhD, a molecular diagnostics specialist at City of Hope in Duarte, California, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

Dr. Goel and colleagues developed a signature for pancreatic cancer based on microRNAs identified in the exomes shed from pancreatic cancers and cell-free DNA markers found in the blood of patients with the disease.

Their initial assay tested blood samples for this signature in a training cohort of 252 people in Japan, approximately 60% of whom had pancreatic cancer. The rest were healthy controls. The assay was then tested in validation cohorts of 400 subjects, half with pancreatic cancer and half controls, in China and South Korea.

In both the initial and validation tests, the microRNA assay had an accuracy of about 90% for stage I/II pancreatic cancer, already far better than commercially available assays.

In an additional validation cohort in the United States with 139 patients with pancreatic cancer and 193 controls at six centers across the country, the researchers found that adding carbohydrate antigen 19-9 — a well-known marker of pancreatic cancer — to the assay boosted the test’s accuracy to 97%.

The test performed the same whether the tumor was in the head or tail of the pancreas.

“We are very excited about this data,” said Dr. Goel.

The technology was recently licensed to Pharus Diagnostics for commercial development, which will likely include a prospective screening trial, he told this news organization.

Because pancreatic cancer is fairly uncommon, Dr. Goel did not anticipate the test being used for general screening but rather for screening high-risk patients such as those with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, a family history of pancreatic cancer, or predisposing genetic mutations.

“It should be a very inexpensive test; it doesn’t cost us much to do in the lab,” he added.

Study moderator Ryan Corcoran, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal (GI) oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, saw the potential.

“As a GI oncologist, I know how lethal and hard to treat pancreatic cancer is,” he said. A test that could reliably detect pancreatic cancer early, with an acceptable false-positive rate, would be extremely useful.

“The cure rate is many, many times higher,” if we detect it before it has a chance to spread, he explained.

In the meantime, Dr. Goel said there’s more work to be done.

Almost 4,000 subjects have been enrolled in ongoing validation efforts, and efforts are underway to use the test to screen thousands of banked blood samples from the PLCO, a prospective cancer screening trial in healthy subjects.

The researchers also want to see if the test can distinguish benign pancreatic cysts from ones that turn cancerous.

The idea is to find the earliest possible signs of this disease to see if we can find it not “at the moment of clinical diagnosis, but possibly 6 months, 1 year, 2 years earlier” than with radiologic imaging, Dr. Goel said.

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Goel is a consultant for Pharus Diagnostics and Cellomics. Dr. Corcoran is a consultant for, has grants from, and/or holds stock in numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Revolution Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A liquid biopsy assay that combines a microRNA signature and a well-known biomarker for pancreatic cancer has demonstrated an accuracy of 97% for detecting stage I/II pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the most common type of pancreatic cancer.

It is quite encouraging to know we have a blood test that could potentially find this disease early, said Ajay Goel, PhD, a molecular diagnostics specialist at City of Hope in Duarte, California, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

Dr. Goel and colleagues developed a signature for pancreatic cancer based on microRNAs identified in the exomes shed from pancreatic cancers and cell-free DNA markers found in the blood of patients with the disease.

Their initial assay tested blood samples for this signature in a training cohort of 252 people in Japan, approximately 60% of whom had pancreatic cancer. The rest were healthy controls. The assay was then tested in validation cohorts of 400 subjects, half with pancreatic cancer and half controls, in China and South Korea.

In both the initial and validation tests, the microRNA assay had an accuracy of about 90% for stage I/II pancreatic cancer, already far better than commercially available assays.

In an additional validation cohort in the United States with 139 patients with pancreatic cancer and 193 controls at six centers across the country, the researchers found that adding carbohydrate antigen 19-9 — a well-known marker of pancreatic cancer — to the assay boosted the test’s accuracy to 97%.

The test performed the same whether the tumor was in the head or tail of the pancreas.

“We are very excited about this data,” said Dr. Goel.

The technology was recently licensed to Pharus Diagnostics for commercial development, which will likely include a prospective screening trial, he told this news organization.

Because pancreatic cancer is fairly uncommon, Dr. Goel did not anticipate the test being used for general screening but rather for screening high-risk patients such as those with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, a family history of pancreatic cancer, or predisposing genetic mutations.

“It should be a very inexpensive test; it doesn’t cost us much to do in the lab,” he added.

Study moderator Ryan Corcoran, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal (GI) oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, saw the potential.

“As a GI oncologist, I know how lethal and hard to treat pancreatic cancer is,” he said. A test that could reliably detect pancreatic cancer early, with an acceptable false-positive rate, would be extremely useful.

“The cure rate is many, many times higher,” if we detect it before it has a chance to spread, he explained.

In the meantime, Dr. Goel said there’s more work to be done.

Almost 4,000 subjects have been enrolled in ongoing validation efforts, and efforts are underway to use the test to screen thousands of banked blood samples from the PLCO, a prospective cancer screening trial in healthy subjects.

The researchers also want to see if the test can distinguish benign pancreatic cysts from ones that turn cancerous.

The idea is to find the earliest possible signs of this disease to see if we can find it not “at the moment of clinical diagnosis, but possibly 6 months, 1 year, 2 years earlier” than with radiologic imaging, Dr. Goel said.

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Goel is a consultant for Pharus Diagnostics and Cellomics. Dr. Corcoran is a consultant for, has grants from, and/or holds stock in numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Revolution Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Statins raise the risks for increased glucose levels and the development of type 2 diabetes among people who don’t have it at baseline, but those risks are outweighed by the cardiovascular benefit, new data suggested.

The findings come from an analysis of individual participant data from a total of 23 randomized trials of statin therapy involving 154,664 individuals. In people without diabetes at baseline, statin therapy produces a dose-dependent increase in the risk for diabetes diagnosis, particularly among those whose glycemia marker levels are already at the diagnostic threshold.

Statins also tend to raise glucose levels in people who already have diabetes, but “the diabetes-related risks arising from the small changes in glycemia resulting from statin therapy are greatly outweighed by the benefits of statins on major vascular events when the direct clinical consequences of these outcomes are taken into consideration,” wrote the authors of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration in their paper, published online in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Moreover, they say, “since the effect of statin therapy on measures of glycemia within an individual is small, there is likely to be little clinical benefit in measuring glucose concentrations and A1c values routinely after starting statin therapy with the aim of making comparisons to values taken before the initiation of a statin. However, people should continue to be screened for diabetes and associated risk factors and have their glycemic control monitored in accordance with current clinical guidelines.”

The CTT is co-led by Christina Reith, MBChB, PhD, and David Preiss, PhD, FRCPath, MRCP, both of the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, England.

In an accompanying editorial, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, and Marie Pigeyre, MD, PhD, both of McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, noted that the decreased absolute annual incidence of life-threatening cardiovascular outcomes with statins in people at high risk for type 2 diabetes “clearly exceeds the 0.1%-1.3% per year increased absolute incidence of type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Gerstein and Dr. Pigeyre also said “these findings emphasize the importance of holistic care. As people at risk for cardiovascular outcomes are also at risk for type 2 diabetes, any prescription of a statin should be accompanied by promoting proven strategies to prevent or delay diabetes, such as modest weight reduction and increased physical activity. Finally, these findings emphasize the importance of always being alert for harmful adverse effects, even with the most beneficial and successful preventive therapies.”
 

Statins Raise Diabetes Risk, Glucose Levels Slightly

The meta-analysis of trials in the CTT Collaboration included individual participant data from 19 double-blind randomized, controlled trials with a median follow-up of 4.3 years comparing statins with placebo in a total of 123,940 participants, including 18% who had known type 2 diabetes at randomization. Also analyzed were another four double-blind trials of lower- vs higher-intensity statins involving a total of 30,724 participants followed for a median of 4.9 years, with 15% having diabetes at baseline.

In the 19 trials of low- or moderate-intensity statins vs placebo, statins resulted in a significant 10% increase in new-onset diabetes compared with placebo (rate ratio, 1.10), while high-intensity statins raised the risk by an also significant 36% (1.36). This translated to a mean absolute excess of 0.12% per year of treatment.

Compared with less intensive statin therapy, more intensive statin therapy resulted in a significant 10% proportional increase in new-onset diabetes (1.10), giving an absolute annual excess of 0.22%.

In the statin vs placebo trials, differences in A1c values from placebo were 0.06 percentage points higher for low- or moderate-intensity statins and 0.08 points greater for high-intensity statins.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of the excess cases of new-onset diabetes occurred among participants in the highest quarter of the baseline glycemia distribution for both low-intensity or moderate-intensity and high-intensity statin therapy.

And among participants who already had diabetes at baseline, there was a significant 10% relative increase in worsening glycemia (defined by adverse glycemic event, A1c increase of ≥ 0.5 percentage points, or medication escalation) with low- or moderate-intensity statins compared with placebo and a 24% relative increase in the high-intensity trials.

The Nuffield Department of Population Health has an explicit policy of not accepting any personal honoraria payments directly or indirectly from the pharmaceutical and food industries. It seeks reimbursement to the University of Oxford for the costs of travel and accommodation to participate in scientific meetings. Dr. Reith reported receiving funding to the University of Oxford from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and holding unpaid roles on the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium as a board member and WHO as a scientific advisor. Dr. Preiss reported receiving funding to his research institution (but no personal funding) from Novartis for the ORION 4 trial of inclisiran, Novo Nordisk for the ASCEND PLUS trial of semaglutide, and Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly for the EMPA-KIDNEY trial and being a committee member for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline.

Dr. Gerstein holds the McMaster-Sanofi Population Health Institute Chair in Diabetes Research and Care. He reported research grants from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Hanmi, and Merck; continuing medical education grants to McMaster University from Eli Lilly, Abbott, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, DKSH, Zuellig Pharma, Sanofi, and Jiangsu Hanson; and consulting fees from Abbott, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Carbon Brand, Sanofi, Kowa, and Hanmi. Pigeyre had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Statins raise the risks for increased glucose levels and the development of type 2 diabetes among people who don’t have it at baseline, but those risks are outweighed by the cardiovascular benefit, new data suggested.

The findings come from an analysis of individual participant data from a total of 23 randomized trials of statin therapy involving 154,664 individuals. In people without diabetes at baseline, statin therapy produces a dose-dependent increase in the risk for diabetes diagnosis, particularly among those whose glycemia marker levels are already at the diagnostic threshold.

Statins also tend to raise glucose levels in people who already have diabetes, but “the diabetes-related risks arising from the small changes in glycemia resulting from statin therapy are greatly outweighed by the benefits of statins on major vascular events when the direct clinical consequences of these outcomes are taken into consideration,” wrote the authors of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration in their paper, published online in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Moreover, they say, “since the effect of statin therapy on measures of glycemia within an individual is small, there is likely to be little clinical benefit in measuring glucose concentrations and A1c values routinely after starting statin therapy with the aim of making comparisons to values taken before the initiation of a statin. However, people should continue to be screened for diabetes and associated risk factors and have their glycemic control monitored in accordance with current clinical guidelines.”

The CTT is co-led by Christina Reith, MBChB, PhD, and David Preiss, PhD, FRCPath, MRCP, both of the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, England.

In an accompanying editorial, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, and Marie Pigeyre, MD, PhD, both of McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, noted that the decreased absolute annual incidence of life-threatening cardiovascular outcomes with statins in people at high risk for type 2 diabetes “clearly exceeds the 0.1%-1.3% per year increased absolute incidence of type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Gerstein and Dr. Pigeyre also said “these findings emphasize the importance of holistic care. As people at risk for cardiovascular outcomes are also at risk for type 2 diabetes, any prescription of a statin should be accompanied by promoting proven strategies to prevent or delay diabetes, such as modest weight reduction and increased physical activity. Finally, these findings emphasize the importance of always being alert for harmful adverse effects, even with the most beneficial and successful preventive therapies.”
 

Statins Raise Diabetes Risk, Glucose Levels Slightly

The meta-analysis of trials in the CTT Collaboration included individual participant data from 19 double-blind randomized, controlled trials with a median follow-up of 4.3 years comparing statins with placebo in a total of 123,940 participants, including 18% who had known type 2 diabetes at randomization. Also analyzed were another four double-blind trials of lower- vs higher-intensity statins involving a total of 30,724 participants followed for a median of 4.9 years, with 15% having diabetes at baseline.

In the 19 trials of low- or moderate-intensity statins vs placebo, statins resulted in a significant 10% increase in new-onset diabetes compared with placebo (rate ratio, 1.10), while high-intensity statins raised the risk by an also significant 36% (1.36). This translated to a mean absolute excess of 0.12% per year of treatment.

Compared with less intensive statin therapy, more intensive statin therapy resulted in a significant 10% proportional increase in new-onset diabetes (1.10), giving an absolute annual excess of 0.22%.

In the statin vs placebo trials, differences in A1c values from placebo were 0.06 percentage points higher for low- or moderate-intensity statins and 0.08 points greater for high-intensity statins.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of the excess cases of new-onset diabetes occurred among participants in the highest quarter of the baseline glycemia distribution for both low-intensity or moderate-intensity and high-intensity statin therapy.

And among participants who already had diabetes at baseline, there was a significant 10% relative increase in worsening glycemia (defined by adverse glycemic event, A1c increase of ≥ 0.5 percentage points, or medication escalation) with low- or moderate-intensity statins compared with placebo and a 24% relative increase in the high-intensity trials.

The Nuffield Department of Population Health has an explicit policy of not accepting any personal honoraria payments directly or indirectly from the pharmaceutical and food industries. It seeks reimbursement to the University of Oxford for the costs of travel and accommodation to participate in scientific meetings. Dr. Reith reported receiving funding to the University of Oxford from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and holding unpaid roles on the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium as a board member and WHO as a scientific advisor. Dr. Preiss reported receiving funding to his research institution (but no personal funding) from Novartis for the ORION 4 trial of inclisiran, Novo Nordisk for the ASCEND PLUS trial of semaglutide, and Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly for the EMPA-KIDNEY trial and being a committee member for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline.

Dr. Gerstein holds the McMaster-Sanofi Population Health Institute Chair in Diabetes Research and Care. He reported research grants from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Hanmi, and Merck; continuing medical education grants to McMaster University from Eli Lilly, Abbott, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, DKSH, Zuellig Pharma, Sanofi, and Jiangsu Hanson; and consulting fees from Abbott, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Carbon Brand, Sanofi, Kowa, and Hanmi. Pigeyre had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Statins raise the risks for increased glucose levels and the development of type 2 diabetes among people who don’t have it at baseline, but those risks are outweighed by the cardiovascular benefit, new data suggested.

The findings come from an analysis of individual participant data from a total of 23 randomized trials of statin therapy involving 154,664 individuals. In people without diabetes at baseline, statin therapy produces a dose-dependent increase in the risk for diabetes diagnosis, particularly among those whose glycemia marker levels are already at the diagnostic threshold.

Statins also tend to raise glucose levels in people who already have diabetes, but “the diabetes-related risks arising from the small changes in glycemia resulting from statin therapy are greatly outweighed by the benefits of statins on major vascular events when the direct clinical consequences of these outcomes are taken into consideration,” wrote the authors of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration in their paper, published online in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Moreover, they say, “since the effect of statin therapy on measures of glycemia within an individual is small, there is likely to be little clinical benefit in measuring glucose concentrations and A1c values routinely after starting statin therapy with the aim of making comparisons to values taken before the initiation of a statin. However, people should continue to be screened for diabetes and associated risk factors and have their glycemic control monitored in accordance with current clinical guidelines.”

The CTT is co-led by Christina Reith, MBChB, PhD, and David Preiss, PhD, FRCPath, MRCP, both of the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, England.

In an accompanying editorial, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, and Marie Pigeyre, MD, PhD, both of McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, noted that the decreased absolute annual incidence of life-threatening cardiovascular outcomes with statins in people at high risk for type 2 diabetes “clearly exceeds the 0.1%-1.3% per year increased absolute incidence of type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Gerstein and Dr. Pigeyre also said “these findings emphasize the importance of holistic care. As people at risk for cardiovascular outcomes are also at risk for type 2 diabetes, any prescription of a statin should be accompanied by promoting proven strategies to prevent or delay diabetes, such as modest weight reduction and increased physical activity. Finally, these findings emphasize the importance of always being alert for harmful adverse effects, even with the most beneficial and successful preventive therapies.”
 

Statins Raise Diabetes Risk, Glucose Levels Slightly

The meta-analysis of trials in the CTT Collaboration included individual participant data from 19 double-blind randomized, controlled trials with a median follow-up of 4.3 years comparing statins with placebo in a total of 123,940 participants, including 18% who had known type 2 diabetes at randomization. Also analyzed were another four double-blind trials of lower- vs higher-intensity statins involving a total of 30,724 participants followed for a median of 4.9 years, with 15% having diabetes at baseline.

In the 19 trials of low- or moderate-intensity statins vs placebo, statins resulted in a significant 10% increase in new-onset diabetes compared with placebo (rate ratio, 1.10), while high-intensity statins raised the risk by an also significant 36% (1.36). This translated to a mean absolute excess of 0.12% per year of treatment.

Compared with less intensive statin therapy, more intensive statin therapy resulted in a significant 10% proportional increase in new-onset diabetes (1.10), giving an absolute annual excess of 0.22%.

In the statin vs placebo trials, differences in A1c values from placebo were 0.06 percentage points higher for low- or moderate-intensity statins and 0.08 points greater for high-intensity statins.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of the excess cases of new-onset diabetes occurred among participants in the highest quarter of the baseline glycemia distribution for both low-intensity or moderate-intensity and high-intensity statin therapy.

And among participants who already had diabetes at baseline, there was a significant 10% relative increase in worsening glycemia (defined by adverse glycemic event, A1c increase of ≥ 0.5 percentage points, or medication escalation) with low- or moderate-intensity statins compared with placebo and a 24% relative increase in the high-intensity trials.

The Nuffield Department of Population Health has an explicit policy of not accepting any personal honoraria payments directly or indirectly from the pharmaceutical and food industries. It seeks reimbursement to the University of Oxford for the costs of travel and accommodation to participate in scientific meetings. Dr. Reith reported receiving funding to the University of Oxford from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and holding unpaid roles on the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium as a board member and WHO as a scientific advisor. Dr. Preiss reported receiving funding to his research institution (but no personal funding) from Novartis for the ORION 4 trial of inclisiran, Novo Nordisk for the ASCEND PLUS trial of semaglutide, and Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly for the EMPA-KIDNEY trial and being a committee member for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline.

Dr. Gerstein holds the McMaster-Sanofi Population Health Institute Chair in Diabetes Research and Care. He reported research grants from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Hanmi, and Merck; continuing medical education grants to McMaster University from Eli Lilly, Abbott, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, DKSH, Zuellig Pharma, Sanofi, and Jiangsu Hanson; and consulting fees from Abbott, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Carbon Brand, Sanofi, Kowa, and Hanmi. Pigeyre had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), higher levels of arm and trunk fat are associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality, while higher levels of leg fat are associated with a reduced risk for these conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• People with T2D have a twofold to fourfold higher risk for CVD and mortality, and evidence shows obesity management helps delay complications and premature death, but an elevated body mass index (BMI) may be insufficient to measure obesity.
• In the “obesity paradox,” people with elevated BMI may have a lower CVD risk than people of normal weight.
• Researchers prospectively investigated how regional body fat accumulation was associated with CVD risk in 21,472 people with T2D (mean age, 58.9 years; 60.7% men; BMI about 29-33) from the UK Biobank (2006-2010), followed up for a median of 7.7 years.
• The regional body fat distribution in arms, trunk, and legs was assessed using bioelectrical impedance analysis.
• The primary outcomes were the incidence of CVD, all-cause mortality, and CVD mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the highest quartile of arm fat percentage (multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.63; 95% CI, 1.29-2.05) and trunk fat percentage (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.52) were at a higher risk for CVD than those in the lowest quartile.
• However, participants in the highest quartile of leg fat percentage had a lower risk for CVD than those in the lowest quartile (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).
• A nonlinear relationship was observed between higher leg fat percentage and lower CVD risk and between higher trunk fat percentage and higher CVD risk, whereas a linear relationship was noted between higher arm fat percentage and higher CVD risk.
• The patterns of association were similar for both all-cause mortality and CVD mortality. Overall patterns were similar for men and women.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings add to the understanding of body fat distribution in patients with T2D, which highlights the importance of considering both the amount and the location of body fat when assessing CVD and mortality risk among patients with T2D,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study led by Zixin Qiu, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

As body fat was measured only once at the beginning of the study, its changing association over time could not be assessed. Moreover, the findings were primarily based on predominantly White UK adults, potentially restricting their generalizability to other population groups. Furthermore, diabetes was diagnosed using self-reported medical history, medication, and hemoglobin A1c levels, implying that some cases may have gone undetected at baseline. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Hubei Province Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), higher levels of arm and trunk fat are associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality, while higher levels of leg fat are associated with a reduced risk for these conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• People with T2D have a twofold to fourfold higher risk for CVD and mortality, and evidence shows obesity management helps delay complications and premature death, but an elevated body mass index (BMI) may be insufficient to measure obesity.
• In the “obesity paradox,” people with elevated BMI may have a lower CVD risk than people of normal weight.
• Researchers prospectively investigated how regional body fat accumulation was associated with CVD risk in 21,472 people with T2D (mean age, 58.9 years; 60.7% men; BMI about 29-33) from the UK Biobank (2006-2010), followed up for a median of 7.7 years.
• The regional body fat distribution in arms, trunk, and legs was assessed using bioelectrical impedance analysis.
• The primary outcomes were the incidence of CVD, all-cause mortality, and CVD mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the highest quartile of arm fat percentage (multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.63; 95% CI, 1.29-2.05) and trunk fat percentage (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.52) were at a higher risk for CVD than those in the lowest quartile.
• However, participants in the highest quartile of leg fat percentage had a lower risk for CVD than those in the lowest quartile (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).
• A nonlinear relationship was observed between higher leg fat percentage and lower CVD risk and between higher trunk fat percentage and higher CVD risk, whereas a linear relationship was noted between higher arm fat percentage and higher CVD risk.
• The patterns of association were similar for both all-cause mortality and CVD mortality. Overall patterns were similar for men and women.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings add to the understanding of body fat distribution in patients with T2D, which highlights the importance of considering both the amount and the location of body fat when assessing CVD and mortality risk among patients with T2D,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study led by Zixin Qiu, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

As body fat was measured only once at the beginning of the study, its changing association over time could not be assessed. Moreover, the findings were primarily based on predominantly White UK adults, potentially restricting their generalizability to other population groups. Furthermore, diabetes was diagnosed using self-reported medical history, medication, and hemoglobin A1c levels, implying that some cases may have gone undetected at baseline. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Hubei Province Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), higher levels of arm and trunk fat are associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality, while higher levels of leg fat are associated with a reduced risk for these conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• People with T2D have a twofold to fourfold higher risk for CVD and mortality, and evidence shows obesity management helps delay complications and premature death, but an elevated body mass index (BMI) may be insufficient to measure obesity.
• In the “obesity paradox,” people with elevated BMI may have a lower CVD risk than people of normal weight.
• Researchers prospectively investigated how regional body fat accumulation was associated with CVD risk in 21,472 people with T2D (mean age, 58.9 years; 60.7% men; BMI about 29-33) from the UK Biobank (2006-2010), followed up for a median of 7.7 years.
• The regional body fat distribution in arms, trunk, and legs was assessed using bioelectrical impedance analysis.
• The primary outcomes were the incidence of CVD, all-cause mortality, and CVD mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the highest quartile of arm fat percentage (multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.63; 95% CI, 1.29-2.05) and trunk fat percentage (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.52) were at a higher risk for CVD than those in the lowest quartile.
• However, participants in the highest quartile of leg fat percentage had a lower risk for CVD than those in the lowest quartile (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).
• A nonlinear relationship was observed between higher leg fat percentage and lower CVD risk and between higher trunk fat percentage and higher CVD risk, whereas a linear relationship was noted between higher arm fat percentage and higher CVD risk.
• The patterns of association were similar for both all-cause mortality and CVD mortality. Overall patterns were similar for men and women.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings add to the understanding of body fat distribution in patients with T2D, which highlights the importance of considering both the amount and the location of body fat when assessing CVD and mortality risk among patients with T2D,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study led by Zixin Qiu, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

As body fat was measured only once at the beginning of the study, its changing association over time could not be assessed. Moreover, the findings were primarily based on predominantly White UK adults, potentially restricting their generalizability to other population groups. Furthermore, diabetes was diagnosed using self-reported medical history, medication, and hemoglobin A1c levels, implying that some cases may have gone undetected at baseline. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Hubei Province Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Monthly cycles of a fasting-mimicking diet (FMD) may slow metabolic and immune system aging and reduce the risk for metabolic disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• In two clinical trials, monthly 5-day cycles of an FMD (a proprietary line of plant-based, low-calorie, and low-protein food products) showed lower body weight, body fat, and blood pressure at 3 months.
• Researchers assessed secondary outcomes for the impact of the diet on risk factors for metabolic syndrome and biomarkers associated with aging and age-related diseases.
• This study looked at data from nearly half of the original 184 participants (aged 18-70 years) from the two clinical trials who went through three to four monthly cycles, adhering to 5 days of an FMD in either a crossover design compared with a normal diet or an intervention group compared with people following a Mediterranean diet.
• Abdominal fat and hepatic fat were measured using an MRI in a subset of representative participants. The study also assessed metabolic blood markers and lipids and lymphoid-to-myeloid ratios (for immune aging).
• Biological age estimation was calculated from seven clinical chemistry measures, and life expectancy and mortality risk estimates and a simulation of continued FMD cycles were based on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

TAKEAWAY:

• In 15 volunteers measured by MRI, the body mass index (P = .0002), total body fat (P = .002), subcutaneous adipose tissue (P = .008), visceral adipose tissue (P = .002), and hepatic fat fraction (P = .049) reduced after the third FMD cycle, with a 50% reduction in liver fat for the five people with hepatic steatosis.
• In 11 participants with prediabetes, insulin resistance (measured by homeostatic model assessment) reduced from 1.473 to 1.209 (P = .046), while A1c levels dropped from 5.8 to 5.43 (P = .032) after the third FMD cycle.

• The lymphoid-to-myeloid ratio improved (P = .005) in all study participants receiving three FMD cycles, indicating an immune aging reversal.
• The estimated median biological age of the 86 participants who completed three FMD cycles in both trials decreased by nearly 2.5 years, independent of weight loss.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together our findings indicate that the FMD is a feasible periodic dietary intervention that reduces disease risk factors and biological age,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sebastian Brandhorst, PhD, Leonard Davis School of Gerontology, University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, and Morgan E. Levine, PhD, Department of Pathology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published in Nature Communications.

LIMITATIONS:

The study estimated the effects of monthly FMD cycles based on results from two clinical trials and included a small subset of trial volunteers. By study measures, the cohort was healthier and biologically younger than average people of similar chronological age. Of the 86 participants, 24 who underwent FMD cycles exhibited increased biological age. The simulation did not consider compliance, dropout, mortality, or the bias that may arise owing to enthusiastic volunteers. Estimated risk reductions assume an effect of change in biological age, which hasn’t been proven. Projections from extending the effects of FMD to a lifelong intervention may require cautious interpretation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the USC Edna Jones chair fund and funds from NIH/NIA and the Yale PEPPER Center. The experimental diet was provided by L-Nutra Inc. Some authors declared an equity interest in L-Nutra, with one author’s equity to be assigned to the nonprofit foundation Create Cures. Others disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Monthly cycles of a fasting-mimicking diet (FMD) may slow metabolic and immune system aging and reduce the risk for metabolic disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• In two clinical trials, monthly 5-day cycles of an FMD (a proprietary line of plant-based, low-calorie, and low-protein food products) showed lower body weight, body fat, and blood pressure at 3 months.
• Researchers assessed secondary outcomes for the impact of the diet on risk factors for metabolic syndrome and biomarkers associated with aging and age-related diseases.
• This study looked at data from nearly half of the original 184 participants (aged 18-70 years) from the two clinical trials who went through three to four monthly cycles, adhering to 5 days of an FMD in either a crossover design compared with a normal diet or an intervention group compared with people following a Mediterranean diet.
• Abdominal fat and hepatic fat were measured using an MRI in a subset of representative participants. The study also assessed metabolic blood markers and lipids and lymphoid-to-myeloid ratios (for immune aging).
• Biological age estimation was calculated from seven clinical chemistry measures, and life expectancy and mortality risk estimates and a simulation of continued FMD cycles were based on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

TAKEAWAY:

• In 15 volunteers measured by MRI, the body mass index (P = .0002), total body fat (P = .002), subcutaneous adipose tissue (P = .008), visceral adipose tissue (P = .002), and hepatic fat fraction (P = .049) reduced after the third FMD cycle, with a 50% reduction in liver fat for the five people with hepatic steatosis.
• In 11 participants with prediabetes, insulin resistance (measured by homeostatic model assessment) reduced from 1.473 to 1.209 (P = .046), while A1c levels dropped from 5.8 to 5.43 (P = .032) after the third FMD cycle.

• The lymphoid-to-myeloid ratio improved (P = .005) in all study participants receiving three FMD cycles, indicating an immune aging reversal.
• The estimated median biological age of the 86 participants who completed three FMD cycles in both trials decreased by nearly 2.5 years, independent of weight loss.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together our findings indicate that the FMD is a feasible periodic dietary intervention that reduces disease risk factors and biological age,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sebastian Brandhorst, PhD, Leonard Davis School of Gerontology, University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, and Morgan E. Levine, PhD, Department of Pathology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published in Nature Communications.

LIMITATIONS:

The study estimated the effects of monthly FMD cycles based on results from two clinical trials and included a small subset of trial volunteers. By study measures, the cohort was healthier and biologically younger than average people of similar chronological age. Of the 86 participants, 24 who underwent FMD cycles exhibited increased biological age. The simulation did not consider compliance, dropout, mortality, or the bias that may arise owing to enthusiastic volunteers. Estimated risk reductions assume an effect of change in biological age, which hasn’t been proven. Projections from extending the effects of FMD to a lifelong intervention may require cautious interpretation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the USC Edna Jones chair fund and funds from NIH/NIA and the Yale PEPPER Center. The experimental diet was provided by L-Nutra Inc. Some authors declared an equity interest in L-Nutra, with one author’s equity to be assigned to the nonprofit foundation Create Cures. Others disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Monthly cycles of a fasting-mimicking diet (FMD) may slow metabolic and immune system aging and reduce the risk for metabolic disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• In two clinical trials, monthly 5-day cycles of an FMD (a proprietary line of plant-based, low-calorie, and low-protein food products) showed lower body weight, body fat, and blood pressure at 3 months.
• Researchers assessed secondary outcomes for the impact of the diet on risk factors for metabolic syndrome and biomarkers associated with aging and age-related diseases.
• This study looked at data from nearly half of the original 184 participants (aged 18-70 years) from the two clinical trials who went through three to four monthly cycles, adhering to 5 days of an FMD in either a crossover design compared with a normal diet or an intervention group compared with people following a Mediterranean diet.
• Abdominal fat and hepatic fat were measured using an MRI in a subset of representative participants. The study also assessed metabolic blood markers and lipids and lymphoid-to-myeloid ratios (for immune aging).
• Biological age estimation was calculated from seven clinical chemistry measures, and life expectancy and mortality risk estimates and a simulation of continued FMD cycles were based on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

TAKEAWAY:

• In 15 volunteers measured by MRI, the body mass index (P = .0002), total body fat (P = .002), subcutaneous adipose tissue (P = .008), visceral adipose tissue (P = .002), and hepatic fat fraction (P = .049) reduced after the third FMD cycle, with a 50% reduction in liver fat for the five people with hepatic steatosis.
• In 11 participants with prediabetes, insulin resistance (measured by homeostatic model assessment) reduced from 1.473 to 1.209 (P = .046), while A1c levels dropped from 5.8 to 5.43 (P = .032) after the third FMD cycle.

• The lymphoid-to-myeloid ratio improved (P = .005) in all study participants receiving three FMD cycles, indicating an immune aging reversal.
• The estimated median biological age of the 86 participants who completed three FMD cycles in both trials decreased by nearly 2.5 years, independent of weight loss.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together our findings indicate that the FMD is a feasible periodic dietary intervention that reduces disease risk factors and biological age,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sebastian Brandhorst, PhD, Leonard Davis School of Gerontology, University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, and Morgan E. Levine, PhD, Department of Pathology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published in Nature Communications.

LIMITATIONS:

The study estimated the effects of monthly FMD cycles based on results from two clinical trials and included a small subset of trial volunteers. By study measures, the cohort was healthier and biologically younger than average people of similar chronological age. Of the 86 participants, 24 who underwent FMD cycles exhibited increased biological age. The simulation did not consider compliance, dropout, mortality, or the bias that may arise owing to enthusiastic volunteers. Estimated risk reductions assume an effect of change in biological age, which hasn’t been proven. Projections from extending the effects of FMD to a lifelong intervention may require cautious interpretation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the USC Edna Jones chair fund and funds from NIH/NIA and the Yale PEPPER Center. The experimental diet was provided by L-Nutra Inc. Some authors declared an equity interest in L-Nutra, with one author’s equity to be assigned to the nonprofit foundation Create Cures. Others disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.