Clinical Endocrinology News

Many patients with obesity blame weight gain on their metabolism. The reality is that metabolism can be blamed for weight regain after people try to lose weight! As we age, our metabolism does slow down; sometimes we think it stops working.

Metabolism, or resting energy expenditure, is directly related to how much muscle mass we have. As we age, we lose muscle, which is called sarcopenia.

What happens to our metabolism when we try to lose weight? Let’s first discuss what metabolism is.
 

What Is Metabolism?

Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions in the body’s cells that convert food into energy for sustaining life, cellular processes, and as storage for a rainy day.

Total energy expenditure (TEE) is broken down into resting energy expenditure (REE), thermic effect of food (TEF), and nonresting expenditure (NREE) or physical activity, and is made up of: TEE = 60% REE + 10% TEF + 30% NREE.

An elegant study performed by Dr. Rudy Leibel explored the effects of weight loss or weight gain on metabolism in 23 lean and 18 patients with obesity who were placed in a metabolic chamber. Weight loss of 10% or 20% body weight led to a decrease in TEE roughly equal to about 300 kcal/d, and an increase in body weight of 10% caused an increase in TEE of about 500 kcal/d. These changes led to the patient reverting to the prior weight (before weight loss or gain). In other words, Dr. Leibel postulated a feedback mechanism for the effect of fat mass decrease or increase on energy metabolism. The feedback mechanism or signal from fat was subsequently found to be leptin.

In a later study, Dr. Leibel and colleagues investigated the effects of body fat mass change on TEE and found that a 10% reduction in weight caused a decrease of TEE by 21%, comprising a decrease in NREE of 37.5% and a decrease in REE of 11.6%.

Therefore, the biggest change in TEE comes from NREE or exercise energy expenditure. The 35% variance in NEE change was accounted for by a decrease in muscle work efficiency in generating 10 watts or low levels of work such as walking.

In other words, when persons with obesity or lean persons lose weight, the efficiency of muscle at low levels of work increases such that one burns less energy when walking than one normally would. This helps conserve energy and tends to cause the body to go back to the higher weight.
 

So, How Can One Change Metabolism?

Let’s say one did lose weight and wants to counteract this TEE loss and increased muscle efficiency at low levels of work.

To counteract this effect, one should increase muscle work beyond low level so that more energy is expended. Another way would be to increase muscle mass so that there is more muscle that can do work.

This is exactly how metabolism can be altered or increased. What can be changed most readily, and what we have the most power over in our bodies, is the NREE.

To do this, muscles need anabolic power — the power to heal and build muscle mass. Anabolic power comes from eating healthy protein sources such as lean chicken, fish, beef, and eggs as well as dry beans, tofu, and dairy products.. It seems that older adults (> 60 years) need more protein than younger adults to build muscle mass, due to the body’s natural aging process which leads to sarcopenia. How much more? Studies show between 1.2 and 1.5 g/kg of body weight per day, whereas younger persons need 0.80 g/kg.

Developing sarcopenia with age involves muscle losing the ability to use protein and amino acids to rebuild injured tissue.

Let’s put this in perspective for treating obesity.

Obesity is brought on by the body’s defense of a higher body weight by interaction with the environment of highly processed foods that work on the reward pathway, leading to weight gain and resistance to satiety. Weight loss via diet, exercise, and medications works, but this weight loss is also accompanied by a decrease in TEE.

Weight loss is primarily fat mass loss, but depending on the degree of protein intake and muscle resistance training, 20%-50% of the total weight loss is muscle mass loss. Therefore, higher-protein diets and resistance exercise can be useful in preserving muscle mass and counteracting the decrease in TEE, maintaining energy expenditure. In older patients, an additional factor is the muscle’s lack of ability to use protein as an anabolic agent to protect muscle mass and thus the need for higher protein loads to do this.

All in all, can doctors help patients boost their metabolism, especially as they lose weight and maintain that loss? Yes — through protein intake and resistance exercise training.

Here are some tips to help your patients get cardio and resistance exercise into their routine.

First find out whether your patient prefers a social exercise interaction or solo training. If social, then the gym or classes such as cycling or boot camps at those gyms may work for them, especially if they can go with a friend. If solo is better, than a gym in the home might work. Peloton bikes are expensive but the interaction is all on the website!

A personal trainer may help motivate the patient if they know someone is waiting for them.

Let’s hit the gym!

Another note: There are agents in the obesity treatment pipeline that purport to change body composition while helping patients lose weight. Some of these agents are myostatin antagonists and antibodies that inhibit the activity of myostatin to break down muscle. These agents have been found to build muscle mass, but whether the quality of the muscle mass leads to an increase in muscle strength or functionality remains controversial. The next frontier in obesity treatment will be about decreasing fat mass and increasing muscle mass while making sure that increased muscle mass leads to improved functionality.

In the meantime, aside from new agents on the horizon, the best and healthiest way to keep metabolism on the up and up is to eat healthy lean proteins and exercise. How much exercise? The recommendation is 30-60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity at least 5 days per week; plus 20 minutes of resistance exercise training 2-3 days per week for upper- and lower-extremity and core strength.

Again, let’s hit the gym!
 

Dr. Apovian is in the department of medicine, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She disclosed ties with Altimmune, Cowen and Company, Currax Pharmaceuticals, EPG Communication Holdings, Gelesis, Srl, L-Nutra, and NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, and Novo Nordisk. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and GI Dynamics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients with obesity blame weight gain on their metabolism. The reality is that metabolism can be blamed for weight regain after people try to lose weight! As we age, our metabolism does slow down; sometimes we think it stops working.

Metabolism, or resting energy expenditure, is directly related to how much muscle mass we have. As we age, we lose muscle, which is called sarcopenia.

What happens to our metabolism when we try to lose weight? Let’s first discuss what metabolism is.
 

What Is Metabolism?

Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions in the body’s cells that convert food into energy for sustaining life, cellular processes, and as storage for a rainy day.

Total energy expenditure (TEE) is broken down into resting energy expenditure (REE), thermic effect of food (TEF), and nonresting expenditure (NREE) or physical activity, and is made up of: TEE = 60% REE + 10% TEF + 30% NREE.

An elegant study performed by Dr. Rudy Leibel explored the effects of weight loss or weight gain on metabolism in 23 lean and 18 patients with obesity who were placed in a metabolic chamber. Weight loss of 10% or 20% body weight led to a decrease in TEE roughly equal to about 300 kcal/d, and an increase in body weight of 10% caused an increase in TEE of about 500 kcal/d. These changes led to the patient reverting to the prior weight (before weight loss or gain). In other words, Dr. Leibel postulated a feedback mechanism for the effect of fat mass decrease or increase on energy metabolism. The feedback mechanism or signal from fat was subsequently found to be leptin.

In a later study, Dr. Leibel and colleagues investigated the effects of body fat mass change on TEE and found that a 10% reduction in weight caused a decrease of TEE by 21%, comprising a decrease in NREE of 37.5% and a decrease in REE of 11.6%.

Therefore, the biggest change in TEE comes from NREE or exercise energy expenditure. The 35% variance in NEE change was accounted for by a decrease in muscle work efficiency in generating 10 watts or low levels of work such as walking.

In other words, when persons with obesity or lean persons lose weight, the efficiency of muscle at low levels of work increases such that one burns less energy when walking than one normally would. This helps conserve energy and tends to cause the body to go back to the higher weight.
 

So, How Can One Change Metabolism?

Let’s say one did lose weight and wants to counteract this TEE loss and increased muscle efficiency at low levels of work.

To counteract this effect, one should increase muscle work beyond low level so that more energy is expended. Another way would be to increase muscle mass so that there is more muscle that can do work.

This is exactly how metabolism can be altered or increased. What can be changed most readily, and what we have the most power over in our bodies, is the NREE.

To do this, muscles need anabolic power — the power to heal and build muscle mass. Anabolic power comes from eating healthy protein sources such as lean chicken, fish, beef, and eggs as well as dry beans, tofu, and dairy products.. It seems that older adults (> 60 years) need more protein than younger adults to build muscle mass, due to the body’s natural aging process which leads to sarcopenia. How much more? Studies show between 1.2 and 1.5 g/kg of body weight per day, whereas younger persons need 0.80 g/kg.

Developing sarcopenia with age involves muscle losing the ability to use protein and amino acids to rebuild injured tissue.

Let’s put this in perspective for treating obesity.

Obesity is brought on by the body’s defense of a higher body weight by interaction with the environment of highly processed foods that work on the reward pathway, leading to weight gain and resistance to satiety. Weight loss via diet, exercise, and medications works, but this weight loss is also accompanied by a decrease in TEE.

Weight loss is primarily fat mass loss, but depending on the degree of protein intake and muscle resistance training, 20%-50% of the total weight loss is muscle mass loss. Therefore, higher-protein diets and resistance exercise can be useful in preserving muscle mass and counteracting the decrease in TEE, maintaining energy expenditure. In older patients, an additional factor is the muscle’s lack of ability to use protein as an anabolic agent to protect muscle mass and thus the need for higher protein loads to do this.

All in all, can doctors help patients boost their metabolism, especially as they lose weight and maintain that loss? Yes — through protein intake and resistance exercise training.

Here are some tips to help your patients get cardio and resistance exercise into their routine.

First find out whether your patient prefers a social exercise interaction or solo training. If social, then the gym or classes such as cycling or boot camps at those gyms may work for them, especially if they can go with a friend. If solo is better, than a gym in the home might work. Peloton bikes are expensive but the interaction is all on the website!

A personal trainer may help motivate the patient if they know someone is waiting for them.

Let’s hit the gym!

Another note: There are agents in the obesity treatment pipeline that purport to change body composition while helping patients lose weight. Some of these agents are myostatin antagonists and antibodies that inhibit the activity of myostatin to break down muscle. These agents have been found to build muscle mass, but whether the quality of the muscle mass leads to an increase in muscle strength or functionality remains controversial. The next frontier in obesity treatment will be about decreasing fat mass and increasing muscle mass while making sure that increased muscle mass leads to improved functionality.

In the meantime, aside from new agents on the horizon, the best and healthiest way to keep metabolism on the up and up is to eat healthy lean proteins and exercise. How much exercise? The recommendation is 30-60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity at least 5 days per week; plus 20 minutes of resistance exercise training 2-3 days per week for upper- and lower-extremity and core strength.

Again, let’s hit the gym!
 

Dr. Apovian is in the department of medicine, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She disclosed ties with Altimmune, Cowen and Company, Currax Pharmaceuticals, EPG Communication Holdings, Gelesis, Srl, L-Nutra, and NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, and Novo Nordisk. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and GI Dynamics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients with obesity blame weight gain on their metabolism. The reality is that metabolism can be blamed for weight regain after people try to lose weight! As we age, our metabolism does slow down; sometimes we think it stops working.

Metabolism, or resting energy expenditure, is directly related to how much muscle mass we have. As we age, we lose muscle, which is called sarcopenia.

What happens to our metabolism when we try to lose weight? Let’s first discuss what metabolism is.
 

What Is Metabolism?

Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions in the body’s cells that convert food into energy for sustaining life, cellular processes, and as storage for a rainy day.

Total energy expenditure (TEE) is broken down into resting energy expenditure (REE), thermic effect of food (TEF), and nonresting expenditure (NREE) or physical activity, and is made up of: TEE = 60% REE + 10% TEF + 30% NREE.

An elegant study performed by Dr. Rudy Leibel explored the effects of weight loss or weight gain on metabolism in 23 lean and 18 patients with obesity who were placed in a metabolic chamber. Weight loss of 10% or 20% body weight led to a decrease in TEE roughly equal to about 300 kcal/d, and an increase in body weight of 10% caused an increase in TEE of about 500 kcal/d. These changes led to the patient reverting to the prior weight (before weight loss or gain). In other words, Dr. Leibel postulated a feedback mechanism for the effect of fat mass decrease or increase on energy metabolism. The feedback mechanism or signal from fat was subsequently found to be leptin.

In a later study, Dr. Leibel and colleagues investigated the effects of body fat mass change on TEE and found that a 10% reduction in weight caused a decrease of TEE by 21%, comprising a decrease in NREE of 37.5% and a decrease in REE of 11.6%.

Therefore, the biggest change in TEE comes from NREE or exercise energy expenditure. The 35% variance in NEE change was accounted for by a decrease in muscle work efficiency in generating 10 watts or low levels of work such as walking.

In other words, when persons with obesity or lean persons lose weight, the efficiency of muscle at low levels of work increases such that one burns less energy when walking than one normally would. This helps conserve energy and tends to cause the body to go back to the higher weight.
 

So, How Can One Change Metabolism?

Let’s say one did lose weight and wants to counteract this TEE loss and increased muscle efficiency at low levels of work.

To counteract this effect, one should increase muscle work beyond low level so that more energy is expended. Another way would be to increase muscle mass so that there is more muscle that can do work.

This is exactly how metabolism can be altered or increased. What can be changed most readily, and what we have the most power over in our bodies, is the NREE.

To do this, muscles need anabolic power — the power to heal and build muscle mass. Anabolic power comes from eating healthy protein sources such as lean chicken, fish, beef, and eggs as well as dry beans, tofu, and dairy products.. It seems that older adults (> 60 years) need more protein than younger adults to build muscle mass, due to the body’s natural aging process which leads to sarcopenia. How much more? Studies show between 1.2 and 1.5 g/kg of body weight per day, whereas younger persons need 0.80 g/kg.

Developing sarcopenia with age involves muscle losing the ability to use protein and amino acids to rebuild injured tissue.

Let’s put this in perspective for treating obesity.

Obesity is brought on by the body’s defense of a higher body weight by interaction with the environment of highly processed foods that work on the reward pathway, leading to weight gain and resistance to satiety. Weight loss via diet, exercise, and medications works, but this weight loss is also accompanied by a decrease in TEE.

Weight loss is primarily fat mass loss, but depending on the degree of protein intake and muscle resistance training, 20%-50% of the total weight loss is muscle mass loss. Therefore, higher-protein diets and resistance exercise can be useful in preserving muscle mass and counteracting the decrease in TEE, maintaining energy expenditure. In older patients, an additional factor is the muscle’s lack of ability to use protein as an anabolic agent to protect muscle mass and thus the need for higher protein loads to do this.

All in all, can doctors help patients boost their metabolism, especially as they lose weight and maintain that loss? Yes — through protein intake and resistance exercise training.

Here are some tips to help your patients get cardio and resistance exercise into their routine.

First find out whether your patient prefers a social exercise interaction or solo training. If social, then the gym or classes such as cycling or boot camps at those gyms may work for them, especially if they can go with a friend. If solo is better, than a gym in the home might work. Peloton bikes are expensive but the interaction is all on the website!

A personal trainer may help motivate the patient if they know someone is waiting for them.

Let’s hit the gym!

Another note: There are agents in the obesity treatment pipeline that purport to change body composition while helping patients lose weight. Some of these agents are myostatin antagonists and antibodies that inhibit the activity of myostatin to break down muscle. These agents have been found to build muscle mass, but whether the quality of the muscle mass leads to an increase in muscle strength or functionality remains controversial. The next frontier in obesity treatment will be about decreasing fat mass and increasing muscle mass while making sure that increased muscle mass leads to improved functionality.

In the meantime, aside from new agents on the horizon, the best and healthiest way to keep metabolism on the up and up is to eat healthy lean proteins and exercise. How much exercise? The recommendation is 30-60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity at least 5 days per week; plus 20 minutes of resistance exercise training 2-3 days per week for upper- and lower-extremity and core strength.

Again, let’s hit the gym!
 

Dr. Apovian is in the department of medicine, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She disclosed ties with Altimmune, Cowen and Company, Currax Pharmaceuticals, EPG Communication Holdings, Gelesis, Srl, L-Nutra, and NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, and Novo Nordisk. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and GI Dynamics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

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

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

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

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

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

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with Cushing disease have an increased risk for new-onset autoimmune disease in the 3 years after surgical remission, according to a new retrospective study published on February 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Outcomes for patients with Cushing disease were compared against those with nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs). New-onset autoimmune disease occurred in 10.4% with Cushing disease and 1.6% among patients with NFPA (hazard ratio, 7.80; 95% CI, 2.88-21.10).

“Understanding and recognizing new and recurrent autoimmune disease in this setting is important to avoid misclassifying such patients with glucocorticoid withdrawal syndrome, which could result in failure to treat underlying autoimmune disease, as well as erroneous diagnosis of steroid withdrawal cases,” wrote Dennis Delasi Nyanyo of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

Given the general population’s annual incidence of major autoimmune diseases, estimated at about 100 cases per 100,000 people, and the 3-year incidence of 10.4% found in this study’s cohort, “our findings suggest that Cushing disease remission may trigger development of autoimmune disease,” the authors wrote.
 

Monitor Patients With Family History of Autoimmune Disease?

The study results were not necessarily surprising to Anthony P. Heaney, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, because past research has raised similar questions. The authors’ suggestion that the rapid postsurgical drop in cortisol that occurs as a result of treating Cushing disease becomes some sort of autoimmune trigger is interesting but remains speculative, Dr. Heaney pointed out.

If future evidence supports that possibility, “it would suggest, in terms of managing those patients in the postoperative setting, that there may be some merit to giving them higher concentrations of glucocorticoids for a short period of time,” Dr. Heaney said, thereby bringing their levels down more gradually rather than taking them off a cliff, in a sense. Or, if more evidence bears out the authors’ hypothesis, another approach might be treating patients with medicine to bring down the cortisol before surgery, though there are challenges to that approach, Dr. Heaney said.

At the same time, those who developed new autoimmune disease remain a small subset of patients with Cushing disease, so such approaches may become only potentially appropriate to consider in patients with risk factors, such as a family history of autoimmune disease.

The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients who underwent transsphenoidal surgery for either Cushing disease or NFPA at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2005 and 2019.

The study involved 194 patients with Cushing disease who had postsurgical remission and at least one follow-up visit with a pituitary expert and 92 patients with NFPA who were matched to patients with Cushing disease based on age and sex. The authors regarded autoimmune disease diagnosed within 36 months of the surgery to be temporally associated with Cushing disease remission. Among the autoimmune diseases considered were “rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, autoimmune thyroiditis, celiac disease, psoriasis, vitiligo, autoimmune neuropathy, multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, and ulcerative colitis.”

Patients differed in average body mass index and tumor size, but family history of autoimmune disease was similar in both groups. Average BMI was 34.5 in the Cushing group and 29.5 in the NFPA group. Average tumor size was 5.7 mm in the Cushing group and 21.3 mm in the NFPA group.

Before surgery, 2.9% of patients with Cushing disease and 15.4% of patients with NFPA had central hypothyroidism, and 8% in the Cushing group and 56.8% in the NFPA group had hyperprolactinemia. Central adrenal insufficiency occurred in 11% with NFPA and in all with Cushing disease, by definition.

After surgery, 93.8% in the Cushing group and 16.5% in the NFPA group had adrenal insufficiency. In addition, patients with Cushing disease had lower postsurgical nadir serum cortisol levels (63.8 nmol/L) than those with NFPA (282.3 nmol/L).

Of the 17 patients with Cushing disease — all women — who developed autoimmune disease within 3 years, 6 had a personal history of autoimmune disease and 7 had a family history of it. In addition, 41.2% of them had adrenal insufficiency when they developed the new autoimmune disease. Among the diseases were six autoimmune thyroiditis cases, three Sjögren syndrome cases, and two autoimmune seronegative spondyloarthropathy.

Dr. Heaney said he found it interesting that more than half of the new autoimmune diseases in patients with Cushing disease were related to the thyroid. “In this kind of setting, where you have a patient who has been producing too much steroid over a period of time and then you take that away, it’s almost like you release a brake on the TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone],” Dr. Heaney said. “So, there’s probably some rebound in TSH that occurs, and that could be driving the thyroiditis, to some extent, that we see in these patients.”

Only one patient with NFPA developed new-onset autoimmune disease, a woman who developed Graves disease 22 months after surgery. When the researchers excluded patients in both groups with central hypothyroidism, new-onset autoimmune disease was still significantly higher (11.4%) in the Cushing group than in the NFPA group (1.9%; HR, 7.02; 95% CI, 2.54-19.39).
 

Could Postoperative Adrenal Insufficiency Contribute to Risk?

Within the Cushing cohort, those who developed autoimmune disease had a lower BMI (31.8 vs 34.8) and larger tumor size (7.2 vs 5.6 mm) than those who didn’t develop new autoimmune disease. Patients who developed autoimmune disease also had a lower baseline urine free cortisol ratio (2.7 vs 6.3) before surgery and more family history of autoimmune disease (41.2% vs 20.9%) than those who didn’t develop one.

“The higher prevalence of adrenal insufficiency and the lower nadir serum cortisol levels in the Cushing disease group suggest that the postoperative adrenal insufficiency in the Cushing disease group might have contributed to autoimmune disease pathogenesis,” the authors wrote. “This finding is clinically significant because cortisol plays a pivotal role in modulating the immune system.”

Most postoperative management among patients with Cushing disease was similar, with all but one patient receiving 0.5 or 1 mg daily dexamethasone within the first week after surgery. (The one outlier received 5 mg daily prednisone.) However, fewer patients who developed autoimmune disease (17.6%) received supraphysiologic doses of glucocorticoid — equivalent to at least 25 mg hydrocortisone — compared with patients who didn’t develop autoimmune disease (41.8%).

“Although the daily average hydrocortisone equivalent replacement doses within the first month and during long-term follow-up were within the physiologic range in both subgroups, patients with Cushing disease who had autoimmune disease received slightly lower doses of glucocorticoid replacement within the first month after surgery,” the authors reported. “The immediate postoperative period might be a critical window where supraphysiologic glucocorticoids seem to be protective with regard to development of autoimmune disease,” they wrote, though they acknowledged the study’s retrospective design as a limitation in drawing that conclusion.

At the least, they suggested that new symptoms in patients with Cushing disease, particularly those with a family history of autoimmune disease, should prompt investigation of potential autoimmune disease.

Recordati Rare Diseases funded the study. The research was also conducted with support from Harvard Catalyst (the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center) as well as financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers. One author reported holding stocks in Pfizer and Amgen, and another reported receiving consulting fees from Corcept. Dr. Heaney reported receiving institutional grants for trials from Corcept, Ascendis, Crinetics, and Sparrow Pharm; serving on the advisory board for Xeris, Recordati, Corcept, Novo Nordisk, Lundbeck, and Crinetics; and serving as a speaker for Chiesi, Novo Nordisk, and Corcept.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with Cushing disease have an increased risk for new-onset autoimmune disease in the 3 years after surgical remission, according to a new retrospective study published on February 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Outcomes for patients with Cushing disease were compared against those with nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs). New-onset autoimmune disease occurred in 10.4% with Cushing disease and 1.6% among patients with NFPA (hazard ratio, 7.80; 95% CI, 2.88-21.10).

“Understanding and recognizing new and recurrent autoimmune disease in this setting is important to avoid misclassifying such patients with glucocorticoid withdrawal syndrome, which could result in failure to treat underlying autoimmune disease, as well as erroneous diagnosis of steroid withdrawal cases,” wrote Dennis Delasi Nyanyo of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

Given the general population’s annual incidence of major autoimmune diseases, estimated at about 100 cases per 100,000 people, and the 3-year incidence of 10.4% found in this study’s cohort, “our findings suggest that Cushing disease remission may trigger development of autoimmune disease,” the authors wrote.
 

Monitor Patients With Family History of Autoimmune Disease?

The study results were not necessarily surprising to Anthony P. Heaney, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, because past research has raised similar questions. The authors’ suggestion that the rapid postsurgical drop in cortisol that occurs as a result of treating Cushing disease becomes some sort of autoimmune trigger is interesting but remains speculative, Dr. Heaney pointed out.

If future evidence supports that possibility, “it would suggest, in terms of managing those patients in the postoperative setting, that there may be some merit to giving them higher concentrations of glucocorticoids for a short period of time,” Dr. Heaney said, thereby bringing their levels down more gradually rather than taking them off a cliff, in a sense. Or, if more evidence bears out the authors’ hypothesis, another approach might be treating patients with medicine to bring down the cortisol before surgery, though there are challenges to that approach, Dr. Heaney said.

At the same time, those who developed new autoimmune disease remain a small subset of patients with Cushing disease, so such approaches may become only potentially appropriate to consider in patients with risk factors, such as a family history of autoimmune disease.

The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients who underwent transsphenoidal surgery for either Cushing disease or NFPA at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2005 and 2019.

The study involved 194 patients with Cushing disease who had postsurgical remission and at least one follow-up visit with a pituitary expert and 92 patients with NFPA who were matched to patients with Cushing disease based on age and sex. The authors regarded autoimmune disease diagnosed within 36 months of the surgery to be temporally associated with Cushing disease remission. Among the autoimmune diseases considered were “rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, autoimmune thyroiditis, celiac disease, psoriasis, vitiligo, autoimmune neuropathy, multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, and ulcerative colitis.”

Patients differed in average body mass index and tumor size, but family history of autoimmune disease was similar in both groups. Average BMI was 34.5 in the Cushing group and 29.5 in the NFPA group. Average tumor size was 5.7 mm in the Cushing group and 21.3 mm in the NFPA group.

Before surgery, 2.9% of patients with Cushing disease and 15.4% of patients with NFPA had central hypothyroidism, and 8% in the Cushing group and 56.8% in the NFPA group had hyperprolactinemia. Central adrenal insufficiency occurred in 11% with NFPA and in all with Cushing disease, by definition.

After surgery, 93.8% in the Cushing group and 16.5% in the NFPA group had adrenal insufficiency. In addition, patients with Cushing disease had lower postsurgical nadir serum cortisol levels (63.8 nmol/L) than those with NFPA (282.3 nmol/L).

Of the 17 patients with Cushing disease — all women — who developed autoimmune disease within 3 years, 6 had a personal history of autoimmune disease and 7 had a family history of it. In addition, 41.2% of them had adrenal insufficiency when they developed the new autoimmune disease. Among the diseases were six autoimmune thyroiditis cases, three Sjögren syndrome cases, and two autoimmune seronegative spondyloarthropathy.

Dr. Heaney said he found it interesting that more than half of the new autoimmune diseases in patients with Cushing disease were related to the thyroid. “In this kind of setting, where you have a patient who has been producing too much steroid over a period of time and then you take that away, it’s almost like you release a brake on the TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone],” Dr. Heaney said. “So, there’s probably some rebound in TSH that occurs, and that could be driving the thyroiditis, to some extent, that we see in these patients.”

Only one patient with NFPA developed new-onset autoimmune disease, a woman who developed Graves disease 22 months after surgery. When the researchers excluded patients in both groups with central hypothyroidism, new-onset autoimmune disease was still significantly higher (11.4%) in the Cushing group than in the NFPA group (1.9%; HR, 7.02; 95% CI, 2.54-19.39).
 

Could Postoperative Adrenal Insufficiency Contribute to Risk?

Within the Cushing cohort, those who developed autoimmune disease had a lower BMI (31.8 vs 34.8) and larger tumor size (7.2 vs 5.6 mm) than those who didn’t develop new autoimmune disease. Patients who developed autoimmune disease also had a lower baseline urine free cortisol ratio (2.7 vs 6.3) before surgery and more family history of autoimmune disease (41.2% vs 20.9%) than those who didn’t develop one.

“The higher prevalence of adrenal insufficiency and the lower nadir serum cortisol levels in the Cushing disease group suggest that the postoperative adrenal insufficiency in the Cushing disease group might have contributed to autoimmune disease pathogenesis,” the authors wrote. “This finding is clinically significant because cortisol plays a pivotal role in modulating the immune system.”

Most postoperative management among patients with Cushing disease was similar, with all but one patient receiving 0.5 or 1 mg daily dexamethasone within the first week after surgery. (The one outlier received 5 mg daily prednisone.) However, fewer patients who developed autoimmune disease (17.6%) received supraphysiologic doses of glucocorticoid — equivalent to at least 25 mg hydrocortisone — compared with patients who didn’t develop autoimmune disease (41.8%).

“Although the daily average hydrocortisone equivalent replacement doses within the first month and during long-term follow-up were within the physiologic range in both subgroups, patients with Cushing disease who had autoimmune disease received slightly lower doses of glucocorticoid replacement within the first month after surgery,” the authors reported. “The immediate postoperative period might be a critical window where supraphysiologic glucocorticoids seem to be protective with regard to development of autoimmune disease,” they wrote, though they acknowledged the study’s retrospective design as a limitation in drawing that conclusion.

At the least, they suggested that new symptoms in patients with Cushing disease, particularly those with a family history of autoimmune disease, should prompt investigation of potential autoimmune disease.

Recordati Rare Diseases funded the study. The research was also conducted with support from Harvard Catalyst (the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center) as well as financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers. One author reported holding stocks in Pfizer and Amgen, and another reported receiving consulting fees from Corcept. Dr. Heaney reported receiving institutional grants for trials from Corcept, Ascendis, Crinetics, and Sparrow Pharm; serving on the advisory board for Xeris, Recordati, Corcept, Novo Nordisk, Lundbeck, and Crinetics; and serving as a speaker for Chiesi, Novo Nordisk, and Corcept.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with Cushing disease have an increased risk for new-onset autoimmune disease in the 3 years after surgical remission, according to a new retrospective study published on February 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Outcomes for patients with Cushing disease were compared against those with nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs). New-onset autoimmune disease occurred in 10.4% with Cushing disease and 1.6% among patients with NFPA (hazard ratio, 7.80; 95% CI, 2.88-21.10).

“Understanding and recognizing new and recurrent autoimmune disease in this setting is important to avoid misclassifying such patients with glucocorticoid withdrawal syndrome, which could result in failure to treat underlying autoimmune disease, as well as erroneous diagnosis of steroid withdrawal cases,” wrote Dennis Delasi Nyanyo of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

Given the general population’s annual incidence of major autoimmune diseases, estimated at about 100 cases per 100,000 people, and the 3-year incidence of 10.4% found in this study’s cohort, “our findings suggest that Cushing disease remission may trigger development of autoimmune disease,” the authors wrote.
 

Monitor Patients With Family History of Autoimmune Disease?

The study results were not necessarily surprising to Anthony P. Heaney, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, because past research has raised similar questions. The authors’ suggestion that the rapid postsurgical drop in cortisol that occurs as a result of treating Cushing disease becomes some sort of autoimmune trigger is interesting but remains speculative, Dr. Heaney pointed out.

If future evidence supports that possibility, “it would suggest, in terms of managing those patients in the postoperative setting, that there may be some merit to giving them higher concentrations of glucocorticoids for a short period of time,” Dr. Heaney said, thereby bringing their levels down more gradually rather than taking them off a cliff, in a sense. Or, if more evidence bears out the authors’ hypothesis, another approach might be treating patients with medicine to bring down the cortisol before surgery, though there are challenges to that approach, Dr. Heaney said.

At the same time, those who developed new autoimmune disease remain a small subset of patients with Cushing disease, so such approaches may become only potentially appropriate to consider in patients with risk factors, such as a family history of autoimmune disease.

The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients who underwent transsphenoidal surgery for either Cushing disease or NFPA at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2005 and 2019.

The study involved 194 patients with Cushing disease who had postsurgical remission and at least one follow-up visit with a pituitary expert and 92 patients with NFPA who were matched to patients with Cushing disease based on age and sex. The authors regarded autoimmune disease diagnosed within 36 months of the surgery to be temporally associated with Cushing disease remission. Among the autoimmune diseases considered were “rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, autoimmune thyroiditis, celiac disease, psoriasis, vitiligo, autoimmune neuropathy, multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, and ulcerative colitis.”

Patients differed in average body mass index and tumor size, but family history of autoimmune disease was similar in both groups. Average BMI was 34.5 in the Cushing group and 29.5 in the NFPA group. Average tumor size was 5.7 mm in the Cushing group and 21.3 mm in the NFPA group.

Before surgery, 2.9% of patients with Cushing disease and 15.4% of patients with NFPA had central hypothyroidism, and 8% in the Cushing group and 56.8% in the NFPA group had hyperprolactinemia. Central adrenal insufficiency occurred in 11% with NFPA and in all with Cushing disease, by definition.

After surgery, 93.8% in the Cushing group and 16.5% in the NFPA group had adrenal insufficiency. In addition, patients with Cushing disease had lower postsurgical nadir serum cortisol levels (63.8 nmol/L) than those with NFPA (282.3 nmol/L).

Of the 17 patients with Cushing disease — all women — who developed autoimmune disease within 3 years, 6 had a personal history of autoimmune disease and 7 had a family history of it. In addition, 41.2% of them had adrenal insufficiency when they developed the new autoimmune disease. Among the diseases were six autoimmune thyroiditis cases, three Sjögren syndrome cases, and two autoimmune seronegative spondyloarthropathy.

Dr. Heaney said he found it interesting that more than half of the new autoimmune diseases in patients with Cushing disease were related to the thyroid. “In this kind of setting, where you have a patient who has been producing too much steroid over a period of time and then you take that away, it’s almost like you release a brake on the TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone],” Dr. Heaney said. “So, there’s probably some rebound in TSH that occurs, and that could be driving the thyroiditis, to some extent, that we see in these patients.”

Only one patient with NFPA developed new-onset autoimmune disease, a woman who developed Graves disease 22 months after surgery. When the researchers excluded patients in both groups with central hypothyroidism, new-onset autoimmune disease was still significantly higher (11.4%) in the Cushing group than in the NFPA group (1.9%; HR, 7.02; 95% CI, 2.54-19.39).
 

Could Postoperative Adrenal Insufficiency Contribute to Risk?

Within the Cushing cohort, those who developed autoimmune disease had a lower BMI (31.8 vs 34.8) and larger tumor size (7.2 vs 5.6 mm) than those who didn’t develop new autoimmune disease. Patients who developed autoimmune disease also had a lower baseline urine free cortisol ratio (2.7 vs 6.3) before surgery and more family history of autoimmune disease (41.2% vs 20.9%) than those who didn’t develop one.

“The higher prevalence of adrenal insufficiency and the lower nadir serum cortisol levels in the Cushing disease group suggest that the postoperative adrenal insufficiency in the Cushing disease group might have contributed to autoimmune disease pathogenesis,” the authors wrote. “This finding is clinically significant because cortisol plays a pivotal role in modulating the immune system.”

Most postoperative management among patients with Cushing disease was similar, with all but one patient receiving 0.5 or 1 mg daily dexamethasone within the first week after surgery. (The one outlier received 5 mg daily prednisone.) However, fewer patients who developed autoimmune disease (17.6%) received supraphysiologic doses of glucocorticoid — equivalent to at least 25 mg hydrocortisone — compared with patients who didn’t develop autoimmune disease (41.8%).

“Although the daily average hydrocortisone equivalent replacement doses within the first month and during long-term follow-up were within the physiologic range in both subgroups, patients with Cushing disease who had autoimmune disease received slightly lower doses of glucocorticoid replacement within the first month after surgery,” the authors reported. “The immediate postoperative period might be a critical window where supraphysiologic glucocorticoids seem to be protective with regard to development of autoimmune disease,” they wrote, though they acknowledged the study’s retrospective design as a limitation in drawing that conclusion.

At the least, they suggested that new symptoms in patients with Cushing disease, particularly those with a family history of autoimmune disease, should prompt investigation of potential autoimmune disease.

Recordati Rare Diseases funded the study. The research was also conducted with support from Harvard Catalyst (the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center) as well as financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers. One author reported holding stocks in Pfizer and Amgen, and another reported receiving consulting fees from Corcept. Dr. Heaney reported receiving institutional grants for trials from Corcept, Ascendis, Crinetics, and Sparrow Pharm; serving on the advisory board for Xeris, Recordati, Corcept, Novo Nordisk, Lundbeck, and Crinetics; and serving as a speaker for Chiesi, Novo Nordisk, and Corcept.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning against the use of smartwatches and rings that are claimed to measure a person’s glucose levels without piercing the skin.

The warning doesn’t apply to authorized smartwatch applications that display glucose values from an FDA-approved continuous glucose monitor with a sensor implanted under the skin.

Rather, the warning pertains to watches or rings sold through online marketplaces or directly from sellers who claim that the devices measure blood sugar noninvasively without requiring the wearer to prick their finger or pierce their skin. These products are manufactured by dozens of companies and sold under many different brand names. The FDA’s warning applies to all of them.

These devices have not been evaluated by the FDA for safety and effectiveness, and their use by people with diabetes could result in inaccurate blood glucose measurements, with potentially serious consequences if relied upon for medication dosing.

“The FDA has not authorized, cleared, or approved any smartwatch or smart ring that is intended to measure or estimate blood glucose values on its own,” the agency said in a statement issued on February 21, 2024.

They added, “The agency is working to ensure that manufacturers, distributors, and sellers do not illegally market unauthorized smartwatches or smart rings that claim to measure blood glucose levels.”

People who experience any problems with inaccurate blood glucose measurement or experience any adverse events from using an unauthorized smartwatch or smart ring are urged to report it to the FDA through its MedWatch program.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning against the use of smartwatches and rings that are claimed to measure a person’s glucose levels without piercing the skin.

The warning doesn’t apply to authorized smartwatch applications that display glucose values from an FDA-approved continuous glucose monitor with a sensor implanted under the skin.

Rather, the warning pertains to watches or rings sold through online marketplaces or directly from sellers who claim that the devices measure blood sugar noninvasively without requiring the wearer to prick their finger or pierce their skin. These products are manufactured by dozens of companies and sold under many different brand names. The FDA’s warning applies to all of them.

These devices have not been evaluated by the FDA for safety and effectiveness, and their use by people with diabetes could result in inaccurate blood glucose measurements, with potentially serious consequences if relied upon for medication dosing.

“The FDA has not authorized, cleared, or approved any smartwatch or smart ring that is intended to measure or estimate blood glucose values on its own,” the agency said in a statement issued on February 21, 2024.

They added, “The agency is working to ensure that manufacturers, distributors, and sellers do not illegally market unauthorized smartwatches or smart rings that claim to measure blood glucose levels.”

People who experience any problems with inaccurate blood glucose measurement or experience any adverse events from using an unauthorized smartwatch or smart ring are urged to report it to the FDA through its MedWatch program.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning against the use of smartwatches and rings that are claimed to measure a person’s glucose levels without piercing the skin.

The warning doesn’t apply to authorized smartwatch applications that display glucose values from an FDA-approved continuous glucose monitor with a sensor implanted under the skin.

Rather, the warning pertains to watches or rings sold through online marketplaces or directly from sellers who claim that the devices measure blood sugar noninvasively without requiring the wearer to prick their finger or pierce their skin. These products are manufactured by dozens of companies and sold under many different brand names. The FDA’s warning applies to all of them.

These devices have not been evaluated by the FDA for safety and effectiveness, and their use by people with diabetes could result in inaccurate blood glucose measurements, with potentially serious consequences if relied upon for medication dosing.

“The FDA has not authorized, cleared, or approved any smartwatch or smart ring that is intended to measure or estimate blood glucose values on its own,” the agency said in a statement issued on February 21, 2024.

They added, “The agency is working to ensure that manufacturers, distributors, and sellers do not illegally market unauthorized smartwatches or smart rings that claim to measure blood glucose levels.”

People who experience any problems with inaccurate blood glucose measurement or experience any adverse events from using an unauthorized smartwatch or smart ring are urged to report it to the FDA through its MedWatch program.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Gargling with mouthwash two to three times a day can reduce periodontopathic bacteria and possibly improve glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), especially younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 173 patients with T2D who had at least six total periodontopathic bacteria in their mouths and  ≥ 6.5% were instructed to gargle with water three times a day for 6 months, followed by gargling with chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash three times a day for the next 6 months.
• Saliva specimens were collected every 1-2 months at clinic visits totaling 6-12 samples per study period and bacterial DNA examined for three red complex species, namely, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola, and Tannerella forsythia.

TAKEAWAY:

• Twelve individuals who gargled once a day or less showed no significant reductions in red complex species after mouthwash or water gargling.
• By contrast, significant decreases in red complex bacteria were seen after 6 months of mouthwash gargling (P < .001) in the 80 who gargled twice a day and the 81 who did so three times a day compared with no changes after water gargling.
• Among the 161 individuals who gargled at least twice a day, the decrease in red species with mouthwash vs water gargling was highly significant (P < .0001).
• After adjustment for A1c seasonal variation, neither water gargling nor mouthwash gargling led to significant overall reduction in A1c levels.
• However, A1c levels were significantly lower in the 83 individuals aged ≤ 68 years than among the 78 aged ≥ 69 years after gargling with mouthwash (P < .05), with no change in either group after water gargling.
• Similarly, A1c levels were significantly reduced (P < .05) after mouthwash in the 69 with baseline A1c ≥ 7.5% compared with the 92 whose baseline A1c levels were ≤ 7.4%, with no changes in either after water.

IN PRACTICE:

“A bidirectional relationship between periodontitis and T2D has been reported. Patients with T2D are more susceptible to severe periodontitis than subjects without diabetes, and inflammatory periodontitis aggravates hyperglycemia, leading to inadequate glycemic control.” “Recently, it has been reported that patients with T2D treated for periodontitis have reduced periodontopathic bacteria and improved glycemic control. Patients with T2D complicated by periodontitis have more red complex species, and poor glycemic control is thought to be associated with increased levels of red complex species in the oral cavity.” “Further studies should be planned, taking into account various patient factors to determine the effect of mouthwash gargling on the amount of red complex species and A1c levels in patients with T2D.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Saaya Matayoshi, of the Joint Research Laboratory of Science for Oral and Systemic Connection, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Osaka, Japan, and colleagues and published in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Only polymerase chain reaction used to detect periodontopathic bacteria so not quantified. No assessment of periodontal pocket depth. Saliva sampling conditions not standardized. Study conducted during COVID-19 pandemic; all patients wore masks. Heterogeneity in patient responses to the mouthwash.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the Fund for Scientific Promotion of Weltec Corp, Osaka, Japan. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Gargling with mouthwash two to three times a day can reduce periodontopathic bacteria and possibly improve glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), especially younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 173 patients with T2D who had at least six total periodontopathic bacteria in their mouths and  ≥ 6.5% were instructed to gargle with water three times a day for 6 months, followed by gargling with chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash three times a day for the next 6 months.
• Saliva specimens were collected every 1-2 months at clinic visits totaling 6-12 samples per study period and bacterial DNA examined for three red complex species, namely, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola, and Tannerella forsythia.

TAKEAWAY:

• Twelve individuals who gargled once a day or less showed no significant reductions in red complex species after mouthwash or water gargling.
• By contrast, significant decreases in red complex bacteria were seen after 6 months of mouthwash gargling (P < .001) in the 80 who gargled twice a day and the 81 who did so three times a day compared with no changes after water gargling.
• Among the 161 individuals who gargled at least twice a day, the decrease in red species with mouthwash vs water gargling was highly significant (P < .0001).
• After adjustment for A1c seasonal variation, neither water gargling nor mouthwash gargling led to significant overall reduction in A1c levels.
• However, A1c levels were significantly lower in the 83 individuals aged ≤ 68 years than among the 78 aged ≥ 69 years after gargling with mouthwash (P < .05), with no change in either group after water gargling.
• Similarly, A1c levels were significantly reduced (P < .05) after mouthwash in the 69 with baseline A1c ≥ 7.5% compared with the 92 whose baseline A1c levels were ≤ 7.4%, with no changes in either after water.

IN PRACTICE:

“A bidirectional relationship between periodontitis and T2D has been reported. Patients with T2D are more susceptible to severe periodontitis than subjects without diabetes, and inflammatory periodontitis aggravates hyperglycemia, leading to inadequate glycemic control.” “Recently, it has been reported that patients with T2D treated for periodontitis have reduced periodontopathic bacteria and improved glycemic control. Patients with T2D complicated by periodontitis have more red complex species, and poor glycemic control is thought to be associated with increased levels of red complex species in the oral cavity.” “Further studies should be planned, taking into account various patient factors to determine the effect of mouthwash gargling on the amount of red complex species and A1c levels in patients with T2D.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Saaya Matayoshi, of the Joint Research Laboratory of Science for Oral and Systemic Connection, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Osaka, Japan, and colleagues and published in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Only polymerase chain reaction used to detect periodontopathic bacteria so not quantified. No assessment of periodontal pocket depth. Saliva sampling conditions not standardized. Study conducted during COVID-19 pandemic; all patients wore masks. Heterogeneity in patient responses to the mouthwash.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the Fund for Scientific Promotion of Weltec Corp, Osaka, Japan. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Gargling with mouthwash two to three times a day can reduce periodontopathic bacteria and possibly improve glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), especially younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 173 patients with T2D who had at least six total periodontopathic bacteria in their mouths and  ≥ 6.5% were instructed to gargle with water three times a day for 6 months, followed by gargling with chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash three times a day for the next 6 months.
• Saliva specimens were collected every 1-2 months at clinic visits totaling 6-12 samples per study period and bacterial DNA examined for three red complex species, namely, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola, and Tannerella forsythia.

TAKEAWAY:

• Twelve individuals who gargled once a day or less showed no significant reductions in red complex species after mouthwash or water gargling.
• By contrast, significant decreases in red complex bacteria were seen after 6 months of mouthwash gargling (P < .001) in the 80 who gargled twice a day and the 81 who did so three times a day compared with no changes after water gargling.
• Among the 161 individuals who gargled at least twice a day, the decrease in red species with mouthwash vs water gargling was highly significant (P < .0001).
• After adjustment for A1c seasonal variation, neither water gargling nor mouthwash gargling led to significant overall reduction in A1c levels.
• However, A1c levels were significantly lower in the 83 individuals aged ≤ 68 years than among the 78 aged ≥ 69 years after gargling with mouthwash (P < .05), with no change in either group after water gargling.
• Similarly, A1c levels were significantly reduced (P < .05) after mouthwash in the 69 with baseline A1c ≥ 7.5% compared with the 92 whose baseline A1c levels were ≤ 7.4%, with no changes in either after water.

IN PRACTICE:

“A bidirectional relationship between periodontitis and T2D has been reported. Patients with T2D are more susceptible to severe periodontitis than subjects without diabetes, and inflammatory periodontitis aggravates hyperglycemia, leading to inadequate glycemic control.” “Recently, it has been reported that patients with T2D treated for periodontitis have reduced periodontopathic bacteria and improved glycemic control. Patients with T2D complicated by periodontitis have more red complex species, and poor glycemic control is thought to be associated with increased levels of red complex species in the oral cavity.” “Further studies should be planned, taking into account various patient factors to determine the effect of mouthwash gargling on the amount of red complex species and A1c levels in patients with T2D.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Saaya Matayoshi, of the Joint Research Laboratory of Science for Oral and Systemic Connection, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Osaka, Japan, and colleagues and published in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Only polymerase chain reaction used to detect periodontopathic bacteria so not quantified. No assessment of periodontal pocket depth. Saliva sampling conditions not standardized. Study conducted during COVID-19 pandemic; all patients wore masks. Heterogeneity in patient responses to the mouthwash.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the Fund for Scientific Promotion of Weltec Corp, Osaka, Japan. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

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

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

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

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

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

TOPLINE:

A value-based medication plan that lowers out-of-pocket costs for antidiabetic medications reduces health complications in commercially insured individuals with diabetes, especially those living in lower-income areas.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers assessed the 1-year impact on type 2 diabetes outcomes from a preventive drug list (PDL), which employers can add to plans to reduce out-of-pocket costs (copayments or deductibles) for high-value preventive medications.
• Using data from a national insurer, they identified 10,588 members with diabetes newly enrolled in PDL plans between January 2004 and June 2017 (age, 12-64 years; 44.8% women; 45.5% from the South; 33.4% from employers with < 100 enrollees).
• The members with diabetes on a PDL plan for a full follow-up year were matched and weighted against 690,075 control participants whose employers did not offer PDL.
• In a subgroup analysis, health outcomes for members with diabetes residing in lower-income neighborhoods (53.1%) were evaluated.
• The primary outcome was acute, preventable diabetes complications, such as bacterial infections, neurovascular events, acute coronary disease, and diabetic ketoacidosis, measured as complication days per 1000 members per year.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Out-of-pocket costs for noninsulin antidiabetic agents and insulin declined by 30.7% and 38.6%, respectively, in the PDL group vs controls. 
• The 30-day prescription fills for noninsulin and insulin antidiabetic medication increased by 7.1% (95% CI, 5.0%-9.3%) and 5.3% (95% CI, 2.2%-8.4%), respectively, among PDL members and was slightly higher among PDL members residing in low-income areas. 
• The PDL transition was associated with an 8.4% relative reduction (95% CI, −13.9% to −2.8%) in complication days overall (absolute reduction, −20.2 days per 1000 members per year). 
• Among members from lower-income areas, PDL transition was associated with a 10.2% relative reduction (95% CI, −17.4% to −3.0%) in complication days (absolute reduction, −26.1 per 1000 members per year) compared with controls. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Targeting out-of-pocket cost reductions to specific populations, in this case patients with diabetes from lower-income areas, might enhance health outcomes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE: 

The study was conducted by J. Franklin Wharam, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Health Forum. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The findings may be generalized only to patients with diabetes enrolled in commercial health plans. Instead of being randomized, the PDL coverage was chosen by certain employers. Moreover, only outcomes associated with new PDL enrollment over a single year were evaluated.

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was funded by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One of the authors reported receiving postmarket safety study stipends from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A value-based medication plan that lowers out-of-pocket costs for antidiabetic medications reduces health complications in commercially insured individuals with diabetes, especially those living in lower-income areas.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers assessed the 1-year impact on type 2 diabetes outcomes from a preventive drug list (PDL), which employers can add to plans to reduce out-of-pocket costs (copayments or deductibles) for high-value preventive medications.
• Using data from a national insurer, they identified 10,588 members with diabetes newly enrolled in PDL plans between January 2004 and June 2017 (age, 12-64 years; 44.8% women; 45.5% from the South; 33.4% from employers with < 100 enrollees).
• The members with diabetes on a PDL plan for a full follow-up year were matched and weighted against 690,075 control participants whose employers did not offer PDL.
• In a subgroup analysis, health outcomes for members with diabetes residing in lower-income neighborhoods (53.1%) were evaluated.
• The primary outcome was acute, preventable diabetes complications, such as bacterial infections, neurovascular events, acute coronary disease, and diabetic ketoacidosis, measured as complication days per 1000 members per year.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Out-of-pocket costs for noninsulin antidiabetic agents and insulin declined by 30.7% and 38.6%, respectively, in the PDL group vs controls. 
• The 30-day prescription fills for noninsulin and insulin antidiabetic medication increased by 7.1% (95% CI, 5.0%-9.3%) and 5.3% (95% CI, 2.2%-8.4%), respectively, among PDL members and was slightly higher among PDL members residing in low-income areas. 
• The PDL transition was associated with an 8.4% relative reduction (95% CI, −13.9% to −2.8%) in complication days overall (absolute reduction, −20.2 days per 1000 members per year). 
• Among members from lower-income areas, PDL transition was associated with a 10.2% relative reduction (95% CI, −17.4% to −3.0%) in complication days (absolute reduction, −26.1 per 1000 members per year) compared with controls. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Targeting out-of-pocket cost reductions to specific populations, in this case patients with diabetes from lower-income areas, might enhance health outcomes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE: 

The study was conducted by J. Franklin Wharam, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Health Forum. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The findings may be generalized only to patients with diabetes enrolled in commercial health plans. Instead of being randomized, the PDL coverage was chosen by certain employers. Moreover, only outcomes associated with new PDL enrollment over a single year were evaluated.

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was funded by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One of the authors reported receiving postmarket safety study stipends from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A value-based medication plan that lowers out-of-pocket costs for antidiabetic medications reduces health complications in commercially insured individuals with diabetes, especially those living in lower-income areas.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers assessed the 1-year impact on type 2 diabetes outcomes from a preventive drug list (PDL), which employers can add to plans to reduce out-of-pocket costs (copayments or deductibles) for high-value preventive medications.
• Using data from a national insurer, they identified 10,588 members with diabetes newly enrolled in PDL plans between January 2004 and June 2017 (age, 12-64 years; 44.8% women; 45.5% from the South; 33.4% from employers with < 100 enrollees).
• The members with diabetes on a PDL plan for a full follow-up year were matched and weighted against 690,075 control participants whose employers did not offer PDL.
• In a subgroup analysis, health outcomes for members with diabetes residing in lower-income neighborhoods (53.1%) were evaluated.
• The primary outcome was acute, preventable diabetes complications, such as bacterial infections, neurovascular events, acute coronary disease, and diabetic ketoacidosis, measured as complication days per 1000 members per year.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Out-of-pocket costs for noninsulin antidiabetic agents and insulin declined by 30.7% and 38.6%, respectively, in the PDL group vs controls. 
• The 30-day prescription fills for noninsulin and insulin antidiabetic medication increased by 7.1% (95% CI, 5.0%-9.3%) and 5.3% (95% CI, 2.2%-8.4%), respectively, among PDL members and was slightly higher among PDL members residing in low-income areas. 
• The PDL transition was associated with an 8.4% relative reduction (95% CI, −13.9% to −2.8%) in complication days overall (absolute reduction, −20.2 days per 1000 members per year). 
• Among members from lower-income areas, PDL transition was associated with a 10.2% relative reduction (95% CI, −17.4% to −3.0%) in complication days (absolute reduction, −26.1 per 1000 members per year) compared with controls. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Targeting out-of-pocket cost reductions to specific populations, in this case patients with diabetes from lower-income areas, might enhance health outcomes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE: 

The study was conducted by J. Franklin Wharam, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Health Forum. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The findings may be generalized only to patients with diabetes enrolled in commercial health plans. Instead of being randomized, the PDL coverage was chosen by certain employers. Moreover, only outcomes associated with new PDL enrollment over a single year were evaluated.

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was funded by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One of the authors reported receiving postmarket safety study stipends from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Eating more than three meals daily, eating earlier, and eating lunch as the largest meal are linked to lower body mass index (BMI) and reduced obesity risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• According to recent research in the field of “chrononutrition,” which refers to the circadian pattern of eating behaviors, the timing of eating can affect an individual’s health and obesity.
• This exploratory, population-based study looked at the association between the timing of the largest meal of the day and the number of meals per day with BMI and obesity in 2050 nonpregnant adults in Brazil (ages 18-65 years; 15% with BMI ≥ 30; 73% women).
• In an online survey, participants reported their weight and height for BMI calculation and filled in questionnaires related to meal timing and frequency as well as diet quality and lifestyle traits.
• The 24-hour clock time (hh:mm) averages for the first eating event, lunch, and evening eating event were 8:27, 12:47, and 20:57, respectively, among all the participants.
• The median time of the largest meal was 12:38 and was the dividing line to classify people as early-eaters or late-eaters. Overall, lunch was the largest meal for 75% of people, and 75% ate more than three meals a day.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with participants who had up to three meals a day, those who reported more than three meals a day had a 0.48 lower BMI (P = .04) and lower odds of obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; P = .005).
• Eating the largest meal later was associated with higher BMI values (0.07 for each additional hour; P = .03) and higher odds of obesity (OR, 1.04; P = .01).
• The group that reported dinner as the largest meal of the day had a 0.85 higher BMI (P = .02) and greater odds of obesity (OR, 1.67; P = .004) than the group that did not have dinner as the largest meal.
• On the other hand, having lunch as the main meal appeared to serve as a protective factor with lower odds of obesity (OR, 0.71; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“Late-eaters (individuals who ate their largest meal after 12:38) exhibited several obesogenic and unhealthy behaviors (such as lower diet quality, shorter sleep duration, sedentary lifestyle, and prolonged screen time) that could potentially contribute to long-term weight gain and obesity,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Giovana Longo-Silva, Faculty of Nutrition, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil, led this study, which was published online in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN.

LIMITATIONS:

The study used self-reported questionnaires, which are susceptible to underreporting. The participants included a greater number of highly educated women. The study used food scoring to evaluate the overall quality of each person’s dietary intake and may have missed variations in the distribution of nutrients in meals and in the total amount of energy and nutrients consumed, which could affect the BMI of participants. Despite adjustments for sociodemographic, diet-related, and lifestyle traits, a cross-sectional study cannot distinguish between cause and effect.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Alagoas. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Eating more than three meals daily, eating earlier, and eating lunch as the largest meal are linked to lower body mass index (BMI) and reduced obesity risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• According to recent research in the field of “chrononutrition,” which refers to the circadian pattern of eating behaviors, the timing of eating can affect an individual’s health and obesity.
• This exploratory, population-based study looked at the association between the timing of the largest meal of the day and the number of meals per day with BMI and obesity in 2050 nonpregnant adults in Brazil (ages 18-65 years; 15% with BMI ≥ 30; 73% women).
• In an online survey, participants reported their weight and height for BMI calculation and filled in questionnaires related to meal timing and frequency as well as diet quality and lifestyle traits.
• The 24-hour clock time (hh:mm) averages for the first eating event, lunch, and evening eating event were 8:27, 12:47, and 20:57, respectively, among all the participants.
• The median time of the largest meal was 12:38 and was the dividing line to classify people as early-eaters or late-eaters. Overall, lunch was the largest meal for 75% of people, and 75% ate more than three meals a day.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with participants who had up to three meals a day, those who reported more than three meals a day had a 0.48 lower BMI (P = .04) and lower odds of obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; P = .005).
• Eating the largest meal later was associated with higher BMI values (0.07 for each additional hour; P = .03) and higher odds of obesity (OR, 1.04; P = .01).
• The group that reported dinner as the largest meal of the day had a 0.85 higher BMI (P = .02) and greater odds of obesity (OR, 1.67; P = .004) than the group that did not have dinner as the largest meal.
• On the other hand, having lunch as the main meal appeared to serve as a protective factor with lower odds of obesity (OR, 0.71; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“Late-eaters (individuals who ate their largest meal after 12:38) exhibited several obesogenic and unhealthy behaviors (such as lower diet quality, shorter sleep duration, sedentary lifestyle, and prolonged screen time) that could potentially contribute to long-term weight gain and obesity,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Giovana Longo-Silva, Faculty of Nutrition, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil, led this study, which was published online in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN.

LIMITATIONS:

The study used self-reported questionnaires, which are susceptible to underreporting. The participants included a greater number of highly educated women. The study used food scoring to evaluate the overall quality of each person’s dietary intake and may have missed variations in the distribution of nutrients in meals and in the total amount of energy and nutrients consumed, which could affect the BMI of participants. Despite adjustments for sociodemographic, diet-related, and lifestyle traits, a cross-sectional study cannot distinguish between cause and effect.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Alagoas. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Eating more than three meals daily, eating earlier, and eating lunch as the largest meal are linked to lower body mass index (BMI) and reduced obesity risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• According to recent research in the field of “chrononutrition,” which refers to the circadian pattern of eating behaviors, the timing of eating can affect an individual’s health and obesity.
• This exploratory, population-based study looked at the association between the timing of the largest meal of the day and the number of meals per day with BMI and obesity in 2050 nonpregnant adults in Brazil (ages 18-65 years; 15% with BMI ≥ 30; 73% women).
• In an online survey, participants reported their weight and height for BMI calculation and filled in questionnaires related to meal timing and frequency as well as diet quality and lifestyle traits.
• The 24-hour clock time (hh:mm) averages for the first eating event, lunch, and evening eating event were 8:27, 12:47, and 20:57, respectively, among all the participants.
• The median time of the largest meal was 12:38 and was the dividing line to classify people as early-eaters or late-eaters. Overall, lunch was the largest meal for 75% of people, and 75% ate more than three meals a day.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with participants who had up to three meals a day, those who reported more than three meals a day had a 0.48 lower BMI (P = .04) and lower odds of obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; P = .005).
• Eating the largest meal later was associated with higher BMI values (0.07 for each additional hour; P = .03) and higher odds of obesity (OR, 1.04; P = .01).
• The group that reported dinner as the largest meal of the day had a 0.85 higher BMI (P = .02) and greater odds of obesity (OR, 1.67; P = .004) than the group that did not have dinner as the largest meal.
• On the other hand, having lunch as the main meal appeared to serve as a protective factor with lower odds of obesity (OR, 0.71; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“Late-eaters (individuals who ate their largest meal after 12:38) exhibited several obesogenic and unhealthy behaviors (such as lower diet quality, shorter sleep duration, sedentary lifestyle, and prolonged screen time) that could potentially contribute to long-term weight gain and obesity,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Giovana Longo-Silva, Faculty of Nutrition, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil, led this study, which was published online in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN.

LIMITATIONS:

The study used self-reported questionnaires, which are susceptible to underreporting. The participants included a greater number of highly educated women. The study used food scoring to evaluate the overall quality of each person’s dietary intake and may have missed variations in the distribution of nutrients in meals and in the total amount of energy and nutrients consumed, which could affect the BMI of participants. Despite adjustments for sociodemographic, diet-related, and lifestyle traits, a cross-sectional study cannot distinguish between cause and effect.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Alagoas. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new position statement from the Endocrine Society aims to help clinicians prioritize patient experiences in the management of diabetes to optimize outcomes.

The statement reflects consensus from two virtual roundtables held in 2022, with participation from representatives of the American Diabetes Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others.

“Although we’ve had many new classes of medications and many new technologies introduced into the care of people with diabetes over the past decade, there continues to be significant gaps between what our clinical guidelines recommend needs to be done in order to attain optimal health outcomes and what is actually able to be implemented in practice,” writing panel chair Rita R. Kalyani, MD, told this news organization.

The roundtable discussions addressed existing gaps in diabetes care and available tools to support patient-centered care in practice, focusing on the importance of acknowledging the experience of the person living with diabetes, said Dr. Kalyani, professor of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, & Metabolism, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “What is most important to them? What are the challenges they have in their day-to-day life, and what is being communicated or understood?”

The statement is targeted at all individuals involved in the care of people with diabetes, including endocrinologists, primary care providers, other specialists such as cardiologists and nephrologists, as well as pharmacists, educators, and nutritionists, she noted.

Asked to comment, David T. Ahn, MD, chief of diabetes services at Mary & Dick Allen Diabetes Center at Hoag, Newport Beach, California, said “the statement importantly emphasizes that optimally supporting a person with diabetes is about the entire patient experience and not simply their glycemic performance. People with diabetes are truly the biggest stakeholders in diabetes management, and their perspectives should matter.”

Published on February 21, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, the statement covers the following topics in separate sections:

• The importance of effective patient-provider communication at the time of diagnosis and at every clinic visit
• Addressing emotional and psychosocial needs, including helping people through diabetes distress or “burnout”
• Referring patients for diabetes self-management education and support
• Navigating available therapeutic options and explaining complex regimens to patients
• Minimizing therapeutic and clinical inertia
• Reducing cardiovascular, kidney, and other complication risks, including with the use of newer medications
• Discussing strategies to minimize hypoglycemia when relevant
• Using telehealth when appropriate
• Integrating diabetes technologies into routine diabetes management

Each section begins with an illustrative clinical patient vignette. For example, one describes a 42-year-old man with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin who experienced hyperglycemia during illness. His provider advises him to dramatically increase his insulin dose, but he doesn’t because he remembers his father had a severe hypoglycemia episode when he did that. The man ends up hospitalized with dehydration and renal failure.

In another, a doctor hesitates to share test results with a patient during a telehealth visit because family members are in the room. During the same visit, the patient is unable to show the doctor her swollen foot because “If I move from this spot, the Internet connection will be lost.”

Dr. Ahn said, “I like the structure of the statement because the case-based format should help clinicians better identify potential blind spots in their own practice, as sometimes it can be easy to assume that we are immune to these potential pitfalls. I found the vignettes to be very realistic, and the discussions around them were extremely detailed, with many practical suggestions for improvement.”

Also scattered through the document are graphics to help visualize the content. Tables include a list of common psychosocial conditions in diabetes, a list of questions to ask people to help determine if they need additional psychosocial screening or resources, and questionnaires to assess an individual’s risk for hypoglycemia and the appropriateness of telehealth.

However, Dr. Ahn also noted, “I agree with all the major recommendations from the statement. Unfortunately, as the authors point out, practically implementing all the recommendations in this article may not be feasible in a traditional busy clinic, especially for primary care providers managing juggling multiple acute and chronic conditions ... The biggest challenge is being able to have the time and resources to actually implement these suggestions.”

Kalyani said, “tools to support patient-centered care cannot be burdensome for people with diabetes or the healthcare provider who already has limited time in order to be effective. They have to meet the ever-changing demands of new medications, new recommendations, and new technologies. New tools and resources will continue to need to be developed in the future.”

The position statement is a summary of discussions that occurred during two consensus roundtables in 2022 that were supported by educational grants to the Endocrine Society from Abbott, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Vertex. However, this position statement was developed by the authors independently. Dr. Kalyani had no disclosures. Dr. Ahn consults for Lilly Diabetes and Ascensia Diabetes Care and is on the speakers bureau for Abbott, Ascensia, Insulet, Lilly, Mannkind, Novo, and Xeris.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new position statement from the Endocrine Society aims to help clinicians prioritize patient experiences in the management of diabetes to optimize outcomes.

The statement reflects consensus from two virtual roundtables held in 2022, with participation from representatives of the American Diabetes Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others.

“Although we’ve had many new classes of medications and many new technologies introduced into the care of people with diabetes over the past decade, there continues to be significant gaps between what our clinical guidelines recommend needs to be done in order to attain optimal health outcomes and what is actually able to be implemented in practice,” writing panel chair Rita R. Kalyani, MD, told this news organization.

The roundtable discussions addressed existing gaps in diabetes care and available tools to support patient-centered care in practice, focusing on the importance of acknowledging the experience of the person living with diabetes, said Dr. Kalyani, professor of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, & Metabolism, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “What is most important to them? What are the challenges they have in their day-to-day life, and what is being communicated or understood?”

The statement is targeted at all individuals involved in the care of people with diabetes, including endocrinologists, primary care providers, other specialists such as cardiologists and nephrologists, as well as pharmacists, educators, and nutritionists, she noted.

Asked to comment, David T. Ahn, MD, chief of diabetes services at Mary & Dick Allen Diabetes Center at Hoag, Newport Beach, California, said “the statement importantly emphasizes that optimally supporting a person with diabetes is about the entire patient experience and not simply their glycemic performance. People with diabetes are truly the biggest stakeholders in diabetes management, and their perspectives should matter.”

Published on February 21, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, the statement covers the following topics in separate sections:

• The importance of effective patient-provider communication at the time of diagnosis and at every clinic visit
• Addressing emotional and psychosocial needs, including helping people through diabetes distress or “burnout”
• Referring patients for diabetes self-management education and support
• Navigating available therapeutic options and explaining complex regimens to patients
• Minimizing therapeutic and clinical inertia
• Reducing cardiovascular, kidney, and other complication risks, including with the use of newer medications
• Discussing strategies to minimize hypoglycemia when relevant
• Using telehealth when appropriate
• Integrating diabetes technologies into routine diabetes management

Each section begins with an illustrative clinical patient vignette. For example, one describes a 42-year-old man with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin who experienced hyperglycemia during illness. His provider advises him to dramatically increase his insulin dose, but he doesn’t because he remembers his father had a severe hypoglycemia episode when he did that. The man ends up hospitalized with dehydration and renal failure.

In another, a doctor hesitates to share test results with a patient during a telehealth visit because family members are in the room. During the same visit, the patient is unable to show the doctor her swollen foot because “If I move from this spot, the Internet connection will be lost.”

Dr. Ahn said, “I like the structure of the statement because the case-based format should help clinicians better identify potential blind spots in their own practice, as sometimes it can be easy to assume that we are immune to these potential pitfalls. I found the vignettes to be very realistic, and the discussions around them were extremely detailed, with many practical suggestions for improvement.”

Also scattered through the document are graphics to help visualize the content. Tables include a list of common psychosocial conditions in diabetes, a list of questions to ask people to help determine if they need additional psychosocial screening or resources, and questionnaires to assess an individual’s risk for hypoglycemia and the appropriateness of telehealth.

However, Dr. Ahn also noted, “I agree with all the major recommendations from the statement. Unfortunately, as the authors point out, practically implementing all the recommendations in this article may not be feasible in a traditional busy clinic, especially for primary care providers managing juggling multiple acute and chronic conditions ... The biggest challenge is being able to have the time and resources to actually implement these suggestions.”

Kalyani said, “tools to support patient-centered care cannot be burdensome for people with diabetes or the healthcare provider who already has limited time in order to be effective. They have to meet the ever-changing demands of new medications, new recommendations, and new technologies. New tools and resources will continue to need to be developed in the future.”

The position statement is a summary of discussions that occurred during two consensus roundtables in 2022 that were supported by educational grants to the Endocrine Society from Abbott, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Vertex. However, this position statement was developed by the authors independently. Dr. Kalyani had no disclosures. Dr. Ahn consults for Lilly Diabetes and Ascensia Diabetes Care and is on the speakers bureau for Abbott, Ascensia, Insulet, Lilly, Mannkind, Novo, and Xeris.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new position statement from the Endocrine Society aims to help clinicians prioritize patient experiences in the management of diabetes to optimize outcomes.

The statement reflects consensus from two virtual roundtables held in 2022, with participation from representatives of the American Diabetes Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others.

“Although we’ve had many new classes of medications and many new technologies introduced into the care of people with diabetes over the past decade, there continues to be significant gaps between what our clinical guidelines recommend needs to be done in order to attain optimal health outcomes and what is actually able to be implemented in practice,” writing panel chair Rita R. Kalyani, MD, told this news organization.

The roundtable discussions addressed existing gaps in diabetes care and available tools to support patient-centered care in practice, focusing on the importance of acknowledging the experience of the person living with diabetes, said Dr. Kalyani, professor of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, & Metabolism, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “What is most important to them? What are the challenges they have in their day-to-day life, and what is being communicated or understood?”

The statement is targeted at all individuals involved in the care of people with diabetes, including endocrinologists, primary care providers, other specialists such as cardiologists and nephrologists, as well as pharmacists, educators, and nutritionists, she noted.

Asked to comment, David T. Ahn, MD, chief of diabetes services at Mary & Dick Allen Diabetes Center at Hoag, Newport Beach, California, said “the statement importantly emphasizes that optimally supporting a person with diabetes is about the entire patient experience and not simply their glycemic performance. People with diabetes are truly the biggest stakeholders in diabetes management, and their perspectives should matter.”

Published on February 21, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, the statement covers the following topics in separate sections:

• The importance of effective patient-provider communication at the time of diagnosis and at every clinic visit
• Addressing emotional and psychosocial needs, including helping people through diabetes distress or “burnout”
• Referring patients for diabetes self-management education and support
• Navigating available therapeutic options and explaining complex regimens to patients
• Minimizing therapeutic and clinical inertia
• Reducing cardiovascular, kidney, and other complication risks, including with the use of newer medications
• Discussing strategies to minimize hypoglycemia when relevant
• Using telehealth when appropriate
• Integrating diabetes technologies into routine diabetes management

Each section begins with an illustrative clinical patient vignette. For example, one describes a 42-year-old man with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin who experienced hyperglycemia during illness. His provider advises him to dramatically increase his insulin dose, but he doesn’t because he remembers his father had a severe hypoglycemia episode when he did that. The man ends up hospitalized with dehydration and renal failure.

In another, a doctor hesitates to share test results with a patient during a telehealth visit because family members are in the room. During the same visit, the patient is unable to show the doctor her swollen foot because “If I move from this spot, the Internet connection will be lost.”

Dr. Ahn said, “I like the structure of the statement because the case-based format should help clinicians better identify potential blind spots in their own practice, as sometimes it can be easy to assume that we are immune to these potential pitfalls. I found the vignettes to be very realistic, and the discussions around them were extremely detailed, with many practical suggestions for improvement.”

Also scattered through the document are graphics to help visualize the content. Tables include a list of common psychosocial conditions in diabetes, a list of questions to ask people to help determine if they need additional psychosocial screening or resources, and questionnaires to assess an individual’s risk for hypoglycemia and the appropriateness of telehealth.

However, Dr. Ahn also noted, “I agree with all the major recommendations from the statement. Unfortunately, as the authors point out, practically implementing all the recommendations in this article may not be feasible in a traditional busy clinic, especially for primary care providers managing juggling multiple acute and chronic conditions ... The biggest challenge is being able to have the time and resources to actually implement these suggestions.”

Kalyani said, “tools to support patient-centered care cannot be burdensome for people with diabetes or the healthcare provider who already has limited time in order to be effective. They have to meet the ever-changing demands of new medications, new recommendations, and new technologies. New tools and resources will continue to need to be developed in the future.”

The position statement is a summary of discussions that occurred during two consensus roundtables in 2022 that were supported by educational grants to the Endocrine Society from Abbott, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Vertex. However, this position statement was developed by the authors independently. Dr. Kalyani had no disclosures. Dr. Ahn consults for Lilly Diabetes and Ascensia Diabetes Care and is on the speakers bureau for Abbott, Ascensia, Insulet, Lilly, Mannkind, Novo, and Xeris.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.