Clinical Endocrinology News

TOPLINE:

An impaired central sensitivity to thyroid hormone may be associated with an increased risk for death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and normal thyroid function.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have shown that abnormal levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) are associated with a higher mortality risk in patients with CKD, but whether the risk extends to those with normal thyroid function remains controversial.
• Researchers investigated the association between central sensitivity to thyroid hormone and the risk for all-cause mortality in 1303 euthyroid patients with CKD (mean age, 60 years; 59% women) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database (2007-2012).
• All participants had CKD stages I-IV, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and/or a urinary albumin to urinary creatinine ratio ≥ 30 mg/g.
• The central sensitivity to thyroid hormone was primarily evaluated using a new central thyroid hormone resistance index, the Thyroid Feedback Quantile–based Index (TFQI), using free thyroxine and TSH concentrations.
• The participants were followed for a median duration of 115 months, during which 503 died.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with CKD who died during the follow-up period had a significantly higher TFQI (P < .001) than those who survived.
• The rates of all-cause mortality increased from 26.61% in the lowest TFQI tertile to 40.89% in the highest tertile (P = .001).
• A per unit increase in the TFQI was associated with a 40% increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.79).
• This association between TFQI level and all-cause mortality persisted in all subgroups stratified by age, gender, race, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and CKD stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study demonstrates that impaired sensitivity to thyroid hormone might be associated with all-cause mortality in CKD patients with normal thyroid function, independent of other traditional risk factors and comorbidities,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Qichao Yang and Ru Dong, Department of Endocrinology, Affiliated Wujin Hospital of Jiangsu University, Changzhou, China, and was published online on August 6, 2024, in BMC Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Thyroid function was measured only at baseline, and the changes in thyroid function over time were not measured. The study excluded people on thyroid hormone replacement therapy but did not consider other medication use that might have affected thyroid function, such as beta-blockers, steroids, and amiodarone. Thyroid-related antibodies, metabolic syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were not included in the analysis as possible confounding factors. The US-based sample requires further validation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Changzhou Health Commission. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

TOPLINE:

An impaired central sensitivity to thyroid hormone may be associated with an increased risk for death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and normal thyroid function.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have shown that abnormal levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) are associated with a higher mortality risk in patients with CKD, but whether the risk extends to those with normal thyroid function remains controversial.
• Researchers investigated the association between central sensitivity to thyroid hormone and the risk for all-cause mortality in 1303 euthyroid patients with CKD (mean age, 60 years; 59% women) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database (2007-2012).
• All participants had CKD stages I-IV, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and/or a urinary albumin to urinary creatinine ratio ≥ 30 mg/g.
• The central sensitivity to thyroid hormone was primarily evaluated using a new central thyroid hormone resistance index, the Thyroid Feedback Quantile–based Index (TFQI), using free thyroxine and TSH concentrations.
• The participants were followed for a median duration of 115 months, during which 503 died.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with CKD who died during the follow-up period had a significantly higher TFQI (P < .001) than those who survived.
• The rates of all-cause mortality increased from 26.61% in the lowest TFQI tertile to 40.89% in the highest tertile (P = .001).
• A per unit increase in the TFQI was associated with a 40% increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.79).
• This association between TFQI level and all-cause mortality persisted in all subgroups stratified by age, gender, race, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and CKD stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study demonstrates that impaired sensitivity to thyroid hormone might be associated with all-cause mortality in CKD patients with normal thyroid function, independent of other traditional risk factors and comorbidities,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Qichao Yang and Ru Dong, Department of Endocrinology, Affiliated Wujin Hospital of Jiangsu University, Changzhou, China, and was published online on August 6, 2024, in BMC Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Thyroid function was measured only at baseline, and the changes in thyroid function over time were not measured. The study excluded people on thyroid hormone replacement therapy but did not consider other medication use that might have affected thyroid function, such as beta-blockers, steroids, and amiodarone. Thyroid-related antibodies, metabolic syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were not included in the analysis as possible confounding factors. The US-based sample requires further validation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Changzhou Health Commission. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

TOPLINE:

An impaired central sensitivity to thyroid hormone may be associated with an increased risk for death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and normal thyroid function.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have shown that abnormal levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) are associated with a higher mortality risk in patients with CKD, but whether the risk extends to those with normal thyroid function remains controversial.
• Researchers investigated the association between central sensitivity to thyroid hormone and the risk for all-cause mortality in 1303 euthyroid patients with CKD (mean age, 60 years; 59% women) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database (2007-2012).
• All participants had CKD stages I-IV, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and/or a urinary albumin to urinary creatinine ratio ≥ 30 mg/g.
• The central sensitivity to thyroid hormone was primarily evaluated using a new central thyroid hormone resistance index, the Thyroid Feedback Quantile–based Index (TFQI), using free thyroxine and TSH concentrations.
• The participants were followed for a median duration of 115 months, during which 503 died.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with CKD who died during the follow-up period had a significantly higher TFQI (P < .001) than those who survived.
• The rates of all-cause mortality increased from 26.61% in the lowest TFQI tertile to 40.89% in the highest tertile (P = .001).
• A per unit increase in the TFQI was associated with a 40% increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.79).
• This association between TFQI level and all-cause mortality persisted in all subgroups stratified by age, gender, race, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and CKD stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study demonstrates that impaired sensitivity to thyroid hormone might be associated with all-cause mortality in CKD patients with normal thyroid function, independent of other traditional risk factors and comorbidities,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Qichao Yang and Ru Dong, Department of Endocrinology, Affiliated Wujin Hospital of Jiangsu University, Changzhou, China, and was published online on August 6, 2024, in BMC Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Thyroid function was measured only at baseline, and the changes in thyroid function over time were not measured. The study excluded people on thyroid hormone replacement therapy but did not consider other medication use that might have affected thyroid function, such as beta-blockers, steroids, and amiodarone. Thyroid-related antibodies, metabolic syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were not included in the analysis as possible confounding factors. The US-based sample requires further validation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Changzhou Health Commission. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

A surprising new report by the Mercer consulting firm projects that the American healthcare workforce will face a small shortfall in 2028 — a shortage of less than 1% of all employees. The report even projects a surplus of tens of thousands of registered nurses and home health aides — and even a small surplus of physicians in some states.

Mercer’s projections are rosier than federal workforce projections, which paint a grimmer picture of impending shortages.

“The labor market is a little more stabilized right now, and most healthcare systems are seeing less turnover,” Dan Lezotte, PhD, a partner with Mercer, said in an interview. But he noted “critical shortages” are still expected in some areas.

Mercer last projected workforce numbers in a 2020-2021 report released during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, “the labor market is drastically different,” Dr. Lezotte said. Health workforce shortages and surpluses have long varied significantly by region across the country.

The report forecasts a small surplus of physicians in 2028 but not in states such as California, New York, and Texas. The upper Midwest states will largely see doctor surpluses while Southern states face shortages. Some states with general physician surpluses may still experience shortages of specialists.

A surplus of nearly 30,000 registered nurses is expected, but New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are projected to have a combined shortage of 16,000 nurses.

Overall, the report projects a shortage of more than 100,000 healthcare workers nationally by 2028. That’s less than 1% of the entire healthcare workforce of 18.6 million expected by then.

The report also predicts a shortage of nurse practitioners, especially in California and New York, and a shortage of 73,000 nursing assistants, especially in California, New York, and Texas.

“Healthcare systems are having the most difficulty hiring and hanging on to those workers who are supposed to take up the load off physicians and nurses,” Dr. Lezotte said. “They’re competing not only with other healthcare systems but with other industries like Amazon warehouses or McDonald’s in California paying $20 an hour. Healthcare was a little slow to keep up with that. In a lot of healthcare systems, that’s their biggest headache right now.”

On the other hand, the report projects a national surplus of 48,000 home health/personal care aides.

That surprised Bianca K. Frogner, PhD, director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“We are seeing increasing movement of investments toward moving patients out of skilled nursing facilities and keeping them in the home and community, which requires many more home health aides,” Dr. Frogner said. “Given such high turnover in this occupation, it’s hard to know if the surplus is really a surplus or if they will quickly be employed.”

Dr. Frogner receives grants and contracts from not-for-profit entities to investigate issues related to the health workforce.

Dr. Lezotte said the report’s findings are based on data from sources such as public and private databases and job postings. According to the report, “projections were made up to 2028 based on historical data up to 2023,” and “supply projections were derived using a linear autoregressive model based on historical supply within each occupation and geography.”

It’s not clear why some states like New York are expected to have huge shortages, but migration might be a factor, along with a lack of nearby nursing schools, Dr. Lezotte said.

As for shortages, Dr. Lezotte said healthcare systems will have to understand their local workforce situation and adapt. “They’ll need to be more proactive about their employee value proposition” via competitive pay and benefits Flexibility regarding scheduling is also important.

“They’re going to have to figure out how to up their game,” he said.

What about states with surpluses? They might be target-rich environments for states facing shortages, he said.
 

Positive Outlook Not Shared by Other Researchers

Other workforce projections conflict with Mercer’s, according to Jean Moore, DrPH, and Gaetano Forte, MS, director and assistant director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York.

The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects a 10% shortage of registered nurses and a 13% shortage of physicians in 2031. The agency didn’t make projections for home health aides because that workforce is in flux.

Why are Mercer’s projections so different? Dr. Lezotte said other projections assume that equity efforts will bring healthcare to everyone who needs it. The report assumes this won’t happen, he said. As a result, it expects there will be fewer patients who need to be served by workers.

Other projections expect a shortage of 300,000 registered nurses by 2035, Mr. Forte said. But the number of nurse practitioners in New York is growing quickly, Dr. Moore said.

Dr. Moore said it’s difficult to interpret Mercer’s findings because the company doesn’t provide enough information about its methodology.

“At some level, it’s not particularly useful regarding what the next steps are,” she said. “Projections should make you think about what you should do to change and improve, to create more of what you need.”

The Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Albany has provided consulting services to multiple companies that provide healthcare workforce projections. It has no relationship with Mercer.

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

A surprising new report by the Mercer consulting firm projects that the American healthcare workforce will face a small shortfall in 2028 — a shortage of less than 1% of all employees. The report even projects a surplus of tens of thousands of registered nurses and home health aides — and even a small surplus of physicians in some states.

Mercer’s projections are rosier than federal workforce projections, which paint a grimmer picture of impending shortages.

“The labor market is a little more stabilized right now, and most healthcare systems are seeing less turnover,” Dan Lezotte, PhD, a partner with Mercer, said in an interview. But he noted “critical shortages” are still expected in some areas.

Mercer last projected workforce numbers in a 2020-2021 report released during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, “the labor market is drastically different,” Dr. Lezotte said. Health workforce shortages and surpluses have long varied significantly by region across the country.

The report forecasts a small surplus of physicians in 2028 but not in states such as California, New York, and Texas. The upper Midwest states will largely see doctor surpluses while Southern states face shortages. Some states with general physician surpluses may still experience shortages of specialists.

A surplus of nearly 30,000 registered nurses is expected, but New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are projected to have a combined shortage of 16,000 nurses.

Overall, the report projects a shortage of more than 100,000 healthcare workers nationally by 2028. That’s less than 1% of the entire healthcare workforce of 18.6 million expected by then.

The report also predicts a shortage of nurse practitioners, especially in California and New York, and a shortage of 73,000 nursing assistants, especially in California, New York, and Texas.

“Healthcare systems are having the most difficulty hiring and hanging on to those workers who are supposed to take up the load off physicians and nurses,” Dr. Lezotte said. “They’re competing not only with other healthcare systems but with other industries like Amazon warehouses or McDonald’s in California paying $20 an hour. Healthcare was a little slow to keep up with that. In a lot of healthcare systems, that’s their biggest headache right now.”

On the other hand, the report projects a national surplus of 48,000 home health/personal care aides.

That surprised Bianca K. Frogner, PhD, director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“We are seeing increasing movement of investments toward moving patients out of skilled nursing facilities and keeping them in the home and community, which requires many more home health aides,” Dr. Frogner said. “Given such high turnover in this occupation, it’s hard to know if the surplus is really a surplus or if they will quickly be employed.”

Dr. Frogner receives grants and contracts from not-for-profit entities to investigate issues related to the health workforce.

Dr. Lezotte said the report’s findings are based on data from sources such as public and private databases and job postings. According to the report, “projections were made up to 2028 based on historical data up to 2023,” and “supply projections were derived using a linear autoregressive model based on historical supply within each occupation and geography.”

It’s not clear why some states like New York are expected to have huge shortages, but migration might be a factor, along with a lack of nearby nursing schools, Dr. Lezotte said.

As for shortages, Dr. Lezotte said healthcare systems will have to understand their local workforce situation and adapt. “They’ll need to be more proactive about their employee value proposition” via competitive pay and benefits Flexibility regarding scheduling is also important.

“They’re going to have to figure out how to up their game,” he said.

What about states with surpluses? They might be target-rich environments for states facing shortages, he said.
 

Positive Outlook Not Shared by Other Researchers

Other workforce projections conflict with Mercer’s, according to Jean Moore, DrPH, and Gaetano Forte, MS, director and assistant director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York.

The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects a 10% shortage of registered nurses and a 13% shortage of physicians in 2031. The agency didn’t make projections for home health aides because that workforce is in flux.

Why are Mercer’s projections so different? Dr. Lezotte said other projections assume that equity efforts will bring healthcare to everyone who needs it. The report assumes this won’t happen, he said. As a result, it expects there will be fewer patients who need to be served by workers.

Other projections expect a shortage of 300,000 registered nurses by 2035, Mr. Forte said. But the number of nurse practitioners in New York is growing quickly, Dr. Moore said.

Dr. Moore said it’s difficult to interpret Mercer’s findings because the company doesn’t provide enough information about its methodology.

“At some level, it’s not particularly useful regarding what the next steps are,” she said. “Projections should make you think about what you should do to change and improve, to create more of what you need.”

The Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Albany has provided consulting services to multiple companies that provide healthcare workforce projections. It has no relationship with Mercer.

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

A surprising new report by the Mercer consulting firm projects that the American healthcare workforce will face a small shortfall in 2028 — a shortage of less than 1% of all employees. The report even projects a surplus of tens of thousands of registered nurses and home health aides — and even a small surplus of physicians in some states.

Mercer’s projections are rosier than federal workforce projections, which paint a grimmer picture of impending shortages.

“The labor market is a little more stabilized right now, and most healthcare systems are seeing less turnover,” Dan Lezotte, PhD, a partner with Mercer, said in an interview. But he noted “critical shortages” are still expected in some areas.

Mercer last projected workforce numbers in a 2020-2021 report released during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, “the labor market is drastically different,” Dr. Lezotte said. Health workforce shortages and surpluses have long varied significantly by region across the country.

The report forecasts a small surplus of physicians in 2028 but not in states such as California, New York, and Texas. The upper Midwest states will largely see doctor surpluses while Southern states face shortages. Some states with general physician surpluses may still experience shortages of specialists.

A surplus of nearly 30,000 registered nurses is expected, but New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are projected to have a combined shortage of 16,000 nurses.

Overall, the report projects a shortage of more than 100,000 healthcare workers nationally by 2028. That’s less than 1% of the entire healthcare workforce of 18.6 million expected by then.

The report also predicts a shortage of nurse practitioners, especially in California and New York, and a shortage of 73,000 nursing assistants, especially in California, New York, and Texas.

“Healthcare systems are having the most difficulty hiring and hanging on to those workers who are supposed to take up the load off physicians and nurses,” Dr. Lezotte said. “They’re competing not only with other healthcare systems but with other industries like Amazon warehouses or McDonald’s in California paying $20 an hour. Healthcare was a little slow to keep up with that. In a lot of healthcare systems, that’s their biggest headache right now.”

On the other hand, the report projects a national surplus of 48,000 home health/personal care aides.

That surprised Bianca K. Frogner, PhD, director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“We are seeing increasing movement of investments toward moving patients out of skilled nursing facilities and keeping them in the home and community, which requires many more home health aides,” Dr. Frogner said. “Given such high turnover in this occupation, it’s hard to know if the surplus is really a surplus or if they will quickly be employed.”

Dr. Frogner receives grants and contracts from not-for-profit entities to investigate issues related to the health workforce.

Dr. Lezotte said the report’s findings are based on data from sources such as public and private databases and job postings. According to the report, “projections were made up to 2028 based on historical data up to 2023,” and “supply projections were derived using a linear autoregressive model based on historical supply within each occupation and geography.”

It’s not clear why some states like New York are expected to have huge shortages, but migration might be a factor, along with a lack of nearby nursing schools, Dr. Lezotte said.

As for shortages, Dr. Lezotte said healthcare systems will have to understand their local workforce situation and adapt. “They’ll need to be more proactive about their employee value proposition” via competitive pay and benefits Flexibility regarding scheduling is also important.

“They’re going to have to figure out how to up their game,” he said.

What about states with surpluses? They might be target-rich environments for states facing shortages, he said.
 

Positive Outlook Not Shared by Other Researchers

Other workforce projections conflict with Mercer’s, according to Jean Moore, DrPH, and Gaetano Forte, MS, director and assistant director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York.

The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects a 10% shortage of registered nurses and a 13% shortage of physicians in 2031. The agency didn’t make projections for home health aides because that workforce is in flux.

Why are Mercer’s projections so different? Dr. Lezotte said other projections assume that equity efforts will bring healthcare to everyone who needs it. The report assumes this won’t happen, he said. As a result, it expects there will be fewer patients who need to be served by workers.

Other projections expect a shortage of 300,000 registered nurses by 2035, Mr. Forte said. But the number of nurse practitioners in New York is growing quickly, Dr. Moore said.

Dr. Moore said it’s difficult to interpret Mercer’s findings because the company doesn’t provide enough information about its methodology.

“At some level, it’s not particularly useful regarding what the next steps are,” she said. “Projections should make you think about what you should do to change and improve, to create more of what you need.”

The Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Albany has provided consulting services to multiple companies that provide healthcare workforce projections. It has no relationship with Mercer.

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

TOPLINE:

The metabolically unhealthy obesity phenotype, with its multiple comorbidities, may be the most practical group of people with obesity to screen for Cushing syndrome rather than all patients with obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a key clinical feature of Cushing syndrome and shares many overlapping characteristics. An ongoing debate continues about the need to screen patients with obesity for the rare endocrine disease, but phenotypes known as metabolically healthy or unhealthy obesity may help better define an at-risk population.
• To assess the prevalence of Cushing syndrome by metabolic health status, researchers conducted a retrospective study of 1008 patients with obesity (mean age, 40 years; 83% women; body mass index ≥ 30) seen at an endocrinology outpatient clinic in Turkey between December 2020 and June 2022.
• They screened patients for Cushing syndrome with an overnight dexamethasone suppression test (1 mg DST), an oral dexamethasone dose given at 11 PM followed by a fasting blood sample for cortisol measurement the next morning. A serum cortisol level < 1.8 mcg/dL indicated normal suppression.
• Patients were categorized into those with metabolically healthy obesity (n = 229) or metabolically unhealthy obesity (n = 779) based on the absence or presence of comorbidities such as diabetes, prediabetes, coronary artery disease, hypertension, or dyslipidemia.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall prevalence of Cushing syndrome in the study cohort was 0.2%, with only two patients definitively diagnosed after more tests and the remaining 10 classified as having subclinical hypercortisolism.
• Cortisol levels following the 1 mg DST were higher in the metabolically unhealthy obesity group than in the metabolically healthy obesity group (P = .001).
• Among the 12 patients with unsuppressed levels of cortisol, 11 belonged to the metabolically unhealthy obesity group, indicating a strong association between metabolic health and the levels of cortisol.
• The test demonstrated a specificity of 99% and sensitivity of 100% for screening Cushing syndrome in patients with obesity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening all patients with obesity for CS [Cushing syndrome] without considering any associated metabolic conditions appears impractical and unnecessary in everyday clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “However, it may be more reasonable and applicable to selectively screen the patients with obesity having comorbidities such as DM [diabetes mellitus], hypertension, dyslipidemia, or coronary artery disease, which lead to a metabolically unhealthy phenotype, rather than all individuals with obesity,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sema Hepsen, Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Ankara, Turkey, was published online in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The single-center design of the study and inclusion of patients from a single racial group may limit the generalizability of the findings. The retrospective design prevented the retrieval of all relevant data on clinical features and fat distribution.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The metabolically unhealthy obesity phenotype, with its multiple comorbidities, may be the most practical group of people with obesity to screen for Cushing syndrome rather than all patients with obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a key clinical feature of Cushing syndrome and shares many overlapping characteristics. An ongoing debate continues about the need to screen patients with obesity for the rare endocrine disease, but phenotypes known as metabolically healthy or unhealthy obesity may help better define an at-risk population.
• To assess the prevalence of Cushing syndrome by metabolic health status, researchers conducted a retrospective study of 1008 patients with obesity (mean age, 40 years; 83% women; body mass index ≥ 30) seen at an endocrinology outpatient clinic in Turkey between December 2020 and June 2022.
• They screened patients for Cushing syndrome with an overnight dexamethasone suppression test (1 mg DST), an oral dexamethasone dose given at 11 PM followed by a fasting blood sample for cortisol measurement the next morning. A serum cortisol level < 1.8 mcg/dL indicated normal suppression.
• Patients were categorized into those with metabolically healthy obesity (n = 229) or metabolically unhealthy obesity (n = 779) based on the absence or presence of comorbidities such as diabetes, prediabetes, coronary artery disease, hypertension, or dyslipidemia.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall prevalence of Cushing syndrome in the study cohort was 0.2%, with only two patients definitively diagnosed after more tests and the remaining 10 classified as having subclinical hypercortisolism.
• Cortisol levels following the 1 mg DST were higher in the metabolically unhealthy obesity group than in the metabolically healthy obesity group (P = .001).
• Among the 12 patients with unsuppressed levels of cortisol, 11 belonged to the metabolically unhealthy obesity group, indicating a strong association between metabolic health and the levels of cortisol.
• The test demonstrated a specificity of 99% and sensitivity of 100% for screening Cushing syndrome in patients with obesity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening all patients with obesity for CS [Cushing syndrome] without considering any associated metabolic conditions appears impractical and unnecessary in everyday clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “However, it may be more reasonable and applicable to selectively screen the patients with obesity having comorbidities such as DM [diabetes mellitus], hypertension, dyslipidemia, or coronary artery disease, which lead to a metabolically unhealthy phenotype, rather than all individuals with obesity,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sema Hepsen, Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Ankara, Turkey, was published online in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The single-center design of the study and inclusion of patients from a single racial group may limit the generalizability of the findings. The retrospective design prevented the retrieval of all relevant data on clinical features and fat distribution.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The metabolically unhealthy obesity phenotype, with its multiple comorbidities, may be the most practical group of people with obesity to screen for Cushing syndrome rather than all patients with obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a key clinical feature of Cushing syndrome and shares many overlapping characteristics. An ongoing debate continues about the need to screen patients with obesity for the rare endocrine disease, but phenotypes known as metabolically healthy or unhealthy obesity may help better define an at-risk population.
• To assess the prevalence of Cushing syndrome by metabolic health status, researchers conducted a retrospective study of 1008 patients with obesity (mean age, 40 years; 83% women; body mass index ≥ 30) seen at an endocrinology outpatient clinic in Turkey between December 2020 and June 2022.
• They screened patients for Cushing syndrome with an overnight dexamethasone suppression test (1 mg DST), an oral dexamethasone dose given at 11 PM followed by a fasting blood sample for cortisol measurement the next morning. A serum cortisol level < 1.8 mcg/dL indicated normal suppression.
• Patients were categorized into those with metabolically healthy obesity (n = 229) or metabolically unhealthy obesity (n = 779) based on the absence or presence of comorbidities such as diabetes, prediabetes, coronary artery disease, hypertension, or dyslipidemia.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall prevalence of Cushing syndrome in the study cohort was 0.2%, with only two patients definitively diagnosed after more tests and the remaining 10 classified as having subclinical hypercortisolism.
• Cortisol levels following the 1 mg DST were higher in the metabolically unhealthy obesity group than in the metabolically healthy obesity group (P = .001).
• Among the 12 patients with unsuppressed levels of cortisol, 11 belonged to the metabolically unhealthy obesity group, indicating a strong association between metabolic health and the levels of cortisol.
• The test demonstrated a specificity of 99% and sensitivity of 100% for screening Cushing syndrome in patients with obesity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening all patients with obesity for CS [Cushing syndrome] without considering any associated metabolic conditions appears impractical and unnecessary in everyday clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “However, it may be more reasonable and applicable to selectively screen the patients with obesity having comorbidities such as DM [diabetes mellitus], hypertension, dyslipidemia, or coronary artery disease, which lead to a metabolically unhealthy phenotype, rather than all individuals with obesity,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sema Hepsen, Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Ankara, Turkey, was published online in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The single-center design of the study and inclusion of patients from a single racial group may limit the generalizability of the findings. The retrospective design prevented the retrieval of all relevant data on clinical features and fat distribution.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

A so-called “oatzempic” diet has been bouncing around the internet posing as a cheap — and available — weight loss alternative to Ozempic.

Fans of the diet, made trendy by TikTok postings and a clever name, claim that an oat-based smoothie helps people quickly shed lots of weight. The smoothie is made by blending 1/2 cup of oats, 1 cup of water, a squeeze of lime, and maybe a dash of cinnamon or other flavoring agents, typically as the first meal of the day, often after fasting, followed by normal meals.

Despite the hype, the oatzempic drink is a far cry from Ozempic (semaglutide), the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medication the Food and Drug Administration has approved only for type 2 diabetes management but used off label for weight loss.

So how do pulverized oats stack up against prescription-based GLP-1s? According to two nutrition experts, they’re not as effective as some TikTok influencers claim. And in people with diabetes, the diet can be dangerous.
 

Nutritionists Answer Questions on Oatzempic

Caroline West Passerrello, EdD, RDN, LDN, an instructor and community coordinator in the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Emma Laing, PhD, RDN, LD, a clinical professor and director of dietetics in the College of Family and Consumer Sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, talked about this fad in emails.

Can the ‘oatzempic’ diet help people lose weight?

Dr. Passerrello: Oats are particularly high in soluble fiber, and high-fiber foods can increase the natural production of GLPs. But studies are mixed on whether this happens when eating oats.

The high content of soluble beta-glucan fiber in oats and the appetite-suppressing citric acid in lime can potentially promote decreased appetite and increased satiety. But a bowl of oatmeal, though not as trendy, will probably produce the same results.

Is the oatzempic diet safe for people with type 2 diabetes?

Dr. Laing: This diet has the potential to cause harm. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. Rapid weight loss is unsustainable and can be harmful, and frequent spikes in blood sugar can harm adults and children with diabetes. So the oatzempic diet’s safety depends on the rate of weight loss and the effect on blood sugar. While it provides beta-glucan from oats and citric acid from lime juice, it is missing protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content and stabilize blood sugar.

Maintaining relatively consistent, normal-range blood glucose concentrations is key for managing diabetes and lowering the risks for other health complications. Carbohydrate sources consumed on their own can produce greater blood sugar fluctuations than when combined with proteins and fats, which slow carbohydrate digestion speed. So pairing oats with fruits, vegetables, healthy fats, and protein sources enhances the flavor, texture, and nutrient composition of the dish and can help slow the postprandial rise in blood glucose.

In the long term, any restrictive fad diet likely cannot be sustained and increases the risk for malnutrition, metabolic rate slowing to conserve energy, depression, social isolation, or eating disorder.

Additional considerations apply to children, with or without diabetes. Restrictive, extreme diets that promise quick results typically “work” by promoting body water and muscle mass losses. Such diets are not only contraindicated in children, who are undergoing rapid growth and development, but also unsustainable and can lead to physical and psychological problems that carry into adulthood.

What strategies and tactics can physicians use to effectively communicate with their patients about safe and effective diets?

Dr. Laing: Encourage patients to be skeptical of social media trends that seem too good to be true. Many [social media] creators lack the education or professional credentials to offer sound nutrition advice, and their posts could do harm. Explain that individual nutrition needs differ considerably based on age, activity patterns, health conditions, and medications, and one person’s way of eating or success is often not realistic for someone else.

Encourage open dialogue and provide nonjudgmental advice. If the taste of oatzempic intrigues patients, there is likely no harm in experimenting. Work on ensuring their meals are adequate in calories and contain sources of protein and healthy fats to prevent spikes in blood glucose. It’s crucial to communicate that weight loss doesn’t always equate with improved health.

Sharing information from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the American Diabetes Association can equip patients with tools they can implement under their clinician’s guidance. A provider’s greatest ally in diabetes care is a registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN) who is a Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist. RDNs will determine specific energy and nutrient needs and provide medical nutrition therapy such as carbohydrate counting, simplified meal plans, healthy food choices, exchange lists, and behavior strategies to help patients manage their diabetes. Many insurance plans cover these services.

What additional comments would you like to share with clinicians whose patients may ask them about the oatzempic diet?

Dr. Passerrello: What we do consistently matters. If your patient likes the taste of oatzempic in one meal a day, it’s a way to get more oats into their diet, if they focus their other meals on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, lean protein, and unsaturated fats.

Diets are out, and sustainable dietary patterns are in. Diets are one-size-fits-all, whereas a sustainable dietary pattern is individualized based on a person’s goals, medical history, taste preferences, budget, and lifestyle. Visit MyPlate.gov or work with an RDN [visit https://www.eatright.org/find-a-nutrition-expert to find nutritionists near your patients] to determine what a sustainable dietary pattern looks like.

What do clinicians need to know about claims on social media that a related drink — ‘ricezempic’ — aids weight loss?

Dr. Laing: Ricezempic promoters claim that drinking the beverage — typically made by soaking 1/2 cup of uncooked white rice in 1 cup of water and the juice from half a lime, then discarding the rice and drinking the liquid before breakfast — will lead to weight loss because the strained water provides a small dose of resistant starch, which is a source of prebiotics. Studies have shown that ingesting prebiotics may help lower blood cholesterol, improve blood glucose and insulin sensitivity, and benefit digestive function; however, more research is needed to determine specifics and if prebiotics are proven for weight loss.

Does ricezempic work?

Dr. Laing: There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. Even if ricezempic provides a small amount of resistant starch and hydration from the rice water and citric acid from the lime juice, it is missing fiber, protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content of a meal or snack and stabilize blood sugar.

What advice do you have for clinicians whose patients with diabetes ask them about ricezempic?

Dr. Laing: I would not suggest that patients rely on ricezempic to support their health. There is no scientific evidence to show that people will lose weight in the short or long term by drinking ricezempic before a meal (or as a meal replacement).

If your patients are aiming to increase their intake of prebiotics, they are naturally found in various vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and seeds and in yogurt and high-fiber breads and cereals. A nutritious eating pattern that includes these foods is most beneficial for health.

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

A so-called “oatzempic” diet has been bouncing around the internet posing as a cheap — and available — weight loss alternative to Ozempic.

Fans of the diet, made trendy by TikTok postings and a clever name, claim that an oat-based smoothie helps people quickly shed lots of weight. The smoothie is made by blending 1/2 cup of oats, 1 cup of water, a squeeze of lime, and maybe a dash of cinnamon or other flavoring agents, typically as the first meal of the day, often after fasting, followed by normal meals.

Despite the hype, the oatzempic drink is a far cry from Ozempic (semaglutide), the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medication the Food and Drug Administration has approved only for type 2 diabetes management but used off label for weight loss.

So how do pulverized oats stack up against prescription-based GLP-1s? According to two nutrition experts, they’re not as effective as some TikTok influencers claim. And in people with diabetes, the diet can be dangerous.
 

Nutritionists Answer Questions on Oatzempic

Caroline West Passerrello, EdD, RDN, LDN, an instructor and community coordinator in the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Emma Laing, PhD, RDN, LD, a clinical professor and director of dietetics in the College of Family and Consumer Sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, talked about this fad in emails.

Can the ‘oatzempic’ diet help people lose weight?

Dr. Passerrello: Oats are particularly high in soluble fiber, and high-fiber foods can increase the natural production of GLPs. But studies are mixed on whether this happens when eating oats.

The high content of soluble beta-glucan fiber in oats and the appetite-suppressing citric acid in lime can potentially promote decreased appetite and increased satiety. But a bowl of oatmeal, though not as trendy, will probably produce the same results.

Is the oatzempic diet safe for people with type 2 diabetes?

Dr. Laing: This diet has the potential to cause harm. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. Rapid weight loss is unsustainable and can be harmful, and frequent spikes in blood sugar can harm adults and children with diabetes. So the oatzempic diet’s safety depends on the rate of weight loss and the effect on blood sugar. While it provides beta-glucan from oats and citric acid from lime juice, it is missing protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content and stabilize blood sugar.

Maintaining relatively consistent, normal-range blood glucose concentrations is key for managing diabetes and lowering the risks for other health complications. Carbohydrate sources consumed on their own can produce greater blood sugar fluctuations than when combined with proteins and fats, which slow carbohydrate digestion speed. So pairing oats with fruits, vegetables, healthy fats, and protein sources enhances the flavor, texture, and nutrient composition of the dish and can help slow the postprandial rise in blood glucose.

In the long term, any restrictive fad diet likely cannot be sustained and increases the risk for malnutrition, metabolic rate slowing to conserve energy, depression, social isolation, or eating disorder.

Additional considerations apply to children, with or without diabetes. Restrictive, extreme diets that promise quick results typically “work” by promoting body water and muscle mass losses. Such diets are not only contraindicated in children, who are undergoing rapid growth and development, but also unsustainable and can lead to physical and psychological problems that carry into adulthood.

What strategies and tactics can physicians use to effectively communicate with their patients about safe and effective diets?

Dr. Laing: Encourage patients to be skeptical of social media trends that seem too good to be true. Many [social media] creators lack the education or professional credentials to offer sound nutrition advice, and their posts could do harm. Explain that individual nutrition needs differ considerably based on age, activity patterns, health conditions, and medications, and one person’s way of eating or success is often not realistic for someone else.

Encourage open dialogue and provide nonjudgmental advice. If the taste of oatzempic intrigues patients, there is likely no harm in experimenting. Work on ensuring their meals are adequate in calories and contain sources of protein and healthy fats to prevent spikes in blood glucose. It’s crucial to communicate that weight loss doesn’t always equate with improved health.

Sharing information from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the American Diabetes Association can equip patients with tools they can implement under their clinician’s guidance. A provider’s greatest ally in diabetes care is a registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN) who is a Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist. RDNs will determine specific energy and nutrient needs and provide medical nutrition therapy such as carbohydrate counting, simplified meal plans, healthy food choices, exchange lists, and behavior strategies to help patients manage their diabetes. Many insurance plans cover these services.

What additional comments would you like to share with clinicians whose patients may ask them about the oatzempic diet?

Dr. Passerrello: What we do consistently matters. If your patient likes the taste of oatzempic in one meal a day, it’s a way to get more oats into their diet, if they focus their other meals on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, lean protein, and unsaturated fats.

Diets are out, and sustainable dietary patterns are in. Diets are one-size-fits-all, whereas a sustainable dietary pattern is individualized based on a person’s goals, medical history, taste preferences, budget, and lifestyle. Visit MyPlate.gov or work with an RDN [visit https://www.eatright.org/find-a-nutrition-expert to find nutritionists near your patients] to determine what a sustainable dietary pattern looks like.

What do clinicians need to know about claims on social media that a related drink — ‘ricezempic’ — aids weight loss?

Dr. Laing: Ricezempic promoters claim that drinking the beverage — typically made by soaking 1/2 cup of uncooked white rice in 1 cup of water and the juice from half a lime, then discarding the rice and drinking the liquid before breakfast — will lead to weight loss because the strained water provides a small dose of resistant starch, which is a source of prebiotics. Studies have shown that ingesting prebiotics may help lower blood cholesterol, improve blood glucose and insulin sensitivity, and benefit digestive function; however, more research is needed to determine specifics and if prebiotics are proven for weight loss.

Does ricezempic work?

Dr. Laing: There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. Even if ricezempic provides a small amount of resistant starch and hydration from the rice water and citric acid from the lime juice, it is missing fiber, protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content of a meal or snack and stabilize blood sugar.

What advice do you have for clinicians whose patients with diabetes ask them about ricezempic?

Dr. Laing: I would not suggest that patients rely on ricezempic to support their health. There is no scientific evidence to show that people will lose weight in the short or long term by drinking ricezempic before a meal (or as a meal replacement).

If your patients are aiming to increase their intake of prebiotics, they are naturally found in various vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and seeds and in yogurt and high-fiber breads and cereals. A nutritious eating pattern that includes these foods is most beneficial for health.

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

A so-called “oatzempic” diet has been bouncing around the internet posing as a cheap — and available — weight loss alternative to Ozempic.

Fans of the diet, made trendy by TikTok postings and a clever name, claim that an oat-based smoothie helps people quickly shed lots of weight. The smoothie is made by blending 1/2 cup of oats, 1 cup of water, a squeeze of lime, and maybe a dash of cinnamon or other flavoring agents, typically as the first meal of the day, often after fasting, followed by normal meals.

Despite the hype, the oatzempic drink is a far cry from Ozempic (semaglutide), the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medication the Food and Drug Administration has approved only for type 2 diabetes management but used off label for weight loss.

So how do pulverized oats stack up against prescription-based GLP-1s? According to two nutrition experts, they’re not as effective as some TikTok influencers claim. And in people with diabetes, the diet can be dangerous.
 

Nutritionists Answer Questions on Oatzempic

Caroline West Passerrello, EdD, RDN, LDN, an instructor and community coordinator in the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Emma Laing, PhD, RDN, LD, a clinical professor and director of dietetics in the College of Family and Consumer Sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, talked about this fad in emails.

Can the ‘oatzempic’ diet help people lose weight?

Dr. Passerrello: Oats are particularly high in soluble fiber, and high-fiber foods can increase the natural production of GLPs. But studies are mixed on whether this happens when eating oats.

The high content of soluble beta-glucan fiber in oats and the appetite-suppressing citric acid in lime can potentially promote decreased appetite and increased satiety. But a bowl of oatmeal, though not as trendy, will probably produce the same results.

Is the oatzempic diet safe for people with type 2 diabetes?

Dr. Laing: This diet has the potential to cause harm. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. Rapid weight loss is unsustainable and can be harmful, and frequent spikes in blood sugar can harm adults and children with diabetes. So the oatzempic diet’s safety depends on the rate of weight loss and the effect on blood sugar. While it provides beta-glucan from oats and citric acid from lime juice, it is missing protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content and stabilize blood sugar.

Maintaining relatively consistent, normal-range blood glucose concentrations is key for managing diabetes and lowering the risks for other health complications. Carbohydrate sources consumed on their own can produce greater blood sugar fluctuations than when combined with proteins and fats, which slow carbohydrate digestion speed. So pairing oats with fruits, vegetables, healthy fats, and protein sources enhances the flavor, texture, and nutrient composition of the dish and can help slow the postprandial rise in blood glucose.

In the long term, any restrictive fad diet likely cannot be sustained and increases the risk for malnutrition, metabolic rate slowing to conserve energy, depression, social isolation, or eating disorder.

Additional considerations apply to children, with or without diabetes. Restrictive, extreme diets that promise quick results typically “work” by promoting body water and muscle mass losses. Such diets are not only contraindicated in children, who are undergoing rapid growth and development, but also unsustainable and can lead to physical and psychological problems that carry into adulthood.

What strategies and tactics can physicians use to effectively communicate with their patients about safe and effective diets?

Dr. Laing: Encourage patients to be skeptical of social media trends that seem too good to be true. Many [social media] creators lack the education or professional credentials to offer sound nutrition advice, and their posts could do harm. Explain that individual nutrition needs differ considerably based on age, activity patterns, health conditions, and medications, and one person’s way of eating or success is often not realistic for someone else.

Encourage open dialogue and provide nonjudgmental advice. If the taste of oatzempic intrigues patients, there is likely no harm in experimenting. Work on ensuring their meals are adequate in calories and contain sources of protein and healthy fats to prevent spikes in blood glucose. It’s crucial to communicate that weight loss doesn’t always equate with improved health.

Sharing information from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the American Diabetes Association can equip patients with tools they can implement under their clinician’s guidance. A provider’s greatest ally in diabetes care is a registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN) who is a Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist. RDNs will determine specific energy and nutrient needs and provide medical nutrition therapy such as carbohydrate counting, simplified meal plans, healthy food choices, exchange lists, and behavior strategies to help patients manage their diabetes. Many insurance plans cover these services.

What additional comments would you like to share with clinicians whose patients may ask them about the oatzempic diet?

Dr. Passerrello: What we do consistently matters. If your patient likes the taste of oatzempic in one meal a day, it’s a way to get more oats into their diet, if they focus their other meals on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, lean protein, and unsaturated fats.

Diets are out, and sustainable dietary patterns are in. Diets are one-size-fits-all, whereas a sustainable dietary pattern is individualized based on a person’s goals, medical history, taste preferences, budget, and lifestyle. Visit MyPlate.gov or work with an RDN [visit https://www.eatright.org/find-a-nutrition-expert to find nutritionists near your patients] to determine what a sustainable dietary pattern looks like.

What do clinicians need to know about claims on social media that a related drink — ‘ricezempic’ — aids weight loss?

Dr. Laing: Ricezempic promoters claim that drinking the beverage — typically made by soaking 1/2 cup of uncooked white rice in 1 cup of water and the juice from half a lime, then discarding the rice and drinking the liquid before breakfast — will lead to weight loss because the strained water provides a small dose of resistant starch, which is a source of prebiotics. Studies have shown that ingesting prebiotics may help lower blood cholesterol, improve blood glucose and insulin sensitivity, and benefit digestive function; however, more research is needed to determine specifics and if prebiotics are proven for weight loss.

Does ricezempic work?

Dr. Laing: There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. Even if ricezempic provides a small amount of resistant starch and hydration from the rice water and citric acid from the lime juice, it is missing fiber, protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content of a meal or snack and stabilize blood sugar.

What advice do you have for clinicians whose patients with diabetes ask them about ricezempic?

Dr. Laing: I would not suggest that patients rely on ricezempic to support their health. There is no scientific evidence to show that people will lose weight in the short or long term by drinking ricezempic before a meal (or as a meal replacement).

If your patients are aiming to increase their intake of prebiotics, they are naturally found in various vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and seeds and in yogurt and high-fiber breads and cereals. A nutritious eating pattern that includes these foods is most beneficial for health.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increases breast cancer risk in women with a strong family history of breast cancer. These women have a striking cumulative risk of developing breast cancer (age, 50-80 years) of 22.4%, according to a new modelling study of UK women.

METHODOLOGY:

This was a modeling study integrating two data-sets of UK women: the BOADICEA dataset of age-specific breast cancer risk with family history and the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, which covers relative risk for breast cancer with different types and durations of MHT.

Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:

• “Average” family history of breast cancer has unknown affected family members;
• “Modest” family history comprises a single first-degree relative with breast cancer at the age of 60 years.
• “Intermediate” family history comprises a single first-degree relative who developed breast cancer at the age of 40 years.
• “Strong” family history comprises two first-degree relatives who developed breast cancer at the age of 50 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The lowest risk category: “Average” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 9.8% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 1.7%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 11.0% and 1.8%, respectively.
• The highest risk category: “Strong” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 19.6% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 3.2%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 22.4% and 3.5%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded that, “These integrated data will enable more accurate estimates of absolute and attributable risk associated with MHT exposure for women with a family history of breast cancer, informing shared decision-making.”

SOURCE:

The lead author is Catherine Huntley of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, England. The study appeared in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included modeling study that did not directly measure individuals with combined risks.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by several sources including Cancer Research UK. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increases breast cancer risk in women with a strong family history of breast cancer. These women have a striking cumulative risk of developing breast cancer (age, 50-80 years) of 22.4%, according to a new modelling study of UK women.

METHODOLOGY:

This was a modeling study integrating two data-sets of UK women: the BOADICEA dataset of age-specific breast cancer risk with family history and the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, which covers relative risk for breast cancer with different types and durations of MHT.

Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:

• “Average” family history of breast cancer has unknown affected family members;
• “Modest” family history comprises a single first-degree relative with breast cancer at the age of 60 years.
• “Intermediate” family history comprises a single first-degree relative who developed breast cancer at the age of 40 years.
• “Strong” family history comprises two first-degree relatives who developed breast cancer at the age of 50 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The lowest risk category: “Average” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 9.8% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 1.7%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 11.0% and 1.8%, respectively.
• The highest risk category: “Strong” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 19.6% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 3.2%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 22.4% and 3.5%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded that, “These integrated data will enable more accurate estimates of absolute and attributable risk associated with MHT exposure for women with a family history of breast cancer, informing shared decision-making.”

SOURCE:

The lead author is Catherine Huntley of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, England. The study appeared in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included modeling study that did not directly measure individuals with combined risks.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by several sources including Cancer Research UK. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increases breast cancer risk in women with a strong family history of breast cancer. These women have a striking cumulative risk of developing breast cancer (age, 50-80 years) of 22.4%, according to a new modelling study of UK women.

METHODOLOGY:

This was a modeling study integrating two data-sets of UK women: the BOADICEA dataset of age-specific breast cancer risk with family history and the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, which covers relative risk for breast cancer with different types and durations of MHT.

Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:

• “Average” family history of breast cancer has unknown affected family members;
• “Modest” family history comprises a single first-degree relative with breast cancer at the age of 60 years.
• “Intermediate” family history comprises a single first-degree relative who developed breast cancer at the age of 40 years.
• “Strong” family history comprises two first-degree relatives who developed breast cancer at the age of 50 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The lowest risk category: “Average” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 9.8% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 1.7%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 11.0% and 1.8%, respectively.
• The highest risk category: “Strong” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 19.6% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 3.2%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 22.4% and 3.5%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded that, “These integrated data will enable more accurate estimates of absolute and attributable risk associated with MHT exposure for women with a family history of breast cancer, informing shared decision-making.”

SOURCE:

The lead author is Catherine Huntley of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, England. The study appeared in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included modeling study that did not directly measure individuals with combined risks.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by several sources including Cancer Research UK. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — Updated guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation released by the European Society of Cardiology are revamping the approach to care for this complex, multifactorial disease.

The identification and treatment of comorbidities and risk factors are the initial and central components of patient management, and are crucial for all other aspects of care for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), Isabelle Van Gelder, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the University Medical Center in Groningen, the Netherlands, explained at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress.

It is not just appropriate to place the same emphasis on the control of comorbidities as on the rhythm disturbance, it is critical, said Dr. Van Gelder, who served as chair of the ESC-AF guidelines task force.

Comorbidities are the drivers of both the onset and recurrence of atrial fibrillation, and a dynamic approach to comorbidities is “central for the success of AF management.”
 

Class I Recommendation

In fact, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, a class I recommendation has been issued for a large number of goals in the comorbidity and risk factor management step of atrial fibrillation management, including those for hypertension, components of heart failure, obesity, diabetes, alcohol consumption, and exercise.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors “should be offered to all patients with AF,” according to Dr. Van Gelder, who identified this as a new class I recommendation.

Patients who are not managed aggressively for the listed comorbidities ultimately face “treatment failure, poor patient outcomes, and a waste of healthcare resources,” she said.

Control of sleep apnea is also noted as a key target, although Van Gelder acknowledged that the supporting evidence only allows for a class IIb recommendation.

Control of comorbidities is not a new idea. In the 2023 joint guideline, led by a consortium of professional groups, including the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the control of comorbidities, including most of those identified in the new ESC guidelines, was second in a list of 10 key take-home messages.

However, the new ESC guidelines have prioritized comorbidity management by listing it first in each of the specific patient-care pathways developed to define optimized care. 

These pathways, defined in algorithms for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF, always start with the assessment of comorbidities, followed by step A — avoiding stroke — largely with anticoagulation.

Direct oral anticoagulants should be used, “except in those with a mechanical valve or mitral stenosis,” Dr. Van Gelder said. This includes, essentially, all patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or greater, and it should be “considered” in those with a score of 1. 

The ESC framework has been identified with the acronym AF-CARE, in which the C stands for comorbidities.

In the A step of the framework, identifying and treating all modifiable bleeding risk factors in AF patients is a class I recommendation. On the basis of a class III recommendation, she cautioned against withholding anticoagulants because of CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors alone. Rather, Dr. Van Gelder called the decision to administer or withhold anticoagulation — like all decisions — one that should be individualized in consultation with the patient.

For reducing AF symptoms and rhythm control, the specific pathways diverge for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF. Like all of the guidelines, the specific options for symptom management and AF ablation are color coded, with green signifying level 1 evidence.

The evaluation and dynamic reassessment step refers to the need to periodically assess patients for new modifiable risk factors related to comorbidities, risk for stroke, risk for bleeding, and risk for AF. 

The management of risk factors for AF has long been emphasized in guidelines, but a previous focus on AF with attention to comorbidities has been replaced by a focus on comorbidities with an expectation of more durable AF control. The success of this pivot is based on multidisciplinary care, chosen in collaboration with the patient, to reduce or eliminate the triggers of AF and the risks of its complications.
 

Pathways Are Appropriate for All Patients

A very important recommendation — and this is new — is “to treat all our patients with atrial fibrillation, whether they are young or old, men or women, Black or White, or at high or low risk, according to our patient-centered integrated AF-CARE approach,” Dr. Van Gelder said.

The changes reflect a shared appreciation for the tight relation between the control of comorbidities and the control of AF, according to José A. Joglar, MD, professor of cardiac electrophysiologic research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Dr. Joglar was chair of the writing committee for the joint 2023 AF guidelines released by the AHA, ACC, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, and the Heart Rhythm Society.

“It is increasingly clear that AF in many cases is the consequence of underlying risk factors and comorbidities, which cannot be separated from AF alone,” Dr. Joglar explained in an interview.

This was placed first “to emphasize the importance of viewing AFib as a complex disease that requires a holistic, multidisciplinary approach to care, as opposed to being viewed just as a rhythm abnormality,” he said.
 

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

LONDON — Updated guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation released by the European Society of Cardiology are revamping the approach to care for this complex, multifactorial disease.

The identification and treatment of comorbidities and risk factors are the initial and central components of patient management, and are crucial for all other aspects of care for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), Isabelle Van Gelder, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the University Medical Center in Groningen, the Netherlands, explained at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress.

It is not just appropriate to place the same emphasis on the control of comorbidities as on the rhythm disturbance, it is critical, said Dr. Van Gelder, who served as chair of the ESC-AF guidelines task force.

Comorbidities are the drivers of both the onset and recurrence of atrial fibrillation, and a dynamic approach to comorbidities is “central for the success of AF management.”
 

Class I Recommendation

In fact, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, a class I recommendation has been issued for a large number of goals in the comorbidity and risk factor management step of atrial fibrillation management, including those for hypertension, components of heart failure, obesity, diabetes, alcohol consumption, and exercise.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors “should be offered to all patients with AF,” according to Dr. Van Gelder, who identified this as a new class I recommendation.

Patients who are not managed aggressively for the listed comorbidities ultimately face “treatment failure, poor patient outcomes, and a waste of healthcare resources,” she said.

Control of sleep apnea is also noted as a key target, although Van Gelder acknowledged that the supporting evidence only allows for a class IIb recommendation.

Control of comorbidities is not a new idea. In the 2023 joint guideline, led by a consortium of professional groups, including the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the control of comorbidities, including most of those identified in the new ESC guidelines, was second in a list of 10 key take-home messages.

However, the new ESC guidelines have prioritized comorbidity management by listing it first in each of the specific patient-care pathways developed to define optimized care. 

These pathways, defined in algorithms for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF, always start with the assessment of comorbidities, followed by step A — avoiding stroke — largely with anticoagulation.

Direct oral anticoagulants should be used, “except in those with a mechanical valve or mitral stenosis,” Dr. Van Gelder said. This includes, essentially, all patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or greater, and it should be “considered” in those with a score of 1. 

The ESC framework has been identified with the acronym AF-CARE, in which the C stands for comorbidities.

In the A step of the framework, identifying and treating all modifiable bleeding risk factors in AF patients is a class I recommendation. On the basis of a class III recommendation, she cautioned against withholding anticoagulants because of CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors alone. Rather, Dr. Van Gelder called the decision to administer or withhold anticoagulation — like all decisions — one that should be individualized in consultation with the patient.

For reducing AF symptoms and rhythm control, the specific pathways diverge for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF. Like all of the guidelines, the specific options for symptom management and AF ablation are color coded, with green signifying level 1 evidence.

The evaluation and dynamic reassessment step refers to the need to periodically assess patients for new modifiable risk factors related to comorbidities, risk for stroke, risk for bleeding, and risk for AF. 

The management of risk factors for AF has long been emphasized in guidelines, but a previous focus on AF with attention to comorbidities has been replaced by a focus on comorbidities with an expectation of more durable AF control. The success of this pivot is based on multidisciplinary care, chosen in collaboration with the patient, to reduce or eliminate the triggers of AF and the risks of its complications.
 

Pathways Are Appropriate for All Patients

A very important recommendation — and this is new — is “to treat all our patients with atrial fibrillation, whether they are young or old, men or women, Black or White, or at high or low risk, according to our patient-centered integrated AF-CARE approach,” Dr. Van Gelder said.

The changes reflect a shared appreciation for the tight relation between the control of comorbidities and the control of AF, according to José A. Joglar, MD, professor of cardiac electrophysiologic research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Dr. Joglar was chair of the writing committee for the joint 2023 AF guidelines released by the AHA, ACC, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, and the Heart Rhythm Society.

“It is increasingly clear that AF in many cases is the consequence of underlying risk factors and comorbidities, which cannot be separated from AF alone,” Dr. Joglar explained in an interview.

This was placed first “to emphasize the importance of viewing AFib as a complex disease that requires a holistic, multidisciplinary approach to care, as opposed to being viewed just as a rhythm abnormality,” he said.
 

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

LONDON — Updated guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation released by the European Society of Cardiology are revamping the approach to care for this complex, multifactorial disease.

The identification and treatment of comorbidities and risk factors are the initial and central components of patient management, and are crucial for all other aspects of care for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), Isabelle Van Gelder, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the University Medical Center in Groningen, the Netherlands, explained at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress.

It is not just appropriate to place the same emphasis on the control of comorbidities as on the rhythm disturbance, it is critical, said Dr. Van Gelder, who served as chair of the ESC-AF guidelines task force.

Comorbidities are the drivers of both the onset and recurrence of atrial fibrillation, and a dynamic approach to comorbidities is “central for the success of AF management.”
 

Class I Recommendation

In fact, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, a class I recommendation has been issued for a large number of goals in the comorbidity and risk factor management step of atrial fibrillation management, including those for hypertension, components of heart failure, obesity, diabetes, alcohol consumption, and exercise.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors “should be offered to all patients with AF,” according to Dr. Van Gelder, who identified this as a new class I recommendation.

Patients who are not managed aggressively for the listed comorbidities ultimately face “treatment failure, poor patient outcomes, and a waste of healthcare resources,” she said.

Control of sleep apnea is also noted as a key target, although Van Gelder acknowledged that the supporting evidence only allows for a class IIb recommendation.

Control of comorbidities is not a new idea. In the 2023 joint guideline, led by a consortium of professional groups, including the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the control of comorbidities, including most of those identified in the new ESC guidelines, was second in a list of 10 key take-home messages.

However, the new ESC guidelines have prioritized comorbidity management by listing it first in each of the specific patient-care pathways developed to define optimized care. 

These pathways, defined in algorithms for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF, always start with the assessment of comorbidities, followed by step A — avoiding stroke — largely with anticoagulation.

Direct oral anticoagulants should be used, “except in those with a mechanical valve or mitral stenosis,” Dr. Van Gelder said. This includes, essentially, all patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or greater, and it should be “considered” in those with a score of 1. 

The ESC framework has been identified with the acronym AF-CARE, in which the C stands for comorbidities.

In the A step of the framework, identifying and treating all modifiable bleeding risk factors in AF patients is a class I recommendation. On the basis of a class III recommendation, she cautioned against withholding anticoagulants because of CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors alone. Rather, Dr. Van Gelder called the decision to administer or withhold anticoagulation — like all decisions — one that should be individualized in consultation with the patient.

For reducing AF symptoms and rhythm control, the specific pathways diverge for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF. Like all of the guidelines, the specific options for symptom management and AF ablation are color coded, with green signifying level 1 evidence.

The evaluation and dynamic reassessment step refers to the need to periodically assess patients for new modifiable risk factors related to comorbidities, risk for stroke, risk for bleeding, and risk for AF. 

The management of risk factors for AF has long been emphasized in guidelines, but a previous focus on AF with attention to comorbidities has been replaced by a focus on comorbidities with an expectation of more durable AF control. The success of this pivot is based on multidisciplinary care, chosen in collaboration with the patient, to reduce or eliminate the triggers of AF and the risks of its complications.
 

Pathways Are Appropriate for All Patients

A very important recommendation — and this is new — is “to treat all our patients with atrial fibrillation, whether they are young or old, men or women, Black or White, or at high or low risk, according to our patient-centered integrated AF-CARE approach,” Dr. Van Gelder said.

The changes reflect a shared appreciation for the tight relation between the control of comorbidities and the control of AF, according to José A. Joglar, MD, professor of cardiac electrophysiologic research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Dr. Joglar was chair of the writing committee for the joint 2023 AF guidelines released by the AHA, ACC, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, and the Heart Rhythm Society.

“It is increasingly clear that AF in many cases is the consequence of underlying risk factors and comorbidities, which cannot be separated from AF alone,” Dr. Joglar explained in an interview.

This was placed first “to emphasize the importance of viewing AFib as a complex disease that requires a holistic, multidisciplinary approach to care, as opposed to being viewed just as a rhythm abnormality,” he said.
 

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

Holly Wyatt, MD, had spent 20 years in UCHealth with no plans to leave. Her home, support system, and lifestyle were all rooted in Denver. But in 2020, The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) made the endocrinologist an offer she couldn’t resist.

The pay increase and a bump to full professorship weren’t enough to lure her across the country. But then UAB sweetened the deal with fewer clinic hours and paid time to create. “I didn’t have to fit into the typical ‘see patients 5 days a week, bill this many dollars,’ ” she said.

With no minimum billable hours, she could spend her time on clinical trials, designing programs, and recording podcasts. “When they offered that, I said, ‘Ooh, that’s enticing.’ ”

After a couple of visits to the campus, she began the job transition.

Doctors are looking for more than base pay. For many physicians, like Dr. Wyatt, non-salary incentives carry a lot of weight in the recruitment and job-hunting process.

“Some of the usual suspects are CME [continuing medical education] budget, signing bonuses, relocation assistance, loan repayment programs, and housing allowances,” said Jake Jorgovan, partner at Alpha Apex Group, a physician recruiting firm in Denver.

Post pandemic, doctors are vying for other benefits, perks that support their interests, work-life balance, and financial stability. “We’ve come across offers like sabbatical opportunities, paid time for research or personal projects, and even concierge services that handle things like grocery shopping or pet care,” said Mr. Jorgovan.

Amid physician shortages, doctors have more bargaining power than ever.
 

Money Still Talks

Financial perks are still the premiere portion of a benefits package, according to Marc Adam, physician recruiter at MASC Medical, a medical recruitment firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

New data from the medical staffing company AMN Healthcare reported that the average signing bonus for physicians is $31,103. The average relocation allowance is $11,000, and the average CME allowance is $4000.

“CME budget and loan repayment programs are big because they directly impact career advancement and financial well-being,” Mr. Jorgovan said. He said that given the high cost of medical training, loan repayment help, especially, has become a huge deciding factor for clinicians. Employers have historically been hesitant to offer these kinds of long-term benefits because of the financial commitment and planning involved, but that’s changing.

Mr. Adam said that short-term financial perks, like relocation assistance and signing bonuses, tend to be more important for younger doctors. They’re not yet financially established, so the relocation support and bonus funds have more impact as they take on a new role, he said.

Mid- and late-career doctors, on the other hand, are less beholden to these types of bonuses. Mr. Adam has recruited established doctors from across the country to Florida, and he said that the relocation allowance and singing bonus didn’t even rank in their top five priorities. Similarly, in Birmingham, Dr. Wyatt recently reread her offer letter from UAB and was surprised to find a relocation stipend that she never used. “I had no idea,” she said.
 

Vying for Time

Mid- and late-career doctors who have a better financial safety net tend to seek benefits that boost their quality of life.

One of Mr. Adam’s recent job-searching clients was unwilling to compromise on priorities like specific location and a 4-day workweek.

Four-day workweeks, flexible scheduling, and options for remote work are increasingly popular, especially since the pandemic. Some physicians, like those in primary care, are looking for dedicated charting hours — paid days or half-days set aside for updating the electronic medical records. Other doctors are negotiating multistate telehealth licensing paid by their employer and work-from-home telehealth hours.

“Work life has been slowly increasing over the 14 years I’ve been doing this. And post COVID, the employer’s willingness to be flexible with those types of accommodations increased,” said Mr. Adam.

Priya Jaisinghani, MD, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist in her second year of practice, NYU Langone Health, New York City, said work-life balance can be a priority for young doctors, too. After training in New York during the pandemic, Dr. Jaisinghani was all too aware of the risk for burnout. So she negotiated a 4-day workweek when she took her first job out of fellowship in 2022. “I was able to prioritize work-life balance from the start,” she said.
 

Support for the Career You Want

When Dr. Jaisinghani signed her first contract in 2022 with NYU, her move from New Jersey to New York wasn’t far enough to warrant a relocation allowance. “There was a signing bonus, sure,” she said. But what really grabbed her attention were perks like mentorship, access to trainees, and autonomy.

Perks that support long-term growth — like CME allowance, teaching opportunities, or access to leadership tracks — are especially important to young doctors. “After dedicating so many years to medical training, you want to look for some degree of autonomy in building your practice,” she said. NYU offered her that kind of freedom and support.

On top of personal growth, young physicians are looking for perks that will allow them to build the practice they want for their patients,Dr. Jaisinghani told this news organization. A lot of young doctors don’t know that they can negotiate for schedule preferences, office space, their own exam room, and dedicated support staff. However, they can and should because these factors influence their daily work life and patient experience.

Experienced doctors are also looking for perks that support the career they want. Recruitment experts say that doctors tend to look for opportunities that accommodate their interests. One of Mr. Jorgovan’s recent clients took a position because it offered a generous CME budget and dedicated research hours. Similarly, Dr. Wyatt at UAB moved because her contract included paid time to create.

“It really comes down to the need for balance — being able to keep learning while also having time for personal life and family,” Mr. Jorgovan said.
 

Making and Meeting Demand

Thanks to the rising demand, doctors have more power than ever to negotiate the perks they want and need.

The existing physician shortage — driven by retiring doctors and an aging patient population — was only exacerbated by the pandemic. Now, a number of new market entries are further increasing competition for talent, according to AMN Healthcare’s report. Retail clinics, urgent care, telehealth companies, and private equity firms compete for the same doctors, driving up salaries and doctor bargaining power.

“Physicians were always in the driver’s seat, and their bargaining power has only increased,” Mr. Adam said. Healthcare systems, once reticent about flexible working arrangements or loan repayment, are reconsidering.

Even young doctors have more negotiating power than they realize, but they might need help. “It’s underrated to get a contracts lawyer as a young doctor, but I think it’s smart,” Dr. Jaisinghani said. They’re often more familiar with salaries in the area, flexibility options, and potential benefits, none of which doctors are taught in training, she said.

Mr. Adam said that the pandemic opened employers’ eyes to the fact that doctors have the bargaining power. There’s a stark need for their talent and a lot of public support for their service. So hiring managers are listening and are ready to offer “creative benefits to accommodate the market demand,” he said.

In her new position at UAB, Dr. Wyatt said that money will always matter. “When your salary is low, bumping that salary will make you happier.” But after a certain point, she said, other things become more important — like your time, the work you do, and the people you work with. Her perks at UAB offer more than money can. “I get up in the morning, and I’m excited — [the work] excites me,” she said.

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

Holly Wyatt, MD, had spent 20 years in UCHealth with no plans to leave. Her home, support system, and lifestyle were all rooted in Denver. But in 2020, The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) made the endocrinologist an offer she couldn’t resist.

The pay increase and a bump to full professorship weren’t enough to lure her across the country. But then UAB sweetened the deal with fewer clinic hours and paid time to create. “I didn’t have to fit into the typical ‘see patients 5 days a week, bill this many dollars,’ ” she said.

With no minimum billable hours, she could spend her time on clinical trials, designing programs, and recording podcasts. “When they offered that, I said, ‘Ooh, that’s enticing.’ ”

After a couple of visits to the campus, she began the job transition.

Doctors are looking for more than base pay. For many physicians, like Dr. Wyatt, non-salary incentives carry a lot of weight in the recruitment and job-hunting process.

“Some of the usual suspects are CME [continuing medical education] budget, signing bonuses, relocation assistance, loan repayment programs, and housing allowances,” said Jake Jorgovan, partner at Alpha Apex Group, a physician recruiting firm in Denver.

Post pandemic, doctors are vying for other benefits, perks that support their interests, work-life balance, and financial stability. “We’ve come across offers like sabbatical opportunities, paid time for research or personal projects, and even concierge services that handle things like grocery shopping or pet care,” said Mr. Jorgovan.

Amid physician shortages, doctors have more bargaining power than ever.
 

Money Still Talks

Financial perks are still the premiere portion of a benefits package, according to Marc Adam, physician recruiter at MASC Medical, a medical recruitment firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

New data from the medical staffing company AMN Healthcare reported that the average signing bonus for physicians is $31,103. The average relocation allowance is $11,000, and the average CME allowance is $4000.

“CME budget and loan repayment programs are big because they directly impact career advancement and financial well-being,” Mr. Jorgovan said. He said that given the high cost of medical training, loan repayment help, especially, has become a huge deciding factor for clinicians. Employers have historically been hesitant to offer these kinds of long-term benefits because of the financial commitment and planning involved, but that’s changing.

Mr. Adam said that short-term financial perks, like relocation assistance and signing bonuses, tend to be more important for younger doctors. They’re not yet financially established, so the relocation support and bonus funds have more impact as they take on a new role, he said.

Mid- and late-career doctors, on the other hand, are less beholden to these types of bonuses. Mr. Adam has recruited established doctors from across the country to Florida, and he said that the relocation allowance and singing bonus didn’t even rank in their top five priorities. Similarly, in Birmingham, Dr. Wyatt recently reread her offer letter from UAB and was surprised to find a relocation stipend that she never used. “I had no idea,” she said.
 

Vying for Time

Mid- and late-career doctors who have a better financial safety net tend to seek benefits that boost their quality of life.

One of Mr. Adam’s recent job-searching clients was unwilling to compromise on priorities like specific location and a 4-day workweek.

Four-day workweeks, flexible scheduling, and options for remote work are increasingly popular, especially since the pandemic. Some physicians, like those in primary care, are looking for dedicated charting hours — paid days or half-days set aside for updating the electronic medical records. Other doctors are negotiating multistate telehealth licensing paid by their employer and work-from-home telehealth hours.

“Work life has been slowly increasing over the 14 years I’ve been doing this. And post COVID, the employer’s willingness to be flexible with those types of accommodations increased,” said Mr. Adam.

Priya Jaisinghani, MD, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist in her second year of practice, NYU Langone Health, New York City, said work-life balance can be a priority for young doctors, too. After training in New York during the pandemic, Dr. Jaisinghani was all too aware of the risk for burnout. So she negotiated a 4-day workweek when she took her first job out of fellowship in 2022. “I was able to prioritize work-life balance from the start,” she said.
 

Support for the Career You Want

When Dr. Jaisinghani signed her first contract in 2022 with NYU, her move from New Jersey to New York wasn’t far enough to warrant a relocation allowance. “There was a signing bonus, sure,” she said. But what really grabbed her attention were perks like mentorship, access to trainees, and autonomy.

Perks that support long-term growth — like CME allowance, teaching opportunities, or access to leadership tracks — are especially important to young doctors. “After dedicating so many years to medical training, you want to look for some degree of autonomy in building your practice,” she said. NYU offered her that kind of freedom and support.

On top of personal growth, young physicians are looking for perks that will allow them to build the practice they want for their patients,Dr. Jaisinghani told this news organization. A lot of young doctors don’t know that they can negotiate for schedule preferences, office space, their own exam room, and dedicated support staff. However, they can and should because these factors influence their daily work life and patient experience.

Experienced doctors are also looking for perks that support the career they want. Recruitment experts say that doctors tend to look for opportunities that accommodate their interests. One of Mr. Jorgovan’s recent clients took a position because it offered a generous CME budget and dedicated research hours. Similarly, Dr. Wyatt at UAB moved because her contract included paid time to create.

“It really comes down to the need for balance — being able to keep learning while also having time for personal life and family,” Mr. Jorgovan said.
 

Making and Meeting Demand

Thanks to the rising demand, doctors have more power than ever to negotiate the perks they want and need.

The existing physician shortage — driven by retiring doctors and an aging patient population — was only exacerbated by the pandemic. Now, a number of new market entries are further increasing competition for talent, according to AMN Healthcare’s report. Retail clinics, urgent care, telehealth companies, and private equity firms compete for the same doctors, driving up salaries and doctor bargaining power.

“Physicians were always in the driver’s seat, and their bargaining power has only increased,” Mr. Adam said. Healthcare systems, once reticent about flexible working arrangements or loan repayment, are reconsidering.

Even young doctors have more negotiating power than they realize, but they might need help. “It’s underrated to get a contracts lawyer as a young doctor, but I think it’s smart,” Dr. Jaisinghani said. They’re often more familiar with salaries in the area, flexibility options, and potential benefits, none of which doctors are taught in training, she said.

Mr. Adam said that the pandemic opened employers’ eyes to the fact that doctors have the bargaining power. There’s a stark need for their talent and a lot of public support for their service. So hiring managers are listening and are ready to offer “creative benefits to accommodate the market demand,” he said.

In her new position at UAB, Dr. Wyatt said that money will always matter. “When your salary is low, bumping that salary will make you happier.” But after a certain point, she said, other things become more important — like your time, the work you do, and the people you work with. Her perks at UAB offer more than money can. “I get up in the morning, and I’m excited — [the work] excites me,” she said.

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

Holly Wyatt, MD, had spent 20 years in UCHealth with no plans to leave. Her home, support system, and lifestyle were all rooted in Denver. But in 2020, The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) made the endocrinologist an offer she couldn’t resist.

The pay increase and a bump to full professorship weren’t enough to lure her across the country. But then UAB sweetened the deal with fewer clinic hours and paid time to create. “I didn’t have to fit into the typical ‘see patients 5 days a week, bill this many dollars,’ ” she said.

With no minimum billable hours, she could spend her time on clinical trials, designing programs, and recording podcasts. “When they offered that, I said, ‘Ooh, that’s enticing.’ ”

After a couple of visits to the campus, she began the job transition.

Doctors are looking for more than base pay. For many physicians, like Dr. Wyatt, non-salary incentives carry a lot of weight in the recruitment and job-hunting process.

“Some of the usual suspects are CME [continuing medical education] budget, signing bonuses, relocation assistance, loan repayment programs, and housing allowances,” said Jake Jorgovan, partner at Alpha Apex Group, a physician recruiting firm in Denver.

Post pandemic, doctors are vying for other benefits, perks that support their interests, work-life balance, and financial stability. “We’ve come across offers like sabbatical opportunities, paid time for research or personal projects, and even concierge services that handle things like grocery shopping or pet care,” said Mr. Jorgovan.

Amid physician shortages, doctors have more bargaining power than ever.
 

Money Still Talks

Financial perks are still the premiere portion of a benefits package, according to Marc Adam, physician recruiter at MASC Medical, a medical recruitment firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

New data from the medical staffing company AMN Healthcare reported that the average signing bonus for physicians is $31,103. The average relocation allowance is $11,000, and the average CME allowance is $4000.

“CME budget and loan repayment programs are big because they directly impact career advancement and financial well-being,” Mr. Jorgovan said. He said that given the high cost of medical training, loan repayment help, especially, has become a huge deciding factor for clinicians. Employers have historically been hesitant to offer these kinds of long-term benefits because of the financial commitment and planning involved, but that’s changing.

Mr. Adam said that short-term financial perks, like relocation assistance and signing bonuses, tend to be more important for younger doctors. They’re not yet financially established, so the relocation support and bonus funds have more impact as they take on a new role, he said.

Mid- and late-career doctors, on the other hand, are less beholden to these types of bonuses. Mr. Adam has recruited established doctors from across the country to Florida, and he said that the relocation allowance and singing bonus didn’t even rank in their top five priorities. Similarly, in Birmingham, Dr. Wyatt recently reread her offer letter from UAB and was surprised to find a relocation stipend that she never used. “I had no idea,” she said.
 

Vying for Time

Mid- and late-career doctors who have a better financial safety net tend to seek benefits that boost their quality of life.

One of Mr. Adam’s recent job-searching clients was unwilling to compromise on priorities like specific location and a 4-day workweek.

Four-day workweeks, flexible scheduling, and options for remote work are increasingly popular, especially since the pandemic. Some physicians, like those in primary care, are looking for dedicated charting hours — paid days or half-days set aside for updating the electronic medical records. Other doctors are negotiating multistate telehealth licensing paid by their employer and work-from-home telehealth hours.

“Work life has been slowly increasing over the 14 years I’ve been doing this. And post COVID, the employer’s willingness to be flexible with those types of accommodations increased,” said Mr. Adam.

Priya Jaisinghani, MD, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist in her second year of practice, NYU Langone Health, New York City, said work-life balance can be a priority for young doctors, too. After training in New York during the pandemic, Dr. Jaisinghani was all too aware of the risk for burnout. So she negotiated a 4-day workweek when she took her first job out of fellowship in 2022. “I was able to prioritize work-life balance from the start,” she said.
 

Support for the Career You Want

When Dr. Jaisinghani signed her first contract in 2022 with NYU, her move from New Jersey to New York wasn’t far enough to warrant a relocation allowance. “There was a signing bonus, sure,” she said. But what really grabbed her attention were perks like mentorship, access to trainees, and autonomy.

Perks that support long-term growth — like CME allowance, teaching opportunities, or access to leadership tracks — are especially important to young doctors. “After dedicating so many years to medical training, you want to look for some degree of autonomy in building your practice,” she said. NYU offered her that kind of freedom and support.

On top of personal growth, young physicians are looking for perks that will allow them to build the practice they want for their patients,Dr. Jaisinghani told this news organization. A lot of young doctors don’t know that they can negotiate for schedule preferences, office space, their own exam room, and dedicated support staff. However, they can and should because these factors influence their daily work life and patient experience.

Experienced doctors are also looking for perks that support the career they want. Recruitment experts say that doctors tend to look for opportunities that accommodate their interests. One of Mr. Jorgovan’s recent clients took a position because it offered a generous CME budget and dedicated research hours. Similarly, Dr. Wyatt at UAB moved because her contract included paid time to create.

“It really comes down to the need for balance — being able to keep learning while also having time for personal life and family,” Mr. Jorgovan said.
 

Making and Meeting Demand

Thanks to the rising demand, doctors have more power than ever to negotiate the perks they want and need.

The existing physician shortage — driven by retiring doctors and an aging patient population — was only exacerbated by the pandemic. Now, a number of new market entries are further increasing competition for talent, according to AMN Healthcare’s report. Retail clinics, urgent care, telehealth companies, and private equity firms compete for the same doctors, driving up salaries and doctor bargaining power.

“Physicians were always in the driver’s seat, and their bargaining power has only increased,” Mr. Adam said. Healthcare systems, once reticent about flexible working arrangements or loan repayment, are reconsidering.

Even young doctors have more negotiating power than they realize, but they might need help. “It’s underrated to get a contracts lawyer as a young doctor, but I think it’s smart,” Dr. Jaisinghani said. They’re often more familiar with salaries in the area, flexibility options, and potential benefits, none of which doctors are taught in training, she said.

Mr. Adam said that the pandemic opened employers’ eyes to the fact that doctors have the bargaining power. There’s a stark need for their talent and a lot of public support for their service. So hiring managers are listening and are ready to offer “creative benefits to accommodate the market demand,” he said.

In her new position at UAB, Dr. Wyatt said that money will always matter. “When your salary is low, bumping that salary will make you happier.” But after a certain point, she said, other things become more important — like your time, the work you do, and the people you work with. Her perks at UAB offer more than money can. “I get up in the morning, and I’m excited — [the work] excites me,” she said.

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

TOPLINE:

A higher intake of lignans (found in plant-based foods such as seeds, whole grains, some fruits and vegetables, and coffee, tea, and cocoa) is linked to a reduced risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), especially in individuals with obesity or premenopausal women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Lignans, polyphenolic compounds abundant in plant-based foods, are the primary dietary source of phytoestrogens in Western diets and are associated with a reduced risk for cardiometabolic conditions, but the relative associations of individual lignans with T2D are unknown.
• Researchers assessed the associations between the risk for T2D and the intake of total and four primary lignans using the data of 201,111 participants (mean age, 44.7 years; 80.2% women; 96.7% White individuals) from three large prospective US cohorts with over 30 years of follow-up, as well as the association between lignan intake and hemoglobin A1c in 496 participants from the Men’s Lifestyle Validation Study (MLVS).
• For the three large cohorts, lignan intake (total, secoisolariciresinol, matairesinol, pinoresinol, and lariciresinol) was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire updated every 2-4 years and categorized into quintiles. For MLVS, diet was assessed by two sets of 7-day diet records and presented as percentage changes in A1c for linear increases in lignan intake.
• Incident T2D was confirmed using diagnostic tests, symptoms, hypoglycemic medication, elevated glucose by several measures.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across the three cohorts, 20,291 cases of T2D were recorded in the full follow-up.
• Higher intakes of total and individual ligands, except for lariciresinol, were associated with about 8%-27% lower T2D incidents (approximate hazard ratio [HR], 0.72-0.93)
• Of the individual lignans, secoisolariciresinol (but not others) showed a significant inverse association with the risk for T2D among those with a body mass index ≥ 30 (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.79) and premenopausal women (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.65-0.69).
• The dietary intake of lignans assessed using the 7-day diet records in MLVS was associated with lower levels of A1c (percentage changes ranging from −0.92% to −1.50%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore the importance of a healthy plant-based diet rich in lignan-containing foods, including flaxseed products, whole grains, and coffee for the primary prevention of T2D,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Siyue Wang, PhD, Department of Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, and the School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations include the potential for measurement errors in dietary assessments. Flax seed, the most concentrated source of lignans, was not assessed until midway through the three large cohort follow-ups, and this may have resulted in misclassification of the intake levels of secoisolariciresinol. The lack of diversity in the socioeconomic status and race within the population may restrict the generalizability of the findings. Despite making multivariable adjustments, residual confounding cannot be fully ruled out.

DISCLOSURES:

The three cohort studies were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A higher intake of lignans (found in plant-based foods such as seeds, whole grains, some fruits and vegetables, and coffee, tea, and cocoa) is linked to a reduced risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), especially in individuals with obesity or premenopausal women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Lignans, polyphenolic compounds abundant in plant-based foods, are the primary dietary source of phytoestrogens in Western diets and are associated with a reduced risk for cardiometabolic conditions, but the relative associations of individual lignans with T2D are unknown.
• Researchers assessed the associations between the risk for T2D and the intake of total and four primary lignans using the data of 201,111 participants (mean age, 44.7 years; 80.2% women; 96.7% White individuals) from three large prospective US cohorts with over 30 years of follow-up, as well as the association between lignan intake and hemoglobin A1c in 496 participants from the Men’s Lifestyle Validation Study (MLVS).
• For the three large cohorts, lignan intake (total, secoisolariciresinol, matairesinol, pinoresinol, and lariciresinol) was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire updated every 2-4 years and categorized into quintiles. For MLVS, diet was assessed by two sets of 7-day diet records and presented as percentage changes in A1c for linear increases in lignan intake.
• Incident T2D was confirmed using diagnostic tests, symptoms, hypoglycemic medication, elevated glucose by several measures.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across the three cohorts, 20,291 cases of T2D were recorded in the full follow-up.
• Higher intakes of total and individual ligands, except for lariciresinol, were associated with about 8%-27% lower T2D incidents (approximate hazard ratio [HR], 0.72-0.93)
• Of the individual lignans, secoisolariciresinol (but not others) showed a significant inverse association with the risk for T2D among those with a body mass index ≥ 30 (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.79) and premenopausal women (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.65-0.69).
• The dietary intake of lignans assessed using the 7-day diet records in MLVS was associated with lower levels of A1c (percentage changes ranging from −0.92% to −1.50%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore the importance of a healthy plant-based diet rich in lignan-containing foods, including flaxseed products, whole grains, and coffee for the primary prevention of T2D,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Siyue Wang, PhD, Department of Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, and the School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations include the potential for measurement errors in dietary assessments. Flax seed, the most concentrated source of lignans, was not assessed until midway through the three large cohort follow-ups, and this may have resulted in misclassification of the intake levels of secoisolariciresinol. The lack of diversity in the socioeconomic status and race within the population may restrict the generalizability of the findings. Despite making multivariable adjustments, residual confounding cannot be fully ruled out.

DISCLOSURES:

The three cohort studies were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A higher intake of lignans (found in plant-based foods such as seeds, whole grains, some fruits and vegetables, and coffee, tea, and cocoa) is linked to a reduced risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), especially in individuals with obesity or premenopausal women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Lignans, polyphenolic compounds abundant in plant-based foods, are the primary dietary source of phytoestrogens in Western diets and are associated with a reduced risk for cardiometabolic conditions, but the relative associations of individual lignans with T2D are unknown.
• Researchers assessed the associations between the risk for T2D and the intake of total and four primary lignans using the data of 201,111 participants (mean age, 44.7 years; 80.2% women; 96.7% White individuals) from three large prospective US cohorts with over 30 years of follow-up, as well as the association between lignan intake and hemoglobin A1c in 496 participants from the Men’s Lifestyle Validation Study (MLVS).
• For the three large cohorts, lignan intake (total, secoisolariciresinol, matairesinol, pinoresinol, and lariciresinol) was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire updated every 2-4 years and categorized into quintiles. For MLVS, diet was assessed by two sets of 7-day diet records and presented as percentage changes in A1c for linear increases in lignan intake.
• Incident T2D was confirmed using diagnostic tests, symptoms, hypoglycemic medication, elevated glucose by several measures.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across the three cohorts, 20,291 cases of T2D were recorded in the full follow-up.
• Higher intakes of total and individual ligands, except for lariciresinol, were associated with about 8%-27% lower T2D incidents (approximate hazard ratio [HR], 0.72-0.93)
• Of the individual lignans, secoisolariciresinol (but not others) showed a significant inverse association with the risk for T2D among those with a body mass index ≥ 30 (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.79) and premenopausal women (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.65-0.69).
• The dietary intake of lignans assessed using the 7-day diet records in MLVS was associated with lower levels of A1c (percentage changes ranging from −0.92% to −1.50%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore the importance of a healthy plant-based diet rich in lignan-containing foods, including flaxseed products, whole grains, and coffee for the primary prevention of T2D,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Siyue Wang, PhD, Department of Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, and the School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations include the potential for measurement errors in dietary assessments. Flax seed, the most concentrated source of lignans, was not assessed until midway through the three large cohort follow-ups, and this may have resulted in misclassification of the intake levels of secoisolariciresinol. The lack of diversity in the socioeconomic status and race within the population may restrict the generalizability of the findings. Despite making multivariable adjustments, residual confounding cannot be fully ruled out.

DISCLOSURES:

The three cohort studies were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, 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.

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, 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.

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, 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.