Clinician Reviews

Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly recently announced that its newly approved weight loss medication Zepbound — a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) akin to Mounjaro, Ozempic, and Wegovy — will be prescribed by independent telehealth providers on a platform managed by the company itself. The drug can be subsequently shipped direct to consumer (DTC), allowing delivery straight to patients’ homes. 

This arrangement raises serious concerns about an inherent conflict of interest, as we previously discussed. What happens when a pharmaceutical company influences access to remote providers who prescribe the very medications it manufactures? Will these remote providers truly put the patient’s interest first when debating their safety and appropriate use? Whom will patients consult if they have concerns after initiating the medication?

Without new guardrails, the potential for misleading messaging to result in dangerous prescribing patterns looms large. The United States is one of only two countries to allow DTC advertising of prescription drugs, and the explosion in demand for GLP-1 RAs is partly attributable to this model (Oh, oh, Ozempic, anyone?). Americans spent over $78 billion on weight loss goods and services in 2019; time-intensive approaches such as diet and exercise are understandably difficult, and the public has always looked for a magic cure. Although GLP-1 RAs are promising, they may present a path to disaster without proper supervision.

LillyDirect, which in addition to Zepbound offers migraine medications and other products in the company’s catalogue, primarily aims to increase access to medication and reduce costs of the drugs for consumers. The stated mission is noble: By cutting out the middlemen of traditional pharmacies and benefit managers, administrative costs drop. LillyDirect goes a step further by reducing the need for patients to visit their regular family doctor to receive these medications.

On the surface, this design appears promising. Wait times for doctor’s appointments will fall. Patients can order drugs from the comfort of their home. Everyone benefits. Or do they? 

Although easier access and reduced cost may be an apparent win for patients, DTC arrangements complicate the ethics of prescriptions and patient follow-up. This model reminds us of the roots of the opioid crisis, where powerful advertising and relationships between prescribers and drugmakers led to great harm. Providers often faced a conflict of interest when prescribing dangerous drugs to patients who requested them. We must learn from these mistakes to ensure there is critical oversight into the independence of prescribers used by LillyDirect and other DTC platforms.

Adding to these parallels, once a patient begins a GLP-1 medication such as Zepbound, stopping treatment will probably lead to regaining lost weight, serving as negative reinforcement. Hence, patients may decide never to discontinue these medications.

Obtaining what amounts to a lifelong prescription from a telehealth provider who may never follow a patient sets a dangerous precedent that will be difficult to unravel once begun. Recent challenges in access to medications such as Zepbound have been complicated by supply chain and manufacturing issues, leading to potential interruptions in patient access, ultimately affecting compliance. The rapid increase in online providers indicates competition for distribution channels has sharply increased and poses a threat to Lilly’s DTC site. 

Furthermore, the lack of a regular physician to monitor patients introduces uncertainty in safety and continuity of care. These are important tenets in protecting patients, especially patients who are not diabetic and desire a quick fix. We have already seen a huge, arguably unrestrained, rise in prescriptions of GLP-1 RAs for weight loss — up to a 352% increase in 2023.

These drugs have shown great promise and are generally safe when used in the right patient, but important contraindications exist — namely, serious gastrointestinal side effects and low blood glucose in nondiabetic persons — that an astute physician must consider. Patients desiring these medications often must undergo comprehensive laboratory testing and cardiac evaluation, both before initiation and during regular follow-up, to check for comorbidities.

The American College of Physicians cautioned against such prescribing practices in a recent position statement, emphasizing that the lack of an established care provider could adversely affect patients. We note that the potential harms of DTC sales would concentrate in economically and racially underserved communities, where obesity, lack of insurance, and low health literacy are more common. 

But the DTC genie is out of the pill bottle, and as such platforms become more common, patients will inherently take more ownership over their medical care. Remote providers will of course not be following these patients and evaluating for side effects. As a result, we in medical practice must be abreast of new downsides of these medications if and when they arise. 

Every clinician must be aware of the medications a patient is taking, even those that they did not prescribe. They should educate their patients about drug-drug interactions and side effects and order lab tests to monitor for side effects. 

Independent physicians abide by an underlying oath: First, do no harm. They serve as a trusted check on industry and a valuable long-term partner for patients. Where are the guardrails to protect patients and ensure that pharmaceutical companies are not essentially pushing prescriptions for their own products? Will traditional healthcare providers be effectively relegated to a bystander role in Lilly’s transactional approach to medication distribution? Unlike other commercial goods, pharmacologics have great nuance; not every approved medication is meant for every patient.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly recently announced that its newly approved weight loss medication Zepbound — a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) akin to Mounjaro, Ozempic, and Wegovy — will be prescribed by independent telehealth providers on a platform managed by the company itself. The drug can be subsequently shipped direct to consumer (DTC), allowing delivery straight to patients’ homes. 

This arrangement raises serious concerns about an inherent conflict of interest, as we previously discussed. What happens when a pharmaceutical company influences access to remote providers who prescribe the very medications it manufactures? Will these remote providers truly put the patient’s interest first when debating their safety and appropriate use? Whom will patients consult if they have concerns after initiating the medication?

Without new guardrails, the potential for misleading messaging to result in dangerous prescribing patterns looms large. The United States is one of only two countries to allow DTC advertising of prescription drugs, and the explosion in demand for GLP-1 RAs is partly attributable to this model (Oh, oh, Ozempic, anyone?). Americans spent over $78 billion on weight loss goods and services in 2019; time-intensive approaches such as diet and exercise are understandably difficult, and the public has always looked for a magic cure. Although GLP-1 RAs are promising, they may present a path to disaster without proper supervision.

LillyDirect, which in addition to Zepbound offers migraine medications and other products in the company’s catalogue, primarily aims to increase access to medication and reduce costs of the drugs for consumers. The stated mission is noble: By cutting out the middlemen of traditional pharmacies and benefit managers, administrative costs drop. LillyDirect goes a step further by reducing the need for patients to visit their regular family doctor to receive these medications.

On the surface, this design appears promising. Wait times for doctor’s appointments will fall. Patients can order drugs from the comfort of their home. Everyone benefits. Or do they? 

Although easier access and reduced cost may be an apparent win for patients, DTC arrangements complicate the ethics of prescriptions and patient follow-up. This model reminds us of the roots of the opioid crisis, where powerful advertising and relationships between prescribers and drugmakers led to great harm. Providers often faced a conflict of interest when prescribing dangerous drugs to patients who requested them. We must learn from these mistakes to ensure there is critical oversight into the independence of prescribers used by LillyDirect and other DTC platforms.

Adding to these parallels, once a patient begins a GLP-1 medication such as Zepbound, stopping treatment will probably lead to regaining lost weight, serving as negative reinforcement. Hence, patients may decide never to discontinue these medications.

Obtaining what amounts to a lifelong prescription from a telehealth provider who may never follow a patient sets a dangerous precedent that will be difficult to unravel once begun. Recent challenges in access to medications such as Zepbound have been complicated by supply chain and manufacturing issues, leading to potential interruptions in patient access, ultimately affecting compliance. The rapid increase in online providers indicates competition for distribution channels has sharply increased and poses a threat to Lilly’s DTC site. 

Furthermore, the lack of a regular physician to monitor patients introduces uncertainty in safety and continuity of care. These are important tenets in protecting patients, especially patients who are not diabetic and desire a quick fix. We have already seen a huge, arguably unrestrained, rise in prescriptions of GLP-1 RAs for weight loss — up to a 352% increase in 2023.

These drugs have shown great promise and are generally safe when used in the right patient, but important contraindications exist — namely, serious gastrointestinal side effects and low blood glucose in nondiabetic persons — that an astute physician must consider. Patients desiring these medications often must undergo comprehensive laboratory testing and cardiac evaluation, both before initiation and during regular follow-up, to check for comorbidities.

The American College of Physicians cautioned against such prescribing practices in a recent position statement, emphasizing that the lack of an established care provider could adversely affect patients. We note that the potential harms of DTC sales would concentrate in economically and racially underserved communities, where obesity, lack of insurance, and low health literacy are more common. 

But the DTC genie is out of the pill bottle, and as such platforms become more common, patients will inherently take more ownership over their medical care. Remote providers will of course not be following these patients and evaluating for side effects. As a result, we in medical practice must be abreast of new downsides of these medications if and when they arise. 

Every clinician must be aware of the medications a patient is taking, even those that they did not prescribe. They should educate their patients about drug-drug interactions and side effects and order lab tests to monitor for side effects. 

Independent physicians abide by an underlying oath: First, do no harm. They serve as a trusted check on industry and a valuable long-term partner for patients. Where are the guardrails to protect patients and ensure that pharmaceutical companies are not essentially pushing prescriptions for their own products? Will traditional healthcare providers be effectively relegated to a bystander role in Lilly’s transactional approach to medication distribution? Unlike other commercial goods, pharmacologics have great nuance; not every approved medication is meant for every patient.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly recently announced that its newly approved weight loss medication Zepbound — a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) akin to Mounjaro, Ozempic, and Wegovy — will be prescribed by independent telehealth providers on a platform managed by the company itself. The drug can be subsequently shipped direct to consumer (DTC), allowing delivery straight to patients’ homes. 

This arrangement raises serious concerns about an inherent conflict of interest, as we previously discussed. What happens when a pharmaceutical company influences access to remote providers who prescribe the very medications it manufactures? Will these remote providers truly put the patient’s interest first when debating their safety and appropriate use? Whom will patients consult if they have concerns after initiating the medication?

Without new guardrails, the potential for misleading messaging to result in dangerous prescribing patterns looms large. The United States is one of only two countries to allow DTC advertising of prescription drugs, and the explosion in demand for GLP-1 RAs is partly attributable to this model (Oh, oh, Ozempic, anyone?). Americans spent over $78 billion on weight loss goods and services in 2019; time-intensive approaches such as diet and exercise are understandably difficult, and the public has always looked for a magic cure. Although GLP-1 RAs are promising, they may present a path to disaster without proper supervision.

LillyDirect, which in addition to Zepbound offers migraine medications and other products in the company’s catalogue, primarily aims to increase access to medication and reduce costs of the drugs for consumers. The stated mission is noble: By cutting out the middlemen of traditional pharmacies and benefit managers, administrative costs drop. LillyDirect goes a step further by reducing the need for patients to visit their regular family doctor to receive these medications.

On the surface, this design appears promising. Wait times for doctor’s appointments will fall. Patients can order drugs from the comfort of their home. Everyone benefits. Or do they? 

Although easier access and reduced cost may be an apparent win for patients, DTC arrangements complicate the ethics of prescriptions and patient follow-up. This model reminds us of the roots of the opioid crisis, where powerful advertising and relationships between prescribers and drugmakers led to great harm. Providers often faced a conflict of interest when prescribing dangerous drugs to patients who requested them. We must learn from these mistakes to ensure there is critical oversight into the independence of prescribers used by LillyDirect and other DTC platforms.

Adding to these parallels, once a patient begins a GLP-1 medication such as Zepbound, stopping treatment will probably lead to regaining lost weight, serving as negative reinforcement. Hence, patients may decide never to discontinue these medications.

Obtaining what amounts to a lifelong prescription from a telehealth provider who may never follow a patient sets a dangerous precedent that will be difficult to unravel once begun. Recent challenges in access to medications such as Zepbound have been complicated by supply chain and manufacturing issues, leading to potential interruptions in patient access, ultimately affecting compliance. The rapid increase in online providers indicates competition for distribution channels has sharply increased and poses a threat to Lilly’s DTC site. 

Furthermore, the lack of a regular physician to monitor patients introduces uncertainty in safety and continuity of care. These are important tenets in protecting patients, especially patients who are not diabetic and desire a quick fix. We have already seen a huge, arguably unrestrained, rise in prescriptions of GLP-1 RAs for weight loss — up to a 352% increase in 2023.

These drugs have shown great promise and are generally safe when used in the right patient, but important contraindications exist — namely, serious gastrointestinal side effects and low blood glucose in nondiabetic persons — that an astute physician must consider. Patients desiring these medications often must undergo comprehensive laboratory testing and cardiac evaluation, both before initiation and during regular follow-up, to check for comorbidities.

The American College of Physicians cautioned against such prescribing practices in a recent position statement, emphasizing that the lack of an established care provider could adversely affect patients. We note that the potential harms of DTC sales would concentrate in economically and racially underserved communities, where obesity, lack of insurance, and low health literacy are more common. 

But the DTC genie is out of the pill bottle, and as such platforms become more common, patients will inherently take more ownership over their medical care. Remote providers will of course not be following these patients and evaluating for side effects. As a result, we in medical practice must be abreast of new downsides of these medications if and when they arise. 

Every clinician must be aware of the medications a patient is taking, even those that they did not prescribe. They should educate their patients about drug-drug interactions and side effects and order lab tests to monitor for side effects. 

Independent physicians abide by an underlying oath: First, do no harm. They serve as a trusted check on industry and a valuable long-term partner for patients. Where are the guardrails to protect patients and ensure that pharmaceutical companies are not essentially pushing prescriptions for their own products? Will traditional healthcare providers be effectively relegated to a bystander role in Lilly’s transactional approach to medication distribution? Unlike other commercial goods, pharmacologics have great nuance; not every approved medication is meant for every patient.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with diabetes don’t have higher gastric volumes than those without diabetes after following standard preoperative fasting instructions, suggested a study from a team of anesthesiologist researchers.

However, an endocrinologist faulted the study in part because the participants appeared to be healthier than typical populations with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Moreover, the issue is now further complicated by the widespread use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the treatment of both type 2 diabetes and weight loss. These drugs, which were introduced after the study’s enrollment period, work in part by delaying gastric emptying.

The new data come from a prospective study of 84 people with diabetes (85% with type 2) and 96 without diabetes, all with a body mass index (BMI) < 40, who were undergoing elective surgery. A gastric ultrasound was used to assess their gastric contents after they had followed the standard preoperative fasting guidelines of stopping solids 8 hours prior to the procedure and clearing liquids 2 hours prior.

There was no significant difference between the two groups in gastric volume (0.81 mL/kg with diabetes vs 0.87 mL/kg without) or in the proportion with “full stomach,” as designated by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines (any solid content or > 1.5 mL/kg of clear fluid), which was seen in 13 with diabetes (15.5%) and 11 (11.5%) without.

Published in Anesthesiology, the findings offer reassurance that different fasting instructions generally aren’t needed for people with diabetes in order to minimize the risk for perioperative pulmonary aspiration, lead author Anahi Perlas, MD, professor of anesthesiology and pain medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“We never change practice completely based on a single study, but I think in general, based on our findings, that most diabetic patients aren’t any different from nondiabetics when it comes to their gastric content after fasting, and our standard fasting instructions seem to be just as effective in ensuring an empty stomach.”

But, she added, “If someone has symptoms of gastroparesis or when in doubt, we can always do a gastric ultrasound exam at the bedside and see whether the stomach is full or empty ... it’s very quick, and it’s not difficult to do.”
 

Expert Identifies Noteworthy Study Limitations

In an accompanying editorial, Mark A. Warner, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said the findings “will be very helpful to anesthesiologists,” although he noted that the exclusion of people with a BMI > 40 is a limitation.

However, Michael Horowitz, MBBS, PhD, FRACP, director of the Endocrine and Metabolic Unit at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and professor of medicine at Adelaide Medical School in Adelaide, Australia, disputed the study’s conclusions. He noted that the sample was small, and the participants had an average A1c of 7.2%. Fewer than half had microvascular or neuropathic complications. Thus, they were healthier than the general population with diabetes.

“They’ve picked the wrong group of diabetics,” said Dr. Horowitz, who specializes in gastrointestinal complications of diabetes. “This is not a group where you would expect a very high prevalence of delayed emptying.”

Gastric emptying of solids and liquids varies widely even among healthy people and more so in those with type 2 diabetes. About a third of those with above-target A1c levels have gastroparesis, while those more in the target range tend to have accelerated emptying, he explained.

And regarding the use of gastric ultrasound for those who are symptomatic, Dr. Horowitz said, “The relationship of symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, fullness, whatever it may be, with the rate of gastric emptying is weak at best. The association is not simply cause and effect.”
 

Are the Fasting Guidelines Flawed, Regardless of Diabetes Status?

Dr. Horowitz also faulted the ASA’s 2017 guidance revision for allowing clear liquids to be consumed up to 2 hours in advance of anesthesia because it doesn’t distinguish between liquids with and without calories.

“Whether you have diabetes or not, if you are allowed to have a sugar drink up to 2 hours before your operation, the majority of people empty at about 4 kcal/min, so they will still have some of that drink in their stomach,” he said. “If you want an empty stomach, the ASA guidelines are wrong.”

That explains why the study found relatively high rates of “full stomach” in both groups, 15.5% of those with diabetes and 11.5% of those without, he said.
 

The GLP-1 Agonist Factor

Although the study didn’t address GLP-1 receptor agonist use, Dr. Warner did in his accompanying editorial, noting that the drugs’ rapid expansion “will likely change how we use perioperative fasting guidelines. With these medications delaying gastric emptying times, we now have another risk factor for pulmonary aspiration to consider when applying fasting guidelines. The inconsistent impact of GLP-1 agonists on gastric emptying, ranging from little to significant, makes it difficult for anesthesiologists to gauge whether or not patients taking GLP-1 agonists are likely to have preoperative gastric liquid or solid contents that could cause subsequent damage if regurgitated.”

Gastric ultrasound can be helpful in this situation, Dr. Warner wrote. In addition, he endorsed the 2023 ASA guidance, which calls for withholding daily-dosed GLP-1 agonists on the day of the surgery and the weekly formulations for a week. And if gastrointestinal symptoms are present, delay elective procedures.

But Dr. Horowitz said those recommendations are likely insufficient as well, pointing to data suggesting that daily liraglutide can delay gastric emptying for up to 16 weeks in about a third of patients. Such studies haven’t been conducted by the manufacturers, particularly on the once-weekly formulations, and the ensuing risk for aspiration isn’t known.

“The slowing occurs in much lower doses than are used for glucose lowering,” Dr. Horowitz said. “It is very likely that plasma levels will need to be extremely low to avoid gastric slowing. The current guidelines fail to appreciate this. So, to withhold the short-acting drugs for 1 day is probably wrong. And to stop long-acting drugs for 1 week is almost certainly wrong too.”

But as for what should be done, he said, “I don’t actually know what you do about it. And no one does because there are no data available to answer the question.”

The study received funding from the Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation and the Canadian Society of Anesthesiologists. Dr. Perlas received support for nonclinical time through a merit award from the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, and the Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network. She is an executive editor of the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and does consulting work for FujiFilm SonoSite. Dr. Horowitz had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with diabetes don’t have higher gastric volumes than those without diabetes after following standard preoperative fasting instructions, suggested a study from a team of anesthesiologist researchers.

However, an endocrinologist faulted the study in part because the participants appeared to be healthier than typical populations with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Moreover, the issue is now further complicated by the widespread use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the treatment of both type 2 diabetes and weight loss. These drugs, which were introduced after the study’s enrollment period, work in part by delaying gastric emptying.

The new data come from a prospective study of 84 people with diabetes (85% with type 2) and 96 without diabetes, all with a body mass index (BMI) < 40, who were undergoing elective surgery. A gastric ultrasound was used to assess their gastric contents after they had followed the standard preoperative fasting guidelines of stopping solids 8 hours prior to the procedure and clearing liquids 2 hours prior.

There was no significant difference between the two groups in gastric volume (0.81 mL/kg with diabetes vs 0.87 mL/kg without) or in the proportion with “full stomach,” as designated by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines (any solid content or > 1.5 mL/kg of clear fluid), which was seen in 13 with diabetes (15.5%) and 11 (11.5%) without.

Published in Anesthesiology, the findings offer reassurance that different fasting instructions generally aren’t needed for people with diabetes in order to minimize the risk for perioperative pulmonary aspiration, lead author Anahi Perlas, MD, professor of anesthesiology and pain medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“We never change practice completely based on a single study, but I think in general, based on our findings, that most diabetic patients aren’t any different from nondiabetics when it comes to their gastric content after fasting, and our standard fasting instructions seem to be just as effective in ensuring an empty stomach.”

But, she added, “If someone has symptoms of gastroparesis or when in doubt, we can always do a gastric ultrasound exam at the bedside and see whether the stomach is full or empty ... it’s very quick, and it’s not difficult to do.”
 

Expert Identifies Noteworthy Study Limitations

In an accompanying editorial, Mark A. Warner, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said the findings “will be very helpful to anesthesiologists,” although he noted that the exclusion of people with a BMI > 40 is a limitation.

However, Michael Horowitz, MBBS, PhD, FRACP, director of the Endocrine and Metabolic Unit at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and professor of medicine at Adelaide Medical School in Adelaide, Australia, disputed the study’s conclusions. He noted that the sample was small, and the participants had an average A1c of 7.2%. Fewer than half had microvascular or neuropathic complications. Thus, they were healthier than the general population with diabetes.

“They’ve picked the wrong group of diabetics,” said Dr. Horowitz, who specializes in gastrointestinal complications of diabetes. “This is not a group where you would expect a very high prevalence of delayed emptying.”

Gastric emptying of solids and liquids varies widely even among healthy people and more so in those with type 2 diabetes. About a third of those with above-target A1c levels have gastroparesis, while those more in the target range tend to have accelerated emptying, he explained.

And regarding the use of gastric ultrasound for those who are symptomatic, Dr. Horowitz said, “The relationship of symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, fullness, whatever it may be, with the rate of gastric emptying is weak at best. The association is not simply cause and effect.”
 

Are the Fasting Guidelines Flawed, Regardless of Diabetes Status?

Dr. Horowitz also faulted the ASA’s 2017 guidance revision for allowing clear liquids to be consumed up to 2 hours in advance of anesthesia because it doesn’t distinguish between liquids with and without calories.

“Whether you have diabetes or not, if you are allowed to have a sugar drink up to 2 hours before your operation, the majority of people empty at about 4 kcal/min, so they will still have some of that drink in their stomach,” he said. “If you want an empty stomach, the ASA guidelines are wrong.”

That explains why the study found relatively high rates of “full stomach” in both groups, 15.5% of those with diabetes and 11.5% of those without, he said.
 

The GLP-1 Agonist Factor

Although the study didn’t address GLP-1 receptor agonist use, Dr. Warner did in his accompanying editorial, noting that the drugs’ rapid expansion “will likely change how we use perioperative fasting guidelines. With these medications delaying gastric emptying times, we now have another risk factor for pulmonary aspiration to consider when applying fasting guidelines. The inconsistent impact of GLP-1 agonists on gastric emptying, ranging from little to significant, makes it difficult for anesthesiologists to gauge whether or not patients taking GLP-1 agonists are likely to have preoperative gastric liquid or solid contents that could cause subsequent damage if regurgitated.”

Gastric ultrasound can be helpful in this situation, Dr. Warner wrote. In addition, he endorsed the 2023 ASA guidance, which calls for withholding daily-dosed GLP-1 agonists on the day of the surgery and the weekly formulations for a week. And if gastrointestinal symptoms are present, delay elective procedures.

But Dr. Horowitz said those recommendations are likely insufficient as well, pointing to data suggesting that daily liraglutide can delay gastric emptying for up to 16 weeks in about a third of patients. Such studies haven’t been conducted by the manufacturers, particularly on the once-weekly formulations, and the ensuing risk for aspiration isn’t known.

“The slowing occurs in much lower doses than are used for glucose lowering,” Dr. Horowitz said. “It is very likely that plasma levels will need to be extremely low to avoid gastric slowing. The current guidelines fail to appreciate this. So, to withhold the short-acting drugs for 1 day is probably wrong. And to stop long-acting drugs for 1 week is almost certainly wrong too.”

But as for what should be done, he said, “I don’t actually know what you do about it. And no one does because there are no data available to answer the question.”

The study received funding from the Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation and the Canadian Society of Anesthesiologists. Dr. Perlas received support for nonclinical time through a merit award from the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, and the Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network. She is an executive editor of the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and does consulting work for FujiFilm SonoSite. Dr. Horowitz had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with diabetes don’t have higher gastric volumes than those without diabetes after following standard preoperative fasting instructions, suggested a study from a team of anesthesiologist researchers.

However, an endocrinologist faulted the study in part because the participants appeared to be healthier than typical populations with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Moreover, the issue is now further complicated by the widespread use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the treatment of both type 2 diabetes and weight loss. These drugs, which were introduced after the study’s enrollment period, work in part by delaying gastric emptying.

The new data come from a prospective study of 84 people with diabetes (85% with type 2) and 96 without diabetes, all with a body mass index (BMI) < 40, who were undergoing elective surgery. A gastric ultrasound was used to assess their gastric contents after they had followed the standard preoperative fasting guidelines of stopping solids 8 hours prior to the procedure and clearing liquids 2 hours prior.

There was no significant difference between the two groups in gastric volume (0.81 mL/kg with diabetes vs 0.87 mL/kg without) or in the proportion with “full stomach,” as designated by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines (any solid content or > 1.5 mL/kg of clear fluid), which was seen in 13 with diabetes (15.5%) and 11 (11.5%) without.

Published in Anesthesiology, the findings offer reassurance that different fasting instructions generally aren’t needed for people with diabetes in order to minimize the risk for perioperative pulmonary aspiration, lead author Anahi Perlas, MD, professor of anesthesiology and pain medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“We never change practice completely based on a single study, but I think in general, based on our findings, that most diabetic patients aren’t any different from nondiabetics when it comes to their gastric content after fasting, and our standard fasting instructions seem to be just as effective in ensuring an empty stomach.”

But, she added, “If someone has symptoms of gastroparesis or when in doubt, we can always do a gastric ultrasound exam at the bedside and see whether the stomach is full or empty ... it’s very quick, and it’s not difficult to do.”
 

Expert Identifies Noteworthy Study Limitations

In an accompanying editorial, Mark A. Warner, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said the findings “will be very helpful to anesthesiologists,” although he noted that the exclusion of people with a BMI > 40 is a limitation.

However, Michael Horowitz, MBBS, PhD, FRACP, director of the Endocrine and Metabolic Unit at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and professor of medicine at Adelaide Medical School in Adelaide, Australia, disputed the study’s conclusions. He noted that the sample was small, and the participants had an average A1c of 7.2%. Fewer than half had microvascular or neuropathic complications. Thus, they were healthier than the general population with diabetes.

“They’ve picked the wrong group of diabetics,” said Dr. Horowitz, who specializes in gastrointestinal complications of diabetes. “This is not a group where you would expect a very high prevalence of delayed emptying.”

Gastric emptying of solids and liquids varies widely even among healthy people and more so in those with type 2 diabetes. About a third of those with above-target A1c levels have gastroparesis, while those more in the target range tend to have accelerated emptying, he explained.

And regarding the use of gastric ultrasound for those who are symptomatic, Dr. Horowitz said, “The relationship of symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, fullness, whatever it may be, with the rate of gastric emptying is weak at best. The association is not simply cause and effect.”
 

Are the Fasting Guidelines Flawed, Regardless of Diabetes Status?

Dr. Horowitz also faulted the ASA’s 2017 guidance revision for allowing clear liquids to be consumed up to 2 hours in advance of anesthesia because it doesn’t distinguish between liquids with and without calories.

“Whether you have diabetes or not, if you are allowed to have a sugar drink up to 2 hours before your operation, the majority of people empty at about 4 kcal/min, so they will still have some of that drink in their stomach,” he said. “If you want an empty stomach, the ASA guidelines are wrong.”

That explains why the study found relatively high rates of “full stomach” in both groups, 15.5% of those with diabetes and 11.5% of those without, he said.
 

The GLP-1 Agonist Factor

Although the study didn’t address GLP-1 receptor agonist use, Dr. Warner did in his accompanying editorial, noting that the drugs’ rapid expansion “will likely change how we use perioperative fasting guidelines. With these medications delaying gastric emptying times, we now have another risk factor for pulmonary aspiration to consider when applying fasting guidelines. The inconsistent impact of GLP-1 agonists on gastric emptying, ranging from little to significant, makes it difficult for anesthesiologists to gauge whether or not patients taking GLP-1 agonists are likely to have preoperative gastric liquid or solid contents that could cause subsequent damage if regurgitated.”

Gastric ultrasound can be helpful in this situation, Dr. Warner wrote. In addition, he endorsed the 2023 ASA guidance, which calls for withholding daily-dosed GLP-1 agonists on the day of the surgery and the weekly formulations for a week. And if gastrointestinal symptoms are present, delay elective procedures.

But Dr. Horowitz said those recommendations are likely insufficient as well, pointing to data suggesting that daily liraglutide can delay gastric emptying for up to 16 weeks in about a third of patients. Such studies haven’t been conducted by the manufacturers, particularly on the once-weekly formulations, and the ensuing risk for aspiration isn’t known.

“The slowing occurs in much lower doses than are used for glucose lowering,” Dr. Horowitz said. “It is very likely that plasma levels will need to be extremely low to avoid gastric slowing. The current guidelines fail to appreciate this. So, to withhold the short-acting drugs for 1 day is probably wrong. And to stop long-acting drugs for 1 week is almost certainly wrong too.”

But as for what should be done, he said, “I don’t actually know what you do about it. And no one does because there are no data available to answer the question.”

The study received funding from the Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation and the Canadian Society of Anesthesiologists. Dr. Perlas received support for nonclinical time through a merit award from the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, and the Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network. She is an executive editor of the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and does consulting work for FujiFilm SonoSite. Dr. Horowitz had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two professional societies have issued new guidance for type 2 diabetes management in primary care, with one focused specifically on the use of the newer medications.

On April 19, 2024, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians. The internal medicine group recommends the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, and sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as second-line treatment after metformin. They also advise against the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. 

The document was also presented simultaneously at the ACP annual meeting. 

And on April 15, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) posted its comprehensive Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024 Abridged for Primary Care Professionals as a follow-up to the December 2023 publication of its full-length Standards. Section 9, Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment, covers the same ground as the ACP guidelines.
 

General Agreement but Some Differences

The recommendations generally agree regarding medication use, although there are some differences. Both societies continue to endorse metformin and lifestyle modification as first-line therapy for glycemic management in type 2 diabetes. However, while ADA also gives the option of initial combination therapy with prioritization of avoiding hypoglycemia, ACP advises adding new medications only if glycemic goals aren’t met with lifestyle and metformin alone. 

The new ACP document gives two general recommendations:

1. Add an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control. 

*Use an SGLT2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, progression of chronic kidney disease, and hospitalization due to congestive heart failure.

*Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and stroke.

2. ACP recommends against adding a DPP-4 inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality.

Both ADA and ACP advise using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with congestive heart failure and/or chronic kidney disease, and using GLP-1 agonists in patients for whom weight management is a priority. The ADA also advises using agents of either drug class with proven cardiovascular benefit for people with type 2 diabetes who have established cardiovascular disease or who are at high risk.

ADA doesn’t advise against the use of DPP-4 inhibitors but doesn’t prioritize them either. Both insulin and sulfonylureas remain options for both, but they also are lower priority due to their potential for causing hypoglycemia. ACP says that sulfonylureas and long-acting insulin are “inferior to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in reducing all-cause mortality and morbidity but may still have some limited value for glycemic control.” 

The two groups continue to differ regarding A1c goals, although both recommend individualization. The ACP generally advises levels between 7% and 8% for most adults with type 2 diabetes, and de-intensification of pharmacologic agents for those with A1c levels below 6.5%. On the other hand, ADA recommends A1c levels < 7% as long as that can be achieved safely. 

This is the first time ACP has addressed this topic in a guideline, panel chair Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, told this news organization. “Diabetes treatment, of course, is our bread and butter…but what we had done before was based on the need to identify a target, like glycosylated hemoglobin. What patients and physicians really want to know now is, who should receive these new drugs? Should they receive these new drugs? And what benefits do they have?”

Added Dr. Crandall, who is professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “At ACP we have a complicated process that I’m actually very proud of, where we’ve asked a lay public panel, as well at the members of our guideline committee, to rank what’s most important in terms of the health outcomes for this condition…And then we look at how to balance those risks and benefits to make the recommendations.” 

In the same Annals of Internal Medicine issue are two systematic reviews/meta-analyses that informed the new document, one on drug effectiveness and the other on cost-effectiveness. 

In the accompanying editorial from Fatima Z. Syed, MD, an internist and medical weight management specialist at Duke University Division of General Internal Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, she notes, “the potential added benefits of these newer medications, including weight loss and cardiovascular and renal benefits, motivate their prescription, but cost and prior authorization hurdles can bar their use.”

Dr. Syed cites as “missing” from the ACP guidelines an analysis of comorbidities, including obesity. The reason for that, according to the document, is that “weight loss, as measured by percentage of participants who achieved at least 10% total body weight loss, was a prioritized outcome, but data were insufficient for network meta-analysis.”

However, Dr. Syed notes that factoring in weight loss could improve the cost-effectiveness of the newer medications. She points out that the ADA Standards suggest a GLP-1 agonist with or without metformin as initial therapy options for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes who might benefit from weight loss.

“The ACP guidelines strengthen the case for metformin as first-line medication for diabetes when comorbid conditions are not present. Metformin is cost-effective and has excellent hemoglobin A1c reduction. The accompanying economic analysis tells us that in the absence of comorbidity, the newer medication classes do not seem to be cost-effective. However, given that many patients with type 2 diabetes have obesity or existing cardiovascular or renal disease, the choice and accessibility of newer medications can be nuanced. The cost-effectiveness of GLP1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as initial diabetes therapy in the setting of various comorbid conditions warrants careful exploration.”

Dr. Crandall has no disclosures. Dr. Syed disclosed that her husband is employed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina.

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

Two professional societies have issued new guidance for type 2 diabetes management in primary care, with one focused specifically on the use of the newer medications.

On April 19, 2024, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians. The internal medicine group recommends the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, and sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as second-line treatment after metformin. They also advise against the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. 

The document was also presented simultaneously at the ACP annual meeting. 

And on April 15, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) posted its comprehensive Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024 Abridged for Primary Care Professionals as a follow-up to the December 2023 publication of its full-length Standards. Section 9, Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment, covers the same ground as the ACP guidelines.
 

General Agreement but Some Differences

The recommendations generally agree regarding medication use, although there are some differences. Both societies continue to endorse metformin and lifestyle modification as first-line therapy for glycemic management in type 2 diabetes. However, while ADA also gives the option of initial combination therapy with prioritization of avoiding hypoglycemia, ACP advises adding new medications only if glycemic goals aren’t met with lifestyle and metformin alone. 

The new ACP document gives two general recommendations:

1. Add an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control. 

*Use an SGLT2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, progression of chronic kidney disease, and hospitalization due to congestive heart failure.

*Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and stroke.

2. ACP recommends against adding a DPP-4 inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality.

Both ADA and ACP advise using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with congestive heart failure and/or chronic kidney disease, and using GLP-1 agonists in patients for whom weight management is a priority. The ADA also advises using agents of either drug class with proven cardiovascular benefit for people with type 2 diabetes who have established cardiovascular disease or who are at high risk.

ADA doesn’t advise against the use of DPP-4 inhibitors but doesn’t prioritize them either. Both insulin and sulfonylureas remain options for both, but they also are lower priority due to their potential for causing hypoglycemia. ACP says that sulfonylureas and long-acting insulin are “inferior to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in reducing all-cause mortality and morbidity but may still have some limited value for glycemic control.” 

The two groups continue to differ regarding A1c goals, although both recommend individualization. The ACP generally advises levels between 7% and 8% for most adults with type 2 diabetes, and de-intensification of pharmacologic agents for those with A1c levels below 6.5%. On the other hand, ADA recommends A1c levels < 7% as long as that can be achieved safely. 

This is the first time ACP has addressed this topic in a guideline, panel chair Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, told this news organization. “Diabetes treatment, of course, is our bread and butter…but what we had done before was based on the need to identify a target, like glycosylated hemoglobin. What patients and physicians really want to know now is, who should receive these new drugs? Should they receive these new drugs? And what benefits do they have?”

Added Dr. Crandall, who is professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “At ACP we have a complicated process that I’m actually very proud of, where we’ve asked a lay public panel, as well at the members of our guideline committee, to rank what’s most important in terms of the health outcomes for this condition…And then we look at how to balance those risks and benefits to make the recommendations.” 

In the same Annals of Internal Medicine issue are two systematic reviews/meta-analyses that informed the new document, one on drug effectiveness and the other on cost-effectiveness. 

In the accompanying editorial from Fatima Z. Syed, MD, an internist and medical weight management specialist at Duke University Division of General Internal Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, she notes, “the potential added benefits of these newer medications, including weight loss and cardiovascular and renal benefits, motivate their prescription, but cost and prior authorization hurdles can bar their use.”

Dr. Syed cites as “missing” from the ACP guidelines an analysis of comorbidities, including obesity. The reason for that, according to the document, is that “weight loss, as measured by percentage of participants who achieved at least 10% total body weight loss, was a prioritized outcome, but data were insufficient for network meta-analysis.”

However, Dr. Syed notes that factoring in weight loss could improve the cost-effectiveness of the newer medications. She points out that the ADA Standards suggest a GLP-1 agonist with or without metformin as initial therapy options for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes who might benefit from weight loss.

“The ACP guidelines strengthen the case for metformin as first-line medication for diabetes when comorbid conditions are not present. Metformin is cost-effective and has excellent hemoglobin A1c reduction. The accompanying economic analysis tells us that in the absence of comorbidity, the newer medication classes do not seem to be cost-effective. However, given that many patients with type 2 diabetes have obesity or existing cardiovascular or renal disease, the choice and accessibility of newer medications can be nuanced. The cost-effectiveness of GLP1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as initial diabetes therapy in the setting of various comorbid conditions warrants careful exploration.”

Dr. Crandall has no disclosures. Dr. Syed disclosed that her husband is employed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina.

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

Two professional societies have issued new guidance for type 2 diabetes management in primary care, with one focused specifically on the use of the newer medications.

On April 19, 2024, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians. The internal medicine group recommends the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, and sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as second-line treatment after metformin. They also advise against the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. 

The document was also presented simultaneously at the ACP annual meeting. 

And on April 15, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) posted its comprehensive Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024 Abridged for Primary Care Professionals as a follow-up to the December 2023 publication of its full-length Standards. Section 9, Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment, covers the same ground as the ACP guidelines.
 

General Agreement but Some Differences

The recommendations generally agree regarding medication use, although there are some differences. Both societies continue to endorse metformin and lifestyle modification as first-line therapy for glycemic management in type 2 diabetes. However, while ADA also gives the option of initial combination therapy with prioritization of avoiding hypoglycemia, ACP advises adding new medications only if glycemic goals aren’t met with lifestyle and metformin alone. 

The new ACP document gives two general recommendations:

1. Add an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control. 

*Use an SGLT2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, progression of chronic kidney disease, and hospitalization due to congestive heart failure.

*Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and stroke.

2. ACP recommends against adding a DPP-4 inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality.

Both ADA and ACP advise using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with congestive heart failure and/or chronic kidney disease, and using GLP-1 agonists in patients for whom weight management is a priority. The ADA also advises using agents of either drug class with proven cardiovascular benefit for people with type 2 diabetes who have established cardiovascular disease or who are at high risk.

ADA doesn’t advise against the use of DPP-4 inhibitors but doesn’t prioritize them either. Both insulin and sulfonylureas remain options for both, but they also are lower priority due to their potential for causing hypoglycemia. ACP says that sulfonylureas and long-acting insulin are “inferior to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in reducing all-cause mortality and morbidity but may still have some limited value for glycemic control.” 

The two groups continue to differ regarding A1c goals, although both recommend individualization. The ACP generally advises levels between 7% and 8% for most adults with type 2 diabetes, and de-intensification of pharmacologic agents for those with A1c levels below 6.5%. On the other hand, ADA recommends A1c levels < 7% as long as that can be achieved safely. 

This is the first time ACP has addressed this topic in a guideline, panel chair Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, told this news organization. “Diabetes treatment, of course, is our bread and butter…but what we had done before was based on the need to identify a target, like glycosylated hemoglobin. What patients and physicians really want to know now is, who should receive these new drugs? Should they receive these new drugs? And what benefits do they have?”

Added Dr. Crandall, who is professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “At ACP we have a complicated process that I’m actually very proud of, where we’ve asked a lay public panel, as well at the members of our guideline committee, to rank what’s most important in terms of the health outcomes for this condition…And then we look at how to balance those risks and benefits to make the recommendations.” 

In the same Annals of Internal Medicine issue are two systematic reviews/meta-analyses that informed the new document, one on drug effectiveness and the other on cost-effectiveness. 

In the accompanying editorial from Fatima Z. Syed, MD, an internist and medical weight management specialist at Duke University Division of General Internal Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, she notes, “the potential added benefits of these newer medications, including weight loss and cardiovascular and renal benefits, motivate their prescription, but cost and prior authorization hurdles can bar their use.”

Dr. Syed cites as “missing” from the ACP guidelines an analysis of comorbidities, including obesity. The reason for that, according to the document, is that “weight loss, as measured by percentage of participants who achieved at least 10% total body weight loss, was a prioritized outcome, but data were insufficient for network meta-analysis.”

However, Dr. Syed notes that factoring in weight loss could improve the cost-effectiveness of the newer medications. She points out that the ADA Standards suggest a GLP-1 agonist with or without metformin as initial therapy options for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes who might benefit from weight loss.

“The ACP guidelines strengthen the case for metformin as first-line medication for diabetes when comorbid conditions are not present. Metformin is cost-effective and has excellent hemoglobin A1c reduction. The accompanying economic analysis tells us that in the absence of comorbidity, the newer medication classes do not seem to be cost-effective. However, given that many patients with type 2 diabetes have obesity or existing cardiovascular or renal disease, the choice and accessibility of newer medications can be nuanced. The cost-effectiveness of GLP1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as initial diabetes therapy in the setting of various comorbid conditions warrants careful exploration.”

Dr. Crandall has no disclosures. Dr. Syed disclosed that her husband is employed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina.

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

TOPLINE:

Differences in prodromal or early symptoms of mpox between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color suggest healthcare disparities in vulnerable populations.

METHODOLOGY:

• There is limited information on the populations disproportionately affected by the recent global mpox outbreak, particularly in individuals with HIV and racial and ethnic minorities.
• To investigate morphologic and clinical presentations of mpox in diverse populations, researchers conducted a review of the records of 54 individuals (mean age, 42.4 years) diagnosed with mpox at a San Francisco clinic for patients with HIV or at high risk for HIV, between June and October 2022.
• All patients were assigned male at birth, and three identified themselves as transgender women.
• Morphologic descriptions were documented through either photographic evidence or physical examination notes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pustules or pseudopustules were the most common morphologic finding in 57.1% of the White non-Hispanic patients and 62.5% of the patients of color (P = .72).
• White non-Hispanic patients were more likely to have no prodromal symptoms (50.0% vs 17.5%; P = .02) and were more likely to have genital lesions (78.6% vs 40.0%; P = .01) than patients of color. These differences were significant or nearly significant when White non-Hispanic patients were compared with Hispanic patients but not in other ethnic or racial groups.
• There were no differences in HIV viral loads or CD4 counts between racial and ethnic groups, and no variations in clinical presentations were observed based on CD4 counts.
• Patients with higher HIV viral loads were more likely to have concurrent sexually transmitted infections (57.1% vs 25%; P = .03).
• Symptoms resolved in all patients, regardless of medical intervention, within weeks of initial presentation, and there were no hospitalizations or deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

Considering that HIV viral burden was not significantly different between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color, the difference in presentation of the prodrome “may indicate disparities in vulnerable populations,” the authors wrote, noting that more research in large groups is needed to confirm their results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Richard W. Kim, BS, from the University of California San Francisco, was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Inclusion of “other” racial category in the records highlighted potential inaccuracies in data representation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no external funding. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Differences in prodromal or early symptoms of mpox between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color suggest healthcare disparities in vulnerable populations.

METHODOLOGY:

• There is limited information on the populations disproportionately affected by the recent global mpox outbreak, particularly in individuals with HIV and racial and ethnic minorities.
• To investigate morphologic and clinical presentations of mpox in diverse populations, researchers conducted a review of the records of 54 individuals (mean age, 42.4 years) diagnosed with mpox at a San Francisco clinic for patients with HIV or at high risk for HIV, between June and October 2022.
• All patients were assigned male at birth, and three identified themselves as transgender women.
• Morphologic descriptions were documented through either photographic evidence or physical examination notes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pustules or pseudopustules were the most common morphologic finding in 57.1% of the White non-Hispanic patients and 62.5% of the patients of color (P = .72).
• White non-Hispanic patients were more likely to have no prodromal symptoms (50.0% vs 17.5%; P = .02) and were more likely to have genital lesions (78.6% vs 40.0%; P = .01) than patients of color. These differences were significant or nearly significant when White non-Hispanic patients were compared with Hispanic patients but not in other ethnic or racial groups.
• There were no differences in HIV viral loads or CD4 counts between racial and ethnic groups, and no variations in clinical presentations were observed based on CD4 counts.
• Patients with higher HIV viral loads were more likely to have concurrent sexually transmitted infections (57.1% vs 25%; P = .03).
• Symptoms resolved in all patients, regardless of medical intervention, within weeks of initial presentation, and there were no hospitalizations or deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

Considering that HIV viral burden was not significantly different between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color, the difference in presentation of the prodrome “may indicate disparities in vulnerable populations,” the authors wrote, noting that more research in large groups is needed to confirm their results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Richard W. Kim, BS, from the University of California San Francisco, was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Inclusion of “other” racial category in the records highlighted potential inaccuracies in data representation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no external funding. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Differences in prodromal or early symptoms of mpox between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color suggest healthcare disparities in vulnerable populations.

METHODOLOGY:

• There is limited information on the populations disproportionately affected by the recent global mpox outbreak, particularly in individuals with HIV and racial and ethnic minorities.
• To investigate morphologic and clinical presentations of mpox in diverse populations, researchers conducted a review of the records of 54 individuals (mean age, 42.4 years) diagnosed with mpox at a San Francisco clinic for patients with HIV or at high risk for HIV, between June and October 2022.
• All patients were assigned male at birth, and three identified themselves as transgender women.
• Morphologic descriptions were documented through either photographic evidence or physical examination notes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pustules or pseudopustules were the most common morphologic finding in 57.1% of the White non-Hispanic patients and 62.5% of the patients of color (P = .72).
• White non-Hispanic patients were more likely to have no prodromal symptoms (50.0% vs 17.5%; P = .02) and were more likely to have genital lesions (78.6% vs 40.0%; P = .01) than patients of color. These differences were significant or nearly significant when White non-Hispanic patients were compared with Hispanic patients but not in other ethnic or racial groups.
• There were no differences in HIV viral loads or CD4 counts between racial and ethnic groups, and no variations in clinical presentations were observed based on CD4 counts.
• Patients with higher HIV viral loads were more likely to have concurrent sexually transmitted infections (57.1% vs 25%; P = .03).
• Symptoms resolved in all patients, regardless of medical intervention, within weeks of initial presentation, and there were no hospitalizations or deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

Considering that HIV viral burden was not significantly different between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color, the difference in presentation of the prodrome “may indicate disparities in vulnerable populations,” the authors wrote, noting that more research in large groups is needed to confirm their results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Richard W. Kim, BS, from the University of California San Francisco, was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Inclusion of “other” racial category in the records highlighted potential inaccuracies in data representation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no external funding. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

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

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) this week recommended new contraindications on the coadministration of the protease inhibitor atazanavir (Reyataz, Bristol-Myers Squibb) with antineoplastic agents encorafenib and ivosidenib (atazanavir may significantly increase blood levels and thus side effects), and with the anticonvulsants carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin (which may decrease serum levels of atazanavir). 

The new rules alter sections 4.3 and 4.5 of the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) to reclassify drug–drug interactions with the new contraindications.

Atazanavir is an orally administered drug, used in combination with low-dose ritonavir (Norvir) to boost its pharmacokinetics. It is indicated for the treatment of HIV-1 infected adults and pediatric patients 3 months of age and older in combination with other antiretroviral medicinal products. A combination preparation boosted with cobicistat (Evotaz) is also available.

The drug is an azapeptide HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI) that selectively inhibits the virus-specific processing of viral Gag-Pol proteins in HIV-1 infected cells, thus preventing formation of mature virions and infection of other cells. This prevents the virus from multiplying and slows the spread of infection. Based on available virological and clinical data from adult patients, no benefit is expected in patients with HIV strains resistant to multiple protease inhibitors (four or more PI mutations).

Therapy with atazanavir is intended to be initiated by a physician experienced in the management of HIV infection, with the choice of atazanavir in treatment-experienced adult and pediatric patients based on individual viral resistance testing and the patient’s treatment history. The standard dose is 300 mg atazanavir taken with 100 mg ritonavir once daily with food.

Atazanavir is already contraindicated in combination or coadministration with a wide variety of other agents:

• Coadministration with simvastatin or lovastatin [statins – risk of increased blood levels with atazanavir].
• Combination with the anti-TB antibiotic rifampicin.
• Combination with the PDE5 inhibitor sildenafil when used for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension only.
• Coadministration with substrates of the CYP3A4 isoform of cytochrome P450 that have narrow therapeutic windows (eg, quetiapine, lurasidone, alfuzosin, astemizole, terfenadine, cisapride, pimozide, quinidine, bepridil, triazolam, oral midazolam, lomitapide, and ergot alkaloids).
• Coadministration with grazoprevir-containing products, including elbasvir/grazoprevir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; atazanavir increases its blood levels).
• Coadministration with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; increased hepatotoxicity due to increased bilirubin concentration).
• Coadministration with products containing St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum).

The EMA said detailed recommendations for the use of atazanavir will be described in the updated SmPC, which will be published in the revised European public assessment report after a decision on this change to the marketing authorization has been granted by the European Commission.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) this week recommended new contraindications on the coadministration of the protease inhibitor atazanavir (Reyataz, Bristol-Myers Squibb) with antineoplastic agents encorafenib and ivosidenib (atazanavir may significantly increase blood levels and thus side effects), and with the anticonvulsants carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin (which may decrease serum levels of atazanavir). 

The new rules alter sections 4.3 and 4.5 of the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) to reclassify drug–drug interactions with the new contraindications.

Atazanavir is an orally administered drug, used in combination with low-dose ritonavir (Norvir) to boost its pharmacokinetics. It is indicated for the treatment of HIV-1 infected adults and pediatric patients 3 months of age and older in combination with other antiretroviral medicinal products. A combination preparation boosted with cobicistat (Evotaz) is also available.

The drug is an azapeptide HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI) that selectively inhibits the virus-specific processing of viral Gag-Pol proteins in HIV-1 infected cells, thus preventing formation of mature virions and infection of other cells. This prevents the virus from multiplying and slows the spread of infection. Based on available virological and clinical data from adult patients, no benefit is expected in patients with HIV strains resistant to multiple protease inhibitors (four or more PI mutations).

Therapy with atazanavir is intended to be initiated by a physician experienced in the management of HIV infection, with the choice of atazanavir in treatment-experienced adult and pediatric patients based on individual viral resistance testing and the patient’s treatment history. The standard dose is 300 mg atazanavir taken with 100 mg ritonavir once daily with food.

Atazanavir is already contraindicated in combination or coadministration with a wide variety of other agents:

• Coadministration with simvastatin or lovastatin [statins – risk of increased blood levels with atazanavir].
• Combination with the anti-TB antibiotic rifampicin.
• Combination with the PDE5 inhibitor sildenafil when used for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension only.
• Coadministration with substrates of the CYP3A4 isoform of cytochrome P450 that have narrow therapeutic windows (eg, quetiapine, lurasidone, alfuzosin, astemizole, terfenadine, cisapride, pimozide, quinidine, bepridil, triazolam, oral midazolam, lomitapide, and ergot alkaloids).
• Coadministration with grazoprevir-containing products, including elbasvir/grazoprevir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; atazanavir increases its blood levels).
• Coadministration with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; increased hepatotoxicity due to increased bilirubin concentration).
• Coadministration with products containing St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum).

The EMA said detailed recommendations for the use of atazanavir will be described in the updated SmPC, which will be published in the revised European public assessment report after a decision on this change to the marketing authorization has been granted by the European Commission.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) this week recommended new contraindications on the coadministration of the protease inhibitor atazanavir (Reyataz, Bristol-Myers Squibb) with antineoplastic agents encorafenib and ivosidenib (atazanavir may significantly increase blood levels and thus side effects), and with the anticonvulsants carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin (which may decrease serum levels of atazanavir). 

The new rules alter sections 4.3 and 4.5 of the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) to reclassify drug–drug interactions with the new contraindications.

Atazanavir is an orally administered drug, used in combination with low-dose ritonavir (Norvir) to boost its pharmacokinetics. It is indicated for the treatment of HIV-1 infected adults and pediatric patients 3 months of age and older in combination with other antiretroviral medicinal products. A combination preparation boosted with cobicistat (Evotaz) is also available.

The drug is an azapeptide HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI) that selectively inhibits the virus-specific processing of viral Gag-Pol proteins in HIV-1 infected cells, thus preventing formation of mature virions and infection of other cells. This prevents the virus from multiplying and slows the spread of infection. Based on available virological and clinical data from adult patients, no benefit is expected in patients with HIV strains resistant to multiple protease inhibitors (four or more PI mutations).

Therapy with atazanavir is intended to be initiated by a physician experienced in the management of HIV infection, with the choice of atazanavir in treatment-experienced adult and pediatric patients based on individual viral resistance testing and the patient’s treatment history. The standard dose is 300 mg atazanavir taken with 100 mg ritonavir once daily with food.

Atazanavir is already contraindicated in combination or coadministration with a wide variety of other agents:

• Coadministration with simvastatin or lovastatin [statins – risk of increased blood levels with atazanavir].
• Combination with the anti-TB antibiotic rifampicin.
• Combination with the PDE5 inhibitor sildenafil when used for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension only.
• Coadministration with substrates of the CYP3A4 isoform of cytochrome P450 that have narrow therapeutic windows (eg, quetiapine, lurasidone, alfuzosin, astemizole, terfenadine, cisapride, pimozide, quinidine, bepridil, triazolam, oral midazolam, lomitapide, and ergot alkaloids).
• Coadministration with grazoprevir-containing products, including elbasvir/grazoprevir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; atazanavir increases its blood levels).
• Coadministration with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; increased hepatotoxicity due to increased bilirubin concentration).
• Coadministration with products containing St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum).

The EMA said detailed recommendations for the use of atazanavir will be described in the updated SmPC, which will be published in the revised European public assessment report after a decision on this change to the marketing authorization has been granted by the European Commission.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Urinary tract infections are among the most common bacterial infections. They can be painful, require antibiotic treatments, and recur in 20%-30% of cases. With the risk for the emergence or increase of resistance to antibiotics, it is important to search for potential therapeutic alternatives to treat or prevent urinary tract infections.

The MV140 Vaccine

The MV140 vaccine is produced by the Spanish pharmaceutical company Immunotek. MV140, known as Uromune, consists of a suspension of whole heat-inactivated bacteria in glycerol, sodium chloride, an artificial pineapple flavor, and water. It includes equal percentages of strains from four bacterial species (V121 Escherichia coli, V113 Klebsiella pneumoniae, V125 Enterococcus faecalis, and V127 Proteus vulgaris). MV140 is administered sublingually by spraying two 100-µL doses daily for 3 months.

The vaccine is in phase 2-3 of development. It is available under special access programs outside of marketing authorization in 26 countries, including Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile. Recently, MV140 was approved in Mexico and the Dominican Republic and submitted to Health Canada for registration.

A randomized study published in 2022 showed the vaccine›s efficacy in preventing urinary tract infections over 9 months. In total, 240 women with a urinary tract infection received MV140 for either 3 or 6 months or a placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was the number of urinary tract infection episodes during the 9-month study period after vaccination.

In this pivotal study, MV140 administration for 3 and 6 months was associated with a significant reduction in the median number of urinary tract infection episodes, from 3.0 to 0.0 compared with the placebo during the 9-month efficacy period. The median time to the first urinary tract infection after 3 months of treatment was 275.0 days in the MV140 groups compared with 48.0 days in the placebo group.

Nine-Year Follow-Up

On April 6 at the 2024 congress of The European Association of Urology, urologists from the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust presented the results of a study evaluating the MV140 vaccine spray for long-term prevention of bacterial urinary tract infections.

This was a prospective cohort study involving 89 participants (72 women and 17 men) older than 18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections who received a course of MV140 for 3 months. Participants had no urinary tract infection when offered the vaccine and had no other urinary abnormalities (such as tumors, stones, or kidney infections).

Postvaccination follow-up was conducted over a 9-year period, during which researchers analyzed the data from the electronic health records of their initial cohort. They queried participants about the occurrence of urinary tract infections since receiving the vaccine and about potential related side effects. Thus, the results were self-reported.

Long-Term Efficacy 

In this cohort, 48 participants (59%) reported having no infections during the 9-year follow-up. In the cohort of 89 participants, the average period without infection was 54.7 months (4.5 years; 56.7 months for women and 44.3 months for men). No vaccine-related side effects were observed.

The study’s limitations included the small number of participants and the collection of self-reported data. Furthermore, all cases were simple urinary tract infections without complications.

The authors concluded that “9 years after first receiving the sublingual spray MV140 vaccine, 54% of participants remained free from urinary tract infection.” For them, “this vaccine is safe in the long-term, and our participants reported fewer urinary tract infections and, if any, they were less severe.”

Vaccination could thus be an alternative to antibiotic treatments and could help combat the emergence of antibiotic resistance. The full study results should be published by the end of 2024.

Other studies are planned to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the MV140 vaccine in older patients residing in long-term care homes, in children suffering from acute urinary tract infections, and in adults suffering from complicated acute urinary tract infections (for example, patients with a catheter or with a neurogenic bladder). 
 

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.

Urinary tract infections are among the most common bacterial infections. They can be painful, require antibiotic treatments, and recur in 20%-30% of cases. With the risk for the emergence or increase of resistance to antibiotics, it is important to search for potential therapeutic alternatives to treat or prevent urinary tract infections.

The MV140 Vaccine

The MV140 vaccine is produced by the Spanish pharmaceutical company Immunotek. MV140, known as Uromune, consists of a suspension of whole heat-inactivated bacteria in glycerol, sodium chloride, an artificial pineapple flavor, and water. It includes equal percentages of strains from four bacterial species (V121 Escherichia coli, V113 Klebsiella pneumoniae, V125 Enterococcus faecalis, and V127 Proteus vulgaris). MV140 is administered sublingually by spraying two 100-µL doses daily for 3 months.

The vaccine is in phase 2-3 of development. It is available under special access programs outside of marketing authorization in 26 countries, including Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile. Recently, MV140 was approved in Mexico and the Dominican Republic and submitted to Health Canada for registration.

A randomized study published in 2022 showed the vaccine›s efficacy in preventing urinary tract infections over 9 months. In total, 240 women with a urinary tract infection received MV140 for either 3 or 6 months or a placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was the number of urinary tract infection episodes during the 9-month study period after vaccination.

In this pivotal study, MV140 administration for 3 and 6 months was associated with a significant reduction in the median number of urinary tract infection episodes, from 3.0 to 0.0 compared with the placebo during the 9-month efficacy period. The median time to the first urinary tract infection after 3 months of treatment was 275.0 days in the MV140 groups compared with 48.0 days in the placebo group.

Nine-Year Follow-Up

On April 6 at the 2024 congress of The European Association of Urology, urologists from the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust presented the results of a study evaluating the MV140 vaccine spray for long-term prevention of bacterial urinary tract infections.

This was a prospective cohort study involving 89 participants (72 women and 17 men) older than 18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections who received a course of MV140 for 3 months. Participants had no urinary tract infection when offered the vaccine and had no other urinary abnormalities (such as tumors, stones, or kidney infections).

Postvaccination follow-up was conducted over a 9-year period, during which researchers analyzed the data from the electronic health records of their initial cohort. They queried participants about the occurrence of urinary tract infections since receiving the vaccine and about potential related side effects. Thus, the results were self-reported.

Long-Term Efficacy 

In this cohort, 48 participants (59%) reported having no infections during the 9-year follow-up. In the cohort of 89 participants, the average period without infection was 54.7 months (4.5 years; 56.7 months for women and 44.3 months for men). No vaccine-related side effects were observed.

The study’s limitations included the small number of participants and the collection of self-reported data. Furthermore, all cases were simple urinary tract infections without complications.

The authors concluded that “9 years after first receiving the sublingual spray MV140 vaccine, 54% of participants remained free from urinary tract infection.” For them, “this vaccine is safe in the long-term, and our participants reported fewer urinary tract infections and, if any, they were less severe.”

Vaccination could thus be an alternative to antibiotic treatments and could help combat the emergence of antibiotic resistance. The full study results should be published by the end of 2024.

Other studies are planned to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the MV140 vaccine in older patients residing in long-term care homes, in children suffering from acute urinary tract infections, and in adults suffering from complicated acute urinary tract infections (for example, patients with a catheter or with a neurogenic bladder). 
 

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.

Urinary tract infections are among the most common bacterial infections. They can be painful, require antibiotic treatments, and recur in 20%-30% of cases. With the risk for the emergence or increase of resistance to antibiotics, it is important to search for potential therapeutic alternatives to treat or prevent urinary tract infections.

The MV140 Vaccine

The MV140 vaccine is produced by the Spanish pharmaceutical company Immunotek. MV140, known as Uromune, consists of a suspension of whole heat-inactivated bacteria in glycerol, sodium chloride, an artificial pineapple flavor, and water. It includes equal percentages of strains from four bacterial species (V121 Escherichia coli, V113 Klebsiella pneumoniae, V125 Enterococcus faecalis, and V127 Proteus vulgaris). MV140 is administered sublingually by spraying two 100-µL doses daily for 3 months.

The vaccine is in phase 2-3 of development. It is available under special access programs outside of marketing authorization in 26 countries, including Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile. Recently, MV140 was approved in Mexico and the Dominican Republic and submitted to Health Canada for registration.

A randomized study published in 2022 showed the vaccine›s efficacy in preventing urinary tract infections over 9 months. In total, 240 women with a urinary tract infection received MV140 for either 3 or 6 months or a placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was the number of urinary tract infection episodes during the 9-month study period after vaccination.

In this pivotal study, MV140 administration for 3 and 6 months was associated with a significant reduction in the median number of urinary tract infection episodes, from 3.0 to 0.0 compared with the placebo during the 9-month efficacy period. The median time to the first urinary tract infection after 3 months of treatment was 275.0 days in the MV140 groups compared with 48.0 days in the placebo group.

Nine-Year Follow-Up

On April 6 at the 2024 congress of The European Association of Urology, urologists from the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust presented the results of a study evaluating the MV140 vaccine spray for long-term prevention of bacterial urinary tract infections.

This was a prospective cohort study involving 89 participants (72 women and 17 men) older than 18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections who received a course of MV140 for 3 months. Participants had no urinary tract infection when offered the vaccine and had no other urinary abnormalities (such as tumors, stones, or kidney infections).

Postvaccination follow-up was conducted over a 9-year period, during which researchers analyzed the data from the electronic health records of their initial cohort. They queried participants about the occurrence of urinary tract infections since receiving the vaccine and about potential related side effects. Thus, the results were self-reported.

Long-Term Efficacy 

In this cohort, 48 participants (59%) reported having no infections during the 9-year follow-up. In the cohort of 89 participants, the average period without infection was 54.7 months (4.5 years; 56.7 months for women and 44.3 months for men). No vaccine-related side effects were observed.

The study’s limitations included the small number of participants and the collection of self-reported data. Furthermore, all cases were simple urinary tract infections without complications.

The authors concluded that “9 years after first receiving the sublingual spray MV140 vaccine, 54% of participants remained free from urinary tract infection.” For them, “this vaccine is safe in the long-term, and our participants reported fewer urinary tract infections and, if any, they were less severe.”

Vaccination could thus be an alternative to antibiotic treatments and could help combat the emergence of antibiotic resistance. The full study results should be published by the end of 2024.

Other studies are planned to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the MV140 vaccine in older patients residing in long-term care homes, in children suffering from acute urinary tract infections, and in adults suffering from complicated acute urinary tract infections (for example, patients with a catheter or with a neurogenic bladder). 
 

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.

A large UK-based study has found that females, sexual minorities, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage are most at-risk of “internalised” weight stigma, along with people who experienced family and media pressure to lose weight in childhood. This can continue to be the case as long as two decades after the childhood experiences.

“Internalised weight stigma” happens when a person adopts negative obesity-related stereotypes, such as thinking they are less attractive, less competent, or less valuable as a person due to their weight, even in situations where their BMI suggests such a view is not valid.

Researchers at the universities of Bristol and Leeds, with colleagues at institutions interested in weight and mental health issues, analyzed the link between internalised weight stigma in adulthood and adolescent experiences and social circumstances. Their work used data obtained as part of Bristol University’s ongoing Children of the 90s project. This recruited thousands of pregnant women between 1990 and 1991, and has now followed the health of them and their families for more than 30 years.

The investigation, published in The Lancet Regional Health, examined differences in internalised weight stigma in more than 4000 people aged 31 years, focusing on effects of sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic factors, sexual orientation, and family and wider social influences in childhood and adolescence. The data were obtained from responses to 11 targeted questions included within the more general questionnaire completed by Children of the 90s participants when aged 31.
 

Effects Unrelated to Weight

Social epidemiologist Amanda Hughes, BSc, MSc, PhD, at the MRC Epidemiology Unit in Bristol Medical School, first author of the research report, said that the study “was not about what weight you think you are, but about how that relates to your view of yourself as a human being.” She explained that the research identified factors that led to higher levels of long-term internalised weight stigma in adults two decades after negative experiences in childhood or youth, “regardless of what their actual weight was.” Even people in the acceptable BMI range had levels of internalised weight stigma that were associated with experiences around two decades earlier.

The headline finding of the study was that those most at risk of developing internalised weight stigma were females, sexual minorities, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. People who as teenagers felt pressure to lose weight from family, wider social interactions, or the media were also at elevated risk.

“There are definitely inequalities in who was affected by this psychologically,” Dr. Hughes said, and the inequalities were associated with the sex, nonheterosexuality, or socioeconomic circumstances, rather than being explained by differences in BMI. The differences in the psychological impact of negative early-life weight-related experiences, such as pressure from family, teasing, bullying, and general weight-shaming, showed up even among people of the same weight.

Dr. Hughes emphasized that the new value of this research comes from its sample size, the general spread of people sampled, and the long length of time over which the relationships between experiences and effects were analyzed. Previous evidence, globally, has come from small and nonrepresentative samples, such as psychology undergraduates or people engaged in weight management programs.

Rebecca Puhl, PhD, professor of human development and family sciences at Connecticut University, an internationally prominent researcher of internalized weight stigma issues, said: “This study adds new insights to the increasing evidence on internalised weight bias. Their findings that internalised weight bias is elevated among individuals with sexual minority identities and those with socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds highlight the importance of addressing weight stigma and its consequences among populations with multiple stigmatised identities.” She added that the findings “reiterate the need for far-reaching stigma reduction interventions.” Dr. Puhl was not involved in this study.
 

Promote Healthy, Not Thin

Dr. Hughes stressed that interventions to address the issue, by efforts to change attitudes in family life, the media, and other approaches, should continue to promote healthy weight management amongst youngsters, while avoiding the dangers of inappropriate stigma and the resulting mental health problems.

“The crucial thing is … don’t frame [nutritional guidance] in terms of: if you do these things you’ll be thinner and thinner is better,” Dr. Hughes said. She stressed that the most important approach is to promote good nutrition for health, without making it all about being thin.

Dr. Hughes said there are many further things the researchers would like to do to take their work forward, including getting a more detailed look at the psychological processes involved and the relationship between internalised weight stigma and other aspects of mental health.

Dr. Hughes has no relevant interests to disclose. Dr. Puhl has no relevant interests to disclose, but is currently receiving funding from Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A large UK-based study has found that females, sexual minorities, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage are most at-risk of “internalised” weight stigma, along with people who experienced family and media pressure to lose weight in childhood. This can continue to be the case as long as two decades after the childhood experiences.

“Internalised weight stigma” happens when a person adopts negative obesity-related stereotypes, such as thinking they are less attractive, less competent, or less valuable as a person due to their weight, even in situations where their BMI suggests such a view is not valid.

Researchers at the universities of Bristol and Leeds, with colleagues at institutions interested in weight and mental health issues, analyzed the link between internalised weight stigma in adulthood and adolescent experiences and social circumstances. Their work used data obtained as part of Bristol University’s ongoing Children of the 90s project. This recruited thousands of pregnant women between 1990 and 1991, and has now followed the health of them and their families for more than 30 years.

The investigation, published in The Lancet Regional Health, examined differences in internalised weight stigma in more than 4000 people aged 31 years, focusing on effects of sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic factors, sexual orientation, and family and wider social influences in childhood and adolescence. The data were obtained from responses to 11 targeted questions included within the more general questionnaire completed by Children of the 90s participants when aged 31.
 

Effects Unrelated to Weight

Social epidemiologist Amanda Hughes, BSc, MSc, PhD, at the MRC Epidemiology Unit in Bristol Medical School, first author of the research report, said that the study “was not about what weight you think you are, but about how that relates to your view of yourself as a human being.” She explained that the research identified factors that led to higher levels of long-term internalised weight stigma in adults two decades after negative experiences in childhood or youth, “regardless of what their actual weight was.” Even people in the acceptable BMI range had levels of internalised weight stigma that were associated with experiences around two decades earlier.

The headline finding of the study was that those most at risk of developing internalised weight stigma were females, sexual minorities, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. People who as teenagers felt pressure to lose weight from family, wider social interactions, or the media were also at elevated risk.

“There are definitely inequalities in who was affected by this psychologically,” Dr. Hughes said, and the inequalities were associated with the sex, nonheterosexuality, or socioeconomic circumstances, rather than being explained by differences in BMI. The differences in the psychological impact of negative early-life weight-related experiences, such as pressure from family, teasing, bullying, and general weight-shaming, showed up even among people of the same weight.

Dr. Hughes emphasized that the new value of this research comes from its sample size, the general spread of people sampled, and the long length of time over which the relationships between experiences and effects were analyzed. Previous evidence, globally, has come from small and nonrepresentative samples, such as psychology undergraduates or people engaged in weight management programs.

Rebecca Puhl, PhD, professor of human development and family sciences at Connecticut University, an internationally prominent researcher of internalized weight stigma issues, said: “This study adds new insights to the increasing evidence on internalised weight bias. Their findings that internalised weight bias is elevated among individuals with sexual minority identities and those with socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds highlight the importance of addressing weight stigma and its consequences among populations with multiple stigmatised identities.” She added that the findings “reiterate the need for far-reaching stigma reduction interventions.” Dr. Puhl was not involved in this study.
 

Promote Healthy, Not Thin

Dr. Hughes stressed that interventions to address the issue, by efforts to change attitudes in family life, the media, and other approaches, should continue to promote healthy weight management amongst youngsters, while avoiding the dangers of inappropriate stigma and the resulting mental health problems.

“The crucial thing is … don’t frame [nutritional guidance] in terms of: if you do these things you’ll be thinner and thinner is better,” Dr. Hughes said. She stressed that the most important approach is to promote good nutrition for health, without making it all about being thin.

Dr. Hughes said there are many further things the researchers would like to do to take their work forward, including getting a more detailed look at the psychological processes involved and the relationship between internalised weight stigma and other aspects of mental health.

Dr. Hughes has no relevant interests to disclose. Dr. Puhl has no relevant interests to disclose, but is currently receiving funding from Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A large UK-based study has found that females, sexual minorities, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage are most at-risk of “internalised” weight stigma, along with people who experienced family and media pressure to lose weight in childhood. This can continue to be the case as long as two decades after the childhood experiences.

“Internalised weight stigma” happens when a person adopts negative obesity-related stereotypes, such as thinking they are less attractive, less competent, or less valuable as a person due to their weight, even in situations where their BMI suggests such a view is not valid.

Researchers at the universities of Bristol and Leeds, with colleagues at institutions interested in weight and mental health issues, analyzed the link between internalised weight stigma in adulthood and adolescent experiences and social circumstances. Their work used data obtained as part of Bristol University’s ongoing Children of the 90s project. This recruited thousands of pregnant women between 1990 and 1991, and has now followed the health of them and their families for more than 30 years.

The investigation, published in The Lancet Regional Health, examined differences in internalised weight stigma in more than 4000 people aged 31 years, focusing on effects of sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic factors, sexual orientation, and family and wider social influences in childhood and adolescence. The data were obtained from responses to 11 targeted questions included within the more general questionnaire completed by Children of the 90s participants when aged 31.
 

Effects Unrelated to Weight

Social epidemiologist Amanda Hughes, BSc, MSc, PhD, at the MRC Epidemiology Unit in Bristol Medical School, first author of the research report, said that the study “was not about what weight you think you are, but about how that relates to your view of yourself as a human being.” She explained that the research identified factors that led to higher levels of long-term internalised weight stigma in adults two decades after negative experiences in childhood or youth, “regardless of what their actual weight was.” Even people in the acceptable BMI range had levels of internalised weight stigma that were associated with experiences around two decades earlier.

The headline finding of the study was that those most at risk of developing internalised weight stigma were females, sexual minorities, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. People who as teenagers felt pressure to lose weight from family, wider social interactions, or the media were also at elevated risk.

“There are definitely inequalities in who was affected by this psychologically,” Dr. Hughes said, and the inequalities were associated with the sex, nonheterosexuality, or socioeconomic circumstances, rather than being explained by differences in BMI. The differences in the psychological impact of negative early-life weight-related experiences, such as pressure from family, teasing, bullying, and general weight-shaming, showed up even among people of the same weight.

Dr. Hughes emphasized that the new value of this research comes from its sample size, the general spread of people sampled, and the long length of time over which the relationships between experiences and effects were analyzed. Previous evidence, globally, has come from small and nonrepresentative samples, such as psychology undergraduates or people engaged in weight management programs.

Rebecca Puhl, PhD, professor of human development and family sciences at Connecticut University, an internationally prominent researcher of internalized weight stigma issues, said: “This study adds new insights to the increasing evidence on internalised weight bias. Their findings that internalised weight bias is elevated among individuals with sexual minority identities and those with socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds highlight the importance of addressing weight stigma and its consequences among populations with multiple stigmatised identities.” She added that the findings “reiterate the need for far-reaching stigma reduction interventions.” Dr. Puhl was not involved in this study.
 

Promote Healthy, Not Thin

Dr. Hughes stressed that interventions to address the issue, by efforts to change attitudes in family life, the media, and other approaches, should continue to promote healthy weight management amongst youngsters, while avoiding the dangers of inappropriate stigma and the resulting mental health problems.

“The crucial thing is … don’t frame [nutritional guidance] in terms of: if you do these things you’ll be thinner and thinner is better,” Dr. Hughes said. She stressed that the most important approach is to promote good nutrition for health, without making it all about being thin.

Dr. Hughes said there are many further things the researchers would like to do to take their work forward, including getting a more detailed look at the psychological processes involved and the relationship between internalised weight stigma and other aspects of mental health.

Dr. Hughes has no relevant interests to disclose. Dr. Puhl has no relevant interests to disclose, but is currently receiving funding from Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On the heels of the January 2024 announcement by GlaxoSmithKline that its Flovent inhalers are being discontinued, Teva’s recent announcement that it will discontinue U.S. distribution of its Digihaler^® products is adding concern and complication to patients’ and physicians’ efforts to manage asthma symptoms.

“It is unfortunate to hear that more asthma inhalers are being discontinued,” Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) President and CEO Kenneth Mendez, said in an interview. The impact of Teva’s June 1 discontinuations of its Digihaler portfolio (ProAir Digihaler, AirDuo Digihaler, and ArmonAir Digihaler), he added, is only partially softened by Teva’s reassurance that its still-available RespiClick devices deliver the same drug formulations via the same devices as the ProAir and AirDuo products — because they lack the innovative digital component. “The Teva Digihaler portfolio had offered an innovative approach to encourage adherence to treatment by integrating a digital solution with an inhaler.”
 

Digital App Companion to Inhaler

The digital components of the AirDuo Digihaler (fluticasone propionate and salmeterol) inhalation powder and ArmonAir Digihaler (fluticasone propionate) inhalation powder, both maintenance inhalers for patients 12-years or older with asthma, include built-in Bluetooth^® wireless technology that connects to a companion mobile app. Their triggers for recording data on inhaler use are either the opening of the inhaler cap or the patient’s inhalation. The devices detect, record, and store data on inhaler use and peak inspiratory flow.

Also, they can remind the patient as to how often the devices have been used, measure inspiratory flow rates, and indicate when inhalation technique may need improvement. Data are then directly sent to the Digihaler app via Bluetooth technology, giving discretion to patients as to whether or not their data will be shared with health care providers.

When patients share their digital inhaler device-recorded data, Teva sources state, providers can more objectively assess the patients’ inhaler use patterns and habits to determine if they are using them as prescribed, and through inspiratory flow rates, judge whether or not patients may need inhaler technique coaching.
 

Possibility for Objective Data

“I was excited about the Digihaler when it was first launched,” said Maureen George, RN, PhD, of Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, “because it gave very good objective feedback on patients’ inhaler technique through peak inspiratory flow. It showed whether they missed doses or if there were patterns of increased use with increased symptoms.

“Inhaled medications are the only therapy that — if you inaccurately administer them — you don’t actually get any drug, at all,” she said in an interview. “If you don’t get the drug into the target organ, the lungs, you don’t get symptom relief, nor disease remission. Actually, most patients use their devices incorrectly, and most healthcare professionals can’t demonstrate correct delivery technique. At the pharmacy, you’re unlikely to see a real pharmacist, and more likely to see just a cashier. No other product that I know of has offered that degree of sophistication in terms of the different steps of inhaler technique.”
 

CONNECT2: Better Asthma Control at 24 Weeks

Benefits in asthma control for the Digihaler System have been confirmed recently in clinical research. The CONNECT2 trial compared asthma control with the Digihaler System (DS) versus standard of care (SoC) in patients 13 years or older with uncontrolled asthma (Asthma Control Test [ACT] score < 19). Investigators randomized them open-label 4:3 to the DS (n = 210) or SoC (n = 181) for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint assessment of the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled asthma (ie, an ACT score ≥ 20 or increase from baseline of ≥ 3 units at week 24) revealed an 88.7% higher probability that DS patients would have greater odds of achieving asthma control improvement at week 24, with 35% higher odds of asthma control in the DS group. Also, clinician-participant interactions, mostly addressing poor inhaler technique, were more frequent in the DS group. Six-month adherence was good (68.6%, vs 79.2% at month 1), and reliever use at month 6 was decreased by 38.2% from baseline in the DS group.

Lack of Inhaler Uptake

“It made me sad to hear that it was going away. It’s a device that should have been useful,” Dr. George said, “but the wonderful features that could have come at an individual level or at a population health level just were never realized. I don’t think it was from lack of trying on the company’s part, but when it was launched, insurance companies wouldn’t pay the extra cost that comes with having an integrated electronic monitoring device. They weren’t convinced that the return on investment down the road from improved disease control and fewer very expensive acute hospitalizations was worth it. So the uptake was poor.”

Where does this leave patients? Mr. Mendez stated, “It is imperative that people using Teva’s Digihaler products to treat their asthma reach out to their provider now to determine the best alternative treatment options. Unfortunately, when GSK discontinued Flovent, some people using that inhaler were transitioned to the ArmonAir Digihaler. Also, some formularies do not cover the authorized generic of Flovent, forcing patients to change treatment.”

The AAFA press release of April 15 lists in detail available alternatives to Teva’s discontinued devices, naming quick-relief inhalers and inhaled corticosteroids, noting where dosing, devices, or active ingredients are at variance from the Teva products. The AAFA document also lists and describes inhaler device types (metered dose inhaler, breath actuated inhaler, dry powder inhaler and soft mist inhaler) and their differences in detail.

On the heels of the January 2024 announcement by GlaxoSmithKline that its Flovent inhalers are being discontinued, Teva’s recent announcement that it will discontinue U.S. distribution of its Digihaler^® products is adding concern and complication to patients’ and physicians’ efforts to manage asthma symptoms.

“It is unfortunate to hear that more asthma inhalers are being discontinued,” Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) President and CEO Kenneth Mendez, said in an interview. The impact of Teva’s June 1 discontinuations of its Digihaler portfolio (ProAir Digihaler, AirDuo Digihaler, and ArmonAir Digihaler), he added, is only partially softened by Teva’s reassurance that its still-available RespiClick devices deliver the same drug formulations via the same devices as the ProAir and AirDuo products — because they lack the innovative digital component. “The Teva Digihaler portfolio had offered an innovative approach to encourage adherence to treatment by integrating a digital solution with an inhaler.”
 

Digital App Companion to Inhaler

The digital components of the AirDuo Digihaler (fluticasone propionate and salmeterol) inhalation powder and ArmonAir Digihaler (fluticasone propionate) inhalation powder, both maintenance inhalers for patients 12-years or older with asthma, include built-in Bluetooth^® wireless technology that connects to a companion mobile app. Their triggers for recording data on inhaler use are either the opening of the inhaler cap or the patient’s inhalation. The devices detect, record, and store data on inhaler use and peak inspiratory flow.

Also, they can remind the patient as to how often the devices have been used, measure inspiratory flow rates, and indicate when inhalation technique may need improvement. Data are then directly sent to the Digihaler app via Bluetooth technology, giving discretion to patients as to whether or not their data will be shared with health care providers.

When patients share their digital inhaler device-recorded data, Teva sources state, providers can more objectively assess the patients’ inhaler use patterns and habits to determine if they are using them as prescribed, and through inspiratory flow rates, judge whether or not patients may need inhaler technique coaching.
 

Possibility for Objective Data

“I was excited about the Digihaler when it was first launched,” said Maureen George, RN, PhD, of Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, “because it gave very good objective feedback on patients’ inhaler technique through peak inspiratory flow. It showed whether they missed doses or if there were patterns of increased use with increased symptoms.

“Inhaled medications are the only therapy that — if you inaccurately administer them — you don’t actually get any drug, at all,” she said in an interview. “If you don’t get the drug into the target organ, the lungs, you don’t get symptom relief, nor disease remission. Actually, most patients use their devices incorrectly, and most healthcare professionals can’t demonstrate correct delivery technique. At the pharmacy, you’re unlikely to see a real pharmacist, and more likely to see just a cashier. No other product that I know of has offered that degree of sophistication in terms of the different steps of inhaler technique.”
 

CONNECT2: Better Asthma Control at 24 Weeks

Benefits in asthma control for the Digihaler System have been confirmed recently in clinical research. The CONNECT2 trial compared asthma control with the Digihaler System (DS) versus standard of care (SoC) in patients 13 years or older with uncontrolled asthma (Asthma Control Test [ACT] score < 19). Investigators randomized them open-label 4:3 to the DS (n = 210) or SoC (n = 181) for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint assessment of the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled asthma (ie, an ACT score ≥ 20 or increase from baseline of ≥ 3 units at week 24) revealed an 88.7% higher probability that DS patients would have greater odds of achieving asthma control improvement at week 24, with 35% higher odds of asthma control in the DS group. Also, clinician-participant interactions, mostly addressing poor inhaler technique, were more frequent in the DS group. Six-month adherence was good (68.6%, vs 79.2% at month 1), and reliever use at month 6 was decreased by 38.2% from baseline in the DS group.

Lack of Inhaler Uptake

“It made me sad to hear that it was going away. It’s a device that should have been useful,” Dr. George said, “but the wonderful features that could have come at an individual level or at a population health level just were never realized. I don’t think it was from lack of trying on the company’s part, but when it was launched, insurance companies wouldn’t pay the extra cost that comes with having an integrated electronic monitoring device. They weren’t convinced that the return on investment down the road from improved disease control and fewer very expensive acute hospitalizations was worth it. So the uptake was poor.”

Where does this leave patients? Mr. Mendez stated, “It is imperative that people using Teva’s Digihaler products to treat their asthma reach out to their provider now to determine the best alternative treatment options. Unfortunately, when GSK discontinued Flovent, some people using that inhaler were transitioned to the ArmonAir Digihaler. Also, some formularies do not cover the authorized generic of Flovent, forcing patients to change treatment.”

The AAFA press release of April 15 lists in detail available alternatives to Teva’s discontinued devices, naming quick-relief inhalers and inhaled corticosteroids, noting where dosing, devices, or active ingredients are at variance from the Teva products. The AAFA document also lists and describes inhaler device types (metered dose inhaler, breath actuated inhaler, dry powder inhaler and soft mist inhaler) and their differences in detail.

On the heels of the January 2024 announcement by GlaxoSmithKline that its Flovent inhalers are being discontinued, Teva’s recent announcement that it will discontinue U.S. distribution of its Digihaler^® products is adding concern and complication to patients’ and physicians’ efforts to manage asthma symptoms.

“It is unfortunate to hear that more asthma inhalers are being discontinued,” Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) President and CEO Kenneth Mendez, said in an interview. The impact of Teva’s June 1 discontinuations of its Digihaler portfolio (ProAir Digihaler, AirDuo Digihaler, and ArmonAir Digihaler), he added, is only partially softened by Teva’s reassurance that its still-available RespiClick devices deliver the same drug formulations via the same devices as the ProAir and AirDuo products — because they lack the innovative digital component. “The Teva Digihaler portfolio had offered an innovative approach to encourage adherence to treatment by integrating a digital solution with an inhaler.”
 

Digital App Companion to Inhaler

The digital components of the AirDuo Digihaler (fluticasone propionate and salmeterol) inhalation powder and ArmonAir Digihaler (fluticasone propionate) inhalation powder, both maintenance inhalers for patients 12-years or older with asthma, include built-in Bluetooth^® wireless technology that connects to a companion mobile app. Their triggers for recording data on inhaler use are either the opening of the inhaler cap or the patient’s inhalation. The devices detect, record, and store data on inhaler use and peak inspiratory flow.

Also, they can remind the patient as to how often the devices have been used, measure inspiratory flow rates, and indicate when inhalation technique may need improvement. Data are then directly sent to the Digihaler app via Bluetooth technology, giving discretion to patients as to whether or not their data will be shared with health care providers.

When patients share their digital inhaler device-recorded data, Teva sources state, providers can more objectively assess the patients’ inhaler use patterns and habits to determine if they are using them as prescribed, and through inspiratory flow rates, judge whether or not patients may need inhaler technique coaching.
 

Possibility for Objective Data

“I was excited about the Digihaler when it was first launched,” said Maureen George, RN, PhD, of Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, “because it gave very good objective feedback on patients’ inhaler technique through peak inspiratory flow. It showed whether they missed doses or if there were patterns of increased use with increased symptoms.

“Inhaled medications are the only therapy that — if you inaccurately administer them — you don’t actually get any drug, at all,” she said in an interview. “If you don’t get the drug into the target organ, the lungs, you don’t get symptom relief, nor disease remission. Actually, most patients use their devices incorrectly, and most healthcare professionals can’t demonstrate correct delivery technique. At the pharmacy, you’re unlikely to see a real pharmacist, and more likely to see just a cashier. No other product that I know of has offered that degree of sophistication in terms of the different steps of inhaler technique.”
 

CONNECT2: Better Asthma Control at 24 Weeks

Benefits in asthma control for the Digihaler System have been confirmed recently in clinical research. The CONNECT2 trial compared asthma control with the Digihaler System (DS) versus standard of care (SoC) in patients 13 years or older with uncontrolled asthma (Asthma Control Test [ACT] score < 19). Investigators randomized them open-label 4:3 to the DS (n = 210) or SoC (n = 181) for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint assessment of the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled asthma (ie, an ACT score ≥ 20 or increase from baseline of ≥ 3 units at week 24) revealed an 88.7% higher probability that DS patients would have greater odds of achieving asthma control improvement at week 24, with 35% higher odds of asthma control in the DS group. Also, clinician-participant interactions, mostly addressing poor inhaler technique, were more frequent in the DS group. Six-month adherence was good (68.6%, vs 79.2% at month 1), and reliever use at month 6 was decreased by 38.2% from baseline in the DS group.

Lack of Inhaler Uptake

“It made me sad to hear that it was going away. It’s a device that should have been useful,” Dr. George said, “but the wonderful features that could have come at an individual level or at a population health level just were never realized. I don’t think it was from lack of trying on the company’s part, but when it was launched, insurance companies wouldn’t pay the extra cost that comes with having an integrated electronic monitoring device. They weren’t convinced that the return on investment down the road from improved disease control and fewer very expensive acute hospitalizations was worth it. So the uptake was poor.”

Where does this leave patients? Mr. Mendez stated, “It is imperative that people using Teva’s Digihaler products to treat their asthma reach out to their provider now to determine the best alternative treatment options. Unfortunately, when GSK discontinued Flovent, some people using that inhaler were transitioned to the ArmonAir Digihaler. Also, some formularies do not cover the authorized generic of Flovent, forcing patients to change treatment.”

The AAFA press release of April 15 lists in detail available alternatives to Teva’s discontinued devices, naming quick-relief inhalers and inhaled corticosteroids, noting where dosing, devices, or active ingredients are at variance from the Teva products. The AAFA document also lists and describes inhaler device types (metered dose inhaler, breath actuated inhaler, dry powder inhaler and soft mist inhaler) and their differences in detail.

ASUNCIÓN, PARAGUAY — The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology’s Commission for the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity will soon publish criteria for distinguishing between clinical obesity and other preclinical phases. The criteria are intended to limit the negative connotations and misunderstandings associated with the word obesity and to clearly convey the idea that it is a disease and not just a condition that increases the risk for other pathologies.

One of the two Latin American experts on the 60-member commission, Ricardo Cohen, MD, PhD, coordinator of the Obesity and Diabetes Center at the Oswaldo Cruz German Hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, discussed this effort with this news organization.

The proposal being finalized would acknowledge a preclinical stage of obesity characterized by alterations in cells or tissues that lead to changes in organ structure, but not function. This stage can be measured by body mass index (BMI) or waist circumference.

The clinical stage occurs when “obesity already affects [the function of] organs, tissues, and functions like mobility. Here, it is a disease per se. And an active disease requires treatment,” said Dr. Cohen. The health risks associated with excess adiposity have already materialized and can be objectively documented through specific signs and symptoms.

Various experts from Latin America who participated in the XV Congress of the Latin American Obesity Societies (FLASO) and II Paraguayan Obesity Congress expressed to this news organization their reservations about the proposed name change and its practical effects. They highlighted the pros and cons of various terminologies that had been considered in recent years.

“Stigma undoubtedly exists. There’s also no doubt that this stigma and daily pressure on a person’s self-esteem influence behavior and condition a poor future clinical outcome because they promote denial of the disease. Healthcare professionals can make these mistakes. But I’m not sure that changing the name of a known disease will make a difference,” said Rafael Figueredo Grijalba, MD, president of FLASO and director of the Nutrition program at the Faculty of Health Sciences of the Nuestra Señora de la Asunción Catholic University in Paraguay.

Spotlight on Adiposity 

An alternative term for obesity proposed in 2016 by what is now the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and by the American College of Endocrinology is “adiposity-based chronic disease (ABCD).” This designation “is on the right track,” said Violeta Jiménez, MD, internal medicine and endocrinology specialist at the Clinical Hospital of the National University of Asunción and the Comprehensive Diabetes Care Network of the Paraguay Social Security Institute.

The word obese is perceived as an insult, and the health impact of obesity is related to the quantity, distribution, and function of adipose tissue, said Dr. Jiménez. The BMI, the most used parameter in practice to determine overweight and obesity, “does not predict excess adiposity or determine a disease here and now, just as waist circumference does not confirm the condition.” 

Will the public be attracted to ABCD? What disease do these initials refer to, asked Dr. Jiménez. “What I like about the term ABCD is that it is not solely based on weight. It brings up the issue that a person who may not have obesity by BMI has adiposity and therefore has a disease brewing inside them.”

“Any obesity denomination is useful as long as the impact of comorbidities is taken into account, as well as the fact that it is not an aesthetic problem and treatment will be escalated aiming to benefit not only weight loss but also comorbidities,” said Paul Camperos Sánchez, MD, internal medicine and endocrinology specialist and head of research at La Trinidad Teaching Medical Center in Caracas, Venezuela, and former president of the Venezuelan Association for the Study of Obesity. 

Dr. Camperos Sánchez added that the classification of overweight and obesity into grades on the basis of BMI, which is recognized by the World Health Organization, “is the most known and for me remains the most comfortable. I will accept any other approach, but in my clinical practice, I continue to do it this way.” 

Fundamentally, knowledge can reduce social stigma and even prejudice from the medical community itself. “We must be respectful and compassionate and understand well what we are treating and the best way to approach each patient with realistic expectations. Evaluate whether, in addition to medication or intensive lifestyle changes, behavioral interventions or physiotherapy are required. If you don’t manage it well and find it challenging, perhaps that’s why we see so much stigmatization or humiliation of the patient. And that has nothing to do with the name [of the disease],” said Dr. Camperos Sánchez.

‘Biological Injustices’

Julio Montero, MD, nutritionist, president of the Argentine Society of Obesity and Eating Disorders, and former president of FLASO, told this news organization that the topic of nomenclatures “provides a lot of grounds for debate,” but he prefers the term “clinical obesity” because it has a medical meaning, is appropriate for statistical purposes, better conveys the concept of obesity as a disease, and distinguishes patients who have high weight or a spherical figure but may be free of weight-dependent conditions.

“Clinical obesity suggests that it is a person with high weight who has health problems and life expectancy issues related to excessive corpulence (weight-fat). The addition of the adjective clinical suggests that the patient has been evaluated by phenotype, fat distribution, hypertension, blood glucose, triglycerides, apnea, cardiac dilation, and mechanical problems, and based on that analysis, the diagnosis has been made,” said Dr. Montero.

Other positive aspects of the designation include not assuming that comorbidities are a direct consequence of adipose tissue accumulation because “lean mass often increases in patients with obesity, and diet and sedentary lifestyle also have an influence” nor does the term exclude people with central obesity. On the other hand, it does not propose a specific weight or fat that defines the disease, just like BMI does (which defines obesity but not its clinical consequences).

Regarding the proposed term ABCD, Montero pointed out that it focuses the diagnosis on the concept that adipose fat and adipocyte function are protagonists of the disease in question, even though there are chronic metabolic diseases like gout, porphyrias, and type 1 diabetes that do not depend on adiposity.

“ABCD also involves some degree of biological injustice, since femorogluteal adiposity (aside from aesthetic problems and excluding possible mechanical effects) is normal and healthy during pregnancy, lactation, growth, or situations of food scarcity risk, among others. Besides, it is an expression that is difficult to interpret for the untrained professional and even more so for communication to the population,” Dr. Montero concluded.

Dr. Cohen, Dr. Figueredo Grijalba, Dr. Jiménez, Dr. Camperos Sánchez, and Dr. Montero declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 

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

ASUNCIÓN, PARAGUAY — The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology’s Commission for the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity will soon publish criteria for distinguishing between clinical obesity and other preclinical phases. The criteria are intended to limit the negative connotations and misunderstandings associated with the word obesity and to clearly convey the idea that it is a disease and not just a condition that increases the risk for other pathologies.

One of the two Latin American experts on the 60-member commission, Ricardo Cohen, MD, PhD, coordinator of the Obesity and Diabetes Center at the Oswaldo Cruz German Hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, discussed this effort with this news organization.

The proposal being finalized would acknowledge a preclinical stage of obesity characterized by alterations in cells or tissues that lead to changes in organ structure, but not function. This stage can be measured by body mass index (BMI) or waist circumference.

The clinical stage occurs when “obesity already affects [the function of] organs, tissues, and functions like mobility. Here, it is a disease per se. And an active disease requires treatment,” said Dr. Cohen. The health risks associated with excess adiposity have already materialized and can be objectively documented through specific signs and symptoms.

Various experts from Latin America who participated in the XV Congress of the Latin American Obesity Societies (FLASO) and II Paraguayan Obesity Congress expressed to this news organization their reservations about the proposed name change and its practical effects. They highlighted the pros and cons of various terminologies that had been considered in recent years.

“Stigma undoubtedly exists. There’s also no doubt that this stigma and daily pressure on a person’s self-esteem influence behavior and condition a poor future clinical outcome because they promote denial of the disease. Healthcare professionals can make these mistakes. But I’m not sure that changing the name of a known disease will make a difference,” said Rafael Figueredo Grijalba, MD, president of FLASO and director of the Nutrition program at the Faculty of Health Sciences of the Nuestra Señora de la Asunción Catholic University in Paraguay.

Spotlight on Adiposity 

An alternative term for obesity proposed in 2016 by what is now the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and by the American College of Endocrinology is “adiposity-based chronic disease (ABCD).” This designation “is on the right track,” said Violeta Jiménez, MD, internal medicine and endocrinology specialist at the Clinical Hospital of the National University of Asunción and the Comprehensive Diabetes Care Network of the Paraguay Social Security Institute.

The word obese is perceived as an insult, and the health impact of obesity is related to the quantity, distribution, and function of adipose tissue, said Dr. Jiménez. The BMI, the most used parameter in practice to determine overweight and obesity, “does not predict excess adiposity or determine a disease here and now, just as waist circumference does not confirm the condition.” 

Will the public be attracted to ABCD? What disease do these initials refer to, asked Dr. Jiménez. “What I like about the term ABCD is that it is not solely based on weight. It brings up the issue that a person who may not have obesity by BMI has adiposity and therefore has a disease brewing inside them.”

“Any obesity denomination is useful as long as the impact of comorbidities is taken into account, as well as the fact that it is not an aesthetic problem and treatment will be escalated aiming to benefit not only weight loss but also comorbidities,” said Paul Camperos Sánchez, MD, internal medicine and endocrinology specialist and head of research at La Trinidad Teaching Medical Center in Caracas, Venezuela, and former president of the Venezuelan Association for the Study of Obesity. 

Dr. Camperos Sánchez added that the classification of overweight and obesity into grades on the basis of BMI, which is recognized by the World Health Organization, “is the most known and for me remains the most comfortable. I will accept any other approach, but in my clinical practice, I continue to do it this way.” 

Fundamentally, knowledge can reduce social stigma and even prejudice from the medical community itself. “We must be respectful and compassionate and understand well what we are treating and the best way to approach each patient with realistic expectations. Evaluate whether, in addition to medication or intensive lifestyle changes, behavioral interventions or physiotherapy are required. If you don’t manage it well and find it challenging, perhaps that’s why we see so much stigmatization or humiliation of the patient. And that has nothing to do with the name [of the disease],” said Dr. Camperos Sánchez.

‘Biological Injustices’

Julio Montero, MD, nutritionist, president of the Argentine Society of Obesity and Eating Disorders, and former president of FLASO, told this news organization that the topic of nomenclatures “provides a lot of grounds for debate,” but he prefers the term “clinical obesity” because it has a medical meaning, is appropriate for statistical purposes, better conveys the concept of obesity as a disease, and distinguishes patients who have high weight or a spherical figure but may be free of weight-dependent conditions.

“Clinical obesity suggests that it is a person with high weight who has health problems and life expectancy issues related to excessive corpulence (weight-fat). The addition of the adjective clinical suggests that the patient has been evaluated by phenotype, fat distribution, hypertension, blood glucose, triglycerides, apnea, cardiac dilation, and mechanical problems, and based on that analysis, the diagnosis has been made,” said Dr. Montero.

Other positive aspects of the designation include not assuming that comorbidities are a direct consequence of adipose tissue accumulation because “lean mass often increases in patients with obesity, and diet and sedentary lifestyle also have an influence” nor does the term exclude people with central obesity. On the other hand, it does not propose a specific weight or fat that defines the disease, just like BMI does (which defines obesity but not its clinical consequences).

Regarding the proposed term ABCD, Montero pointed out that it focuses the diagnosis on the concept that adipose fat and adipocyte function are protagonists of the disease in question, even though there are chronic metabolic diseases like gout, porphyrias, and type 1 diabetes that do not depend on adiposity.

“ABCD also involves some degree of biological injustice, since femorogluteal adiposity (aside from aesthetic problems and excluding possible mechanical effects) is normal and healthy during pregnancy, lactation, growth, or situations of food scarcity risk, among others. Besides, it is an expression that is difficult to interpret for the untrained professional and even more so for communication to the population,” Dr. Montero concluded.

Dr. Cohen, Dr. Figueredo Grijalba, Dr. Jiménez, Dr. Camperos Sánchez, and Dr. Montero declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 

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

ASUNCIÓN, PARAGUAY — The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology’s Commission for the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity will soon publish criteria for distinguishing between clinical obesity and other preclinical phases. The criteria are intended to limit the negative connotations and misunderstandings associated with the word obesity and to clearly convey the idea that it is a disease and not just a condition that increases the risk for other pathologies.

One of the two Latin American experts on the 60-member commission, Ricardo Cohen, MD, PhD, coordinator of the Obesity and Diabetes Center at the Oswaldo Cruz German Hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, discussed this effort with this news organization.

The proposal being finalized would acknowledge a preclinical stage of obesity characterized by alterations in cells or tissues that lead to changes in organ structure, but not function. This stage can be measured by body mass index (BMI) or waist circumference.

The clinical stage occurs when “obesity already affects [the function of] organs, tissues, and functions like mobility. Here, it is a disease per se. And an active disease requires treatment,” said Dr. Cohen. The health risks associated with excess adiposity have already materialized and can be objectively documented through specific signs and symptoms.

Various experts from Latin America who participated in the XV Congress of the Latin American Obesity Societies (FLASO) and II Paraguayan Obesity Congress expressed to this news organization their reservations about the proposed name change and its practical effects. They highlighted the pros and cons of various terminologies that had been considered in recent years.

“Stigma undoubtedly exists. There’s also no doubt that this stigma and daily pressure on a person’s self-esteem influence behavior and condition a poor future clinical outcome because they promote denial of the disease. Healthcare professionals can make these mistakes. But I’m not sure that changing the name of a known disease will make a difference,” said Rafael Figueredo Grijalba, MD, president of FLASO and director of the Nutrition program at the Faculty of Health Sciences of the Nuestra Señora de la Asunción Catholic University in Paraguay.

Spotlight on Adiposity 

An alternative term for obesity proposed in 2016 by what is now the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and by the American College of Endocrinology is “adiposity-based chronic disease (ABCD).” This designation “is on the right track,” said Violeta Jiménez, MD, internal medicine and endocrinology specialist at the Clinical Hospital of the National University of Asunción and the Comprehensive Diabetes Care Network of the Paraguay Social Security Institute.

The word obese is perceived as an insult, and the health impact of obesity is related to the quantity, distribution, and function of adipose tissue, said Dr. Jiménez. The BMI, the most used parameter in practice to determine overweight and obesity, “does not predict excess adiposity or determine a disease here and now, just as waist circumference does not confirm the condition.” 

Will the public be attracted to ABCD? What disease do these initials refer to, asked Dr. Jiménez. “What I like about the term ABCD is that it is not solely based on weight. It brings up the issue that a person who may not have obesity by BMI has adiposity and therefore has a disease brewing inside them.”

“Any obesity denomination is useful as long as the impact of comorbidities is taken into account, as well as the fact that it is not an aesthetic problem and treatment will be escalated aiming to benefit not only weight loss but also comorbidities,” said Paul Camperos Sánchez, MD, internal medicine and endocrinology specialist and head of research at La Trinidad Teaching Medical Center in Caracas, Venezuela, and former president of the Venezuelan Association for the Study of Obesity. 

Dr. Camperos Sánchez added that the classification of overweight and obesity into grades on the basis of BMI, which is recognized by the World Health Organization, “is the most known and for me remains the most comfortable. I will accept any other approach, but in my clinical practice, I continue to do it this way.” 

Fundamentally, knowledge can reduce social stigma and even prejudice from the medical community itself. “We must be respectful and compassionate and understand well what we are treating and the best way to approach each patient with realistic expectations. Evaluate whether, in addition to medication or intensive lifestyle changes, behavioral interventions or physiotherapy are required. If you don’t manage it well and find it challenging, perhaps that’s why we see so much stigmatization or humiliation of the patient. And that has nothing to do with the name [of the disease],” said Dr. Camperos Sánchez.

‘Biological Injustices’

Julio Montero, MD, nutritionist, president of the Argentine Society of Obesity and Eating Disorders, and former president of FLASO, told this news organization that the topic of nomenclatures “provides a lot of grounds for debate,” but he prefers the term “clinical obesity” because it has a medical meaning, is appropriate for statistical purposes, better conveys the concept of obesity as a disease, and distinguishes patients who have high weight or a spherical figure but may be free of weight-dependent conditions.

“Clinical obesity suggests that it is a person with high weight who has health problems and life expectancy issues related to excessive corpulence (weight-fat). The addition of the adjective clinical suggests that the patient has been evaluated by phenotype, fat distribution, hypertension, blood glucose, triglycerides, apnea, cardiac dilation, and mechanical problems, and based on that analysis, the diagnosis has been made,” said Dr. Montero.

Other positive aspects of the designation include not assuming that comorbidities are a direct consequence of adipose tissue accumulation because “lean mass often increases in patients with obesity, and diet and sedentary lifestyle also have an influence” nor does the term exclude people with central obesity. On the other hand, it does not propose a specific weight or fat that defines the disease, just like BMI does (which defines obesity but not its clinical consequences).

Regarding the proposed term ABCD, Montero pointed out that it focuses the diagnosis on the concept that adipose fat and adipocyte function are protagonists of the disease in question, even though there are chronic metabolic diseases like gout, porphyrias, and type 1 diabetes that do not depend on adiposity.

“ABCD also involves some degree of biological injustice, since femorogluteal adiposity (aside from aesthetic problems and excluding possible mechanical effects) is normal and healthy during pregnancy, lactation, growth, or situations of food scarcity risk, among others. Besides, it is an expression that is difficult to interpret for the untrained professional and even more so for communication to the population,” Dr. Montero concluded.

Dr. Cohen, Dr. Figueredo Grijalba, Dr. Jiménez, Dr. Camperos Sánchez, and Dr. Montero declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 

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

TOPLINE: 

Two days a week of a medically supervised energy-restricted diet may lower blood glucose levels in adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Daily calorie restrictions and increased physical activity improve glycemic control and induce diabetes remission in patients with T2D, but these approaches are challenging to adhere to.
• Researchers tested whether 2 days a week (a 5:2 regimen) of either a very low-calorie formula diet or a “weekend warrior” physical activity pattern would be effective and more convenient.
• The three-arm IDEATE study enrolled 326 Asian participants with overweight or mild obesity (body mass index, 25.0-39.9) and T2D (diagnosed within prior 2 years; A1c, 7.0-8.9%; not on insulin) and randomly assigned them to receive a diet intervention, an exercise intervention, or routine lifestyle education (control group) for 12 weeks.
• The diet intervention group received an energy-restricted diet of 790 kcal/d on 2 days each week, and the exercise intervention group performed high-intensity interval training (4 minutes of aerobic activity, with a 10-minute total warm-up and cool-down) and resistance training twice a week (four exercises, two sets of eight to 12 repetitions).
• The primary outcome was the change in glycemic control between the diet or exercise intervention group and the control group after 12 weeks. Follow-up continued up to 1 year after intervention.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with the control group, patients in the diet intervention group achieved greater reductions in A1c after 12 weeks (difference, -0.34; P =.007), whereas A1c reductions in the exercise intervention group did not differ significantly from the control group.
• The likelihood of achieving diabetes remission was higher in the diet intervention vs the control group (adjusted odds ratio, 3.60; P = .008) but not in the exercise intervention group (P =.52).
• Body weight, body mass index, and high-density lipoprtein cholesterol levels were more effectively controlled in the diet intervention group only.
• However, participants in both the diet and exercise intervention groups showed reduced adiposity, liver fat content, and diastolic blood pressure compared with those in the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“The diet intervention group experienced a greater energy deficit with a more pronounced metabolic benefit,” the authors wrote. “Our study suggests that a medically supervised 5:2 energy-restricted diet could serve as an alternative strategy for improving glycemic control.” 

SOURCE:

Mian Li, of the Department of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, led the study, which was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Body composition was analyzed using bioelectrical impedance analysis, which is a less accurate technique than dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. The study used finger-prick tests to monitor blood glucose levels, which could have underestimated both hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic episodes. No information was collected on whether the participants maintained the diet or exercise regimen during the postintervention follow-up period.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Rising Star Program grant, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Two days a week of a medically supervised energy-restricted diet may lower blood glucose levels in adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Daily calorie restrictions and increased physical activity improve glycemic control and induce diabetes remission in patients with T2D, but these approaches are challenging to adhere to.
• Researchers tested whether 2 days a week (a 5:2 regimen) of either a very low-calorie formula diet or a “weekend warrior” physical activity pattern would be effective and more convenient.
• The three-arm IDEATE study enrolled 326 Asian participants with overweight or mild obesity (body mass index, 25.0-39.9) and T2D (diagnosed within prior 2 years; A1c, 7.0-8.9%; not on insulin) and randomly assigned them to receive a diet intervention, an exercise intervention, or routine lifestyle education (control group) for 12 weeks.
• The diet intervention group received an energy-restricted diet of 790 kcal/d on 2 days each week, and the exercise intervention group performed high-intensity interval training (4 minutes of aerobic activity, with a 10-minute total warm-up and cool-down) and resistance training twice a week (four exercises, two sets of eight to 12 repetitions).
• The primary outcome was the change in glycemic control between the diet or exercise intervention group and the control group after 12 weeks. Follow-up continued up to 1 year after intervention.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with the control group, patients in the diet intervention group achieved greater reductions in A1c after 12 weeks (difference, -0.34; P =.007), whereas A1c reductions in the exercise intervention group did not differ significantly from the control group.
• The likelihood of achieving diabetes remission was higher in the diet intervention vs the control group (adjusted odds ratio, 3.60; P = .008) but not in the exercise intervention group (P =.52).
• Body weight, body mass index, and high-density lipoprtein cholesterol levels were more effectively controlled in the diet intervention group only.
• However, participants in both the diet and exercise intervention groups showed reduced adiposity, liver fat content, and diastolic blood pressure compared with those in the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“The diet intervention group experienced a greater energy deficit with a more pronounced metabolic benefit,” the authors wrote. “Our study suggests that a medically supervised 5:2 energy-restricted diet could serve as an alternative strategy for improving glycemic control.” 

SOURCE:

Mian Li, of the Department of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, led the study, which was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Body composition was analyzed using bioelectrical impedance analysis, which is a less accurate technique than dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. The study used finger-prick tests to monitor blood glucose levels, which could have underestimated both hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic episodes. No information was collected on whether the participants maintained the diet or exercise regimen during the postintervention follow-up period.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Rising Star Program grant, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Two days a week of a medically supervised energy-restricted diet may lower blood glucose levels in adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Daily calorie restrictions and increased physical activity improve glycemic control and induce diabetes remission in patients with T2D, but these approaches are challenging to adhere to.
• Researchers tested whether 2 days a week (a 5:2 regimen) of either a very low-calorie formula diet or a “weekend warrior” physical activity pattern would be effective and more convenient.
• The three-arm IDEATE study enrolled 326 Asian participants with overweight or mild obesity (body mass index, 25.0-39.9) and T2D (diagnosed within prior 2 years; A1c, 7.0-8.9%; not on insulin) and randomly assigned them to receive a diet intervention, an exercise intervention, or routine lifestyle education (control group) for 12 weeks.
• The diet intervention group received an energy-restricted diet of 790 kcal/d on 2 days each week, and the exercise intervention group performed high-intensity interval training (4 minutes of aerobic activity, with a 10-minute total warm-up and cool-down) and resistance training twice a week (four exercises, two sets of eight to 12 repetitions).
• The primary outcome was the change in glycemic control between the diet or exercise intervention group and the control group after 12 weeks. Follow-up continued up to 1 year after intervention.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with the control group, patients in the diet intervention group achieved greater reductions in A1c after 12 weeks (difference, -0.34; P =.007), whereas A1c reductions in the exercise intervention group did not differ significantly from the control group.
• The likelihood of achieving diabetes remission was higher in the diet intervention vs the control group (adjusted odds ratio, 3.60; P = .008) but not in the exercise intervention group (P =.52).
• Body weight, body mass index, and high-density lipoprtein cholesterol levels were more effectively controlled in the diet intervention group only.
• However, participants in both the diet and exercise intervention groups showed reduced adiposity, liver fat content, and diastolic blood pressure compared with those in the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“The diet intervention group experienced a greater energy deficit with a more pronounced metabolic benefit,” the authors wrote. “Our study suggests that a medically supervised 5:2 energy-restricted diet could serve as an alternative strategy for improving glycemic control.” 

SOURCE:

Mian Li, of the Department of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, led the study, which was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Body composition was analyzed using bioelectrical impedance analysis, which is a less accurate technique than dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. The study used finger-prick tests to monitor blood glucose levels, which could have underestimated both hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic episodes. No information was collected on whether the participants maintained the diet or exercise regimen during the postintervention follow-up period.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Rising Star Program grant, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.