Clinician Reviews

Legislators in New York City recently approved a bill specifically prohibiting weight- and height-based discrimination, on par with existing protections for gender, race, sexual orientation, and other personal identities. Other U.S. cities, as well as New York state, are considering similar moves.

Weight-based discrimination in the United States has increased by an estimated 66% over the past decade, putting it on par with the prevalence of racial discrimination. More than 40% of adult Americans and 18% of children report experiencing weight discrimination in employment, school, and/or health care settings – as well as within interpersonal relationships – demonstrating a clear need to have legal protections in place.

For obesity advocates in Canada, the news from New York triggered a moment of reflection to consider how our own advocacy efforts have fared over the years, or not. Just like in the United States, body size and obesity (and appearance in general) are not specifically protected grounds under human rights legislation in Canada (for example, the Canadian Human Rights Act), unlike race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion.

Case law is uneven across the Canadian provinces when it comes to determining whether obesity is even a disease and/or a disability. And despite broad support for anti–weight discrimination policies in Canada (Front Public Health. 2023 Apr 17;11:1060794; Milbank Q. 2015 Dec;93[4]:691-731), years of advocacy at the national and provincial levels have not led to any legislative changes (Ramos Salas Obes Rev. 2017 Nov;18[11]:1323-35; Can J Diabetes. 2015 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2015.01.009). A 2017 private members bill seeking to add protection for body size to Manitoba’s human rights code was defeated, with many members of the legislature citing enforcement difficulties as the reason for voting down the proposition.

Some obesity advocates have argued that people living with obesity can be protected under the grounds of disability in the Canadian Human Rights Act. To be protected, however, individuals must demonstrate that there is actual or perceived disability relating to their weight or size; yet, many people living with obesity and those who have a higher weight don’t perceive themselves as having a disability.

In our view, the disparate viewpoints on the worthiness of considering body size a human rights issue could be resolved, at least partially, by wider understanding and adoption of the relatively new clinical definition of obesity. This definition holds that obesity is not about size; an obesity diagnosis can be made only when objective clinical investigations identify that excess or abnormal adiposity (fat tissue) impairs health.

While obesity advocates use the clinical definition of obesity, weight and body size proponents disagree that obesity is a chronic disease, and in fact believe that treating it as such can be stigmatizing. In a sense, this can sometimes be true, as not all people with larger bodies have obesity per the new definition but risk being identified as “unhealthy” in the clinical world. Bias, it turns out, can be a two-way street.

Regardless of the advocacy strategy used, it’s clear that specific anti–weight discrimination laws are needed in Canada. One in four Canadian adults report experiencing discrimination in their day-to-day life, with race, gender, age, and weight being the most commonly reported forms. To refuse to protect them against some, but not all, forms of discrimination is itself unjust, and is surely rooted in the age-old misinformed concept that excess weight is the result of laziness, poor food choices, and lack of physical activity, among other moral failings.

Including body size in human rights codes may provide a mechanism to seek legal remedy from discriminatory acts, but it will do little to address rampant weight bias, in the same way that race-based legal protections don’t eradicate racism. And it’s not just the legal community that fails to understand that weight is, by and large, a product of our environment and our genes. Weight bias and stigma are well documented in media, workplaces, the home, and in health care systems.

The solution, in our minds, is meaningful education across all these domains, reinforcing that weight is not a behavior, just as health is not a size. If we truly understand and embrace these concepts, then as a society we may someday recognize that body size is not a choice, just like race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other individual characteristics. And if it’s not a choice, if it’s not a behavior, then it deserves the same protections.

At the same time, people with obesity deserve to seek evidence-based treatment, just as those at higher weights who experience no weight or adiposity-related health issues deserve not to be identified as having a disease simply because of their size.

If we all follow the science, we might yet turn a common understanding into more equitable outcomes for all.

Dr. Ramos Salas and Mr. Hussey are research consultants for Replica Communications, Hamilton, Ont. She disclosed ties with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, European Association for the Study of Obesity, Novo Nordisk, Obesity Canada, The Obesity Society, World Obesity, and the World Health Organization. Mr. Hussey disclosed ties with the European Association for the Study of Obesity, Novo Nordisk, Obesity Canada, and the World Health Organization (Nutrition and Food Safety).

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

Legislators in New York City recently approved a bill specifically prohibiting weight- and height-based discrimination, on par with existing protections for gender, race, sexual orientation, and other personal identities. Other U.S. cities, as well as New York state, are considering similar moves.

Weight-based discrimination in the United States has increased by an estimated 66% over the past decade, putting it on par with the prevalence of racial discrimination. More than 40% of adult Americans and 18% of children report experiencing weight discrimination in employment, school, and/or health care settings – as well as within interpersonal relationships – demonstrating a clear need to have legal protections in place.

For obesity advocates in Canada, the news from New York triggered a moment of reflection to consider how our own advocacy efforts have fared over the years, or not. Just like in the United States, body size and obesity (and appearance in general) are not specifically protected grounds under human rights legislation in Canada (for example, the Canadian Human Rights Act), unlike race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion.

Case law is uneven across the Canadian provinces when it comes to determining whether obesity is even a disease and/or a disability. And despite broad support for anti–weight discrimination policies in Canada (Front Public Health. 2023 Apr 17;11:1060794; Milbank Q. 2015 Dec;93[4]:691-731), years of advocacy at the national and provincial levels have not led to any legislative changes (Ramos Salas Obes Rev. 2017 Nov;18[11]:1323-35; Can J Diabetes. 2015 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2015.01.009). A 2017 private members bill seeking to add protection for body size to Manitoba’s human rights code was defeated, with many members of the legislature citing enforcement difficulties as the reason for voting down the proposition.

Some obesity advocates have argued that people living with obesity can be protected under the grounds of disability in the Canadian Human Rights Act. To be protected, however, individuals must demonstrate that there is actual or perceived disability relating to their weight or size; yet, many people living with obesity and those who have a higher weight don’t perceive themselves as having a disability.

In our view, the disparate viewpoints on the worthiness of considering body size a human rights issue could be resolved, at least partially, by wider understanding and adoption of the relatively new clinical definition of obesity. This definition holds that obesity is not about size; an obesity diagnosis can be made only when objective clinical investigations identify that excess or abnormal adiposity (fat tissue) impairs health.

While obesity advocates use the clinical definition of obesity, weight and body size proponents disagree that obesity is a chronic disease, and in fact believe that treating it as such can be stigmatizing. In a sense, this can sometimes be true, as not all people with larger bodies have obesity per the new definition but risk being identified as “unhealthy” in the clinical world. Bias, it turns out, can be a two-way street.

Regardless of the advocacy strategy used, it’s clear that specific anti–weight discrimination laws are needed in Canada. One in four Canadian adults report experiencing discrimination in their day-to-day life, with race, gender, age, and weight being the most commonly reported forms. To refuse to protect them against some, but not all, forms of discrimination is itself unjust, and is surely rooted in the age-old misinformed concept that excess weight is the result of laziness, poor food choices, and lack of physical activity, among other moral failings.

Including body size in human rights codes may provide a mechanism to seek legal remedy from discriminatory acts, but it will do little to address rampant weight bias, in the same way that race-based legal protections don’t eradicate racism. And it’s not just the legal community that fails to understand that weight is, by and large, a product of our environment and our genes. Weight bias and stigma are well documented in media, workplaces, the home, and in health care systems.

The solution, in our minds, is meaningful education across all these domains, reinforcing that weight is not a behavior, just as health is not a size. If we truly understand and embrace these concepts, then as a society we may someday recognize that body size is not a choice, just like race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other individual characteristics. And if it’s not a choice, if it’s not a behavior, then it deserves the same protections.

At the same time, people with obesity deserve to seek evidence-based treatment, just as those at higher weights who experience no weight or adiposity-related health issues deserve not to be identified as having a disease simply because of their size.

If we all follow the science, we might yet turn a common understanding into more equitable outcomes for all.

Dr. Ramos Salas and Mr. Hussey are research consultants for Replica Communications, Hamilton, Ont. She disclosed ties with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, European Association for the Study of Obesity, Novo Nordisk, Obesity Canada, The Obesity Society, World Obesity, and the World Health Organization. Mr. Hussey disclosed ties with the European Association for the Study of Obesity, Novo Nordisk, Obesity Canada, and the World Health Organization (Nutrition and Food Safety).

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

Legislators in New York City recently approved a bill specifically prohibiting weight- and height-based discrimination, on par with existing protections for gender, race, sexual orientation, and other personal identities. Other U.S. cities, as well as New York state, are considering similar moves.

Weight-based discrimination in the United States has increased by an estimated 66% over the past decade, putting it on par with the prevalence of racial discrimination. More than 40% of adult Americans and 18% of children report experiencing weight discrimination in employment, school, and/or health care settings – as well as within interpersonal relationships – demonstrating a clear need to have legal protections in place.

For obesity advocates in Canada, the news from New York triggered a moment of reflection to consider how our own advocacy efforts have fared over the years, or not. Just like in the United States, body size and obesity (and appearance in general) are not specifically protected grounds under human rights legislation in Canada (for example, the Canadian Human Rights Act), unlike race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion.

Case law is uneven across the Canadian provinces when it comes to determining whether obesity is even a disease and/or a disability. And despite broad support for anti–weight discrimination policies in Canada (Front Public Health. 2023 Apr 17;11:1060794; Milbank Q. 2015 Dec;93[4]:691-731), years of advocacy at the national and provincial levels have not led to any legislative changes (Ramos Salas Obes Rev. 2017 Nov;18[11]:1323-35; Can J Diabetes. 2015 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2015.01.009). A 2017 private members bill seeking to add protection for body size to Manitoba’s human rights code was defeated, with many members of the legislature citing enforcement difficulties as the reason for voting down the proposition.

Some obesity advocates have argued that people living with obesity can be protected under the grounds of disability in the Canadian Human Rights Act. To be protected, however, individuals must demonstrate that there is actual or perceived disability relating to their weight or size; yet, many people living with obesity and those who have a higher weight don’t perceive themselves as having a disability.

In our view, the disparate viewpoints on the worthiness of considering body size a human rights issue could be resolved, at least partially, by wider understanding and adoption of the relatively new clinical definition of obesity. This definition holds that obesity is not about size; an obesity diagnosis can be made only when objective clinical investigations identify that excess or abnormal adiposity (fat tissue) impairs health.

While obesity advocates use the clinical definition of obesity, weight and body size proponents disagree that obesity is a chronic disease, and in fact believe that treating it as such can be stigmatizing. In a sense, this can sometimes be true, as not all people with larger bodies have obesity per the new definition but risk being identified as “unhealthy” in the clinical world. Bias, it turns out, can be a two-way street.

Regardless of the advocacy strategy used, it’s clear that specific anti–weight discrimination laws are needed in Canada. One in four Canadian adults report experiencing discrimination in their day-to-day life, with race, gender, age, and weight being the most commonly reported forms. To refuse to protect them against some, but not all, forms of discrimination is itself unjust, and is surely rooted in the age-old misinformed concept that excess weight is the result of laziness, poor food choices, and lack of physical activity, among other moral failings.

Including body size in human rights codes may provide a mechanism to seek legal remedy from discriminatory acts, but it will do little to address rampant weight bias, in the same way that race-based legal protections don’t eradicate racism. And it’s not just the legal community that fails to understand that weight is, by and large, a product of our environment and our genes. Weight bias and stigma are well documented in media, workplaces, the home, and in health care systems.

The solution, in our minds, is meaningful education across all these domains, reinforcing that weight is not a behavior, just as health is not a size. If we truly understand and embrace these concepts, then as a society we may someday recognize that body size is not a choice, just like race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other individual characteristics. And if it’s not a choice, if it’s not a behavior, then it deserves the same protections.

At the same time, people with obesity deserve to seek evidence-based treatment, just as those at higher weights who experience no weight or adiposity-related health issues deserve not to be identified as having a disease simply because of their size.

If we all follow the science, we might yet turn a common understanding into more equitable outcomes for all.

Dr. Ramos Salas and Mr. Hussey are research consultants for Replica Communications, Hamilton, Ont. She disclosed ties with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, European Association for the Study of Obesity, Novo Nordisk, Obesity Canada, The Obesity Society, World Obesity, and the World Health Organization. Mr. Hussey disclosed ties with the European Association for the Study of Obesity, Novo Nordisk, Obesity Canada, and the World Health Organization (Nutrition and Food Safety).

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

In a move that raises the stakes in doctors’ ongoing scope-creep battle against nonphysician providers, the American Medical Association’s legislative body voted recently to change its policy on the supervision of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). AMA’s House of Delegates called for state medical boards to regulate APRNs in addition to nursing boards.

The AMA has long claimed that nonphysician providers, such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), need greater oversight because expanded scope of practice for advanced practice practitioners threatens patient safety and undermines the physician-led team model.

APRNs have been touted as a solution to expand access to care and reduce disparities, especially in rural and underserved communities, and they have been promoted by organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine. But the AMA disputes that scope expansions are necessary to increase access to care.

The organization that represents the nation’s physicians said in a prepared statement that it opposes scope expansions because removing doctors from the care team results in higher costs to the patient and lower quality care.

Several nursing organizations swiftly criticized the policy recommendation, including the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.

The policy shift would create more administrative burdens for APRNs and generate “a downstream effect that only hurts patients,” particularly those in underserved communities without timely access to care, ANA president Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, NEA-BC, told this news organization.  

“The licensing and regulation of APRNs have never required the oversight of state medical boards,” she said, adding that it should remain the obligation of nursing regulatory bodies.

Jon Fanning, MS, CAE, CNED, chief executive officer of the AANP, called the AMA proposal “flawed.”

“The restrictive involvement of the board of medicine directly contributes to health care access challenges, resulting in continued low health care rankings, geographic disparities in care, and unnecessary regulatory cost in these states,” he said in a press release.

Still, the AMA has vowed to #StopScopeCreep. Securing stricter practice guidelines was a central theme of the association’s recent annual meeting and a goal of its plan to strengthen the physician workforce. The organization invests heavily in advocacy and education efforts to defeat state bills seeking to extend APRN authority. To that end, the AMA Scope of Practice Partnership, a coalition of over 100 medical associations, has awarded members $3.5 million in grants to combat scope-expansion legislation.

The AMA and the American College of Radiology recently partnered to create advocacy materials, including handouts encouraging patients to ask questions such as: “Will a physician be reviewing my chart, lab results, x-rays, and other tests?”

The policy recommendation comes as concerns mount over the potential for significant physician shortages, fueled partly by older physicians’ retirements and doctors reducing hours or exiting the workforce due to pandemic fatigue and burnout.

While practice regulations vary by state, a new federal bill could change that by broadening the authority of APRNs under Medicare and Medicaid guidelines. Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in April and supported by the ANA, the Improving Care and Access to Nurses Act would allow APRNs to perform more procedures, including cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation and certification of terminal illness for hospice, according to an ANA press release.

In the meantime, several state legislatures are considering bills that would expand APRN scope of practice. Utah is the latest to join a growing list of states – about half now – offering full practice authority to NPs.

Other states offer a reduced scope of practice for APRNs, typically requiring a collaborative agreement with a supervising physician. The remaining states enforce tighter regulations and physician oversight.

A recent Medscape survey found that most physicians report having a good rapport with NPs but many have mixed feelings about giving them expanded practice roles, with one-third saying it would harm patient care. Feelings were only slightly more favorable toward PAs. However, about 75% of patients were either neutral or supportive of independent practice for NPs and PAs.

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

In a move that raises the stakes in doctors’ ongoing scope-creep battle against nonphysician providers, the American Medical Association’s legislative body voted recently to change its policy on the supervision of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). AMA’s House of Delegates called for state medical boards to regulate APRNs in addition to nursing boards.

The AMA has long claimed that nonphysician providers, such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), need greater oversight because expanded scope of practice for advanced practice practitioners threatens patient safety and undermines the physician-led team model.

APRNs have been touted as a solution to expand access to care and reduce disparities, especially in rural and underserved communities, and they have been promoted by organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine. But the AMA disputes that scope expansions are necessary to increase access to care.

The organization that represents the nation’s physicians said in a prepared statement that it opposes scope expansions because removing doctors from the care team results in higher costs to the patient and lower quality care.

Several nursing organizations swiftly criticized the policy recommendation, including the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.

The policy shift would create more administrative burdens for APRNs and generate “a downstream effect that only hurts patients,” particularly those in underserved communities without timely access to care, ANA president Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, NEA-BC, told this news organization.  

“The licensing and regulation of APRNs have never required the oversight of state medical boards,” she said, adding that it should remain the obligation of nursing regulatory bodies.

Jon Fanning, MS, CAE, CNED, chief executive officer of the AANP, called the AMA proposal “flawed.”

“The restrictive involvement of the board of medicine directly contributes to health care access challenges, resulting in continued low health care rankings, geographic disparities in care, and unnecessary regulatory cost in these states,” he said in a press release.

Still, the AMA has vowed to #StopScopeCreep. Securing stricter practice guidelines was a central theme of the association’s recent annual meeting and a goal of its plan to strengthen the physician workforce. The organization invests heavily in advocacy and education efforts to defeat state bills seeking to extend APRN authority. To that end, the AMA Scope of Practice Partnership, a coalition of over 100 medical associations, has awarded members $3.5 million in grants to combat scope-expansion legislation.

The AMA and the American College of Radiology recently partnered to create advocacy materials, including handouts encouraging patients to ask questions such as: “Will a physician be reviewing my chart, lab results, x-rays, and other tests?”

The policy recommendation comes as concerns mount over the potential for significant physician shortages, fueled partly by older physicians’ retirements and doctors reducing hours or exiting the workforce due to pandemic fatigue and burnout.

While practice regulations vary by state, a new federal bill could change that by broadening the authority of APRNs under Medicare and Medicaid guidelines. Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in April and supported by the ANA, the Improving Care and Access to Nurses Act would allow APRNs to perform more procedures, including cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation and certification of terminal illness for hospice, according to an ANA press release.

In the meantime, several state legislatures are considering bills that would expand APRN scope of practice. Utah is the latest to join a growing list of states – about half now – offering full practice authority to NPs.

Other states offer a reduced scope of practice for APRNs, typically requiring a collaborative agreement with a supervising physician. The remaining states enforce tighter regulations and physician oversight.

A recent Medscape survey found that most physicians report having a good rapport with NPs but many have mixed feelings about giving them expanded practice roles, with one-third saying it would harm patient care. Feelings were only slightly more favorable toward PAs. However, about 75% of patients were either neutral or supportive of independent practice for NPs and PAs.

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

In a move that raises the stakes in doctors’ ongoing scope-creep battle against nonphysician providers, the American Medical Association’s legislative body voted recently to change its policy on the supervision of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). AMA’s House of Delegates called for state medical boards to regulate APRNs in addition to nursing boards.

The AMA has long claimed that nonphysician providers, such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), need greater oversight because expanded scope of practice for advanced practice practitioners threatens patient safety and undermines the physician-led team model.

APRNs have been touted as a solution to expand access to care and reduce disparities, especially in rural and underserved communities, and they have been promoted by organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine. But the AMA disputes that scope expansions are necessary to increase access to care.

The organization that represents the nation’s physicians said in a prepared statement that it opposes scope expansions because removing doctors from the care team results in higher costs to the patient and lower quality care.

Several nursing organizations swiftly criticized the policy recommendation, including the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.

The policy shift would create more administrative burdens for APRNs and generate “a downstream effect that only hurts patients,” particularly those in underserved communities without timely access to care, ANA president Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, NEA-BC, told this news organization.  

“The licensing and regulation of APRNs have never required the oversight of state medical boards,” she said, adding that it should remain the obligation of nursing regulatory bodies.

Jon Fanning, MS, CAE, CNED, chief executive officer of the AANP, called the AMA proposal “flawed.”

“The restrictive involvement of the board of medicine directly contributes to health care access challenges, resulting in continued low health care rankings, geographic disparities in care, and unnecessary regulatory cost in these states,” he said in a press release.

Still, the AMA has vowed to #StopScopeCreep. Securing stricter practice guidelines was a central theme of the association’s recent annual meeting and a goal of its plan to strengthen the physician workforce. The organization invests heavily in advocacy and education efforts to defeat state bills seeking to extend APRN authority. To that end, the AMA Scope of Practice Partnership, a coalition of over 100 medical associations, has awarded members $3.5 million in grants to combat scope-expansion legislation.

The AMA and the American College of Radiology recently partnered to create advocacy materials, including handouts encouraging patients to ask questions such as: “Will a physician be reviewing my chart, lab results, x-rays, and other tests?”

The policy recommendation comes as concerns mount over the potential for significant physician shortages, fueled partly by older physicians’ retirements and doctors reducing hours or exiting the workforce due to pandemic fatigue and burnout.

While practice regulations vary by state, a new federal bill could change that by broadening the authority of APRNs under Medicare and Medicaid guidelines. Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in April and supported by the ANA, the Improving Care and Access to Nurses Act would allow APRNs to perform more procedures, including cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation and certification of terminal illness for hospice, according to an ANA press release.

In the meantime, several state legislatures are considering bills that would expand APRN scope of practice. Utah is the latest to join a growing list of states – about half now – offering full practice authority to NPs.

Other states offer a reduced scope of practice for APRNs, typically requiring a collaborative agreement with a supervising physician. The remaining states enforce tighter regulations and physician oversight.

A recent Medscape survey found that most physicians report having a good rapport with NPs but many have mixed feelings about giving them expanded practice roles, with one-third saying it would harm patient care. Feelings were only slightly more favorable toward PAs. However, about 75% of patients were either neutral or supportive of independent practice for NPs and PAs.

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

Nearly one in five people in the United States had never been infected with COVID-19 as of the end of 2022, according to a new estimate.

The findings came from an analysis of blood donations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed donor blood from 143,000 people every 3 months during 2022, looking for the presence of COVID antibodies that meant a person had previously been infected with the virus. The prevalence of antibodies from previous infections steadily rose throughout the year. Antibodies from prior infection were found in 49% of donors as of Feb. 15, 2022, 59% of donors as of May 15, 2022, 70% of donors as of Aug. 15, 2022, and 78% of donors as of Nov. 15, 2022.

Donor blood also was analyzed for the presence of antibodies known to come from COVID vaccination. When the vaccine-induced and infection-induced antibody data were combined, the CDC estimated that 97% of people had antibodies as of the end of the 2022.

In the report, CDC authors explained that while the presence of antibodies is related to protection from infection and to less severe disease, the level of antibodies that a person has can vary. The authors said that no standards have yet been set that show a minimum level of antibodies needed to provide protection.

As of July 3, more than 1.1 million people had died in the United States from COVID-19, according to CDC data. Deaths for the first half of 2023 are down dramatically, compared with the first 3 years of the pandemic, with just 41,538 death certificates this year listing the virus as an underlying or contributing cause. About two in three COVID deaths this year occurred in a hospital or nursing home, and 89% of people who died from the virus this year have been age 65 or older.

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

Nearly one in five people in the United States had never been infected with COVID-19 as of the end of 2022, according to a new estimate.

The findings came from an analysis of blood donations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed donor blood from 143,000 people every 3 months during 2022, looking for the presence of COVID antibodies that meant a person had previously been infected with the virus. The prevalence of antibodies from previous infections steadily rose throughout the year. Antibodies from prior infection were found in 49% of donors as of Feb. 15, 2022, 59% of donors as of May 15, 2022, 70% of donors as of Aug. 15, 2022, and 78% of donors as of Nov. 15, 2022.

Donor blood also was analyzed for the presence of antibodies known to come from COVID vaccination. When the vaccine-induced and infection-induced antibody data were combined, the CDC estimated that 97% of people had antibodies as of the end of the 2022.

In the report, CDC authors explained that while the presence of antibodies is related to protection from infection and to less severe disease, the level of antibodies that a person has can vary. The authors said that no standards have yet been set that show a minimum level of antibodies needed to provide protection.

As of July 3, more than 1.1 million people had died in the United States from COVID-19, according to CDC data. Deaths for the first half of 2023 are down dramatically, compared with the first 3 years of the pandemic, with just 41,538 death certificates this year listing the virus as an underlying or contributing cause. About two in three COVID deaths this year occurred in a hospital or nursing home, and 89% of people who died from the virus this year have been age 65 or older.

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

Nearly one in five people in the United States had never been infected with COVID-19 as of the end of 2022, according to a new estimate.

The findings came from an analysis of blood donations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed donor blood from 143,000 people every 3 months during 2022, looking for the presence of COVID antibodies that meant a person had previously been infected with the virus. The prevalence of antibodies from previous infections steadily rose throughout the year. Antibodies from prior infection were found in 49% of donors as of Feb. 15, 2022, 59% of donors as of May 15, 2022, 70% of donors as of Aug. 15, 2022, and 78% of donors as of Nov. 15, 2022.

Donor blood also was analyzed for the presence of antibodies known to come from COVID vaccination. When the vaccine-induced and infection-induced antibody data were combined, the CDC estimated that 97% of people had antibodies as of the end of the 2022.

In the report, CDC authors explained that while the presence of antibodies is related to protection from infection and to less severe disease, the level of antibodies that a person has can vary. The authors said that no standards have yet been set that show a minimum level of antibodies needed to provide protection.

As of July 3, more than 1.1 million people had died in the United States from COVID-19, according to CDC data. Deaths for the first half of 2023 are down dramatically, compared with the first 3 years of the pandemic, with just 41,538 death certificates this year listing the virus as an underlying or contributing cause. About two in three COVID deaths this year occurred in a hospital or nursing home, and 89% of people who died from the virus this year have been age 65 or older.

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

This is the second in a three-part series on the obesity crisis. Part one tackles a complicated question – why does the obesity rate keep rising despite our efforts to stop it? – and can be found here. Part three shows how doctors and patients can make treatment better and can be found here. 

In the mid-1980s, Louis J. Aronne, MD, strolled into a lab at Rockefeller University in New York where a colleague was breeding mice. “I will never forget what he showed me,” said Dr. Aronne, now the director of obesity research and treatment at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. “He had a cage with 10 mice, one severely obese and the others normal weight. He took blood from one of the thin mice and gave it to the fat mouse.”
 

When Dr. Aronne returned 3 days later, that obese mouse had turned thin. 

It was proof of something Dr. Aronne already suspected: Obesity had biological causes and wasn’t just a failure of willpower.

Years later, in 1994, that research led to the discovery of leptin, a hormone released from fat cells that’s involved in the regulation of body weight. It was a watershed moment in obesity research. 

Since then, Dr. Aronne and others have worked to build the clinical field of obesity medicine, attempting to shift the public and medical view of obesity from a purely behavioral issue to a disease worthy of medical treatment. 

All the while, the U.S. obesity rate soared. 

Now, another watershed moment: We finally have highly effective obesity drugs. The hype is real, and so are the weight loss results. 

“I’ve been saying for 30 years that when we find treatments that really work, people aren’t going to believe the results,” Dr. Aronne said. “It took longer than I expected, but it’s gratifying now to see.”

All this excitement raises a crucial question: Will the new drugs finally end the obesity crisis? Experts have their doubts.
 

The big question

The emerging class of obesity medications known as GLP-1 agonists is indeed a game changer. The weight loss drug semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) showed groundbreaking results, and studies suggest a parade of even more impressive drugs is on the way.

Yes, the drugs offer new hope to millions with obesity complications. But to truly turn the tide on our 42% obesity rate, much more work remains to be done, researchers said, including answering a big question:

How do these weight loss drugs work? 

“We have new blockbuster drugs, and we don’t even know why they reduce body weight,” said Samuel Klein, MD, professor of medicine and nutritional science at Washington University in St. Louis. “It was by accident that this was discovered.”
 

Oops, we created a weight loss drug

Developed to treat diabetes, the GLP-1 drugs’ weight loss effects were a surprise. Now that those effects are confirmed, pharmaceutical companies and researchers are racing to figure out how these drugs work. 

In the 1960s, scientists discovered the incretin effect – when you eat glucose (sugar), your body makes more insulin than it does if glucose is given intravenously. Glucose passes through the GI tract and the gut releases hormones that stimulate insulin secretion. It’s “essentially a feed-forward signal to your pancreas to tell it, ‘By the way, you need to be ready because there’s a bunch of glucose coming,’ ” said Randy Seeley, MD, director of the Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, funded by the National Institutes of Health. 

One of these hormones – or “incretins” – is GLP-1. In experiments, people with type 2 diabetes who were hooked up to GLP-1 saw their blood sugar go down. 

“That led to the idea that if we could take this native hormone and make it last longer, we’d have a therapy for type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Seeley. Thanks to a GLP-1-like compound in the saliva of the Gila monster, that idea became reality in the 2000s. 

Along the way, a surprising side finding came to light: In early trials, diabetes patients on these drugs dropped weight. 

Both Ozempic and Wegovy – brand names for semaglutide – are once-weekly injections (pill forms to treat obesity are on the way), but the latter is a higher dose. 

“That dose results in about 40% of patients in the clinical trials achieving a 20% weight loss. We’ve just had nothing like that in terms of efficacy before,” said Dr. Seeley, who has worked with some of the drug companies (including Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, and Eli Lilly, maker of Mounjaro) that market the GLP-1s. 

By contrast, semaglutide’s once-a-day predecessor liraglutide (Saxenda, made by Novo Nordisk) can lead to about 10% weight loss. 

“And one of the ironies is, we don’t really know why,” Dr. Seeley said. “We don’t know why semaglutide is a better molecule for weight loss than liraglutide.” 

Initially, scientists believed that the drugs, in addition to telling the pancreas to secrete more insulin, were also signaling the brain that you’re full. “Turns out that’s not really the way it works,” Dr. Seeley said. “GLP-1 made from your gut probably doesn’t get into your brain very much. But you make GLP-1 in your brain as well.”

For weight loss, it’s the brain’s GLP-1 system, not the gut’s, that the drugs are thought to hijack. But exactly which parts of the brain they affect and how is unknown. “That’s something lots of people are working on, including our own lab,” Dr. Seeley said. (Another surprise: The drugs may have potential as an anti-addiction treatment.)

The diabetes medication tirzepatide (Mounjaro), expected to be approved for weight loss as early as this year, is also a weekly injection, but it has a unique feature: It starts a response not just for GLP-1 but also for another incretin called GIP. Turns out, two is better than one: Trial participants on tirzepatide lost up to 22.5% of their body weight. 

More of these hybrid drugs are on the way, Dr. Seeley said. In mid-stage clinical trials, the drug retatrutide, which targets three hormones, led to 24% weight loss. “The idea is the more bullets we can load into the gun, the more we can push the biology into a place where it’s easier to lose weight.”
 

Shifting from prevention to damage control

Less invasive and more scalable than surgery (only 1% of the eligible population gets bariatric surgery), the drugs offer doctors a safe, effective way to treat many patients with obesity. That’s cause for excitement, but concerns remain because they are expensive, costing about $800 to $1,300 per month out of pocket. Many health insurers, including Medicare, do not cover them for weight loss. 

“You have this significant advance in obesity treatment, but very few will be able to access it,” said Gary Foster, PhD, adjunct professor of psychology in psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and chief scientific officer at WW (formerly Weight Watchers).

There is a push, including a proposed bill, to get Medicare to cover obesity medication. But given the expense of the drugs, the health economics do not support that move, according to an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine. If Medicare were to cover obesity meds, the budget impact would likely be huge, potentially driving up premiums. If other payers followed suit, the impact could be felt across the U.S. health care system. 

Other drawbacks include side effects – including nausea, diarrhea, stomach pain, and vomiting – that can be so bad that some patients can’t tolerate them.

And critically, the drugs do not deal with the root cause of the problem, said Robert Lustig, MD, an endocrinologist and pediatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, who has suggested that excess insulin is driving obesity. “No one has the disease that these drugs are treating. No one has GLP-1 deficiency. They’re bypassing the problem. They’re band-aiding the problem.” 

Because the drugs work by mimicking starvation – they appear to curb hunger, so you eat less – people on them lose not just fat but also healthy lean mass, Dr. Lustig said. 

Concerns about pancreatitis did not really bear out in postmarketing reports. (The drugs are still not recommended in people with pancreatitis or multiple endocrine neoplasia.) But predicting longer-term outcomes can be difficult, noted Dr. Lustig.

Then there are philosophical questions, said James Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.. “If you’re continuing to not exercise and eat not healthy foods and take a medication, is that success? Have we won when people are at a lower weight but not doing a healthy behavior?”

‘We can’t treat our way out of this’

The fact is, ending the obesity epidemic is a tall order, even for drugs as impressive as these. 

“We can’t treat our way out of this,” said Jamy Ard, MD, codirector of Wake Forest Baptist Health Weight Management Center in Winston-Salem, N.C. “The treatments we have now are great, and there will be more coming. But we do need to figure out the prevention side of things.” 

Dr. Seeley agreed but added that we can’t diet-and-exercise our way out either. 

“There’s no switch to be flipped,” Dr. Seeley said. “If you told me we shouldn’t spend all this money on these drugs, we should spend it on prevention – great! What would we do?” 

And prevention efforts won’t help the millions already living with health problems from obesity, Dr. Aronne said. 

“Getting people to stop smoking prevents lung cancer. But stopping smoking doesn’t treat lung cancer,” Dr. Aronne said. “Once the physical changes occur in the lung that cause a tumor to grow, it’s too late. You have to think of obesity the same way.” 

Dr. Seeley pointed out that “fearmongering” around the drugs highlights our lingering bias that obesity is a lifestyle issue that should not be medically treated. 

“People say, ‘When you stop taking it, you’re going to gain the weight back,’ ” Dr. Seeley said. “There’s truth to that, but when you stop taking your hypertension medication, your blood pressure goes up. We don’t think of that as a [reason] for why you shouldn’t take your blood pressure medication. But that gets trumpeted into all these conversations about whether people [with obesity] should be treated at all.”

Like obesity, blood pressure was once thought to be a behavioral problem, Dr. Aronne said. But blood pressure meds prevent heart attacks and strokes. And it’s likely obesity meds will do the same. 

One 55-year-old patient on the road to kidney failure lost weight on obesity medications, including semaglutide, Dr. Aronne said. Now, 6 years later, his kidney function is back to normal. “Normally, we think of kidney disease as irreversible,” Dr. Aronne said. 

In that respect, these drugs should save money in the long run by virtue of heading off those health care costs, said Dr. Seeley, who imagines a future where obesity is not gone but better managed, like high blood pressure is now. 

In the end, the drugs are another step toward what Dr. Aronne and many others have always pushed for: Treating obesity as a disease. 
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

This is the second in a three-part series on the obesity crisis. Part one tackles a complicated question – why does the obesity rate keep rising despite our efforts to stop it? – and can be found here. Part three shows how doctors and patients can make treatment better and can be found here. 

In the mid-1980s, Louis J. Aronne, MD, strolled into a lab at Rockefeller University in New York where a colleague was breeding mice. “I will never forget what he showed me,” said Dr. Aronne, now the director of obesity research and treatment at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. “He had a cage with 10 mice, one severely obese and the others normal weight. He took blood from one of the thin mice and gave it to the fat mouse.”
 

When Dr. Aronne returned 3 days later, that obese mouse had turned thin. 

It was proof of something Dr. Aronne already suspected: Obesity had biological causes and wasn’t just a failure of willpower.

Years later, in 1994, that research led to the discovery of leptin, a hormone released from fat cells that’s involved in the regulation of body weight. It was a watershed moment in obesity research. 

Since then, Dr. Aronne and others have worked to build the clinical field of obesity medicine, attempting to shift the public and medical view of obesity from a purely behavioral issue to a disease worthy of medical treatment. 

All the while, the U.S. obesity rate soared. 

Now, another watershed moment: We finally have highly effective obesity drugs. The hype is real, and so are the weight loss results. 

“I’ve been saying for 30 years that when we find treatments that really work, people aren’t going to believe the results,” Dr. Aronne said. “It took longer than I expected, but it’s gratifying now to see.”

All this excitement raises a crucial question: Will the new drugs finally end the obesity crisis? Experts have their doubts.
 

The big question

The emerging class of obesity medications known as GLP-1 agonists is indeed a game changer. The weight loss drug semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) showed groundbreaking results, and studies suggest a parade of even more impressive drugs is on the way.

Yes, the drugs offer new hope to millions with obesity complications. But to truly turn the tide on our 42% obesity rate, much more work remains to be done, researchers said, including answering a big question:

How do these weight loss drugs work? 

“We have new blockbuster drugs, and we don’t even know why they reduce body weight,” said Samuel Klein, MD, professor of medicine and nutritional science at Washington University in St. Louis. “It was by accident that this was discovered.”
 

Oops, we created a weight loss drug

Developed to treat diabetes, the GLP-1 drugs’ weight loss effects were a surprise. Now that those effects are confirmed, pharmaceutical companies and researchers are racing to figure out how these drugs work. 

In the 1960s, scientists discovered the incretin effect – when you eat glucose (sugar), your body makes more insulin than it does if glucose is given intravenously. Glucose passes through the GI tract and the gut releases hormones that stimulate insulin secretion. It’s “essentially a feed-forward signal to your pancreas to tell it, ‘By the way, you need to be ready because there’s a bunch of glucose coming,’ ” said Randy Seeley, MD, director of the Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, funded by the National Institutes of Health. 

One of these hormones – or “incretins” – is GLP-1. In experiments, people with type 2 diabetes who were hooked up to GLP-1 saw their blood sugar go down. 

“That led to the idea that if we could take this native hormone and make it last longer, we’d have a therapy for type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Seeley. Thanks to a GLP-1-like compound in the saliva of the Gila monster, that idea became reality in the 2000s. 

Along the way, a surprising side finding came to light: In early trials, diabetes patients on these drugs dropped weight. 

Both Ozempic and Wegovy – brand names for semaglutide – are once-weekly injections (pill forms to treat obesity are on the way), but the latter is a higher dose. 

“That dose results in about 40% of patients in the clinical trials achieving a 20% weight loss. We’ve just had nothing like that in terms of efficacy before,” said Dr. Seeley, who has worked with some of the drug companies (including Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, and Eli Lilly, maker of Mounjaro) that market the GLP-1s. 

By contrast, semaglutide’s once-a-day predecessor liraglutide (Saxenda, made by Novo Nordisk) can lead to about 10% weight loss. 

“And one of the ironies is, we don’t really know why,” Dr. Seeley said. “We don’t know why semaglutide is a better molecule for weight loss than liraglutide.” 

Initially, scientists believed that the drugs, in addition to telling the pancreas to secrete more insulin, were also signaling the brain that you’re full. “Turns out that’s not really the way it works,” Dr. Seeley said. “GLP-1 made from your gut probably doesn’t get into your brain very much. But you make GLP-1 in your brain as well.”

For weight loss, it’s the brain’s GLP-1 system, not the gut’s, that the drugs are thought to hijack. But exactly which parts of the brain they affect and how is unknown. “That’s something lots of people are working on, including our own lab,” Dr. Seeley said. (Another surprise: The drugs may have potential as an anti-addiction treatment.)

The diabetes medication tirzepatide (Mounjaro), expected to be approved for weight loss as early as this year, is also a weekly injection, but it has a unique feature: It starts a response not just for GLP-1 but also for another incretin called GIP. Turns out, two is better than one: Trial participants on tirzepatide lost up to 22.5% of their body weight. 

More of these hybrid drugs are on the way, Dr. Seeley said. In mid-stage clinical trials, the drug retatrutide, which targets three hormones, led to 24% weight loss. “The idea is the more bullets we can load into the gun, the more we can push the biology into a place where it’s easier to lose weight.”
 

Shifting from prevention to damage control

Less invasive and more scalable than surgery (only 1% of the eligible population gets bariatric surgery), the drugs offer doctors a safe, effective way to treat many patients with obesity. That’s cause for excitement, but concerns remain because they are expensive, costing about $800 to $1,300 per month out of pocket. Many health insurers, including Medicare, do not cover them for weight loss. 

“You have this significant advance in obesity treatment, but very few will be able to access it,” said Gary Foster, PhD, adjunct professor of psychology in psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and chief scientific officer at WW (formerly Weight Watchers).

There is a push, including a proposed bill, to get Medicare to cover obesity medication. But given the expense of the drugs, the health economics do not support that move, according to an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine. If Medicare were to cover obesity meds, the budget impact would likely be huge, potentially driving up premiums. If other payers followed suit, the impact could be felt across the U.S. health care system. 

Other drawbacks include side effects – including nausea, diarrhea, stomach pain, and vomiting – that can be so bad that some patients can’t tolerate them.

And critically, the drugs do not deal with the root cause of the problem, said Robert Lustig, MD, an endocrinologist and pediatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, who has suggested that excess insulin is driving obesity. “No one has the disease that these drugs are treating. No one has GLP-1 deficiency. They’re bypassing the problem. They’re band-aiding the problem.” 

Because the drugs work by mimicking starvation – they appear to curb hunger, so you eat less – people on them lose not just fat but also healthy lean mass, Dr. Lustig said. 

Concerns about pancreatitis did not really bear out in postmarketing reports. (The drugs are still not recommended in people with pancreatitis or multiple endocrine neoplasia.) But predicting longer-term outcomes can be difficult, noted Dr. Lustig.

Then there are philosophical questions, said James Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.. “If you’re continuing to not exercise and eat not healthy foods and take a medication, is that success? Have we won when people are at a lower weight but not doing a healthy behavior?”

‘We can’t treat our way out of this’

The fact is, ending the obesity epidemic is a tall order, even for drugs as impressive as these. 

“We can’t treat our way out of this,” said Jamy Ard, MD, codirector of Wake Forest Baptist Health Weight Management Center in Winston-Salem, N.C. “The treatments we have now are great, and there will be more coming. But we do need to figure out the prevention side of things.” 

Dr. Seeley agreed but added that we can’t diet-and-exercise our way out either. 

“There’s no switch to be flipped,” Dr. Seeley said. “If you told me we shouldn’t spend all this money on these drugs, we should spend it on prevention – great! What would we do?” 

And prevention efforts won’t help the millions already living with health problems from obesity, Dr. Aronne said. 

“Getting people to stop smoking prevents lung cancer. But stopping smoking doesn’t treat lung cancer,” Dr. Aronne said. “Once the physical changes occur in the lung that cause a tumor to grow, it’s too late. You have to think of obesity the same way.” 

Dr. Seeley pointed out that “fearmongering” around the drugs highlights our lingering bias that obesity is a lifestyle issue that should not be medically treated. 

“People say, ‘When you stop taking it, you’re going to gain the weight back,’ ” Dr. Seeley said. “There’s truth to that, but when you stop taking your hypertension medication, your blood pressure goes up. We don’t think of that as a [reason] for why you shouldn’t take your blood pressure medication. But that gets trumpeted into all these conversations about whether people [with obesity] should be treated at all.”

Like obesity, blood pressure was once thought to be a behavioral problem, Dr. Aronne said. But blood pressure meds prevent heart attacks and strokes. And it’s likely obesity meds will do the same. 

One 55-year-old patient on the road to kidney failure lost weight on obesity medications, including semaglutide, Dr. Aronne said. Now, 6 years later, his kidney function is back to normal. “Normally, we think of kidney disease as irreversible,” Dr. Aronne said. 

In that respect, these drugs should save money in the long run by virtue of heading off those health care costs, said Dr. Seeley, who imagines a future where obesity is not gone but better managed, like high blood pressure is now. 

In the end, the drugs are another step toward what Dr. Aronne and many others have always pushed for: Treating obesity as a disease. 
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

This is the second in a three-part series on the obesity crisis. Part one tackles a complicated question – why does the obesity rate keep rising despite our efforts to stop it? – and can be found here. Part three shows how doctors and patients can make treatment better and can be found here. 

In the mid-1980s, Louis J. Aronne, MD, strolled into a lab at Rockefeller University in New York where a colleague was breeding mice. “I will never forget what he showed me,” said Dr. Aronne, now the director of obesity research and treatment at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. “He had a cage with 10 mice, one severely obese and the others normal weight. He took blood from one of the thin mice and gave it to the fat mouse.”
 

When Dr. Aronne returned 3 days later, that obese mouse had turned thin. 

It was proof of something Dr. Aronne already suspected: Obesity had biological causes and wasn’t just a failure of willpower.

Years later, in 1994, that research led to the discovery of leptin, a hormone released from fat cells that’s involved in the regulation of body weight. It was a watershed moment in obesity research. 

Since then, Dr. Aronne and others have worked to build the clinical field of obesity medicine, attempting to shift the public and medical view of obesity from a purely behavioral issue to a disease worthy of medical treatment. 

All the while, the U.S. obesity rate soared. 

Now, another watershed moment: We finally have highly effective obesity drugs. The hype is real, and so are the weight loss results. 

“I’ve been saying for 30 years that when we find treatments that really work, people aren’t going to believe the results,” Dr. Aronne said. “It took longer than I expected, but it’s gratifying now to see.”

All this excitement raises a crucial question: Will the new drugs finally end the obesity crisis? Experts have their doubts.
 

The big question

The emerging class of obesity medications known as GLP-1 agonists is indeed a game changer. The weight loss drug semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) showed groundbreaking results, and studies suggest a parade of even more impressive drugs is on the way.

Yes, the drugs offer new hope to millions with obesity complications. But to truly turn the tide on our 42% obesity rate, much more work remains to be done, researchers said, including answering a big question:

How do these weight loss drugs work? 

“We have new blockbuster drugs, and we don’t even know why they reduce body weight,” said Samuel Klein, MD, professor of medicine and nutritional science at Washington University in St. Louis. “It was by accident that this was discovered.”
 

Oops, we created a weight loss drug

Developed to treat diabetes, the GLP-1 drugs’ weight loss effects were a surprise. Now that those effects are confirmed, pharmaceutical companies and researchers are racing to figure out how these drugs work. 

In the 1960s, scientists discovered the incretin effect – when you eat glucose (sugar), your body makes more insulin than it does if glucose is given intravenously. Glucose passes through the GI tract and the gut releases hormones that stimulate insulin secretion. It’s “essentially a feed-forward signal to your pancreas to tell it, ‘By the way, you need to be ready because there’s a bunch of glucose coming,’ ” said Randy Seeley, MD, director of the Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, funded by the National Institutes of Health. 

One of these hormones – or “incretins” – is GLP-1. In experiments, people with type 2 diabetes who were hooked up to GLP-1 saw their blood sugar go down. 

“That led to the idea that if we could take this native hormone and make it last longer, we’d have a therapy for type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Seeley. Thanks to a GLP-1-like compound in the saliva of the Gila monster, that idea became reality in the 2000s. 

Along the way, a surprising side finding came to light: In early trials, diabetes patients on these drugs dropped weight. 

Both Ozempic and Wegovy – brand names for semaglutide – are once-weekly injections (pill forms to treat obesity are on the way), but the latter is a higher dose. 

“That dose results in about 40% of patients in the clinical trials achieving a 20% weight loss. We’ve just had nothing like that in terms of efficacy before,” said Dr. Seeley, who has worked with some of the drug companies (including Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, and Eli Lilly, maker of Mounjaro) that market the GLP-1s. 

By contrast, semaglutide’s once-a-day predecessor liraglutide (Saxenda, made by Novo Nordisk) can lead to about 10% weight loss. 

“And one of the ironies is, we don’t really know why,” Dr. Seeley said. “We don’t know why semaglutide is a better molecule for weight loss than liraglutide.” 

Initially, scientists believed that the drugs, in addition to telling the pancreas to secrete more insulin, were also signaling the brain that you’re full. “Turns out that’s not really the way it works,” Dr. Seeley said. “GLP-1 made from your gut probably doesn’t get into your brain very much. But you make GLP-1 in your brain as well.”

For weight loss, it’s the brain’s GLP-1 system, not the gut’s, that the drugs are thought to hijack. But exactly which parts of the brain they affect and how is unknown. “That’s something lots of people are working on, including our own lab,” Dr. Seeley said. (Another surprise: The drugs may have potential as an anti-addiction treatment.)

The diabetes medication tirzepatide (Mounjaro), expected to be approved for weight loss as early as this year, is also a weekly injection, but it has a unique feature: It starts a response not just for GLP-1 but also for another incretin called GIP. Turns out, two is better than one: Trial participants on tirzepatide lost up to 22.5% of their body weight. 

More of these hybrid drugs are on the way, Dr. Seeley said. In mid-stage clinical trials, the drug retatrutide, which targets three hormones, led to 24% weight loss. “The idea is the more bullets we can load into the gun, the more we can push the biology into a place where it’s easier to lose weight.”
 

Shifting from prevention to damage control

Less invasive and more scalable than surgery (only 1% of the eligible population gets bariatric surgery), the drugs offer doctors a safe, effective way to treat many patients with obesity. That’s cause for excitement, but concerns remain because they are expensive, costing about $800 to $1,300 per month out of pocket. Many health insurers, including Medicare, do not cover them for weight loss. 

“You have this significant advance in obesity treatment, but very few will be able to access it,” said Gary Foster, PhD, adjunct professor of psychology in psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and chief scientific officer at WW (formerly Weight Watchers).

There is a push, including a proposed bill, to get Medicare to cover obesity medication. But given the expense of the drugs, the health economics do not support that move, according to an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine. If Medicare were to cover obesity meds, the budget impact would likely be huge, potentially driving up premiums. If other payers followed suit, the impact could be felt across the U.S. health care system. 

Other drawbacks include side effects – including nausea, diarrhea, stomach pain, and vomiting – that can be so bad that some patients can’t tolerate them.

And critically, the drugs do not deal with the root cause of the problem, said Robert Lustig, MD, an endocrinologist and pediatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, who has suggested that excess insulin is driving obesity. “No one has the disease that these drugs are treating. No one has GLP-1 deficiency. They’re bypassing the problem. They’re band-aiding the problem.” 

Because the drugs work by mimicking starvation – they appear to curb hunger, so you eat less – people on them lose not just fat but also healthy lean mass, Dr. Lustig said. 

Concerns about pancreatitis did not really bear out in postmarketing reports. (The drugs are still not recommended in people with pancreatitis or multiple endocrine neoplasia.) But predicting longer-term outcomes can be difficult, noted Dr. Lustig.

Then there are philosophical questions, said James Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.. “If you’re continuing to not exercise and eat not healthy foods and take a medication, is that success? Have we won when people are at a lower weight but not doing a healthy behavior?”

‘We can’t treat our way out of this’

The fact is, ending the obesity epidemic is a tall order, even for drugs as impressive as these. 

“We can’t treat our way out of this,” said Jamy Ard, MD, codirector of Wake Forest Baptist Health Weight Management Center in Winston-Salem, N.C. “The treatments we have now are great, and there will be more coming. But we do need to figure out the prevention side of things.” 

Dr. Seeley agreed but added that we can’t diet-and-exercise our way out either. 

“There’s no switch to be flipped,” Dr. Seeley said. “If you told me we shouldn’t spend all this money on these drugs, we should spend it on prevention – great! What would we do?” 

And prevention efforts won’t help the millions already living with health problems from obesity, Dr. Aronne said. 

“Getting people to stop smoking prevents lung cancer. But stopping smoking doesn’t treat lung cancer,” Dr. Aronne said. “Once the physical changes occur in the lung that cause a tumor to grow, it’s too late. You have to think of obesity the same way.” 

Dr. Seeley pointed out that “fearmongering” around the drugs highlights our lingering bias that obesity is a lifestyle issue that should not be medically treated. 

“People say, ‘When you stop taking it, you’re going to gain the weight back,’ ” Dr. Seeley said. “There’s truth to that, but when you stop taking your hypertension medication, your blood pressure goes up. We don’t think of that as a [reason] for why you shouldn’t take your blood pressure medication. But that gets trumpeted into all these conversations about whether people [with obesity] should be treated at all.”

Like obesity, blood pressure was once thought to be a behavioral problem, Dr. Aronne said. But blood pressure meds prevent heart attacks and strokes. And it’s likely obesity meds will do the same. 

One 55-year-old patient on the road to kidney failure lost weight on obesity medications, including semaglutide, Dr. Aronne said. Now, 6 years later, his kidney function is back to normal. “Normally, we think of kidney disease as irreversible,” Dr. Aronne said. 

In that respect, these drugs should save money in the long run by virtue of heading off those health care costs, said Dr. Seeley, who imagines a future where obesity is not gone but better managed, like high blood pressure is now. 

In the end, the drugs are another step toward what Dr. Aronne and many others have always pushed for: Treating obesity as a disease. 
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher levels of alcohol consumption appear to increase an individual’s risk of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), particularly distal colon and rectal cancers, according to a population-based study from South Korea.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators retrospectively compared average daily alcohol consumption with early-onset CRC risk among nearly 5.7 million adults younger than 50 years, using data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service.
• Alcohol consumption levels were defined as nondrinker, light (< 10 g/day or < 0.7 U.S. drinks/day), moderate (10-30 g/day for men, 10-20 g/day for women), and heavy (≥ 30 g/day or ≥ 2.1 drinks/day for men, ≥ 20 g/day or ≥ 1.4 drinks/day for women).
• The primary outcome was incidence of early-onset CRC diagnosed before age 50. Models were adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, exercise, and income, as well as for comorbidities.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 8,314 incident early-onset CRC cases occurred during the mean follow-up period of 7.4 years.
• Compared with light drinking, moderate and heavy drinking were associated with a significantly elevated risk of early-onset CRC (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09 and 1.20, respectively); by sex, significant associations were found only among men.
• Among men, heavy drinking vs. light drinking was associated with a 26% increased risk of distal colon cancer, a 17% higher risk of rectal cancer, and a 29% higher risk of unspecified colon cancer (but not proximal colon cancer).
• Among women, moderate drinking was associated with a 47% increased risk of distal colon cancer. Among nondrinkers, there was a 14% reduced risk of rectal cancer, compared with light drinkers.

IN PRACTICE:

“This population-based study provides evidence that higher levels of alcohol consumption may increase the risk of early-onset CRC,” the investigators concluded. “[E]ffective interventions are required to discourage alcohol consumption among young people and to tailor CRC screening approaches for high-risk individuals.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by researchers at Seoul National University, South Korea. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations include self-reported alcohol consumption. Data were missing for a higher number of male participants and younger participants, and there was a potential problem related to multiple comparisons and confounders. Only Korean individuals were included in the study, so larger studies involving various races are needed.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding was provided by grants from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. No potential conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Higher levels of alcohol consumption appear to increase an individual’s risk of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), particularly distal colon and rectal cancers, according to a population-based study from South Korea.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators retrospectively compared average daily alcohol consumption with early-onset CRC risk among nearly 5.7 million adults younger than 50 years, using data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service.
• Alcohol consumption levels were defined as nondrinker, light (< 10 g/day or < 0.7 U.S. drinks/day), moderate (10-30 g/day for men, 10-20 g/day for women), and heavy (≥ 30 g/day or ≥ 2.1 drinks/day for men, ≥ 20 g/day or ≥ 1.4 drinks/day for women).
• The primary outcome was incidence of early-onset CRC diagnosed before age 50. Models were adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, exercise, and income, as well as for comorbidities.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 8,314 incident early-onset CRC cases occurred during the mean follow-up period of 7.4 years.
• Compared with light drinking, moderate and heavy drinking were associated with a significantly elevated risk of early-onset CRC (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09 and 1.20, respectively); by sex, significant associations were found only among men.
• Among men, heavy drinking vs. light drinking was associated with a 26% increased risk of distal colon cancer, a 17% higher risk of rectal cancer, and a 29% higher risk of unspecified colon cancer (but not proximal colon cancer).
• Among women, moderate drinking was associated with a 47% increased risk of distal colon cancer. Among nondrinkers, there was a 14% reduced risk of rectal cancer, compared with light drinkers.

IN PRACTICE:

“This population-based study provides evidence that higher levels of alcohol consumption may increase the risk of early-onset CRC,” the investigators concluded. “[E]ffective interventions are required to discourage alcohol consumption among young people and to tailor CRC screening approaches for high-risk individuals.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by researchers at Seoul National University, South Korea. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations include self-reported alcohol consumption. Data were missing for a higher number of male participants and younger participants, and there was a potential problem related to multiple comparisons and confounders. Only Korean individuals were included in the study, so larger studies involving various races are needed.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding was provided by grants from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. No potential conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Higher levels of alcohol consumption appear to increase an individual’s risk of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), particularly distal colon and rectal cancers, according to a population-based study from South Korea.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators retrospectively compared average daily alcohol consumption with early-onset CRC risk among nearly 5.7 million adults younger than 50 years, using data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service.
• Alcohol consumption levels were defined as nondrinker, light (< 10 g/day or < 0.7 U.S. drinks/day), moderate (10-30 g/day for men, 10-20 g/day for women), and heavy (≥ 30 g/day or ≥ 2.1 drinks/day for men, ≥ 20 g/day or ≥ 1.4 drinks/day for women).
• The primary outcome was incidence of early-onset CRC diagnosed before age 50. Models were adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, exercise, and income, as well as for comorbidities.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 8,314 incident early-onset CRC cases occurred during the mean follow-up period of 7.4 years.
• Compared with light drinking, moderate and heavy drinking were associated with a significantly elevated risk of early-onset CRC (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09 and 1.20, respectively); by sex, significant associations were found only among men.
• Among men, heavy drinking vs. light drinking was associated with a 26% increased risk of distal colon cancer, a 17% higher risk of rectal cancer, and a 29% higher risk of unspecified colon cancer (but not proximal colon cancer).
• Among women, moderate drinking was associated with a 47% increased risk of distal colon cancer. Among nondrinkers, there was a 14% reduced risk of rectal cancer, compared with light drinkers.

IN PRACTICE:

“This population-based study provides evidence that higher levels of alcohol consumption may increase the risk of early-onset CRC,” the investigators concluded. “[E]ffective interventions are required to discourage alcohol consumption among young people and to tailor CRC screening approaches for high-risk individuals.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by researchers at Seoul National University, South Korea. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations include self-reported alcohol consumption. Data were missing for a higher number of male participants and younger participants, and there was a potential problem related to multiple comparisons and confounders. Only Korean individuals were included in the study, so larger studies involving various races are needed.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding was provided by grants from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. No potential conflicts of interest were reported.

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

Topline

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) use lowers the risk for death, cardiovascular disease, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver failure in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and compensated liver cirrhosis, new observational data show.

Methodology

• Population-based cohort study using data from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan.
• Propensity-score matching was used to construct 467 matched pairs of GLP-1 RA users and nonusers (mean age, 57) with T2D and compensated liver cirrhosis.
• All-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, decompensated cirrhosis, and other key outcomes were compared using multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

Takeaway

• During mean follow-up of about 3 years, rates of death per 1,000 person-years were 27.5 in GLP-1 RA users versus 55.9 in nonusers.
• GLP-1 RA users had a significantly lower risk for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.47), cardiovascular events (aHR, 0.6), decompensated cirrhosis (aHR, 0.7), hepatic encephalopathy (aHR, 0.59), and liver failure (aHR, 0.54).
• A longer cumulative duration of GLP-1 RA use was associated with lower risk for these outcomes compared with no use.

In practice

“GLP-1 RAs may be a treatment option for diabetes patients with liver cirrhosis. However, additional studies are needed to confirm our results and to explore the mechanisms of GLP-1 RAs, cirrhotic decompensation and hepatic encephalopathy,” the researchers concluded.

Study details

The study was led by Fu-Shun Yen, Dr Yen’s Clinic, Taoyuan, Taiwan. It was published online June 16, 2023, in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Funding was provided in part by the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Limitations 

Limitations of the study include a lack of complete information on family history, diet, body weight, and physical activity, as well as biochemical tests, hemoglobin A1c, pathology, and imaging findings that could potentially influence the results.

Disclosures

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Topline

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) use lowers the risk for death, cardiovascular disease, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver failure in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and compensated liver cirrhosis, new observational data show.

Methodology

• Population-based cohort study using data from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan.
• Propensity-score matching was used to construct 467 matched pairs of GLP-1 RA users and nonusers (mean age, 57) with T2D and compensated liver cirrhosis.
• All-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, decompensated cirrhosis, and other key outcomes were compared using multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

Takeaway

• During mean follow-up of about 3 years, rates of death per 1,000 person-years were 27.5 in GLP-1 RA users versus 55.9 in nonusers.
• GLP-1 RA users had a significantly lower risk for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.47), cardiovascular events (aHR, 0.6), decompensated cirrhosis (aHR, 0.7), hepatic encephalopathy (aHR, 0.59), and liver failure (aHR, 0.54).
• A longer cumulative duration of GLP-1 RA use was associated with lower risk for these outcomes compared with no use.

In practice

“GLP-1 RAs may be a treatment option for diabetes patients with liver cirrhosis. However, additional studies are needed to confirm our results and to explore the mechanisms of GLP-1 RAs, cirrhotic decompensation and hepatic encephalopathy,” the researchers concluded.

Study details

The study was led by Fu-Shun Yen, Dr Yen’s Clinic, Taoyuan, Taiwan. It was published online June 16, 2023, in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Funding was provided in part by the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Limitations 

Limitations of the study include a lack of complete information on family history, diet, body weight, and physical activity, as well as biochemical tests, hemoglobin A1c, pathology, and imaging findings that could potentially influence the results.

Disclosures

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Topline

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) use lowers the risk for death, cardiovascular disease, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver failure in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and compensated liver cirrhosis, new observational data show.

Methodology

• Population-based cohort study using data from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan.
• Propensity-score matching was used to construct 467 matched pairs of GLP-1 RA users and nonusers (mean age, 57) with T2D and compensated liver cirrhosis.
• All-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, decompensated cirrhosis, and other key outcomes were compared using multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

Takeaway

• During mean follow-up of about 3 years, rates of death per 1,000 person-years were 27.5 in GLP-1 RA users versus 55.9 in nonusers.
• GLP-1 RA users had a significantly lower risk for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.47), cardiovascular events (aHR, 0.6), decompensated cirrhosis (aHR, 0.7), hepatic encephalopathy (aHR, 0.59), and liver failure (aHR, 0.54).
• A longer cumulative duration of GLP-1 RA use was associated with lower risk for these outcomes compared with no use.

In practice

“GLP-1 RAs may be a treatment option for diabetes patients with liver cirrhosis. However, additional studies are needed to confirm our results and to explore the mechanisms of GLP-1 RAs, cirrhotic decompensation and hepatic encephalopathy,” the researchers concluded.

Study details

The study was led by Fu-Shun Yen, Dr Yen’s Clinic, Taoyuan, Taiwan. It was published online June 16, 2023, in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Funding was provided in part by the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Limitations 

Limitations of the study include a lack of complete information on family history, diet, body weight, and physical activity, as well as biochemical tests, hemoglobin A1c, pathology, and imaging findings that could potentially influence the results.

Disclosures

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

SAN DIEGO – An assessment of people with diabetes before Ramadan is vital so they can learn whether it is safe for them to fast, and if it is, how to do so without jeopardizing their health.

“With correct advice and support” from knowledgeable health care professionals “most people with type 2 diabetes can fast safely during Ramadan,” Mohamed Hassanein, MBChB, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

One of the most authoritative guidelines on how people with diabetes can safely fast during Ramadan has come from a collaboration between the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes & Ramadan International Alliance, an organization chaired by Dr. Hassanein. The groups issued a revised practical guide in 2021 for Ramadan fasting for people with diabetes, an update of the first edition released in 2016. Dr. Hassanein was lead author of the 2016 guidelines and edited the 2021 revision.

The 2021 guidelines also led to an update of a risk stratification app available for free from the DAR. The app provides risk stratification for people with diabetes and helps them access educational material to guide them through their fasts.

Although the latest guidelines address fasting for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, far more people with type 2 diabetes are at risk from fasting, and not only because of the higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

Results from a global survey of Muslims with diabetes in 2020 showed that 30% of those with type 1 diabetes did not do any fasting during Ramadan, but the percentage of those abstaining from fasting dropped to 16% among Muslims with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Hassanein explained. (Survey results in 2013 from about 38,000 Muslims in 39 countries showed a median of 7% of all adults did no fasting during Ramadan.)
 

Risk assessment by app

Currently, the DAR app is available in Arabic, English, French, and Urdu (the primary language of Pakistan), with more languages being added soon, said Dr. Hassanein, an endocrinologist at Dubai Hospital and professor at Mohammed Bin-Rashid University of Medicine & Health Sciences in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The app and screening protocol divides people with diabetes into low-, moderate-, and high-risk subgroups, and those at high risk are advised to refrain from fasting.

But the many other people with diabetes who potentially could fast still face risks for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia (from overindulgent break-fast meals), diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Individual risk for these adverse events depends on many factors, including age, duration of diabetes, diabetes type, treatments received, history of hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications.

Dr. Hassanein and colleagues documented the high rate of complications from fasting in a 2020 survey of more than 5,800 Muslims with type 2 diabetes from 20 countries. The results showed that 72% of survey participants had to interrupt their 30 days of daily fasting for at least 1 day because of a diabetes-related event, and an additional 28% had diabetes-triggered interruptions that totaled more than 7 days. About 7% required hospitalization or an emergency department visit, and 16% developed at least one episode of daytime hypoglycemia.
 

Endorsement from Islamic clerics

The recommended risk assessment, and resulting exemptions from fasting, have been endorsed by the Mofty of Egypt, a group of religious scholars who issue legal opinions interpreting Islamic law.

The Mofty agreed that fasting should be interrupted for cases of hypoglycemia with blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL, hyperglycemia with blood glucose greater than 300 mg/dL, symptoms of hypo- or hyperglycemia, or symptoms of acute illness. The Mofty also endorsed that although fasting is obligatory for low-risk adults with diabetes and preferred for those with moderate-risk diabetes, the latter group may consider not fasting out of concern for their safety or to take prescribed medications. People at high risk were deemed by the Mofty as individuals who should not fast because of the potential for harm.

Other notable 2020 survey findings included pre-Ramadan education being received by just 43% of the respondents, and no self-monitoring of blood glucose performed by about a quarter of the respondents.

The 2021 guidelines also include treatment recommendations, such as avoiding older, longer-acting sulfonylurea agents in people with type 2 diabetes. And having people achieve stable, guideline-directed dosages of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists before Ramadan starts, rather than trying to initiate these agents during Ramadan. The guidelines also recommend reducing usual insulin doses when fasting during Ramadan.

Despite summarizing findings from several observational studies and surveys, research to date on how to optimize the safety of diabetes management during Ramadan fasting “is all very basic,” Dr. Hassanein said in an interview.

“We need more randomized clinical trials. We need more [data and evidence] for every single aspect” of management, he added.

The 2021 Diabetes and Ramadan Practical Guidelines were supported by an educational grant from Sanofi and Servier. Dr. Hassanein has reported being a speaker on behalf of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

SAN DIEGO – An assessment of people with diabetes before Ramadan is vital so they can learn whether it is safe for them to fast, and if it is, how to do so without jeopardizing their health.

“With correct advice and support” from knowledgeable health care professionals “most people with type 2 diabetes can fast safely during Ramadan,” Mohamed Hassanein, MBChB, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

One of the most authoritative guidelines on how people with diabetes can safely fast during Ramadan has come from a collaboration between the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes & Ramadan International Alliance, an organization chaired by Dr. Hassanein. The groups issued a revised practical guide in 2021 for Ramadan fasting for people with diabetes, an update of the first edition released in 2016. Dr. Hassanein was lead author of the 2016 guidelines and edited the 2021 revision.

The 2021 guidelines also led to an update of a risk stratification app available for free from the DAR. The app provides risk stratification for people with diabetes and helps them access educational material to guide them through their fasts.

Although the latest guidelines address fasting for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, far more people with type 2 diabetes are at risk from fasting, and not only because of the higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

Results from a global survey of Muslims with diabetes in 2020 showed that 30% of those with type 1 diabetes did not do any fasting during Ramadan, but the percentage of those abstaining from fasting dropped to 16% among Muslims with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Hassanein explained. (Survey results in 2013 from about 38,000 Muslims in 39 countries showed a median of 7% of all adults did no fasting during Ramadan.)
 

Risk assessment by app

Currently, the DAR app is available in Arabic, English, French, and Urdu (the primary language of Pakistan), with more languages being added soon, said Dr. Hassanein, an endocrinologist at Dubai Hospital and professor at Mohammed Bin-Rashid University of Medicine & Health Sciences in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The app and screening protocol divides people with diabetes into low-, moderate-, and high-risk subgroups, and those at high risk are advised to refrain from fasting.

But the many other people with diabetes who potentially could fast still face risks for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia (from overindulgent break-fast meals), diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Individual risk for these adverse events depends on many factors, including age, duration of diabetes, diabetes type, treatments received, history of hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications.

Dr. Hassanein and colleagues documented the high rate of complications from fasting in a 2020 survey of more than 5,800 Muslims with type 2 diabetes from 20 countries. The results showed that 72% of survey participants had to interrupt their 30 days of daily fasting for at least 1 day because of a diabetes-related event, and an additional 28% had diabetes-triggered interruptions that totaled more than 7 days. About 7% required hospitalization or an emergency department visit, and 16% developed at least one episode of daytime hypoglycemia.
 

Endorsement from Islamic clerics

The recommended risk assessment, and resulting exemptions from fasting, have been endorsed by the Mofty of Egypt, a group of religious scholars who issue legal opinions interpreting Islamic law.

The Mofty agreed that fasting should be interrupted for cases of hypoglycemia with blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL, hyperglycemia with blood glucose greater than 300 mg/dL, symptoms of hypo- or hyperglycemia, or symptoms of acute illness. The Mofty also endorsed that although fasting is obligatory for low-risk adults with diabetes and preferred for those with moderate-risk diabetes, the latter group may consider not fasting out of concern for their safety or to take prescribed medications. People at high risk were deemed by the Mofty as individuals who should not fast because of the potential for harm.

Other notable 2020 survey findings included pre-Ramadan education being received by just 43% of the respondents, and no self-monitoring of blood glucose performed by about a quarter of the respondents.

The 2021 guidelines also include treatment recommendations, such as avoiding older, longer-acting sulfonylurea agents in people with type 2 diabetes. And having people achieve stable, guideline-directed dosages of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists before Ramadan starts, rather than trying to initiate these agents during Ramadan. The guidelines also recommend reducing usual insulin doses when fasting during Ramadan.

Despite summarizing findings from several observational studies and surveys, research to date on how to optimize the safety of diabetes management during Ramadan fasting “is all very basic,” Dr. Hassanein said in an interview.

“We need more randomized clinical trials. We need more [data and evidence] for every single aspect” of management, he added.

The 2021 Diabetes and Ramadan Practical Guidelines were supported by an educational grant from Sanofi and Servier. Dr. Hassanein has reported being a speaker on behalf of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

SAN DIEGO – An assessment of people with diabetes before Ramadan is vital so they can learn whether it is safe for them to fast, and if it is, how to do so without jeopardizing their health.

“With correct advice and support” from knowledgeable health care professionals “most people with type 2 diabetes can fast safely during Ramadan,” Mohamed Hassanein, MBChB, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

One of the most authoritative guidelines on how people with diabetes can safely fast during Ramadan has come from a collaboration between the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes & Ramadan International Alliance, an organization chaired by Dr. Hassanein. The groups issued a revised practical guide in 2021 for Ramadan fasting for people with diabetes, an update of the first edition released in 2016. Dr. Hassanein was lead author of the 2016 guidelines and edited the 2021 revision.

The 2021 guidelines also led to an update of a risk stratification app available for free from the DAR. The app provides risk stratification for people with diabetes and helps them access educational material to guide them through their fasts.

Although the latest guidelines address fasting for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, far more people with type 2 diabetes are at risk from fasting, and not only because of the higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

Results from a global survey of Muslims with diabetes in 2020 showed that 30% of those with type 1 diabetes did not do any fasting during Ramadan, but the percentage of those abstaining from fasting dropped to 16% among Muslims with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Hassanein explained. (Survey results in 2013 from about 38,000 Muslims in 39 countries showed a median of 7% of all adults did no fasting during Ramadan.)
 

Risk assessment by app

Currently, the DAR app is available in Arabic, English, French, and Urdu (the primary language of Pakistan), with more languages being added soon, said Dr. Hassanein, an endocrinologist at Dubai Hospital and professor at Mohammed Bin-Rashid University of Medicine & Health Sciences in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The app and screening protocol divides people with diabetes into low-, moderate-, and high-risk subgroups, and those at high risk are advised to refrain from fasting.

But the many other people with diabetes who potentially could fast still face risks for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia (from overindulgent break-fast meals), diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Individual risk for these adverse events depends on many factors, including age, duration of diabetes, diabetes type, treatments received, history of hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications.

Dr. Hassanein and colleagues documented the high rate of complications from fasting in a 2020 survey of more than 5,800 Muslims with type 2 diabetes from 20 countries. The results showed that 72% of survey participants had to interrupt their 30 days of daily fasting for at least 1 day because of a diabetes-related event, and an additional 28% had diabetes-triggered interruptions that totaled more than 7 days. About 7% required hospitalization or an emergency department visit, and 16% developed at least one episode of daytime hypoglycemia.
 

Endorsement from Islamic clerics

The recommended risk assessment, and resulting exemptions from fasting, have been endorsed by the Mofty of Egypt, a group of religious scholars who issue legal opinions interpreting Islamic law.

The Mofty agreed that fasting should be interrupted for cases of hypoglycemia with blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL, hyperglycemia with blood glucose greater than 300 mg/dL, symptoms of hypo- or hyperglycemia, or symptoms of acute illness. The Mofty also endorsed that although fasting is obligatory for low-risk adults with diabetes and preferred for those with moderate-risk diabetes, the latter group may consider not fasting out of concern for their safety or to take prescribed medications. People at high risk were deemed by the Mofty as individuals who should not fast because of the potential for harm.

Other notable 2020 survey findings included pre-Ramadan education being received by just 43% of the respondents, and no self-monitoring of blood glucose performed by about a quarter of the respondents.

The 2021 guidelines also include treatment recommendations, such as avoiding older, longer-acting sulfonylurea agents in people with type 2 diabetes. And having people achieve stable, guideline-directed dosages of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists before Ramadan starts, rather than trying to initiate these agents during Ramadan. The guidelines also recommend reducing usual insulin doses when fasting during Ramadan.

Despite summarizing findings from several observational studies and surveys, research to date on how to optimize the safety of diabetes management during Ramadan fasting “is all very basic,” Dr. Hassanein said in an interview.

“We need more randomized clinical trials. We need more [data and evidence] for every single aspect” of management, he added.

The 2021 Diabetes and Ramadan Practical Guidelines were supported by an educational grant from Sanofi and Servier. Dr. Hassanein has reported being a speaker on behalf of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

The advent of subcutaneously injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes during 2005 was arguably one of the greatest therapeutic advances for the condition since metformin.

I was an early advocate of the class, given its potent glucose-lowering efficacy, secondary benefits of significant weight reduction, and a low risk for hypoglycemia (if not used alongside sulfonylureas or insulin).

During 2016, the first cardiovascular outcomes trial for a GLP-1 agonist, in the form of the LEADER study, was reported. These trials were mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in the aftermath of the rosiglitazone debacle in which the type 2 diabetes drug had its use restricted because of cardiovascular events attributed to it in a meta-analysis. These events weren’t seen in a subsequent trial, and the FDA’s restrictions were later lifted.

LEADER examined the once-daily GLP-1 agonist liraglutide and showed that, in addition to its glucose-lowering effects, liraglutide brought cardiovascular benefits to the table. Moreover, during 2019, the REWIND trial, the cardiovascular outcome trial for once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide, revealed the same cardiovascular benefits but also demonstrated a lower incidence of macroalbuminuria, albeit with no significant improvements in hard renal endpoints such as estimated glomerular filtration decline or rates of dialysis.

Despite these compelling benefits, the uptake of GLP-1 agonists has always been slower than that of other compelling agents such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, mainly because the latter are oral drugs, while GLP-1 agonists were initially injectable medications. This difference has proven to be a barrier for patients and clinicians alike.

However, in 2019, oral semaglutide, in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg, was approved by the FDA as the first (and still only) commercially available oral GLP-1 agonist to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. This approval was hailed as a “game changer” at the time. The treatment had no proven cardiovascular benefits, only lack of cardiovascular harm in PIONEER 6. The SOUL cardiovascular outcome trial for oral semaglutide in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg is due to be completed during 2024. But semaglutide certainly had compelling glucose-lowering efficacy and secondary benefits of significant weight loss similar to those of its injectable counterparts.

Cardiovascular benefits of injectable semaglutide for type 2 diabetes were demonstrated in the SUSTAIN-6 trial in 2016, and the U.S. label for Ozempic was amended accordingly in 2020.

Again, I was an early adopter of oral semaglutide, and it has been great for my patients with type 2 diabetes to have the option of a noninjectable GLP-1 agonist. However, it is not without its drawbacks: Oral semaglutide must be taken on an empty stomach, at least 30 minutes before any other food, drink, or medication, and with no more than 120 mL water to maximize absorption and bioavailability.

I am of South Asian origin and have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. If I develop type 2 diabetes in the future and require treatment escalation to a GLP-1 agonist, I will most likely opt for a weekly injectable, as it would best fit my lifestyle. But having choices of preparation has been a huge advantage in helping my patients best individualize their therapies.

I attended the recent American Diabetes Association congress in San Diego, which had two interesting oral GLP-1 agonist sessions on the program.

The first discussed the efficacy and safety of a new daily oral nonpeptide GLP-1 agonist, orforglipron, for weight reduction in adults with obesity. The phase 2 results were impressive, with clinically significant reductions in weight and cardiometabolic parameters, and a reassuring safety profile similar to that of the injectable GLP-1 agonists.

Notably, because orforglipron is a nonpeptide, it can be taken without any food, water, or medication restrictions. This indeed could turn out to be a real game changer by simplifying the complex administration of oral semaglutide, which no doubt has hampered compliance.

In fact, an Association of British Clinical Diabetologists real-world audit (also presented at the ADA Congress as a poster) of oral semaglutide use for type 2 diabetes found clinically significant hemoglobin A1c and weight reductions, but perhaps less than expected when compared with the clinical trial program, which could be a sign of poor adherence.

A phase 3 trial of orforglipron is underway (ATTAIN-2), exploring its efficacy and safety in adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes, but it is not due to be completed until 2027.

I also attended the session presenting the results of the OASIS 1 and PIONEER-PLUS trials of higher-dose oral semaglutide.

OASIS 1 explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide, 50 mg once daily, for the treatment of adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes. The investigators found clinically significant reductions in body weight of around 15%-17% from baseline, compared with placebo. This result was similar to the weight loss observed in the STEP 1 trial of 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injectable semaglutide in adults with obesity (a much lower dose is needed when GLP-1 agonists are given as injectables because the oral forms are not very bioavailable). The side-effect profile was also similar.

PIONEER PLUS explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Patients treated with 50 mg oral semaglutide had around a 2% reduction in A1c and an 8-kg (18-lb) reduction in weight from baseline. It is well known that people with obesity and type 2 diabetes lose less weight than those with obesity alone, so this result was impressive. Again, the safety profile was similar to that of the wider class, with predictably high levels of gastrointestinal side effects.

So, the future appears very bright for oral GLP-1 agonists. I hope that future developments bring the class to an even wider demographic and perhaps reduce some of the global inequities in managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. It should be easier (and cheaper) to mass-produce and distribute an oral medication, compared with an injectable one.

However, it should be noted that, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service tariff cost of oral semaglutide (at usual doses for type 2 diabetes) remains similar to that of injectable semaglutide (at doses for type 2 diabetes rather than obesity). And notably, the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides whether new drugs will be funded on the NHS, has recently delayed its decision on approving tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP agonist, for type 2 diabetes, citing the requirement for further evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness. This is not uncommon for NICE, and I fully expect tirzepatide to gain NICE approval on resubmission later in 2023.

One solution to contain costs might be a phased approach to the management of obesity, with initial stages using highly efficacious obesity drugs such as tirzepatide, injectable semaglutide, or high-dose oral semaglutide, and then transitioning to lower-efficacy and cheaper obesity drugs for weight maintenance.

On this note, a generic version of liraglutide (a once-daily injectable GLP-1 agonist) will be available during 2024. Moreover, it will be interesting to see the cost of orforglipron, assuming that it is approved, when it becomes commercially available in a few years, given that a nonpeptide agent should be cheaper to produce than a peptide-like semaglutide.

This phased approach is analogous to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, where potent targeted biologic therapy is often used early on to achieve remission of rheumatoid arthritis, followed by a switch to a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for maintenance therapy, for reasons of long-term safety and health economics.

Using this approach for obesity management might help the sustainability of health care systems.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

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

The advent of subcutaneously injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes during 2005 was arguably one of the greatest therapeutic advances for the condition since metformin.

I was an early advocate of the class, given its potent glucose-lowering efficacy, secondary benefits of significant weight reduction, and a low risk for hypoglycemia (if not used alongside sulfonylureas or insulin).

During 2016, the first cardiovascular outcomes trial for a GLP-1 agonist, in the form of the LEADER study, was reported. These trials were mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in the aftermath of the rosiglitazone debacle in which the type 2 diabetes drug had its use restricted because of cardiovascular events attributed to it in a meta-analysis. These events weren’t seen in a subsequent trial, and the FDA’s restrictions were later lifted.

LEADER examined the once-daily GLP-1 agonist liraglutide and showed that, in addition to its glucose-lowering effects, liraglutide brought cardiovascular benefits to the table. Moreover, during 2019, the REWIND trial, the cardiovascular outcome trial for once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide, revealed the same cardiovascular benefits but also demonstrated a lower incidence of macroalbuminuria, albeit with no significant improvements in hard renal endpoints such as estimated glomerular filtration decline or rates of dialysis.

Despite these compelling benefits, the uptake of GLP-1 agonists has always been slower than that of other compelling agents such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, mainly because the latter are oral drugs, while GLP-1 agonists were initially injectable medications. This difference has proven to be a barrier for patients and clinicians alike.

However, in 2019, oral semaglutide, in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg, was approved by the FDA as the first (and still only) commercially available oral GLP-1 agonist to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. This approval was hailed as a “game changer” at the time. The treatment had no proven cardiovascular benefits, only lack of cardiovascular harm in PIONEER 6. The SOUL cardiovascular outcome trial for oral semaglutide in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg is due to be completed during 2024. But semaglutide certainly had compelling glucose-lowering efficacy and secondary benefits of significant weight loss similar to those of its injectable counterparts.

Cardiovascular benefits of injectable semaglutide for type 2 diabetes were demonstrated in the SUSTAIN-6 trial in 2016, and the U.S. label for Ozempic was amended accordingly in 2020.

Again, I was an early adopter of oral semaglutide, and it has been great for my patients with type 2 diabetes to have the option of a noninjectable GLP-1 agonist. However, it is not without its drawbacks: Oral semaglutide must be taken on an empty stomach, at least 30 minutes before any other food, drink, or medication, and with no more than 120 mL water to maximize absorption and bioavailability.

I am of South Asian origin and have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. If I develop type 2 diabetes in the future and require treatment escalation to a GLP-1 agonist, I will most likely opt for a weekly injectable, as it would best fit my lifestyle. But having choices of preparation has been a huge advantage in helping my patients best individualize their therapies.

I attended the recent American Diabetes Association congress in San Diego, which had two interesting oral GLP-1 agonist sessions on the program.

The first discussed the efficacy and safety of a new daily oral nonpeptide GLP-1 agonist, orforglipron, for weight reduction in adults with obesity. The phase 2 results were impressive, with clinically significant reductions in weight and cardiometabolic parameters, and a reassuring safety profile similar to that of the injectable GLP-1 agonists.

Notably, because orforglipron is a nonpeptide, it can be taken without any food, water, or medication restrictions. This indeed could turn out to be a real game changer by simplifying the complex administration of oral semaglutide, which no doubt has hampered compliance.

In fact, an Association of British Clinical Diabetologists real-world audit (also presented at the ADA Congress as a poster) of oral semaglutide use for type 2 diabetes found clinically significant hemoglobin A1c and weight reductions, but perhaps less than expected when compared with the clinical trial program, which could be a sign of poor adherence.

A phase 3 trial of orforglipron is underway (ATTAIN-2), exploring its efficacy and safety in adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes, but it is not due to be completed until 2027.

I also attended the session presenting the results of the OASIS 1 and PIONEER-PLUS trials of higher-dose oral semaglutide.

OASIS 1 explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide, 50 mg once daily, for the treatment of adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes. The investigators found clinically significant reductions in body weight of around 15%-17% from baseline, compared with placebo. This result was similar to the weight loss observed in the STEP 1 trial of 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injectable semaglutide in adults with obesity (a much lower dose is needed when GLP-1 agonists are given as injectables because the oral forms are not very bioavailable). The side-effect profile was also similar.

PIONEER PLUS explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Patients treated with 50 mg oral semaglutide had around a 2% reduction in A1c and an 8-kg (18-lb) reduction in weight from baseline. It is well known that people with obesity and type 2 diabetes lose less weight than those with obesity alone, so this result was impressive. Again, the safety profile was similar to that of the wider class, with predictably high levels of gastrointestinal side effects.

So, the future appears very bright for oral GLP-1 agonists. I hope that future developments bring the class to an even wider demographic and perhaps reduce some of the global inequities in managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. It should be easier (and cheaper) to mass-produce and distribute an oral medication, compared with an injectable one.

However, it should be noted that, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service tariff cost of oral semaglutide (at usual doses for type 2 diabetes) remains similar to that of injectable semaglutide (at doses for type 2 diabetes rather than obesity). And notably, the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides whether new drugs will be funded on the NHS, has recently delayed its decision on approving tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP agonist, for type 2 diabetes, citing the requirement for further evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness. This is not uncommon for NICE, and I fully expect tirzepatide to gain NICE approval on resubmission later in 2023.

One solution to contain costs might be a phased approach to the management of obesity, with initial stages using highly efficacious obesity drugs such as tirzepatide, injectable semaglutide, or high-dose oral semaglutide, and then transitioning to lower-efficacy and cheaper obesity drugs for weight maintenance.

On this note, a generic version of liraglutide (a once-daily injectable GLP-1 agonist) will be available during 2024. Moreover, it will be interesting to see the cost of orforglipron, assuming that it is approved, when it becomes commercially available in a few years, given that a nonpeptide agent should be cheaper to produce than a peptide-like semaglutide.

This phased approach is analogous to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, where potent targeted biologic therapy is often used early on to achieve remission of rheumatoid arthritis, followed by a switch to a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for maintenance therapy, for reasons of long-term safety and health economics.

Using this approach for obesity management might help the sustainability of health care systems.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

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

The advent of subcutaneously injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes during 2005 was arguably one of the greatest therapeutic advances for the condition since metformin.

I was an early advocate of the class, given its potent glucose-lowering efficacy, secondary benefits of significant weight reduction, and a low risk for hypoglycemia (if not used alongside sulfonylureas or insulin).

During 2016, the first cardiovascular outcomes trial for a GLP-1 agonist, in the form of the LEADER study, was reported. These trials were mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in the aftermath of the rosiglitazone debacle in which the type 2 diabetes drug had its use restricted because of cardiovascular events attributed to it in a meta-analysis. These events weren’t seen in a subsequent trial, and the FDA’s restrictions were later lifted.

LEADER examined the once-daily GLP-1 agonist liraglutide and showed that, in addition to its glucose-lowering effects, liraglutide brought cardiovascular benefits to the table. Moreover, during 2019, the REWIND trial, the cardiovascular outcome trial for once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide, revealed the same cardiovascular benefits but also demonstrated a lower incidence of macroalbuminuria, albeit with no significant improvements in hard renal endpoints such as estimated glomerular filtration decline or rates of dialysis.

Despite these compelling benefits, the uptake of GLP-1 agonists has always been slower than that of other compelling agents such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, mainly because the latter are oral drugs, while GLP-1 agonists were initially injectable medications. This difference has proven to be a barrier for patients and clinicians alike.

However, in 2019, oral semaglutide, in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg, was approved by the FDA as the first (and still only) commercially available oral GLP-1 agonist to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. This approval was hailed as a “game changer” at the time. The treatment had no proven cardiovascular benefits, only lack of cardiovascular harm in PIONEER 6. The SOUL cardiovascular outcome trial for oral semaglutide in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg is due to be completed during 2024. But semaglutide certainly had compelling glucose-lowering efficacy and secondary benefits of significant weight loss similar to those of its injectable counterparts.

Cardiovascular benefits of injectable semaglutide for type 2 diabetes were demonstrated in the SUSTAIN-6 trial in 2016, and the U.S. label for Ozempic was amended accordingly in 2020.

Again, I was an early adopter of oral semaglutide, and it has been great for my patients with type 2 diabetes to have the option of a noninjectable GLP-1 agonist. However, it is not without its drawbacks: Oral semaglutide must be taken on an empty stomach, at least 30 minutes before any other food, drink, or medication, and with no more than 120 mL water to maximize absorption and bioavailability.

I am of South Asian origin and have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. If I develop type 2 diabetes in the future and require treatment escalation to a GLP-1 agonist, I will most likely opt for a weekly injectable, as it would best fit my lifestyle. But having choices of preparation has been a huge advantage in helping my patients best individualize their therapies.

I attended the recent American Diabetes Association congress in San Diego, which had two interesting oral GLP-1 agonist sessions on the program.

The first discussed the efficacy and safety of a new daily oral nonpeptide GLP-1 agonist, orforglipron, for weight reduction in adults with obesity. The phase 2 results were impressive, with clinically significant reductions in weight and cardiometabolic parameters, and a reassuring safety profile similar to that of the injectable GLP-1 agonists.

Notably, because orforglipron is a nonpeptide, it can be taken without any food, water, or medication restrictions. This indeed could turn out to be a real game changer by simplifying the complex administration of oral semaglutide, which no doubt has hampered compliance.

In fact, an Association of British Clinical Diabetologists real-world audit (also presented at the ADA Congress as a poster) of oral semaglutide use for type 2 diabetes found clinically significant hemoglobin A1c and weight reductions, but perhaps less than expected when compared with the clinical trial program, which could be a sign of poor adherence.

A phase 3 trial of orforglipron is underway (ATTAIN-2), exploring its efficacy and safety in adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes, but it is not due to be completed until 2027.

I also attended the session presenting the results of the OASIS 1 and PIONEER-PLUS trials of higher-dose oral semaglutide.

OASIS 1 explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide, 50 mg once daily, for the treatment of adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes. The investigators found clinically significant reductions in body weight of around 15%-17% from baseline, compared with placebo. This result was similar to the weight loss observed in the STEP 1 trial of 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injectable semaglutide in adults with obesity (a much lower dose is needed when GLP-1 agonists are given as injectables because the oral forms are not very bioavailable). The side-effect profile was also similar.

PIONEER PLUS explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Patients treated with 50 mg oral semaglutide had around a 2% reduction in A1c and an 8-kg (18-lb) reduction in weight from baseline. It is well known that people with obesity and type 2 diabetes lose less weight than those with obesity alone, so this result was impressive. Again, the safety profile was similar to that of the wider class, with predictably high levels of gastrointestinal side effects.

So, the future appears very bright for oral GLP-1 agonists. I hope that future developments bring the class to an even wider demographic and perhaps reduce some of the global inequities in managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. It should be easier (and cheaper) to mass-produce and distribute an oral medication, compared with an injectable one.

However, it should be noted that, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service tariff cost of oral semaglutide (at usual doses for type 2 diabetes) remains similar to that of injectable semaglutide (at doses for type 2 diabetes rather than obesity). And notably, the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides whether new drugs will be funded on the NHS, has recently delayed its decision on approving tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP agonist, for type 2 diabetes, citing the requirement for further evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness. This is not uncommon for NICE, and I fully expect tirzepatide to gain NICE approval on resubmission later in 2023.

One solution to contain costs might be a phased approach to the management of obesity, with initial stages using highly efficacious obesity drugs such as tirzepatide, injectable semaglutide, or high-dose oral semaglutide, and then transitioning to lower-efficacy and cheaper obesity drugs for weight maintenance.

On this note, a generic version of liraglutide (a once-daily injectable GLP-1 agonist) will be available during 2024. Moreover, it will be interesting to see the cost of orforglipron, assuming that it is approved, when it becomes commercially available in a few years, given that a nonpeptide agent should be cheaper to produce than a peptide-like semaglutide.

This phased approach is analogous to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, where potent targeted biologic therapy is often used early on to achieve remission of rheumatoid arthritis, followed by a switch to a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for maintenance therapy, for reasons of long-term safety and health economics.

Using this approach for obesity management might help the sustainability of health care systems.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

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

TOPLINE:

High-dose vitamin D supplementation may prevent atrial fibrillation (AFib) in healthy elderly men and women, a post hoc analysis from a randomized trial conducted in Finland suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Observational studies have suggested that vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased risk for AFib, but few randomized trials have looked at the effect of vitamin D supplementation on AFib incidence in healthy people.
• The study, a post hoc analysis from a trial that explored the effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on incidence of cardiovascular diseases and cancer, included 2,495 vitamin D–sufficient healthy older adults, mean age 68.2 years, of whom 43% were women.
• Participants had been randomized to one of three groups in which they received vitamin D3 at either 1,600 IU/day or 3,200 IU/day, or placebo.
• Serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations were measured and data on incident AFib were gathered from national health records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Atrial fibrillation was diagnosed in 190 participants.
• Over a follow-up averaging 4.1 years, risk for incident AFib was reduced by 27% for participants who received the 1,600 IU/day dose, compared with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.02; P = .07), and by 32% for those in the 3,200 IU/day arm; HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.96; P = .03).
• The incident-AFib risk was reduced by 30% in a comparison of the two vitamin D groups combined versus the placebo group; HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53-0.94; P = .02).
• After exclusion of 122 participants who reported being on antiarrhythmic medications at baseline, the 1,600 IU/day group showed a significant 27% reduction in risk for AF (95% CI, 4%-58%; P = .03) and the 3,200 IU/day group a nonsignificant 30% (95% CI, 5%-53%; P = .08) reduction in risk.

IN PRACTICE:

High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation may reduce incidence of AFib in a generally healthy, largely vitamin D–sufficient elderly population, the authors proposed. Additional controlled trials are needed, especially in diverse populations.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jyrki K. Virtanen, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio, and colleagues. It was published in the American Heart Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

Atrial fibrillation was not prespecified as a primary outcome, and the results differ from those of other randomized controlled trials. Information on type of AFib (whether paroxysmal or nonparoxysmal, for example) wasn’t available nor were participants’ history of AFib. All participants were White and from Finland, limiting generalizability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, the Juho Vainio Foundation, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, Finnish Diabetes Research Foundation, and the Finnish Cultural Foundation. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Mars Edge. Another coauthor disclosed receipt of a grant from Orion. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

High-dose vitamin D supplementation may prevent atrial fibrillation (AFib) in healthy elderly men and women, a post hoc analysis from a randomized trial conducted in Finland suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Observational studies have suggested that vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased risk for AFib, but few randomized trials have looked at the effect of vitamin D supplementation on AFib incidence in healthy people.
• The study, a post hoc analysis from a trial that explored the effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on incidence of cardiovascular diseases and cancer, included 2,495 vitamin D–sufficient healthy older adults, mean age 68.2 years, of whom 43% were women.
• Participants had been randomized to one of three groups in which they received vitamin D3 at either 1,600 IU/day or 3,200 IU/day, or placebo.
• Serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations were measured and data on incident AFib were gathered from national health records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Atrial fibrillation was diagnosed in 190 participants.
• Over a follow-up averaging 4.1 years, risk for incident AFib was reduced by 27% for participants who received the 1,600 IU/day dose, compared with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.02; P = .07), and by 32% for those in the 3,200 IU/day arm; HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.96; P = .03).
• The incident-AFib risk was reduced by 30% in a comparison of the two vitamin D groups combined versus the placebo group; HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53-0.94; P = .02).
• After exclusion of 122 participants who reported being on antiarrhythmic medications at baseline, the 1,600 IU/day group showed a significant 27% reduction in risk for AF (95% CI, 4%-58%; P = .03) and the 3,200 IU/day group a nonsignificant 30% (95% CI, 5%-53%; P = .08) reduction in risk.

IN PRACTICE:

High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation may reduce incidence of AFib in a generally healthy, largely vitamin D–sufficient elderly population, the authors proposed. Additional controlled trials are needed, especially in diverse populations.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jyrki K. Virtanen, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio, and colleagues. It was published in the American Heart Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

Atrial fibrillation was not prespecified as a primary outcome, and the results differ from those of other randomized controlled trials. Information on type of AFib (whether paroxysmal or nonparoxysmal, for example) wasn’t available nor were participants’ history of AFib. All participants were White and from Finland, limiting generalizability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, the Juho Vainio Foundation, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, Finnish Diabetes Research Foundation, and the Finnish Cultural Foundation. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Mars Edge. Another coauthor disclosed receipt of a grant from Orion. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

High-dose vitamin D supplementation may prevent atrial fibrillation (AFib) in healthy elderly men and women, a post hoc analysis from a randomized trial conducted in Finland suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Observational studies have suggested that vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased risk for AFib, but few randomized trials have looked at the effect of vitamin D supplementation on AFib incidence in healthy people.
• The study, a post hoc analysis from a trial that explored the effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on incidence of cardiovascular diseases and cancer, included 2,495 vitamin D–sufficient healthy older adults, mean age 68.2 years, of whom 43% were women.
• Participants had been randomized to one of three groups in which they received vitamin D3 at either 1,600 IU/day or 3,200 IU/day, or placebo.
• Serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations were measured and data on incident AFib were gathered from national health records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Atrial fibrillation was diagnosed in 190 participants.
• Over a follow-up averaging 4.1 years, risk for incident AFib was reduced by 27% for participants who received the 1,600 IU/day dose, compared with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.02; P = .07), and by 32% for those in the 3,200 IU/day arm; HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.96; P = .03).
• The incident-AFib risk was reduced by 30% in a comparison of the two vitamin D groups combined versus the placebo group; HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53-0.94; P = .02).
• After exclusion of 122 participants who reported being on antiarrhythmic medications at baseline, the 1,600 IU/day group showed a significant 27% reduction in risk for AF (95% CI, 4%-58%; P = .03) and the 3,200 IU/day group a nonsignificant 30% (95% CI, 5%-53%; P = .08) reduction in risk.

IN PRACTICE:

High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation may reduce incidence of AFib in a generally healthy, largely vitamin D–sufficient elderly population, the authors proposed. Additional controlled trials are needed, especially in diverse populations.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jyrki K. Virtanen, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio, and colleagues. It was published in the American Heart Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

Atrial fibrillation was not prespecified as a primary outcome, and the results differ from those of other randomized controlled trials. Information on type of AFib (whether paroxysmal or nonparoxysmal, for example) wasn’t available nor were participants’ history of AFib. All participants were White and from Finland, limiting generalizability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, the Juho Vainio Foundation, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, Finnish Diabetes Research Foundation, and the Finnish Cultural Foundation. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Mars Edge. Another coauthor disclosed receipt of a grant from Orion. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – Prescribing optimal medical therapy for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease can and should improve, speakers urged at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A symposium there focused on the recent randomized, controlled COORDINATE-Diabetes trial, which investigated a multipronged educational intervention in 43 U.S. cardiology clinics aimed at improving prescribing of guideline-recommended treatments for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Compared with clinics that were randomly assigned to offer usual care, the intervention significantly increased recommended prescribing of high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and/or glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 agonists).

COORDINATE-Diabetes was aimed at cardiologists, who typically see these patients more often than do endocrinologists. However, the results are relevant to all health care providers involved in the care of those with type 2 diabetes, speakers argued at the ADA symposium.

“This is a cardiology study. I think it’s safe to say that not too many of you in the room are cardiologists. So why would you care about the results of the COORDINATE study?” said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Lingvay went on to outline reasons that the COORDINATE findings apply to endocrinologists and primary care clinicians, as well as cardiologists. For one, a study from her institution that was presented at a recent internal medicine meeting showed that, among more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or chronic kidney disease, the proportion of patients who were prescribed the appropriate guideline-indicated medications was 20.1% for those seen in primary care, 24.8% in endocrinology, 20.3% in cardiology, and 18.3% in nephrology.

“So, we [endocrinologists are] not that much better [than other specialties]” at prescribing, she noted.

Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, in independent commentary called the COORDINATE trial and other similar initiatives “the beginning of care transformation.”

The COORDINATE-Diabetes results were originally presented in March at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published in JAMA.
 

‘They’ve shown we can do better’

Asked to comment, Robert H. Eckel, MD, said in an interview, “I look at COORDINATE as a wake-up call to the need for multispecialty approaches to people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ... I think it’s a step in the door.”

Dr. Eckel, who has long advocated for a new “cardiometabolic” physician subspecialty, noted that COORDINATE-Diabetes “stopped short of training health care providers in the science and medicine of cardio-renal-metabolic disease.”

Nonetheless, regarding the efforts toward a more coordinated system of care, Dr. Eckel said, “I support the concept, unequivocally.” He is associated with the division of endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

But the cost-effectiveness of the intervention “requires time to assess,” he added. “We don’t know anything yet other than [that] managing drug administration to meet goals that relate to outcomes in people with diabetes can be accomplished. They’ve shown that we can do better.”
 

Why should you care about a cardiology study?

In COORDINATE-Diabetes, 20 of the centers were randomly assigned to provide five interventions: assess local barriers, develop care pathways, coordinate care, educate clinicians, report data back to the clinics, and provide tools for the 459 participants. The other 23 clinics, with 590 participants, were randomly assigned to provide usual care per practice guidelines.

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that prescribed all three groups of the recommended therapies at 6-12 months after enrollment; 37.9% prescribed the intervention, and 14.5% provided usual care, a significant 23% difference (P < .001). The rate of prescriptions of each of the three individual drug groups was also significantly higher with the intervention. No differences were seen in cardiovascular risk factors or outcomes.

Dr. Lingvay pointed out that the interventions tested in COORDINATE – such as fact sheets and medication passports for patients, system audits and feedback, and provider grand rounds – can be extrapolated to any specialist setting.

She added that the long-held model of team-based care means that “everyone involved in the care of these patients is responsible for ensuring best practices are followed.” Part of that, she said, is helping other specialists prescribe the same medications and communicate across the team.

For all specialists, she recommends using the resources available on the COORDINATE website.
 

‘It’s not a silver bullet; additional solutions are needed’

In his commentary, Dr. Kosiborod, executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, noted, “The treatments studied in COORDINATE represent the biggest advances in a generation when it comes to improving outcomes in this population. ... We’re living in a renaissance age with the number of tools we have available. ... It’s getting better every day.”

Moreover, all the relevant professional society guidelines now recommend GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. “And yet, when we look, less than 1 in 10 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are getting appropriate recommended care. One of the lessons of COORDINATE is that this needs to change if we’re really going to improve our patients’ lives.”

The barriers aren’t simply financial, Dr. Kosiborod said. He pointed to two studies that show that even reducing out-of-pocket costs resulted in only modest increases in adherence.

Educational gaps on the part of both clinicians and patients also factor in, as do misaligned incentives.

“Clinicians get paid for how many things they do, not necessarily how well they do them. Everyone wants to do the right thing, but ultimately, incentives do matter,” he emphasized.

While the COORDINATE-Diabetes interventions addressed several of the barriers, two-thirds of the participants still did not receive optimal therapy.

“It’s not a silver bullet. ... Additional solutions are needed,” Dr. Kosiborod observed.
 

Transformation occurs ‘when the status quo is no longer acceptable’

Enter his institution, the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, part of Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute. The nonprofit system, which currently has 16 subscribing clinics around the country, offers patient-centered “team-based, coordinated, comprehensive care” for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The model is led by preventive cardiology in collaboration with endocrinology and primary care. Support staff includes advance practice providers, nurse navigators, certified diabetes educators, dietitians, and pharmacists. Individualized treatment plans aim for “aggressive secondary risk reduction,” Dr. Kosiborod noted.

Six-month data from the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance show an increase from 28.2% at baseline to 67.1% (P < .0001) in prescribing of a four-agent guideline-directed medical therapy “bundle,” including the three from COORDINATE-Diabetes plus an antiplatelet or anticoagulant agent. Dr. Kosiborod presented these data during the ADA meeting in a poster.

Remaining questions involve sustainability, scalability, and system transformation, which require buy-in from multiple stakeholders, he noted.

He contends that it can be done. A prior example of “rapid and lasting care transformation” occurred in November 2006 with the launch of the “Door to Balloon (D2B) Alliance for Quality,” which dramatically increased the proportion of patients who received primary angioplasty within 90 minutes at hospitals around the United States. From January 2005 to September 2010, those proportions rose from 27.3% to 70.4%.

“Patients were coming into the emergency department with myocardial infarctions and waiting for hours before the interventional cardiologist came. The community said we needed a nationwide quality improvement initiative. ... Almost every hospital in the country changed their systems of care. It was a huge national effort. ... When we no longer consider the status quo acceptable, we can actually make something very special happen very quickly.”

After the session, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is now gathering data to make the financial case for the approach.

“We’re trying to develop a model that tells the admins which patients will save money, because, of course, if you can create a financial incentive, it only makes it go faster. ... We want to synchronize it in the best way possible.”

Dr. Lingvay has receiving nonfinancial support and grants from Novo Nordisk, personal fees or nonfinancial support from Sanofi, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck/Pfizer, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Intercept, Target Pharma, Zealand, Shionogi, Carmot, Structure, Bayer, Mediflix, WebMD, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Mannkind, Novartis, Structure Therapeutics, and Valeritas. Dr. Kosiborod is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, ESPERION Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma Management, and Youngene Therapeutics. He also receives research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Eckel serves on consulting/advisory boards for Amgen, Arrowhead, Better, Ionis, Kowa, Lexicon, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, The Healthy Aging Company, Tolmar, and Weight Watchers.

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

SAN DIEGO – Prescribing optimal medical therapy for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease can and should improve, speakers urged at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A symposium there focused on the recent randomized, controlled COORDINATE-Diabetes trial, which investigated a multipronged educational intervention in 43 U.S. cardiology clinics aimed at improving prescribing of guideline-recommended treatments for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Compared with clinics that were randomly assigned to offer usual care, the intervention significantly increased recommended prescribing of high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and/or glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 agonists).

COORDINATE-Diabetes was aimed at cardiologists, who typically see these patients more often than do endocrinologists. However, the results are relevant to all health care providers involved in the care of those with type 2 diabetes, speakers argued at the ADA symposium.

“This is a cardiology study. I think it’s safe to say that not too many of you in the room are cardiologists. So why would you care about the results of the COORDINATE study?” said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Lingvay went on to outline reasons that the COORDINATE findings apply to endocrinologists and primary care clinicians, as well as cardiologists. For one, a study from her institution that was presented at a recent internal medicine meeting showed that, among more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or chronic kidney disease, the proportion of patients who were prescribed the appropriate guideline-indicated medications was 20.1% for those seen in primary care, 24.8% in endocrinology, 20.3% in cardiology, and 18.3% in nephrology.

“So, we [endocrinologists are] not that much better [than other specialties]” at prescribing, she noted.

Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, in independent commentary called the COORDINATE trial and other similar initiatives “the beginning of care transformation.”

The COORDINATE-Diabetes results were originally presented in March at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published in JAMA.
 

‘They’ve shown we can do better’

Asked to comment, Robert H. Eckel, MD, said in an interview, “I look at COORDINATE as a wake-up call to the need for multispecialty approaches to people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ... I think it’s a step in the door.”

Dr. Eckel, who has long advocated for a new “cardiometabolic” physician subspecialty, noted that COORDINATE-Diabetes “stopped short of training health care providers in the science and medicine of cardio-renal-metabolic disease.”

Nonetheless, regarding the efforts toward a more coordinated system of care, Dr. Eckel said, “I support the concept, unequivocally.” He is associated with the division of endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

But the cost-effectiveness of the intervention “requires time to assess,” he added. “We don’t know anything yet other than [that] managing drug administration to meet goals that relate to outcomes in people with diabetes can be accomplished. They’ve shown that we can do better.”
 

Why should you care about a cardiology study?

In COORDINATE-Diabetes, 20 of the centers were randomly assigned to provide five interventions: assess local barriers, develop care pathways, coordinate care, educate clinicians, report data back to the clinics, and provide tools for the 459 participants. The other 23 clinics, with 590 participants, were randomly assigned to provide usual care per practice guidelines.

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that prescribed all three groups of the recommended therapies at 6-12 months after enrollment; 37.9% prescribed the intervention, and 14.5% provided usual care, a significant 23% difference (P < .001). The rate of prescriptions of each of the three individual drug groups was also significantly higher with the intervention. No differences were seen in cardiovascular risk factors or outcomes.

Dr. Lingvay pointed out that the interventions tested in COORDINATE – such as fact sheets and medication passports for patients, system audits and feedback, and provider grand rounds – can be extrapolated to any specialist setting.

She added that the long-held model of team-based care means that “everyone involved in the care of these patients is responsible for ensuring best practices are followed.” Part of that, she said, is helping other specialists prescribe the same medications and communicate across the team.

For all specialists, she recommends using the resources available on the COORDINATE website.
 

‘It’s not a silver bullet; additional solutions are needed’

In his commentary, Dr. Kosiborod, executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, noted, “The treatments studied in COORDINATE represent the biggest advances in a generation when it comes to improving outcomes in this population. ... We’re living in a renaissance age with the number of tools we have available. ... It’s getting better every day.”

Moreover, all the relevant professional society guidelines now recommend GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. “And yet, when we look, less than 1 in 10 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are getting appropriate recommended care. One of the lessons of COORDINATE is that this needs to change if we’re really going to improve our patients’ lives.”

The barriers aren’t simply financial, Dr. Kosiborod said. He pointed to two studies that show that even reducing out-of-pocket costs resulted in only modest increases in adherence.

Educational gaps on the part of both clinicians and patients also factor in, as do misaligned incentives.

“Clinicians get paid for how many things they do, not necessarily how well they do them. Everyone wants to do the right thing, but ultimately, incentives do matter,” he emphasized.

While the COORDINATE-Diabetes interventions addressed several of the barriers, two-thirds of the participants still did not receive optimal therapy.

“It’s not a silver bullet. ... Additional solutions are needed,” Dr. Kosiborod observed.
 

Transformation occurs ‘when the status quo is no longer acceptable’

Enter his institution, the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, part of Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute. The nonprofit system, which currently has 16 subscribing clinics around the country, offers patient-centered “team-based, coordinated, comprehensive care” for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The model is led by preventive cardiology in collaboration with endocrinology and primary care. Support staff includes advance practice providers, nurse navigators, certified diabetes educators, dietitians, and pharmacists. Individualized treatment plans aim for “aggressive secondary risk reduction,” Dr. Kosiborod noted.

Six-month data from the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance show an increase from 28.2% at baseline to 67.1% (P < .0001) in prescribing of a four-agent guideline-directed medical therapy “bundle,” including the three from COORDINATE-Diabetes plus an antiplatelet or anticoagulant agent. Dr. Kosiborod presented these data during the ADA meeting in a poster.

Remaining questions involve sustainability, scalability, and system transformation, which require buy-in from multiple stakeholders, he noted.

He contends that it can be done. A prior example of “rapid and lasting care transformation” occurred in November 2006 with the launch of the “Door to Balloon (D2B) Alliance for Quality,” which dramatically increased the proportion of patients who received primary angioplasty within 90 minutes at hospitals around the United States. From January 2005 to September 2010, those proportions rose from 27.3% to 70.4%.

“Patients were coming into the emergency department with myocardial infarctions and waiting for hours before the interventional cardiologist came. The community said we needed a nationwide quality improvement initiative. ... Almost every hospital in the country changed their systems of care. It was a huge national effort. ... When we no longer consider the status quo acceptable, we can actually make something very special happen very quickly.”

After the session, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is now gathering data to make the financial case for the approach.

“We’re trying to develop a model that tells the admins which patients will save money, because, of course, if you can create a financial incentive, it only makes it go faster. ... We want to synchronize it in the best way possible.”

Dr. Lingvay has receiving nonfinancial support and grants from Novo Nordisk, personal fees or nonfinancial support from Sanofi, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck/Pfizer, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Intercept, Target Pharma, Zealand, Shionogi, Carmot, Structure, Bayer, Mediflix, WebMD, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Mannkind, Novartis, Structure Therapeutics, and Valeritas. Dr. Kosiborod is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, ESPERION Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma Management, and Youngene Therapeutics. He also receives research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Eckel serves on consulting/advisory boards for Amgen, Arrowhead, Better, Ionis, Kowa, Lexicon, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, The Healthy Aging Company, Tolmar, and Weight Watchers.

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

SAN DIEGO – Prescribing optimal medical therapy for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease can and should improve, speakers urged at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A symposium there focused on the recent randomized, controlled COORDINATE-Diabetes trial, which investigated a multipronged educational intervention in 43 U.S. cardiology clinics aimed at improving prescribing of guideline-recommended treatments for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Compared with clinics that were randomly assigned to offer usual care, the intervention significantly increased recommended prescribing of high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and/or glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 agonists).

COORDINATE-Diabetes was aimed at cardiologists, who typically see these patients more often than do endocrinologists. However, the results are relevant to all health care providers involved in the care of those with type 2 diabetes, speakers argued at the ADA symposium.

“This is a cardiology study. I think it’s safe to say that not too many of you in the room are cardiologists. So why would you care about the results of the COORDINATE study?” said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Lingvay went on to outline reasons that the COORDINATE findings apply to endocrinologists and primary care clinicians, as well as cardiologists. For one, a study from her institution that was presented at a recent internal medicine meeting showed that, among more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or chronic kidney disease, the proportion of patients who were prescribed the appropriate guideline-indicated medications was 20.1% for those seen in primary care, 24.8% in endocrinology, 20.3% in cardiology, and 18.3% in nephrology.

“So, we [endocrinologists are] not that much better [than other specialties]” at prescribing, she noted.

Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, in independent commentary called the COORDINATE trial and other similar initiatives “the beginning of care transformation.”

The COORDINATE-Diabetes results were originally presented in March at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published in JAMA.
 

‘They’ve shown we can do better’

Asked to comment, Robert H. Eckel, MD, said in an interview, “I look at COORDINATE as a wake-up call to the need for multispecialty approaches to people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ... I think it’s a step in the door.”

Dr. Eckel, who has long advocated for a new “cardiometabolic” physician subspecialty, noted that COORDINATE-Diabetes “stopped short of training health care providers in the science and medicine of cardio-renal-metabolic disease.”

Nonetheless, regarding the efforts toward a more coordinated system of care, Dr. Eckel said, “I support the concept, unequivocally.” He is associated with the division of endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

But the cost-effectiveness of the intervention “requires time to assess,” he added. “We don’t know anything yet other than [that] managing drug administration to meet goals that relate to outcomes in people with diabetes can be accomplished. They’ve shown that we can do better.”
 

Why should you care about a cardiology study?

In COORDINATE-Diabetes, 20 of the centers were randomly assigned to provide five interventions: assess local barriers, develop care pathways, coordinate care, educate clinicians, report data back to the clinics, and provide tools for the 459 participants. The other 23 clinics, with 590 participants, were randomly assigned to provide usual care per practice guidelines.

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that prescribed all three groups of the recommended therapies at 6-12 months after enrollment; 37.9% prescribed the intervention, and 14.5% provided usual care, a significant 23% difference (P < .001). The rate of prescriptions of each of the three individual drug groups was also significantly higher with the intervention. No differences were seen in cardiovascular risk factors or outcomes.

Dr. Lingvay pointed out that the interventions tested in COORDINATE – such as fact sheets and medication passports for patients, system audits and feedback, and provider grand rounds – can be extrapolated to any specialist setting.

She added that the long-held model of team-based care means that “everyone involved in the care of these patients is responsible for ensuring best practices are followed.” Part of that, she said, is helping other specialists prescribe the same medications and communicate across the team.

For all specialists, she recommends using the resources available on the COORDINATE website.
 

‘It’s not a silver bullet; additional solutions are needed’

In his commentary, Dr. Kosiborod, executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, noted, “The treatments studied in COORDINATE represent the biggest advances in a generation when it comes to improving outcomes in this population. ... We’re living in a renaissance age with the number of tools we have available. ... It’s getting better every day.”

Moreover, all the relevant professional society guidelines now recommend GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. “And yet, when we look, less than 1 in 10 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are getting appropriate recommended care. One of the lessons of COORDINATE is that this needs to change if we’re really going to improve our patients’ lives.”

The barriers aren’t simply financial, Dr. Kosiborod said. He pointed to two studies that show that even reducing out-of-pocket costs resulted in only modest increases in adherence.

Educational gaps on the part of both clinicians and patients also factor in, as do misaligned incentives.

“Clinicians get paid for how many things they do, not necessarily how well they do them. Everyone wants to do the right thing, but ultimately, incentives do matter,” he emphasized.

While the COORDINATE-Diabetes interventions addressed several of the barriers, two-thirds of the participants still did not receive optimal therapy.

“It’s not a silver bullet. ... Additional solutions are needed,” Dr. Kosiborod observed.
 

Transformation occurs ‘when the status quo is no longer acceptable’

Enter his institution, the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, part of Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute. The nonprofit system, which currently has 16 subscribing clinics around the country, offers patient-centered “team-based, coordinated, comprehensive care” for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The model is led by preventive cardiology in collaboration with endocrinology and primary care. Support staff includes advance practice providers, nurse navigators, certified diabetes educators, dietitians, and pharmacists. Individualized treatment plans aim for “aggressive secondary risk reduction,” Dr. Kosiborod noted.

Six-month data from the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance show an increase from 28.2% at baseline to 67.1% (P < .0001) in prescribing of a four-agent guideline-directed medical therapy “bundle,” including the three from COORDINATE-Diabetes plus an antiplatelet or anticoagulant agent. Dr. Kosiborod presented these data during the ADA meeting in a poster.

Remaining questions involve sustainability, scalability, and system transformation, which require buy-in from multiple stakeholders, he noted.

He contends that it can be done. A prior example of “rapid and lasting care transformation” occurred in November 2006 with the launch of the “Door to Balloon (D2B) Alliance for Quality,” which dramatically increased the proportion of patients who received primary angioplasty within 90 minutes at hospitals around the United States. From January 2005 to September 2010, those proportions rose from 27.3% to 70.4%.

“Patients were coming into the emergency department with myocardial infarctions and waiting for hours before the interventional cardiologist came. The community said we needed a nationwide quality improvement initiative. ... Almost every hospital in the country changed their systems of care. It was a huge national effort. ... When we no longer consider the status quo acceptable, we can actually make something very special happen very quickly.”

After the session, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is now gathering data to make the financial case for the approach.

“We’re trying to develop a model that tells the admins which patients will save money, because, of course, if you can create a financial incentive, it only makes it go faster. ... We want to synchronize it in the best way possible.”

Dr. Lingvay has receiving nonfinancial support and grants from Novo Nordisk, personal fees or nonfinancial support from Sanofi, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck/Pfizer, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Intercept, Target Pharma, Zealand, Shionogi, Carmot, Structure, Bayer, Mediflix, WebMD, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Mannkind, Novartis, Structure Therapeutics, and Valeritas. Dr. Kosiborod is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, ESPERION Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma Management, and Youngene Therapeutics. He also receives research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Eckel serves on consulting/advisory boards for Amgen, Arrowhead, Better, Ionis, Kowa, Lexicon, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, The Healthy Aging Company, Tolmar, and Weight Watchers.

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