Clinician Reviews

There is no association between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and the risk for new-onset seizure, data from a new meta-analysis of six randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) showed.

Results of the pooled analysis that included 63,500 individuals vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 and 55,000 who received a placebo vaccine showed there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to new-onset seizures at 28- or 43-day follow-up.

Regarding new-onset seizures in the general population, there was no statistically significant difference in risk for seizure incidence among vaccinated individuals vs placebo recipients, according to our meta-analysis, wrote the investigators, led by Ali Rafati, MD, MPH, Iran University of Medical Sciences in Tehran.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

Mixed Results

Results from previous research have been mixed regarding the link between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and new-onset seizures, with some showing an association.

To learn more about the possible association between the vaccines and new-onset seizures, the researchers conducted a literature review and identified six RCTs that measured adverse events following SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations (including messenger RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus) vs placebo or other vaccines.

While five of the studies defined new-onset seizures according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, trial investigators in the sixth RCT assessed and determined new-onset seizures in participants.

Participants received two vaccinations 28 days apart in five RCTs and only one vaccine in the sixth trial.

The research team searched the data for new-onset seizure in the 28 days following one or both COVID vaccinations.

No Link Found

After comparing the incidence of new-onset seizure between the 63,500 vaccine (nine new-onset seizures, 0.014%) and 55,000 placebo recipients (one new-onset seizure, 0.002%), investigators found no significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio [OR], 2.70; 95% CI, 0.76-9.57; P = .12)

Investigators also sliced the data several ways to see if it would yield different results. When they analyzed data by vaccine platform (viral vector) and age group (children), they didn’t observe significant differences in new-onset data.

The researchers also searched for data beyond the month following the injection to encompass the entire blinded phase, so they analyzed the results of three RCTs that reported adverse events up to 162 days after the vaccine.

After pooling the results from the three studies, investigators found no statistical difference between the vaccine and placebo groups in terms of the new-onset seizure (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86%-3.23; P > .99)

Study limitations included the missing information on vaccine doses or risk factors for the development of seizures. Also, the RCTs included in the meta-analysis were conducted at different times, so the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may have differed in their composition and efficacy.

“The global vaccination drive against SARS-CoV-2 has been a monumental effort in combating the pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations that are now available appear safe and appropriate,” the authors wrote.

There were no study funding sources or disclosures reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There is no association between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and the risk for new-onset seizure, data from a new meta-analysis of six randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) showed.

Results of the pooled analysis that included 63,500 individuals vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 and 55,000 who received a placebo vaccine showed there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to new-onset seizures at 28- or 43-day follow-up.

Regarding new-onset seizures in the general population, there was no statistically significant difference in risk for seizure incidence among vaccinated individuals vs placebo recipients, according to our meta-analysis, wrote the investigators, led by Ali Rafati, MD, MPH, Iran University of Medical Sciences in Tehran.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

Mixed Results

Results from previous research have been mixed regarding the link between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and new-onset seizures, with some showing an association.

To learn more about the possible association between the vaccines and new-onset seizures, the researchers conducted a literature review and identified six RCTs that measured adverse events following SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations (including messenger RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus) vs placebo or other vaccines.

While five of the studies defined new-onset seizures according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, trial investigators in the sixth RCT assessed and determined new-onset seizures in participants.

Participants received two vaccinations 28 days apart in five RCTs and only one vaccine in the sixth trial.

The research team searched the data for new-onset seizure in the 28 days following one or both COVID vaccinations.

No Link Found

After comparing the incidence of new-onset seizure between the 63,500 vaccine (nine new-onset seizures, 0.014%) and 55,000 placebo recipients (one new-onset seizure, 0.002%), investigators found no significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio [OR], 2.70; 95% CI, 0.76-9.57; P = .12)

Investigators also sliced the data several ways to see if it would yield different results. When they analyzed data by vaccine platform (viral vector) and age group (children), they didn’t observe significant differences in new-onset data.

The researchers also searched for data beyond the month following the injection to encompass the entire blinded phase, so they analyzed the results of three RCTs that reported adverse events up to 162 days after the vaccine.

After pooling the results from the three studies, investigators found no statistical difference between the vaccine and placebo groups in terms of the new-onset seizure (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86%-3.23; P > .99)

Study limitations included the missing information on vaccine doses or risk factors for the development of seizures. Also, the RCTs included in the meta-analysis were conducted at different times, so the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may have differed in their composition and efficacy.

“The global vaccination drive against SARS-CoV-2 has been a monumental effort in combating the pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations that are now available appear safe and appropriate,” the authors wrote.

There were no study funding sources or disclosures reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There is no association between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and the risk for new-onset seizure, data from a new meta-analysis of six randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) showed.

Results of the pooled analysis that included 63,500 individuals vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 and 55,000 who received a placebo vaccine showed there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to new-onset seizures at 28- or 43-day follow-up.

Regarding new-onset seizures in the general population, there was no statistically significant difference in risk for seizure incidence among vaccinated individuals vs placebo recipients, according to our meta-analysis, wrote the investigators, led by Ali Rafati, MD, MPH, Iran University of Medical Sciences in Tehran.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

Mixed Results

Results from previous research have been mixed regarding the link between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and new-onset seizures, with some showing an association.

To learn more about the possible association between the vaccines and new-onset seizures, the researchers conducted a literature review and identified six RCTs that measured adverse events following SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations (including messenger RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus) vs placebo or other vaccines.

While five of the studies defined new-onset seizures according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, trial investigators in the sixth RCT assessed and determined new-onset seizures in participants.

Participants received two vaccinations 28 days apart in five RCTs and only one vaccine in the sixth trial.

The research team searched the data for new-onset seizure in the 28 days following one or both COVID vaccinations.

No Link Found

After comparing the incidence of new-onset seizure between the 63,500 vaccine (nine new-onset seizures, 0.014%) and 55,000 placebo recipients (one new-onset seizure, 0.002%), investigators found no significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio [OR], 2.70; 95% CI, 0.76-9.57; P = .12)

Investigators also sliced the data several ways to see if it would yield different results. When they analyzed data by vaccine platform (viral vector) and age group (children), they didn’t observe significant differences in new-onset data.

The researchers also searched for data beyond the month following the injection to encompass the entire blinded phase, so they analyzed the results of three RCTs that reported adverse events up to 162 days after the vaccine.

After pooling the results from the three studies, investigators found no statistical difference between the vaccine and placebo groups in terms of the new-onset seizure (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86%-3.23; P > .99)

Study limitations included the missing information on vaccine doses or risk factors for the development of seizures. Also, the RCTs included in the meta-analysis were conducted at different times, so the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may have differed in their composition and efficacy.

“The global vaccination drive against SARS-CoV-2 has been a monumental effort in combating the pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations that are now available appear safe and appropriate,” the authors wrote.

There were no study funding sources or disclosures reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 90% of adults were at risk of developing cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome between 2011 and 2020, according to new research published in JAMA.

METHODOLOGY:

• In 2023, the American Heart Association defined  to acknowledge how heart and kidney diseases, diabetes, and obesity interact and are increasingly co-occurring conditions.
• Researchers used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2011 and 2020.
• More than 10,000 adults over age 20 years were included; all of them received a physical and fasting laboratory measurements and self-reported their cardiovascular disease (CVD) status.
• Researchers created categories for risk, ranging from 0 (no risk factors) to 4, using factors such as kidney disease, obesity, and hypertension.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 90% of participants met the criteria for having a stage of the CKM syndrome, with rates remaining steady throughout the study period.Almost half of people met the criteria for stage 2 (having metabolic risk factors like hypertension or moderate- to high-risk chronic kidney disease).
• 14.6% met the criteria for advanced stage 3 (very high-risk chronic kidney disease or a high risk for 10-year CVD) and stage 4 CKM syndrome (established CVD) combined.
• Men, adults over age 65 years, and Black individuals were at a greater risk for advanced stages of the CKM syndrome.
• Almost half of people met the criteria for stage 2 (having metabolic risk factors like hypertension or moderate- to high-risk chronic kidney disease).
   
• 14.6% met the criteria for advanced stage 3 (very high-risk chronic kidney disease or a high risk for 10-year CVD) and stage 4 CKM syndrome (established CVD) combined.
   
• Men, adults over age 65 years, and Black individuals were at a greater risk for advanced stages of the CKM syndrome.

IN PRACTICE:

“Equitable health care approaches prioritizing CKM health are urgently needed,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, cardiologist and researcher at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

LIMITATIONS: 

Established CVD statuses were self-reported. Some data that would indicate advanced CKM stages were not available (eg, cardiac biomarkers, echocardiography, and coronary angiography), which may have led to an underestimation of rates.

DISCLOSURES:

One author received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb–Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Vaduganathan received grants from and was an adviser and committee trial member for various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. The authors reported no other disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 90% of adults were at risk of developing cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome between 2011 and 2020, according to new research published in JAMA.

METHODOLOGY:

• In 2023, the American Heart Association defined  to acknowledge how heart and kidney diseases, diabetes, and obesity interact and are increasingly co-occurring conditions.
• Researchers used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2011 and 2020.
• More than 10,000 adults over age 20 years were included; all of them received a physical and fasting laboratory measurements and self-reported their cardiovascular disease (CVD) status.
• Researchers created categories for risk, ranging from 0 (no risk factors) to 4, using factors such as kidney disease, obesity, and hypertension.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 90% of participants met the criteria for having a stage of the CKM syndrome, with rates remaining steady throughout the study period.Almost half of people met the criteria for stage 2 (having metabolic risk factors like hypertension or moderate- to high-risk chronic kidney disease).
• 14.6% met the criteria for advanced stage 3 (very high-risk chronic kidney disease or a high risk for 10-year CVD) and stage 4 CKM syndrome (established CVD) combined.
• Men, adults over age 65 years, and Black individuals were at a greater risk for advanced stages of the CKM syndrome.
• Almost half of people met the criteria for stage 2 (having metabolic risk factors like hypertension or moderate- to high-risk chronic kidney disease).
   
• 14.6% met the criteria for advanced stage 3 (very high-risk chronic kidney disease or a high risk for 10-year CVD) and stage 4 CKM syndrome (established CVD) combined.
   
• Men, adults over age 65 years, and Black individuals were at a greater risk for advanced stages of the CKM syndrome.

IN PRACTICE:

“Equitable health care approaches prioritizing CKM health are urgently needed,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, cardiologist and researcher at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

LIMITATIONS: 

Established CVD statuses were self-reported. Some data that would indicate advanced CKM stages were not available (eg, cardiac biomarkers, echocardiography, and coronary angiography), which may have led to an underestimation of rates.

DISCLOSURES:

One author received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb–Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Vaduganathan received grants from and was an adviser and committee trial member for various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. The authors reported no other disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 90% of adults were at risk of developing cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome between 2011 and 2020, according to new research published in JAMA.

METHODOLOGY:

• In 2023, the American Heart Association defined  to acknowledge how heart and kidney diseases, diabetes, and obesity interact and are increasingly co-occurring conditions.
• Researchers used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2011 and 2020.
• More than 10,000 adults over age 20 years were included; all of them received a physical and fasting laboratory measurements and self-reported their cardiovascular disease (CVD) status.
• Researchers created categories for risk, ranging from 0 (no risk factors) to 4, using factors such as kidney disease, obesity, and hypertension.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 90% of participants met the criteria for having a stage of the CKM syndrome, with rates remaining steady throughout the study period.Almost half of people met the criteria for stage 2 (having metabolic risk factors like hypertension or moderate- to high-risk chronic kidney disease).
• 14.6% met the criteria for advanced stage 3 (very high-risk chronic kidney disease or a high risk for 10-year CVD) and stage 4 CKM syndrome (established CVD) combined.
• Men, adults over age 65 years, and Black individuals were at a greater risk for advanced stages of the CKM syndrome.
• Almost half of people met the criteria for stage 2 (having metabolic risk factors like hypertension or moderate- to high-risk chronic kidney disease).
   
• 14.6% met the criteria for advanced stage 3 (very high-risk chronic kidney disease or a high risk for 10-year CVD) and stage 4 CKM syndrome (established CVD) combined.
   
• Men, adults over age 65 years, and Black individuals were at a greater risk for advanced stages of the CKM syndrome.

IN PRACTICE:

“Equitable health care approaches prioritizing CKM health are urgently needed,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, cardiologist and researcher at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

LIMITATIONS: 

Established CVD statuses were self-reported. Some data that would indicate advanced CKM stages were not available (eg, cardiac biomarkers, echocardiography, and coronary angiography), which may have led to an underestimation of rates.

DISCLOSURES:

One author received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb–Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Vaduganathan received grants from and was an adviser and committee trial member for various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. The authors reported no other disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A large international cohort study identified a higher risk for cardiovascular diseases and mortality in patients with prurigo nodularis (PN), particularly among women and White patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have shown increased risks for cardiovascular diseases in patients with PN, but limited sample sizes have hindered further subgroup analysis. Given PN’s pronounced sex and ethnicity skew, it is important to examine underrepresented groups to accurately assess their cardiovascular risk.
• In this propensity-score matched analysis, researchers identified 64,801 patients (59.44% women) with PN using electronic health reports from the Global Collaborative Network of TriNetX and matched to individuals without PN.
• Researchers calculated risks for 15 cardiovascular endpoints and all-cause mortality within 10 years of diagnosis. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) included acute cerebral and myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, ventricular arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with PN showed a higher risk for death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1243) and MACE (HR, 1.117) (P < .0001 for both).
• PN was also associated with a higher risk for heart failure (HR, 1.062), thrombotic venous disease (HR, 1.26), angina pectoris (HR, 1.096), and peripheral arterial diseases (HR, 1.082) (P < .0001 for all) and for acute MI (HR, 1.11; P = .0015) and valve disorders (HR, 1.08; P = .0018).
• White patients with PN had a significantly increased risk for MACE, death, heart failure, cardiac arrest, vascular diseases, and acute MI, but this was not observed in people of color.
• Women exhibited a higher risk for MACE, heart failure, peripheral artery disease, acute MI, conduction disease, and valve disorders, while men did not have an increased risk for major or acute cardiovascular events. Both men and women had a higher risk for death, chronic ischemic heart disease, and venous disease.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although no novel PN-specific treatment rationale can be derived from the presented data, the potential risk of subsequent cardiovascular disease should be considered in the care of patients with PN, which includes screening and optimal management of other additional cardiovascular risk factors,” the authors wrote.

[embed:render:related:node:266456]

LIMITATIONS:

Retrospective observational design introduced inherent biases. Misdiagnosis or false coding in electronic health records could affect the data accuracy and ethnicity-specific analyses.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Henning Olbrich, from the Department of Dermatology, University of Lübeck, Germany, was published online in eBioMedicine.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the University of Lübeck, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and the State of Schleswig-Holstein. One author declared financial ties outside this work, and one author is an employee of TriNetX.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A large international cohort study identified a higher risk for cardiovascular diseases and mortality in patients with prurigo nodularis (PN), particularly among women and White patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have shown increased risks for cardiovascular diseases in patients with PN, but limited sample sizes have hindered further subgroup analysis. Given PN’s pronounced sex and ethnicity skew, it is important to examine underrepresented groups to accurately assess their cardiovascular risk.
• In this propensity-score matched analysis, researchers identified 64,801 patients (59.44% women) with PN using electronic health reports from the Global Collaborative Network of TriNetX and matched to individuals without PN.
• Researchers calculated risks for 15 cardiovascular endpoints and all-cause mortality within 10 years of diagnosis. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) included acute cerebral and myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, ventricular arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with PN showed a higher risk for death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1243) and MACE (HR, 1.117) (P < .0001 for both).
• PN was also associated with a higher risk for heart failure (HR, 1.062), thrombotic venous disease (HR, 1.26), angina pectoris (HR, 1.096), and peripheral arterial diseases (HR, 1.082) (P < .0001 for all) and for acute MI (HR, 1.11; P = .0015) and valve disorders (HR, 1.08; P = .0018).
• White patients with PN had a significantly increased risk for MACE, death, heart failure, cardiac arrest, vascular diseases, and acute MI, but this was not observed in people of color.
• Women exhibited a higher risk for MACE, heart failure, peripheral artery disease, acute MI, conduction disease, and valve disorders, while men did not have an increased risk for major or acute cardiovascular events. Both men and women had a higher risk for death, chronic ischemic heart disease, and venous disease.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although no novel PN-specific treatment rationale can be derived from the presented data, the potential risk of subsequent cardiovascular disease should be considered in the care of patients with PN, which includes screening and optimal management of other additional cardiovascular risk factors,” the authors wrote.

[embed:render:related:node:266456]

LIMITATIONS:

Retrospective observational design introduced inherent biases. Misdiagnosis or false coding in electronic health records could affect the data accuracy and ethnicity-specific analyses.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Henning Olbrich, from the Department of Dermatology, University of Lübeck, Germany, was published online in eBioMedicine.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the University of Lübeck, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and the State of Schleswig-Holstein. One author declared financial ties outside this work, and one author is an employee of TriNetX.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A large international cohort study identified a higher risk for cardiovascular diseases and mortality in patients with prurigo nodularis (PN), particularly among women and White patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have shown increased risks for cardiovascular diseases in patients with PN, but limited sample sizes have hindered further subgroup analysis. Given PN’s pronounced sex and ethnicity skew, it is important to examine underrepresented groups to accurately assess their cardiovascular risk.
• In this propensity-score matched analysis, researchers identified 64,801 patients (59.44% women) with PN using electronic health reports from the Global Collaborative Network of TriNetX and matched to individuals without PN.
• Researchers calculated risks for 15 cardiovascular endpoints and all-cause mortality within 10 years of diagnosis. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) included acute cerebral and myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, ventricular arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with PN showed a higher risk for death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1243) and MACE (HR, 1.117) (P < .0001 for both).
• PN was also associated with a higher risk for heart failure (HR, 1.062), thrombotic venous disease (HR, 1.26), angina pectoris (HR, 1.096), and peripheral arterial diseases (HR, 1.082) (P < .0001 for all) and for acute MI (HR, 1.11; P = .0015) and valve disorders (HR, 1.08; P = .0018).
• White patients with PN had a significantly increased risk for MACE, death, heart failure, cardiac arrest, vascular diseases, and acute MI, but this was not observed in people of color.
• Women exhibited a higher risk for MACE, heart failure, peripheral artery disease, acute MI, conduction disease, and valve disorders, while men did not have an increased risk for major or acute cardiovascular events. Both men and women had a higher risk for death, chronic ischemic heart disease, and venous disease.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although no novel PN-specific treatment rationale can be derived from the presented data, the potential risk of subsequent cardiovascular disease should be considered in the care of patients with PN, which includes screening and optimal management of other additional cardiovascular risk factors,” the authors wrote.

[embed:render:related:node:266456]

LIMITATIONS:

Retrospective observational design introduced inherent biases. Misdiagnosis or false coding in electronic health records could affect the data accuracy and ethnicity-specific analyses.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Henning Olbrich, from the Department of Dermatology, University of Lübeck, Germany, was published online in eBioMedicine.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the University of Lübeck, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and the State of Schleswig-Holstein. One author declared financial ties outside this work, and one author is an employee of TriNetX.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study links waist size and a higher risk for asthma attack. After adjustments, the likelihood of asthma attacks was 1.06 times higher for every 5-cm increase in waist circumference in adults with asthma.

BMI Earlier Tied to Asthma

Previous research supports a link between increased body mass index (BMI) and asthma, but the association between abdominal obesity and asthma attacks has not been well studied.

The researchers in the current study reviewed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 5530 adults with asthma in the United States. Adults in the study were divided into groups based on whether they did or did not experience asthma attacks.

The median age of the study population was 43 years, the median waist circumference was 98.9 cm, and the median BMI was 28.50.
 

More Waist Inches = Asthma Attacks

Overall, patients who reported asthma attacks had a significantly higher waist circumference than those without asthma attacks (median, 102.6 cm vs 97.3 cm, P < .001).

The association between increased waist circumference and increased odds of asthma attack was significant across non-adjusted, minimally adjusted, and fully adjusted models (odds ratios, 1.7, 1.06, and 1.06, respectively). In fact, each 5-cm increase in waist circumference was associated with a 1.06 times higher likelihood of an asthma attack after full adjustment for BMI-defined obesity, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, poverty income ratio, smoking status, and metabolic syndrome.

The relationship between increased likelihood of asthma attacks and increased waist circumference persisted in subgroup analyses based on gender, age, and smoking status.
 

Importance of Waist Size

“Our study underscores the critical role of waist circumference measurements in the routine health evaluations of individuals diagnosed with asthma, highlighting its inclusion as an essential aspect of comprehensive health assessments,” the researchers wrote.

Limited to Data Available

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of existing database questions to evaluate asthma attacks, a lack of data on the specificity of triggers of asthma exacerbations, and an inability to distinguish the severity of asthma attacks.

The study was published online in BMC Public Health. The lead author was Xiang Liu, MD, of Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, China.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study links waist size and a higher risk for asthma attack. After adjustments, the likelihood of asthma attacks was 1.06 times higher for every 5-cm increase in waist circumference in adults with asthma.

BMI Earlier Tied to Asthma

Previous research supports a link between increased body mass index (BMI) and asthma, but the association between abdominal obesity and asthma attacks has not been well studied.

The researchers in the current study reviewed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 5530 adults with asthma in the United States. Adults in the study were divided into groups based on whether they did or did not experience asthma attacks.

The median age of the study population was 43 years, the median waist circumference was 98.9 cm, and the median BMI was 28.50.
 

More Waist Inches = Asthma Attacks

Overall, patients who reported asthma attacks had a significantly higher waist circumference than those without asthma attacks (median, 102.6 cm vs 97.3 cm, P < .001).

The association between increased waist circumference and increased odds of asthma attack was significant across non-adjusted, minimally adjusted, and fully adjusted models (odds ratios, 1.7, 1.06, and 1.06, respectively). In fact, each 5-cm increase in waist circumference was associated with a 1.06 times higher likelihood of an asthma attack after full adjustment for BMI-defined obesity, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, poverty income ratio, smoking status, and metabolic syndrome.

The relationship between increased likelihood of asthma attacks and increased waist circumference persisted in subgroup analyses based on gender, age, and smoking status.
 

Importance of Waist Size

“Our study underscores the critical role of waist circumference measurements in the routine health evaluations of individuals diagnosed with asthma, highlighting its inclusion as an essential aspect of comprehensive health assessments,” the researchers wrote.

Limited to Data Available

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of existing database questions to evaluate asthma attacks, a lack of data on the specificity of triggers of asthma exacerbations, and an inability to distinguish the severity of asthma attacks.

The study was published online in BMC Public Health. The lead author was Xiang Liu, MD, of Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, China.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study links waist size and a higher risk for asthma attack. After adjustments, the likelihood of asthma attacks was 1.06 times higher for every 5-cm increase in waist circumference in adults with asthma.

BMI Earlier Tied to Asthma

Previous research supports a link between increased body mass index (BMI) and asthma, but the association between abdominal obesity and asthma attacks has not been well studied.

The researchers in the current study reviewed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 5530 adults with asthma in the United States. Adults in the study were divided into groups based on whether they did or did not experience asthma attacks.

The median age of the study population was 43 years, the median waist circumference was 98.9 cm, and the median BMI was 28.50.
 

More Waist Inches = Asthma Attacks

Overall, patients who reported asthma attacks had a significantly higher waist circumference than those without asthma attacks (median, 102.6 cm vs 97.3 cm, P < .001).

The association between increased waist circumference and increased odds of asthma attack was significant across non-adjusted, minimally adjusted, and fully adjusted models (odds ratios, 1.7, 1.06, and 1.06, respectively). In fact, each 5-cm increase in waist circumference was associated with a 1.06 times higher likelihood of an asthma attack after full adjustment for BMI-defined obesity, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, poverty income ratio, smoking status, and metabolic syndrome.

The relationship between increased likelihood of asthma attacks and increased waist circumference persisted in subgroup analyses based on gender, age, and smoking status.
 

Importance of Waist Size

“Our study underscores the critical role of waist circumference measurements in the routine health evaluations of individuals diagnosed with asthma, highlighting its inclusion as an essential aspect of comprehensive health assessments,” the researchers wrote.

Limited to Data Available

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of existing database questions to evaluate asthma attacks, a lack of data on the specificity of triggers of asthma exacerbations, and an inability to distinguish the severity of asthma attacks.

The study was published online in BMC Public Health. The lead author was Xiang Liu, MD, of Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, China.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher levels of physical activity are associated with a decreased risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly Crohn’s disease (CD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Because previous observational studies on the association between physical activity and IBD risk have yielded a wide range of results and conclusions, researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the aggregate effect of physical activity on IBD risk across various demographics.
• The analysis included three large population-based cohort studies and seven small and large case-control studies from several global regions that were published before April 2023.
• The cohort studies included 1182 patients with CD, 2361 with ulcerative colitis (UC), and 860,992 individuals without IBD. The case-control studies involved 781 patients with CD and 2636 individuals without CD, and 1127 patients with UC and 3752 individuals without UC.
• The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to determine the quality of evidence in the included studies.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with high physical activity levels had a 22% and 38% reduced risk of developing CD in the cohort studies and case-control studies, respectively, compared with individuals with low physical activity levels.
• The risk for incident UC was 13% lower in the high vs low physical activity level groups in the cohort studies, but the reduction in the case-control studies did not reach statistical significance.
• The quality-of-evidence assessment found no serious limitations in the cohort studies but serious limitations in the case-control studies due to a high risk for bias and significant heterogeneity.

IN PRACTICE:

“There could be a role of physical activity as a prevention strategy against developing IBD. In addition to implementing public health interventions to increase physical activity level, there may be a place for physicians to advise increased physical activity level, especially to individuals at high risk of developing IBD, such as those with a strong family history of IBD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ho Tuan Tiong, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand, was published online in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis.

LIMITATIONS:

There may be a risk for residual confounding owing to the observational nature of the studies. There may also be a risk for reverse causality, as the individuals who had IBD symptoms before diagnosis may have been less physically active due to the disease. Except in two studies that measured physical activity directly, questionnaires were used to assess physical activity, possibly leading to misclassification of activity levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. Two authors reported receiving grants and consulting fees from several pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher levels of physical activity are associated with a decreased risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly Crohn’s disease (CD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Because previous observational studies on the association between physical activity and IBD risk have yielded a wide range of results and conclusions, researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the aggregate effect of physical activity on IBD risk across various demographics.
• The analysis included three large population-based cohort studies and seven small and large case-control studies from several global regions that were published before April 2023.
• The cohort studies included 1182 patients with CD, 2361 with ulcerative colitis (UC), and 860,992 individuals without IBD. The case-control studies involved 781 patients with CD and 2636 individuals without CD, and 1127 patients with UC and 3752 individuals without UC.
• The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to determine the quality of evidence in the included studies.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with high physical activity levels had a 22% and 38% reduced risk of developing CD in the cohort studies and case-control studies, respectively, compared with individuals with low physical activity levels.
• The risk for incident UC was 13% lower in the high vs low physical activity level groups in the cohort studies, but the reduction in the case-control studies did not reach statistical significance.
• The quality-of-evidence assessment found no serious limitations in the cohort studies but serious limitations in the case-control studies due to a high risk for bias and significant heterogeneity.

IN PRACTICE:

“There could be a role of physical activity as a prevention strategy against developing IBD. In addition to implementing public health interventions to increase physical activity level, there may be a place for physicians to advise increased physical activity level, especially to individuals at high risk of developing IBD, such as those with a strong family history of IBD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ho Tuan Tiong, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand, was published online in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis.

LIMITATIONS:

There may be a risk for residual confounding owing to the observational nature of the studies. There may also be a risk for reverse causality, as the individuals who had IBD symptoms before diagnosis may have been less physically active due to the disease. Except in two studies that measured physical activity directly, questionnaires were used to assess physical activity, possibly leading to misclassification of activity levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. Two authors reported receiving grants and consulting fees from several pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher levels of physical activity are associated with a decreased risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly Crohn’s disease (CD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Because previous observational studies on the association between physical activity and IBD risk have yielded a wide range of results and conclusions, researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the aggregate effect of physical activity on IBD risk across various demographics.
• The analysis included three large population-based cohort studies and seven small and large case-control studies from several global regions that were published before April 2023.
• The cohort studies included 1182 patients with CD, 2361 with ulcerative colitis (UC), and 860,992 individuals without IBD. The case-control studies involved 781 patients with CD and 2636 individuals without CD, and 1127 patients with UC and 3752 individuals without UC.
• The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to determine the quality of evidence in the included studies.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with high physical activity levels had a 22% and 38% reduced risk of developing CD in the cohort studies and case-control studies, respectively, compared with individuals with low physical activity levels.
• The risk for incident UC was 13% lower in the high vs low physical activity level groups in the cohort studies, but the reduction in the case-control studies did not reach statistical significance.
• The quality-of-evidence assessment found no serious limitations in the cohort studies but serious limitations in the case-control studies due to a high risk for bias and significant heterogeneity.

IN PRACTICE:

“There could be a role of physical activity as a prevention strategy against developing IBD. In addition to implementing public health interventions to increase physical activity level, there may be a place for physicians to advise increased physical activity level, especially to individuals at high risk of developing IBD, such as those with a strong family history of IBD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ho Tuan Tiong, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand, was published online in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis.

LIMITATIONS:

There may be a risk for residual confounding owing to the observational nature of the studies. There may also be a risk for reverse causality, as the individuals who had IBD symptoms before diagnosis may have been less physically active due to the disease. Except in two studies that measured physical activity directly, questionnaires were used to assess physical activity, possibly leading to misclassification of activity levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. Two authors reported receiving grants and consulting fees from several pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expert Identifies Noteworthy Study Limitations

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

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

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

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

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

Are the Fasting Guidelines Flawed, Regardless of Diabetes Status?

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

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

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

The GLP-1 Agonist Factor

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expert Identifies Noteworthy Study Limitations

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

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

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

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

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

Are the Fasting Guidelines Flawed, Regardless of Diabetes Status?

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

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

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

The GLP-1 Agonist Factor

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expert Identifies Noteworthy Study Limitations

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

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

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

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

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

Are the Fasting Guidelines Flawed, Regardless of Diabetes Status?

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

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

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

The GLP-1 Agonist Factor

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

General Agreement but Some Differences

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

The new ACP document gives two general recommendations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Agreement but Some Differences

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

The new ACP document gives two general recommendations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Agreement but Some Differences

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

The new ACP document gives two general recommendations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

[embed:render:related:node:260724]

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

[embed:render:related:node:260724]

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

[embed:render:related:node:260724]

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.