Clinician Reviews

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The addition of supervised exercise to obesity pharmacotherapy has shown greater potential for maintaining weight loss and improving body composition after treatment termination than pharmacotherapy alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite significant weight loss achieved with incretin-based obesity pharmacotherapies, their high costs and gastrointestinal adverse events lead to high discontinuation rates with subsequent regaining of weight and body fat.
• Researchers investigated if a strategy involving both exercise and , a -like peptide-1 receptor agonist, was better than either intervention alone in terms of maintaining weight loss and body composition after treatment termination.
• They conducted a 1-year posttreatment analysis of the S-LiTE study, including 109 adults with obesity (age, 18-65 years; body mass index, 32-43) who completed an 8-week low-calorie diet resulting in ≥ 5% weight loss.
• Participants were then randomly allocated to a 52-week weight loss maintenance intervention with either liraglutide or placebo alone or liraglutide or placebo plus supervised exercise.
• The primary outcome was the change in body weight (kg) from randomization to 1 year after the termination of weight maintenance intervention (0-104 weeks), and the secondary outcome was the change in body-fat percentage from 0 to 104 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• From week 0 to week 104, supervised exercise plus liraglutide led to 5.1 kg lower weight gain (P = .040) and a 2.3%-point greater decrease in body-fat percentage (P = .026) than liraglutide alone.
• During the 1 year after treatment termination (52-104 weeks), those in the liraglutide group regained 6 kg (95% CI, 2.1-10.0) more than those who were in the supervised exercise plus placebo group, and 2.5 kg (95% CI, -1.5 to 6.5) more than those who received supervised exercise plus liraglutide.
• After 1 year of treatment termination (week 104), the supervised exercise plus liraglutide group had significantly higher odds of maintaining a weight loss of ≥ 10% of initial body weight than the liraglutide (odds ratio [OR], 4.2; 95% CI, 1.6-10.8) or placebo (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.4-21.3) groups.
• The combination of exercise and liraglutide also improved physical functioning along with energy and fatigue scores.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future lifestyle-based treatments during obesity pharmacotherapy may further improve body weight and composition outcomes, with an additional focus on strategies and tools to maintain healthy physical activity habits after termination of pharmacotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, with lead author Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in eClinicalMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Fewer participants from the placebo group took part in this posttreatment study. Across all treatment groups, participants who attended the posttreatment study had a better mean treatment response during the active treatment than those who did not attend.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Helsefonden. Some authors declared participating in advisory boards and receiving research grants and lecture fees from various sources including Novo Nordisk.

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

TOPLINE:

The addition of supervised exercise to obesity pharmacotherapy has shown greater potential for maintaining weight loss and improving body composition after treatment termination than pharmacotherapy alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite significant weight loss achieved with incretin-based obesity pharmacotherapies, their high costs and gastrointestinal adverse events lead to high discontinuation rates with subsequent regaining of weight and body fat.
• Researchers investigated if a strategy involving both exercise and , a -like peptide-1 receptor agonist, was better than either intervention alone in terms of maintaining weight loss and body composition after treatment termination.
• They conducted a 1-year posttreatment analysis of the S-LiTE study, including 109 adults with obesity (age, 18-65 years; body mass index, 32-43) who completed an 8-week low-calorie diet resulting in ≥ 5% weight loss.
• Participants were then randomly allocated to a 52-week weight loss maintenance intervention with either liraglutide or placebo alone or liraglutide or placebo plus supervised exercise.
• The primary outcome was the change in body weight (kg) from randomization to 1 year after the termination of weight maintenance intervention (0-104 weeks), and the secondary outcome was the change in body-fat percentage from 0 to 104 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• From week 0 to week 104, supervised exercise plus liraglutide led to 5.1 kg lower weight gain (P = .040) and a 2.3%-point greater decrease in body-fat percentage (P = .026) than liraglutide alone.
• During the 1 year after treatment termination (52-104 weeks), those in the liraglutide group regained 6 kg (95% CI, 2.1-10.0) more than those who were in the supervised exercise plus placebo group, and 2.5 kg (95% CI, -1.5 to 6.5) more than those who received supervised exercise plus liraglutide.
• After 1 year of treatment termination (week 104), the supervised exercise plus liraglutide group had significantly higher odds of maintaining a weight loss of ≥ 10% of initial body weight than the liraglutide (odds ratio [OR], 4.2; 95% CI, 1.6-10.8) or placebo (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.4-21.3) groups.
• The combination of exercise and liraglutide also improved physical functioning along with energy and fatigue scores.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future lifestyle-based treatments during obesity pharmacotherapy may further improve body weight and composition outcomes, with an additional focus on strategies and tools to maintain healthy physical activity habits after termination of pharmacotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, with lead author Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in eClinicalMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Fewer participants from the placebo group took part in this posttreatment study. Across all treatment groups, participants who attended the posttreatment study had a better mean treatment response during the active treatment than those who did not attend.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Helsefonden. Some authors declared participating in advisory boards and receiving research grants and lecture fees from various sources including Novo Nordisk.

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

TOPLINE:

The addition of supervised exercise to obesity pharmacotherapy has shown greater potential for maintaining weight loss and improving body composition after treatment termination than pharmacotherapy alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite significant weight loss achieved with incretin-based obesity pharmacotherapies, their high costs and gastrointestinal adverse events lead to high discontinuation rates with subsequent regaining of weight and body fat.
• Researchers investigated if a strategy involving both exercise and , a -like peptide-1 receptor agonist, was better than either intervention alone in terms of maintaining weight loss and body composition after treatment termination.
• They conducted a 1-year posttreatment analysis of the S-LiTE study, including 109 adults with obesity (age, 18-65 years; body mass index, 32-43) who completed an 8-week low-calorie diet resulting in ≥ 5% weight loss.
• Participants were then randomly allocated to a 52-week weight loss maintenance intervention with either liraglutide or placebo alone or liraglutide or placebo plus supervised exercise.
• The primary outcome was the change in body weight (kg) from randomization to 1 year after the termination of weight maintenance intervention (0-104 weeks), and the secondary outcome was the change in body-fat percentage from 0 to 104 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• From week 0 to week 104, supervised exercise plus liraglutide led to 5.1 kg lower weight gain (P = .040) and a 2.3%-point greater decrease in body-fat percentage (P = .026) than liraglutide alone.
• During the 1 year after treatment termination (52-104 weeks), those in the liraglutide group regained 6 kg (95% CI, 2.1-10.0) more than those who were in the supervised exercise plus placebo group, and 2.5 kg (95% CI, -1.5 to 6.5) more than those who received supervised exercise plus liraglutide.
• After 1 year of treatment termination (week 104), the supervised exercise plus liraglutide group had significantly higher odds of maintaining a weight loss of ≥ 10% of initial body weight than the liraglutide (odds ratio [OR], 4.2; 95% CI, 1.6-10.8) or placebo (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.4-21.3) groups.
• The combination of exercise and liraglutide also improved physical functioning along with energy and fatigue scores.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future lifestyle-based treatments during obesity pharmacotherapy may further improve body weight and composition outcomes, with an additional focus on strategies and tools to maintain healthy physical activity habits after termination of pharmacotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, with lead author Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in eClinicalMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Fewer participants from the placebo group took part in this posttreatment study. Across all treatment groups, participants who attended the posttreatment study had a better mean treatment response during the active treatment than those who did not attend.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Helsefonden. Some authors declared participating in advisory boards and receiving research grants and lecture fees from various sources including Novo Nordisk.

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

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Naturally occurring glucose fluctuations affect cognitive function in people with type 1 diabetes, according to a new study. It matters less whether glucose is considerably higher or lower than the patient’s usual glucose level. Rather, cognition is slower when the glucose was atypical for that particular individual, with variations between different individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) digital sensors and smartphone-based cognitive tests (cognitive ecological momentary assessment [EMA]) to collect repeated, high-frequency glucose and cognitive data. Glucose data were collected every 5 minutes; cognitive data were collected three times daily for 15 days as participants went about their daily lives.
• The study included 200 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 47.5 [15.6] years; 53.5% female; 86% White; mean A1c, 7.5 mmol/mol [1.3]).
• Using CGM and EMA, the researchers obtained “intensive” longitudinal measurements of glucose as well as cognition (processing speed and sustained attention).
• Hierarchical Bayesian modeling estimated dynamic, within-person associations between glucose and cognition, and data-driven lasso regression identified identify clinical characteristics that predicted differences from person to person in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Cognitive performance was reduced both at low and high glucose levels, “reflecting vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.”
• Large glucose fluctuations were associated with slower as well as less accurate processing speed, although slight glucose elevations (relative to the individual’s own means) were associated with faster processing speed, regardless of the absolute level (eg, euglycemic vs hyperglycemic) of those means.
• By contrast, glucose fluctuations were unrelated to sustained attention.
• The researchers identified seven clinical characteristics that predicted individual differences in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations: Older age, time in hypoglycemia, lifetime severe hypoglycemic events, microvascular complications, glucose variability, fatigue, and larger neck circumference.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate that people can differ a lot from one another in how their brains are impacted by glucose,” co-senior author Laura Germine, PhD, director of the Laboratory for Brain and Cognitive Health Technology, McLean Hospital, Boston, said in a news release. “We found that minimizing glucose fluctuations in daily life is important for optimizing processing speed, and this is especially true for people who are older or have other diabetes-related health conditions.”

SOURCE:

Zoë Hawks, PhD, research investigator, McLean Hospital, Boston, was the lead and corresponding author on the study. It was published online on March 18 in Digital Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers required 24-hour access to a smartphone with reliable Internet access, which might have biased sampling toward people of higher economic status. Moreover, the present sample was predominantly White and non-Hispanic, so findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Hawks received consulting fees from Blueprint Health. The other authors’ disclosures were listed in the original paper.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Naturally occurring glucose fluctuations affect cognitive function in people with type 1 diabetes, according to a new study. It matters less whether glucose is considerably higher or lower than the patient’s usual glucose level. Rather, cognition is slower when the glucose was atypical for that particular individual, with variations between different individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) digital sensors and smartphone-based cognitive tests (cognitive ecological momentary assessment [EMA]) to collect repeated, high-frequency glucose and cognitive data. Glucose data were collected every 5 minutes; cognitive data were collected three times daily for 15 days as participants went about their daily lives.
• The study included 200 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 47.5 [15.6] years; 53.5% female; 86% White; mean A1c, 7.5 mmol/mol [1.3]).
• Using CGM and EMA, the researchers obtained “intensive” longitudinal measurements of glucose as well as cognition (processing speed and sustained attention).
• Hierarchical Bayesian modeling estimated dynamic, within-person associations between glucose and cognition, and data-driven lasso regression identified identify clinical characteristics that predicted differences from person to person in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Cognitive performance was reduced both at low and high glucose levels, “reflecting vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.”
• Large glucose fluctuations were associated with slower as well as less accurate processing speed, although slight glucose elevations (relative to the individual’s own means) were associated with faster processing speed, regardless of the absolute level (eg, euglycemic vs hyperglycemic) of those means.
• By contrast, glucose fluctuations were unrelated to sustained attention.
• The researchers identified seven clinical characteristics that predicted individual differences in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations: Older age, time in hypoglycemia, lifetime severe hypoglycemic events, microvascular complications, glucose variability, fatigue, and larger neck circumference.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate that people can differ a lot from one another in how their brains are impacted by glucose,” co-senior author Laura Germine, PhD, director of the Laboratory for Brain and Cognitive Health Technology, McLean Hospital, Boston, said in a news release. “We found that minimizing glucose fluctuations in daily life is important for optimizing processing speed, and this is especially true for people who are older or have other diabetes-related health conditions.”

SOURCE:

Zoë Hawks, PhD, research investigator, McLean Hospital, Boston, was the lead and corresponding author on the study. It was published online on March 18 in Digital Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers required 24-hour access to a smartphone with reliable Internet access, which might have biased sampling toward people of higher economic status. Moreover, the present sample was predominantly White and non-Hispanic, so findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Hawks received consulting fees from Blueprint Health. The other authors’ disclosures were listed in the original paper.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Naturally occurring glucose fluctuations affect cognitive function in people with type 1 diabetes, according to a new study. It matters less whether glucose is considerably higher or lower than the patient’s usual glucose level. Rather, cognition is slower when the glucose was atypical for that particular individual, with variations between different individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) digital sensors and smartphone-based cognitive tests (cognitive ecological momentary assessment [EMA]) to collect repeated, high-frequency glucose and cognitive data. Glucose data were collected every 5 minutes; cognitive data were collected three times daily for 15 days as participants went about their daily lives.
• The study included 200 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 47.5 [15.6] years; 53.5% female; 86% White; mean A1c, 7.5 mmol/mol [1.3]).
• Using CGM and EMA, the researchers obtained “intensive” longitudinal measurements of glucose as well as cognition (processing speed and sustained attention).
• Hierarchical Bayesian modeling estimated dynamic, within-person associations between glucose and cognition, and data-driven lasso regression identified identify clinical characteristics that predicted differences from person to person in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Cognitive performance was reduced both at low and high glucose levels, “reflecting vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.”
• Large glucose fluctuations were associated with slower as well as less accurate processing speed, although slight glucose elevations (relative to the individual’s own means) were associated with faster processing speed, regardless of the absolute level (eg, euglycemic vs hyperglycemic) of those means.
• By contrast, glucose fluctuations were unrelated to sustained attention.
• The researchers identified seven clinical characteristics that predicted individual differences in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations: Older age, time in hypoglycemia, lifetime severe hypoglycemic events, microvascular complications, glucose variability, fatigue, and larger neck circumference.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate that people can differ a lot from one another in how their brains are impacted by glucose,” co-senior author Laura Germine, PhD, director of the Laboratory for Brain and Cognitive Health Technology, McLean Hospital, Boston, said in a news release. “We found that minimizing glucose fluctuations in daily life is important for optimizing processing speed, and this is especially true for people who are older or have other diabetes-related health conditions.”

SOURCE:

Zoë Hawks, PhD, research investigator, McLean Hospital, Boston, was the lead and corresponding author on the study. It was published online on March 18 in Digital Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers required 24-hour access to a smartphone with reliable Internet access, which might have biased sampling toward people of higher economic status. Moreover, the present sample was predominantly White and non-Hispanic, so findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Hawks received consulting fees from Blueprint Health. The other authors’ disclosures were listed in the original paper.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening for lung cancer can detect other health issues, as well.

The reason is because the low-dose CT scans used for screening cover the lower neck down to the upper abdomen, revealing far more anatomy than simply the lungs.

In fact, lung cancer screening can provide information on three of the top 10 causes of death worldwide: ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and, of course, lung cancer.

With lung cancer screening, “we are basically targeting many birds with one low-dose stone,” explained Jelena Spasic MD, PhD, at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024.

Dr. Spasic, a medical oncologist at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade, was the discussant on a study that gave an indication on just how useful screening can be for other diseases.

The study, dubbed 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial (4ITLR), is an ongoing prospective trial in six European countries that is using lung cancer screening scans to also look for coronary artery calcifications, a marker of atherosclerosis.

Usually, coronary calcifications are considered incidental findings on lung cancer screenings and reported to subjects’ physicians for heart disease risk assessment.

The difference in 4ITLR is that investigators are actively looking for the lesions and quantifying the extent of calcifications.

It’s made possible by the artificial intelligence-based software being used to read the scans. In addition to generating reports on lung nodules, it also automatically calculates an Agatston score, a quantification of the degree of coronary artery calcification for each subject.

At the meeting, which was organized by the European Society for Clinical Oncology, 4ITLR investigator Daiwei Han, MD, PhD, a research associate at the Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy in Groningen, the Netherlands, reported outcomes in the first 2487 of the 24,000 planned subjects.

To be eligible for screening, participants had to be 60-79 years old and either current smokers, past smokers who had quit within 10 years, or people with a 35 or more pack-year history. The median age in the study was 68.1 years.

Overall, 53% of subjects had Agatston scores of 100 or more, indicating the need for treatment to prevent active coronary artery disease, Dr. Han said.

Fifteen percent were at high risk for heart disease with scores of 400-999, indicating extensive coronary artery calcification, and 16.2% were at very high risk, with scores of 1000 or higher. The information is being shared with participants’ physicians.

The risk of heart disease was far higher in men, who made up 56% of the study population. While women had a median Agatston score of 61, the median score for men was 211.1.

The findings illustrate the potential of dedicated cardiovascular screening within lung cancer screening programs, Dr. Han said, noting that 4ITLR will also incorporate COPD risk assessment.

The study also shows the increased impact lung cancer screening programs could have if greater use were made of the CT images to look for other diseases, Dr. Spasic said.

4ITLR is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program. Dr. Spasic and Dr. Han didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

Screening for lung cancer can detect other health issues, as well.

The reason is because the low-dose CT scans used for screening cover the lower neck down to the upper abdomen, revealing far more anatomy than simply the lungs.

In fact, lung cancer screening can provide information on three of the top 10 causes of death worldwide: ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and, of course, lung cancer.

With lung cancer screening, “we are basically targeting many birds with one low-dose stone,” explained Jelena Spasic MD, PhD, at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024.

Dr. Spasic, a medical oncologist at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade, was the discussant on a study that gave an indication on just how useful screening can be for other diseases.

The study, dubbed 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial (4ITLR), is an ongoing prospective trial in six European countries that is using lung cancer screening scans to also look for coronary artery calcifications, a marker of atherosclerosis.

Usually, coronary calcifications are considered incidental findings on lung cancer screenings and reported to subjects’ physicians for heart disease risk assessment.

The difference in 4ITLR is that investigators are actively looking for the lesions and quantifying the extent of calcifications.

It’s made possible by the artificial intelligence-based software being used to read the scans. In addition to generating reports on lung nodules, it also automatically calculates an Agatston score, a quantification of the degree of coronary artery calcification for each subject.

At the meeting, which was organized by the European Society for Clinical Oncology, 4ITLR investigator Daiwei Han, MD, PhD, a research associate at the Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy in Groningen, the Netherlands, reported outcomes in the first 2487 of the 24,000 planned subjects.

To be eligible for screening, participants had to be 60-79 years old and either current smokers, past smokers who had quit within 10 years, or people with a 35 or more pack-year history. The median age in the study was 68.1 years.

Overall, 53% of subjects had Agatston scores of 100 or more, indicating the need for treatment to prevent active coronary artery disease, Dr. Han said.

Fifteen percent were at high risk for heart disease with scores of 400-999, indicating extensive coronary artery calcification, and 16.2% were at very high risk, with scores of 1000 or higher. The information is being shared with participants’ physicians.

The risk of heart disease was far higher in men, who made up 56% of the study population. While women had a median Agatston score of 61, the median score for men was 211.1.

The findings illustrate the potential of dedicated cardiovascular screening within lung cancer screening programs, Dr. Han said, noting that 4ITLR will also incorporate COPD risk assessment.

The study also shows the increased impact lung cancer screening programs could have if greater use were made of the CT images to look for other diseases, Dr. Spasic said.

4ITLR is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program. Dr. Spasic and Dr. Han didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

Screening for lung cancer can detect other health issues, as well.

The reason is because the low-dose CT scans used for screening cover the lower neck down to the upper abdomen, revealing far more anatomy than simply the lungs.

In fact, lung cancer screening can provide information on three of the top 10 causes of death worldwide: ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and, of course, lung cancer.

With lung cancer screening, “we are basically targeting many birds with one low-dose stone,” explained Jelena Spasic MD, PhD, at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024.

Dr. Spasic, a medical oncologist at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade, was the discussant on a study that gave an indication on just how useful screening can be for other diseases.

The study, dubbed 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial (4ITLR), is an ongoing prospective trial in six European countries that is using lung cancer screening scans to also look for coronary artery calcifications, a marker of atherosclerosis.

Usually, coronary calcifications are considered incidental findings on lung cancer screenings and reported to subjects’ physicians for heart disease risk assessment.

The difference in 4ITLR is that investigators are actively looking for the lesions and quantifying the extent of calcifications.

It’s made possible by the artificial intelligence-based software being used to read the scans. In addition to generating reports on lung nodules, it also automatically calculates an Agatston score, a quantification of the degree of coronary artery calcification for each subject.

At the meeting, which was organized by the European Society for Clinical Oncology, 4ITLR investigator Daiwei Han, MD, PhD, a research associate at the Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy in Groningen, the Netherlands, reported outcomes in the first 2487 of the 24,000 planned subjects.

To be eligible for screening, participants had to be 60-79 years old and either current smokers, past smokers who had quit within 10 years, or people with a 35 or more pack-year history. The median age in the study was 68.1 years.

Overall, 53% of subjects had Agatston scores of 100 or more, indicating the need for treatment to prevent active coronary artery disease, Dr. Han said.

Fifteen percent were at high risk for heart disease with scores of 400-999, indicating extensive coronary artery calcification, and 16.2% were at very high risk, with scores of 1000 or higher. The information is being shared with participants’ physicians.

The risk of heart disease was far higher in men, who made up 56% of the study population. While women had a median Agatston score of 61, the median score for men was 211.1.

The findings illustrate the potential of dedicated cardiovascular screening within lung cancer screening programs, Dr. Han said, noting that 4ITLR will also incorporate COPD risk assessment.

The study also shows the increased impact lung cancer screening programs could have if greater use were made of the CT images to look for other diseases, Dr. Spasic said.

4ITLR is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program. Dr. Spasic and Dr. Han didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with accelerated brain aging and a higher risk for early dementia, regardless of income level or education, new research suggested.

Analysis of two datasets revealed that people living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had a more than 20% higher risk for dementia than those in other areas and measurably poorer brain health as early as age 45, regardless of their own personal income and education.

“If you want to prevent dementia and you’re not asking someone about their neighborhood, you’re missing information that’s important to know,” lead author Aaron Reuben, PhD, postdoctoral scholar in neuropsychology and environmental health at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

Higher Risk in Men

Few interventions exist to halt or delay the progression of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), which has increasingly led to a focus on primary prevention.

Although previous research pointed to a link between socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods and a greater risk for cognitive deficits, mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and poor brain health, the timeline for the emergence of that risk is unknown.

To fill in the gaps, investigators studied data on all 1.4 million New Zealand residents, dividing neighborhoods into quintiles based on level of disadvantage (assessed by the New Zealand Index of Deprivation) to see whether dementia diagnoses followed neighborhood socioeconomic gradients.

After adjusting for covariates, they found that overall, those living in disadvantaged areas were slightly more likely to develop dementia across the 20-year study period (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10).

The more disadvantaged the neighborhood, the higher the dementia risk, with a 43% higher risk for ADRD among those in the highest quintile than among those in the lowest quintile (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.36-1.49).

The effect was larger in men than in women and in younger vs older individuals, with the youngest age group showing 21% greater risk in women and 26% greater risk in men vs the oldest age group.

Dementia Prevention Starts Early

Researchers then turned to the Dunedin Study, a cohort of 938 New Zealanders (50% female) followed from birth to age 45 to track their psychological, social, and physiological health with brain scans, memory tests, and cognitive self-assessments.

The analysis suggested that by age 45, those living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods across adulthood had accumulated a significantly greater number of midlife risk factors for later ADRD.

They also had worse structural brain integrity, with each standard deviation increase in neighborhood disadvantage resulting in a thinner cortex, greater white matter hyperintensities volume, and older brain age.

Those living in poorer areas had lower cognitive test scores, reported more issues with everyday cognitive function, and showed a greater reduction in IQ from childhood to midlife. Analysis of brain scans also revealed mean brain ages 2.98 years older than those living in the least disadvantaged areas (P = .001).

Limitations included the study’s observational design, which could not establish causation, and the fact that the researchers did not have access to individual-level socioeconomic information for the entire population. Additionally, brain-integrity measures in the Dunedin Study were largely cross-sectional.

“If you want to truly prevent dementia, you’ve got to start early because 20 years before anyone will get a diagnosis, we’re seeing dementia’s emergence,” Dr. Reuben said. “And it could be even earlier.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes for Health; UK Medical Research Council; Health Research Council of New Zealand; Brain Research New Zealand; New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation, & Employment; and the Duke University and the University of North Carolina Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with accelerated brain aging and a higher risk for early dementia, regardless of income level or education, new research suggested.

Analysis of two datasets revealed that people living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had a more than 20% higher risk for dementia than those in other areas and measurably poorer brain health as early as age 45, regardless of their own personal income and education.

“If you want to prevent dementia and you’re not asking someone about their neighborhood, you’re missing information that’s important to know,” lead author Aaron Reuben, PhD, postdoctoral scholar in neuropsychology and environmental health at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

Higher Risk in Men

Few interventions exist to halt or delay the progression of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), which has increasingly led to a focus on primary prevention.

Although previous research pointed to a link between socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods and a greater risk for cognitive deficits, mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and poor brain health, the timeline for the emergence of that risk is unknown.

To fill in the gaps, investigators studied data on all 1.4 million New Zealand residents, dividing neighborhoods into quintiles based on level of disadvantage (assessed by the New Zealand Index of Deprivation) to see whether dementia diagnoses followed neighborhood socioeconomic gradients.

After adjusting for covariates, they found that overall, those living in disadvantaged areas were slightly more likely to develop dementia across the 20-year study period (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10).

The more disadvantaged the neighborhood, the higher the dementia risk, with a 43% higher risk for ADRD among those in the highest quintile than among those in the lowest quintile (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.36-1.49).

The effect was larger in men than in women and in younger vs older individuals, with the youngest age group showing 21% greater risk in women and 26% greater risk in men vs the oldest age group.

Dementia Prevention Starts Early

Researchers then turned to the Dunedin Study, a cohort of 938 New Zealanders (50% female) followed from birth to age 45 to track their psychological, social, and physiological health with brain scans, memory tests, and cognitive self-assessments.

The analysis suggested that by age 45, those living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods across adulthood had accumulated a significantly greater number of midlife risk factors for later ADRD.

They also had worse structural brain integrity, with each standard deviation increase in neighborhood disadvantage resulting in a thinner cortex, greater white matter hyperintensities volume, and older brain age.

Those living in poorer areas had lower cognitive test scores, reported more issues with everyday cognitive function, and showed a greater reduction in IQ from childhood to midlife. Analysis of brain scans also revealed mean brain ages 2.98 years older than those living in the least disadvantaged areas (P = .001).

Limitations included the study’s observational design, which could not establish causation, and the fact that the researchers did not have access to individual-level socioeconomic information for the entire population. Additionally, brain-integrity measures in the Dunedin Study were largely cross-sectional.

“If you want to truly prevent dementia, you’ve got to start early because 20 years before anyone will get a diagnosis, we’re seeing dementia’s emergence,” Dr. Reuben said. “And it could be even earlier.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes for Health; UK Medical Research Council; Health Research Council of New Zealand; Brain Research New Zealand; New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation, & Employment; and the Duke University and the University of North Carolina Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with accelerated brain aging and a higher risk for early dementia, regardless of income level or education, new research suggested.

Analysis of two datasets revealed that people living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had a more than 20% higher risk for dementia than those in other areas and measurably poorer brain health as early as age 45, regardless of their own personal income and education.

“If you want to prevent dementia and you’re not asking someone about their neighborhood, you’re missing information that’s important to know,” lead author Aaron Reuben, PhD, postdoctoral scholar in neuropsychology and environmental health at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

Higher Risk in Men

Few interventions exist to halt or delay the progression of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), which has increasingly led to a focus on primary prevention.

Although previous research pointed to a link between socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods and a greater risk for cognitive deficits, mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and poor brain health, the timeline for the emergence of that risk is unknown.

To fill in the gaps, investigators studied data on all 1.4 million New Zealand residents, dividing neighborhoods into quintiles based on level of disadvantage (assessed by the New Zealand Index of Deprivation) to see whether dementia diagnoses followed neighborhood socioeconomic gradients.

After adjusting for covariates, they found that overall, those living in disadvantaged areas were slightly more likely to develop dementia across the 20-year study period (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10).

The more disadvantaged the neighborhood, the higher the dementia risk, with a 43% higher risk for ADRD among those in the highest quintile than among those in the lowest quintile (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.36-1.49).

The effect was larger in men than in women and in younger vs older individuals, with the youngest age group showing 21% greater risk in women and 26% greater risk in men vs the oldest age group.

Dementia Prevention Starts Early

Researchers then turned to the Dunedin Study, a cohort of 938 New Zealanders (50% female) followed from birth to age 45 to track their psychological, social, and physiological health with brain scans, memory tests, and cognitive self-assessments.

The analysis suggested that by age 45, those living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods across adulthood had accumulated a significantly greater number of midlife risk factors for later ADRD.

They also had worse structural brain integrity, with each standard deviation increase in neighborhood disadvantage resulting in a thinner cortex, greater white matter hyperintensities volume, and older brain age.

Those living in poorer areas had lower cognitive test scores, reported more issues with everyday cognitive function, and showed a greater reduction in IQ from childhood to midlife. Analysis of brain scans also revealed mean brain ages 2.98 years older than those living in the least disadvantaged areas (P = .001).

Limitations included the study’s observational design, which could not establish causation, and the fact that the researchers did not have access to individual-level socioeconomic information for the entire population. Additionally, brain-integrity measures in the Dunedin Study were largely cross-sectional.

“If you want to truly prevent dementia, you’ve got to start early because 20 years before anyone will get a diagnosis, we’re seeing dementia’s emergence,” Dr. Reuben said. “And it could be even earlier.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes for Health; UK Medical Research Council; Health Research Council of New Zealand; Brain Research New Zealand; New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation, & Employment; and the Duke University and the University of North Carolina Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vitamin D deficiency is independently linked to the risk for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) by potentially affecting large nerve fibers in older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Although previous research has shown that vitamin D deficiency is common in patients with diabetes and may increase the risk for peripheral neuropathy, its effects on large and small nerve fiber lesions have not been well explored yet.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study to understand the association between vitamin D deficiency and DPN development in 230 older patients (mean age, 67 years) with T2D for about 15 years who were recruited from Beijing Hospital between 2020 and 2023.
• All patients were evaluated for DPN based on poor blood sugar control or symptoms such as pain and sensory abnormalities, of which 175 patients diagnosed with DPN were propensity-matched with 55 patients without DPN.
• Vitamin D deficiency, defined as serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D circulating levels below 20 ng/mL, was reported in 169 patients.
• Large nerve fiber lesions were evaluated using electromyography, and small nerve fiber lesions were assessed by measuring skin conductance.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vitamin D deficiency was more likely to affect large fiber lesions, suggested by longer median sensory nerve latency, minimum latency of the F-wave, and median nerve motor evoked potential latency than those in the vitamin D–sufficient group.
• Furthermore, vitamin D deficiency was linked to large fiber neuropathy with increased odds of prolongation of motor nerve latency (odds ratio, 1.362; P = .038).
• The electrochemical skin conductance, which indicates damage to small nerve fibers, was comparable between patients with and without vitamin D deficiency.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sijia Fei, Department of Endocrinology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, and was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Skin biopsy, the “gold-standard” for quantifying intraepidermal nerve fiber density, was not used to assess small nerve fiber lesions. Additionally, a causal link between vitamin D deficiency and diabetic nerve damage was not established owing to the cross-sectional nature of the study. Some patients with T2D may have been receiving insulin therapy, which may have affected vitamin D levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and China National Key R&D Program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vitamin D deficiency is independently linked to the risk for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) by potentially affecting large nerve fibers in older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Although previous research has shown that vitamin D deficiency is common in patients with diabetes and may increase the risk for peripheral neuropathy, its effects on large and small nerve fiber lesions have not been well explored yet.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study to understand the association between vitamin D deficiency and DPN development in 230 older patients (mean age, 67 years) with T2D for about 15 years who were recruited from Beijing Hospital between 2020 and 2023.
• All patients were evaluated for DPN based on poor blood sugar control or symptoms such as pain and sensory abnormalities, of which 175 patients diagnosed with DPN were propensity-matched with 55 patients without DPN.
• Vitamin D deficiency, defined as serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D circulating levels below 20 ng/mL, was reported in 169 patients.
• Large nerve fiber lesions were evaluated using electromyography, and small nerve fiber lesions were assessed by measuring skin conductance.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vitamin D deficiency was more likely to affect large fiber lesions, suggested by longer median sensory nerve latency, minimum latency of the F-wave, and median nerve motor evoked potential latency than those in the vitamin D–sufficient group.
• Furthermore, vitamin D deficiency was linked to large fiber neuropathy with increased odds of prolongation of motor nerve latency (odds ratio, 1.362; P = .038).
• The electrochemical skin conductance, which indicates damage to small nerve fibers, was comparable between patients with and without vitamin D deficiency.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sijia Fei, Department of Endocrinology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, and was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Skin biopsy, the “gold-standard” for quantifying intraepidermal nerve fiber density, was not used to assess small nerve fiber lesions. Additionally, a causal link between vitamin D deficiency and diabetic nerve damage was not established owing to the cross-sectional nature of the study. Some patients with T2D may have been receiving insulin therapy, which may have affected vitamin D levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and China National Key R&D Program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vitamin D deficiency is independently linked to the risk for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) by potentially affecting large nerve fibers in older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Although previous research has shown that vitamin D deficiency is common in patients with diabetes and may increase the risk for peripheral neuropathy, its effects on large and small nerve fiber lesions have not been well explored yet.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study to understand the association between vitamin D deficiency and DPN development in 230 older patients (mean age, 67 years) with T2D for about 15 years who were recruited from Beijing Hospital between 2020 and 2023.
• All patients were evaluated for DPN based on poor blood sugar control or symptoms such as pain and sensory abnormalities, of which 175 patients diagnosed with DPN were propensity-matched with 55 patients without DPN.
• Vitamin D deficiency, defined as serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D circulating levels below 20 ng/mL, was reported in 169 patients.
• Large nerve fiber lesions were evaluated using electromyography, and small nerve fiber lesions were assessed by measuring skin conductance.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vitamin D deficiency was more likely to affect large fiber lesions, suggested by longer median sensory nerve latency, minimum latency of the F-wave, and median nerve motor evoked potential latency than those in the vitamin D–sufficient group.
• Furthermore, vitamin D deficiency was linked to large fiber neuropathy with increased odds of prolongation of motor nerve latency (odds ratio, 1.362; P = .038).
• The electrochemical skin conductance, which indicates damage to small nerve fibers, was comparable between patients with and without vitamin D deficiency.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sijia Fei, Department of Endocrinology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, and was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Skin biopsy, the “gold-standard” for quantifying intraepidermal nerve fiber density, was not used to assess small nerve fiber lesions. Additionally, a causal link between vitamin D deficiency and diabetic nerve damage was not established owing to the cross-sectional nature of the study. Some patients with T2D may have been receiving insulin therapy, which may have affected vitamin D levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and China National Key R&D Program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nine days after the independent laboratory Valisure petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to recall acne products with benzoyl peroxide (BP) because of the lab’s findings of extremely high levels of the carcinogen benzene, it published another report in Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), on March 14, also warning about BP acne products.

The bottom line was the same: The laboratory, based in New Haven, Connecticut, said its analyses raise substantial concerns about the safety of BP-containing acne products currently on the market.

The lab’s results showed that the products can form over 800 times the conditionally restricted FDA concentration limit of 2 parts per million (ppm) of benzene, with both prescription and over-the-counter products affected.

“This is a problem of degradation, not contamination,” David Light, CEO and founder of Valisure, said in a telephone interview. BP can decompose into benzene, and exposure to benzene has been linked with a higher risk for leukemia and other blood cancers, according to the American Cancer Society.

In the wake of the findings, however, debate has erupted over the method and approach used by Valisure to test these products, with critics and companies contending that more “real-world” use data are needed. And the US Pharmacopeia (USP) is asking for full transparency about the testing methods.

In a March 8 statement, USP said the petition indicated that modified USP methods were used in the study, noting that “if changes are made to a USP method, complete validation data is necessary to demonstrate that a product meets USP standards.”

However, Valisure contended that drug products need to demonstrate stability over the entire life cycle, from shipment to continued use, emphasizing that constitutes the best “real-world” approach. It also defended the methodology it used.

The reports have led to a state of uncertainty about the use of BP products.

“Right now, we have more unknowns than anything else,” John Barbieri, MD, MBA, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in a video posted on X and YouTube, summarizing the findings released by Valisure on March 6 and 14. He was not involved in the Valisure research.

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

In a telephone interview, Dr. Barbieri said the report “needs to be taken seriously,” but he also believed the Valisure report is lacking information about testing under “real-world” conditions. He is calling for more information and more transparency about the data. What’s clear, Dr. Barbieri told this news organization, is that the findings about high benzene levels are not a manufacturing error. “It’s something to do with the molecule itself.”
 

Valisure’s Analyses

Valisure performed an initial analysis, using a method called gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, which is the FDA-preferred method for detecting benzene, Mr. Light said. It tested 175 acne products, 99 containing BP and 76 with other ingredients, such as salicylic acid. All the products without BP had no detectable benzene or values below 2 ppm, the FDA concentration limit for benzene.

Of the 99 BP products, 94 contained benzene without any elevated temperature incubation, according to Valisure. Using 50 °C (122 °F, the accepted pharmaceutical stability testing temperature) on 66 products, Valisure detected over 1500 ppm of benzene in two products, over 100 ppm in 17 products, and over 10 ppm in 42 products over an 18-day period.

The analysis confirmed, Valisure said in a press release and the petition, that a substantial amount of benzene can form in a BP product and leak outside the packaging into surrounding air.

The EHP paper, which includes authors from Valisure, reported that researchers took single lots of seven branded BP products, namely, Equate Beauty 2.5% BP cleansers, Neutrogena 10% BP cleanser, CVS Health 10% BP face wash, Walgreens 10% BP cream, Clean & Clear 10% cleanser, Equate Beauty 10% BP acne wash, and Proactiv 2.5% BP cleanser.

Using testing that involved gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, benzene was detected in all the BP products samples tested, and levels increased during incubation at body and shelf-life performance temperatures to more than 2 ppm. The authors concluded that the study “raises substantial concerns” about the safety of BP products currently on the market.
 

Methodology Debates

Two days after Valisure released its analysis on March 6, the USP reviewed the citizen’s petition filed by Valisure and called for more transparency around the testing methods.

“The petition referenced USP and indicated that modified USP methods and procedures were used in the study. The presence of unsafe levels of benzene should be taken seriously,” the statement said. The USP statement also noted that the Valisure analysis used modified USP methods and said that “if changes are made to a USP method, complete validation data is necessary to demonstrate that a product meets USP standards.”

In its statement, USP took issue with a practice known as accelerated thermal degradation, which it said Valisure used. USP said the approach involves raising the storage temperature of a product to higher than the temperature indicated on the label for the purpose of simulating degradation over a longer period. While the approach may be acceptable, USP said, the temperatures chosen may not be what is expected to happen to the products.

In response, Mr. Light of Valisure referenced guidance issued in August, 2020, from the FDA, stating that the method it used in the BP analysis can be used to detect impurities in hand sanitizers, including benzene. (In 2021, Valisure detected high levels of benzene in some hand sanitizers and asked the FDA to take action.)
 

Company Response

Among the companies that took issue with the report was Reckitt, which makes Clearasil, which contains BP. In a statement, the company said, in part: “The products and their ingredients are stable over the storage conditions described on their packaging which represent all reasonable and foreseeable conditions.” It said the findings presented by Valisure reflect “unrealistic scenarios rather than real-world conditions.”

The Personal Care Products Council, a national trade association that represents cosmetic and personal care product manufacturers, also took issue with the findings and the approach used to evaluate the products.
 

FDA and the Citizen’s Petition

The FDA accepted the petition, Mr. Light said, and gave it a docket number. “We’ll hopefully hear more soon” because the FDA is required to respond to a citizen’s petition within 180 days, he said.

“We generally don’t comment on pending citizens’ petitions,” an FDA spokesperson said in an email. “When we respond, we will respond directly to the petitioner and post the response in the designated agency public docket.”
 

Valisure’s Patent Application

Mr. Light and others have applied for a patent on methods of producing shelf-stable formulations to prevent degradation of BP to benzene.

“We saw the problem long before we had any sort of application,” Mr. Light said. The issue has been “known for decades.”
 

Role of BP Products for Acne

In the midst of uncertainty, “the first discussion is, do we want to use it?” Dr. Barbieri said in the interview. Some patients may want to avoid it altogether, until more data are available, including more verification of the findings, while others may be comfortable accepting the potential risk, he said.

“Benzoyl peroxide is one of our foundational acne treatments,” Dr. Barbieri said. In the American Academy of Dermatology updated guidelines on acne, published in January, 2024, strong recommendations were made for BP products, as well as topical retinoids, topical antibiotics, and oral doxycycline.

“When you take away BP, there’s no substitute for it,” Dr. Barbieri said. And if patients don’t get improvement with topicals, oral medications might be needed, and “these all have their own risks.”
 

In the Interim

Until more information is available, Dr. Barbieri is advising patients not to store the products at high temperatures or for a long time. Don’t keep the products past their expiration date, and perhaps keep products for a shorter time, “something like a month,” he said.

Those living in a hot climate might consider storing the products in the refrigerator, he said.

“We need more data from Valisure, from other groups that confirm their findings, and we need to hear from the FDA,” Dr. Barbieri said. “There’s a lot of uncertainty right now. But it’s important not to overreact.”

Dr. Barbieri had no relevant disclosures.


 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nine days after the independent laboratory Valisure petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to recall acne products with benzoyl peroxide (BP) because of the lab’s findings of extremely high levels of the carcinogen benzene, it published another report in Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), on March 14, also warning about BP acne products.

The bottom line was the same: The laboratory, based in New Haven, Connecticut, said its analyses raise substantial concerns about the safety of BP-containing acne products currently on the market.

The lab’s results showed that the products can form over 800 times the conditionally restricted FDA concentration limit of 2 parts per million (ppm) of benzene, with both prescription and over-the-counter products affected.

“This is a problem of degradation, not contamination,” David Light, CEO and founder of Valisure, said in a telephone interview. BP can decompose into benzene, and exposure to benzene has been linked with a higher risk for leukemia and other blood cancers, according to the American Cancer Society.

In the wake of the findings, however, debate has erupted over the method and approach used by Valisure to test these products, with critics and companies contending that more “real-world” use data are needed. And the US Pharmacopeia (USP) is asking for full transparency about the testing methods.

In a March 8 statement, USP said the petition indicated that modified USP methods were used in the study, noting that “if changes are made to a USP method, complete validation data is necessary to demonstrate that a product meets USP standards.”

However, Valisure contended that drug products need to demonstrate stability over the entire life cycle, from shipment to continued use, emphasizing that constitutes the best “real-world” approach. It also defended the methodology it used.

The reports have led to a state of uncertainty about the use of BP products.

“Right now, we have more unknowns than anything else,” John Barbieri, MD, MBA, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in a video posted on X and YouTube, summarizing the findings released by Valisure on March 6 and 14. He was not involved in the Valisure research.

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

In a telephone interview, Dr. Barbieri said the report “needs to be taken seriously,” but he also believed the Valisure report is lacking information about testing under “real-world” conditions. He is calling for more information and more transparency about the data. What’s clear, Dr. Barbieri told this news organization, is that the findings about high benzene levels are not a manufacturing error. “It’s something to do with the molecule itself.”
 

Valisure’s Analyses

Valisure performed an initial analysis, using a method called gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, which is the FDA-preferred method for detecting benzene, Mr. Light said. It tested 175 acne products, 99 containing BP and 76 with other ingredients, such as salicylic acid. All the products without BP had no detectable benzene or values below 2 ppm, the FDA concentration limit for benzene.

Of the 99 BP products, 94 contained benzene without any elevated temperature incubation, according to Valisure. Using 50 °C (122 °F, the accepted pharmaceutical stability testing temperature) on 66 products, Valisure detected over 1500 ppm of benzene in two products, over 100 ppm in 17 products, and over 10 ppm in 42 products over an 18-day period.

The analysis confirmed, Valisure said in a press release and the petition, that a substantial amount of benzene can form in a BP product and leak outside the packaging into surrounding air.

The EHP paper, which includes authors from Valisure, reported that researchers took single lots of seven branded BP products, namely, Equate Beauty 2.5% BP cleansers, Neutrogena 10% BP cleanser, CVS Health 10% BP face wash, Walgreens 10% BP cream, Clean & Clear 10% cleanser, Equate Beauty 10% BP acne wash, and Proactiv 2.5% BP cleanser.

Using testing that involved gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, benzene was detected in all the BP products samples tested, and levels increased during incubation at body and shelf-life performance temperatures to more than 2 ppm. The authors concluded that the study “raises substantial concerns” about the safety of BP products currently on the market.
 

Methodology Debates

Two days after Valisure released its analysis on March 6, the USP reviewed the citizen’s petition filed by Valisure and called for more transparency around the testing methods.

“The petition referenced USP and indicated that modified USP methods and procedures were used in the study. The presence of unsafe levels of benzene should be taken seriously,” the statement said. The USP statement also noted that the Valisure analysis used modified USP methods and said that “if changes are made to a USP method, complete validation data is necessary to demonstrate that a product meets USP standards.”

In its statement, USP took issue with a practice known as accelerated thermal degradation, which it said Valisure used. USP said the approach involves raising the storage temperature of a product to higher than the temperature indicated on the label for the purpose of simulating degradation over a longer period. While the approach may be acceptable, USP said, the temperatures chosen may not be what is expected to happen to the products.

In response, Mr. Light of Valisure referenced guidance issued in August, 2020, from the FDA, stating that the method it used in the BP analysis can be used to detect impurities in hand sanitizers, including benzene. (In 2021, Valisure detected high levels of benzene in some hand sanitizers and asked the FDA to take action.)
 

Company Response

Among the companies that took issue with the report was Reckitt, which makes Clearasil, which contains BP. In a statement, the company said, in part: “The products and their ingredients are stable over the storage conditions described on their packaging which represent all reasonable and foreseeable conditions.” It said the findings presented by Valisure reflect “unrealistic scenarios rather than real-world conditions.”

The Personal Care Products Council, a national trade association that represents cosmetic and personal care product manufacturers, also took issue with the findings and the approach used to evaluate the products.
 

FDA and the Citizen’s Petition

The FDA accepted the petition, Mr. Light said, and gave it a docket number. “We’ll hopefully hear more soon” because the FDA is required to respond to a citizen’s petition within 180 days, he said.

“We generally don’t comment on pending citizens’ petitions,” an FDA spokesperson said in an email. “When we respond, we will respond directly to the petitioner and post the response in the designated agency public docket.”
 

Valisure’s Patent Application

Mr. Light and others have applied for a patent on methods of producing shelf-stable formulations to prevent degradation of BP to benzene.

“We saw the problem long before we had any sort of application,” Mr. Light said. The issue has been “known for decades.”
 

Role of BP Products for Acne

In the midst of uncertainty, “the first discussion is, do we want to use it?” Dr. Barbieri said in the interview. Some patients may want to avoid it altogether, until more data are available, including more verification of the findings, while others may be comfortable accepting the potential risk, he said.

“Benzoyl peroxide is one of our foundational acne treatments,” Dr. Barbieri said. In the American Academy of Dermatology updated guidelines on acne, published in January, 2024, strong recommendations were made for BP products, as well as topical retinoids, topical antibiotics, and oral doxycycline.

“When you take away BP, there’s no substitute for it,” Dr. Barbieri said. And if patients don’t get improvement with topicals, oral medications might be needed, and “these all have their own risks.”
 

In the Interim

Until more information is available, Dr. Barbieri is advising patients not to store the products at high temperatures or for a long time. Don’t keep the products past their expiration date, and perhaps keep products for a shorter time, “something like a month,” he said.

Those living in a hot climate might consider storing the products in the refrigerator, he said.

“We need more data from Valisure, from other groups that confirm their findings, and we need to hear from the FDA,” Dr. Barbieri said. “There’s a lot of uncertainty right now. But it’s important not to overreact.”

Dr. Barbieri had no relevant disclosures.


 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nine days after the independent laboratory Valisure petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to recall acne products with benzoyl peroxide (BP) because of the lab’s findings of extremely high levels of the carcinogen benzene, it published another report in Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), on March 14, also warning about BP acne products.

The bottom line was the same: The laboratory, based in New Haven, Connecticut, said its analyses raise substantial concerns about the safety of BP-containing acne products currently on the market.

The lab’s results showed that the products can form over 800 times the conditionally restricted FDA concentration limit of 2 parts per million (ppm) of benzene, with both prescription and over-the-counter products affected.

“This is a problem of degradation, not contamination,” David Light, CEO and founder of Valisure, said in a telephone interview. BP can decompose into benzene, and exposure to benzene has been linked with a higher risk for leukemia and other blood cancers, according to the American Cancer Society.

In the wake of the findings, however, debate has erupted over the method and approach used by Valisure to test these products, with critics and companies contending that more “real-world” use data are needed. And the US Pharmacopeia (USP) is asking for full transparency about the testing methods.

In a March 8 statement, USP said the petition indicated that modified USP methods were used in the study, noting that “if changes are made to a USP method, complete validation data is necessary to demonstrate that a product meets USP standards.”

However, Valisure contended that drug products need to demonstrate stability over the entire life cycle, from shipment to continued use, emphasizing that constitutes the best “real-world” approach. It also defended the methodology it used.

The reports have led to a state of uncertainty about the use of BP products.

“Right now, we have more unknowns than anything else,” John Barbieri, MD, MBA, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in a video posted on X and YouTube, summarizing the findings released by Valisure on March 6 and 14. He was not involved in the Valisure research.

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

In a telephone interview, Dr. Barbieri said the report “needs to be taken seriously,” but he also believed the Valisure report is lacking information about testing under “real-world” conditions. He is calling for more information and more transparency about the data. What’s clear, Dr. Barbieri told this news organization, is that the findings about high benzene levels are not a manufacturing error. “It’s something to do with the molecule itself.”
 

Valisure’s Analyses

Valisure performed an initial analysis, using a method called gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, which is the FDA-preferred method for detecting benzene, Mr. Light said. It tested 175 acne products, 99 containing BP and 76 with other ingredients, such as salicylic acid. All the products without BP had no detectable benzene or values below 2 ppm, the FDA concentration limit for benzene.

Of the 99 BP products, 94 contained benzene without any elevated temperature incubation, according to Valisure. Using 50 °C (122 °F, the accepted pharmaceutical stability testing temperature) on 66 products, Valisure detected over 1500 ppm of benzene in two products, over 100 ppm in 17 products, and over 10 ppm in 42 products over an 18-day period.

The analysis confirmed, Valisure said in a press release and the petition, that a substantial amount of benzene can form in a BP product and leak outside the packaging into surrounding air.

The EHP paper, which includes authors from Valisure, reported that researchers took single lots of seven branded BP products, namely, Equate Beauty 2.5% BP cleansers, Neutrogena 10% BP cleanser, CVS Health 10% BP face wash, Walgreens 10% BP cream, Clean & Clear 10% cleanser, Equate Beauty 10% BP acne wash, and Proactiv 2.5% BP cleanser.

Using testing that involved gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, benzene was detected in all the BP products samples tested, and levels increased during incubation at body and shelf-life performance temperatures to more than 2 ppm. The authors concluded that the study “raises substantial concerns” about the safety of BP products currently on the market.
 

Methodology Debates

Two days after Valisure released its analysis on March 6, the USP reviewed the citizen’s petition filed by Valisure and called for more transparency around the testing methods.

“The petition referenced USP and indicated that modified USP methods and procedures were used in the study. The presence of unsafe levels of benzene should be taken seriously,” the statement said. The USP statement also noted that the Valisure analysis used modified USP methods and said that “if changes are made to a USP method, complete validation data is necessary to demonstrate that a product meets USP standards.”

In its statement, USP took issue with a practice known as accelerated thermal degradation, which it said Valisure used. USP said the approach involves raising the storage temperature of a product to higher than the temperature indicated on the label for the purpose of simulating degradation over a longer period. While the approach may be acceptable, USP said, the temperatures chosen may not be what is expected to happen to the products.

In response, Mr. Light of Valisure referenced guidance issued in August, 2020, from the FDA, stating that the method it used in the BP analysis can be used to detect impurities in hand sanitizers, including benzene. (In 2021, Valisure detected high levels of benzene in some hand sanitizers and asked the FDA to take action.)
 

Company Response

Among the companies that took issue with the report was Reckitt, which makes Clearasil, which contains BP. In a statement, the company said, in part: “The products and their ingredients are stable over the storage conditions described on their packaging which represent all reasonable and foreseeable conditions.” It said the findings presented by Valisure reflect “unrealistic scenarios rather than real-world conditions.”

The Personal Care Products Council, a national trade association that represents cosmetic and personal care product manufacturers, also took issue with the findings and the approach used to evaluate the products.
 

FDA and the Citizen’s Petition

The FDA accepted the petition, Mr. Light said, and gave it a docket number. “We’ll hopefully hear more soon” because the FDA is required to respond to a citizen’s petition within 180 days, he said.

“We generally don’t comment on pending citizens’ petitions,” an FDA spokesperson said in an email. “When we respond, we will respond directly to the petitioner and post the response in the designated agency public docket.”
 

Valisure’s Patent Application

Mr. Light and others have applied for a patent on methods of producing shelf-stable formulations to prevent degradation of BP to benzene.

“We saw the problem long before we had any sort of application,” Mr. Light said. The issue has been “known for decades.”
 

Role of BP Products for Acne

In the midst of uncertainty, “the first discussion is, do we want to use it?” Dr. Barbieri said in the interview. Some patients may want to avoid it altogether, until more data are available, including more verification of the findings, while others may be comfortable accepting the potential risk, he said.

“Benzoyl peroxide is one of our foundational acne treatments,” Dr. Barbieri said. In the American Academy of Dermatology updated guidelines on acne, published in January, 2024, strong recommendations were made for BP products, as well as topical retinoids, topical antibiotics, and oral doxycycline.

“When you take away BP, there’s no substitute for it,” Dr. Barbieri said. And if patients don’t get improvement with topicals, oral medications might be needed, and “these all have their own risks.”
 

In the Interim

Until more information is available, Dr. Barbieri is advising patients not to store the products at high temperatures or for a long time. Don’t keep the products past their expiration date, and perhaps keep products for a shorter time, “something like a month,” he said.

Those living in a hot climate might consider storing the products in the refrigerator, he said.

“We need more data from Valisure, from other groups that confirm their findings, and we need to hear from the FDA,” Dr. Barbieri said. “There’s a lot of uncertainty right now. But it’s important not to overreact.”

Dr. Barbieri had no relevant disclosures.


 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

No matter how much we’d like to leave it in the dust, COVID-19 remains prevalent and potent. Tens of thousands of people still contract COVID per week in the United States. Hundreds die. And those who don’t may still develop long COVID.

Pleas from public health officials for people to get a COVID vaccine or booster shot have been ignored by many people. About 80% of eligible Americans haven’t taken any kind of COVID booster. Meantime, the virus continues to mutate, eroding the efficacy of the vaccine’s past versions.

How to get more people to get the jab? Vaccine hesitancy, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, is likely rooted in a lack of trust in authority, whether it’s public health officials or politicians.

Dr. Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, and former medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, recommended five strategies physicians can try when discussing the importance of staying up to date on COVID vaccines with patients.
 

#1: Be Patient With Your Patient

First and foremost, if doctors are feeling reluctance from their patients, they need to know “what they shouldn’t do,” Dr. Schaffner said.

When a patient initially doesn’t want the vaccine, doctors shouldn’t express surprise. “Do not scold or berate or belittle. Do not give the impression the patient is somehow wrong or has failed a test of some sort,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Step back and affirm that they understand what the patient is saying so they feel reassured, even if they don’t agree or it’s based on falsehoods about the vaccine.

He said patients need to feel “the doctor heard them; it’s okay to tell the doctor this.” When you affirm what the patient says, it puts them at ease and provides a smoother road to eventually getting them to say “yes.”

But if there’s still a roadblock, don’t bulldoze them. “You don’t want to punish the patient ... let them know you’ll continue to hear them,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

#2: Always Acknowledge a Concern

Fear of side effects is great among some patients, even if the risks are low, Dr. Schaffner said. Patients may be hesitant because they’re afraid they’ll become one of the “two or three in a million” who suffer extremely rare side effects from the vaccine, Dr. Schaffner said.

In that case, doctors should acknowledge their concern is valid, he said. Never be dismissive. Ask the patients how they feel about the vaccine, listen to their responses, and let them know “I hear you. This is a new mRNA vaccine…you have concern about that,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors can segue into how there’s little reason to wait for some elusive perfectly risk-free vaccine when they can help themselves right now.

“The adverse events that occur with vaccines occur within 2 months [and are typically mild]. I don’t know of a single vaccine that has genuinely long-term implications,” Dr. Schaffner said. “We should remember that old French philosopher Voltaire. He admonished us: Waiting for perfection is the great enemy of the current good.”
 

#3: Make a Strong Recommendation

Here’s something that may seem obvious: Don’t treat the vaccine as an afterthought. “Survey after survey tells us this ... it has everything to do with the strength of the recommendation,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors typically make strong treatment recommendations such conditions as diabetes or high blood pressure, but “when it comes to vaccines, they’re often rather nonchalant,” he said.

If a patient is eligible for a vaccine, doctors should tell the patient they need to get it — not that you think they should get it. “Doctors have to make a firm recommendation: ‘You’re eligible for a vaccine ... and you need to get it ... you’ll receive it on your way out.’ It then becomes a distinct and strong recommendation,” he said.
 

#4: Appeal to Patients’ Hearts, Not Their Minds

In the opening of Charles Dickens’s novel “Hard Times,” the stern school superintendent, Mr. Gradgrind, scolds his students by beating their brow with the notion that, “Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out everything else.”

The idea that facts alone can sway a vaccine-resistant patient is wrong. “It often doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Schaffner said. “I don’t think facts do that. Psychologists tell us, yes, information is important, but it’s rarely sufficient to change behavior.”

Data and studies are foundational to medicine, but the key is to change how a patient feels about the data they’re presented with, not how they think about it. “Don’t attack their brain so much but their heart,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Dr. Schaffner has stressed with his patients that the COVID vaccine has become “the social norm,” suggesting virtually everyone he knows has received it and had no problem.

Once questions have been answered about whether the vaccine works and its various side effects, doctors could remind the patient, “You know, everyone in my office is getting the vaccine, and we’re trying to provide this protection to every patient,” he said.

You’re then delving deeper into their emotions and crossing a barrier that facts alone can’t breach.
 

#5: Make it Personal

Lead by example and personalize the fight against the virus. This allows doctors to act as if they’re building an alliance with their patients by framing the vaccine not as something that only affects them but can also confer benefits to a broader social circle.

Even after using these methods, patients may remain resistant, apprehensive, or even indifferent. In cases like these, Dr. Schaffner said it’s a good idea to let it go for the time being.

Let the patient know they “have access to you and can keep speaking with you about it” in the future, he said. “It takes more time, and you have to be cognizant of the nature of the conversation.”

Everybody is unique, but with trust, patience, and awareness of the patient’s feelings, doctors have a better shot at finding common ground with their patients and convincing them the vaccine is in their best interest, he said.

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

No matter how much we’d like to leave it in the dust, COVID-19 remains prevalent and potent. Tens of thousands of people still contract COVID per week in the United States. Hundreds die. And those who don’t may still develop long COVID.

Pleas from public health officials for people to get a COVID vaccine or booster shot have been ignored by many people. About 80% of eligible Americans haven’t taken any kind of COVID booster. Meantime, the virus continues to mutate, eroding the efficacy of the vaccine’s past versions.

How to get more people to get the jab? Vaccine hesitancy, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, is likely rooted in a lack of trust in authority, whether it’s public health officials or politicians.

Dr. Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, and former medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, recommended five strategies physicians can try when discussing the importance of staying up to date on COVID vaccines with patients.
 

#1: Be Patient With Your Patient

First and foremost, if doctors are feeling reluctance from their patients, they need to know “what they shouldn’t do,” Dr. Schaffner said.

When a patient initially doesn’t want the vaccine, doctors shouldn’t express surprise. “Do not scold or berate or belittle. Do not give the impression the patient is somehow wrong or has failed a test of some sort,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Step back and affirm that they understand what the patient is saying so they feel reassured, even if they don’t agree or it’s based on falsehoods about the vaccine.

He said patients need to feel “the doctor heard them; it’s okay to tell the doctor this.” When you affirm what the patient says, it puts them at ease and provides a smoother road to eventually getting them to say “yes.”

But if there’s still a roadblock, don’t bulldoze them. “You don’t want to punish the patient ... let them know you’ll continue to hear them,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

#2: Always Acknowledge a Concern

Fear of side effects is great among some patients, even if the risks are low, Dr. Schaffner said. Patients may be hesitant because they’re afraid they’ll become one of the “two or three in a million” who suffer extremely rare side effects from the vaccine, Dr. Schaffner said.

In that case, doctors should acknowledge their concern is valid, he said. Never be dismissive. Ask the patients how they feel about the vaccine, listen to their responses, and let them know “I hear you. This is a new mRNA vaccine…you have concern about that,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors can segue into how there’s little reason to wait for some elusive perfectly risk-free vaccine when they can help themselves right now.

“The adverse events that occur with vaccines occur within 2 months [and are typically mild]. I don’t know of a single vaccine that has genuinely long-term implications,” Dr. Schaffner said. “We should remember that old French philosopher Voltaire. He admonished us: Waiting for perfection is the great enemy of the current good.”
 

#3: Make a Strong Recommendation

Here’s something that may seem obvious: Don’t treat the vaccine as an afterthought. “Survey after survey tells us this ... it has everything to do with the strength of the recommendation,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors typically make strong treatment recommendations such conditions as diabetes or high blood pressure, but “when it comes to vaccines, they’re often rather nonchalant,” he said.

If a patient is eligible for a vaccine, doctors should tell the patient they need to get it — not that you think they should get it. “Doctors have to make a firm recommendation: ‘You’re eligible for a vaccine ... and you need to get it ... you’ll receive it on your way out.’ It then becomes a distinct and strong recommendation,” he said.
 

#4: Appeal to Patients’ Hearts, Not Their Minds

In the opening of Charles Dickens’s novel “Hard Times,” the stern school superintendent, Mr. Gradgrind, scolds his students by beating their brow with the notion that, “Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out everything else.”

The idea that facts alone can sway a vaccine-resistant patient is wrong. “It often doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Schaffner said. “I don’t think facts do that. Psychologists tell us, yes, information is important, but it’s rarely sufficient to change behavior.”

Data and studies are foundational to medicine, but the key is to change how a patient feels about the data they’re presented with, not how they think about it. “Don’t attack their brain so much but their heart,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Dr. Schaffner has stressed with his patients that the COVID vaccine has become “the social norm,” suggesting virtually everyone he knows has received it and had no problem.

Once questions have been answered about whether the vaccine works and its various side effects, doctors could remind the patient, “You know, everyone in my office is getting the vaccine, and we’re trying to provide this protection to every patient,” he said.

You’re then delving deeper into their emotions and crossing a barrier that facts alone can’t breach.
 

#5: Make it Personal

Lead by example and personalize the fight against the virus. This allows doctors to act as if they’re building an alliance with their patients by framing the vaccine not as something that only affects them but can also confer benefits to a broader social circle.

Even after using these methods, patients may remain resistant, apprehensive, or even indifferent. In cases like these, Dr. Schaffner said it’s a good idea to let it go for the time being.

Let the patient know they “have access to you and can keep speaking with you about it” in the future, he said. “It takes more time, and you have to be cognizant of the nature of the conversation.”

Everybody is unique, but with trust, patience, and awareness of the patient’s feelings, doctors have a better shot at finding common ground with their patients and convincing them the vaccine is in their best interest, he said.

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

No matter how much we’d like to leave it in the dust, COVID-19 remains prevalent and potent. Tens of thousands of people still contract COVID per week in the United States. Hundreds die. And those who don’t may still develop long COVID.

Pleas from public health officials for people to get a COVID vaccine or booster shot have been ignored by many people. About 80% of eligible Americans haven’t taken any kind of COVID booster. Meantime, the virus continues to mutate, eroding the efficacy of the vaccine’s past versions.

How to get more people to get the jab? Vaccine hesitancy, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, is likely rooted in a lack of trust in authority, whether it’s public health officials or politicians.

Dr. Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, and former medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, recommended five strategies physicians can try when discussing the importance of staying up to date on COVID vaccines with patients.
 

#1: Be Patient With Your Patient

First and foremost, if doctors are feeling reluctance from their patients, they need to know “what they shouldn’t do,” Dr. Schaffner said.

When a patient initially doesn’t want the vaccine, doctors shouldn’t express surprise. “Do not scold or berate or belittle. Do not give the impression the patient is somehow wrong or has failed a test of some sort,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Step back and affirm that they understand what the patient is saying so they feel reassured, even if they don’t agree or it’s based on falsehoods about the vaccine.

He said patients need to feel “the doctor heard them; it’s okay to tell the doctor this.” When you affirm what the patient says, it puts them at ease and provides a smoother road to eventually getting them to say “yes.”

But if there’s still a roadblock, don’t bulldoze them. “You don’t want to punish the patient ... let them know you’ll continue to hear them,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

#2: Always Acknowledge a Concern

Fear of side effects is great among some patients, even if the risks are low, Dr. Schaffner said. Patients may be hesitant because they’re afraid they’ll become one of the “two or three in a million” who suffer extremely rare side effects from the vaccine, Dr. Schaffner said.

In that case, doctors should acknowledge their concern is valid, he said. Never be dismissive. Ask the patients how they feel about the vaccine, listen to their responses, and let them know “I hear you. This is a new mRNA vaccine…you have concern about that,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors can segue into how there’s little reason to wait for some elusive perfectly risk-free vaccine when they can help themselves right now.

“The adverse events that occur with vaccines occur within 2 months [and are typically mild]. I don’t know of a single vaccine that has genuinely long-term implications,” Dr. Schaffner said. “We should remember that old French philosopher Voltaire. He admonished us: Waiting for perfection is the great enemy of the current good.”
 

#3: Make a Strong Recommendation

Here’s something that may seem obvious: Don’t treat the vaccine as an afterthought. “Survey after survey tells us this ... it has everything to do with the strength of the recommendation,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors typically make strong treatment recommendations such conditions as diabetes or high blood pressure, but “when it comes to vaccines, they’re often rather nonchalant,” he said.

If a patient is eligible for a vaccine, doctors should tell the patient they need to get it — not that you think they should get it. “Doctors have to make a firm recommendation: ‘You’re eligible for a vaccine ... and you need to get it ... you’ll receive it on your way out.’ It then becomes a distinct and strong recommendation,” he said.
 

#4: Appeal to Patients’ Hearts, Not Their Minds

In the opening of Charles Dickens’s novel “Hard Times,” the stern school superintendent, Mr. Gradgrind, scolds his students by beating their brow with the notion that, “Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out everything else.”

The idea that facts alone can sway a vaccine-resistant patient is wrong. “It often doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Schaffner said. “I don’t think facts do that. Psychologists tell us, yes, information is important, but it’s rarely sufficient to change behavior.”

Data and studies are foundational to medicine, but the key is to change how a patient feels about the data they’re presented with, not how they think about it. “Don’t attack their brain so much but their heart,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Dr. Schaffner has stressed with his patients that the COVID vaccine has become “the social norm,” suggesting virtually everyone he knows has received it and had no problem.

Once questions have been answered about whether the vaccine works and its various side effects, doctors could remind the patient, “You know, everyone in my office is getting the vaccine, and we’re trying to provide this protection to every patient,” he said.

You’re then delving deeper into their emotions and crossing a barrier that facts alone can’t breach.
 

#5: Make it Personal

Lead by example and personalize the fight against the virus. This allows doctors to act as if they’re building an alliance with their patients by framing the vaccine not as something that only affects them but can also confer benefits to a broader social circle.

Even after using these methods, patients may remain resistant, apprehensive, or even indifferent. In cases like these, Dr. Schaffner said it’s a good idea to let it go for the time being.

Let the patient know they “have access to you and can keep speaking with you about it” in the future, he said. “It takes more time, and you have to be cognizant of the nature of the conversation.”

Everybody is unique, but with trust, patience, and awareness of the patient’s feelings, doctors have a better shot at finding common ground with their patients and convincing them the vaccine is in their best interest, he said.

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