Clinician Reviews

Daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, by 38% among healthy older people with no history of cardiovascular events, and did not help prevent ischemic stroke, according to results from a large randomized trial.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, bolster recommendations published in 2022 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force against daily aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in older adults and add to a mounting consensus that it should be avoided in the healthy elderly, for whom bleeding risks outweigh potential benefits.

Stroke was a preplanned secondary outcome of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, which randomized 19,114 community-living people in Australia and the United States (56% women, 91% White) to 100 mg. daily aspirin or placebo. Participants were aged 70 and older, with the exception of U.S. Black and Hispanic individuals, who could be as young as 65. Participants did not have disability or known cardiovascular disease at baseline, and blood pressure was adequately controlled.
 

ASPEE findings

In 2018 the ASPREE authors, led by John McNeil, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, published their findings that aspirin did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular events (including stroke) in the same large cohort.

The new analysis, led by Geoffrey Cloud, MB, BS, of Monash University, focuses on stroke and intracranial bleeding outcomes. At 5 years’ follow up, the ASPREE investigators saw no significant reduction in ischemic stroke incidence associated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.11), while incidence of all types of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, was significantly increased (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84).

Altogether 108 of participants taking aspirin (1.1%) experienced some form of intracranial bleeding (subdural, extradural, and/or subarachnoid), compared with 79 (0.8%) in the placebo group. Aspirin-treated patients also saw more hemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs. 0.4%). As the ASPREE investigators had reported in an earlier paper, upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in significantly more aspirin-treated patients than those on placebo (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32-2.66).

“These outcomes may alter the balance of risks and benefits of an antiplatelet drug, especially if given to individuals at low risk in a primary prevention setting. This concern is relevant given the high stroke risk in older individuals, worldwide increases in populations of older individuals, and the importance of evaluating preventive strategies in this age group,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators cited the study’s large size as a strength while noting among its weaknesses that fewer stroke and bleeding events occurred during follow-up than expected, and that not all ischemic stroke events among older participants were thoroughly investigated.
 

Patients need to know their risk

In an interview, Shlee Song, MD, director of the stroke center at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said that the new ASPREE findings underscore the importance of careful communication with patients and their families, who may be confused about which risk group they belong to and either cease taking aspirin when it is in fact indicated, or take it when it could harm them.

“We need to be clear for our patients whether these results are relevant to them or not,” Dr. Song said. “People with a history of ischemic stroke need to know aspirin therapy is helpful in reducing risk of another stroke.”

Some patients may come to believe that because their stroke occurred a long time ago, they are in a lower-risk group. “But people need to understand that with a history of a heart attack or stroke, you’re always a separate group,” Dr. Song said. “Our job is also surveillance screening – have you had a fall this past year? Have you had a change in bowel movements? The bleeding events seen in ASPREE include bleeding in the head and bleeding in the gut.”

A key issue to stress with patients, Dr. Song said, is blood pressure management. “Patients might take aspirin because a family member had a stroke, without controlling blood pressure first. That could be the perfect storm for a head bleed: uncontrolled hypertension and an antiplatelet agent.”

The ASPREE study was funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States and Monash University and the Victorian Cancer Agency in Australia. Three coauthors reported receiving funding or fees from drug manufacturers. Dr. Song disclosed no financial conflicts related to her comments.

Daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, by 38% among healthy older people with no history of cardiovascular events, and did not help prevent ischemic stroke, according to results from a large randomized trial.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, bolster recommendations published in 2022 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force against daily aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in older adults and add to a mounting consensus that it should be avoided in the healthy elderly, for whom bleeding risks outweigh potential benefits.

Stroke was a preplanned secondary outcome of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, which randomized 19,114 community-living people in Australia and the United States (56% women, 91% White) to 100 mg. daily aspirin or placebo. Participants were aged 70 and older, with the exception of U.S. Black and Hispanic individuals, who could be as young as 65. Participants did not have disability or known cardiovascular disease at baseline, and blood pressure was adequately controlled.
 

ASPEE findings

In 2018 the ASPREE authors, led by John McNeil, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, published their findings that aspirin did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular events (including stroke) in the same large cohort.

The new analysis, led by Geoffrey Cloud, MB, BS, of Monash University, focuses on stroke and intracranial bleeding outcomes. At 5 years’ follow up, the ASPREE investigators saw no significant reduction in ischemic stroke incidence associated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.11), while incidence of all types of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, was significantly increased (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84).

Altogether 108 of participants taking aspirin (1.1%) experienced some form of intracranial bleeding (subdural, extradural, and/or subarachnoid), compared with 79 (0.8%) in the placebo group. Aspirin-treated patients also saw more hemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs. 0.4%). As the ASPREE investigators had reported in an earlier paper, upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in significantly more aspirin-treated patients than those on placebo (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32-2.66).

“These outcomes may alter the balance of risks and benefits of an antiplatelet drug, especially if given to individuals at low risk in a primary prevention setting. This concern is relevant given the high stroke risk in older individuals, worldwide increases in populations of older individuals, and the importance of evaluating preventive strategies in this age group,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators cited the study’s large size as a strength while noting among its weaknesses that fewer stroke and bleeding events occurred during follow-up than expected, and that not all ischemic stroke events among older participants were thoroughly investigated.
 

Patients need to know their risk

In an interview, Shlee Song, MD, director of the stroke center at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said that the new ASPREE findings underscore the importance of careful communication with patients and their families, who may be confused about which risk group they belong to and either cease taking aspirin when it is in fact indicated, or take it when it could harm them.

“We need to be clear for our patients whether these results are relevant to them or not,” Dr. Song said. “People with a history of ischemic stroke need to know aspirin therapy is helpful in reducing risk of another stroke.”

Some patients may come to believe that because their stroke occurred a long time ago, they are in a lower-risk group. “But people need to understand that with a history of a heart attack or stroke, you’re always a separate group,” Dr. Song said. “Our job is also surveillance screening – have you had a fall this past year? Have you had a change in bowel movements? The bleeding events seen in ASPREE include bleeding in the head and bleeding in the gut.”

A key issue to stress with patients, Dr. Song said, is blood pressure management. “Patients might take aspirin because a family member had a stroke, without controlling blood pressure first. That could be the perfect storm for a head bleed: uncontrolled hypertension and an antiplatelet agent.”

The ASPREE study was funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States and Monash University and the Victorian Cancer Agency in Australia. Three coauthors reported receiving funding or fees from drug manufacturers. Dr. Song disclosed no financial conflicts related to her comments.

Daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, by 38% among healthy older people with no history of cardiovascular events, and did not help prevent ischemic stroke, according to results from a large randomized trial.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, bolster recommendations published in 2022 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force against daily aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in older adults and add to a mounting consensus that it should be avoided in the healthy elderly, for whom bleeding risks outweigh potential benefits.

Stroke was a preplanned secondary outcome of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, which randomized 19,114 community-living people in Australia and the United States (56% women, 91% White) to 100 mg. daily aspirin or placebo. Participants were aged 70 and older, with the exception of U.S. Black and Hispanic individuals, who could be as young as 65. Participants did not have disability or known cardiovascular disease at baseline, and blood pressure was adequately controlled.
 

ASPEE findings

In 2018 the ASPREE authors, led by John McNeil, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, published their findings that aspirin did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular events (including stroke) in the same large cohort.

The new analysis, led by Geoffrey Cloud, MB, BS, of Monash University, focuses on stroke and intracranial bleeding outcomes. At 5 years’ follow up, the ASPREE investigators saw no significant reduction in ischemic stroke incidence associated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.11), while incidence of all types of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, was significantly increased (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84).

Altogether 108 of participants taking aspirin (1.1%) experienced some form of intracranial bleeding (subdural, extradural, and/or subarachnoid), compared with 79 (0.8%) in the placebo group. Aspirin-treated patients also saw more hemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs. 0.4%). As the ASPREE investigators had reported in an earlier paper, upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in significantly more aspirin-treated patients than those on placebo (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32-2.66).

“These outcomes may alter the balance of risks and benefits of an antiplatelet drug, especially if given to individuals at low risk in a primary prevention setting. This concern is relevant given the high stroke risk in older individuals, worldwide increases in populations of older individuals, and the importance of evaluating preventive strategies in this age group,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators cited the study’s large size as a strength while noting among its weaknesses that fewer stroke and bleeding events occurred during follow-up than expected, and that not all ischemic stroke events among older participants were thoroughly investigated.
 

Patients need to know their risk

In an interview, Shlee Song, MD, director of the stroke center at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said that the new ASPREE findings underscore the importance of careful communication with patients and their families, who may be confused about which risk group they belong to and either cease taking aspirin when it is in fact indicated, or take it when it could harm them.

“We need to be clear for our patients whether these results are relevant to them or not,” Dr. Song said. “People with a history of ischemic stroke need to know aspirin therapy is helpful in reducing risk of another stroke.”

Some patients may come to believe that because their stroke occurred a long time ago, they are in a lower-risk group. “But people need to understand that with a history of a heart attack or stroke, you’re always a separate group,” Dr. Song said. “Our job is also surveillance screening – have you had a fall this past year? Have you had a change in bowel movements? The bleeding events seen in ASPREE include bleeding in the head and bleeding in the gut.”

A key issue to stress with patients, Dr. Song said, is blood pressure management. “Patients might take aspirin because a family member had a stroke, without controlling blood pressure first. That could be the perfect storm for a head bleed: uncontrolled hypertension and an antiplatelet agent.”

The ASPREE study was funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States and Monash University and the Victorian Cancer Agency in Australia. Three coauthors reported receiving funding or fees from drug manufacturers. Dr. Song disclosed no financial conflicts related to her comments.

SAN DIEGO – Bariatric surgery produced sustained, long-term glucose control and weight loss for at least 7 years, and for up to 12 years, in some U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and a baseline body mass index (BMI) of at least 27 kg/m², according to new study results.

The findings are from ARMMS-T2D, a prospective, controlled trial with the largest cohort and longest follow-up of bariatric surgery reported to date. The results reinforce the potential role of surgery “as an option to improve diabetes-related outcomes, including people with a BMI of less than 35 kg/m²,” said Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

People who underwent bariatric surgery (gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy, or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass) had an average 1.6–percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c from baseline 7 years after surgery and an average 1.4–percentage point reduction from baseline after 12 years. Average decreases from baseline were 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points at these time points, respectively, among controls who underwent lifestyle and medical interventions only. Between-group differences were significant at both the 7-year (primary endpoint) and 12-year time points in the intention-to-treat analysis, reported Dr. Courcoulas, a professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh.

Average weight loss from baseline to 7 and 12 years was 19.9% and 19.3%, respectively, in the surgery group and 8.3% and 10.8%, respectively, among controls, which was significantly different between groups at both time points (a secondary endpoint).

Dr. Courcoulas highlighted that the 10.8% average weight loss after 12 years among controls included crossovers, with 25% of patients progressing from their initial intervention of lifestyle and medical management to undergoing bariatric surgery during follow-up. Among the controls who never underwent surgery (per-protocol analysis), the 12-year average weight loss from baseline was 7.3%.
 

High-dose incretin-hormone therapy missing

A major limitation of ARMMS-T2D (Alliance of Randomized Trials of Medicine vs. Metabolic Surgery in Type 2 Diabetes) is that it prospectively followed a combined cohort from four independently run controlled U.S. trials that all began more than a decade ago, before the contemporary era of medical weight loss management that’s been revolutionized by incretin-hormone receptor agonists such as semaglutide (Ozempic/Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly).

New randomized, controlled trials “are needed” that compare metabolic bariatric surgery with medical and lifestyle management that includes “high-dose incretin-hormone therapy,” commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, designated discussant for ARMMS-T2D at the session.

The results also showed notable rates of two adverse events associated with bariatric surgery: a 14% incidence of bone fractures, compared with a rate of 5% among controls, and a 12% incidence of anemia after surgery, compared with a rate of 3% among controls.

The control group also had a significantly higher 3% incidence of new need for hemodialysis, compared with no incident dialysis cases among the surgery patients.

“The fracture difference [after bariatric surgery] needs more careful follow-up,” commented Dr. Eckel, an endocrinologist and emeritus professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

ARMMS-T2D included data from 262 people with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes randomized in any of four U.S. studies that compared the outcomes of 166 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with 96 patients who served as controls and had lifestyle and medical interventions for weight loss and glycemic control. Seven-year follow-up included 82 (85%) of the initial 96 control patients and 136 (82%) of the initial 166 surgery patients. After 12 years, 31 of the controls (32%) and 83 surgery patients (50%) remained for the A1c analysis.
 

A quartet of studies joined together

The ARMMS-T2D prospective analysis resulted from an early partnership by the organizers of the four independent randomized studies that compared bariatric surgery with lifestyle and medical intervention in people with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity: STAMPEDE, which included 150 people at the Cleveland Clinic starting in 2007; SLIMM-T2D, which included 88 people at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston starting in 2010; TRIABETES, which included 69 people at the University of Pittsburgh starting in 2009; and CROSSROADS, which included 43 people at the University of Washington, Seattle, starting in 2011.

Further secondary findings from the ARMMS-T2D analyses showed that 38% of the surgery patients and 17% of controls had an A1c < 6.5% after 7 years.

At 7 years, type 2 diabetes remission, defined as those with an A1c < 6.5% who were not taking any antidiabetes medications, was reached in 18% of surgery patients and 6% of controls. At 12 years, 13% of the surgery patients and none of the controls met this metric, Dr. Courcoulas said.

The duration of diabetes a person had before undergoing bariatric surgery “may be an important factor” as to whether patients undergo remission, suggested Dr. Eckel. He noted that longer duration type 2 diabetes usually results in increased glucose intolerance and makes remission less likely

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass appeared to have the best rates of patients achieving both lower A1c levels and more weight loss, followed by sleeve gastrectomy and gastric banding, which had the worst performance. But Dr. Courcoulas cautioned that the study was underpowered to reliably compare individual surgical procedures.

In terms of those with an A1c < 7.0%, surgery patients maintained a steady prevalence rate of about 55% during the first 5 years of follow-up, roughly twice the rate of controls, at 28% during all years of follow-up starting at year 5.

About 37% of enrolled patients had a BMI < 35 kg/m², and the A1c-lowering benefit and weight loss in this subgroup were consistent with the overall findings, which supports consideration of bariatric surgery for people with type 2 diabetes and a BMI < 35 kg/m², Dr. Courcoulas said.

She also highlighted that bariatric surgery was linked with significant reductions in triglyceride levels and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, compared with controls. However, 22% of surgery patients experienced abdominal pain, compared with 10% of controls, and 7% experienced dysphagia, compared with no cases among the controls.

ARMMS-T2D received no commercial funding. Dr. Courcoulas had no disclosures. Dr. Eckel has been a consultant to numerous companies but said he had no relevant disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO – Bariatric surgery produced sustained, long-term glucose control and weight loss for at least 7 years, and for up to 12 years, in some U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and a baseline body mass index (BMI) of at least 27 kg/m², according to new study results.

The findings are from ARMMS-T2D, a prospective, controlled trial with the largest cohort and longest follow-up of bariatric surgery reported to date. The results reinforce the potential role of surgery “as an option to improve diabetes-related outcomes, including people with a BMI of less than 35 kg/m²,” said Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

People who underwent bariatric surgery (gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy, or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass) had an average 1.6–percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c from baseline 7 years after surgery and an average 1.4–percentage point reduction from baseline after 12 years. Average decreases from baseline were 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points at these time points, respectively, among controls who underwent lifestyle and medical interventions only. Between-group differences were significant at both the 7-year (primary endpoint) and 12-year time points in the intention-to-treat analysis, reported Dr. Courcoulas, a professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh.

Average weight loss from baseline to 7 and 12 years was 19.9% and 19.3%, respectively, in the surgery group and 8.3% and 10.8%, respectively, among controls, which was significantly different between groups at both time points (a secondary endpoint).

Dr. Courcoulas highlighted that the 10.8% average weight loss after 12 years among controls included crossovers, with 25% of patients progressing from their initial intervention of lifestyle and medical management to undergoing bariatric surgery during follow-up. Among the controls who never underwent surgery (per-protocol analysis), the 12-year average weight loss from baseline was 7.3%.
 

High-dose incretin-hormone therapy missing

A major limitation of ARMMS-T2D (Alliance of Randomized Trials of Medicine vs. Metabolic Surgery in Type 2 Diabetes) is that it prospectively followed a combined cohort from four independently run controlled U.S. trials that all began more than a decade ago, before the contemporary era of medical weight loss management that’s been revolutionized by incretin-hormone receptor agonists such as semaglutide (Ozempic/Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly).

New randomized, controlled trials “are needed” that compare metabolic bariatric surgery with medical and lifestyle management that includes “high-dose incretin-hormone therapy,” commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, designated discussant for ARMMS-T2D at the session.

The results also showed notable rates of two adverse events associated with bariatric surgery: a 14% incidence of bone fractures, compared with a rate of 5% among controls, and a 12% incidence of anemia after surgery, compared with a rate of 3% among controls.

The control group also had a significantly higher 3% incidence of new need for hemodialysis, compared with no incident dialysis cases among the surgery patients.

“The fracture difference [after bariatric surgery] needs more careful follow-up,” commented Dr. Eckel, an endocrinologist and emeritus professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

ARMMS-T2D included data from 262 people with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes randomized in any of four U.S. studies that compared the outcomes of 166 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with 96 patients who served as controls and had lifestyle and medical interventions for weight loss and glycemic control. Seven-year follow-up included 82 (85%) of the initial 96 control patients and 136 (82%) of the initial 166 surgery patients. After 12 years, 31 of the controls (32%) and 83 surgery patients (50%) remained for the A1c analysis.
 

A quartet of studies joined together

The ARMMS-T2D prospective analysis resulted from an early partnership by the organizers of the four independent randomized studies that compared bariatric surgery with lifestyle and medical intervention in people with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity: STAMPEDE, which included 150 people at the Cleveland Clinic starting in 2007; SLIMM-T2D, which included 88 people at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston starting in 2010; TRIABETES, which included 69 people at the University of Pittsburgh starting in 2009; and CROSSROADS, which included 43 people at the University of Washington, Seattle, starting in 2011.

Further secondary findings from the ARMMS-T2D analyses showed that 38% of the surgery patients and 17% of controls had an A1c < 6.5% after 7 years.

At 7 years, type 2 diabetes remission, defined as those with an A1c < 6.5% who were not taking any antidiabetes medications, was reached in 18% of surgery patients and 6% of controls. At 12 years, 13% of the surgery patients and none of the controls met this metric, Dr. Courcoulas said.

The duration of diabetes a person had before undergoing bariatric surgery “may be an important factor” as to whether patients undergo remission, suggested Dr. Eckel. He noted that longer duration type 2 diabetes usually results in increased glucose intolerance and makes remission less likely

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass appeared to have the best rates of patients achieving both lower A1c levels and more weight loss, followed by sleeve gastrectomy and gastric banding, which had the worst performance. But Dr. Courcoulas cautioned that the study was underpowered to reliably compare individual surgical procedures.

In terms of those with an A1c < 7.0%, surgery patients maintained a steady prevalence rate of about 55% during the first 5 years of follow-up, roughly twice the rate of controls, at 28% during all years of follow-up starting at year 5.

About 37% of enrolled patients had a BMI < 35 kg/m², and the A1c-lowering benefit and weight loss in this subgroup were consistent with the overall findings, which supports consideration of bariatric surgery for people with type 2 diabetes and a BMI < 35 kg/m², Dr. Courcoulas said.

She also highlighted that bariatric surgery was linked with significant reductions in triglyceride levels and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, compared with controls. However, 22% of surgery patients experienced abdominal pain, compared with 10% of controls, and 7% experienced dysphagia, compared with no cases among the controls.

ARMMS-T2D received no commercial funding. Dr. Courcoulas had no disclosures. Dr. Eckel has been a consultant to numerous companies but said he had no relevant disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO – Bariatric surgery produced sustained, long-term glucose control and weight loss for at least 7 years, and for up to 12 years, in some U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and a baseline body mass index (BMI) of at least 27 kg/m², according to new study results.

The findings are from ARMMS-T2D, a prospective, controlled trial with the largest cohort and longest follow-up of bariatric surgery reported to date. The results reinforce the potential role of surgery “as an option to improve diabetes-related outcomes, including people with a BMI of less than 35 kg/m²,” said Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

People who underwent bariatric surgery (gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy, or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass) had an average 1.6–percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c from baseline 7 years after surgery and an average 1.4–percentage point reduction from baseline after 12 years. Average decreases from baseline were 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points at these time points, respectively, among controls who underwent lifestyle and medical interventions only. Between-group differences were significant at both the 7-year (primary endpoint) and 12-year time points in the intention-to-treat analysis, reported Dr. Courcoulas, a professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh.

Average weight loss from baseline to 7 and 12 years was 19.9% and 19.3%, respectively, in the surgery group and 8.3% and 10.8%, respectively, among controls, which was significantly different between groups at both time points (a secondary endpoint).

Dr. Courcoulas highlighted that the 10.8% average weight loss after 12 years among controls included crossovers, with 25% of patients progressing from their initial intervention of lifestyle and medical management to undergoing bariatric surgery during follow-up. Among the controls who never underwent surgery (per-protocol analysis), the 12-year average weight loss from baseline was 7.3%.
 

High-dose incretin-hormone therapy missing

A major limitation of ARMMS-T2D (Alliance of Randomized Trials of Medicine vs. Metabolic Surgery in Type 2 Diabetes) is that it prospectively followed a combined cohort from four independently run controlled U.S. trials that all began more than a decade ago, before the contemporary era of medical weight loss management that’s been revolutionized by incretin-hormone receptor agonists such as semaglutide (Ozempic/Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly).

New randomized, controlled trials “are needed” that compare metabolic bariatric surgery with medical and lifestyle management that includes “high-dose incretin-hormone therapy,” commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, designated discussant for ARMMS-T2D at the session.

The results also showed notable rates of two adverse events associated with bariatric surgery: a 14% incidence of bone fractures, compared with a rate of 5% among controls, and a 12% incidence of anemia after surgery, compared with a rate of 3% among controls.

The control group also had a significantly higher 3% incidence of new need for hemodialysis, compared with no incident dialysis cases among the surgery patients.

“The fracture difference [after bariatric surgery] needs more careful follow-up,” commented Dr. Eckel, an endocrinologist and emeritus professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

ARMMS-T2D included data from 262 people with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes randomized in any of four U.S. studies that compared the outcomes of 166 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with 96 patients who served as controls and had lifestyle and medical interventions for weight loss and glycemic control. Seven-year follow-up included 82 (85%) of the initial 96 control patients and 136 (82%) of the initial 166 surgery patients. After 12 years, 31 of the controls (32%) and 83 surgery patients (50%) remained for the A1c analysis.
 

A quartet of studies joined together

The ARMMS-T2D prospective analysis resulted from an early partnership by the organizers of the four independent randomized studies that compared bariatric surgery with lifestyle and medical intervention in people with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity: STAMPEDE, which included 150 people at the Cleveland Clinic starting in 2007; SLIMM-T2D, which included 88 people at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston starting in 2010; TRIABETES, which included 69 people at the University of Pittsburgh starting in 2009; and CROSSROADS, which included 43 people at the University of Washington, Seattle, starting in 2011.

Further secondary findings from the ARMMS-T2D analyses showed that 38% of the surgery patients and 17% of controls had an A1c < 6.5% after 7 years.

At 7 years, type 2 diabetes remission, defined as those with an A1c < 6.5% who were not taking any antidiabetes medications, was reached in 18% of surgery patients and 6% of controls. At 12 years, 13% of the surgery patients and none of the controls met this metric, Dr. Courcoulas said.

The duration of diabetes a person had before undergoing bariatric surgery “may be an important factor” as to whether patients undergo remission, suggested Dr. Eckel. He noted that longer duration type 2 diabetes usually results in increased glucose intolerance and makes remission less likely

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass appeared to have the best rates of patients achieving both lower A1c levels and more weight loss, followed by sleeve gastrectomy and gastric banding, which had the worst performance. But Dr. Courcoulas cautioned that the study was underpowered to reliably compare individual surgical procedures.

In terms of those with an A1c < 7.0%, surgery patients maintained a steady prevalence rate of about 55% during the first 5 years of follow-up, roughly twice the rate of controls, at 28% during all years of follow-up starting at year 5.

About 37% of enrolled patients had a BMI < 35 kg/m², and the A1c-lowering benefit and weight loss in this subgroup were consistent with the overall findings, which supports consideration of bariatric surgery for people with type 2 diabetes and a BMI < 35 kg/m², Dr. Courcoulas said.

She also highlighted that bariatric surgery was linked with significant reductions in triglyceride levels and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, compared with controls. However, 22% of surgery patients experienced abdominal pain, compared with 10% of controls, and 7% experienced dysphagia, compared with no cases among the controls.

ARMMS-T2D received no commercial funding. Dr. Courcoulas had no disclosures. Dr. Eckel has been a consultant to numerous companies but said he had no relevant disclosures.

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

A defined exercise program significantly improved cardiometabolic health and body composition in children with overweight and obesity, but no effect was seen on mental health, based on data from 92 children.

Childhood obesity is associated with negative health outcomes including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mental health disorders, and exercise is considered essential to treatment, wrote Jairo H. Migueles, PhD, of the University of Granada, Spain, and colleagues. However, the effect on children with obesity and overweight of an exercise program on physical and mental health, including within-individual changes, has not been well studied, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 36 girls and 56 boys with overweight or obesity who were randomized to a 20-week exercise program with aerobic and resistance elements, or waitlisted to serve as controls. The participants ranged in age from 8 to 11 years with a mean age of 10 years. The data were collected between Nov. 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, as part of a parallel-group randomized clinical trial. The exercise program consisted of three to five 90-minute exercise sessions per week for 20 weeks, and the control children continued their usual routines.

The main cardiometabolic outcomes measured in the study were divided into three categories: body composition, physical fitness, and traditional risk factors (waist circumference, blood lipid levels, glucose levels, insulin levels, and blood pressure).

A cardiometabolic risk score was defined by z score. The researchers also added cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) to the cardiometabolic risk score. Mental health was assessed using composite standardized scores for psychological well-being and poor mental health.

After 20 weeks, cardiometabolic risk scores decreased by approximately 0.38 standard deviations in the exercise group compared with the control group. In addition, specific measures of cardiometabolic health improved significantly from baseline in the exercise group compared with control children for low-density lipoprotein (change of –7.00 mg/dL), body mass index (–5.9 kg/m²), fat mass index (−0.67), and visceral adipose tissue (31.44 g).

Cardiorespiratory fitness improved by 2.75 laps in the exercise group compared with control children. In addition, significantly more children in the exercise group showed meaningful changes (defined as individual changes of at least 0.2 SDs) compared with control children in measures of fat mass index (37 vs. 17, P < .001) and CRF performance (30 vs. 17, P = .03).

However, no significant effects appeared on mental health outcomes in exercisers, the researchers noted.

The reduction in cardiometabolic score was attributable mainly to improvements in cardiovascular fitness, blood lipid levels, and total and visceral adiposity, the researchers wrote in their discussion. The lack of changes in mental health measures may be a result of the healthy mental state of the children at the study outset, they said. “The null effect on mental health outcomes needs to be further investigated, including, among other things, whether the instruments are sensitive enough to detect changes and whether there is a ceiling effect in young children who might be mentally healthy overall,” they wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small sample size and lack of blinding for some evaluators. However, the results show the potential of exercise programs to affect meaningful change and improve cardiometabolic health in overweight and obese children, although more research is needed to explore the effects of larger-scale and longer-lasting public health interventions combining exercise and other health behaviors such as diet, the researchers concluded.
 

Bottom line: Exercise works

The increasing rates of overweight and obesity in children in the United States have “significant downstream consequences that include increased risk of metabolic disease, including diabetes and hypertension, as well as increased rates of anxiety and depression,” Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Therefore, the effect of interventions such as exercise training on outcomes is important, he said. 

The current study findings are “what you would hope for and expect – improvement in cardiometabolic parameters and fitness,” said Dr. Skolnik. “It was encouraging to see the effect of this relatively short duration of intervention has a clear positive effect on weight, BMI, and cardiometabolic parameters,” he said. “The real benefit, of course, comes from sustaining these habits over a long period of time.”

The lack of improvement in mental health is not surprising given the small study population “who did not have a high rate of mental health problems to begin with,” Dr. Skolnik added.

Barriers to promoting exercise programs for obese and overweight children in primary care are many, Dr. Skolnik said, including “having the motivation and funding to create programs like this so they are readily available to youth.”

However, the key message from the current study is simple and straightforward, according to Dr. Skolnik. “Exercise works! It works to improve fitness, cardiometabolic parameters, and weight control,” he said.

“There is always room for more research,” Dr. Skolnik added. The questions now are not about whether exercise benefits health; they are about figuring out how to implement the known benefits of exercise into daily living for all children, athletes and nonathletes alike, he said. “We need to find nonjudgmental ways to encourage exercise as a part of routine daily healthy living, up there with brushing teeth every day,” he emphasized.

The study was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and El Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) and by the MCIN (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación) / AEI (Agencia Estatal de Investigación. The researchers and Dr. Skolnik had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Skolnik serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

A defined exercise program significantly improved cardiometabolic health and body composition in children with overweight and obesity, but no effect was seen on mental health, based on data from 92 children.

Childhood obesity is associated with negative health outcomes including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mental health disorders, and exercise is considered essential to treatment, wrote Jairo H. Migueles, PhD, of the University of Granada, Spain, and colleagues. However, the effect on children with obesity and overweight of an exercise program on physical and mental health, including within-individual changes, has not been well studied, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 36 girls and 56 boys with overweight or obesity who were randomized to a 20-week exercise program with aerobic and resistance elements, or waitlisted to serve as controls. The participants ranged in age from 8 to 11 years with a mean age of 10 years. The data were collected between Nov. 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, as part of a parallel-group randomized clinical trial. The exercise program consisted of three to five 90-minute exercise sessions per week for 20 weeks, and the control children continued their usual routines.

The main cardiometabolic outcomes measured in the study were divided into three categories: body composition, physical fitness, and traditional risk factors (waist circumference, blood lipid levels, glucose levels, insulin levels, and blood pressure).

A cardiometabolic risk score was defined by z score. The researchers also added cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) to the cardiometabolic risk score. Mental health was assessed using composite standardized scores for psychological well-being and poor mental health.

After 20 weeks, cardiometabolic risk scores decreased by approximately 0.38 standard deviations in the exercise group compared with the control group. In addition, specific measures of cardiometabolic health improved significantly from baseline in the exercise group compared with control children for low-density lipoprotein (change of –7.00 mg/dL), body mass index (–5.9 kg/m²), fat mass index (−0.67), and visceral adipose tissue (31.44 g).

Cardiorespiratory fitness improved by 2.75 laps in the exercise group compared with control children. In addition, significantly more children in the exercise group showed meaningful changes (defined as individual changes of at least 0.2 SDs) compared with control children in measures of fat mass index (37 vs. 17, P < .001) and CRF performance (30 vs. 17, P = .03).

However, no significant effects appeared on mental health outcomes in exercisers, the researchers noted.

The reduction in cardiometabolic score was attributable mainly to improvements in cardiovascular fitness, blood lipid levels, and total and visceral adiposity, the researchers wrote in their discussion. The lack of changes in mental health measures may be a result of the healthy mental state of the children at the study outset, they said. “The null effect on mental health outcomes needs to be further investigated, including, among other things, whether the instruments are sensitive enough to detect changes and whether there is a ceiling effect in young children who might be mentally healthy overall,” they wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small sample size and lack of blinding for some evaluators. However, the results show the potential of exercise programs to affect meaningful change and improve cardiometabolic health in overweight and obese children, although more research is needed to explore the effects of larger-scale and longer-lasting public health interventions combining exercise and other health behaviors such as diet, the researchers concluded.
 

Bottom line: Exercise works

The increasing rates of overweight and obesity in children in the United States have “significant downstream consequences that include increased risk of metabolic disease, including diabetes and hypertension, as well as increased rates of anxiety and depression,” Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Therefore, the effect of interventions such as exercise training on outcomes is important, he said. 

The current study findings are “what you would hope for and expect – improvement in cardiometabolic parameters and fitness,” said Dr. Skolnik. “It was encouraging to see the effect of this relatively short duration of intervention has a clear positive effect on weight, BMI, and cardiometabolic parameters,” he said. “The real benefit, of course, comes from sustaining these habits over a long period of time.”

The lack of improvement in mental health is not surprising given the small study population “who did not have a high rate of mental health problems to begin with,” Dr. Skolnik added.

Barriers to promoting exercise programs for obese and overweight children in primary care are many, Dr. Skolnik said, including “having the motivation and funding to create programs like this so they are readily available to youth.”

However, the key message from the current study is simple and straightforward, according to Dr. Skolnik. “Exercise works! It works to improve fitness, cardiometabolic parameters, and weight control,” he said.

“There is always room for more research,” Dr. Skolnik added. The questions now are not about whether exercise benefits health; they are about figuring out how to implement the known benefits of exercise into daily living for all children, athletes and nonathletes alike, he said. “We need to find nonjudgmental ways to encourage exercise as a part of routine daily healthy living, up there with brushing teeth every day,” he emphasized.

The study was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and El Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) and by the MCIN (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación) / AEI (Agencia Estatal de Investigación. The researchers and Dr. Skolnik had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Skolnik serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

A defined exercise program significantly improved cardiometabolic health and body composition in children with overweight and obesity, but no effect was seen on mental health, based on data from 92 children.

Childhood obesity is associated with negative health outcomes including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mental health disorders, and exercise is considered essential to treatment, wrote Jairo H. Migueles, PhD, of the University of Granada, Spain, and colleagues. However, the effect on children with obesity and overweight of an exercise program on physical and mental health, including within-individual changes, has not been well studied, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 36 girls and 56 boys with overweight or obesity who were randomized to a 20-week exercise program with aerobic and resistance elements, or waitlisted to serve as controls. The participants ranged in age from 8 to 11 years with a mean age of 10 years. The data were collected between Nov. 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, as part of a parallel-group randomized clinical trial. The exercise program consisted of three to five 90-minute exercise sessions per week for 20 weeks, and the control children continued their usual routines.

The main cardiometabolic outcomes measured in the study were divided into three categories: body composition, physical fitness, and traditional risk factors (waist circumference, blood lipid levels, glucose levels, insulin levels, and blood pressure).

A cardiometabolic risk score was defined by z score. The researchers also added cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) to the cardiometabolic risk score. Mental health was assessed using composite standardized scores for psychological well-being and poor mental health.

After 20 weeks, cardiometabolic risk scores decreased by approximately 0.38 standard deviations in the exercise group compared with the control group. In addition, specific measures of cardiometabolic health improved significantly from baseline in the exercise group compared with control children for low-density lipoprotein (change of –7.00 mg/dL), body mass index (–5.9 kg/m²), fat mass index (−0.67), and visceral adipose tissue (31.44 g).

Cardiorespiratory fitness improved by 2.75 laps in the exercise group compared with control children. In addition, significantly more children in the exercise group showed meaningful changes (defined as individual changes of at least 0.2 SDs) compared with control children in measures of fat mass index (37 vs. 17, P < .001) and CRF performance (30 vs. 17, P = .03).

However, no significant effects appeared on mental health outcomes in exercisers, the researchers noted.

The reduction in cardiometabolic score was attributable mainly to improvements in cardiovascular fitness, blood lipid levels, and total and visceral adiposity, the researchers wrote in their discussion. The lack of changes in mental health measures may be a result of the healthy mental state of the children at the study outset, they said. “The null effect on mental health outcomes needs to be further investigated, including, among other things, whether the instruments are sensitive enough to detect changes and whether there is a ceiling effect in young children who might be mentally healthy overall,” they wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small sample size and lack of blinding for some evaluators. However, the results show the potential of exercise programs to affect meaningful change and improve cardiometabolic health in overweight and obese children, although more research is needed to explore the effects of larger-scale and longer-lasting public health interventions combining exercise and other health behaviors such as diet, the researchers concluded.
 

Bottom line: Exercise works

The increasing rates of overweight and obesity in children in the United States have “significant downstream consequences that include increased risk of metabolic disease, including diabetes and hypertension, as well as increased rates of anxiety and depression,” Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Therefore, the effect of interventions such as exercise training on outcomes is important, he said. 

The current study findings are “what you would hope for and expect – improvement in cardiometabolic parameters and fitness,” said Dr. Skolnik. “It was encouraging to see the effect of this relatively short duration of intervention has a clear positive effect on weight, BMI, and cardiometabolic parameters,” he said. “The real benefit, of course, comes from sustaining these habits over a long period of time.”

The lack of improvement in mental health is not surprising given the small study population “who did not have a high rate of mental health problems to begin with,” Dr. Skolnik added.

Barriers to promoting exercise programs for obese and overweight children in primary care are many, Dr. Skolnik said, including “having the motivation and funding to create programs like this so they are readily available to youth.”

However, the key message from the current study is simple and straightforward, according to Dr. Skolnik. “Exercise works! It works to improve fitness, cardiometabolic parameters, and weight control,” he said.

“There is always room for more research,” Dr. Skolnik added. The questions now are not about whether exercise benefits health; they are about figuring out how to implement the known benefits of exercise into daily living for all children, athletes and nonathletes alike, he said. “We need to find nonjudgmental ways to encourage exercise as a part of routine daily healthy living, up there with brushing teeth every day,” he emphasized.

The study was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and El Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) and by the MCIN (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación) / AEI (Agencia Estatal de Investigación. The researchers and Dr. Skolnik had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Skolnik serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

Daily use of low-dose aspirin offers no significant protection against stroke and was linked to a higher rate of bleeding in the brain, according to new research published in JAMA.

The research matches other evidence advising that healthy older adults without a history of heart conditions or warning signs of stroke should not take low-dose aspirin. 

The findings also support the recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that low-dose aspirin should not be prescribed for preventing a first heart attack or stroke in healthy older adults, The New York Times reported.

“We can be very emphatic that healthy people who are not on aspirin and do not have multiple risk factors should not be starting it now,” said Randall Stafford, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who was not involved in the study, in the Times.

It’s not as clear for others, he said.

“The longer you’ve been on aspirin and the more risk factors you have for heart attacks and strokes, the murkier it gets,” he said.

Some cardiac and stroke experts say daily aspirin should remain part of the regimen for people who have had a heart attack or stroke.

The JAMA report was based on data from a randomized control trial of 19,000 people from Australia and America. Participants were over the age of 70 and did not have heart disease. 

The data covered an average of almost 4.7 years and revealed that aspirin lowered the rate of ischemic stroke but not significantly. An ischemic stroke happens when a clot forms in a blood vessel that sends blood to the brain. 

There was also a 38% higher rate of brain bleeds for people who took aspirin daily, compared with those who took a placebo.

The Times wrote, “In the past, some doctors regarded aspirin as something of a wonder drug, capable of protecting healthy patients against a future heart attack or stroke. But recent studies have shown that the powerful drug has limited protective power among people who have not yet had such an event, and it comes with dangerous side effects.”

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

Daily use of low-dose aspirin offers no significant protection against stroke and was linked to a higher rate of bleeding in the brain, according to new research published in JAMA.

The research matches other evidence advising that healthy older adults without a history of heart conditions or warning signs of stroke should not take low-dose aspirin. 

The findings also support the recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that low-dose aspirin should not be prescribed for preventing a first heart attack or stroke in healthy older adults, The New York Times reported.

“We can be very emphatic that healthy people who are not on aspirin and do not have multiple risk factors should not be starting it now,” said Randall Stafford, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who was not involved in the study, in the Times.

It’s not as clear for others, he said.

“The longer you’ve been on aspirin and the more risk factors you have for heart attacks and strokes, the murkier it gets,” he said.

Some cardiac and stroke experts say daily aspirin should remain part of the regimen for people who have had a heart attack or stroke.

The JAMA report was based on data from a randomized control trial of 19,000 people from Australia and America. Participants were over the age of 70 and did not have heart disease. 

The data covered an average of almost 4.7 years and revealed that aspirin lowered the rate of ischemic stroke but not significantly. An ischemic stroke happens when a clot forms in a blood vessel that sends blood to the brain. 

There was also a 38% higher rate of brain bleeds for people who took aspirin daily, compared with those who took a placebo.

The Times wrote, “In the past, some doctors regarded aspirin as something of a wonder drug, capable of protecting healthy patients against a future heart attack or stroke. But recent studies have shown that the powerful drug has limited protective power among people who have not yet had such an event, and it comes with dangerous side effects.”

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

Daily use of low-dose aspirin offers no significant protection against stroke and was linked to a higher rate of bleeding in the brain, according to new research published in JAMA.

The research matches other evidence advising that healthy older adults without a history of heart conditions or warning signs of stroke should not take low-dose aspirin. 

The findings also support the recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that low-dose aspirin should not be prescribed for preventing a first heart attack or stroke in healthy older adults, The New York Times reported.

“We can be very emphatic that healthy people who are not on aspirin and do not have multiple risk factors should not be starting it now,” said Randall Stafford, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who was not involved in the study, in the Times.

It’s not as clear for others, he said.

“The longer you’ve been on aspirin and the more risk factors you have for heart attacks and strokes, the murkier it gets,” he said.

Some cardiac and stroke experts say daily aspirin should remain part of the regimen for people who have had a heart attack or stroke.

The JAMA report was based on data from a randomized control trial of 19,000 people from Australia and America. Participants were over the age of 70 and did not have heart disease. 

The data covered an average of almost 4.7 years and revealed that aspirin lowered the rate of ischemic stroke but not significantly. An ischemic stroke happens when a clot forms in a blood vessel that sends blood to the brain. 

There was also a 38% higher rate of brain bleeds for people who took aspirin daily, compared with those who took a placebo.

The Times wrote, “In the past, some doctors regarded aspirin as something of a wonder drug, capable of protecting healthy patients against a future heart attack or stroke. But recent studies have shown that the powerful drug has limited protective power among people who have not yet had such an event, and it comes with dangerous side effects.”

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

If you’ve ever felt an urge to scratch after witnessing someone else relieve their own itch, you’re certainly not alone. Itching can be contagious and the phenomenon is so common it doesn’t just affect humans. Now researchers may understand why.

Some background: In a 2007 study led by Zhou-Feng Chen, PhD, professor of anesthesiology, psychiatry, and developmental biology at the Washington University in St. Louis, researchers discovered a specific gene, the GRPR (gastrin-releasing peptide receptor), in the spinal cord and a corresponding neuropeptide, GRP (gastrin-releasing peptide). Together, the GRP system was found to transmit the “itch information” from one’s skin to the spinal cord.

This discovery was further backed by 2017 findings when Dr. Chen and his colleagues closely observed the molecular and neural basis of contagious itch behavior in mice. “We played a video that showed a mouse scratching at a very high frequency to other mice,” said Dr. Chen. “We found that, indeed, the mice who watched the video also scratched.”

To determine the inner workings at play, the researchers used molecular mapping to reveal increased neuronal activity in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), a bilateral structure found in the hypothalamus of the mouse’s brain. In other words, this part of the mouse’s brain “lit up” when a mouse displayed contagious scratching behavior.

The researchers then decided to take this one step further by manipulating the amount of GRP in the hypothalamus. “When we deleted the GRP in the SCN, the mice stopped imitating the scratch,” Dr. Chen said. “When we injected more GRP into the SCN, the mice started scratching like crazy.”

Now, after more investigating and research published in 2022 in Cell Reports, Dr. Chen and his team suspect contagious itching may have just as much to do with our eyeballs as our skin and spinal cord. Why? The phenomenon begins with a visual component: Someone seeing another person scratching.

The researchers targeted mice’s retinal ganglion cells, a type of light-capturing neuron found near the inner surface of the retina. When those cells were disabled, all scratching stopped.

This recent study argues that a previously undiscovered visual pathway may exist between the retina and the brain – bypassing the visual cortex – to provide more immediate physical reactions to potential adverse situations.

There’s more (and it could be quite relatable to some people): After the mice watched a video of another mouse scratching for half an hour, the researchers measured the mice’s stress hormone levels, finding a significant increase. This suggested that exposure to impulsive, contagious scratching behavior may have caused heightened anxiety in the mice.

“This is an important discovery that helps answer the psychological question of why animals and people scratch all the time,” said Dr. Chen. “We humans also scratch a lot, sometimes as a way to unconsciously express our internal anxiety.”

The mice may have interpreted the scratching video as a sudden negative change to their environment that they had to prepare for. “Contagious behavior is actually a very efficient way to inform other animals of what’s coming,” Dr. Chen said. “When we see other people running in a panic, there is no time to think. You just run as fast as you can. This is another example of contagious behavior that is in your own interest to survive.”

As a result, Dr. Chen believes it’s fair to infer that contagious behavior, including yawning and emotional contagion, is merely an expression of a fundamental survival mechanism that has evolved over time. “The human being is just an imitation machine. It’s often very difficult for people to act independently or as a minority because you would be working against evolution,” said Dr. Chen.

Scott Ira Krakower, DO, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, N.Y., (and not party to this research), seconds this sentiment. “In regard to the physical benefits of contagion, it acts as a permanent defense and helps build collective immunity,” he said. “The social benefits when it comes to empathy or social media contagion are also important to our development. It helps us understand, adapt, and connect with others.”

Observing how empathy operates as a socially contagious behavior is something Dr. Chen and his colleagues are interested in looking into in the future.

“The definition of empathy is the sharing of emotions,” Dr. Chen said. “Shared feelings are crucial for social bonding and mental health, and for other animals, like mice, this is also the case.” Previous studies have shown that mice do, in fact, experience empathy and share feelings of pain and fear with one another.

There is still much to be explored in the study of contagious behaviors and the components of the brain that are activated during such behavior. Dr. Chen and his team intend to, ahem, scratch that particular itch.

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

If you’ve ever felt an urge to scratch after witnessing someone else relieve their own itch, you’re certainly not alone. Itching can be contagious and the phenomenon is so common it doesn’t just affect humans. Now researchers may understand why.

Some background: In a 2007 study led by Zhou-Feng Chen, PhD, professor of anesthesiology, psychiatry, and developmental biology at the Washington University in St. Louis, researchers discovered a specific gene, the GRPR (gastrin-releasing peptide receptor), in the spinal cord and a corresponding neuropeptide, GRP (gastrin-releasing peptide). Together, the GRP system was found to transmit the “itch information” from one’s skin to the spinal cord.

This discovery was further backed by 2017 findings when Dr. Chen and his colleagues closely observed the molecular and neural basis of contagious itch behavior in mice. “We played a video that showed a mouse scratching at a very high frequency to other mice,” said Dr. Chen. “We found that, indeed, the mice who watched the video also scratched.”

To determine the inner workings at play, the researchers used molecular mapping to reveal increased neuronal activity in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), a bilateral structure found in the hypothalamus of the mouse’s brain. In other words, this part of the mouse’s brain “lit up” when a mouse displayed contagious scratching behavior.

The researchers then decided to take this one step further by manipulating the amount of GRP in the hypothalamus. “When we deleted the GRP in the SCN, the mice stopped imitating the scratch,” Dr. Chen said. “When we injected more GRP into the SCN, the mice started scratching like crazy.”

Now, after more investigating and research published in 2022 in Cell Reports, Dr. Chen and his team suspect contagious itching may have just as much to do with our eyeballs as our skin and spinal cord. Why? The phenomenon begins with a visual component: Someone seeing another person scratching.

The researchers targeted mice’s retinal ganglion cells, a type of light-capturing neuron found near the inner surface of the retina. When those cells were disabled, all scratching stopped.

This recent study argues that a previously undiscovered visual pathway may exist between the retina and the brain – bypassing the visual cortex – to provide more immediate physical reactions to potential adverse situations.

There’s more (and it could be quite relatable to some people): After the mice watched a video of another mouse scratching for half an hour, the researchers measured the mice’s stress hormone levels, finding a significant increase. This suggested that exposure to impulsive, contagious scratching behavior may have caused heightened anxiety in the mice.

“This is an important discovery that helps answer the psychological question of why animals and people scratch all the time,” said Dr. Chen. “We humans also scratch a lot, sometimes as a way to unconsciously express our internal anxiety.”

The mice may have interpreted the scratching video as a sudden negative change to their environment that they had to prepare for. “Contagious behavior is actually a very efficient way to inform other animals of what’s coming,” Dr. Chen said. “When we see other people running in a panic, there is no time to think. You just run as fast as you can. This is another example of contagious behavior that is in your own interest to survive.”

As a result, Dr. Chen believes it’s fair to infer that contagious behavior, including yawning and emotional contagion, is merely an expression of a fundamental survival mechanism that has evolved over time. “The human being is just an imitation machine. It’s often very difficult for people to act independently or as a minority because you would be working against evolution,” said Dr. Chen.

Scott Ira Krakower, DO, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, N.Y., (and not party to this research), seconds this sentiment. “In regard to the physical benefits of contagion, it acts as a permanent defense and helps build collective immunity,” he said. “The social benefits when it comes to empathy or social media contagion are also important to our development. It helps us understand, adapt, and connect with others.”

Observing how empathy operates as a socially contagious behavior is something Dr. Chen and his colleagues are interested in looking into in the future.

“The definition of empathy is the sharing of emotions,” Dr. Chen said. “Shared feelings are crucial for social bonding and mental health, and for other animals, like mice, this is also the case.” Previous studies have shown that mice do, in fact, experience empathy and share feelings of pain and fear with one another.

There is still much to be explored in the study of contagious behaviors and the components of the brain that are activated during such behavior. Dr. Chen and his team intend to, ahem, scratch that particular itch.

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

If you’ve ever felt an urge to scratch after witnessing someone else relieve their own itch, you’re certainly not alone. Itching can be contagious and the phenomenon is so common it doesn’t just affect humans. Now researchers may understand why.

Some background: In a 2007 study led by Zhou-Feng Chen, PhD, professor of anesthesiology, psychiatry, and developmental biology at the Washington University in St. Louis, researchers discovered a specific gene, the GRPR (gastrin-releasing peptide receptor), in the spinal cord and a corresponding neuropeptide, GRP (gastrin-releasing peptide). Together, the GRP system was found to transmit the “itch information” from one’s skin to the spinal cord.

This discovery was further backed by 2017 findings when Dr. Chen and his colleagues closely observed the molecular and neural basis of contagious itch behavior in mice. “We played a video that showed a mouse scratching at a very high frequency to other mice,” said Dr. Chen. “We found that, indeed, the mice who watched the video also scratched.”

To determine the inner workings at play, the researchers used molecular mapping to reveal increased neuronal activity in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), a bilateral structure found in the hypothalamus of the mouse’s brain. In other words, this part of the mouse’s brain “lit up” when a mouse displayed contagious scratching behavior.

The researchers then decided to take this one step further by manipulating the amount of GRP in the hypothalamus. “When we deleted the GRP in the SCN, the mice stopped imitating the scratch,” Dr. Chen said. “When we injected more GRP into the SCN, the mice started scratching like crazy.”

Now, after more investigating and research published in 2022 in Cell Reports, Dr. Chen and his team suspect contagious itching may have just as much to do with our eyeballs as our skin and spinal cord. Why? The phenomenon begins with a visual component: Someone seeing another person scratching.

The researchers targeted mice’s retinal ganglion cells, a type of light-capturing neuron found near the inner surface of the retina. When those cells were disabled, all scratching stopped.

This recent study argues that a previously undiscovered visual pathway may exist between the retina and the brain – bypassing the visual cortex – to provide more immediate physical reactions to potential adverse situations.

There’s more (and it could be quite relatable to some people): After the mice watched a video of another mouse scratching for half an hour, the researchers measured the mice’s stress hormone levels, finding a significant increase. This suggested that exposure to impulsive, contagious scratching behavior may have caused heightened anxiety in the mice.

“This is an important discovery that helps answer the psychological question of why animals and people scratch all the time,” said Dr. Chen. “We humans also scratch a lot, sometimes as a way to unconsciously express our internal anxiety.”

The mice may have interpreted the scratching video as a sudden negative change to their environment that they had to prepare for. “Contagious behavior is actually a very efficient way to inform other animals of what’s coming,” Dr. Chen said. “When we see other people running in a panic, there is no time to think. You just run as fast as you can. This is another example of contagious behavior that is in your own interest to survive.”

As a result, Dr. Chen believes it’s fair to infer that contagious behavior, including yawning and emotional contagion, is merely an expression of a fundamental survival mechanism that has evolved over time. “The human being is just an imitation machine. It’s often very difficult for people to act independently or as a minority because you would be working against evolution,” said Dr. Chen.

Scott Ira Krakower, DO, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, N.Y., (and not party to this research), seconds this sentiment. “In regard to the physical benefits of contagion, it acts as a permanent defense and helps build collective immunity,” he said. “The social benefits when it comes to empathy or social media contagion are also important to our development. It helps us understand, adapt, and connect with others.”

Observing how empathy operates as a socially contagious behavior is something Dr. Chen and his colleagues are interested in looking into in the future.

“The definition of empathy is the sharing of emotions,” Dr. Chen said. “Shared feelings are crucial for social bonding and mental health, and for other animals, like mice, this is also the case.” Previous studies have shown that mice do, in fact, experience empathy and share feelings of pain and fear with one another.

There is still much to be explored in the study of contagious behaviors and the components of the brain that are activated during such behavior. Dr. Chen and his team intend to, ahem, scratch that particular itch.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The tirzepatide weight-loss juggernaut barreled forward with a report on July 27 of positive top-line results from a pair of pivotal trials in adults with obesity or overweight but without diabetes.

The primary weight-loss results from the SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4 studies in a combined total of 1,249 randomized adults add to positive data previously reported from more than 3,400 randomized patients in SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2, also in people with overweight or obesity. The results from these four trials collectively create a compelling picture of safety and efficacy as tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) nears a decision, expected later in 2023, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval as a weight-loss agent in people with or without type 2 diabetes.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the indication of improving glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes.
 

SURMOUNT-3 included intensive lifestyle management

SURMOUNT-3 initially enrolled 806 adults with obesity or overweight plus one or more weight-related comorbidities who received a 12-week intensive lifestyle-intervention program. People who lost at least 5% of their baseline weight could continue, and in the second phase, investigators randomized 579 people to 72 weeks of treatment with weekly injections of tirzepatide or placebo while they continued the lifestyle intervention. In the intervention group, tirzepatide was gradually up-titrated to a 10-mg or 15-mg weekly dose, depending on tolerance.

People taking tirzepatide lost an average of 21.1% of body weight after 72 weeks from time of randomization, compared with an average weight gain of 3.3% among controls, an overall incremental loss of 24.5% of body weight with tirzepatide, compared with placebo, one of the trial’s two primary endpoints. The second primary endpoint was the percentage of people achieving at least a 5% weight loss from time of randomization, which occurred in 94.4% of people taking tirzepatide and 10.7% of controls.
 

SURMOUNT-4 tested tirzepatide discontinuation

SURMOUNT-4 started with a 36-week lead-in period during which 783 adults with obesity or overweight plus comorbidities received weekly injections of tirzepatide, which led to an average weight loss of 21.1% from baseline. Researchers then randomized 670 of these participants to continue weekly tirzepatide for another 52 weeks or continue placebo injections. At the end of the 1-year randomized phase, those who continued tirzepatide had an average additional weight loss of 6.7%, while those who switched to placebo had an average 14.8% weight gain during the 52-week phase, producing a placebo-adjusted weight loss with tirzepatide of 21.4% for this phase.

As a secondary endpoint, those who received tirzepatide continuously for 88 weeks (the 36-week run-in plus the 52-week randomized phase) had an overall average weight loss from baseline of 26.0%. In SURMOUNT-3, participants randomized to receive tirzepatide during the second phase had an overall average weight loss, compared with baseline, before the lifestyle-intervention lead-in of 26.6% during 84 total weeks of treatment. These weight-loss levels, 26.0% and 26.6%, were “the highest level of weight loss observed in the SURMOUNT program to date,” said a Lilly official in a written statement. The findings from this trial also highlighted the importance of ongoing tirzepatide treatment to maintain weight loss.

Safety findings from both trials were consistent with prior studies of tirzepatide, as well as other agents that act by mimicking the action of human incretin hormones, the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. The most common adverse effects with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal and were generally mild to moderate in severity. Tirzepatide is a twincretin that has agonist activity for both the GLP-1 receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor.

According to Lilly’s announcement, the SURMOUNT-3 results will be reported at Obesity Week, being held Oct. 14-17 in Dallas, and the SURMOUNT-4 findings will be reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2023 annual meeting, being held Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany. 

The SURMOUNT trials have been funded by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

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

The tirzepatide weight-loss juggernaut barreled forward with a report on July 27 of positive top-line results from a pair of pivotal trials in adults with obesity or overweight but without diabetes.

The primary weight-loss results from the SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4 studies in a combined total of 1,249 randomized adults add to positive data previously reported from more than 3,400 randomized patients in SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2, also in people with overweight or obesity. The results from these four trials collectively create a compelling picture of safety and efficacy as tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) nears a decision, expected later in 2023, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval as a weight-loss agent in people with or without type 2 diabetes.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the indication of improving glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes.
 

SURMOUNT-3 included intensive lifestyle management

SURMOUNT-3 initially enrolled 806 adults with obesity or overweight plus one or more weight-related comorbidities who received a 12-week intensive lifestyle-intervention program. People who lost at least 5% of their baseline weight could continue, and in the second phase, investigators randomized 579 people to 72 weeks of treatment with weekly injections of tirzepatide or placebo while they continued the lifestyle intervention. In the intervention group, tirzepatide was gradually up-titrated to a 10-mg or 15-mg weekly dose, depending on tolerance.

People taking tirzepatide lost an average of 21.1% of body weight after 72 weeks from time of randomization, compared with an average weight gain of 3.3% among controls, an overall incremental loss of 24.5% of body weight with tirzepatide, compared with placebo, one of the trial’s two primary endpoints. The second primary endpoint was the percentage of people achieving at least a 5% weight loss from time of randomization, which occurred in 94.4% of people taking tirzepatide and 10.7% of controls.
 

SURMOUNT-4 tested tirzepatide discontinuation

SURMOUNT-4 started with a 36-week lead-in period during which 783 adults with obesity or overweight plus comorbidities received weekly injections of tirzepatide, which led to an average weight loss of 21.1% from baseline. Researchers then randomized 670 of these participants to continue weekly tirzepatide for another 52 weeks or continue placebo injections. At the end of the 1-year randomized phase, those who continued tirzepatide had an average additional weight loss of 6.7%, while those who switched to placebo had an average 14.8% weight gain during the 52-week phase, producing a placebo-adjusted weight loss with tirzepatide of 21.4% for this phase.

As a secondary endpoint, those who received tirzepatide continuously for 88 weeks (the 36-week run-in plus the 52-week randomized phase) had an overall average weight loss from baseline of 26.0%. In SURMOUNT-3, participants randomized to receive tirzepatide during the second phase had an overall average weight loss, compared with baseline, before the lifestyle-intervention lead-in of 26.6% during 84 total weeks of treatment. These weight-loss levels, 26.0% and 26.6%, were “the highest level of weight loss observed in the SURMOUNT program to date,” said a Lilly official in a written statement. The findings from this trial also highlighted the importance of ongoing tirzepatide treatment to maintain weight loss.

Safety findings from both trials were consistent with prior studies of tirzepatide, as well as other agents that act by mimicking the action of human incretin hormones, the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. The most common adverse effects with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal and were generally mild to moderate in severity. Tirzepatide is a twincretin that has agonist activity for both the GLP-1 receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor.

According to Lilly’s announcement, the SURMOUNT-3 results will be reported at Obesity Week, being held Oct. 14-17 in Dallas, and the SURMOUNT-4 findings will be reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2023 annual meeting, being held Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany. 

The SURMOUNT trials have been funded by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

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

The tirzepatide weight-loss juggernaut barreled forward with a report on July 27 of positive top-line results from a pair of pivotal trials in adults with obesity or overweight but without diabetes.

The primary weight-loss results from the SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4 studies in a combined total of 1,249 randomized adults add to positive data previously reported from more than 3,400 randomized patients in SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2, also in people with overweight or obesity. The results from these four trials collectively create a compelling picture of safety and efficacy as tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) nears a decision, expected later in 2023, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval as a weight-loss agent in people with or without type 2 diabetes.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the indication of improving glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes.
 

SURMOUNT-3 included intensive lifestyle management

SURMOUNT-3 initially enrolled 806 adults with obesity or overweight plus one or more weight-related comorbidities who received a 12-week intensive lifestyle-intervention program. People who lost at least 5% of their baseline weight could continue, and in the second phase, investigators randomized 579 people to 72 weeks of treatment with weekly injections of tirzepatide or placebo while they continued the lifestyle intervention. In the intervention group, tirzepatide was gradually up-titrated to a 10-mg or 15-mg weekly dose, depending on tolerance.

People taking tirzepatide lost an average of 21.1% of body weight after 72 weeks from time of randomization, compared with an average weight gain of 3.3% among controls, an overall incremental loss of 24.5% of body weight with tirzepatide, compared with placebo, one of the trial’s two primary endpoints. The second primary endpoint was the percentage of people achieving at least a 5% weight loss from time of randomization, which occurred in 94.4% of people taking tirzepatide and 10.7% of controls.
 

SURMOUNT-4 tested tirzepatide discontinuation

SURMOUNT-4 started with a 36-week lead-in period during which 783 adults with obesity or overweight plus comorbidities received weekly injections of tirzepatide, which led to an average weight loss of 21.1% from baseline. Researchers then randomized 670 of these participants to continue weekly tirzepatide for another 52 weeks or continue placebo injections. At the end of the 1-year randomized phase, those who continued tirzepatide had an average additional weight loss of 6.7%, while those who switched to placebo had an average 14.8% weight gain during the 52-week phase, producing a placebo-adjusted weight loss with tirzepatide of 21.4% for this phase.

As a secondary endpoint, those who received tirzepatide continuously for 88 weeks (the 36-week run-in plus the 52-week randomized phase) had an overall average weight loss from baseline of 26.0%. In SURMOUNT-3, participants randomized to receive tirzepatide during the second phase had an overall average weight loss, compared with baseline, before the lifestyle-intervention lead-in of 26.6% during 84 total weeks of treatment. These weight-loss levels, 26.0% and 26.6%, were “the highest level of weight loss observed in the SURMOUNT program to date,” said a Lilly official in a written statement. The findings from this trial also highlighted the importance of ongoing tirzepatide treatment to maintain weight loss.

Safety findings from both trials were consistent with prior studies of tirzepatide, as well as other agents that act by mimicking the action of human incretin hormones, the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. The most common adverse effects with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal and were generally mild to moderate in severity. Tirzepatide is a twincretin that has agonist activity for both the GLP-1 receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor.

According to Lilly’s announcement, the SURMOUNT-3 results will be reported at Obesity Week, being held Oct. 14-17 in Dallas, and the SURMOUNT-4 findings will be reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2023 annual meeting, being held Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany. 

The SURMOUNT trials have been funded by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

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

Doctors who treat patients with long COVID, hampered by a lack of federally approved treatments, are turning to off-label use of drugs designed for addiction, diabetes, and other conditions.

Those with long COVID for years now are engaging in robust online conversations about a range of treatments not formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the condition, reporting good and bad results.

High on the current list: low-dose naltrexone (LDN). A version of drug developed to help addicts has been shown to help some long COVID patients.

But evidence is building for other treatments, many of them targeted to treat brain fog or one of the other long-term symptoms in individuals 3 months or more after acute COVID infection.

Some patients are taking metformin, which studies have found to be effective at lowering long COVID risk. Paxlovid is being tested for long COVID.  Antivirals are also on the list.

Alba Azola, MD, said she has treated long COVID patients with brain fog and dizziness who have postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Dr. Azola said she asked the staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, where she is a rehabilitation specialist, to teach her how to treat the condition. Since there is no approved treatment for POTS, that meant using off-label drugs, she said. 

“It was super scary as a provider to start doing that, but my patients were suffering so much,” she  said, noting the wait for patients to get into the POTS clinic at Hopkins was 2 years.

Dr. Azola was the lead author on guidelines published by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) last September on how to treat autonomic dysfunction, a common symptom of long COVID. 

The guidelines she helped write include drugs designed for blood pressure – such as midodrine – and steroids.

Dr. Azola noted the medications are prescribed on a case-by-case basis because the same drug that works for one patient may have awful side effects for another patient, she said. At the same time, some of these drugs have helped her patients go back to living relatively normal lives.

The first time JD Davids of Brooklyn, N.Y., took LDN, it was for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and he couldn’t tolerate it. He had nightmares. But when he took it for long COVID, he started out at a low dose and worked his way up, at his doctor’s advice. 

“It’s been a game-changer,” said Mr. Davids, cofounder of Long COVID Justice, an activist group. He has ME/CFS and several other chronic conditions, including long COVID. But, since he started taking LDN for long COVID, Mr. Davids said he has more energy and less pain. 

Technically, evidence is required to show off-label drug use could be effective in treating conditions for which the drug is not formally approved. Research suggests that 20%-30% of drugs are prescribed off-label.

No formal data exist on how widespread the use of off-label drugs for long COVID may be. But LDN is a major topic of discussion on public patient groups on Facebook. 

A recent study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases suggested that the diabetes drug metformin could be helpful. (The same study found no benefit from ivermectin, a drug since dismissed as a possible COVID treatment.)

Patients who testified at a virtual FDA hearing on drug development in April reported using vitamins, herbal supplements, over-the-counter medications and off-label drugs such as gabapentin and beta-blockers. Both of those drugs were on a list of potential treatments published in a January Nature Review article, along with LDN and Paxlovid.

Currently, Paxlovid is approved for acute COVID, and is in clinical trials as a treatment for long COVID as part of the federal government’s RECOVER Initiative. While only small studies of LDN have been conducted for long COVID, doctors are already prescribing the treatment. Mr. Davids said his primary care doctor recommended it.

Some doctors, such as Michael Peluso, MD, are comparing the trend to the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the federal government was slow to recognize the viral disease. Patients banded together to protest and gain access to experimental treatments. 

Dr. Peluso, who treats long COVID patients at the University of California, San Francisco, said that without any approved treatment, patients are turning to one another to find out what works.

“A lot of people experiencing long COVID are looking for ways to feel better now, rather than waiting for the science or the guidelines to catch up,” he said in an interview.

In some cases, the drugs are backed by small studies, he said. 

“While we still need clinical trials to prove what will work, the drugs tested in these trials are also being informed by anecdotes shared by patients,” Dr. Peluso said.

Gail Van Norman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, also said the long COVID situation today is reminiscent of the AIDS movement, which was “one of the times in history where we saw a real response to patient advocacy groups in terms of access to drugs.” Since then, the FDA has set up multiple programs to expand access to experimental drugs, added Dr. Van Norman, author of a recent study on off-label drug use.

But off-label use needs to be supervised by a physician, she and others said. Many patients get their information from social media, which Dr. Van Norman sees as a double-edged sword. Patients can share information, do their own research online, and alert practitioners to new findings, she said. But social media also promotes misinformation.

“People with no expertise have the same level of voice, and they are magnified,” Dr. Van Norman said.

The FDA requires doctors to have some evidence to support off-label use, she said. Doctors should talk to patients who want to try-off label drugs about what has been studied and what has not been studied.

“If I had [long COVID], I would be asking questions about all these drugs,” Dr. Van Norman said.

Mr. Davids has been asking questions like this for years. Diagnosed in 2019 with ME/CFS, he developed long COVID during the pandemic. Once he began started taking LDN, he started feeling better.

As someone with multiple chronic illnesses, Mr. Davids has tried a lot of treatments – he’s currently on two intravenous drugs and two compounded drugs, including LDN. But when his doctor first suggested it, he was wary. 

“I’ve worked with her to help increase the dosage slowly over time,” he said. “It’s very important for many people to start low and slow and work their way up.”

He hears stories of people who can’t get it from their physicians. Some, he said, think it may be because of the association of the drug with opioid abuse. 

Mr. Davids said long COVID patients have no other choice but to turn to alternative treatments. 
 

“I think we’ve been ill-served by our research establishment,” he said. “It is not set up for complex chronic conditions.”

Mr. Davids said he doesn’t know if LDN helps with underlying conditions or treats the symptoms – such as pain and fatigue – that keep him from doing things such as typing. 

“My understanding is that it may be doing both,” he said. “I sure am happy that it allows me to do things like keep my job.”

Dr. Azola and others said patients need to be monitored closely if they are taking an off-label drug. She recommends primary care doctors become familiar with them so they can offer patients some relief.

“It’s about the relationship between the patient and the provider and the provider being comfortable,” she said. “l was very transparent with my patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors who treat patients with long COVID, hampered by a lack of federally approved treatments, are turning to off-label use of drugs designed for addiction, diabetes, and other conditions.

Those with long COVID for years now are engaging in robust online conversations about a range of treatments not formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the condition, reporting good and bad results.

High on the current list: low-dose naltrexone (LDN). A version of drug developed to help addicts has been shown to help some long COVID patients.

But evidence is building for other treatments, many of them targeted to treat brain fog or one of the other long-term symptoms in individuals 3 months or more after acute COVID infection.

Some patients are taking metformin, which studies have found to be effective at lowering long COVID risk. Paxlovid is being tested for long COVID.  Antivirals are also on the list.

Alba Azola, MD, said she has treated long COVID patients with brain fog and dizziness who have postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Dr. Azola said she asked the staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, where she is a rehabilitation specialist, to teach her how to treat the condition. Since there is no approved treatment for POTS, that meant using off-label drugs, she said. 

“It was super scary as a provider to start doing that, but my patients were suffering so much,” she  said, noting the wait for patients to get into the POTS clinic at Hopkins was 2 years.

Dr. Azola was the lead author on guidelines published by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) last September on how to treat autonomic dysfunction, a common symptom of long COVID. 

The guidelines she helped write include drugs designed for blood pressure – such as midodrine – and steroids.

Dr. Azola noted the medications are prescribed on a case-by-case basis because the same drug that works for one patient may have awful side effects for another patient, she said. At the same time, some of these drugs have helped her patients go back to living relatively normal lives.

The first time JD Davids of Brooklyn, N.Y., took LDN, it was for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and he couldn’t tolerate it. He had nightmares. But when he took it for long COVID, he started out at a low dose and worked his way up, at his doctor’s advice. 

“It’s been a game-changer,” said Mr. Davids, cofounder of Long COVID Justice, an activist group. He has ME/CFS and several other chronic conditions, including long COVID. But, since he started taking LDN for long COVID, Mr. Davids said he has more energy and less pain. 

Technically, evidence is required to show off-label drug use could be effective in treating conditions for which the drug is not formally approved. Research suggests that 20%-30% of drugs are prescribed off-label.

No formal data exist on how widespread the use of off-label drugs for long COVID may be. But LDN is a major topic of discussion on public patient groups on Facebook. 

A recent study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases suggested that the diabetes drug metformin could be helpful. (The same study found no benefit from ivermectin, a drug since dismissed as a possible COVID treatment.)

Patients who testified at a virtual FDA hearing on drug development in April reported using vitamins, herbal supplements, over-the-counter medications and off-label drugs such as gabapentin and beta-blockers. Both of those drugs were on a list of potential treatments published in a January Nature Review article, along with LDN and Paxlovid.

Currently, Paxlovid is approved for acute COVID, and is in clinical trials as a treatment for long COVID as part of the federal government’s RECOVER Initiative. While only small studies of LDN have been conducted for long COVID, doctors are already prescribing the treatment. Mr. Davids said his primary care doctor recommended it.

Some doctors, such as Michael Peluso, MD, are comparing the trend to the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the federal government was slow to recognize the viral disease. Patients banded together to protest and gain access to experimental treatments. 

Dr. Peluso, who treats long COVID patients at the University of California, San Francisco, said that without any approved treatment, patients are turning to one another to find out what works.

“A lot of people experiencing long COVID are looking for ways to feel better now, rather than waiting for the science or the guidelines to catch up,” he said in an interview.

In some cases, the drugs are backed by small studies, he said. 

“While we still need clinical trials to prove what will work, the drugs tested in these trials are also being informed by anecdotes shared by patients,” Dr. Peluso said.

Gail Van Norman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, also said the long COVID situation today is reminiscent of the AIDS movement, which was “one of the times in history where we saw a real response to patient advocacy groups in terms of access to drugs.” Since then, the FDA has set up multiple programs to expand access to experimental drugs, added Dr. Van Norman, author of a recent study on off-label drug use.

But off-label use needs to be supervised by a physician, she and others said. Many patients get their information from social media, which Dr. Van Norman sees as a double-edged sword. Patients can share information, do their own research online, and alert practitioners to new findings, she said. But social media also promotes misinformation.

“People with no expertise have the same level of voice, and they are magnified,” Dr. Van Norman said.

The FDA requires doctors to have some evidence to support off-label use, she said. Doctors should talk to patients who want to try-off label drugs about what has been studied and what has not been studied.

“If I had [long COVID], I would be asking questions about all these drugs,” Dr. Van Norman said.

Mr. Davids has been asking questions like this for years. Diagnosed in 2019 with ME/CFS, he developed long COVID during the pandemic. Once he began started taking LDN, he started feeling better.

As someone with multiple chronic illnesses, Mr. Davids has tried a lot of treatments – he’s currently on two intravenous drugs and two compounded drugs, including LDN. But when his doctor first suggested it, he was wary. 

“I’ve worked with her to help increase the dosage slowly over time,” he said. “It’s very important for many people to start low and slow and work their way up.”

He hears stories of people who can’t get it from their physicians. Some, he said, think it may be because of the association of the drug with opioid abuse. 

Mr. Davids said long COVID patients have no other choice but to turn to alternative treatments. 
 

“I think we’ve been ill-served by our research establishment,” he said. “It is not set up for complex chronic conditions.”

Mr. Davids said he doesn’t know if LDN helps with underlying conditions or treats the symptoms – such as pain and fatigue – that keep him from doing things such as typing. 

“My understanding is that it may be doing both,” he said. “I sure am happy that it allows me to do things like keep my job.”

Dr. Azola and others said patients need to be monitored closely if they are taking an off-label drug. She recommends primary care doctors become familiar with them so they can offer patients some relief.

“It’s about the relationship between the patient and the provider and the provider being comfortable,” she said. “l was very transparent with my patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors who treat patients with long COVID, hampered by a lack of federally approved treatments, are turning to off-label use of drugs designed for addiction, diabetes, and other conditions.

Those with long COVID for years now are engaging in robust online conversations about a range of treatments not formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the condition, reporting good and bad results.

High on the current list: low-dose naltrexone (LDN). A version of drug developed to help addicts has been shown to help some long COVID patients.

But evidence is building for other treatments, many of them targeted to treat brain fog or one of the other long-term symptoms in individuals 3 months or more after acute COVID infection.

Some patients are taking metformin, which studies have found to be effective at lowering long COVID risk. Paxlovid is being tested for long COVID.  Antivirals are also on the list.

Alba Azola, MD, said she has treated long COVID patients with brain fog and dizziness who have postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Dr. Azola said she asked the staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, where she is a rehabilitation specialist, to teach her how to treat the condition. Since there is no approved treatment for POTS, that meant using off-label drugs, she said. 

“It was super scary as a provider to start doing that, but my patients were suffering so much,” she  said, noting the wait for patients to get into the POTS clinic at Hopkins was 2 years.

Dr. Azola was the lead author on guidelines published by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) last September on how to treat autonomic dysfunction, a common symptom of long COVID. 

The guidelines she helped write include drugs designed for blood pressure – such as midodrine – and steroids.

Dr. Azola noted the medications are prescribed on a case-by-case basis because the same drug that works for one patient may have awful side effects for another patient, she said. At the same time, some of these drugs have helped her patients go back to living relatively normal lives.

The first time JD Davids of Brooklyn, N.Y., took LDN, it was for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and he couldn’t tolerate it. He had nightmares. But when he took it for long COVID, he started out at a low dose and worked his way up, at his doctor’s advice. 

“It’s been a game-changer,” said Mr. Davids, cofounder of Long COVID Justice, an activist group. He has ME/CFS and several other chronic conditions, including long COVID. But, since he started taking LDN for long COVID, Mr. Davids said he has more energy and less pain. 

Technically, evidence is required to show off-label drug use could be effective in treating conditions for which the drug is not formally approved. Research suggests that 20%-30% of drugs are prescribed off-label.

No formal data exist on how widespread the use of off-label drugs for long COVID may be. But LDN is a major topic of discussion on public patient groups on Facebook. 

A recent study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases suggested that the diabetes drug metformin could be helpful. (The same study found no benefit from ivermectin, a drug since dismissed as a possible COVID treatment.)

Patients who testified at a virtual FDA hearing on drug development in April reported using vitamins, herbal supplements, over-the-counter medications and off-label drugs such as gabapentin and beta-blockers. Both of those drugs were on a list of potential treatments published in a January Nature Review article, along with LDN and Paxlovid.

Currently, Paxlovid is approved for acute COVID, and is in clinical trials as a treatment for long COVID as part of the federal government’s RECOVER Initiative. While only small studies of LDN have been conducted for long COVID, doctors are already prescribing the treatment. Mr. Davids said his primary care doctor recommended it.

Some doctors, such as Michael Peluso, MD, are comparing the trend to the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the federal government was slow to recognize the viral disease. Patients banded together to protest and gain access to experimental treatments. 

Dr. Peluso, who treats long COVID patients at the University of California, San Francisco, said that without any approved treatment, patients are turning to one another to find out what works.

“A lot of people experiencing long COVID are looking for ways to feel better now, rather than waiting for the science or the guidelines to catch up,” he said in an interview.

In some cases, the drugs are backed by small studies, he said. 

“While we still need clinical trials to prove what will work, the drugs tested in these trials are also being informed by anecdotes shared by patients,” Dr. Peluso said.

Gail Van Norman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, also said the long COVID situation today is reminiscent of the AIDS movement, which was “one of the times in history where we saw a real response to patient advocacy groups in terms of access to drugs.” Since then, the FDA has set up multiple programs to expand access to experimental drugs, added Dr. Van Norman, author of a recent study on off-label drug use.

But off-label use needs to be supervised by a physician, she and others said. Many patients get their information from social media, which Dr. Van Norman sees as a double-edged sword. Patients can share information, do their own research online, and alert practitioners to new findings, she said. But social media also promotes misinformation.

“People with no expertise have the same level of voice, and they are magnified,” Dr. Van Norman said.

The FDA requires doctors to have some evidence to support off-label use, she said. Doctors should talk to patients who want to try-off label drugs about what has been studied and what has not been studied.

“If I had [long COVID], I would be asking questions about all these drugs,” Dr. Van Norman said.

Mr. Davids has been asking questions like this for years. Diagnosed in 2019 with ME/CFS, he developed long COVID during the pandemic. Once he began started taking LDN, he started feeling better.

As someone with multiple chronic illnesses, Mr. Davids has tried a lot of treatments – he’s currently on two intravenous drugs and two compounded drugs, including LDN. But when his doctor first suggested it, he was wary. 

“I’ve worked with her to help increase the dosage slowly over time,” he said. “It’s very important for many people to start low and slow and work their way up.”

He hears stories of people who can’t get it from their physicians. Some, he said, think it may be because of the association of the drug with opioid abuse. 

Mr. Davids said long COVID patients have no other choice but to turn to alternative treatments. 
 

“I think we’ve been ill-served by our research establishment,” he said. “It is not set up for complex chronic conditions.”

Mr. Davids said he doesn’t know if LDN helps with underlying conditions or treats the symptoms – such as pain and fatigue – that keep him from doing things such as typing. 

“My understanding is that it may be doing both,” he said. “I sure am happy that it allows me to do things like keep my job.”

Dr. Azola and others said patients need to be monitored closely if they are taking an off-label drug. She recommends primary care doctors become familiar with them so they can offer patients some relief.

“It’s about the relationship between the patient and the provider and the provider being comfortable,” she said. “l was very transparent with my patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An air monitor made by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis can detect COVID-19 in a room with an infected person within 5 minutes.

The project was a collaboration among researchers from the university’s engineering and medical schools; the results were published in Nature Communications.

One of the challenges the team had to overcome is that detecting the virus in a roomful of air “is like finding a needle in a haystack,” researcher and associate engineering professor Rajan Chakrabarty, PhD, said in a statement.

The team overcame that challenge using a technology called wet cyclone that samples the equivalent of 176 cubic feet of air in 5 minutes. A light on the device turns from green to red when the virus is detected, which the researchers said indicates that increased air circulation is needed. 

The device stands just 10 inches tall and 1 foot wide and is considered a proof of concept. The next step would be to implement the technology into a prototype to see how a commercial or household design could be achieved. The researchers foresee potential for the device to be used in hospitals and schools, as well as to be able to detect other respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus.

Current methods used for detecting viruses in the air take between 1 and 24 hours to collect and analyze samples. The existing methods usually require skilled labor, resulting in a process that doesn’t allow for real-time information that could translate into reducing risk or the spread of the virus, the researchers wrote.

The team tested their device both in laboratory experiments where they released aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 into a room-sized chamber, as well as in the apartments of two people who were COVID positive.

“There is nothing at the moment that tells us how safe a room is,” Washington University neurology professor John Cirrito, PhD, said in a statement. “If you are in a room with 100 people, you don’t want to find out 5 days later whether you could be sick or not. The idea with this device is that you can know essentially in real time, or every 5 minutes, if there is a live virus in the air.”

Their goal is to develop a commercially available air quality monitor, the researchers said. 

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

An air monitor made by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis can detect COVID-19 in a room with an infected person within 5 minutes.

The project was a collaboration among researchers from the university’s engineering and medical schools; the results were published in Nature Communications.

One of the challenges the team had to overcome is that detecting the virus in a roomful of air “is like finding a needle in a haystack,” researcher and associate engineering professor Rajan Chakrabarty, PhD, said in a statement.

The team overcame that challenge using a technology called wet cyclone that samples the equivalent of 176 cubic feet of air in 5 minutes. A light on the device turns from green to red when the virus is detected, which the researchers said indicates that increased air circulation is needed. 

The device stands just 10 inches tall and 1 foot wide and is considered a proof of concept. The next step would be to implement the technology into a prototype to see how a commercial or household design could be achieved. The researchers foresee potential for the device to be used in hospitals and schools, as well as to be able to detect other respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus.

Current methods used for detecting viruses in the air take between 1 and 24 hours to collect and analyze samples. The existing methods usually require skilled labor, resulting in a process that doesn’t allow for real-time information that could translate into reducing risk or the spread of the virus, the researchers wrote.

The team tested their device both in laboratory experiments where they released aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 into a room-sized chamber, as well as in the apartments of two people who were COVID positive.

“There is nothing at the moment that tells us how safe a room is,” Washington University neurology professor John Cirrito, PhD, said in a statement. “If you are in a room with 100 people, you don’t want to find out 5 days later whether you could be sick or not. The idea with this device is that you can know essentially in real time, or every 5 minutes, if there is a live virus in the air.”

Their goal is to develop a commercially available air quality monitor, the researchers said. 

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

An air monitor made by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis can detect COVID-19 in a room with an infected person within 5 minutes.

The project was a collaboration among researchers from the university’s engineering and medical schools; the results were published in Nature Communications.

One of the challenges the team had to overcome is that detecting the virus in a roomful of air “is like finding a needle in a haystack,” researcher and associate engineering professor Rajan Chakrabarty, PhD, said in a statement.

The team overcame that challenge using a technology called wet cyclone that samples the equivalent of 176 cubic feet of air in 5 minutes. A light on the device turns from green to red when the virus is detected, which the researchers said indicates that increased air circulation is needed. 

The device stands just 10 inches tall and 1 foot wide and is considered a proof of concept. The next step would be to implement the technology into a prototype to see how a commercial or household design could be achieved. The researchers foresee potential for the device to be used in hospitals and schools, as well as to be able to detect other respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus.

Current methods used for detecting viruses in the air take between 1 and 24 hours to collect and analyze samples. The existing methods usually require skilled labor, resulting in a process that doesn’t allow for real-time information that could translate into reducing risk or the spread of the virus, the researchers wrote.

The team tested their device both in laboratory experiments where they released aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 into a room-sized chamber, as well as in the apartments of two people who were COVID positive.

“There is nothing at the moment that tells us how safe a room is,” Washington University neurology professor John Cirrito, PhD, said in a statement. “If you are in a room with 100 people, you don’t want to find out 5 days later whether you could be sick or not. The idea with this device is that you can know essentially in real time, or every 5 minutes, if there is a live virus in the air.”

Their goal is to develop a commercially available air quality monitor, the researchers said. 

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.