User login
The Obesogenic Environment of Preschool and Day Care
Thirty years ago I had an experience in the office that influenced my approach to obesity for the rest of my career. The patient was a 4-year-old whom I had been seeing since her birth. At her annual well-child visit her weight had jumped up significantly from the previous year’s visit. She appeared well, but the change in her growth trajectory prompted a bit more in-depth history taking.
It turned out that finances had forced the family to employ one of the child’s grandmothers as the day care provider. Unfortunately, this grandmother’s passion was cooking and she was particularly adept at baking. She had no other hobbies and a sore hip limited her mobility, so she seldom went outside. When I eventually met her she was a cheerful, overweight, and delightful woman.
Deconstructing this obesogenic environment without disrupting this otherwise healthy family was an exercise that required tact, patience, and creativity. Fortunately, the young girl’s mother had already harbored some concerns about her child’s weight and was more than willing to participate in this environmental re-engineering project. It’s a long story, but she and I achieved our goals and the child eventually coasted back toward her previous growth curve.
I have always suspected that this scenario is being replayed hundreds of thousands of time across this country. But, sadly most don’t share this one’s happy ending. Parents don’t alway perceive the seriousness of the problem. The economic hurdles are often too steep to overcome, even when the most creative minds are involved.
How prevalent are obesogenic day care environments? We certainly know childhood obesity is a problem and the statistics in the preschool age group are particularly concerning. More than 14 million children are in non-parental early care and education programs; these environments would seem to be a logical place to target our prevention strategies. Understandably, there seems to be a hesitancy to point fingers, but how many day care providers are similar to the well-intentioned grandmother in the scenario I described? We must at least suspect that the example set by the adults in the preschool and day care environment might be having some influence on the children under their care.
There has been some research that sheds some light on this question. A paper from the University of Oklahoma has looked at the predictors of overweight and obesity in early care and education (ECE) teachers in hopes of “finding modifiable opportunities to enhance the health of this critical workforce.” In their paper, the investigators refer to other research that has found the prevalence of overweight and obesity among ECE teachers is higher than our national average and their waist circumference is significantly greater than the standard recommendation for women.
A study from Norway has looked at the association between preschool staff’s activity level and that of the children under their care using accelerometers. This particular investigation couldn’t determine whether it was the staff’s activity level that influenced the children or vice versa because it wasn’t an observational study. Common sense would lead one to believe it was the staff’s relative inactivity that was being reflected in the children’s.
It is interesting that in this Norwegian study when the teachers were asked about their attitudes toward activity and their self-perception of their own activity, there was no relationship between the staff’s and the children’s level of activity. In other words, the educators and caregivers bought into the importance of activity but had difficulty translating this philosophy into own behavior.
So where does this leave us? It turns out my experience decades ago was not a one-off event, but instead represents the tip of very large iceberg. Should we immediately create a system of day care provider boot camps? Let’s remember that each educator and caregiver is one of us. They may be slight outliers but not a group of individuals deserving of forced marches and half-rations to get them in shape.
ECEs have listened to the same message we have all heard about diet and activity and their importance for a child’s health. It’s for their own health and that of their charges. This could be as simple as providing accelerometers or step-counting smartwatches. Or, by having physical educators perform on-site audits that could then be used to create site-specific plans for increasing both teacher and student activity.
Modifying the educators’ diet is a more complex procedure and can quickly become entangled in the socio-economic background of each individual teacher. A healthy diet is not always equally available to everyone. The solution may involve providing the teachers with food to be eaten at work and to be prepared at home. But, creative answers can be found if we look for them.
Before we get too far down the obesity-is-a-disease pathway, we must take a closer look at the role the early care and early school milieu are playing in the obesity problem. A little common sense behavior modification when children are in the controlled environment of school/day care may allow us to be less reliant on the those new wonder drugs in the long run.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Thirty years ago I had an experience in the office that influenced my approach to obesity for the rest of my career. The patient was a 4-year-old whom I had been seeing since her birth. At her annual well-child visit her weight had jumped up significantly from the previous year’s visit. She appeared well, but the change in her growth trajectory prompted a bit more in-depth history taking.
It turned out that finances had forced the family to employ one of the child’s grandmothers as the day care provider. Unfortunately, this grandmother’s passion was cooking and she was particularly adept at baking. She had no other hobbies and a sore hip limited her mobility, so she seldom went outside. When I eventually met her she was a cheerful, overweight, and delightful woman.
Deconstructing this obesogenic environment without disrupting this otherwise healthy family was an exercise that required tact, patience, and creativity. Fortunately, the young girl’s mother had already harbored some concerns about her child’s weight and was more than willing to participate in this environmental re-engineering project. It’s a long story, but she and I achieved our goals and the child eventually coasted back toward her previous growth curve.
I have always suspected that this scenario is being replayed hundreds of thousands of time across this country. But, sadly most don’t share this one’s happy ending. Parents don’t alway perceive the seriousness of the problem. The economic hurdles are often too steep to overcome, even when the most creative minds are involved.
How prevalent are obesogenic day care environments? We certainly know childhood obesity is a problem and the statistics in the preschool age group are particularly concerning. More than 14 million children are in non-parental early care and education programs; these environments would seem to be a logical place to target our prevention strategies. Understandably, there seems to be a hesitancy to point fingers, but how many day care providers are similar to the well-intentioned grandmother in the scenario I described? We must at least suspect that the example set by the adults in the preschool and day care environment might be having some influence on the children under their care.
There has been some research that sheds some light on this question. A paper from the University of Oklahoma has looked at the predictors of overweight and obesity in early care and education (ECE) teachers in hopes of “finding modifiable opportunities to enhance the health of this critical workforce.” In their paper, the investigators refer to other research that has found the prevalence of overweight and obesity among ECE teachers is higher than our national average and their waist circumference is significantly greater than the standard recommendation for women.
A study from Norway has looked at the association between preschool staff’s activity level and that of the children under their care using accelerometers. This particular investigation couldn’t determine whether it was the staff’s activity level that influenced the children or vice versa because it wasn’t an observational study. Common sense would lead one to believe it was the staff’s relative inactivity that was being reflected in the children’s.
It is interesting that in this Norwegian study when the teachers were asked about their attitudes toward activity and their self-perception of their own activity, there was no relationship between the staff’s and the children’s level of activity. In other words, the educators and caregivers bought into the importance of activity but had difficulty translating this philosophy into own behavior.
So where does this leave us? It turns out my experience decades ago was not a one-off event, but instead represents the tip of very large iceberg. Should we immediately create a system of day care provider boot camps? Let’s remember that each educator and caregiver is one of us. They may be slight outliers but not a group of individuals deserving of forced marches and half-rations to get them in shape.
ECEs have listened to the same message we have all heard about diet and activity and their importance for a child’s health. It’s for their own health and that of their charges. This could be as simple as providing accelerometers or step-counting smartwatches. Or, by having physical educators perform on-site audits that could then be used to create site-specific plans for increasing both teacher and student activity.
Modifying the educators’ diet is a more complex procedure and can quickly become entangled in the socio-economic background of each individual teacher. A healthy diet is not always equally available to everyone. The solution may involve providing the teachers with food to be eaten at work and to be prepared at home. But, creative answers can be found if we look for them.
Before we get too far down the obesity-is-a-disease pathway, we must take a closer look at the role the early care and early school milieu are playing in the obesity problem. A little common sense behavior modification when children are in the controlled environment of school/day care may allow us to be less reliant on the those new wonder drugs in the long run.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Thirty years ago I had an experience in the office that influenced my approach to obesity for the rest of my career. The patient was a 4-year-old whom I had been seeing since her birth. At her annual well-child visit her weight had jumped up significantly from the previous year’s visit. She appeared well, but the change in her growth trajectory prompted a bit more in-depth history taking.
It turned out that finances had forced the family to employ one of the child’s grandmothers as the day care provider. Unfortunately, this grandmother’s passion was cooking and she was particularly adept at baking. She had no other hobbies and a sore hip limited her mobility, so she seldom went outside. When I eventually met her she was a cheerful, overweight, and delightful woman.
Deconstructing this obesogenic environment without disrupting this otherwise healthy family was an exercise that required tact, patience, and creativity. Fortunately, the young girl’s mother had already harbored some concerns about her child’s weight and was more than willing to participate in this environmental re-engineering project. It’s a long story, but she and I achieved our goals and the child eventually coasted back toward her previous growth curve.
I have always suspected that this scenario is being replayed hundreds of thousands of time across this country. But, sadly most don’t share this one’s happy ending. Parents don’t alway perceive the seriousness of the problem. The economic hurdles are often too steep to overcome, even when the most creative minds are involved.
How prevalent are obesogenic day care environments? We certainly know childhood obesity is a problem and the statistics in the preschool age group are particularly concerning. More than 14 million children are in non-parental early care and education programs; these environments would seem to be a logical place to target our prevention strategies. Understandably, there seems to be a hesitancy to point fingers, but how many day care providers are similar to the well-intentioned grandmother in the scenario I described? We must at least suspect that the example set by the adults in the preschool and day care environment might be having some influence on the children under their care.
There has been some research that sheds some light on this question. A paper from the University of Oklahoma has looked at the predictors of overweight and obesity in early care and education (ECE) teachers in hopes of “finding modifiable opportunities to enhance the health of this critical workforce.” In their paper, the investigators refer to other research that has found the prevalence of overweight and obesity among ECE teachers is higher than our national average and their waist circumference is significantly greater than the standard recommendation for women.
A study from Norway has looked at the association between preschool staff’s activity level and that of the children under their care using accelerometers. This particular investigation couldn’t determine whether it was the staff’s activity level that influenced the children or vice versa because it wasn’t an observational study. Common sense would lead one to believe it was the staff’s relative inactivity that was being reflected in the children’s.
It is interesting that in this Norwegian study when the teachers were asked about their attitudes toward activity and their self-perception of their own activity, there was no relationship between the staff’s and the children’s level of activity. In other words, the educators and caregivers bought into the importance of activity but had difficulty translating this philosophy into own behavior.
So where does this leave us? It turns out my experience decades ago was not a one-off event, but instead represents the tip of very large iceberg. Should we immediately create a system of day care provider boot camps? Let’s remember that each educator and caregiver is one of us. They may be slight outliers but not a group of individuals deserving of forced marches and half-rations to get them in shape.
ECEs have listened to the same message we have all heard about diet and activity and their importance for a child’s health. It’s for their own health and that of their charges. This could be as simple as providing accelerometers or step-counting smartwatches. Or, by having physical educators perform on-site audits that could then be used to create site-specific plans for increasing both teacher and student activity.
Modifying the educators’ diet is a more complex procedure and can quickly become entangled in the socio-economic background of each individual teacher. A healthy diet is not always equally available to everyone. The solution may involve providing the teachers with food to be eaten at work and to be prepared at home. But, creative answers can be found if we look for them.
Before we get too far down the obesity-is-a-disease pathway, we must take a closer look at the role the early care and early school milieu are playing in the obesity problem. A little common sense behavior modification when children are in the controlled environment of school/day care may allow us to be less reliant on the those new wonder drugs in the long run.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Semaglutide Trial for Knee Osteoarthritis Shows Improvements in Pain, Physical Function
VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024 World Congress.
From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).
As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.
“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.
Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Not Approved in OA
Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.
“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.
“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.
“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
Previous Work
The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.
Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.
“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.
“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
STEP 9 Study Design
No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.
STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.
In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.
A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.
Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.
Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
Other Findings
In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.
“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.
Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.
“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.
Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.
The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024 World Congress.
From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).
As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.
“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.
Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Not Approved in OA
Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.
“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.
“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.
“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
Previous Work
The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.
Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.
“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.
“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
STEP 9 Study Design
No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.
STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.
In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.
A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.
Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.
Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
Other Findings
In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.
“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.
Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.
“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.
Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.
The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024 World Congress.
From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).
As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.
“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.
Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Not Approved in OA
Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.
“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.
“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.
“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
Previous Work
The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.
Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.
“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.
“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
STEP 9 Study Design
No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.
STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.
In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.
A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.
Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.
Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
Other Findings
In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.
“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.
Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.
“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.
Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.
The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM OARSI 2024
Are Carbs Really the Enemy?
Recent headlines scream that we have an obesity problem and that carbs are the culprit for the problem. That leads me to ask: How did we get to blaming carbs as the enemy in the war against obesity?
First, a quick review of the history of diet and macronutrient content.
A long time ago, prehistoric humans foraged and hunted for food. Protein and fat were procured from animal meat, which was very important for encephalization, or evolutionary increase in the complexity or relative size of the brain. Most of the requirements for protein and iron were satisfied by hunting and eating land animals as well as consuming marine life that washed up on shore.
Carbohydrates in the form of plant foods served as the only sources of energy available to prehistoric hunter-gatherers, which offset the high protein content of the rest of their diet. These were only available during spring and summer.
Then, about 10,000 years ago, plant and animal agriculture began, and humans saw a permanent shift in the macronutrient content of our daily intake so that it was more consistent and stable. Initially, the nutrient characteristic changes were subtle, going from wild food to cultivated food with the Agricultural Revolution in the mid-17th century. Then, it changed even more rapidly less than 200 years ago with the Industrial Revolution, resulting in semiprocessed and ultraprocessed foods.
This change in food intake altered human physiology, with major changes in our digestive, immune, and neural physiology and an increase in chronic disease prevalence. The last 50 years has seen an increase in obesity in the United States, along with increases in chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, which leads cardiovascular disease and certain cancers.
Back to Carbohydrates: Do We Need Them? How Much? What Kind?
Unfortunately, ultraprocessed foods have become a staple of the standard American or Western diet.
Ultraprocessed foods such as cakes, cookies, crackers, sugary breakfast cereals, pizza, potato chips, soft drinks, and ice cream are eons away from our prehistoric diet of wild game, nuts, fruits, and berries, at which time, our digestive immune and nervous systems evolved. The pace at which ultraprocessed foods have entered our diet outpaces the time necessary for adaptation of our digestive systems and genes to these foods. They are indeed pathogenic in this context.
So when was the time when humans consumed an “optimal” diet? This is hard to say because during the time of brain evolution, we needed protein and iron and succumbed to infections and trauma. In the early 1900s, we continued to succumb to infection until the discovery of antibiotics. Soon thereafter, industrialization and processed foods led to weight gain and the chronic diseases of the cardiovascular system and type 2 diabetes.
Carbohydrates provide calories and fiber and some micronutrients, which are needed for energy, metabolism, and bowel and immune health. But how much do we need?
Currently in the United States, the percentage of total food energy derived from the three major macronutrients is: carbohydrates, 51.8%; fat, 32.8%; and protein, 15.4%. Current advice for a healthy diet to lower risk for cardiovascular disease is to limit fat intake to 30% of total energy, protein to 15%, and to increase complex carbohydrates to 55%-60% of total energy. But we also need to qualify this in terms of the quality of the macronutrient, particularly carbohydrates.
In addition to the quality, the macronutrient content of the diet has varied considerably from our prehistoric times when dietary protein intakes were high at 19%-35% of energy at the expense of carbohydrate (22%-40% of energy).
If our genes haven’t kept up with industrialization, then why do we need so many carbohydrates to equate to 55%-60% of energy? Is it possible that we are confusing what is available with what we actually need? What do I mean by this?
We certainly have changed the landscape of the world due to agriculture, which has allowed us to procreate and feed ourselves, and certainly, industrialization has increased the availability of accessible cheap food. Protein in the form of meat, fish, and fowl are harder to get in industrialized nations as are fruits and vegetables. These macronutrients were the foods of our ancestors. It may be that a healthy diet is considered the one that is available.
For instance, the Mediterranean diet is somewhat higher in fat content, 40%-50% fat (mostly mono and unsaturated), and similar in protein content but lower in carbohydrate content than the typical Western diet. The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet is lower in fat at 25% total calories, is higher in carbohydrates at 55%, and is lower in protein, but this diet was generated in the United States, therefore it is more Western.
We need high-quality protein for organ and muscle function, high-quality unsaturated and monounsaturated fats for brain function and cellular functions, and high-quality complex carbohydrates for energy and gut health as well as micronutrients for many cellular functions. A ketogenic diet is not sustainable in the long-term for these reasons: chiefly the need for some carbohydrates for gut health and micronutrients.
How much carbohydrate content is needed should take into consideration energy expenditure as well as micronutrients and fiber intake. Protein and fat can contribute to energy production but not as readily as carbohydrates that can quickly restore glycogen in the muscle and liver. What’s interesting is that our ancestors were able to hunt and run away from danger with the small amounts of carbohydrates from plants and berries plus the protein and fat intake from animals and fish — but the Olympics weren’t a thing then!
It may be another 200,000 years before our genes catch up to ultraprocessed foods and the simple carbohydrates and sugars contained in these products. Evidence suggests that ultraprocessed foods cause inflammation in organs like the liver, adipose tissue, the heart, and even the brain. In the brain, this inflammation may be what’s causing us to defend a higher body weight set point in this environment of easily obtained highly palatable ultraprocessed foods.
Let’s not wait until our genes catch up and our bodies tolerate junk food without disease progression. It could be like waiting for Godot!
Dr. Apovian is professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. She disclosed ties to Altimmune, CinFina Pharma, Cowen and Company, EPG Communication Holdings, Form Health, Gelesis, and L-Nutra.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Recent headlines scream that we have an obesity problem and that carbs are the culprit for the problem. That leads me to ask: How did we get to blaming carbs as the enemy in the war against obesity?
First, a quick review of the history of diet and macronutrient content.
A long time ago, prehistoric humans foraged and hunted for food. Protein and fat were procured from animal meat, which was very important for encephalization, or evolutionary increase in the complexity or relative size of the brain. Most of the requirements for protein and iron were satisfied by hunting and eating land animals as well as consuming marine life that washed up on shore.
Carbohydrates in the form of plant foods served as the only sources of energy available to prehistoric hunter-gatherers, which offset the high protein content of the rest of their diet. These were only available during spring and summer.
Then, about 10,000 years ago, plant and animal agriculture began, and humans saw a permanent shift in the macronutrient content of our daily intake so that it was more consistent and stable. Initially, the nutrient characteristic changes were subtle, going from wild food to cultivated food with the Agricultural Revolution in the mid-17th century. Then, it changed even more rapidly less than 200 years ago with the Industrial Revolution, resulting in semiprocessed and ultraprocessed foods.
This change in food intake altered human physiology, with major changes in our digestive, immune, and neural physiology and an increase in chronic disease prevalence. The last 50 years has seen an increase in obesity in the United States, along with increases in chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, which leads cardiovascular disease and certain cancers.
Back to Carbohydrates: Do We Need Them? How Much? What Kind?
Unfortunately, ultraprocessed foods have become a staple of the standard American or Western diet.
Ultraprocessed foods such as cakes, cookies, crackers, sugary breakfast cereals, pizza, potato chips, soft drinks, and ice cream are eons away from our prehistoric diet of wild game, nuts, fruits, and berries, at which time, our digestive immune and nervous systems evolved. The pace at which ultraprocessed foods have entered our diet outpaces the time necessary for adaptation of our digestive systems and genes to these foods. They are indeed pathogenic in this context.
So when was the time when humans consumed an “optimal” diet? This is hard to say because during the time of brain evolution, we needed protein and iron and succumbed to infections and trauma. In the early 1900s, we continued to succumb to infection until the discovery of antibiotics. Soon thereafter, industrialization and processed foods led to weight gain and the chronic diseases of the cardiovascular system and type 2 diabetes.
Carbohydrates provide calories and fiber and some micronutrients, which are needed for energy, metabolism, and bowel and immune health. But how much do we need?
Currently in the United States, the percentage of total food energy derived from the three major macronutrients is: carbohydrates, 51.8%; fat, 32.8%; and protein, 15.4%. Current advice for a healthy diet to lower risk for cardiovascular disease is to limit fat intake to 30% of total energy, protein to 15%, and to increase complex carbohydrates to 55%-60% of total energy. But we also need to qualify this in terms of the quality of the macronutrient, particularly carbohydrates.
In addition to the quality, the macronutrient content of the diet has varied considerably from our prehistoric times when dietary protein intakes were high at 19%-35% of energy at the expense of carbohydrate (22%-40% of energy).
If our genes haven’t kept up with industrialization, then why do we need so many carbohydrates to equate to 55%-60% of energy? Is it possible that we are confusing what is available with what we actually need? What do I mean by this?
We certainly have changed the landscape of the world due to agriculture, which has allowed us to procreate and feed ourselves, and certainly, industrialization has increased the availability of accessible cheap food. Protein in the form of meat, fish, and fowl are harder to get in industrialized nations as are fruits and vegetables. These macronutrients were the foods of our ancestors. It may be that a healthy diet is considered the one that is available.
For instance, the Mediterranean diet is somewhat higher in fat content, 40%-50% fat (mostly mono and unsaturated), and similar in protein content but lower in carbohydrate content than the typical Western diet. The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet is lower in fat at 25% total calories, is higher in carbohydrates at 55%, and is lower in protein, but this diet was generated in the United States, therefore it is more Western.
We need high-quality protein for organ and muscle function, high-quality unsaturated and monounsaturated fats for brain function and cellular functions, and high-quality complex carbohydrates for energy and gut health as well as micronutrients for many cellular functions. A ketogenic diet is not sustainable in the long-term for these reasons: chiefly the need for some carbohydrates for gut health and micronutrients.
How much carbohydrate content is needed should take into consideration energy expenditure as well as micronutrients and fiber intake. Protein and fat can contribute to energy production but not as readily as carbohydrates that can quickly restore glycogen in the muscle and liver. What’s interesting is that our ancestors were able to hunt and run away from danger with the small amounts of carbohydrates from plants and berries plus the protein and fat intake from animals and fish — but the Olympics weren’t a thing then!
It may be another 200,000 years before our genes catch up to ultraprocessed foods and the simple carbohydrates and sugars contained in these products. Evidence suggests that ultraprocessed foods cause inflammation in organs like the liver, adipose tissue, the heart, and even the brain. In the brain, this inflammation may be what’s causing us to defend a higher body weight set point in this environment of easily obtained highly palatable ultraprocessed foods.
Let’s not wait until our genes catch up and our bodies tolerate junk food without disease progression. It could be like waiting for Godot!
Dr. Apovian is professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. She disclosed ties to Altimmune, CinFina Pharma, Cowen and Company, EPG Communication Holdings, Form Health, Gelesis, and L-Nutra.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Recent headlines scream that we have an obesity problem and that carbs are the culprit for the problem. That leads me to ask: How did we get to blaming carbs as the enemy in the war against obesity?
First, a quick review of the history of diet and macronutrient content.
A long time ago, prehistoric humans foraged and hunted for food. Protein and fat were procured from animal meat, which was very important for encephalization, or evolutionary increase in the complexity or relative size of the brain. Most of the requirements for protein and iron were satisfied by hunting and eating land animals as well as consuming marine life that washed up on shore.
Carbohydrates in the form of plant foods served as the only sources of energy available to prehistoric hunter-gatherers, which offset the high protein content of the rest of their diet. These were only available during spring and summer.
Then, about 10,000 years ago, plant and animal agriculture began, and humans saw a permanent shift in the macronutrient content of our daily intake so that it was more consistent and stable. Initially, the nutrient characteristic changes were subtle, going from wild food to cultivated food with the Agricultural Revolution in the mid-17th century. Then, it changed even more rapidly less than 200 years ago with the Industrial Revolution, resulting in semiprocessed and ultraprocessed foods.
This change in food intake altered human physiology, with major changes in our digestive, immune, and neural physiology and an increase in chronic disease prevalence. The last 50 years has seen an increase in obesity in the United States, along with increases in chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, which leads cardiovascular disease and certain cancers.
Back to Carbohydrates: Do We Need Them? How Much? What Kind?
Unfortunately, ultraprocessed foods have become a staple of the standard American or Western diet.
Ultraprocessed foods such as cakes, cookies, crackers, sugary breakfast cereals, pizza, potato chips, soft drinks, and ice cream are eons away from our prehistoric diet of wild game, nuts, fruits, and berries, at which time, our digestive immune and nervous systems evolved. The pace at which ultraprocessed foods have entered our diet outpaces the time necessary for adaptation of our digestive systems and genes to these foods. They are indeed pathogenic in this context.
So when was the time when humans consumed an “optimal” diet? This is hard to say because during the time of brain evolution, we needed protein and iron and succumbed to infections and trauma. In the early 1900s, we continued to succumb to infection until the discovery of antibiotics. Soon thereafter, industrialization and processed foods led to weight gain and the chronic diseases of the cardiovascular system and type 2 diabetes.
Carbohydrates provide calories and fiber and some micronutrients, which are needed for energy, metabolism, and bowel and immune health. But how much do we need?
Currently in the United States, the percentage of total food energy derived from the three major macronutrients is: carbohydrates, 51.8%; fat, 32.8%; and protein, 15.4%. Current advice for a healthy diet to lower risk for cardiovascular disease is to limit fat intake to 30% of total energy, protein to 15%, and to increase complex carbohydrates to 55%-60% of total energy. But we also need to qualify this in terms of the quality of the macronutrient, particularly carbohydrates.
In addition to the quality, the macronutrient content of the diet has varied considerably from our prehistoric times when dietary protein intakes were high at 19%-35% of energy at the expense of carbohydrate (22%-40% of energy).
If our genes haven’t kept up with industrialization, then why do we need so many carbohydrates to equate to 55%-60% of energy? Is it possible that we are confusing what is available with what we actually need? What do I mean by this?
We certainly have changed the landscape of the world due to agriculture, which has allowed us to procreate and feed ourselves, and certainly, industrialization has increased the availability of accessible cheap food. Protein in the form of meat, fish, and fowl are harder to get in industrialized nations as are fruits and vegetables. These macronutrients were the foods of our ancestors. It may be that a healthy diet is considered the one that is available.
For instance, the Mediterranean diet is somewhat higher in fat content, 40%-50% fat (mostly mono and unsaturated), and similar in protein content but lower in carbohydrate content than the typical Western diet. The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet is lower in fat at 25% total calories, is higher in carbohydrates at 55%, and is lower in protein, but this diet was generated in the United States, therefore it is more Western.
We need high-quality protein for organ and muscle function, high-quality unsaturated and monounsaturated fats for brain function and cellular functions, and high-quality complex carbohydrates for energy and gut health as well as micronutrients for many cellular functions. A ketogenic diet is not sustainable in the long-term for these reasons: chiefly the need for some carbohydrates for gut health and micronutrients.
How much carbohydrate content is needed should take into consideration energy expenditure as well as micronutrients and fiber intake. Protein and fat can contribute to energy production but not as readily as carbohydrates that can quickly restore glycogen in the muscle and liver. What’s interesting is that our ancestors were able to hunt and run away from danger with the small amounts of carbohydrates from plants and berries plus the protein and fat intake from animals and fish — but the Olympics weren’t a thing then!
It may be another 200,000 years before our genes catch up to ultraprocessed foods and the simple carbohydrates and sugars contained in these products. Evidence suggests that ultraprocessed foods cause inflammation in organs like the liver, adipose tissue, the heart, and even the brain. In the brain, this inflammation may be what’s causing us to defend a higher body weight set point in this environment of easily obtained highly palatable ultraprocessed foods.
Let’s not wait until our genes catch up and our bodies tolerate junk food without disease progression. It could be like waiting for Godot!
Dr. Apovian is professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. She disclosed ties to Altimmune, CinFina Pharma, Cowen and Company, EPG Communication Holdings, Form Health, Gelesis, and L-Nutra.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Temporary Gut Liner Lowers Weight, A1c
LONDON — , showed data.
Two years after the liner’s removal, 80% of patients continued to show significant improvement, while 20% returned to baseline.
Presenting results at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference (DUKPC) 2024, the researchers, led by Bob Ryder, MD, FRCP, from the Department of Diabetes, Birmingham City Hospital, Birmingham, England, aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of EndoBarrier, as well as maintenance of efficacy 24 months after the device removal.
“We think EndoBarrier finds its place between the end of all the earlier measures and the possible option of bariatric surgery, and these data show that it can lead to tremendous weight loss and improvement in A1c,” Dr. Ryder said in an interview.
Commenting on how most patients had responded to use of the device, Dr. Ryder said, “People with obesity are often very unhappy and have tried everything over many years to no effect; however, this gut liner provided the opportunity to shift out of this state, and they often become so happy with the result they were determined to stick with it and continue with a healthier lifestyle including much more exercise.”
Convenient, Reversible Procedure
Ninety consecutive patients from Birmingham, all with longstanding, poorly controlled, type 2 diabetes and obesity, underwent the implantation procedure, and 60 of these attended follow-up visits 2 years post implantation.
Unlike permanent and more invasive weight loss surgeries, the EndoBarrier device is reversible and fitted with a straightforward procedure.
The thin impermeable sleeve is inserted via an approximate 1-hour endoscopy, enabling the patient to return home the same day. It lines the first 60 cm of the small intestine. Digested food passes through it without absorption and then makes contact with pancreatic and bile juices at the other end. This triggers a change in the metabolism of glucose and nutrients through modulating gut hormones and gut bacteria, as well as disrupting bile flow.
“Because the food bypasses the small intestine, the first time the food is encountered is in an area where it is not normally found, and this causes a reaction where signals are sent to the brain to stop eating,” explained Dr. Ryder.
Due to a license for 1 year of use, the gut liner was removed after a year via a 30-minute endoscopy procedure.
Over Half Maintained Full Improvement 2 Years Post Removal
A total of 60/90 (66%) attended follow-up visits and comprised the data presented. Mean age was 51.2 years, 47% were men, 50% were White, mean body mass index (BMI) was 41.5 kg/m2, and mean A1c was 9.3%. Duration of type 2 diabetes was a median of 11 years, and 60% were taking insulin.
Patients followed dietary requirements for the initial phase after implantation. “During the first week, they followed a liquid diet, then during week 2 — mushy food, and then they were told to chew it really well to avoid blockage,” said Dr. Ryder.
Mean weight loss on removal of the liner (at 12 months post implantation) was 16.7 kg (P < .001), while BMI dropped by mean 6 kg/m2, A1c dropped by a mean of 1.8%, and mean systolic blood pressure by 10.9 mm Hg.
Just over half (32/60, 53%) showed maintenance of fully sustained improvement 2 years after removal of the liner — defined as no significant difference after 2 years between weight loss (mean, 96-97 kg) and similarly for A1c improvement (7.6%-7.4%).
Sixteen of 60 (27%) showed partially sustained improvement over the 2 years of follow-up, with BMI increasing from a mean of 116.8 kg to 128.6 kg and A1c increasing from 7.5% to 8.4%. While 20% (12/60) returned to baseline.
Of the 36/60 people using insulin prior to EndoBarrier treatment, 10 (27.8%) were no longer using insulin at 2 years post removal.
Thirteen of 90 (14%) had early removal of the gut liner due to gastrointestinal hemorrhage (five), liver abscess (two), other abscess (one), and gastrointestinal symptoms (five), but they all made a full recovery; after removal, most experienced benefit despite the adverse event, reported Dr. Ryder.
Sarah Davies, MBBCh, a GP at Woodlands Medical Centre, Cardiff, Wales, agreed that EndoBarrier might be a viable option for patients struggling with obesity. “As GPs, we are the first port of call for these patients. It’s very novel, I hadn’t heard of it before. I like how it’s a noninvasive way for my patients to lose weight and maintain that even after EndoBarrier has been removed.”
Outcomes are being monitored in an ongoing global registry to help determine if EndoBarrier is a safe and effective treatment for individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Dr. Ryder noted that a similar study with 3 years of follow-up showed similar results. Further results will be presented by Dr. Ryder at the upcoming meeting of the American Diabetes Association.
EndoBarrier is currently not approved in the United States. It is awaiting United Kingdom and European CE mark, which the manufacturer hope will be granted this summer. The license will be for patients with BMI of 35-50 kg/m2.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LONDON — , showed data.
Two years after the liner’s removal, 80% of patients continued to show significant improvement, while 20% returned to baseline.
Presenting results at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference (DUKPC) 2024, the researchers, led by Bob Ryder, MD, FRCP, from the Department of Diabetes, Birmingham City Hospital, Birmingham, England, aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of EndoBarrier, as well as maintenance of efficacy 24 months after the device removal.
“We think EndoBarrier finds its place between the end of all the earlier measures and the possible option of bariatric surgery, and these data show that it can lead to tremendous weight loss and improvement in A1c,” Dr. Ryder said in an interview.
Commenting on how most patients had responded to use of the device, Dr. Ryder said, “People with obesity are often very unhappy and have tried everything over many years to no effect; however, this gut liner provided the opportunity to shift out of this state, and they often become so happy with the result they were determined to stick with it and continue with a healthier lifestyle including much more exercise.”
Convenient, Reversible Procedure
Ninety consecutive patients from Birmingham, all with longstanding, poorly controlled, type 2 diabetes and obesity, underwent the implantation procedure, and 60 of these attended follow-up visits 2 years post implantation.
Unlike permanent and more invasive weight loss surgeries, the EndoBarrier device is reversible and fitted with a straightforward procedure.
The thin impermeable sleeve is inserted via an approximate 1-hour endoscopy, enabling the patient to return home the same day. It lines the first 60 cm of the small intestine. Digested food passes through it without absorption and then makes contact with pancreatic and bile juices at the other end. This triggers a change in the metabolism of glucose and nutrients through modulating gut hormones and gut bacteria, as well as disrupting bile flow.
“Because the food bypasses the small intestine, the first time the food is encountered is in an area where it is not normally found, and this causes a reaction where signals are sent to the brain to stop eating,” explained Dr. Ryder.
Due to a license for 1 year of use, the gut liner was removed after a year via a 30-minute endoscopy procedure.
Over Half Maintained Full Improvement 2 Years Post Removal
A total of 60/90 (66%) attended follow-up visits and comprised the data presented. Mean age was 51.2 years, 47% were men, 50% were White, mean body mass index (BMI) was 41.5 kg/m2, and mean A1c was 9.3%. Duration of type 2 diabetes was a median of 11 years, and 60% were taking insulin.
Patients followed dietary requirements for the initial phase after implantation. “During the first week, they followed a liquid diet, then during week 2 — mushy food, and then they were told to chew it really well to avoid blockage,” said Dr. Ryder.
Mean weight loss on removal of the liner (at 12 months post implantation) was 16.7 kg (P < .001), while BMI dropped by mean 6 kg/m2, A1c dropped by a mean of 1.8%, and mean systolic blood pressure by 10.9 mm Hg.
Just over half (32/60, 53%) showed maintenance of fully sustained improvement 2 years after removal of the liner — defined as no significant difference after 2 years between weight loss (mean, 96-97 kg) and similarly for A1c improvement (7.6%-7.4%).
Sixteen of 60 (27%) showed partially sustained improvement over the 2 years of follow-up, with BMI increasing from a mean of 116.8 kg to 128.6 kg and A1c increasing from 7.5% to 8.4%. While 20% (12/60) returned to baseline.
Of the 36/60 people using insulin prior to EndoBarrier treatment, 10 (27.8%) were no longer using insulin at 2 years post removal.
Thirteen of 90 (14%) had early removal of the gut liner due to gastrointestinal hemorrhage (five), liver abscess (two), other abscess (one), and gastrointestinal symptoms (five), but they all made a full recovery; after removal, most experienced benefit despite the adverse event, reported Dr. Ryder.
Sarah Davies, MBBCh, a GP at Woodlands Medical Centre, Cardiff, Wales, agreed that EndoBarrier might be a viable option for patients struggling with obesity. “As GPs, we are the first port of call for these patients. It’s very novel, I hadn’t heard of it before. I like how it’s a noninvasive way for my patients to lose weight and maintain that even after EndoBarrier has been removed.”
Outcomes are being monitored in an ongoing global registry to help determine if EndoBarrier is a safe and effective treatment for individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Dr. Ryder noted that a similar study with 3 years of follow-up showed similar results. Further results will be presented by Dr. Ryder at the upcoming meeting of the American Diabetes Association.
EndoBarrier is currently not approved in the United States. It is awaiting United Kingdom and European CE mark, which the manufacturer hope will be granted this summer. The license will be for patients with BMI of 35-50 kg/m2.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LONDON — , showed data.
Two years after the liner’s removal, 80% of patients continued to show significant improvement, while 20% returned to baseline.
Presenting results at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference (DUKPC) 2024, the researchers, led by Bob Ryder, MD, FRCP, from the Department of Diabetes, Birmingham City Hospital, Birmingham, England, aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of EndoBarrier, as well as maintenance of efficacy 24 months after the device removal.
“We think EndoBarrier finds its place between the end of all the earlier measures and the possible option of bariatric surgery, and these data show that it can lead to tremendous weight loss and improvement in A1c,” Dr. Ryder said in an interview.
Commenting on how most patients had responded to use of the device, Dr. Ryder said, “People with obesity are often very unhappy and have tried everything over many years to no effect; however, this gut liner provided the opportunity to shift out of this state, and they often become so happy with the result they were determined to stick with it and continue with a healthier lifestyle including much more exercise.”
Convenient, Reversible Procedure
Ninety consecutive patients from Birmingham, all with longstanding, poorly controlled, type 2 diabetes and obesity, underwent the implantation procedure, and 60 of these attended follow-up visits 2 years post implantation.
Unlike permanent and more invasive weight loss surgeries, the EndoBarrier device is reversible and fitted with a straightforward procedure.
The thin impermeable sleeve is inserted via an approximate 1-hour endoscopy, enabling the patient to return home the same day. It lines the first 60 cm of the small intestine. Digested food passes through it without absorption and then makes contact with pancreatic and bile juices at the other end. This triggers a change in the metabolism of glucose and nutrients through modulating gut hormones and gut bacteria, as well as disrupting bile flow.
“Because the food bypasses the small intestine, the first time the food is encountered is in an area where it is not normally found, and this causes a reaction where signals are sent to the brain to stop eating,” explained Dr. Ryder.
Due to a license for 1 year of use, the gut liner was removed after a year via a 30-minute endoscopy procedure.
Over Half Maintained Full Improvement 2 Years Post Removal
A total of 60/90 (66%) attended follow-up visits and comprised the data presented. Mean age was 51.2 years, 47% were men, 50% were White, mean body mass index (BMI) was 41.5 kg/m2, and mean A1c was 9.3%. Duration of type 2 diabetes was a median of 11 years, and 60% were taking insulin.
Patients followed dietary requirements for the initial phase after implantation. “During the first week, they followed a liquid diet, then during week 2 — mushy food, and then they were told to chew it really well to avoid blockage,” said Dr. Ryder.
Mean weight loss on removal of the liner (at 12 months post implantation) was 16.7 kg (P < .001), while BMI dropped by mean 6 kg/m2, A1c dropped by a mean of 1.8%, and mean systolic blood pressure by 10.9 mm Hg.
Just over half (32/60, 53%) showed maintenance of fully sustained improvement 2 years after removal of the liner — defined as no significant difference after 2 years between weight loss (mean, 96-97 kg) and similarly for A1c improvement (7.6%-7.4%).
Sixteen of 60 (27%) showed partially sustained improvement over the 2 years of follow-up, with BMI increasing from a mean of 116.8 kg to 128.6 kg and A1c increasing from 7.5% to 8.4%. While 20% (12/60) returned to baseline.
Of the 36/60 people using insulin prior to EndoBarrier treatment, 10 (27.8%) were no longer using insulin at 2 years post removal.
Thirteen of 90 (14%) had early removal of the gut liner due to gastrointestinal hemorrhage (five), liver abscess (two), other abscess (one), and gastrointestinal symptoms (five), but they all made a full recovery; after removal, most experienced benefit despite the adverse event, reported Dr. Ryder.
Sarah Davies, MBBCh, a GP at Woodlands Medical Centre, Cardiff, Wales, agreed that EndoBarrier might be a viable option for patients struggling with obesity. “As GPs, we are the first port of call for these patients. It’s very novel, I hadn’t heard of it before. I like how it’s a noninvasive way for my patients to lose weight and maintain that even after EndoBarrier has been removed.”
Outcomes are being monitored in an ongoing global registry to help determine if EndoBarrier is a safe and effective treatment for individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Dr. Ryder noted that a similar study with 3 years of follow-up showed similar results. Further results will be presented by Dr. Ryder at the upcoming meeting of the American Diabetes Association.
EndoBarrier is currently not approved in the United States. It is awaiting United Kingdom and European CE mark, which the manufacturer hope will be granted this summer. The license will be for patients with BMI of 35-50 kg/m2.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Eli Lilly to Ask FDA to Approve Weight Loss Drug for Sleep Apnea
Results from a preliminary clinical trial demonstrated the obesity drug, tirzepatide, effectively treated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to information sent to investors of the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly.
Indiana-based Eli Lilly sells tirzepatide under the brand name Zepbound, which was approved by the FDA in November to treat overweight and obesity. Tirzepatide is also marketed under the name Mounjaro to treat diabetes, and it’s among the same class of drugs as other well-known weight loss and diabetes drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy.
The newly announced results came from a pair of studies that followed people with moderate to severe OSA who also had obesity. People in the study took tirzepatide, which is given by injection, for one year. About 70% of people in the studies were men.
The findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and the preliminary results were announced by Eli Lilly because of reporting requirements related to information that could affect stock prices. The company indicated that detailed results will be presented at a conference of the American Diabetes Association in June and will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for consideration of publication. The company also plans to submit the information to the FDA for approval consideration mid-year, the investor news release stated.
People in the study taking tirzepatide on average experienced 63% fewer instances of reduced oxygen due to breathing changes, or events when breathing entirely stopped, Eli Lilly reported.
A sleep expert from Washington University in St. Louis told The New York Times the initial findings were extremely positive and noted that tirzepatide works to treat the underlying cause of sleep apnea, rather than current treatments that just address symptoms.
Tirzepatide “is a great alternative for people who are obese and can’t use CPAP or are on CPAP and want to improve the effect,” Eric Landsness, MD, PhD, told The New York Times.
Eli Lilly indicated the most commonly reported adverse events in the studies were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and constipation.
An estimated 39 million people have OSA and about 33 million people use CPAP machines, according to The National Council on Aging. The condition has been increasingly diagnosed in recent years and becomes more likely to affect people as they get older.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Results from a preliminary clinical trial demonstrated the obesity drug, tirzepatide, effectively treated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to information sent to investors of the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly.
Indiana-based Eli Lilly sells tirzepatide under the brand name Zepbound, which was approved by the FDA in November to treat overweight and obesity. Tirzepatide is also marketed under the name Mounjaro to treat diabetes, and it’s among the same class of drugs as other well-known weight loss and diabetes drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy.
The newly announced results came from a pair of studies that followed people with moderate to severe OSA who also had obesity. People in the study took tirzepatide, which is given by injection, for one year. About 70% of people in the studies were men.
The findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and the preliminary results were announced by Eli Lilly because of reporting requirements related to information that could affect stock prices. The company indicated that detailed results will be presented at a conference of the American Diabetes Association in June and will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for consideration of publication. The company also plans to submit the information to the FDA for approval consideration mid-year, the investor news release stated.
People in the study taking tirzepatide on average experienced 63% fewer instances of reduced oxygen due to breathing changes, or events when breathing entirely stopped, Eli Lilly reported.
A sleep expert from Washington University in St. Louis told The New York Times the initial findings were extremely positive and noted that tirzepatide works to treat the underlying cause of sleep apnea, rather than current treatments that just address symptoms.
Tirzepatide “is a great alternative for people who are obese and can’t use CPAP or are on CPAP and want to improve the effect,” Eric Landsness, MD, PhD, told The New York Times.
Eli Lilly indicated the most commonly reported adverse events in the studies were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and constipation.
An estimated 39 million people have OSA and about 33 million people use CPAP machines, according to The National Council on Aging. The condition has been increasingly diagnosed in recent years and becomes more likely to affect people as they get older.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Results from a preliminary clinical trial demonstrated the obesity drug, tirzepatide, effectively treated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to information sent to investors of the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly.
Indiana-based Eli Lilly sells tirzepatide under the brand name Zepbound, which was approved by the FDA in November to treat overweight and obesity. Tirzepatide is also marketed under the name Mounjaro to treat diabetes, and it’s among the same class of drugs as other well-known weight loss and diabetes drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy.
The newly announced results came from a pair of studies that followed people with moderate to severe OSA who also had obesity. People in the study took tirzepatide, which is given by injection, for one year. About 70% of people in the studies were men.
The findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and the preliminary results were announced by Eli Lilly because of reporting requirements related to information that could affect stock prices. The company indicated that detailed results will be presented at a conference of the American Diabetes Association in June and will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for consideration of publication. The company also plans to submit the information to the FDA for approval consideration mid-year, the investor news release stated.
People in the study taking tirzepatide on average experienced 63% fewer instances of reduced oxygen due to breathing changes, or events when breathing entirely stopped, Eli Lilly reported.
A sleep expert from Washington University in St. Louis told The New York Times the initial findings were extremely positive and noted that tirzepatide works to treat the underlying cause of sleep apnea, rather than current treatments that just address symptoms.
Tirzepatide “is a great alternative for people who are obese and can’t use CPAP or are on CPAP and want to improve the effect,” Eric Landsness, MD, PhD, told The New York Times.
Eli Lilly indicated the most commonly reported adverse events in the studies were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and constipation.
An estimated 39 million people have OSA and about 33 million people use CPAP machines, according to The National Council on Aging. The condition has been increasingly diagnosed in recent years and becomes more likely to affect people as they get older.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
The Fascinating Way to Measure Glucose With a Phone’s Compass
Here’s a new direction for smartphones in healthcare.
“We’re just at this point demonstrating this new way of sensing that we hope [will be] very accessible and very portable,” said Gary Zabow, PhD, a group leader in the applied physics division at NIST who supervised the research.
In a proof-of-concept study, the researchers measured glucose levels in sangria, pinot grigio, and champagne. The detection limit reached micromolar concentrations — on par with or better than some widely used glucose sensors, such as continuous glucose monitors. They also accurately measured the pH levels of coffee, orange juice, and root beer.
More tests are needed to confirm the method works in biological fluids, so it could be a while before it’s available for clinical or commercial use.
Still, the prospect is “exciting,” said Aydogan Ozcan, PhD, a bioengineering professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study. “It might enable new capabilities for advanced sensing applications in field settings or even at home.”
The advance builds on growing research using smartphones to put powerful medical devices in patients’ hands. A new AI-powered app can use a smartphone camera to detect skin cancer, while other apps administer cognitive tests to detect dementia. Smartphone cameras can even be harnessed for “advanced optical microscopes and sensors to the level where we could even see and detect individual DNA molecules with inexpensive optical attachments,” Dr. Ozcan said. More than six billion people worldwide own a smartphone.
The compass inside smartphones is a magnetometer — it measures magnetic fields. Normally it detects the earth’s magnetic fields, but it can also detect small, nearby magnets and changes in those magnets’ positions.
The researchers embedded a small magnet inside a strip of “smart hydrogel — a piece of material that expands or contracts” when immersed in a solution, said Dr. Zabow.
As the hydrogel gets bigger or smaller, it moves the magnet, Dr. Zabow explained. For example, if the hydrogel is designed to expand when the solution is acidic or contract when it’s basic, it can move the magnet closer or farther from the phone’s magnetometer, providing an indicator of pH. For glucose, the hydrogel expands or contracts depending on the concentration of sugar in the liquid.
With some calibration and coding to translate that reading into a number, “you can effectively read out glucose or pH,” Dr. Zabow said.
Only a small strip of hydrogel is needed, “like a pH test strip that you use for a pool,” said first study author Mark Ferris, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at NIST.
Like a pool pH test strip, this test is meant to be “easy to use, and at that kind of price,” Dr. Ferris said. “It’s supposed to be something that’s cheap and disposable.” Each pH hydrogel strip is about 3 cents, and glucose strips are 16 cents, Dr. Ferris estimated. In bulk, those prices could go down.
Next the team plans to test the strips with biological fluids. But complex fluids like blood could pose a challenge, as other molecules present could react with the strip and affect the results. “It may be that you need to tweak the chemistry of the hydrogel to make sure it is really specific to one biomolecule and there is no interference from other biomolecules,” Dr. Zabow said.
The technique could be adapted to detect other biomarkers or molecules, the researchers said. It could also be used to check for chemical contaminants in tap, lake, or stream water.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Here’s a new direction for smartphones in healthcare.
“We’re just at this point demonstrating this new way of sensing that we hope [will be] very accessible and very portable,” said Gary Zabow, PhD, a group leader in the applied physics division at NIST who supervised the research.
In a proof-of-concept study, the researchers measured glucose levels in sangria, pinot grigio, and champagne. The detection limit reached micromolar concentrations — on par with or better than some widely used glucose sensors, such as continuous glucose monitors. They also accurately measured the pH levels of coffee, orange juice, and root beer.
More tests are needed to confirm the method works in biological fluids, so it could be a while before it’s available for clinical or commercial use.
Still, the prospect is “exciting,” said Aydogan Ozcan, PhD, a bioengineering professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study. “It might enable new capabilities for advanced sensing applications in field settings or even at home.”
The advance builds on growing research using smartphones to put powerful medical devices in patients’ hands. A new AI-powered app can use a smartphone camera to detect skin cancer, while other apps administer cognitive tests to detect dementia. Smartphone cameras can even be harnessed for “advanced optical microscopes and sensors to the level where we could even see and detect individual DNA molecules with inexpensive optical attachments,” Dr. Ozcan said. More than six billion people worldwide own a smartphone.
The compass inside smartphones is a magnetometer — it measures magnetic fields. Normally it detects the earth’s magnetic fields, but it can also detect small, nearby magnets and changes in those magnets’ positions.
The researchers embedded a small magnet inside a strip of “smart hydrogel — a piece of material that expands or contracts” when immersed in a solution, said Dr. Zabow.
As the hydrogel gets bigger or smaller, it moves the magnet, Dr. Zabow explained. For example, if the hydrogel is designed to expand when the solution is acidic or contract when it’s basic, it can move the magnet closer or farther from the phone’s magnetometer, providing an indicator of pH. For glucose, the hydrogel expands or contracts depending on the concentration of sugar in the liquid.
With some calibration and coding to translate that reading into a number, “you can effectively read out glucose or pH,” Dr. Zabow said.
Only a small strip of hydrogel is needed, “like a pH test strip that you use for a pool,” said first study author Mark Ferris, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at NIST.
Like a pool pH test strip, this test is meant to be “easy to use, and at that kind of price,” Dr. Ferris said. “It’s supposed to be something that’s cheap and disposable.” Each pH hydrogel strip is about 3 cents, and glucose strips are 16 cents, Dr. Ferris estimated. In bulk, those prices could go down.
Next the team plans to test the strips with biological fluids. But complex fluids like blood could pose a challenge, as other molecules present could react with the strip and affect the results. “It may be that you need to tweak the chemistry of the hydrogel to make sure it is really specific to one biomolecule and there is no interference from other biomolecules,” Dr. Zabow said.
The technique could be adapted to detect other biomarkers or molecules, the researchers said. It could also be used to check for chemical contaminants in tap, lake, or stream water.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Here’s a new direction for smartphones in healthcare.
“We’re just at this point demonstrating this new way of sensing that we hope [will be] very accessible and very portable,” said Gary Zabow, PhD, a group leader in the applied physics division at NIST who supervised the research.
In a proof-of-concept study, the researchers measured glucose levels in sangria, pinot grigio, and champagne. The detection limit reached micromolar concentrations — on par with or better than some widely used glucose sensors, such as continuous glucose monitors. They also accurately measured the pH levels of coffee, orange juice, and root beer.
More tests are needed to confirm the method works in biological fluids, so it could be a while before it’s available for clinical or commercial use.
Still, the prospect is “exciting,” said Aydogan Ozcan, PhD, a bioengineering professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study. “It might enable new capabilities for advanced sensing applications in field settings or even at home.”
The advance builds on growing research using smartphones to put powerful medical devices in patients’ hands. A new AI-powered app can use a smartphone camera to detect skin cancer, while other apps administer cognitive tests to detect dementia. Smartphone cameras can even be harnessed for “advanced optical microscopes and sensors to the level where we could even see and detect individual DNA molecules with inexpensive optical attachments,” Dr. Ozcan said. More than six billion people worldwide own a smartphone.
The compass inside smartphones is a magnetometer — it measures magnetic fields. Normally it detects the earth’s magnetic fields, but it can also detect small, nearby magnets and changes in those magnets’ positions.
The researchers embedded a small magnet inside a strip of “smart hydrogel — a piece of material that expands or contracts” when immersed in a solution, said Dr. Zabow.
As the hydrogel gets bigger or smaller, it moves the magnet, Dr. Zabow explained. For example, if the hydrogel is designed to expand when the solution is acidic or contract when it’s basic, it can move the magnet closer or farther from the phone’s magnetometer, providing an indicator of pH. For glucose, the hydrogel expands or contracts depending on the concentration of sugar in the liquid.
With some calibration and coding to translate that reading into a number, “you can effectively read out glucose or pH,” Dr. Zabow said.
Only a small strip of hydrogel is needed, “like a pH test strip that you use for a pool,” said first study author Mark Ferris, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at NIST.
Like a pool pH test strip, this test is meant to be “easy to use, and at that kind of price,” Dr. Ferris said. “It’s supposed to be something that’s cheap and disposable.” Each pH hydrogel strip is about 3 cents, and glucose strips are 16 cents, Dr. Ferris estimated. In bulk, those prices could go down.
Next the team plans to test the strips with biological fluids. But complex fluids like blood could pose a challenge, as other molecules present could react with the strip and affect the results. “It may be that you need to tweak the chemistry of the hydrogel to make sure it is really specific to one biomolecule and there is no interference from other biomolecules,” Dr. Zabow said.
The technique could be adapted to detect other biomarkers or molecules, the researchers said. It could also be used to check for chemical contaminants in tap, lake, or stream water.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Sugar Substitutes Satisfy Appetite, Blunt Insulin Response
TOPLINE:
but decrease post-meal insulin and glucose levels in adults with overweight or obesity.
METHODOLOGY:
- In 2023, the World Health Organization issued a conditional recommendation that S&SE should not be used for weight control, apparently due to a lack of evidence for a clear benefit and weak evidence linking S&SE intake with excess weight and poorer health outcomes.
- This randomized crossover trial, conducted in England and France between 2021 and 2022, evaluated the acute (1 day) and repeated (daily for 2 weeks) effects of S&SEs vs sucrose in solid food on appetite and endocrine responses in adults with overweight or obesity.
- Overall, 53 adults (33 women, 20 men; aged 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity consumed biscuits with fruit filling containing either sucrose or reformulated with the S&SEs StRebM or neotame, daily for three 2-week intervention periods separated by a washout period of 14-21 days.
- Participants were required to fast for 12 hours before attending a laboratory session at the beginning (day 1) and end (day 14) of each consumption period.
- The primary endpoint was the composite appetite score, while secondary endpoints included food preferences, postprandial glucose and insulin response, and other satiety-related peptides, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1, and pancreatic polypeptide.
TAKEAWAY:
- The composite appetite scores were comparable between the sucrose, StRebM, and neotame groups, with lower appetite suppression observed on day 14 than on day 1 for all three formulations.
- Neotame (P < .001) and StRebM (P < .001) lowered postprandial insulin levels compared with sucrose, while glucose levels saw a decline only with StRebM (and not with neotame) compared with sucrose (P < .05).
- The S&SEs had no effect on satiety levels, as any acute or repeated exposures to StRebM or neotame vs sucrose did not affect the ghrelin and glucagon-like peptide-1 responses.
- Gastrointestinal issues were more frequently reported in the neotame and StRebM groups than in the sucrose group.
IN PRACTICE:
“There is no detrimental impact of replacing sugar with S&SE in these endpoints,” the authors wrote. “Additionally, glucose and insulin responses were blunted after acute and repeated consumption of S&SE-reformulated biscuits, which may confer a benefit for blood glucose control, for example, in individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes.”
SOURCE:
This study was led by Catherine Gibbons, School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, England. It was published online in eBioMedicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The reformulated products required the addition of polyol bulking agents (8% maltitol and 8% sorbitol) to match the biscuits in sensory qualities as closely as possible. Gastrointestinal symptoms (initial bloating and flatulence) in the neotame and StRebM formulations may be due to the polyols, classed as low-digestible carbohydrates.
DISCLOSURES:
This study received funding from a European Union Horizon 2020 program, SWEET (Sweeteners and sweetness enhancers: Impact on health, obesity, safety, and sustainability). The authors reported receiving funding and honoraria from the food and beverage industry and trade groups from various entities.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
but decrease post-meal insulin and glucose levels in adults with overweight or obesity.
METHODOLOGY:
- In 2023, the World Health Organization issued a conditional recommendation that S&SE should not be used for weight control, apparently due to a lack of evidence for a clear benefit and weak evidence linking S&SE intake with excess weight and poorer health outcomes.
- This randomized crossover trial, conducted in England and France between 2021 and 2022, evaluated the acute (1 day) and repeated (daily for 2 weeks) effects of S&SEs vs sucrose in solid food on appetite and endocrine responses in adults with overweight or obesity.
- Overall, 53 adults (33 women, 20 men; aged 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity consumed biscuits with fruit filling containing either sucrose or reformulated with the S&SEs StRebM or neotame, daily for three 2-week intervention periods separated by a washout period of 14-21 days.
- Participants were required to fast for 12 hours before attending a laboratory session at the beginning (day 1) and end (day 14) of each consumption period.
- The primary endpoint was the composite appetite score, while secondary endpoints included food preferences, postprandial glucose and insulin response, and other satiety-related peptides, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1, and pancreatic polypeptide.
TAKEAWAY:
- The composite appetite scores were comparable between the sucrose, StRebM, and neotame groups, with lower appetite suppression observed on day 14 than on day 1 for all three formulations.
- Neotame (P < .001) and StRebM (P < .001) lowered postprandial insulin levels compared with sucrose, while glucose levels saw a decline only with StRebM (and not with neotame) compared with sucrose (P < .05).
- The S&SEs had no effect on satiety levels, as any acute or repeated exposures to StRebM or neotame vs sucrose did not affect the ghrelin and glucagon-like peptide-1 responses.
- Gastrointestinal issues were more frequently reported in the neotame and StRebM groups than in the sucrose group.
IN PRACTICE:
“There is no detrimental impact of replacing sugar with S&SE in these endpoints,” the authors wrote. “Additionally, glucose and insulin responses were blunted after acute and repeated consumption of S&SE-reformulated biscuits, which may confer a benefit for blood glucose control, for example, in individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes.”
SOURCE:
This study was led by Catherine Gibbons, School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, England. It was published online in eBioMedicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The reformulated products required the addition of polyol bulking agents (8% maltitol and 8% sorbitol) to match the biscuits in sensory qualities as closely as possible. Gastrointestinal symptoms (initial bloating and flatulence) in the neotame and StRebM formulations may be due to the polyols, classed as low-digestible carbohydrates.
DISCLOSURES:
This study received funding from a European Union Horizon 2020 program, SWEET (Sweeteners and sweetness enhancers: Impact on health, obesity, safety, and sustainability). The authors reported receiving funding and honoraria from the food and beverage industry and trade groups from various entities.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
but decrease post-meal insulin and glucose levels in adults with overweight or obesity.
METHODOLOGY:
- In 2023, the World Health Organization issued a conditional recommendation that S&SE should not be used for weight control, apparently due to a lack of evidence for a clear benefit and weak evidence linking S&SE intake with excess weight and poorer health outcomes.
- This randomized crossover trial, conducted in England and France between 2021 and 2022, evaluated the acute (1 day) and repeated (daily for 2 weeks) effects of S&SEs vs sucrose in solid food on appetite and endocrine responses in adults with overweight or obesity.
- Overall, 53 adults (33 women, 20 men; aged 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity consumed biscuits with fruit filling containing either sucrose or reformulated with the S&SEs StRebM or neotame, daily for three 2-week intervention periods separated by a washout period of 14-21 days.
- Participants were required to fast for 12 hours before attending a laboratory session at the beginning (day 1) and end (day 14) of each consumption period.
- The primary endpoint was the composite appetite score, while secondary endpoints included food preferences, postprandial glucose and insulin response, and other satiety-related peptides, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1, and pancreatic polypeptide.
TAKEAWAY:
- The composite appetite scores were comparable between the sucrose, StRebM, and neotame groups, with lower appetite suppression observed on day 14 than on day 1 for all three formulations.
- Neotame (P < .001) and StRebM (P < .001) lowered postprandial insulin levels compared with sucrose, while glucose levels saw a decline only with StRebM (and not with neotame) compared with sucrose (P < .05).
- The S&SEs had no effect on satiety levels, as any acute or repeated exposures to StRebM or neotame vs sucrose did not affect the ghrelin and glucagon-like peptide-1 responses.
- Gastrointestinal issues were more frequently reported in the neotame and StRebM groups than in the sucrose group.
IN PRACTICE:
“There is no detrimental impact of replacing sugar with S&SE in these endpoints,” the authors wrote. “Additionally, glucose and insulin responses were blunted after acute and repeated consumption of S&SE-reformulated biscuits, which may confer a benefit for blood glucose control, for example, in individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes.”
SOURCE:
This study was led by Catherine Gibbons, School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, England. It was published online in eBioMedicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The reformulated products required the addition of polyol bulking agents (8% maltitol and 8% sorbitol) to match the biscuits in sensory qualities as closely as possible. Gastrointestinal symptoms (initial bloating and flatulence) in the neotame and StRebM formulations may be due to the polyols, classed as low-digestible carbohydrates.
DISCLOSURES:
This study received funding from a European Union Horizon 2020 program, SWEET (Sweeteners and sweetness enhancers: Impact on health, obesity, safety, and sustainability). The authors reported receiving funding and honoraria from the food and beverage industry and trade groups from various entities.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty More Cost-Effective Long Term Than Semaglutide for Treating Obesity
TOPLINE:
Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is more cost-effective, and achieves and sustains greater weight loss, than semaglutide over a 5-year period in patients with class II obesity.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers used a Markov cohort model to assess the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide vs ESG over 5 years in people with class II obesity (body mass index [BMI], 35-39.9), with the model costs based on the US healthcare system.
- A 45-year-old patient with a BMI of 37 was included as the base case in this study.
- The model simulated hypothetical patients with class II obesity who received ESG, semaglutide, or no treatment (reference group with zero treatment costs).
- The model derived clinical data for the first year from two randomized clinical trials, STEP 1 (semaglutide) and MERIT (ESG); for the following years, data were derived from published studies and publicly available data sources.
- Study outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
TAKEAWAY:
- ESG led to better weight loss outcomes (BMI, 31.7 vs 33.0) and added 0.06 more QALYs relative to semaglutide in the modelled patients over the 5-year time horizon; about 20% of the patients receiving semaglutide dropped out owing to medication intolerance or other reasons.
- The semaglutide treatment was $33,583 more expensive than the ESG treatment over the 5-year period.
- The annual price of semaglutide would need to be reduced from $13,618 to $3591 to achieve nondominance compared with ESG.
IN PRACTICE:
“The strategic choice of cost saving yet effective treatment such as ESG compared with semaglutide for specific patient groups could help alleviate the potential budget strain expected from the use of semaglutide,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Muhammad Haseeb, MD, MSc, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, led this study, which was published online on April 12, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study did not look at benefits associated with improvements in comorbidities from either treatment strategy, and the model used did not account for any microlevel follow-up costs such as routine clinic visits. The authors acknowledged that semaglutide’s prices may fall in the future when more anti-obesity drugs get approved.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health. Some authors declared receiving personal fees, royalty payments, and/or grants and having other ties with several sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is more cost-effective, and achieves and sustains greater weight loss, than semaglutide over a 5-year period in patients with class II obesity.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers used a Markov cohort model to assess the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide vs ESG over 5 years in people with class II obesity (body mass index [BMI], 35-39.9), with the model costs based on the US healthcare system.
- A 45-year-old patient with a BMI of 37 was included as the base case in this study.
- The model simulated hypothetical patients with class II obesity who received ESG, semaglutide, or no treatment (reference group with zero treatment costs).
- The model derived clinical data for the first year from two randomized clinical trials, STEP 1 (semaglutide) and MERIT (ESG); for the following years, data were derived from published studies and publicly available data sources.
- Study outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
TAKEAWAY:
- ESG led to better weight loss outcomes (BMI, 31.7 vs 33.0) and added 0.06 more QALYs relative to semaglutide in the modelled patients over the 5-year time horizon; about 20% of the patients receiving semaglutide dropped out owing to medication intolerance or other reasons.
- The semaglutide treatment was $33,583 more expensive than the ESG treatment over the 5-year period.
- The annual price of semaglutide would need to be reduced from $13,618 to $3591 to achieve nondominance compared with ESG.
IN PRACTICE:
“The strategic choice of cost saving yet effective treatment such as ESG compared with semaglutide for specific patient groups could help alleviate the potential budget strain expected from the use of semaglutide,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Muhammad Haseeb, MD, MSc, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, led this study, which was published online on April 12, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study did not look at benefits associated with improvements in comorbidities from either treatment strategy, and the model used did not account for any microlevel follow-up costs such as routine clinic visits. The authors acknowledged that semaglutide’s prices may fall in the future when more anti-obesity drugs get approved.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health. Some authors declared receiving personal fees, royalty payments, and/or grants and having other ties with several sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is more cost-effective, and achieves and sustains greater weight loss, than semaglutide over a 5-year period in patients with class II obesity.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers used a Markov cohort model to assess the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide vs ESG over 5 years in people with class II obesity (body mass index [BMI], 35-39.9), with the model costs based on the US healthcare system.
- A 45-year-old patient with a BMI of 37 was included as the base case in this study.
- The model simulated hypothetical patients with class II obesity who received ESG, semaglutide, or no treatment (reference group with zero treatment costs).
- The model derived clinical data for the first year from two randomized clinical trials, STEP 1 (semaglutide) and MERIT (ESG); for the following years, data were derived from published studies and publicly available data sources.
- Study outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
TAKEAWAY:
- ESG led to better weight loss outcomes (BMI, 31.7 vs 33.0) and added 0.06 more QALYs relative to semaglutide in the modelled patients over the 5-year time horizon; about 20% of the patients receiving semaglutide dropped out owing to medication intolerance or other reasons.
- The semaglutide treatment was $33,583 more expensive than the ESG treatment over the 5-year period.
- The annual price of semaglutide would need to be reduced from $13,618 to $3591 to achieve nondominance compared with ESG.
IN PRACTICE:
“The strategic choice of cost saving yet effective treatment such as ESG compared with semaglutide for specific patient groups could help alleviate the potential budget strain expected from the use of semaglutide,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Muhammad Haseeb, MD, MSc, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, led this study, which was published online on April 12, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study did not look at benefits associated with improvements in comorbidities from either treatment strategy, and the model used did not account for any microlevel follow-up costs such as routine clinic visits. The authors acknowledged that semaglutide’s prices may fall in the future when more anti-obesity drugs get approved.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health. Some authors declared receiving personal fees, royalty payments, and/or grants and having other ties with several sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Don’t Raise Thyroid Cancer Risk
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- A cohort study using data from nationwide registers in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden between 2007 and 2021 included 145,410 patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 291,667 propensity score-matched patients initiating dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors as active comparators.
- Additional analysis included 111,744 who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 148,179 patients initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
- Overall, mean follow-up time was 3.9 years, with 25% followed for more than 6 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- The most common individual GLP-1 RAs were liraglutide (57.3%) and semaglutide (32.9%).
- During follow-up, there were 76 incident thyroid cancer cases among GLP-1 RA users and 184 cases in DPP4 inhibitor users, giving incidence rates per 10,000 of 1.33 and 1.46, respectively, a nonsignificant difference (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.66-1.31).
- Papillary thyroid cancer was the most common thyroid cancer subtype, followed by follicular and medullary, with no significant increases in risk with GLP-1 RAs by cancer type, although the numbers were small.
- In the SGLT2 inhibitor comparison, there was also no significantly increased thyroid cancer risk for GLP-1 RAs (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.65-2.05).
IN PRACTICE:
“Given the upper limit of the confidence interval, the findings are incompatible with more than a 31% increased relative risk of thyroid cancer. In absolute terms, this translates to no more than 0.36 excess cases per 10 000 person-years, a figure that should be interpreted against the background incidence of 1.46 per 10,000 person-years among the comparator group in the study populations.”
SOURCE:
This study was conducted by Björn Pasternak, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues. It was published online on April 10, 2024, in The BMJ.
LIMITATIONS:
Relatively short follow-up for cancer risk. Risk by individual GLP-1 RA not analyzed. Small event numbers. Observational, with potential for residual confounding and time-release bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Pasternak was supported by a consolidator investigator grant from Karolinska Institutet. Some of the coauthors had industry disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- A cohort study using data from nationwide registers in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden between 2007 and 2021 included 145,410 patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 291,667 propensity score-matched patients initiating dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors as active comparators.
- Additional analysis included 111,744 who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 148,179 patients initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
- Overall, mean follow-up time was 3.9 years, with 25% followed for more than 6 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- The most common individual GLP-1 RAs were liraglutide (57.3%) and semaglutide (32.9%).
- During follow-up, there were 76 incident thyroid cancer cases among GLP-1 RA users and 184 cases in DPP4 inhibitor users, giving incidence rates per 10,000 of 1.33 and 1.46, respectively, a nonsignificant difference (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.66-1.31).
- Papillary thyroid cancer was the most common thyroid cancer subtype, followed by follicular and medullary, with no significant increases in risk with GLP-1 RAs by cancer type, although the numbers were small.
- In the SGLT2 inhibitor comparison, there was also no significantly increased thyroid cancer risk for GLP-1 RAs (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.65-2.05).
IN PRACTICE:
“Given the upper limit of the confidence interval, the findings are incompatible with more than a 31% increased relative risk of thyroid cancer. In absolute terms, this translates to no more than 0.36 excess cases per 10 000 person-years, a figure that should be interpreted against the background incidence of 1.46 per 10,000 person-years among the comparator group in the study populations.”
SOURCE:
This study was conducted by Björn Pasternak, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues. It was published online on April 10, 2024, in The BMJ.
LIMITATIONS:
Relatively short follow-up for cancer risk. Risk by individual GLP-1 RA not analyzed. Small event numbers. Observational, with potential for residual confounding and time-release bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Pasternak was supported by a consolidator investigator grant from Karolinska Institutet. Some of the coauthors had industry disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- A cohort study using data from nationwide registers in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden between 2007 and 2021 included 145,410 patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 291,667 propensity score-matched patients initiating dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors as active comparators.
- Additional analysis included 111,744 who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 148,179 patients initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
- Overall, mean follow-up time was 3.9 years, with 25% followed for more than 6 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- The most common individual GLP-1 RAs were liraglutide (57.3%) and semaglutide (32.9%).
- During follow-up, there were 76 incident thyroid cancer cases among GLP-1 RA users and 184 cases in DPP4 inhibitor users, giving incidence rates per 10,000 of 1.33 and 1.46, respectively, a nonsignificant difference (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.66-1.31).
- Papillary thyroid cancer was the most common thyroid cancer subtype, followed by follicular and medullary, with no significant increases in risk with GLP-1 RAs by cancer type, although the numbers were small.
- In the SGLT2 inhibitor comparison, there was also no significantly increased thyroid cancer risk for GLP-1 RAs (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.65-2.05).
IN PRACTICE:
“Given the upper limit of the confidence interval, the findings are incompatible with more than a 31% increased relative risk of thyroid cancer. In absolute terms, this translates to no more than 0.36 excess cases per 10 000 person-years, a figure that should be interpreted against the background incidence of 1.46 per 10,000 person-years among the comparator group in the study populations.”
SOURCE:
This study was conducted by Björn Pasternak, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues. It was published online on April 10, 2024, in The BMJ.
LIMITATIONS:
Relatively short follow-up for cancer risk. Risk by individual GLP-1 RA not analyzed. Small event numbers. Observational, with potential for residual confounding and time-release bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Pasternak was supported by a consolidator investigator grant from Karolinska Institutet. Some of the coauthors had industry disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Speedy Eating and Late-Night Meals May Take a Toll on Health
You are what you eat, as the adage goes. But a growing body of evidence indicates that it’s not just what and how much you eat that influence your health. How fast and when you eat also play a role.
Research now indicates that these two factors may affect the risk for gastrointestinal problems, obesity, and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Because meal timing and speed of consumption are modifiable, they present new opportunities to change patient behavior to help prevent and perhaps address these conditions.
Not So Fast
Most people are well acquainted with the short-term gastrointestinal effects of eating too quickly, which include indigestion, gas, bloating, and nausea. But regularly eating too fast can cause long-term consequences.
Obtaining a sense of fullness is key to staving off overeating and excess caloric intake. However, it takes approximately 20 minutes for the stomach to alert the brain to feelings of fullness. Eat too quickly and the fullness signaling might not set in until you’ve consumed more calories than intended. Research links this habit to excess body weight.
The practice also can lead to gastrointestinal diseases over the long term because overeating causes food to remain in the stomach longer, thus prolonging the time that the gastric mucosa is exposed to gastric acids.
A study of 10,893 adults in Korea reported that those with the fastest eating speed (< 5 min/meal) had a 1.7 times greater likelihood of endoscopic erosive gastritis than those with the slowest times (≥ 15 min/meal). Faster eating also was linked to increased risk for functional dyspepsia in a study involving 89 young-adult female military cadets in Korea with relatively controlled eating patterns.
On the extreme end of the spectrum, researchers who performed an assessment of a competitive speed eater speculated that the observed physiological accommodation required for the role (expanding the stomach to form a large flaccid sac) makes speed eaters vulnerable to morbid obesity, gastroparesis, intractable nausea and vomiting, and the need for gastrectomy.
Two clinical studies conducted in Japan — a cohort study of 2050 male factory workers and a nationwide study with 197,825 participants — identified a significant association between faster eating and T2D and insulin resistance. A case-control study involving 234 patients with new onset T2D and 468 controls from Lithuania linked faster eating to a greater than twofold risk for T2D. And a Chinese cross-sectional study of 7972 adults indicated that faster eating significantly increased the risk for metabolic syndrome, elevated blood pressure, and central obesity in adults.
Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain why fast eating may upset metabolic processes, including a delayed sense of fullness contributing to spiking postprandial glucose levels, lack of time for mastication causing higher glucose concentrations, and the triggering of specific cytokines (eg, interleukin-1 beta and interleukin-6) that lead to insulin resistance. It is also possible that the association is the result of people who eat quickly having relatively higher body weights, which translates to a higher risk for T2D.
However, there’s an opportunity in the association of rapid meal consumption with gastrointestinal and metabolic diseases, as people can slow the speed at which they eat so they feel full before they overeat.
A 2019 study in which 21 participants were instructed to eat a 600-kcal meal at a “normal” or “slow” pace (6 minutes or 24 minutes) found that the latter group reported feeling fuller while consuming fewer calories.
This approach may not work for all patients, however. There’s evidence to suggest that tactics to slow down eating may not limit the energy intake of those who are already overweight or obese.
Patients with obesity may physiologically differ in their processing of food, according to Michael Camilleri, MD, consultant in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
“We have demonstrated that about 20%-25% of people with obesity actually have rapid gastric emptying,” he told this news organization. “As a result, they don’t feel full after they eat a meal and that might impact the total volume of food that they eat before they really feel full.”
The Ideal Time to Eat
It’s not only the speed at which individuals eat that may influence outcomes but when they take their meals. Research indicates that eating earlier in the day to align meals with the body’s circadian rhythms in metabolism offers health benefits.
“The focus would be to eat a meal that syncs during those daytime hours,” Collin Popp, PhD, MS, RD, a research scientist at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York, told this news organization. “I typically suggest patients have their largest meal in the morning, whether that’s a large or medium-sized breakfast, or a big lunch.”
A recent cross-sectional study of 2050 participants found that having the largest meal at lunch protected against obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.71), whereas having it at dinner increased the risk for obesity (OR, 1.67) and led to higher body mass index.
Consuming the majority of calories in meals earlier in the day may have metabolic health benefits, as well.
A 2015 randomized controlled trial involving 18 adults with obesity and T2D found that eating a high-energy breakfast and a low-energy dinner leads to reduced hyperglycemia throughout the day compared with eating a low-energy breakfast and a high-energy dinner.
Time-restricted eating (TRE), a form of intermittent fasting, also can improve metabolic health depending on the time of day.
A 2023 meta-analysis found that TRE was more effective at reducing fasting glucose levels in participants who were overweight and obese if done earlier rather than later in the day. Similarly, a 2022 study involving 82 healthy patients without diabetes or obesity found that early TRE was more effective than mid-day TRE at improving insulin sensitivity and that it improved fasting glucose and reduced total body mass and adiposity, while mid-day TRE did not.
A study that analyzed the effects of TRE in eight adult men with overweight and prediabetes found “better insulin resistance when the window of food consumption was earlier in the day,» noted endocrinologist Beverly Tchang, MD, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine with a focus on obesity medication.
Patients May Benefit From Behavioral Interventions
Patients potentially negatively affected by eating too quickly or at late hours may benefit from adopting behavioral interventions to address these tendencies. To determine if a patient is a candidate for such interventions, Dr. Popp recommends starting with a simple conversation.
“When I first meet patients, I always ask them to describe to me a typical day for how they eat — when they’re eating, what they’re eating, the food quality, who are they with — to see if there’s social aspects to it. Then try and make the recommendations based on that,” said Dr. Popp, whose work focuses on biobehavioral interventions for the treatment and prevention of obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic outcomes.
Dr. Tchang said she encourages her patients to be mindful of hunger and fullness cues.
“Eat if you’re hungry; don’t force yourself to eat if you’re not hungry,” she said. “If you’re not sure whether you’re hungry or not, speak to a doctor because this points to an abnormality in your appetite-regulation system, which can be helped with GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide 1] receptor agonists.”
Adjusting what patients eat can help them improve their meal timing.
“For example, we know that a high-fiber diet or a diet that has a large amount of fat in it tends to empty from the stomach slower,” Dr. Camilleri said. “That might give a sensation of fullness that lasts longer and that might prevent, for instance, the ingestion of the next meal.”
Those trying to eat more slowly are advised to seek out foods that are hard in texture and minimally processed.
A study involving 50 patients with healthy weights found that hard foods are consumed more slowly than soft foods and that energy intake is lowest with hard, minimally processed foods. Combining hard-textured foods with explicit instructions to reduce eating speed has also been shown to be an effective strategy. For those inclined to seek out technology-based solution, evidence suggests that a self-monitoring wearable device can slow the eating rate.
Although the evidence is mounting that the timing and duration of meals have an impact on certain chronic diseases, clinicians should remember that these two factors are far from the most important contributors, Dr. Popp said.
“We also have to consider total caloric intake, food quality, sleep, alcohol use, smoking, and physical activity,” he said. “Meal timing should be considered as under the umbrella of health that is important for a lot of folks.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
You are what you eat, as the adage goes. But a growing body of evidence indicates that it’s not just what and how much you eat that influence your health. How fast and when you eat also play a role.
Research now indicates that these two factors may affect the risk for gastrointestinal problems, obesity, and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Because meal timing and speed of consumption are modifiable, they present new opportunities to change patient behavior to help prevent and perhaps address these conditions.
Not So Fast
Most people are well acquainted with the short-term gastrointestinal effects of eating too quickly, which include indigestion, gas, bloating, and nausea. But regularly eating too fast can cause long-term consequences.
Obtaining a sense of fullness is key to staving off overeating and excess caloric intake. However, it takes approximately 20 minutes for the stomach to alert the brain to feelings of fullness. Eat too quickly and the fullness signaling might not set in until you’ve consumed more calories than intended. Research links this habit to excess body weight.
The practice also can lead to gastrointestinal diseases over the long term because overeating causes food to remain in the stomach longer, thus prolonging the time that the gastric mucosa is exposed to gastric acids.
A study of 10,893 adults in Korea reported that those with the fastest eating speed (< 5 min/meal) had a 1.7 times greater likelihood of endoscopic erosive gastritis than those with the slowest times (≥ 15 min/meal). Faster eating also was linked to increased risk for functional dyspepsia in a study involving 89 young-adult female military cadets in Korea with relatively controlled eating patterns.
On the extreme end of the spectrum, researchers who performed an assessment of a competitive speed eater speculated that the observed physiological accommodation required for the role (expanding the stomach to form a large flaccid sac) makes speed eaters vulnerable to morbid obesity, gastroparesis, intractable nausea and vomiting, and the need for gastrectomy.
Two clinical studies conducted in Japan — a cohort study of 2050 male factory workers and a nationwide study with 197,825 participants — identified a significant association between faster eating and T2D and insulin resistance. A case-control study involving 234 patients with new onset T2D and 468 controls from Lithuania linked faster eating to a greater than twofold risk for T2D. And a Chinese cross-sectional study of 7972 adults indicated that faster eating significantly increased the risk for metabolic syndrome, elevated blood pressure, and central obesity in adults.
Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain why fast eating may upset metabolic processes, including a delayed sense of fullness contributing to spiking postprandial glucose levels, lack of time for mastication causing higher glucose concentrations, and the triggering of specific cytokines (eg, interleukin-1 beta and interleukin-6) that lead to insulin resistance. It is also possible that the association is the result of people who eat quickly having relatively higher body weights, which translates to a higher risk for T2D.
However, there’s an opportunity in the association of rapid meal consumption with gastrointestinal and metabolic diseases, as people can slow the speed at which they eat so they feel full before they overeat.
A 2019 study in which 21 participants were instructed to eat a 600-kcal meal at a “normal” or “slow” pace (6 minutes or 24 minutes) found that the latter group reported feeling fuller while consuming fewer calories.
This approach may not work for all patients, however. There’s evidence to suggest that tactics to slow down eating may not limit the energy intake of those who are already overweight or obese.
Patients with obesity may physiologically differ in their processing of food, according to Michael Camilleri, MD, consultant in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
“We have demonstrated that about 20%-25% of people with obesity actually have rapid gastric emptying,” he told this news organization. “As a result, they don’t feel full after they eat a meal and that might impact the total volume of food that they eat before they really feel full.”
The Ideal Time to Eat
It’s not only the speed at which individuals eat that may influence outcomes but when they take their meals. Research indicates that eating earlier in the day to align meals with the body’s circadian rhythms in metabolism offers health benefits.
“The focus would be to eat a meal that syncs during those daytime hours,” Collin Popp, PhD, MS, RD, a research scientist at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York, told this news organization. “I typically suggest patients have their largest meal in the morning, whether that’s a large or medium-sized breakfast, or a big lunch.”
A recent cross-sectional study of 2050 participants found that having the largest meal at lunch protected against obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.71), whereas having it at dinner increased the risk for obesity (OR, 1.67) and led to higher body mass index.
Consuming the majority of calories in meals earlier in the day may have metabolic health benefits, as well.
A 2015 randomized controlled trial involving 18 adults with obesity and T2D found that eating a high-energy breakfast and a low-energy dinner leads to reduced hyperglycemia throughout the day compared with eating a low-energy breakfast and a high-energy dinner.
Time-restricted eating (TRE), a form of intermittent fasting, also can improve metabolic health depending on the time of day.
A 2023 meta-analysis found that TRE was more effective at reducing fasting glucose levels in participants who were overweight and obese if done earlier rather than later in the day. Similarly, a 2022 study involving 82 healthy patients without diabetes or obesity found that early TRE was more effective than mid-day TRE at improving insulin sensitivity and that it improved fasting glucose and reduced total body mass and adiposity, while mid-day TRE did not.
A study that analyzed the effects of TRE in eight adult men with overweight and prediabetes found “better insulin resistance when the window of food consumption was earlier in the day,» noted endocrinologist Beverly Tchang, MD, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine with a focus on obesity medication.
Patients May Benefit From Behavioral Interventions
Patients potentially negatively affected by eating too quickly or at late hours may benefit from adopting behavioral interventions to address these tendencies. To determine if a patient is a candidate for such interventions, Dr. Popp recommends starting with a simple conversation.
“When I first meet patients, I always ask them to describe to me a typical day for how they eat — when they’re eating, what they’re eating, the food quality, who are they with — to see if there’s social aspects to it. Then try and make the recommendations based on that,” said Dr. Popp, whose work focuses on biobehavioral interventions for the treatment and prevention of obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic outcomes.
Dr. Tchang said she encourages her patients to be mindful of hunger and fullness cues.
“Eat if you’re hungry; don’t force yourself to eat if you’re not hungry,” she said. “If you’re not sure whether you’re hungry or not, speak to a doctor because this points to an abnormality in your appetite-regulation system, which can be helped with GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide 1] receptor agonists.”
Adjusting what patients eat can help them improve their meal timing.
“For example, we know that a high-fiber diet or a diet that has a large amount of fat in it tends to empty from the stomach slower,” Dr. Camilleri said. “That might give a sensation of fullness that lasts longer and that might prevent, for instance, the ingestion of the next meal.”
Those trying to eat more slowly are advised to seek out foods that are hard in texture and minimally processed.
A study involving 50 patients with healthy weights found that hard foods are consumed more slowly than soft foods and that energy intake is lowest with hard, minimally processed foods. Combining hard-textured foods with explicit instructions to reduce eating speed has also been shown to be an effective strategy. For those inclined to seek out technology-based solution, evidence suggests that a self-monitoring wearable device can slow the eating rate.
Although the evidence is mounting that the timing and duration of meals have an impact on certain chronic diseases, clinicians should remember that these two factors are far from the most important contributors, Dr. Popp said.
“We also have to consider total caloric intake, food quality, sleep, alcohol use, smoking, and physical activity,” he said. “Meal timing should be considered as under the umbrella of health that is important for a lot of folks.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
You are what you eat, as the adage goes. But a growing body of evidence indicates that it’s not just what and how much you eat that influence your health. How fast and when you eat also play a role.
Research now indicates that these two factors may affect the risk for gastrointestinal problems, obesity, and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Because meal timing and speed of consumption are modifiable, they present new opportunities to change patient behavior to help prevent and perhaps address these conditions.
Not So Fast
Most people are well acquainted with the short-term gastrointestinal effects of eating too quickly, which include indigestion, gas, bloating, and nausea. But regularly eating too fast can cause long-term consequences.
Obtaining a sense of fullness is key to staving off overeating and excess caloric intake. However, it takes approximately 20 minutes for the stomach to alert the brain to feelings of fullness. Eat too quickly and the fullness signaling might not set in until you’ve consumed more calories than intended. Research links this habit to excess body weight.
The practice also can lead to gastrointestinal diseases over the long term because overeating causes food to remain in the stomach longer, thus prolonging the time that the gastric mucosa is exposed to gastric acids.
A study of 10,893 adults in Korea reported that those with the fastest eating speed (< 5 min/meal) had a 1.7 times greater likelihood of endoscopic erosive gastritis than those with the slowest times (≥ 15 min/meal). Faster eating also was linked to increased risk for functional dyspepsia in a study involving 89 young-adult female military cadets in Korea with relatively controlled eating patterns.
On the extreme end of the spectrum, researchers who performed an assessment of a competitive speed eater speculated that the observed physiological accommodation required for the role (expanding the stomach to form a large flaccid sac) makes speed eaters vulnerable to morbid obesity, gastroparesis, intractable nausea and vomiting, and the need for gastrectomy.
Two clinical studies conducted in Japan — a cohort study of 2050 male factory workers and a nationwide study with 197,825 participants — identified a significant association between faster eating and T2D and insulin resistance. A case-control study involving 234 patients with new onset T2D and 468 controls from Lithuania linked faster eating to a greater than twofold risk for T2D. And a Chinese cross-sectional study of 7972 adults indicated that faster eating significantly increased the risk for metabolic syndrome, elevated blood pressure, and central obesity in adults.
Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain why fast eating may upset metabolic processes, including a delayed sense of fullness contributing to spiking postprandial glucose levels, lack of time for mastication causing higher glucose concentrations, and the triggering of specific cytokines (eg, interleukin-1 beta and interleukin-6) that lead to insulin resistance. It is also possible that the association is the result of people who eat quickly having relatively higher body weights, which translates to a higher risk for T2D.
However, there’s an opportunity in the association of rapid meal consumption with gastrointestinal and metabolic diseases, as people can slow the speed at which they eat so they feel full before they overeat.
A 2019 study in which 21 participants were instructed to eat a 600-kcal meal at a “normal” or “slow” pace (6 minutes or 24 minutes) found that the latter group reported feeling fuller while consuming fewer calories.
This approach may not work for all patients, however. There’s evidence to suggest that tactics to slow down eating may not limit the energy intake of those who are already overweight or obese.
Patients with obesity may physiologically differ in their processing of food, according to Michael Camilleri, MD, consultant in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
“We have demonstrated that about 20%-25% of people with obesity actually have rapid gastric emptying,” he told this news organization. “As a result, they don’t feel full after they eat a meal and that might impact the total volume of food that they eat before they really feel full.”
The Ideal Time to Eat
It’s not only the speed at which individuals eat that may influence outcomes but when they take their meals. Research indicates that eating earlier in the day to align meals with the body’s circadian rhythms in metabolism offers health benefits.
“The focus would be to eat a meal that syncs during those daytime hours,” Collin Popp, PhD, MS, RD, a research scientist at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York, told this news organization. “I typically suggest patients have their largest meal in the morning, whether that’s a large or medium-sized breakfast, or a big lunch.”
A recent cross-sectional study of 2050 participants found that having the largest meal at lunch protected against obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.71), whereas having it at dinner increased the risk for obesity (OR, 1.67) and led to higher body mass index.
Consuming the majority of calories in meals earlier in the day may have metabolic health benefits, as well.
A 2015 randomized controlled trial involving 18 adults with obesity and T2D found that eating a high-energy breakfast and a low-energy dinner leads to reduced hyperglycemia throughout the day compared with eating a low-energy breakfast and a high-energy dinner.
Time-restricted eating (TRE), a form of intermittent fasting, also can improve metabolic health depending on the time of day.
A 2023 meta-analysis found that TRE was more effective at reducing fasting glucose levels in participants who were overweight and obese if done earlier rather than later in the day. Similarly, a 2022 study involving 82 healthy patients without diabetes or obesity found that early TRE was more effective than mid-day TRE at improving insulin sensitivity and that it improved fasting glucose and reduced total body mass and adiposity, while mid-day TRE did not.
A study that analyzed the effects of TRE in eight adult men with overweight and prediabetes found “better insulin resistance when the window of food consumption was earlier in the day,» noted endocrinologist Beverly Tchang, MD, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine with a focus on obesity medication.
Patients May Benefit From Behavioral Interventions
Patients potentially negatively affected by eating too quickly or at late hours may benefit from adopting behavioral interventions to address these tendencies. To determine if a patient is a candidate for such interventions, Dr. Popp recommends starting with a simple conversation.
“When I first meet patients, I always ask them to describe to me a typical day for how they eat — when they’re eating, what they’re eating, the food quality, who are they with — to see if there’s social aspects to it. Then try and make the recommendations based on that,” said Dr. Popp, whose work focuses on biobehavioral interventions for the treatment and prevention of obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic outcomes.
Dr. Tchang said she encourages her patients to be mindful of hunger and fullness cues.
“Eat if you’re hungry; don’t force yourself to eat if you’re not hungry,” she said. “If you’re not sure whether you’re hungry or not, speak to a doctor because this points to an abnormality in your appetite-regulation system, which can be helped with GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide 1] receptor agonists.”
Adjusting what patients eat can help them improve their meal timing.
“For example, we know that a high-fiber diet or a diet that has a large amount of fat in it tends to empty from the stomach slower,” Dr. Camilleri said. “That might give a sensation of fullness that lasts longer and that might prevent, for instance, the ingestion of the next meal.”
Those trying to eat more slowly are advised to seek out foods that are hard in texture and minimally processed.
A study involving 50 patients with healthy weights found that hard foods are consumed more slowly than soft foods and that energy intake is lowest with hard, minimally processed foods. Combining hard-textured foods with explicit instructions to reduce eating speed has also been shown to be an effective strategy. For those inclined to seek out technology-based solution, evidence suggests that a self-monitoring wearable device can slow the eating rate.
Although the evidence is mounting that the timing and duration of meals have an impact on certain chronic diseases, clinicians should remember that these two factors are far from the most important contributors, Dr. Popp said.
“We also have to consider total caloric intake, food quality, sleep, alcohol use, smoking, and physical activity,” he said. “Meal timing should be considered as under the umbrella of health that is important for a lot of folks.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.