User login
Telehealth Vs In-Person Diabetes Care: Is One Better?
Adults with diabetes who participated in telehealth visits reported similar levels of care, trust in the healthcare system, and patient-centered communication compared to those who had in-person visits, a cross-sectional study suggested.
The authors urged continued integration of telehealth into diabetes care beyond December 31, 2024, when the pandemic public health emergency ends, potentially limiting such services.
The study “provides population-level evidence that telehealth can deliver care quality comparable to in-person visits in diabetes management,” lead author Young-Rock Hong, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor in the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.
“Perhaps the most meaningful finding was the high utilization of telephone-only visits among older adults,” he said. “This has important policy implications, particularly as some insurers and healthcare systems have pushed to restrict telehealth coverage to video-only visits.”
“Maintaining telephone visit coverage is crucial for equitable access, especially for older adults who may be less comfortable with video technology; those with limited internet access; or patients facing other barriers to video visits,” he explained.
The study was published online in BMJ Open.
Video-only, Voice-only, Both
The researchers did a secondary analysis of data from the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey, a nationally representative survey that includes information on health communication and knowledge and perceptions about all health conditions among US adults aged ≥ 18 years.
Participants had a self-reported diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The mean age was 59.4 years; 50% were women; and 53% were non-Hispanic White individuals.
Primary and secondary outcomes were use of telehealth in the last 12-months; telehealth modality; overall perception of quality of care; perceived trust in the healthcare system; and patient-centered communication score.
In the analysis of 1116 participants representing 33.6 million individuals, 48.1% reported telehealth use in the past 12 months.
Telehealth users were more likely to be younger and women with higher household incomes and health insurance coverage; live in metropolitan areas; and have multiple chronic conditions, poorer perceived health status, and more frequent physician visits than nonusers.
After adjustment, adults aged ≥ 65 years had a significantly lower likelihood of telehealth use than those ages 18-49 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.43).
Higher income and more frequent healthcare visits were predictors of telehealth usage, with no significant differences across race, education, or location.
Those with a household income between $35,000 and $74,999 had more than double the likelihood of telehealth use (OR, 2.14) than those with incomes below $35,000.
Among telehealth users, 39.3% reported having video-only; 35%, phone (voice)-only; and 25.7%, both modalities. Among those aged ≥ 65 years, 55.5% used phone calls only and 25.5% used video only. In contrast, those aged 18-49 years had higher rates of video-only use (36.1%) and combined video/phone use (31.2%).
Healthcare provider recommendation (68.1%) was the most common reason for telehealth use, followed by convenience (57.7%), avoiding potential COVID-19 exposure (48.1%), and obtaining advice about the need for in-person care (23.6%).
Nonusers said they preferred in-person visits and also cited privacy concerns and technology challenges.
Patient-reported quality-of-care outcomes were comparable between telehealth users and nonusers, with no significant differences by telehealth modality or area of residence (urban or rural).
Around 70% of individuals with diabetes in both groups rated their quality of care as “excellent” and “very good;” fewer than 10% rated their care as “fair” and “poor.”
Similarly, trust in the healthcare system was comparable between users and nonusers: 41.3% of telehealth users 41% of nonusers reported trusting the healthcare system “very much.” Patient-centered communication scores were also similar between users and nonusers.
Telehealth appears to be a good option from the providers’ perspective as well, according to the authors. A previous study by the team found more than 80% of US physicians intended to continue telehealth beyond the pandemic.
“The recent unanimous bipartisan passage of the Telehealth Modernization Act by the House Energy & Commerce Committee signals strong political support for extending telehealth flexibilities through 2026,” Hong said. “The bill addresses key access issues by permanently removing geographic restrictions, expanding eligible providers, and maintaining audio-only coverage — provisions that align with our study’s findings about the importance of telephone visits, particularly for older adults and underserved populations.”
There is concern that extending telehealth services might increase Medicare spending by over $2 billion, he added. “While this may be a valid concern, there is a need for more robust evidence regarding the overall value of telehealth services — ie, the ‘benefits’ they provide relative to their costs and outcomes.”
Reassuring, but More Research Needed
COVID prompted “dramatic shifts” in care delivery from in-person to telehealth, Kevin Peterson, MD, MPH, American Diabetes Association vice president of primary care told this news organization. “The authors’ findings provide reassurance that these changes provided for additional convenience in care delivery without being associated with compromises in patient-reported care quality.”
However, he said, “the study does not necessarily capture representative samples of rural and underserved populations, making the impact of telehealth on health equity difficult to determine.” In addition, although patient-perceived care quality did not change with telehealth delivery, the study “does not address impacts on safety, clinical outcomes, equity, costs, or other important measures.”
Furthermore, he noted, “this is an association study that occurred during the dramatic changes brought about by COVID. It may not represent provider or patient preferences that characterize the role of telehealth under more normal circumstances.”
For now, clinicians should be aware that “initial evidence suggests that telehealth can be integrated into care without significantly compromising the patient’s perception of the quality of care,” he concluded.
No funding was declared. Hong and Peterson reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adults with diabetes who participated in telehealth visits reported similar levels of care, trust in the healthcare system, and patient-centered communication compared to those who had in-person visits, a cross-sectional study suggested.
The authors urged continued integration of telehealth into diabetes care beyond December 31, 2024, when the pandemic public health emergency ends, potentially limiting such services.
The study “provides population-level evidence that telehealth can deliver care quality comparable to in-person visits in diabetes management,” lead author Young-Rock Hong, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor in the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.
“Perhaps the most meaningful finding was the high utilization of telephone-only visits among older adults,” he said. “This has important policy implications, particularly as some insurers and healthcare systems have pushed to restrict telehealth coverage to video-only visits.”
“Maintaining telephone visit coverage is crucial for equitable access, especially for older adults who may be less comfortable with video technology; those with limited internet access; or patients facing other barriers to video visits,” he explained.
The study was published online in BMJ Open.
Video-only, Voice-only, Both
The researchers did a secondary analysis of data from the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey, a nationally representative survey that includes information on health communication and knowledge and perceptions about all health conditions among US adults aged ≥ 18 years.
Participants had a self-reported diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The mean age was 59.4 years; 50% were women; and 53% were non-Hispanic White individuals.
Primary and secondary outcomes were use of telehealth in the last 12-months; telehealth modality; overall perception of quality of care; perceived trust in the healthcare system; and patient-centered communication score.
In the analysis of 1116 participants representing 33.6 million individuals, 48.1% reported telehealth use in the past 12 months.
Telehealth users were more likely to be younger and women with higher household incomes and health insurance coverage; live in metropolitan areas; and have multiple chronic conditions, poorer perceived health status, and more frequent physician visits than nonusers.
After adjustment, adults aged ≥ 65 years had a significantly lower likelihood of telehealth use than those ages 18-49 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.43).
Higher income and more frequent healthcare visits were predictors of telehealth usage, with no significant differences across race, education, or location.
Those with a household income between $35,000 and $74,999 had more than double the likelihood of telehealth use (OR, 2.14) than those with incomes below $35,000.
Among telehealth users, 39.3% reported having video-only; 35%, phone (voice)-only; and 25.7%, both modalities. Among those aged ≥ 65 years, 55.5% used phone calls only and 25.5% used video only. In contrast, those aged 18-49 years had higher rates of video-only use (36.1%) and combined video/phone use (31.2%).
Healthcare provider recommendation (68.1%) was the most common reason for telehealth use, followed by convenience (57.7%), avoiding potential COVID-19 exposure (48.1%), and obtaining advice about the need for in-person care (23.6%).
Nonusers said they preferred in-person visits and also cited privacy concerns and technology challenges.
Patient-reported quality-of-care outcomes were comparable between telehealth users and nonusers, with no significant differences by telehealth modality or area of residence (urban or rural).
Around 70% of individuals with diabetes in both groups rated their quality of care as “excellent” and “very good;” fewer than 10% rated their care as “fair” and “poor.”
Similarly, trust in the healthcare system was comparable between users and nonusers: 41.3% of telehealth users 41% of nonusers reported trusting the healthcare system “very much.” Patient-centered communication scores were also similar between users and nonusers.
Telehealth appears to be a good option from the providers’ perspective as well, according to the authors. A previous study by the team found more than 80% of US physicians intended to continue telehealth beyond the pandemic.
“The recent unanimous bipartisan passage of the Telehealth Modernization Act by the House Energy & Commerce Committee signals strong political support for extending telehealth flexibilities through 2026,” Hong said. “The bill addresses key access issues by permanently removing geographic restrictions, expanding eligible providers, and maintaining audio-only coverage — provisions that align with our study’s findings about the importance of telephone visits, particularly for older adults and underserved populations.”
There is concern that extending telehealth services might increase Medicare spending by over $2 billion, he added. “While this may be a valid concern, there is a need for more robust evidence regarding the overall value of telehealth services — ie, the ‘benefits’ they provide relative to their costs and outcomes.”
Reassuring, but More Research Needed
COVID prompted “dramatic shifts” in care delivery from in-person to telehealth, Kevin Peterson, MD, MPH, American Diabetes Association vice president of primary care told this news organization. “The authors’ findings provide reassurance that these changes provided for additional convenience in care delivery without being associated with compromises in patient-reported care quality.”
However, he said, “the study does not necessarily capture representative samples of rural and underserved populations, making the impact of telehealth on health equity difficult to determine.” In addition, although patient-perceived care quality did not change with telehealth delivery, the study “does not address impacts on safety, clinical outcomes, equity, costs, or other important measures.”
Furthermore, he noted, “this is an association study that occurred during the dramatic changes brought about by COVID. It may not represent provider or patient preferences that characterize the role of telehealth under more normal circumstances.”
For now, clinicians should be aware that “initial evidence suggests that telehealth can be integrated into care without significantly compromising the patient’s perception of the quality of care,” he concluded.
No funding was declared. Hong and Peterson reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adults with diabetes who participated in telehealth visits reported similar levels of care, trust in the healthcare system, and patient-centered communication compared to those who had in-person visits, a cross-sectional study suggested.
The authors urged continued integration of telehealth into diabetes care beyond December 31, 2024, when the pandemic public health emergency ends, potentially limiting such services.
The study “provides population-level evidence that telehealth can deliver care quality comparable to in-person visits in diabetes management,” lead author Young-Rock Hong, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor in the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.
“Perhaps the most meaningful finding was the high utilization of telephone-only visits among older adults,” he said. “This has important policy implications, particularly as some insurers and healthcare systems have pushed to restrict telehealth coverage to video-only visits.”
“Maintaining telephone visit coverage is crucial for equitable access, especially for older adults who may be less comfortable with video technology; those with limited internet access; or patients facing other barriers to video visits,” he explained.
The study was published online in BMJ Open.
Video-only, Voice-only, Both
The researchers did a secondary analysis of data from the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey, a nationally representative survey that includes information on health communication and knowledge and perceptions about all health conditions among US adults aged ≥ 18 years.
Participants had a self-reported diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The mean age was 59.4 years; 50% were women; and 53% were non-Hispanic White individuals.
Primary and secondary outcomes were use of telehealth in the last 12-months; telehealth modality; overall perception of quality of care; perceived trust in the healthcare system; and patient-centered communication score.
In the analysis of 1116 participants representing 33.6 million individuals, 48.1% reported telehealth use in the past 12 months.
Telehealth users were more likely to be younger and women with higher household incomes and health insurance coverage; live in metropolitan areas; and have multiple chronic conditions, poorer perceived health status, and more frequent physician visits than nonusers.
After adjustment, adults aged ≥ 65 years had a significantly lower likelihood of telehealth use than those ages 18-49 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.43).
Higher income and more frequent healthcare visits were predictors of telehealth usage, with no significant differences across race, education, or location.
Those with a household income between $35,000 and $74,999 had more than double the likelihood of telehealth use (OR, 2.14) than those with incomes below $35,000.
Among telehealth users, 39.3% reported having video-only; 35%, phone (voice)-only; and 25.7%, both modalities. Among those aged ≥ 65 years, 55.5% used phone calls only and 25.5% used video only. In contrast, those aged 18-49 years had higher rates of video-only use (36.1%) and combined video/phone use (31.2%).
Healthcare provider recommendation (68.1%) was the most common reason for telehealth use, followed by convenience (57.7%), avoiding potential COVID-19 exposure (48.1%), and obtaining advice about the need for in-person care (23.6%).
Nonusers said they preferred in-person visits and also cited privacy concerns and technology challenges.
Patient-reported quality-of-care outcomes were comparable between telehealth users and nonusers, with no significant differences by telehealth modality or area of residence (urban or rural).
Around 70% of individuals with diabetes in both groups rated their quality of care as “excellent” and “very good;” fewer than 10% rated their care as “fair” and “poor.”
Similarly, trust in the healthcare system was comparable between users and nonusers: 41.3% of telehealth users 41% of nonusers reported trusting the healthcare system “very much.” Patient-centered communication scores were also similar between users and nonusers.
Telehealth appears to be a good option from the providers’ perspective as well, according to the authors. A previous study by the team found more than 80% of US physicians intended to continue telehealth beyond the pandemic.
“The recent unanimous bipartisan passage of the Telehealth Modernization Act by the House Energy & Commerce Committee signals strong political support for extending telehealth flexibilities through 2026,” Hong said. “The bill addresses key access issues by permanently removing geographic restrictions, expanding eligible providers, and maintaining audio-only coverage — provisions that align with our study’s findings about the importance of telephone visits, particularly for older adults and underserved populations.”
There is concern that extending telehealth services might increase Medicare spending by over $2 billion, he added. “While this may be a valid concern, there is a need for more robust evidence regarding the overall value of telehealth services — ie, the ‘benefits’ they provide relative to their costs and outcomes.”
Reassuring, but More Research Needed
COVID prompted “dramatic shifts” in care delivery from in-person to telehealth, Kevin Peterson, MD, MPH, American Diabetes Association vice president of primary care told this news organization. “The authors’ findings provide reassurance that these changes provided for additional convenience in care delivery without being associated with compromises in patient-reported care quality.”
However, he said, “the study does not necessarily capture representative samples of rural and underserved populations, making the impact of telehealth on health equity difficult to determine.” In addition, although patient-perceived care quality did not change with telehealth delivery, the study “does not address impacts on safety, clinical outcomes, equity, costs, or other important measures.”
Furthermore, he noted, “this is an association study that occurred during the dramatic changes brought about by COVID. It may not represent provider or patient preferences that characterize the role of telehealth under more normal circumstances.”
For now, clinicians should be aware that “initial evidence suggests that telehealth can be integrated into care without significantly compromising the patient’s perception of the quality of care,” he concluded.
No funding was declared. Hong and Peterson reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BMJ OPEN
How to Manage Patients on GLP-1s Before Surgery
, as does the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) labeling for the drugs. The changes can be challenging to keep up with, and endocrinologists seem to be making their own decisions based on clinical experience and their interpretations of the potential impact and value of the emerging information.
The latest FDA label change warns about the risk for pulmonary aspiration but notes “insufficient” data to inform recommendations to mitigate the risk in vulnerable patients. Yet, the latest multi-society guidance, led by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and based on consensus, not evidence, has nuanced advice for managing patients at risk.
Does the FDA’s label change make a difference regarding the multi-society guidance, which was published earlier? “The answer is no,” Girish Joshi, MD, vice chair, ASA Committee on Practice Parameters, told this news organization. “The concern of increased pulmonary aspiration in patients who are on GLP-1 receptor agonists has been known, and that concern still exists. So, we started with not an assumption but the premise that patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists are at a higher risk of aspiration during sedation, analgesia, and/or general anesthesia. The FDA basically confirms what we say in the guidance.”
Joshi, professor in the Anesthesiology and Pain Management Department at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, aimed to make the guidance, which was published simultaneously in several society journals, more implementable with a letter to the editor of Anesthesiology. The key, he said, is to identify patients at higher risk for aspiration; all others would follow treatment as usual.
The letter highlights three overarching recommendations and then expands upon them: Standardized preoperative assessment for risk for delayed gastric emptying (yes/no); selective preoperative care plan based on delayed gastric emptying assessment and shared decision-making; and on the day of the procedure, reassess for delayed gastric emptying and mitigate risk if there is clinical concern.
But it seems as though, for now, endocrinologists are managing these patients as they see fit, within the parameters of any institutional guidance requirements. Here is what they said about their practice:
Amy E. Rothberg, MD, DABOM, director of the Weight Management Program & Rewind at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, said, “I think it makes sense to inform our patients of the labeling and rare but potential adverse effects if they intend to undergo anesthesia for a scheduled procedure/surgery. There is never no risk of aspiration during anesthesia.”
“I find it a bit curious that ASA implies that those who experience GI side effects are more likely than those who do not to have this potential risk. I doubt there is evidence that those without GI side effects are necessarily ‘safer’ and a study to determine that is unlikely to take be conducted.”
“My institution does require a 1-week pause on GLP-1s for those undergoing anesthesia for surgery,” she added. “That’s not evidence-based either, but probably reduces the risk of aspiration during anesthesia — but I don’t know what the actual denominator is for aspiration in those who continued vs those who took a pause from GLP-1s. Pausing does certainly (anecdotally) increase the traffic of communications between physicians and their patients about what to do in the interval.”
Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine and a clinical scholar at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said, “The FDA label change is a warning that really doesn’t say exactly who on GLP-1 RAs is at highest risk or what to do, and if any intervention has been shown to help. The ASA recommendations seem much more nuanced and practical, including point-of-care gastric ultrasound to see if there is retained food/fluid prior to surgery.”
“In my practice, I individualize what I say, depending on the person and the circumstance,” she said. “Mostly, I have people hold one dose before planned surgery, so they have been 10 days at least without a dose. But if worried about gastrointestinal symptoms or gastroparesis, I have them do a clear liquid diet for 24 hours presurgery. Or at least avoid heavy fat meals the day before.”
“There is a risk of aspiration with anything that slows gastric emptying — maybe even in patients with gastroparesis at baseline due to physiologic, not pharmacological, reasons — and anesthesiologists should be aware of the need to assess patients individually.”
Michael A. Weintraub, MD, of NYU Langone Health Diabetes & Endocrine Associates in New York City, observed, “The risk of a pulmonary aspiration event with GLP-1 medication is quite rare, but not zero. On the other hand, stopping the GLP-1 can cause hyperglycemia or rebound weight gain. Furthermore, it can become complicated to restart GLP1 dosing, particularly given the existing medication shortages.”
“In most cases, stopping a weekly GLP-1 medication 1 week prior to the procedure minimizes the risks of pulmonary aspiration and prevents any worsening hyperglycemia or weight gain,” he said. However, taking the drug 7 days prior to the procedure is optimal. “That way, they would be due for the next dose on the day of the procedure, and taking it the day following procedure minimizes disruption in their once-weekly regimen.”
Malini Gupta, MD, director of G2Endo Endocrinology & Metabolism, Memphis, Tennessee, advised that physicians weigh the risk of stopping the medication (which can cause a glycemic spike) vs risk for aspiration.
“In my opinion, all patients should follow a strict liquid diet or NPO status prior to a surgery to further decrease the risk of aspiration,” she said. “I generally hold the GLP-1 RA for a week before a surgery. If additional glycemic control is necessary, I will add to or adjust one of the patient’s other diabetes medications.”
Jaime Almandoz, MD, associate professor of medicine and medical director of the Weight Wellness Program in Dallas, said, “As endocrinologists, we typically rely on our anesthesia colleagues for guidance on perioperative management. In light of emerging guidelines for holding GLP-1 medications, we also recommend patients adopt a liquid diet 24 hours prior to surgery, along with the fasting protocol.”
“For those managing diabetes with GLP-1 therapies, it is crucial to establish a blood sugar management plan while off these medications, especially during fasting or postoperative periods, which can be further influenced by many factors, including nausea, pain medications, and antibiotics after the procedure.”
Joshi added that at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, “we do a huge number of cases using the same information. We identify patients who are at risk, and then we tell our proceduralists and our surgeons if they’re in the escalating phase of the dosing or if they have GI symptoms; don’t even schedule them as an elective case; wait till the escalation phase is over and then schedule them.”
“That way,” he said, “it becomes logistically easy to manage because the recommendation from the group is that patients who are at higher risk should receive a 24-hour liquid diet — the same as colonoscopy. But sometimes it can be challenging to do so.”
Joshi has received honoraria for consultation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Haisco-USA Pharmaceuticals. Gupta is on the speakers bureau for Amgen (Tepezza) and IBSA (Tirosint) and is a creative consultant for AbbVie. Almandoz serves on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim. The other experts declared no relevant relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, as does the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) labeling for the drugs. The changes can be challenging to keep up with, and endocrinologists seem to be making their own decisions based on clinical experience and their interpretations of the potential impact and value of the emerging information.
The latest FDA label change warns about the risk for pulmonary aspiration but notes “insufficient” data to inform recommendations to mitigate the risk in vulnerable patients. Yet, the latest multi-society guidance, led by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and based on consensus, not evidence, has nuanced advice for managing patients at risk.
Does the FDA’s label change make a difference regarding the multi-society guidance, which was published earlier? “The answer is no,” Girish Joshi, MD, vice chair, ASA Committee on Practice Parameters, told this news organization. “The concern of increased pulmonary aspiration in patients who are on GLP-1 receptor agonists has been known, and that concern still exists. So, we started with not an assumption but the premise that patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists are at a higher risk of aspiration during sedation, analgesia, and/or general anesthesia. The FDA basically confirms what we say in the guidance.”
Joshi, professor in the Anesthesiology and Pain Management Department at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, aimed to make the guidance, which was published simultaneously in several society journals, more implementable with a letter to the editor of Anesthesiology. The key, he said, is to identify patients at higher risk for aspiration; all others would follow treatment as usual.
The letter highlights three overarching recommendations and then expands upon them: Standardized preoperative assessment for risk for delayed gastric emptying (yes/no); selective preoperative care plan based on delayed gastric emptying assessment and shared decision-making; and on the day of the procedure, reassess for delayed gastric emptying and mitigate risk if there is clinical concern.
But it seems as though, for now, endocrinologists are managing these patients as they see fit, within the parameters of any institutional guidance requirements. Here is what they said about their practice:
Amy E. Rothberg, MD, DABOM, director of the Weight Management Program & Rewind at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, said, “I think it makes sense to inform our patients of the labeling and rare but potential adverse effects if they intend to undergo anesthesia for a scheduled procedure/surgery. There is never no risk of aspiration during anesthesia.”
“I find it a bit curious that ASA implies that those who experience GI side effects are more likely than those who do not to have this potential risk. I doubt there is evidence that those without GI side effects are necessarily ‘safer’ and a study to determine that is unlikely to take be conducted.”
“My institution does require a 1-week pause on GLP-1s for those undergoing anesthesia for surgery,” she added. “That’s not evidence-based either, but probably reduces the risk of aspiration during anesthesia — but I don’t know what the actual denominator is for aspiration in those who continued vs those who took a pause from GLP-1s. Pausing does certainly (anecdotally) increase the traffic of communications between physicians and their patients about what to do in the interval.”
Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine and a clinical scholar at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said, “The FDA label change is a warning that really doesn’t say exactly who on GLP-1 RAs is at highest risk or what to do, and if any intervention has been shown to help. The ASA recommendations seem much more nuanced and practical, including point-of-care gastric ultrasound to see if there is retained food/fluid prior to surgery.”
“In my practice, I individualize what I say, depending on the person and the circumstance,” she said. “Mostly, I have people hold one dose before planned surgery, so they have been 10 days at least without a dose. But if worried about gastrointestinal symptoms or gastroparesis, I have them do a clear liquid diet for 24 hours presurgery. Or at least avoid heavy fat meals the day before.”
“There is a risk of aspiration with anything that slows gastric emptying — maybe even in patients with gastroparesis at baseline due to physiologic, not pharmacological, reasons — and anesthesiologists should be aware of the need to assess patients individually.”
Michael A. Weintraub, MD, of NYU Langone Health Diabetes & Endocrine Associates in New York City, observed, “The risk of a pulmonary aspiration event with GLP-1 medication is quite rare, but not zero. On the other hand, stopping the GLP-1 can cause hyperglycemia or rebound weight gain. Furthermore, it can become complicated to restart GLP1 dosing, particularly given the existing medication shortages.”
“In most cases, stopping a weekly GLP-1 medication 1 week prior to the procedure minimizes the risks of pulmonary aspiration and prevents any worsening hyperglycemia or weight gain,” he said. However, taking the drug 7 days prior to the procedure is optimal. “That way, they would be due for the next dose on the day of the procedure, and taking it the day following procedure minimizes disruption in their once-weekly regimen.”
Malini Gupta, MD, director of G2Endo Endocrinology & Metabolism, Memphis, Tennessee, advised that physicians weigh the risk of stopping the medication (which can cause a glycemic spike) vs risk for aspiration.
“In my opinion, all patients should follow a strict liquid diet or NPO status prior to a surgery to further decrease the risk of aspiration,” she said. “I generally hold the GLP-1 RA for a week before a surgery. If additional glycemic control is necessary, I will add to or adjust one of the patient’s other diabetes medications.”
Jaime Almandoz, MD, associate professor of medicine and medical director of the Weight Wellness Program in Dallas, said, “As endocrinologists, we typically rely on our anesthesia colleagues for guidance on perioperative management. In light of emerging guidelines for holding GLP-1 medications, we also recommend patients adopt a liquid diet 24 hours prior to surgery, along with the fasting protocol.”
“For those managing diabetes with GLP-1 therapies, it is crucial to establish a blood sugar management plan while off these medications, especially during fasting or postoperative periods, which can be further influenced by many factors, including nausea, pain medications, and antibiotics after the procedure.”
Joshi added that at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, “we do a huge number of cases using the same information. We identify patients who are at risk, and then we tell our proceduralists and our surgeons if they’re in the escalating phase of the dosing or if they have GI symptoms; don’t even schedule them as an elective case; wait till the escalation phase is over and then schedule them.”
“That way,” he said, “it becomes logistically easy to manage because the recommendation from the group is that patients who are at higher risk should receive a 24-hour liquid diet — the same as colonoscopy. But sometimes it can be challenging to do so.”
Joshi has received honoraria for consultation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Haisco-USA Pharmaceuticals. Gupta is on the speakers bureau for Amgen (Tepezza) and IBSA (Tirosint) and is a creative consultant for AbbVie. Almandoz serves on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim. The other experts declared no relevant relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, as does the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) labeling for the drugs. The changes can be challenging to keep up with, and endocrinologists seem to be making their own decisions based on clinical experience and their interpretations of the potential impact and value of the emerging information.
The latest FDA label change warns about the risk for pulmonary aspiration but notes “insufficient” data to inform recommendations to mitigate the risk in vulnerable patients. Yet, the latest multi-society guidance, led by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and based on consensus, not evidence, has nuanced advice for managing patients at risk.
Does the FDA’s label change make a difference regarding the multi-society guidance, which was published earlier? “The answer is no,” Girish Joshi, MD, vice chair, ASA Committee on Practice Parameters, told this news organization. “The concern of increased pulmonary aspiration in patients who are on GLP-1 receptor agonists has been known, and that concern still exists. So, we started with not an assumption but the premise that patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists are at a higher risk of aspiration during sedation, analgesia, and/or general anesthesia. The FDA basically confirms what we say in the guidance.”
Joshi, professor in the Anesthesiology and Pain Management Department at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, aimed to make the guidance, which was published simultaneously in several society journals, more implementable with a letter to the editor of Anesthesiology. The key, he said, is to identify patients at higher risk for aspiration; all others would follow treatment as usual.
The letter highlights three overarching recommendations and then expands upon them: Standardized preoperative assessment for risk for delayed gastric emptying (yes/no); selective preoperative care plan based on delayed gastric emptying assessment and shared decision-making; and on the day of the procedure, reassess for delayed gastric emptying and mitigate risk if there is clinical concern.
But it seems as though, for now, endocrinologists are managing these patients as they see fit, within the parameters of any institutional guidance requirements. Here is what they said about their practice:
Amy E. Rothberg, MD, DABOM, director of the Weight Management Program & Rewind at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, said, “I think it makes sense to inform our patients of the labeling and rare but potential adverse effects if they intend to undergo anesthesia for a scheduled procedure/surgery. There is never no risk of aspiration during anesthesia.”
“I find it a bit curious that ASA implies that those who experience GI side effects are more likely than those who do not to have this potential risk. I doubt there is evidence that those without GI side effects are necessarily ‘safer’ and a study to determine that is unlikely to take be conducted.”
“My institution does require a 1-week pause on GLP-1s for those undergoing anesthesia for surgery,” she added. “That’s not evidence-based either, but probably reduces the risk of aspiration during anesthesia — but I don’t know what the actual denominator is for aspiration in those who continued vs those who took a pause from GLP-1s. Pausing does certainly (anecdotally) increase the traffic of communications between physicians and their patients about what to do in the interval.”
Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine and a clinical scholar at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said, “The FDA label change is a warning that really doesn’t say exactly who on GLP-1 RAs is at highest risk or what to do, and if any intervention has been shown to help. The ASA recommendations seem much more nuanced and practical, including point-of-care gastric ultrasound to see if there is retained food/fluid prior to surgery.”
“In my practice, I individualize what I say, depending on the person and the circumstance,” she said. “Mostly, I have people hold one dose before planned surgery, so they have been 10 days at least without a dose. But if worried about gastrointestinal symptoms or gastroparesis, I have them do a clear liquid diet for 24 hours presurgery. Or at least avoid heavy fat meals the day before.”
“There is a risk of aspiration with anything that slows gastric emptying — maybe even in patients with gastroparesis at baseline due to physiologic, not pharmacological, reasons — and anesthesiologists should be aware of the need to assess patients individually.”
Michael A. Weintraub, MD, of NYU Langone Health Diabetes & Endocrine Associates in New York City, observed, “The risk of a pulmonary aspiration event with GLP-1 medication is quite rare, but not zero. On the other hand, stopping the GLP-1 can cause hyperglycemia or rebound weight gain. Furthermore, it can become complicated to restart GLP1 dosing, particularly given the existing medication shortages.”
“In most cases, stopping a weekly GLP-1 medication 1 week prior to the procedure minimizes the risks of pulmonary aspiration and prevents any worsening hyperglycemia or weight gain,” he said. However, taking the drug 7 days prior to the procedure is optimal. “That way, they would be due for the next dose on the day of the procedure, and taking it the day following procedure minimizes disruption in their once-weekly regimen.”
Malini Gupta, MD, director of G2Endo Endocrinology & Metabolism, Memphis, Tennessee, advised that physicians weigh the risk of stopping the medication (which can cause a glycemic spike) vs risk for aspiration.
“In my opinion, all patients should follow a strict liquid diet or NPO status prior to a surgery to further decrease the risk of aspiration,” she said. “I generally hold the GLP-1 RA for a week before a surgery. If additional glycemic control is necessary, I will add to or adjust one of the patient’s other diabetes medications.”
Jaime Almandoz, MD, associate professor of medicine and medical director of the Weight Wellness Program in Dallas, said, “As endocrinologists, we typically rely on our anesthesia colleagues for guidance on perioperative management. In light of emerging guidelines for holding GLP-1 medications, we also recommend patients adopt a liquid diet 24 hours prior to surgery, along with the fasting protocol.”
“For those managing diabetes with GLP-1 therapies, it is crucial to establish a blood sugar management plan while off these medications, especially during fasting or postoperative periods, which can be further influenced by many factors, including nausea, pain medications, and antibiotics after the procedure.”
Joshi added that at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, “we do a huge number of cases using the same information. We identify patients who are at risk, and then we tell our proceduralists and our surgeons if they’re in the escalating phase of the dosing or if they have GI symptoms; don’t even schedule them as an elective case; wait till the escalation phase is over and then schedule them.”
“That way,” he said, “it becomes logistically easy to manage because the recommendation from the group is that patients who are at higher risk should receive a 24-hour liquid diet — the same as colonoscopy. But sometimes it can be challenging to do so.”
Joshi has received honoraria for consultation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Haisco-USA Pharmaceuticals. Gupta is on the speakers bureau for Amgen (Tepezza) and IBSA (Tirosint) and is a creative consultant for AbbVie. Almandoz serves on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim. The other experts declared no relevant relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Continuous Glucose Monitors for All? Opinions Remain Mixed
The recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance of two over-the-counter (OTC) continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) — Dexcom’s Stelo and Abbott’s Lingo — has sparked interest in potentially expanding their use to those without diabetes or prediabetes.
There are several valid questions about how the general population might benefit from CGMs. Can they motivate those struggling with overweight to shed pounds? Would they prompt users to follow more healthful eating patterns? Can they act as a canary in the coal mine, alerting users to prediabetes?
The short answer to these questions is, we don’t know.
“Glucose levels fluctuate in everyone in response to meals, exercise, stress, etc, but there has been no credible research to support CGM use by most people who do not have diabetes,” Jill Crandall, MD, chief of endocrinology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Health System in New York City, said in an interview.
“The utility of CGM for people without diabetes hasn’t been established and the drive to market CGM as an OTC device seems largely driven by financial considerations,” Crandall said. She advocates instead for a strategy directed at more meaningful objectives.
“For now, efforts should be focused on making CGMs available to patients who will clearly benefit — ie, people with diabetes, especially those who are using insulin and those who are struggling to achieve desired levels of glucose control.”
Nicole Spartano, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in endocrinology, diabetes, nutrition and weight management at Boston University’s Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine in Massachusetts, agreed with this assessment.
“It is definitely too early to make recommendations for patients without diabetes based on their CGM data,” said Spartano, who also serves as the director of the Glucose Monitoring Station at the Framingham Heart Study in Framingham, Massachusetts. “We simply do not have enough follow-up data to tell us which CGM metrics are associated with higher risk for disease.”
Spartano served as the lead author of a recent study showing time spent in various CGM ranges in a large cohort of individuals without diabetes using the Dexcom G6 Pro model. In the future, she said the data may be used to establish reference ranges for clinicians and individuals.
“We are working on another paper surveying diabetologists and CGM experts about how they interpret CGM reports from individuals without diabetes,” she said in an interview. Although the data are not yet published, Spartano said, “we are finding that clinicians are currently very discordant in how they interpret these reports.”
Potential Benefits Right Now
Satish Garg, MD, director of the Adult Clinic at the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, and editor-in-chief of Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, is convinced that glucose should be considered another vital sign, like blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration rate, and body temperature. Therefore, he sees the use of a CGM in people without diabetes as a way to build awareness and perhaps prompt behavior modification.
“Someone with an A1c of 4.9 on a normal day may notice that they’ve gained a little bit of weight, and if they use an OTC CGM and start seeing changes, it might help them to modulate their diet themselves, whether they see a dietitian or not,” Garg said.
He gave the example of “a natural behavioral change” occurring when someone using a CGM declines to eat a post-meal dessert after seeing their blood glucose had already risen to 170.
Wearing a CGM also has the potential to alert the user to high blood glucose, leading them to an earlier diagnosis of prediabetes or diabetes, Shichun Bao, MD, PhD, Diabetes Technology Program Leader at the Vanderbilt Eskind Diabetes Clinic of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview. She has had cases where a family member of someone with diabetes used the patient’s fingerstick meter, found that their glucose was 280, and self-diagnosed with diabetes.
“It’s the same thing with the CGM,” she said. “If they somehow did not know they have diabetes and they wear a CGM and it shows their sugar is high, that will help them to know to see their provider to get a diagnosis, get treated, and track progression.”
Given the shortage of endocrinologists and long waits for appointments in the United States and elsewhere, it is very likely that primary care physicians will be the ones fielding questions from individuals without diabetes interested in purchasing an OTC CGM. Internist Douglas Paauw, MD, a professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said in an interview that, for his practice, “the benefits outweigh some of the limitations.”
“I don’t really think somebody who doesn’t have diabetes needs to be using a CGM all the time or long term,” he said. “But I have used it in a few people without diabetes, and I think if someone can afford to use it for 2-4 weeks, especially if they’ve been gaining weight, then they can really recognize what happens to their bodies when they eat certain foods.”
Paauw added that CGMs are a more effective means of teaching his patients than them receiving a lecture from him on healthy eating. “There’s nothing like immediate feedback on what happens to your body to change behavior.”
Similarly, William Golden, medical director at Arkansas Medicaid and professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview that “it is difficult to justify coverage for CGMs on demand — but if people want to invest in their own devices and the technology motivates them to eat better and/or lose weight, then there are benefits to be had.”
Potential Downsides
Although it may seem simple to use an OTC CGM to measure blood glucose on the fly, in the real world it can take patients time to understand these devices, “especially the first day or so, when users are going to get false lows,” Bao said. “Clinicians need to tell them if you don’t feel like your sugar is low and the device says it’s low, whether they do or don’t have diabetes, they should do a fingerstick glucose test to confirm the low before rushing to take in sugar. On the other hand, if they drink a lot of juice, their sugar will go high. So, it can create problems and false results either way.”
Many factors affect glucose, she said. “When you’re sick, glucose can go high, and when you’re very sick, in the ICU, sometimes it can be low. It depends on the situation.” Bao noted that certain vitamins and drugs can also interfere with readings.
Bao doesn’t see value in having people without diabetes monitor their glucose continuously. “If they want to see what foods or exercise do to their body, they will probably benefit from a short trial to gain some insight; otherwise, they’re wasting money,” she said.
Another potential downside is that there’s no head-to-head comparison data with the approved devices, Garg said. “But it’s clear to us that Stelo’s range is very narrow, 70 to 200, whereas the Lingo ranges are pretty much full, from 40 to 400 or 55 to 400. So, we don’t know the accuracy of these sensors.”
Golden observed that for certain patients, CGMs may lead to psychological distress rather than providing a sense of control over their blood glucose levels.
“I have had a nondiabetic patient or two that obsessed about their blood sugars and a device would only magnify their anxiety/neurosis,” he said. “The bottom line is that it’s a tool for a balanced approach to health management, but the daily results must be kept in perspective!”
Educate Patients, Primary Care Physicians
To maximize potential benefits for patients without diabetes, clinicians need to be well trained in the use and interpretation of results from the devices, Bao said. They can then better educate their patients, including discussing with them possible pitfalls surrounding their use.
“For example, a patient may see that their blood glucose, as measured by a fingerstick, is 95, whereas the CGM says 140, and ask, ‘Which one do I trust?’ ”
This is where the patient can be educated about the difference between interstitial glucose, as measured by the CGM, and blood glucose, as measured by the fingerstick. Because it takes about 15 minutes for blood glucose to get to the interstitial tissue, there’s lag time, and the two measurements will differ.
“A discrepancy of 20% is totally acceptable for that reason,” Bao said.
She has also seen several examples where patients were misled by their CGM when its censor became dislodged.
“Sometimes when a sensor has moved, the patient may push it back in because they don’t want to throw it away. But it doesn’t work that way, and they end up with inaccurate readings.”
At a minimum, Bao added, clinicians and patients should read the package insert but also be aware that it doesn’t list everything that might go wrong or interfere with the device’s accuracy.
Manufacturers of OTC devices should be training primary care and family practice doctors in their use, given the expected “huge” influx of patients wanting to use them, according to Garg.
“If you are expecting endos or diabetes specialists to see these people, that’s never going to happen,” he said. “We have a big shortage of these specialists, so industry has to train these doctors. Patients will bring their doctor’s data, and the clinicians need to learn the basics of how to interpret the glucose values they see. Then they can treat these patients rather than shipping all of them to endos who likely are not available.”
Paauw agreed that CGM training should be directed largely toward primary care professionals, who can help their under-resourced endocrinologist colleagues from seeing an uptick in “the worried well.”
“The bottom line is that primary care professionals do need to understand the CGM,” he said. “They do need to get comfortable with it. They do need to come up with opinions on how to use it. The public’s going to be using it, and we need to be competent in it and use our subspecialists appropriately.”
Spartano received funding for an investigator-initiated research grant from Novo Nordisk unrelated to the cited CGM studies. Garg , Bao, Paauw, Golden, and Crandall declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance of two over-the-counter (OTC) continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) — Dexcom’s Stelo and Abbott’s Lingo — has sparked interest in potentially expanding their use to those without diabetes or prediabetes.
There are several valid questions about how the general population might benefit from CGMs. Can they motivate those struggling with overweight to shed pounds? Would they prompt users to follow more healthful eating patterns? Can they act as a canary in the coal mine, alerting users to prediabetes?
The short answer to these questions is, we don’t know.
“Glucose levels fluctuate in everyone in response to meals, exercise, stress, etc, but there has been no credible research to support CGM use by most people who do not have diabetes,” Jill Crandall, MD, chief of endocrinology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Health System in New York City, said in an interview.
“The utility of CGM for people without diabetes hasn’t been established and the drive to market CGM as an OTC device seems largely driven by financial considerations,” Crandall said. She advocates instead for a strategy directed at more meaningful objectives.
“For now, efforts should be focused on making CGMs available to patients who will clearly benefit — ie, people with diabetes, especially those who are using insulin and those who are struggling to achieve desired levels of glucose control.”
Nicole Spartano, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in endocrinology, diabetes, nutrition and weight management at Boston University’s Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine in Massachusetts, agreed with this assessment.
“It is definitely too early to make recommendations for patients without diabetes based on their CGM data,” said Spartano, who also serves as the director of the Glucose Monitoring Station at the Framingham Heart Study in Framingham, Massachusetts. “We simply do not have enough follow-up data to tell us which CGM metrics are associated with higher risk for disease.”
Spartano served as the lead author of a recent study showing time spent in various CGM ranges in a large cohort of individuals without diabetes using the Dexcom G6 Pro model. In the future, she said the data may be used to establish reference ranges for clinicians and individuals.
“We are working on another paper surveying diabetologists and CGM experts about how they interpret CGM reports from individuals without diabetes,” she said in an interview. Although the data are not yet published, Spartano said, “we are finding that clinicians are currently very discordant in how they interpret these reports.”
Potential Benefits Right Now
Satish Garg, MD, director of the Adult Clinic at the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, and editor-in-chief of Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, is convinced that glucose should be considered another vital sign, like blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration rate, and body temperature. Therefore, he sees the use of a CGM in people without diabetes as a way to build awareness and perhaps prompt behavior modification.
“Someone with an A1c of 4.9 on a normal day may notice that they’ve gained a little bit of weight, and if they use an OTC CGM and start seeing changes, it might help them to modulate their diet themselves, whether they see a dietitian or not,” Garg said.
He gave the example of “a natural behavioral change” occurring when someone using a CGM declines to eat a post-meal dessert after seeing their blood glucose had already risen to 170.
Wearing a CGM also has the potential to alert the user to high blood glucose, leading them to an earlier diagnosis of prediabetes or diabetes, Shichun Bao, MD, PhD, Diabetes Technology Program Leader at the Vanderbilt Eskind Diabetes Clinic of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview. She has had cases where a family member of someone with diabetes used the patient’s fingerstick meter, found that their glucose was 280, and self-diagnosed with diabetes.
“It’s the same thing with the CGM,” she said. “If they somehow did not know they have diabetes and they wear a CGM and it shows their sugar is high, that will help them to know to see their provider to get a diagnosis, get treated, and track progression.”
Given the shortage of endocrinologists and long waits for appointments in the United States and elsewhere, it is very likely that primary care physicians will be the ones fielding questions from individuals without diabetes interested in purchasing an OTC CGM. Internist Douglas Paauw, MD, a professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said in an interview that, for his practice, “the benefits outweigh some of the limitations.”
“I don’t really think somebody who doesn’t have diabetes needs to be using a CGM all the time or long term,” he said. “But I have used it in a few people without diabetes, and I think if someone can afford to use it for 2-4 weeks, especially if they’ve been gaining weight, then they can really recognize what happens to their bodies when they eat certain foods.”
Paauw added that CGMs are a more effective means of teaching his patients than them receiving a lecture from him on healthy eating. “There’s nothing like immediate feedback on what happens to your body to change behavior.”
Similarly, William Golden, medical director at Arkansas Medicaid and professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview that “it is difficult to justify coverage for CGMs on demand — but if people want to invest in their own devices and the technology motivates them to eat better and/or lose weight, then there are benefits to be had.”
Potential Downsides
Although it may seem simple to use an OTC CGM to measure blood glucose on the fly, in the real world it can take patients time to understand these devices, “especially the first day or so, when users are going to get false lows,” Bao said. “Clinicians need to tell them if you don’t feel like your sugar is low and the device says it’s low, whether they do or don’t have diabetes, they should do a fingerstick glucose test to confirm the low before rushing to take in sugar. On the other hand, if they drink a lot of juice, their sugar will go high. So, it can create problems and false results either way.”
Many factors affect glucose, she said. “When you’re sick, glucose can go high, and when you’re very sick, in the ICU, sometimes it can be low. It depends on the situation.” Bao noted that certain vitamins and drugs can also interfere with readings.
Bao doesn’t see value in having people without diabetes monitor their glucose continuously. “If they want to see what foods or exercise do to their body, they will probably benefit from a short trial to gain some insight; otherwise, they’re wasting money,” she said.
Another potential downside is that there’s no head-to-head comparison data with the approved devices, Garg said. “But it’s clear to us that Stelo’s range is very narrow, 70 to 200, whereas the Lingo ranges are pretty much full, from 40 to 400 or 55 to 400. So, we don’t know the accuracy of these sensors.”
Golden observed that for certain patients, CGMs may lead to psychological distress rather than providing a sense of control over their blood glucose levels.
“I have had a nondiabetic patient or two that obsessed about their blood sugars and a device would only magnify their anxiety/neurosis,” he said. “The bottom line is that it’s a tool for a balanced approach to health management, but the daily results must be kept in perspective!”
Educate Patients, Primary Care Physicians
To maximize potential benefits for patients without diabetes, clinicians need to be well trained in the use and interpretation of results from the devices, Bao said. They can then better educate their patients, including discussing with them possible pitfalls surrounding their use.
“For example, a patient may see that their blood glucose, as measured by a fingerstick, is 95, whereas the CGM says 140, and ask, ‘Which one do I trust?’ ”
This is where the patient can be educated about the difference between interstitial glucose, as measured by the CGM, and blood glucose, as measured by the fingerstick. Because it takes about 15 minutes for blood glucose to get to the interstitial tissue, there’s lag time, and the two measurements will differ.
“A discrepancy of 20% is totally acceptable for that reason,” Bao said.
She has also seen several examples where patients were misled by their CGM when its censor became dislodged.
“Sometimes when a sensor has moved, the patient may push it back in because they don’t want to throw it away. But it doesn’t work that way, and they end up with inaccurate readings.”
At a minimum, Bao added, clinicians and patients should read the package insert but also be aware that it doesn’t list everything that might go wrong or interfere with the device’s accuracy.
Manufacturers of OTC devices should be training primary care and family practice doctors in their use, given the expected “huge” influx of patients wanting to use them, according to Garg.
“If you are expecting endos or diabetes specialists to see these people, that’s never going to happen,” he said. “We have a big shortage of these specialists, so industry has to train these doctors. Patients will bring their doctor’s data, and the clinicians need to learn the basics of how to interpret the glucose values they see. Then they can treat these patients rather than shipping all of them to endos who likely are not available.”
Paauw agreed that CGM training should be directed largely toward primary care professionals, who can help their under-resourced endocrinologist colleagues from seeing an uptick in “the worried well.”
“The bottom line is that primary care professionals do need to understand the CGM,” he said. “They do need to get comfortable with it. They do need to come up with opinions on how to use it. The public’s going to be using it, and we need to be competent in it and use our subspecialists appropriately.”
Spartano received funding for an investigator-initiated research grant from Novo Nordisk unrelated to the cited CGM studies. Garg , Bao, Paauw, Golden, and Crandall declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance of two over-the-counter (OTC) continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) — Dexcom’s Stelo and Abbott’s Lingo — has sparked interest in potentially expanding their use to those without diabetes or prediabetes.
There are several valid questions about how the general population might benefit from CGMs. Can they motivate those struggling with overweight to shed pounds? Would they prompt users to follow more healthful eating patterns? Can they act as a canary in the coal mine, alerting users to prediabetes?
The short answer to these questions is, we don’t know.
“Glucose levels fluctuate in everyone in response to meals, exercise, stress, etc, but there has been no credible research to support CGM use by most people who do not have diabetes,” Jill Crandall, MD, chief of endocrinology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Health System in New York City, said in an interview.
“The utility of CGM for people without diabetes hasn’t been established and the drive to market CGM as an OTC device seems largely driven by financial considerations,” Crandall said. She advocates instead for a strategy directed at more meaningful objectives.
“For now, efforts should be focused on making CGMs available to patients who will clearly benefit — ie, people with diabetes, especially those who are using insulin and those who are struggling to achieve desired levels of glucose control.”
Nicole Spartano, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in endocrinology, diabetes, nutrition and weight management at Boston University’s Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine in Massachusetts, agreed with this assessment.
“It is definitely too early to make recommendations for patients without diabetes based on their CGM data,” said Spartano, who also serves as the director of the Glucose Monitoring Station at the Framingham Heart Study in Framingham, Massachusetts. “We simply do not have enough follow-up data to tell us which CGM metrics are associated with higher risk for disease.”
Spartano served as the lead author of a recent study showing time spent in various CGM ranges in a large cohort of individuals without diabetes using the Dexcom G6 Pro model. In the future, she said the data may be used to establish reference ranges for clinicians and individuals.
“We are working on another paper surveying diabetologists and CGM experts about how they interpret CGM reports from individuals without diabetes,” she said in an interview. Although the data are not yet published, Spartano said, “we are finding that clinicians are currently very discordant in how they interpret these reports.”
Potential Benefits Right Now
Satish Garg, MD, director of the Adult Clinic at the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, and editor-in-chief of Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, is convinced that glucose should be considered another vital sign, like blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration rate, and body temperature. Therefore, he sees the use of a CGM in people without diabetes as a way to build awareness and perhaps prompt behavior modification.
“Someone with an A1c of 4.9 on a normal day may notice that they’ve gained a little bit of weight, and if they use an OTC CGM and start seeing changes, it might help them to modulate their diet themselves, whether they see a dietitian or not,” Garg said.
He gave the example of “a natural behavioral change” occurring when someone using a CGM declines to eat a post-meal dessert after seeing their blood glucose had already risen to 170.
Wearing a CGM also has the potential to alert the user to high blood glucose, leading them to an earlier diagnosis of prediabetes or diabetes, Shichun Bao, MD, PhD, Diabetes Technology Program Leader at the Vanderbilt Eskind Diabetes Clinic of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview. She has had cases where a family member of someone with diabetes used the patient’s fingerstick meter, found that their glucose was 280, and self-diagnosed with diabetes.
“It’s the same thing with the CGM,” she said. “If they somehow did not know they have diabetes and they wear a CGM and it shows their sugar is high, that will help them to know to see their provider to get a diagnosis, get treated, and track progression.”
Given the shortage of endocrinologists and long waits for appointments in the United States and elsewhere, it is very likely that primary care physicians will be the ones fielding questions from individuals without diabetes interested in purchasing an OTC CGM. Internist Douglas Paauw, MD, a professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said in an interview that, for his practice, “the benefits outweigh some of the limitations.”
“I don’t really think somebody who doesn’t have diabetes needs to be using a CGM all the time or long term,” he said. “But I have used it in a few people without diabetes, and I think if someone can afford to use it for 2-4 weeks, especially if they’ve been gaining weight, then they can really recognize what happens to their bodies when they eat certain foods.”
Paauw added that CGMs are a more effective means of teaching his patients than them receiving a lecture from him on healthy eating. “There’s nothing like immediate feedback on what happens to your body to change behavior.”
Similarly, William Golden, medical director at Arkansas Medicaid and professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview that “it is difficult to justify coverage for CGMs on demand — but if people want to invest in their own devices and the technology motivates them to eat better and/or lose weight, then there are benefits to be had.”
Potential Downsides
Although it may seem simple to use an OTC CGM to measure blood glucose on the fly, in the real world it can take patients time to understand these devices, “especially the first day or so, when users are going to get false lows,” Bao said. “Clinicians need to tell them if you don’t feel like your sugar is low and the device says it’s low, whether they do or don’t have diabetes, they should do a fingerstick glucose test to confirm the low before rushing to take in sugar. On the other hand, if they drink a lot of juice, their sugar will go high. So, it can create problems and false results either way.”
Many factors affect glucose, she said. “When you’re sick, glucose can go high, and when you’re very sick, in the ICU, sometimes it can be low. It depends on the situation.” Bao noted that certain vitamins and drugs can also interfere with readings.
Bao doesn’t see value in having people without diabetes monitor their glucose continuously. “If they want to see what foods or exercise do to their body, they will probably benefit from a short trial to gain some insight; otherwise, they’re wasting money,” she said.
Another potential downside is that there’s no head-to-head comparison data with the approved devices, Garg said. “But it’s clear to us that Stelo’s range is very narrow, 70 to 200, whereas the Lingo ranges are pretty much full, from 40 to 400 or 55 to 400. So, we don’t know the accuracy of these sensors.”
Golden observed that for certain patients, CGMs may lead to psychological distress rather than providing a sense of control over their blood glucose levels.
“I have had a nondiabetic patient or two that obsessed about their blood sugars and a device would only magnify their anxiety/neurosis,” he said. “The bottom line is that it’s a tool for a balanced approach to health management, but the daily results must be kept in perspective!”
Educate Patients, Primary Care Physicians
To maximize potential benefits for patients without diabetes, clinicians need to be well trained in the use and interpretation of results from the devices, Bao said. They can then better educate their patients, including discussing with them possible pitfalls surrounding their use.
“For example, a patient may see that their blood glucose, as measured by a fingerstick, is 95, whereas the CGM says 140, and ask, ‘Which one do I trust?’ ”
This is where the patient can be educated about the difference between interstitial glucose, as measured by the CGM, and blood glucose, as measured by the fingerstick. Because it takes about 15 minutes for blood glucose to get to the interstitial tissue, there’s lag time, and the two measurements will differ.
“A discrepancy of 20% is totally acceptable for that reason,” Bao said.
She has also seen several examples where patients were misled by their CGM when its censor became dislodged.
“Sometimes when a sensor has moved, the patient may push it back in because they don’t want to throw it away. But it doesn’t work that way, and they end up with inaccurate readings.”
At a minimum, Bao added, clinicians and patients should read the package insert but also be aware that it doesn’t list everything that might go wrong or interfere with the device’s accuracy.
Manufacturers of OTC devices should be training primary care and family practice doctors in their use, given the expected “huge” influx of patients wanting to use them, according to Garg.
“If you are expecting endos or diabetes specialists to see these people, that’s never going to happen,” he said. “We have a big shortage of these specialists, so industry has to train these doctors. Patients will bring their doctor’s data, and the clinicians need to learn the basics of how to interpret the glucose values they see. Then they can treat these patients rather than shipping all of them to endos who likely are not available.”
Paauw agreed that CGM training should be directed largely toward primary care professionals, who can help their under-resourced endocrinologist colleagues from seeing an uptick in “the worried well.”
“The bottom line is that primary care professionals do need to understand the CGM,” he said. “They do need to get comfortable with it. They do need to come up with opinions on how to use it. The public’s going to be using it, and we need to be competent in it and use our subspecialists appropriately.”
Spartano received funding for an investigator-initiated research grant from Novo Nordisk unrelated to the cited CGM studies. Garg , Bao, Paauw, Golden, and Crandall declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is Acute Kidney Injury Really a Single Disease?
The search for a better biomarker than creatine for acute kidney injury (AKI) has been “long and elusive.” However, could researchers be on the right path now?
“The thinking is moving away from trying to find one biomarker that can be used for different types of kidney injury to a recognition that AKI is not just a single disease that a patient has or doesn’t have,” Rob D. Nerenz, PhD, an associate professor in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, told this news organization. “It’s lots of different diseases that all affect the kidney in different ways.”
AKI is actually a “loose collection” of hepatorenal, cardiorenal, nephrotoxic, and sepsis-associated syndromes, as well as acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), he said. “So the question is not: ‘Is AKI present — yes or no?’ It’s: ‘What kind of AKI is present, and how do I treat it?’ ”
‘Mediocre Markers’
AKI affects about 10%-30% of hospitalized patients, according to Nerenz. It’s associated with an increased risk for adverse outcomes, including post-AKI chronic kidney disease and a mortality rate of approximately 24%.
Currently, AKI is defined by a rapid increase in serum creatinine, a decrease in urine output, or both.
“Those are mediocre markers,” Nerenz said, as serum creatinine is not very sensitive to acute change, and the increase is often detected after the therapeutic window of intervention has passed. In addition, “it only tells us that the kidneys are unhappy; it doesn’t say anything about the cause.”
Urine output is limited as a marker because many conditions affect it. “If you’re dehydrated, urine output is going to decrease,” he said. “And in some forms of AKI, urine output actually goes up.”
What’s needed, he said, is a more sensitive biomarker that’s detectable within a shorter timeframe of 2-6 hours following injury.
“Right now, we’re looking at 48 hours before a change becomes apparent, and that’s just too long. Plus, it should be kidney specific. One of the major limitations of the biomarkers that have been evaluated to this point is that, yes, they’re released by the kidney, but they’re also released by other tissue types within the body, and that hinders their effectiveness as a marker.”
Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin (NGAL)
Although research on better biomarkers is ongoing, “there’s also a recognition that some of the protein markers that have been around for a while, if used appropriately, can provide value,” Nerenz said. These include, among others, NGAL.
NGAL works well in pediatric patients without other comorbidities, but it has been less useful in adult patients because it is also released by other cell types. However, recent research suggests it shows promise in patients with both cirrhosis and AKI.
There are three main causes of AKI in cirrhosis, Nerenz explained. The first is prerenal and can be primarily addressed through rehydration.
“When these patients come in, clinicians won’t do anything right away other than provide fluids. If creatinine improves over the 48-hour period of fluid replenishment, then the patient is sent home because there really isn’t extensive damage to the kidneys.”
If improvement isn’t seen after those 48 hours, then it could be one of two things: Hepatorenal syndrome or acute tubular necrosis. Patients with hepatorenal syndrome are candidates for terlipressin, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for this indication in 2022 after it displayed notable efficacy in a double-blind study.
“You don’t want to give terlipressin to just anybody because if the issue is not a diminished blood supply to the kidney, it’s not going to help, and comes with some serious side effects, such as respiratory failure,” Nerenz explained. “Having a biomarker that can distinguish between hepatorenal syndrome and acute tubular necrosis really helps clinicians confidently identify which patients are good candidates for this drug. Right now, we’re flying blind to a certain extent, basically using clinical intuition.”
Currently, the determination of NGAL is FDA cleared only for pediatric use. One way hospitals have dealt with that is by making the test in their own labs, using appropriate reagents, validation, and so forth. These tests are then safe for use in adults but haven’t gone through the FDA approval process.
However, the FDA’s recent announcement stating that the agency should oversee lab-developed tests has made this situation unclear, Nerenz said.
“At this point, we don’t know if there’s still an opportunity to take the NGAL test (or any other cleared biomarker) and validate it for use in a different patient population. Many hospital labs simply don’t have the resources to take these tests through the whole FDA approval process.”
A New Biomarker for AIN?
Meanwhile, research is also moving forward on a better biomarker for AIN, which is also under the AKI umbrella.
“It’s important to diagnose AIN because it has a very specific treatment,” Dennis G. Moledina, MD, PhD, Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, told this news organization.
“AIN is caused by a bunch of different medications, such as proton pump inhibitors, cancer drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antibiotics, so when someone has this condition, you have to stop potentially life-saving medications and give unnecessary and potentially toxic immunosuppressive drugs, like prednisone,” he said. “If you get the diagnosis wrong, you’re stopping vital drugs and giving immunosuppression for no reason. And if you miss the diagnosis, AIN can lead to permanent chronic kidney disease.”
“Right now, the only way to diagnose AIN is to do a kidney biopsy, which is risky because it can often lead to significant bleeding,” he said. “Some people can’t undergo a biopsy because they’re on medications that increase the risk of bleeding, and they can’t be stopped.”
Furthermore, he noted, “the longer a patient takes a drug that’s causing AIN without getting a diagnosis, the less the chances of recovery because the longer you let this kidney inflammation go on, the more fibrosis and permanent damage develops. So it is important to diagnose it as early as possible, and that’s again why we have a real need for a noninvasive biomarker that can be tested rapidly.”
Moledina and colleagues have been working on identifying a suitable biomarker for close to 10 years, the latest example of which is their 2023 study validating urinary CXCL9 as just such a marker.
“We’re most excited about CXCL9 because it’s already used to diagnose some other diseases in plasma,” Moledina said. “We think that we can convince labs to test it in urine.”
In an accompanying editorial, Mark Canney, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital in Ontario, Canada, wrote that the CXCL9 study findings “are exciting because they provide a road map of where diagnostics can get to for this common, yet poorly identified and treated, cause of kidney damage. The need for a different approach can be readily identified from the fact that clinicians’ gestalt for diagnosing AIN was almost tantamount to tossing a coin (AUC, 0.57). CXCL9 alone outperformed not only the clinician’s prebiopsy suspicion but also an existing diagnostic model and other candidate biomarkers both in the discovery and external validation cohorts.”
Like NGAL, CXCL9 will have to go through the FDA approval process before it can be used for AIN. Therefore, it may be a few years before it can become routinely available, Moledina said.
Nevertheless, Nerenz added, “I think the next steps for AKI are probably continuing on this path of context-dependent, selective biomarker use. I anticipate that we’ll see ongoing development in this space, just expanding to a wider variety of clinical scenarios.”
Nerenz declared receiving research funding from Abbott Labs for evaluation of an AKI biomarker. Moledina is a co-inventor on a pending patent, “Methods and Systems for Diagnosis of Acute Interstitial Nephritis”; a cofounder of the diagnostics company Predict AIN; and a consultant for Biohaven.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The search for a better biomarker than creatine for acute kidney injury (AKI) has been “long and elusive.” However, could researchers be on the right path now?
“The thinking is moving away from trying to find one biomarker that can be used for different types of kidney injury to a recognition that AKI is not just a single disease that a patient has or doesn’t have,” Rob D. Nerenz, PhD, an associate professor in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, told this news organization. “It’s lots of different diseases that all affect the kidney in different ways.”
AKI is actually a “loose collection” of hepatorenal, cardiorenal, nephrotoxic, and sepsis-associated syndromes, as well as acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), he said. “So the question is not: ‘Is AKI present — yes or no?’ It’s: ‘What kind of AKI is present, and how do I treat it?’ ”
‘Mediocre Markers’
AKI affects about 10%-30% of hospitalized patients, according to Nerenz. It’s associated with an increased risk for adverse outcomes, including post-AKI chronic kidney disease and a mortality rate of approximately 24%.
Currently, AKI is defined by a rapid increase in serum creatinine, a decrease in urine output, or both.
“Those are mediocre markers,” Nerenz said, as serum creatinine is not very sensitive to acute change, and the increase is often detected after the therapeutic window of intervention has passed. In addition, “it only tells us that the kidneys are unhappy; it doesn’t say anything about the cause.”
Urine output is limited as a marker because many conditions affect it. “If you’re dehydrated, urine output is going to decrease,” he said. “And in some forms of AKI, urine output actually goes up.”
What’s needed, he said, is a more sensitive biomarker that’s detectable within a shorter timeframe of 2-6 hours following injury.
“Right now, we’re looking at 48 hours before a change becomes apparent, and that’s just too long. Plus, it should be kidney specific. One of the major limitations of the biomarkers that have been evaluated to this point is that, yes, they’re released by the kidney, but they’re also released by other tissue types within the body, and that hinders their effectiveness as a marker.”
Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin (NGAL)
Although research on better biomarkers is ongoing, “there’s also a recognition that some of the protein markers that have been around for a while, if used appropriately, can provide value,” Nerenz said. These include, among others, NGAL.
NGAL works well in pediatric patients without other comorbidities, but it has been less useful in adult patients because it is also released by other cell types. However, recent research suggests it shows promise in patients with both cirrhosis and AKI.
There are three main causes of AKI in cirrhosis, Nerenz explained. The first is prerenal and can be primarily addressed through rehydration.
“When these patients come in, clinicians won’t do anything right away other than provide fluids. If creatinine improves over the 48-hour period of fluid replenishment, then the patient is sent home because there really isn’t extensive damage to the kidneys.”
If improvement isn’t seen after those 48 hours, then it could be one of two things: Hepatorenal syndrome or acute tubular necrosis. Patients with hepatorenal syndrome are candidates for terlipressin, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for this indication in 2022 after it displayed notable efficacy in a double-blind study.
“You don’t want to give terlipressin to just anybody because if the issue is not a diminished blood supply to the kidney, it’s not going to help, and comes with some serious side effects, such as respiratory failure,” Nerenz explained. “Having a biomarker that can distinguish between hepatorenal syndrome and acute tubular necrosis really helps clinicians confidently identify which patients are good candidates for this drug. Right now, we’re flying blind to a certain extent, basically using clinical intuition.”
Currently, the determination of NGAL is FDA cleared only for pediatric use. One way hospitals have dealt with that is by making the test in their own labs, using appropriate reagents, validation, and so forth. These tests are then safe for use in adults but haven’t gone through the FDA approval process.
However, the FDA’s recent announcement stating that the agency should oversee lab-developed tests has made this situation unclear, Nerenz said.
“At this point, we don’t know if there’s still an opportunity to take the NGAL test (or any other cleared biomarker) and validate it for use in a different patient population. Many hospital labs simply don’t have the resources to take these tests through the whole FDA approval process.”
A New Biomarker for AIN?
Meanwhile, research is also moving forward on a better biomarker for AIN, which is also under the AKI umbrella.
“It’s important to diagnose AIN because it has a very specific treatment,” Dennis G. Moledina, MD, PhD, Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, told this news organization.
“AIN is caused by a bunch of different medications, such as proton pump inhibitors, cancer drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antibiotics, so when someone has this condition, you have to stop potentially life-saving medications and give unnecessary and potentially toxic immunosuppressive drugs, like prednisone,” he said. “If you get the diagnosis wrong, you’re stopping vital drugs and giving immunosuppression for no reason. And if you miss the diagnosis, AIN can lead to permanent chronic kidney disease.”
“Right now, the only way to diagnose AIN is to do a kidney biopsy, which is risky because it can often lead to significant bleeding,” he said. “Some people can’t undergo a biopsy because they’re on medications that increase the risk of bleeding, and they can’t be stopped.”
Furthermore, he noted, “the longer a patient takes a drug that’s causing AIN without getting a diagnosis, the less the chances of recovery because the longer you let this kidney inflammation go on, the more fibrosis and permanent damage develops. So it is important to diagnose it as early as possible, and that’s again why we have a real need for a noninvasive biomarker that can be tested rapidly.”
Moledina and colleagues have been working on identifying a suitable biomarker for close to 10 years, the latest example of which is their 2023 study validating urinary CXCL9 as just such a marker.
“We’re most excited about CXCL9 because it’s already used to diagnose some other diseases in plasma,” Moledina said. “We think that we can convince labs to test it in urine.”
In an accompanying editorial, Mark Canney, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital in Ontario, Canada, wrote that the CXCL9 study findings “are exciting because they provide a road map of where diagnostics can get to for this common, yet poorly identified and treated, cause of kidney damage. The need for a different approach can be readily identified from the fact that clinicians’ gestalt for diagnosing AIN was almost tantamount to tossing a coin (AUC, 0.57). CXCL9 alone outperformed not only the clinician’s prebiopsy suspicion but also an existing diagnostic model and other candidate biomarkers both in the discovery and external validation cohorts.”
Like NGAL, CXCL9 will have to go through the FDA approval process before it can be used for AIN. Therefore, it may be a few years before it can become routinely available, Moledina said.
Nevertheless, Nerenz added, “I think the next steps for AKI are probably continuing on this path of context-dependent, selective biomarker use. I anticipate that we’ll see ongoing development in this space, just expanding to a wider variety of clinical scenarios.”
Nerenz declared receiving research funding from Abbott Labs for evaluation of an AKI biomarker. Moledina is a co-inventor on a pending patent, “Methods and Systems for Diagnosis of Acute Interstitial Nephritis”; a cofounder of the diagnostics company Predict AIN; and a consultant for Biohaven.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The search for a better biomarker than creatine for acute kidney injury (AKI) has been “long and elusive.” However, could researchers be on the right path now?
“The thinking is moving away from trying to find one biomarker that can be used for different types of kidney injury to a recognition that AKI is not just a single disease that a patient has or doesn’t have,” Rob D. Nerenz, PhD, an associate professor in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, told this news organization. “It’s lots of different diseases that all affect the kidney in different ways.”
AKI is actually a “loose collection” of hepatorenal, cardiorenal, nephrotoxic, and sepsis-associated syndromes, as well as acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), he said. “So the question is not: ‘Is AKI present — yes or no?’ It’s: ‘What kind of AKI is present, and how do I treat it?’ ”
‘Mediocre Markers’
AKI affects about 10%-30% of hospitalized patients, according to Nerenz. It’s associated with an increased risk for adverse outcomes, including post-AKI chronic kidney disease and a mortality rate of approximately 24%.
Currently, AKI is defined by a rapid increase in serum creatinine, a decrease in urine output, or both.
“Those are mediocre markers,” Nerenz said, as serum creatinine is not very sensitive to acute change, and the increase is often detected after the therapeutic window of intervention has passed. In addition, “it only tells us that the kidneys are unhappy; it doesn’t say anything about the cause.”
Urine output is limited as a marker because many conditions affect it. “If you’re dehydrated, urine output is going to decrease,” he said. “And in some forms of AKI, urine output actually goes up.”
What’s needed, he said, is a more sensitive biomarker that’s detectable within a shorter timeframe of 2-6 hours following injury.
“Right now, we’re looking at 48 hours before a change becomes apparent, and that’s just too long. Plus, it should be kidney specific. One of the major limitations of the biomarkers that have been evaluated to this point is that, yes, they’re released by the kidney, but they’re also released by other tissue types within the body, and that hinders their effectiveness as a marker.”
Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin (NGAL)
Although research on better biomarkers is ongoing, “there’s also a recognition that some of the protein markers that have been around for a while, if used appropriately, can provide value,” Nerenz said. These include, among others, NGAL.
NGAL works well in pediatric patients without other comorbidities, but it has been less useful in adult patients because it is also released by other cell types. However, recent research suggests it shows promise in patients with both cirrhosis and AKI.
There are three main causes of AKI in cirrhosis, Nerenz explained. The first is prerenal and can be primarily addressed through rehydration.
“When these patients come in, clinicians won’t do anything right away other than provide fluids. If creatinine improves over the 48-hour period of fluid replenishment, then the patient is sent home because there really isn’t extensive damage to the kidneys.”
If improvement isn’t seen after those 48 hours, then it could be one of two things: Hepatorenal syndrome or acute tubular necrosis. Patients with hepatorenal syndrome are candidates for terlipressin, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for this indication in 2022 after it displayed notable efficacy in a double-blind study.
“You don’t want to give terlipressin to just anybody because if the issue is not a diminished blood supply to the kidney, it’s not going to help, and comes with some serious side effects, such as respiratory failure,” Nerenz explained. “Having a biomarker that can distinguish between hepatorenal syndrome and acute tubular necrosis really helps clinicians confidently identify which patients are good candidates for this drug. Right now, we’re flying blind to a certain extent, basically using clinical intuition.”
Currently, the determination of NGAL is FDA cleared only for pediatric use. One way hospitals have dealt with that is by making the test in their own labs, using appropriate reagents, validation, and so forth. These tests are then safe for use in adults but haven’t gone through the FDA approval process.
However, the FDA’s recent announcement stating that the agency should oversee lab-developed tests has made this situation unclear, Nerenz said.
“At this point, we don’t know if there’s still an opportunity to take the NGAL test (or any other cleared biomarker) and validate it for use in a different patient population. Many hospital labs simply don’t have the resources to take these tests through the whole FDA approval process.”
A New Biomarker for AIN?
Meanwhile, research is also moving forward on a better biomarker for AIN, which is also under the AKI umbrella.
“It’s important to diagnose AIN because it has a very specific treatment,” Dennis G. Moledina, MD, PhD, Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, told this news organization.
“AIN is caused by a bunch of different medications, such as proton pump inhibitors, cancer drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antibiotics, so when someone has this condition, you have to stop potentially life-saving medications and give unnecessary and potentially toxic immunosuppressive drugs, like prednisone,” he said. “If you get the diagnosis wrong, you’re stopping vital drugs and giving immunosuppression for no reason. And if you miss the diagnosis, AIN can lead to permanent chronic kidney disease.”
“Right now, the only way to diagnose AIN is to do a kidney biopsy, which is risky because it can often lead to significant bleeding,” he said. “Some people can’t undergo a biopsy because they’re on medications that increase the risk of bleeding, and they can’t be stopped.”
Furthermore, he noted, “the longer a patient takes a drug that’s causing AIN without getting a diagnosis, the less the chances of recovery because the longer you let this kidney inflammation go on, the more fibrosis and permanent damage develops. So it is important to diagnose it as early as possible, and that’s again why we have a real need for a noninvasive biomarker that can be tested rapidly.”
Moledina and colleagues have been working on identifying a suitable biomarker for close to 10 years, the latest example of which is their 2023 study validating urinary CXCL9 as just such a marker.
“We’re most excited about CXCL9 because it’s already used to diagnose some other diseases in plasma,” Moledina said. “We think that we can convince labs to test it in urine.”
In an accompanying editorial, Mark Canney, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital in Ontario, Canada, wrote that the CXCL9 study findings “are exciting because they provide a road map of where diagnostics can get to for this common, yet poorly identified and treated, cause of kidney damage. The need for a different approach can be readily identified from the fact that clinicians’ gestalt for diagnosing AIN was almost tantamount to tossing a coin (AUC, 0.57). CXCL9 alone outperformed not only the clinician’s prebiopsy suspicion but also an existing diagnostic model and other candidate biomarkers both in the discovery and external validation cohorts.”
Like NGAL, CXCL9 will have to go through the FDA approval process before it can be used for AIN. Therefore, it may be a few years before it can become routinely available, Moledina said.
Nevertheless, Nerenz added, “I think the next steps for AKI are probably continuing on this path of context-dependent, selective biomarker use. I anticipate that we’ll see ongoing development in this space, just expanding to a wider variety of clinical scenarios.”
Nerenz declared receiving research funding from Abbott Labs for evaluation of an AKI biomarker. Moledina is a co-inventor on a pending patent, “Methods and Systems for Diagnosis of Acute Interstitial Nephritis”; a cofounder of the diagnostics company Predict AIN; and a consultant for Biohaven.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cannabis Use Linked to Brain Thinning in Adolescents
, research in mice and humans suggested.
The multilevel study demonstrated that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), an active substance in cannabis, causes shrinkage of dendritic arborization — the neurons’ network of antennae that play a critical role in communication between brain cells.
The connection between dendritic arborization and cortical thickness was hinted at in an earlier study by Tomáš Paus, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and addictology at the University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues, who found that cannabis use in early adolescence was associated with lower cortical thickness in boys with a high genetic risk for schizophrenia.
“We speculated at that time that the differences in cortical thickness might be related to differences in dendritic arborization, and our current study confirmed it,” Paus said.
That confirmation came in the mouse part of the study, when coauthor Graciela Piñeyro, MD, PhD, also of the University of Montreal, counted the dendritic branches of mice exposed to THC and compared the total with the number of dendritic branches in unexposed mice. “What surprised me was finding that THC in the mice was targeting the same type of cells and structures that Dr. Paus had predicted would be affected from the human studies,” she said. “Structurally, they were mostly the neurons that contribute to synapses in the cortex, and their branching was reduced.”
Paus explained that in humans, a decrease in input from the affected dendrites “makes it harder for the brain to learn new things, interact with people, cope with new situations, et cetera. In other words, it makes the brain more vulnerable to everything that can happen in a young person’s life.”
The study was published online on October 9 in the Journal of Neuroscience.
Of Mice, Men, and Cannabis
Although associations between cannabis use by teenagers and variations in brain maturation have been well studied, the cellular and molecular underpinnings of these associations were unclear, according to the authors.
To investigate further, they conducted this three-step study. First, they exposed adolescent male mice to THC or a synthetic cannabinoid (WIN 55,212-2) and assessed differentially expressed genes, spine numbers, and the extent of dendritic complexity in the frontal cortex of each mouse.
Next, using MRI, they examined differences in cortical thickness in 34 brain regions in 140 male adolescents who experimented with cannabis before age 16 years and 327 who did not.
Then, they again conducted experiments in mice and found that 13 THC-related genes correlated with variations in cortical thickness. Virtual histology revealed that these 13 genes were coexpressed with cell markers of astrocytes, microglia, and a type of pyramidal cell enriched in genes that regulate dendritic expression.
Similarly, the WIN-related genes correlated with differences in cortical thickness and showed coexpression patterns with the same three cell types.
Furthermore, the affected genes were also found in humans, particularly in the thinner cortical regions of the adolescents who experimented with cannabis.
By acting on microglia, THC seems to promote the removal of synapses and, eventually, the reduction of the dendritic tree in mice, Piñeyro explained. That’s important not only because a similar mechanism may be at work in humans but also because “we now might have a model to test different types of cannabis products to see which ones are producing the greatest effect on neurons and therefore greater removal of synapses through the microglia. This could be a way of testing drugs that are out in the street to see which would be the most or least dangerous to the synapses in the brain.”
‘Significant Implications’
Commenting on the study, Yasmin Hurd, PhD, Ward-Coleman chair of translational neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director of the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai in New York City, said, “These findings are in line with previous results, so they are feasible. This study adds more depth by showing that cortical genes that were differentially altered by adolescent THC correlated with cannabis-related changes in cortical thickness based on human neuroimaging data.” Hurd did not participate in the research.
“The results emphasize that consumption of potent cannabis products during adolescence can impact cortical function, which has significant implications for decision-making and risky behavior as well. It also can increase vulnerability to psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia.”
Although a mouse model is “not truly the same as the human condition, the fact that the animal model also showed evidence of the morphological changes indicative of reduced cortical thickness, [like] the humans, is strong,” she said.
Additional research could include women and assess potential sex differences, she added.
Ronald Ellis, MD, PhD, an investigator in the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, said, “The findings are plausible and extend prior work showing evidence of increased risk for psychotic disorders later in life in adolescents who use cannabis.” Ellis did not participate in the research.
“Future studies should explore how these findings might vary across different demographic groups, which could provide a more inclusive understanding of how cannabis impacts the brain,” he said. “Additionally, longitudinal studies to track changes in the brain over time could help to establish causal relationships more robustly.
“The take-home message to clinicians at this point is to discuss cannabis use history carefully and confidentially with adolescent patients to better provide advice on its potential risks,” he concluded.
Paus added that he would tell patients, “If you’re going to use cannabis, don’t start early. If you have to, then do so in moderation. And if you have family history of mental illness, be very careful.”
No funding for the study was reported. Paus, Piñeyro, Hurd, and Ellis declared having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, research in mice and humans suggested.
The multilevel study demonstrated that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), an active substance in cannabis, causes shrinkage of dendritic arborization — the neurons’ network of antennae that play a critical role in communication between brain cells.
The connection between dendritic arborization and cortical thickness was hinted at in an earlier study by Tomáš Paus, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and addictology at the University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues, who found that cannabis use in early adolescence was associated with lower cortical thickness in boys with a high genetic risk for schizophrenia.
“We speculated at that time that the differences in cortical thickness might be related to differences in dendritic arborization, and our current study confirmed it,” Paus said.
That confirmation came in the mouse part of the study, when coauthor Graciela Piñeyro, MD, PhD, also of the University of Montreal, counted the dendritic branches of mice exposed to THC and compared the total with the number of dendritic branches in unexposed mice. “What surprised me was finding that THC in the mice was targeting the same type of cells and structures that Dr. Paus had predicted would be affected from the human studies,” she said. “Structurally, they were mostly the neurons that contribute to synapses in the cortex, and their branching was reduced.”
Paus explained that in humans, a decrease in input from the affected dendrites “makes it harder for the brain to learn new things, interact with people, cope with new situations, et cetera. In other words, it makes the brain more vulnerable to everything that can happen in a young person’s life.”
The study was published online on October 9 in the Journal of Neuroscience.
Of Mice, Men, and Cannabis
Although associations between cannabis use by teenagers and variations in brain maturation have been well studied, the cellular and molecular underpinnings of these associations were unclear, according to the authors.
To investigate further, they conducted this three-step study. First, they exposed adolescent male mice to THC or a synthetic cannabinoid (WIN 55,212-2) and assessed differentially expressed genes, spine numbers, and the extent of dendritic complexity in the frontal cortex of each mouse.
Next, using MRI, they examined differences in cortical thickness in 34 brain regions in 140 male adolescents who experimented with cannabis before age 16 years and 327 who did not.
Then, they again conducted experiments in mice and found that 13 THC-related genes correlated with variations in cortical thickness. Virtual histology revealed that these 13 genes were coexpressed with cell markers of astrocytes, microglia, and a type of pyramidal cell enriched in genes that regulate dendritic expression.
Similarly, the WIN-related genes correlated with differences in cortical thickness and showed coexpression patterns with the same three cell types.
Furthermore, the affected genes were also found in humans, particularly in the thinner cortical regions of the adolescents who experimented with cannabis.
By acting on microglia, THC seems to promote the removal of synapses and, eventually, the reduction of the dendritic tree in mice, Piñeyro explained. That’s important not only because a similar mechanism may be at work in humans but also because “we now might have a model to test different types of cannabis products to see which ones are producing the greatest effect on neurons and therefore greater removal of synapses through the microglia. This could be a way of testing drugs that are out in the street to see which would be the most or least dangerous to the synapses in the brain.”
‘Significant Implications’
Commenting on the study, Yasmin Hurd, PhD, Ward-Coleman chair of translational neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director of the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai in New York City, said, “These findings are in line with previous results, so they are feasible. This study adds more depth by showing that cortical genes that were differentially altered by adolescent THC correlated with cannabis-related changes in cortical thickness based on human neuroimaging data.” Hurd did not participate in the research.
“The results emphasize that consumption of potent cannabis products during adolescence can impact cortical function, which has significant implications for decision-making and risky behavior as well. It also can increase vulnerability to psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia.”
Although a mouse model is “not truly the same as the human condition, the fact that the animal model also showed evidence of the morphological changes indicative of reduced cortical thickness, [like] the humans, is strong,” she said.
Additional research could include women and assess potential sex differences, she added.
Ronald Ellis, MD, PhD, an investigator in the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, said, “The findings are plausible and extend prior work showing evidence of increased risk for psychotic disorders later in life in adolescents who use cannabis.” Ellis did not participate in the research.
“Future studies should explore how these findings might vary across different demographic groups, which could provide a more inclusive understanding of how cannabis impacts the brain,” he said. “Additionally, longitudinal studies to track changes in the brain over time could help to establish causal relationships more robustly.
“The take-home message to clinicians at this point is to discuss cannabis use history carefully and confidentially with adolescent patients to better provide advice on its potential risks,” he concluded.
Paus added that he would tell patients, “If you’re going to use cannabis, don’t start early. If you have to, then do so in moderation. And if you have family history of mental illness, be very careful.”
No funding for the study was reported. Paus, Piñeyro, Hurd, and Ellis declared having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, research in mice and humans suggested.
The multilevel study demonstrated that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), an active substance in cannabis, causes shrinkage of dendritic arborization — the neurons’ network of antennae that play a critical role in communication between brain cells.
The connection between dendritic arborization and cortical thickness was hinted at in an earlier study by Tomáš Paus, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and addictology at the University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues, who found that cannabis use in early adolescence was associated with lower cortical thickness in boys with a high genetic risk for schizophrenia.
“We speculated at that time that the differences in cortical thickness might be related to differences in dendritic arborization, and our current study confirmed it,” Paus said.
That confirmation came in the mouse part of the study, when coauthor Graciela Piñeyro, MD, PhD, also of the University of Montreal, counted the dendritic branches of mice exposed to THC and compared the total with the number of dendritic branches in unexposed mice. “What surprised me was finding that THC in the mice was targeting the same type of cells and structures that Dr. Paus had predicted would be affected from the human studies,” she said. “Structurally, they were mostly the neurons that contribute to synapses in the cortex, and their branching was reduced.”
Paus explained that in humans, a decrease in input from the affected dendrites “makes it harder for the brain to learn new things, interact with people, cope with new situations, et cetera. In other words, it makes the brain more vulnerable to everything that can happen in a young person’s life.”
The study was published online on October 9 in the Journal of Neuroscience.
Of Mice, Men, and Cannabis
Although associations between cannabis use by teenagers and variations in brain maturation have been well studied, the cellular and molecular underpinnings of these associations were unclear, according to the authors.
To investigate further, they conducted this three-step study. First, they exposed adolescent male mice to THC or a synthetic cannabinoid (WIN 55,212-2) and assessed differentially expressed genes, spine numbers, and the extent of dendritic complexity in the frontal cortex of each mouse.
Next, using MRI, they examined differences in cortical thickness in 34 brain regions in 140 male adolescents who experimented with cannabis before age 16 years and 327 who did not.
Then, they again conducted experiments in mice and found that 13 THC-related genes correlated with variations in cortical thickness. Virtual histology revealed that these 13 genes were coexpressed with cell markers of astrocytes, microglia, and a type of pyramidal cell enriched in genes that regulate dendritic expression.
Similarly, the WIN-related genes correlated with differences in cortical thickness and showed coexpression patterns with the same three cell types.
Furthermore, the affected genes were also found in humans, particularly in the thinner cortical regions of the adolescents who experimented with cannabis.
By acting on microglia, THC seems to promote the removal of synapses and, eventually, the reduction of the dendritic tree in mice, Piñeyro explained. That’s important not only because a similar mechanism may be at work in humans but also because “we now might have a model to test different types of cannabis products to see which ones are producing the greatest effect on neurons and therefore greater removal of synapses through the microglia. This could be a way of testing drugs that are out in the street to see which would be the most or least dangerous to the synapses in the brain.”
‘Significant Implications’
Commenting on the study, Yasmin Hurd, PhD, Ward-Coleman chair of translational neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director of the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai in New York City, said, “These findings are in line with previous results, so they are feasible. This study adds more depth by showing that cortical genes that were differentially altered by adolescent THC correlated with cannabis-related changes in cortical thickness based on human neuroimaging data.” Hurd did not participate in the research.
“The results emphasize that consumption of potent cannabis products during adolescence can impact cortical function, which has significant implications for decision-making and risky behavior as well. It also can increase vulnerability to psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia.”
Although a mouse model is “not truly the same as the human condition, the fact that the animal model also showed evidence of the morphological changes indicative of reduced cortical thickness, [like] the humans, is strong,” she said.
Additional research could include women and assess potential sex differences, she added.
Ronald Ellis, MD, PhD, an investigator in the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, said, “The findings are plausible and extend prior work showing evidence of increased risk for psychotic disorders later in life in adolescents who use cannabis.” Ellis did not participate in the research.
“Future studies should explore how these findings might vary across different demographic groups, which could provide a more inclusive understanding of how cannabis impacts the brain,” he said. “Additionally, longitudinal studies to track changes in the brain over time could help to establish causal relationships more robustly.
“The take-home message to clinicians at this point is to discuss cannabis use history carefully and confidentially with adolescent patients to better provide advice on its potential risks,” he concluded.
Paus added that he would tell patients, “If you’re going to use cannabis, don’t start early. If you have to, then do so in moderation. And if you have family history of mental illness, be very careful.”
No funding for the study was reported. Paus, Piñeyro, Hurd, and Ellis declared having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Obesity Therapies: What Will the Future Bring?
“Obesity only recently caught the public’s attention as a disease,” Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of medicine at the Leipzig University and director of the Helmholtz Institute for Metabolism, Obesity and Vascular Research, Leipzig, Germany, told attendees in a thought-provoking presentation at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.
Even though the attitudes around how obesity is perceived may be relatively new, Blüher believes they are nonetheless significant. As a sign of how the cultural headwinds have shifted, he noted the 2022 film The Whale, which focuses on a character struggling with obesity. As Blüher pointed out, not only did the film’s star, Brendan Fraser, receive an Academy Award for his portrayal but he also theorized that the majority of celebrities in the audience were likely taking new weight loss medications.
“I strongly believe that in the future, obesity treatment will carry less stigma. It will be considered not as a cosmetic problem, but as a progressive disease.”
He sees several changes in the management of obesity likely to occur on the near horizon, beginning with when interventions directed at treating it will begin.
Obesity treatment should start at a young age, he said, because if you have overweight at ages 3-6 years, the likelihood of becoming an adult with obesity is approximately 90%. “Looking ahead, shouldn’t we put more emphasis on this age group?”
Furthermore, he hopes that clinical trials will move beyond body weight and body mass index (BMI) as their main outcome parameters. Instead, “we should talk about fat distribution, fat or adipose tissue function, muscle loss, body composition, and severity of disease.”
Blüher pointed to the recently published framework for the diagnosis, staging, and management of obesity in adults put forward by the European Association for the Study of Obesity. It states that obesity should be staged not based on BMI or body weight alone but also on an individual›s medical, functional, and psychological (eg, mental health and eating behavior) status.
“The causes of obesity are too complex to be individually targeted,” he continued, unlike examples such as hypercholesterolemia or smoking cessation, where clinicians may have one target to address.
“But overeating, slow metabolism, and low physical activity involve socio-cultural factors, global food marketing, and many other factors. Therefore, clinicians should be setting health targets, such as improving sleep apnea and improving physical functioning, rather than a kilogram number.”
Three Pillars of Treatment
Right now, clinicians have three pillars of treatments available, Blüher said. The first is behavioral intervention, including strategies such as counseling, diet, exercise, self-monitoring, stress management, and sleep management.
“We know that these behavioral aspects typically lack adherence and effect size, but they’re important, and for a certain group of people, they may be the best and safest treatment.”
The second pillar is pharmacotherapy, and the third is surgery.
Each pillar poses questions for future research, he explained.
“First, do we really need more evidence that behavioral interventions typically fail in the long run and are prone to rebound of body weight and health issues? No. Or which diet is best? We have hundreds of diet interventions, all of which basically show very similar outcomes. They lead to an average weight loss of 3% to 5% and do improve health conditions associated with obesity.”
When it comes to pharmacotherapies, Blüher does believe clinicians need more options.
Depending on affordability and access, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) semaglutide will likely become the first-line therapy for most people living with obesity who want to take medications, he suggested. The dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 tirzepatide will be reserved for those with more severe conditions.
“But this is not the end of the story,” he said. “The pipelines for obesity pharmacotherapies are full, and they have different categories. We are optimistic that we will have more therapies not only for type 2 diabetes (T2D) but also for obesity. Combinations such as CagriSema (cagrilintide + semaglutide, currently indicated for T2D) may outperform the monotherapies. We have to see if they’re as safe, and we have to wait for phase 3 trials and long-term outcomes.”
“The field is open for many combinations, ideas and interactions among the incretin-based signaling systems, but personally, I think that the triple agonists have a very bright future,” Blüher said.
For example, retatrutide, an agonist of the GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon receptors, showed promise in a phase 2 trial. Although that was not a comparative study, “the average changes in body weight suggest that in a dose-dependent manner, you can expect even more weight loss than with tirzepatide.”
Treating the Causes
The future of obesity therapy might also be directed at the originating factors that cause it, Blüher suggested, adding that “treating the causes is a dream of mine.”
One example of treating the cause is leptin therapy, as shown in a 1999 study of recombinant leptin in a child with congenital leptin deficiency. A more recent example is setmelanotide treatment for proopiomelanocortin deficiency.
“We are at the beginning for these causative treatments of obesity, and I hope that the future will hold much more of these insights and targets, as in cancer therapy.”
“Finally,” he said, “We eat with our brain. And so in the future, we also will be better able to use our knowledge about the complex neural circuits that are obesogenic, and how to target them. In doing so, we can learn from surgeons because obesity surgery is very effective in changing the anatomy, and we also observe hormonal changes. We see that ghrelin, GLP-1, peptide YY, and many others are affected when the anatomy changes. Why can’t we use that knowledge to design drugs that resemble or mimic the effect size of bariatric surgery?”
And that goes to the third pillar of treatment and the question of whether the new weight loss drugs may replace surgery, which also was the topic of another EASD session.
Blüher doesn’t see that happening for at least a decade, given that there is still an effect-size gap between tirzepatide and surgery, especially for individuals with T2D. In addition, he noted, there will still be nonresponders to drugs, and clinicians are not treating to target yet. Looking ahead, he foresees a combination of surgery and multi-receptor agonists.
“I believe that obesity won’t be cured in the future, but we will have increasingly better lifelong management with a multidisciplinary approach, although behavioral interventions still will not be as successful as pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery,” he concluded.
Q&A
During the question-and-answer session following his lecture, several attendees asked Blüher for his thoughts around other emerging areas in this field. One wanted to know whether microbiome changes might be a future target for obesity treatment.
“So far, we don’t really understand which bacteria, which composition, at which age, and at which part of the intestine need to be targeted,” Blüher responded. “Before we know that mechanistically, I think it would be difficult, but it could be an avenue to go for, though I’m a little less optimistic about it compared to other approaches.”
Given that obesity is not one disease, are there cluster subtypes, as for T2D — eg, the hungry brain, the hungry gut, low metabolism — that might benefit from individualized treatment, another attendee asked.
“We do try to subcluster people living with obesity,” Blüher said. “We did that based on adipose tissue expression signatures, and indeed there is large heterogeneity. But we are far from addressing the root causes and all subtypes of the disease, and that would be a requirement before we could personalize treatment in that way.”
Next, an attendee asked what is responsible for the differential weight loss in people with diabetes and people without? Blüher responded that although he doesn’t have the answer, he does have hypotheses.
“One could be that the disease process — eg, deterioration of beta cell function, of the balance of hormones such as insulin and leptin, of inflammatory parameters, of insulin resistance — is much more advanced in diseases such as T2D and sleep apnea. Maybe it then takes more to address comorbid conditions such as inflammation and insulin resistance. Therefore, combining current therapies with insulin sensitizers, for example, could produce better results.”
What about using continuous glucose monitoring to help people stick to their diet?
“That’s an important question that speaks to personalized treatment,” he said. “It applies not only to continuous glucose monitoring but also to nutrition and other modes of self-monitoring, which seem to be among the most successful tools for long-term weight maintenance.”
Blüher finished by saying, “As we look into the future, I hope that there will be better approaches for all aspects of personalized medicine, whether it is nutrition, exercise, pharmacotherapy, or even surgical procedures.”
Blüher received honoraria for lectures and/or served as a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Obesity only recently caught the public’s attention as a disease,” Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of medicine at the Leipzig University and director of the Helmholtz Institute for Metabolism, Obesity and Vascular Research, Leipzig, Germany, told attendees in a thought-provoking presentation at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.
Even though the attitudes around how obesity is perceived may be relatively new, Blüher believes they are nonetheless significant. As a sign of how the cultural headwinds have shifted, he noted the 2022 film The Whale, which focuses on a character struggling with obesity. As Blüher pointed out, not only did the film’s star, Brendan Fraser, receive an Academy Award for his portrayal but he also theorized that the majority of celebrities in the audience were likely taking new weight loss medications.
“I strongly believe that in the future, obesity treatment will carry less stigma. It will be considered not as a cosmetic problem, but as a progressive disease.”
He sees several changes in the management of obesity likely to occur on the near horizon, beginning with when interventions directed at treating it will begin.
Obesity treatment should start at a young age, he said, because if you have overweight at ages 3-6 years, the likelihood of becoming an adult with obesity is approximately 90%. “Looking ahead, shouldn’t we put more emphasis on this age group?”
Furthermore, he hopes that clinical trials will move beyond body weight and body mass index (BMI) as their main outcome parameters. Instead, “we should talk about fat distribution, fat or adipose tissue function, muscle loss, body composition, and severity of disease.”
Blüher pointed to the recently published framework for the diagnosis, staging, and management of obesity in adults put forward by the European Association for the Study of Obesity. It states that obesity should be staged not based on BMI or body weight alone but also on an individual›s medical, functional, and psychological (eg, mental health and eating behavior) status.
“The causes of obesity are too complex to be individually targeted,” he continued, unlike examples such as hypercholesterolemia or smoking cessation, where clinicians may have one target to address.
“But overeating, slow metabolism, and low physical activity involve socio-cultural factors, global food marketing, and many other factors. Therefore, clinicians should be setting health targets, such as improving sleep apnea and improving physical functioning, rather than a kilogram number.”
Three Pillars of Treatment
Right now, clinicians have three pillars of treatments available, Blüher said. The first is behavioral intervention, including strategies such as counseling, diet, exercise, self-monitoring, stress management, and sleep management.
“We know that these behavioral aspects typically lack adherence and effect size, but they’re important, and for a certain group of people, they may be the best and safest treatment.”
The second pillar is pharmacotherapy, and the third is surgery.
Each pillar poses questions for future research, he explained.
“First, do we really need more evidence that behavioral interventions typically fail in the long run and are prone to rebound of body weight and health issues? No. Or which diet is best? We have hundreds of diet interventions, all of which basically show very similar outcomes. They lead to an average weight loss of 3% to 5% and do improve health conditions associated with obesity.”
When it comes to pharmacotherapies, Blüher does believe clinicians need more options.
Depending on affordability and access, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) semaglutide will likely become the first-line therapy for most people living with obesity who want to take medications, he suggested. The dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 tirzepatide will be reserved for those with more severe conditions.
“But this is not the end of the story,” he said. “The pipelines for obesity pharmacotherapies are full, and they have different categories. We are optimistic that we will have more therapies not only for type 2 diabetes (T2D) but also for obesity. Combinations such as CagriSema (cagrilintide + semaglutide, currently indicated for T2D) may outperform the monotherapies. We have to see if they’re as safe, and we have to wait for phase 3 trials and long-term outcomes.”
“The field is open for many combinations, ideas and interactions among the incretin-based signaling systems, but personally, I think that the triple agonists have a very bright future,” Blüher said.
For example, retatrutide, an agonist of the GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon receptors, showed promise in a phase 2 trial. Although that was not a comparative study, “the average changes in body weight suggest that in a dose-dependent manner, you can expect even more weight loss than with tirzepatide.”
Treating the Causes
The future of obesity therapy might also be directed at the originating factors that cause it, Blüher suggested, adding that “treating the causes is a dream of mine.”
One example of treating the cause is leptin therapy, as shown in a 1999 study of recombinant leptin in a child with congenital leptin deficiency. A more recent example is setmelanotide treatment for proopiomelanocortin deficiency.
“We are at the beginning for these causative treatments of obesity, and I hope that the future will hold much more of these insights and targets, as in cancer therapy.”
“Finally,” he said, “We eat with our brain. And so in the future, we also will be better able to use our knowledge about the complex neural circuits that are obesogenic, and how to target them. In doing so, we can learn from surgeons because obesity surgery is very effective in changing the anatomy, and we also observe hormonal changes. We see that ghrelin, GLP-1, peptide YY, and many others are affected when the anatomy changes. Why can’t we use that knowledge to design drugs that resemble or mimic the effect size of bariatric surgery?”
And that goes to the third pillar of treatment and the question of whether the new weight loss drugs may replace surgery, which also was the topic of another EASD session.
Blüher doesn’t see that happening for at least a decade, given that there is still an effect-size gap between tirzepatide and surgery, especially for individuals with T2D. In addition, he noted, there will still be nonresponders to drugs, and clinicians are not treating to target yet. Looking ahead, he foresees a combination of surgery and multi-receptor agonists.
“I believe that obesity won’t be cured in the future, but we will have increasingly better lifelong management with a multidisciplinary approach, although behavioral interventions still will not be as successful as pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery,” he concluded.
Q&A
During the question-and-answer session following his lecture, several attendees asked Blüher for his thoughts around other emerging areas in this field. One wanted to know whether microbiome changes might be a future target for obesity treatment.
“So far, we don’t really understand which bacteria, which composition, at which age, and at which part of the intestine need to be targeted,” Blüher responded. “Before we know that mechanistically, I think it would be difficult, but it could be an avenue to go for, though I’m a little less optimistic about it compared to other approaches.”
Given that obesity is not one disease, are there cluster subtypes, as for T2D — eg, the hungry brain, the hungry gut, low metabolism — that might benefit from individualized treatment, another attendee asked.
“We do try to subcluster people living with obesity,” Blüher said. “We did that based on adipose tissue expression signatures, and indeed there is large heterogeneity. But we are far from addressing the root causes and all subtypes of the disease, and that would be a requirement before we could personalize treatment in that way.”
Next, an attendee asked what is responsible for the differential weight loss in people with diabetes and people without? Blüher responded that although he doesn’t have the answer, he does have hypotheses.
“One could be that the disease process — eg, deterioration of beta cell function, of the balance of hormones such as insulin and leptin, of inflammatory parameters, of insulin resistance — is much more advanced in diseases such as T2D and sleep apnea. Maybe it then takes more to address comorbid conditions such as inflammation and insulin resistance. Therefore, combining current therapies with insulin sensitizers, for example, could produce better results.”
What about using continuous glucose monitoring to help people stick to their diet?
“That’s an important question that speaks to personalized treatment,” he said. “It applies not only to continuous glucose monitoring but also to nutrition and other modes of self-monitoring, which seem to be among the most successful tools for long-term weight maintenance.”
Blüher finished by saying, “As we look into the future, I hope that there will be better approaches for all aspects of personalized medicine, whether it is nutrition, exercise, pharmacotherapy, or even surgical procedures.”
Blüher received honoraria for lectures and/or served as a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Obesity only recently caught the public’s attention as a disease,” Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of medicine at the Leipzig University and director of the Helmholtz Institute for Metabolism, Obesity and Vascular Research, Leipzig, Germany, told attendees in a thought-provoking presentation at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.
Even though the attitudes around how obesity is perceived may be relatively new, Blüher believes they are nonetheless significant. As a sign of how the cultural headwinds have shifted, he noted the 2022 film The Whale, which focuses on a character struggling with obesity. As Blüher pointed out, not only did the film’s star, Brendan Fraser, receive an Academy Award for his portrayal but he also theorized that the majority of celebrities in the audience were likely taking new weight loss medications.
“I strongly believe that in the future, obesity treatment will carry less stigma. It will be considered not as a cosmetic problem, but as a progressive disease.”
He sees several changes in the management of obesity likely to occur on the near horizon, beginning with when interventions directed at treating it will begin.
Obesity treatment should start at a young age, he said, because if you have overweight at ages 3-6 years, the likelihood of becoming an adult with obesity is approximately 90%. “Looking ahead, shouldn’t we put more emphasis on this age group?”
Furthermore, he hopes that clinical trials will move beyond body weight and body mass index (BMI) as their main outcome parameters. Instead, “we should talk about fat distribution, fat or adipose tissue function, muscle loss, body composition, and severity of disease.”
Blüher pointed to the recently published framework for the diagnosis, staging, and management of obesity in adults put forward by the European Association for the Study of Obesity. It states that obesity should be staged not based on BMI or body weight alone but also on an individual›s medical, functional, and psychological (eg, mental health and eating behavior) status.
“The causes of obesity are too complex to be individually targeted,” he continued, unlike examples such as hypercholesterolemia or smoking cessation, where clinicians may have one target to address.
“But overeating, slow metabolism, and low physical activity involve socio-cultural factors, global food marketing, and many other factors. Therefore, clinicians should be setting health targets, such as improving sleep apnea and improving physical functioning, rather than a kilogram number.”
Three Pillars of Treatment
Right now, clinicians have three pillars of treatments available, Blüher said. The first is behavioral intervention, including strategies such as counseling, diet, exercise, self-monitoring, stress management, and sleep management.
“We know that these behavioral aspects typically lack adherence and effect size, but they’re important, and for a certain group of people, they may be the best and safest treatment.”
The second pillar is pharmacotherapy, and the third is surgery.
Each pillar poses questions for future research, he explained.
“First, do we really need more evidence that behavioral interventions typically fail in the long run and are prone to rebound of body weight and health issues? No. Or which diet is best? We have hundreds of diet interventions, all of which basically show very similar outcomes. They lead to an average weight loss of 3% to 5% and do improve health conditions associated with obesity.”
When it comes to pharmacotherapies, Blüher does believe clinicians need more options.
Depending on affordability and access, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) semaglutide will likely become the first-line therapy for most people living with obesity who want to take medications, he suggested. The dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 tirzepatide will be reserved for those with more severe conditions.
“But this is not the end of the story,” he said. “The pipelines for obesity pharmacotherapies are full, and they have different categories. We are optimistic that we will have more therapies not only for type 2 diabetes (T2D) but also for obesity. Combinations such as CagriSema (cagrilintide + semaglutide, currently indicated for T2D) may outperform the monotherapies. We have to see if they’re as safe, and we have to wait for phase 3 trials and long-term outcomes.”
“The field is open for many combinations, ideas and interactions among the incretin-based signaling systems, but personally, I think that the triple agonists have a very bright future,” Blüher said.
For example, retatrutide, an agonist of the GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon receptors, showed promise in a phase 2 trial. Although that was not a comparative study, “the average changes in body weight suggest that in a dose-dependent manner, you can expect even more weight loss than with tirzepatide.”
Treating the Causes
The future of obesity therapy might also be directed at the originating factors that cause it, Blüher suggested, adding that “treating the causes is a dream of mine.”
One example of treating the cause is leptin therapy, as shown in a 1999 study of recombinant leptin in a child with congenital leptin deficiency. A more recent example is setmelanotide treatment for proopiomelanocortin deficiency.
“We are at the beginning for these causative treatments of obesity, and I hope that the future will hold much more of these insights and targets, as in cancer therapy.”
“Finally,” he said, “We eat with our brain. And so in the future, we also will be better able to use our knowledge about the complex neural circuits that are obesogenic, and how to target them. In doing so, we can learn from surgeons because obesity surgery is very effective in changing the anatomy, and we also observe hormonal changes. We see that ghrelin, GLP-1, peptide YY, and many others are affected when the anatomy changes. Why can’t we use that knowledge to design drugs that resemble or mimic the effect size of bariatric surgery?”
And that goes to the third pillar of treatment and the question of whether the new weight loss drugs may replace surgery, which also was the topic of another EASD session.
Blüher doesn’t see that happening for at least a decade, given that there is still an effect-size gap between tirzepatide and surgery, especially for individuals with T2D. In addition, he noted, there will still be nonresponders to drugs, and clinicians are not treating to target yet. Looking ahead, he foresees a combination of surgery and multi-receptor agonists.
“I believe that obesity won’t be cured in the future, but we will have increasingly better lifelong management with a multidisciplinary approach, although behavioral interventions still will not be as successful as pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery,” he concluded.
Q&A
During the question-and-answer session following his lecture, several attendees asked Blüher for his thoughts around other emerging areas in this field. One wanted to know whether microbiome changes might be a future target for obesity treatment.
“So far, we don’t really understand which bacteria, which composition, at which age, and at which part of the intestine need to be targeted,” Blüher responded. “Before we know that mechanistically, I think it would be difficult, but it could be an avenue to go for, though I’m a little less optimistic about it compared to other approaches.”
Given that obesity is not one disease, are there cluster subtypes, as for T2D — eg, the hungry brain, the hungry gut, low metabolism — that might benefit from individualized treatment, another attendee asked.
“We do try to subcluster people living with obesity,” Blüher said. “We did that based on adipose tissue expression signatures, and indeed there is large heterogeneity. But we are far from addressing the root causes and all subtypes of the disease, and that would be a requirement before we could personalize treatment in that way.”
Next, an attendee asked what is responsible for the differential weight loss in people with diabetes and people without? Blüher responded that although he doesn’t have the answer, he does have hypotheses.
“One could be that the disease process — eg, deterioration of beta cell function, of the balance of hormones such as insulin and leptin, of inflammatory parameters, of insulin resistance — is much more advanced in diseases such as T2D and sleep apnea. Maybe it then takes more to address comorbid conditions such as inflammation and insulin resistance. Therefore, combining current therapies with insulin sensitizers, for example, could produce better results.”
What about using continuous glucose monitoring to help people stick to their diet?
“That’s an important question that speaks to personalized treatment,” he said. “It applies not only to continuous glucose monitoring but also to nutrition and other modes of self-monitoring, which seem to be among the most successful tools for long-term weight maintenance.”
Blüher finished by saying, “As we look into the future, I hope that there will be better approaches for all aspects of personalized medicine, whether it is nutrition, exercise, pharmacotherapy, or even surgical procedures.”
Blüher received honoraria for lectures and/or served as a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EASD 2024
Time to Stop Saying Thyroid Cancer Is a ‘Good’ Cancer
Papillary thyroid cancer is widely known as the “good cancer.” This term has been around for years and is used ubiquitously. Some think it’s “appropriate” because the cancer is highly treatable and has good survival rates. Yet, recent research, provider experiences, and patient feedback suggest the term should no longer be used.
Papillary is the most common type of thyroid cancer, comprising about 70%-80% of all thyroid cancers. It tends to grow slowly and “has a generally excellent outlook, even if there is spread to the lymph nodes,” according to the American Thyroid Association.
This “excellent outlook” can prompt a physician to call it a “good” cancer.
“There is often a perception that a patient is diagnosed, treated, and then once treatment is complete, gets to go back to their ‘normal’ lives,” said Fiona Schulte, PhD, RPsych, of the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
“The surgery and other treatments thyroid patients may require are not benign and leave patients with many long-term challenging consequences,” she said in an interview. “For many, treatment is just the beginning of a long journey of dealing with multiple late effects.”
Misguided ‘Support’
“I do believe the doctor’s intention is to bring comfort to the patient by saying they have a very curable disease,” Miranda Fidler-Benaoudia, MD, of the University of Calgary, said in an interview. Fidler-Benaoudia is the principal author of a recent survey/interview study of early-onset thyroid cancer survivors, titled “No such thing as a good cancer.” Despite the doctor’s intention, her team found that “for the majority of individuals interviewed, the response was actually quite negative.”
“Specifically,” she said, “thyroid cancer patients felt that the use of the term ‘good cancer’ minimized their diagnosis and experience, often making them feel like their struggles with the diagnosis and its treatment were not justified. While they were indeed cancer patients, they did not feel they could claim to be one because their prognosis was very positive or they didn’t have more intensive therapies like radiotherapy or chemotherapy.”
These feelings were echoed in a recent Moffitt Center article. When Emma Stevens learned she had thyroid cancer at age 19, she said she heard the same statements repeatedly, including: “At least it’s only thyroid cancer.” “It’s the good cancer, and easy to deal with.”
“These are such weird things to say to me,” said Stevens, now 26. “I know they didn’t have any ill will and they couldn’t see how such statements could be upsetting. It’s been my goal to shed some light on how what they see as encouraging thoughts can upset someone like me.”
In an article on the appropriateness of the term “good cancer,” Reese W. Randle, MD, now at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and colleagues wrote, “Patients with papillary thyroid cancer commonly confront the perception that their malignancy is ‘good,’ but the favorable prognosis and treatability of the disease do not comprehensively represent their cancer fight.”
“The ‘good cancer’ perception is at the root of many mixed and confusing emotions,” they continued. “Clinicians emphasize optimistic outcomes, hoping to comfort, but they might inadvertently invalidate the impact thyroid cancer has on patients’ lives.”
Life-Altering
“Having a diagnosis of thyroid cancer, even with usually a very good prognosis, can be life-altering, said Caitlin P. McMullen, MD, a head and neck cancer specialist at Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida.
Most papillary thyroid cancers are cured with surgery alone, sometimes followed by radioactive iodine, she said in an interview. “The surgery involves removing half (lobectomy), or sometimes all (total thyroidectomy), of the thyroid gland.” Patients with lymph node involvement have a longer surgery that includes lymph node removal.
Many patients must also remain on medication permanently to replace their thyroid hormone, she continued. And, after treatment is complete, “patients require regular follow up with bloodwork and imaging for many years to ensure the cancer does not return.”
“Repeated visits, medications, and testing can also result in financial toxicities and repeated disruptions for patients,” she added. “These downstream effects of a thyroid cancer diagnosis can significantly alter a patient’s life.”
Kaniksha Desai, MD, Endocrinology Quality Director at Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, said in an interview that thyroid cancer treatments carry some risks that shouldn’t be overlooked and may affect recovery for years. These include:
- Recurrent laryngeal nerve damage: Thyroid surgery can lead to vocal cord paralysis, affecting speech and swallowing.
- Hypoparathyroidism: Postsurgical damage to the parathyroid glands can cause long-term calcium regulation problems resulting in pain and emergency department visits as well as lifelong supplementation with calcium and vitamin D.
- Radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment: RAI can have side effects such as dry mouth, tear duct obstruction, salivary gland dysfunction, and an increased risk of secondary cancers.
- Psychosocial Impact: Being told they have cancer can create significant psychological distress for patients, including fear of recurrence, body image concerns, and anxiety, all of which persist even with a “good prognosis.”
Fidler-Benaoudia’s studies focused specifically on the psychosocial impact on younger patients. “Facing a cancer diagnosis at a young age really forces the person to hit the ‘pause button’ – they may need to take a break from school or work, and it may impact their relationships with their family and friends.”
“Even if their cancer has a very high survival rate, when a young person receives a cancer diagnosis they are often facing their own immortality for the first time, which can be very distressing,” she said. Many of her study participants also struggled to maintain appropriate thyroid hormone levels with medication, which left them feeling tired, losing hair or gaining weight. The surgery itself “can leave a substantial scar on the throat that is visible unless purposefully covered with clothing or accessories,” she noted. “We found that this scar impacted quite a few survivors’ body image.”
Awareness, Education
Two recent studies pointed to the need for clinicians to be aware of their patients’ reactions to a thyroid diagnosis. Susan C. Pitt, MD, associate professor of surgery and director of the endocrine surgery health services research program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reviewed the literature on patient perception of receiving a thyroid diagnosis and found, “Fear and worry about cancer in general and the possibility for recurrence contribute to lasting psychological distress and decreased quality of life. Patients’ perceptions of their diagnosis and resulting emotional reactions influence treatment decision making and have the potential to contribute to decisions that may over-treat a low-risk thyroid cancer.”
In another recent study, Pitt and colleagues assessed fear of thyroid cancer in the general US population and found that close to half of 1136 respondents to an online survey had high levels of thyroid cancer-specific fear, particularly women and those under age 40. “Because disease-specific fear is associated with overtreatment, targeted education about the seriousness, incidence, and risk factors for developing thyroid cancer may decrease public fear and possibly overtreatment related to ‘scared decision-making,’” the authors concluded.
McMullen added, “Taking the time to educate the patient on the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatments can provide reassurance without being dismissive. Most patients are very receptive and understanding once things are explained thoroughly and their questions are answered. We find that factual information can be even more reassuring for patients than saying, ‘This is a good cancer.’”
Desai advised, “Clinicians should acknowledge the spectrum of experiences patients may have.” They should provide empathy and reassurance as well as personalized discussions regarding prognosis and treatment options. In addition, “they should focus on survivorship care by addressing both the long-term and short-term effects on health and lifestyle that can occur post treatment,” as well as the possible need for mental health support.
“I heard many times in residency that, ‘if you had to have cancer, have thyroid cancer,’ ” Malini Gupta, MD, director of G2Endo Endocrinology & Metabolism, Memphis, Tennessee, and vice chair of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology’s Disease State Networks, said in an interview.
“One should not want any cancer,” she said. “There are some very aggressive tumor markers in differentiated thyroid cancer that can have a worse prognosis. There are many aspects of thyroid cancer treatment that cause anxiety and a stress burden. Recovery varies from person to person.”
“There needs to be education across all sectors of healthcare, particularly in primary care,” she added. “I personally have medullary thyroid cancer that I found myself while fixing my ultrasound. There are many aspects to survivorship.”
Fidler-Benaoudia, Schulte, McMullen, and Desai declared no competing interests. Gupta is on the speaker bureau for Amgen (Tepezza) and IBSA (Tirosint) and is a creative consultant for AbbVie.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Papillary thyroid cancer is widely known as the “good cancer.” This term has been around for years and is used ubiquitously. Some think it’s “appropriate” because the cancer is highly treatable and has good survival rates. Yet, recent research, provider experiences, and patient feedback suggest the term should no longer be used.
Papillary is the most common type of thyroid cancer, comprising about 70%-80% of all thyroid cancers. It tends to grow slowly and “has a generally excellent outlook, even if there is spread to the lymph nodes,” according to the American Thyroid Association.
This “excellent outlook” can prompt a physician to call it a “good” cancer.
“There is often a perception that a patient is diagnosed, treated, and then once treatment is complete, gets to go back to their ‘normal’ lives,” said Fiona Schulte, PhD, RPsych, of the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
“The surgery and other treatments thyroid patients may require are not benign and leave patients with many long-term challenging consequences,” she said in an interview. “For many, treatment is just the beginning of a long journey of dealing with multiple late effects.”
Misguided ‘Support’
“I do believe the doctor’s intention is to bring comfort to the patient by saying they have a very curable disease,” Miranda Fidler-Benaoudia, MD, of the University of Calgary, said in an interview. Fidler-Benaoudia is the principal author of a recent survey/interview study of early-onset thyroid cancer survivors, titled “No such thing as a good cancer.” Despite the doctor’s intention, her team found that “for the majority of individuals interviewed, the response was actually quite negative.”
“Specifically,” she said, “thyroid cancer patients felt that the use of the term ‘good cancer’ minimized their diagnosis and experience, often making them feel like their struggles with the diagnosis and its treatment were not justified. While they were indeed cancer patients, they did not feel they could claim to be one because their prognosis was very positive or they didn’t have more intensive therapies like radiotherapy or chemotherapy.”
These feelings were echoed in a recent Moffitt Center article. When Emma Stevens learned she had thyroid cancer at age 19, she said she heard the same statements repeatedly, including: “At least it’s only thyroid cancer.” “It’s the good cancer, and easy to deal with.”
“These are such weird things to say to me,” said Stevens, now 26. “I know they didn’t have any ill will and they couldn’t see how such statements could be upsetting. It’s been my goal to shed some light on how what they see as encouraging thoughts can upset someone like me.”
In an article on the appropriateness of the term “good cancer,” Reese W. Randle, MD, now at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and colleagues wrote, “Patients with papillary thyroid cancer commonly confront the perception that their malignancy is ‘good,’ but the favorable prognosis and treatability of the disease do not comprehensively represent their cancer fight.”
“The ‘good cancer’ perception is at the root of many mixed and confusing emotions,” they continued. “Clinicians emphasize optimistic outcomes, hoping to comfort, but they might inadvertently invalidate the impact thyroid cancer has on patients’ lives.”
Life-Altering
“Having a diagnosis of thyroid cancer, even with usually a very good prognosis, can be life-altering, said Caitlin P. McMullen, MD, a head and neck cancer specialist at Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida.
Most papillary thyroid cancers are cured with surgery alone, sometimes followed by radioactive iodine, she said in an interview. “The surgery involves removing half (lobectomy), or sometimes all (total thyroidectomy), of the thyroid gland.” Patients with lymph node involvement have a longer surgery that includes lymph node removal.
Many patients must also remain on medication permanently to replace their thyroid hormone, she continued. And, after treatment is complete, “patients require regular follow up with bloodwork and imaging for many years to ensure the cancer does not return.”
“Repeated visits, medications, and testing can also result in financial toxicities and repeated disruptions for patients,” she added. “These downstream effects of a thyroid cancer diagnosis can significantly alter a patient’s life.”
Kaniksha Desai, MD, Endocrinology Quality Director at Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, said in an interview that thyroid cancer treatments carry some risks that shouldn’t be overlooked and may affect recovery for years. These include:
- Recurrent laryngeal nerve damage: Thyroid surgery can lead to vocal cord paralysis, affecting speech and swallowing.
- Hypoparathyroidism: Postsurgical damage to the parathyroid glands can cause long-term calcium regulation problems resulting in pain and emergency department visits as well as lifelong supplementation with calcium and vitamin D.
- Radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment: RAI can have side effects such as dry mouth, tear duct obstruction, salivary gland dysfunction, and an increased risk of secondary cancers.
- Psychosocial Impact: Being told they have cancer can create significant psychological distress for patients, including fear of recurrence, body image concerns, and anxiety, all of which persist even with a “good prognosis.”
Fidler-Benaoudia’s studies focused specifically on the psychosocial impact on younger patients. “Facing a cancer diagnosis at a young age really forces the person to hit the ‘pause button’ – they may need to take a break from school or work, and it may impact their relationships with their family and friends.”
“Even if their cancer has a very high survival rate, when a young person receives a cancer diagnosis they are often facing their own immortality for the first time, which can be very distressing,” she said. Many of her study participants also struggled to maintain appropriate thyroid hormone levels with medication, which left them feeling tired, losing hair or gaining weight. The surgery itself “can leave a substantial scar on the throat that is visible unless purposefully covered with clothing or accessories,” she noted. “We found that this scar impacted quite a few survivors’ body image.”
Awareness, Education
Two recent studies pointed to the need for clinicians to be aware of their patients’ reactions to a thyroid diagnosis. Susan C. Pitt, MD, associate professor of surgery and director of the endocrine surgery health services research program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reviewed the literature on patient perception of receiving a thyroid diagnosis and found, “Fear and worry about cancer in general and the possibility for recurrence contribute to lasting psychological distress and decreased quality of life. Patients’ perceptions of their diagnosis and resulting emotional reactions influence treatment decision making and have the potential to contribute to decisions that may over-treat a low-risk thyroid cancer.”
In another recent study, Pitt and colleagues assessed fear of thyroid cancer in the general US population and found that close to half of 1136 respondents to an online survey had high levels of thyroid cancer-specific fear, particularly women and those under age 40. “Because disease-specific fear is associated with overtreatment, targeted education about the seriousness, incidence, and risk factors for developing thyroid cancer may decrease public fear and possibly overtreatment related to ‘scared decision-making,’” the authors concluded.
McMullen added, “Taking the time to educate the patient on the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatments can provide reassurance without being dismissive. Most patients are very receptive and understanding once things are explained thoroughly and their questions are answered. We find that factual information can be even more reassuring for patients than saying, ‘This is a good cancer.’”
Desai advised, “Clinicians should acknowledge the spectrum of experiences patients may have.” They should provide empathy and reassurance as well as personalized discussions regarding prognosis and treatment options. In addition, “they should focus on survivorship care by addressing both the long-term and short-term effects on health and lifestyle that can occur post treatment,” as well as the possible need for mental health support.
“I heard many times in residency that, ‘if you had to have cancer, have thyroid cancer,’ ” Malini Gupta, MD, director of G2Endo Endocrinology & Metabolism, Memphis, Tennessee, and vice chair of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology’s Disease State Networks, said in an interview.
“One should not want any cancer,” she said. “There are some very aggressive tumor markers in differentiated thyroid cancer that can have a worse prognosis. There are many aspects of thyroid cancer treatment that cause anxiety and a stress burden. Recovery varies from person to person.”
“There needs to be education across all sectors of healthcare, particularly in primary care,” she added. “I personally have medullary thyroid cancer that I found myself while fixing my ultrasound. There are many aspects to survivorship.”
Fidler-Benaoudia, Schulte, McMullen, and Desai declared no competing interests. Gupta is on the speaker bureau for Amgen (Tepezza) and IBSA (Tirosint) and is a creative consultant for AbbVie.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Papillary thyroid cancer is widely known as the “good cancer.” This term has been around for years and is used ubiquitously. Some think it’s “appropriate” because the cancer is highly treatable and has good survival rates. Yet, recent research, provider experiences, and patient feedback suggest the term should no longer be used.
Papillary is the most common type of thyroid cancer, comprising about 70%-80% of all thyroid cancers. It tends to grow slowly and “has a generally excellent outlook, even if there is spread to the lymph nodes,” according to the American Thyroid Association.
This “excellent outlook” can prompt a physician to call it a “good” cancer.
“There is often a perception that a patient is diagnosed, treated, and then once treatment is complete, gets to go back to their ‘normal’ lives,” said Fiona Schulte, PhD, RPsych, of the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
“The surgery and other treatments thyroid patients may require are not benign and leave patients with many long-term challenging consequences,” she said in an interview. “For many, treatment is just the beginning of a long journey of dealing with multiple late effects.”
Misguided ‘Support’
“I do believe the doctor’s intention is to bring comfort to the patient by saying they have a very curable disease,” Miranda Fidler-Benaoudia, MD, of the University of Calgary, said in an interview. Fidler-Benaoudia is the principal author of a recent survey/interview study of early-onset thyroid cancer survivors, titled “No such thing as a good cancer.” Despite the doctor’s intention, her team found that “for the majority of individuals interviewed, the response was actually quite negative.”
“Specifically,” she said, “thyroid cancer patients felt that the use of the term ‘good cancer’ minimized their diagnosis and experience, often making them feel like their struggles with the diagnosis and its treatment were not justified. While they were indeed cancer patients, they did not feel they could claim to be one because their prognosis was very positive or they didn’t have more intensive therapies like radiotherapy or chemotherapy.”
These feelings were echoed in a recent Moffitt Center article. When Emma Stevens learned she had thyroid cancer at age 19, she said she heard the same statements repeatedly, including: “At least it’s only thyroid cancer.” “It’s the good cancer, and easy to deal with.”
“These are such weird things to say to me,” said Stevens, now 26. “I know they didn’t have any ill will and they couldn’t see how such statements could be upsetting. It’s been my goal to shed some light on how what they see as encouraging thoughts can upset someone like me.”
In an article on the appropriateness of the term “good cancer,” Reese W. Randle, MD, now at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and colleagues wrote, “Patients with papillary thyroid cancer commonly confront the perception that their malignancy is ‘good,’ but the favorable prognosis and treatability of the disease do not comprehensively represent their cancer fight.”
“The ‘good cancer’ perception is at the root of many mixed and confusing emotions,” they continued. “Clinicians emphasize optimistic outcomes, hoping to comfort, but they might inadvertently invalidate the impact thyroid cancer has on patients’ lives.”
Life-Altering
“Having a diagnosis of thyroid cancer, even with usually a very good prognosis, can be life-altering, said Caitlin P. McMullen, MD, a head and neck cancer specialist at Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida.
Most papillary thyroid cancers are cured with surgery alone, sometimes followed by radioactive iodine, she said in an interview. “The surgery involves removing half (lobectomy), or sometimes all (total thyroidectomy), of the thyroid gland.” Patients with lymph node involvement have a longer surgery that includes lymph node removal.
Many patients must also remain on medication permanently to replace their thyroid hormone, she continued. And, after treatment is complete, “patients require regular follow up with bloodwork and imaging for many years to ensure the cancer does not return.”
“Repeated visits, medications, and testing can also result in financial toxicities and repeated disruptions for patients,” she added. “These downstream effects of a thyroid cancer diagnosis can significantly alter a patient’s life.”
Kaniksha Desai, MD, Endocrinology Quality Director at Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, said in an interview that thyroid cancer treatments carry some risks that shouldn’t be overlooked and may affect recovery for years. These include:
- Recurrent laryngeal nerve damage: Thyroid surgery can lead to vocal cord paralysis, affecting speech and swallowing.
- Hypoparathyroidism: Postsurgical damage to the parathyroid glands can cause long-term calcium regulation problems resulting in pain and emergency department visits as well as lifelong supplementation with calcium and vitamin D.
- Radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment: RAI can have side effects such as dry mouth, tear duct obstruction, salivary gland dysfunction, and an increased risk of secondary cancers.
- Psychosocial Impact: Being told they have cancer can create significant psychological distress for patients, including fear of recurrence, body image concerns, and anxiety, all of which persist even with a “good prognosis.”
Fidler-Benaoudia’s studies focused specifically on the psychosocial impact on younger patients. “Facing a cancer diagnosis at a young age really forces the person to hit the ‘pause button’ – they may need to take a break from school or work, and it may impact their relationships with their family and friends.”
“Even if their cancer has a very high survival rate, when a young person receives a cancer diagnosis they are often facing their own immortality for the first time, which can be very distressing,” she said. Many of her study participants also struggled to maintain appropriate thyroid hormone levels with medication, which left them feeling tired, losing hair or gaining weight. The surgery itself “can leave a substantial scar on the throat that is visible unless purposefully covered with clothing or accessories,” she noted. “We found that this scar impacted quite a few survivors’ body image.”
Awareness, Education
Two recent studies pointed to the need for clinicians to be aware of their patients’ reactions to a thyroid diagnosis. Susan C. Pitt, MD, associate professor of surgery and director of the endocrine surgery health services research program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reviewed the literature on patient perception of receiving a thyroid diagnosis and found, “Fear and worry about cancer in general and the possibility for recurrence contribute to lasting psychological distress and decreased quality of life. Patients’ perceptions of their diagnosis and resulting emotional reactions influence treatment decision making and have the potential to contribute to decisions that may over-treat a low-risk thyroid cancer.”
In another recent study, Pitt and colleagues assessed fear of thyroid cancer in the general US population and found that close to half of 1136 respondents to an online survey had high levels of thyroid cancer-specific fear, particularly women and those under age 40. “Because disease-specific fear is associated with overtreatment, targeted education about the seriousness, incidence, and risk factors for developing thyroid cancer may decrease public fear and possibly overtreatment related to ‘scared decision-making,’” the authors concluded.
McMullen added, “Taking the time to educate the patient on the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatments can provide reassurance without being dismissive. Most patients are very receptive and understanding once things are explained thoroughly and their questions are answered. We find that factual information can be even more reassuring for patients than saying, ‘This is a good cancer.’”
Desai advised, “Clinicians should acknowledge the spectrum of experiences patients may have.” They should provide empathy and reassurance as well as personalized discussions regarding prognosis and treatment options. In addition, “they should focus on survivorship care by addressing both the long-term and short-term effects on health and lifestyle that can occur post treatment,” as well as the possible need for mental health support.
“I heard many times in residency that, ‘if you had to have cancer, have thyroid cancer,’ ” Malini Gupta, MD, director of G2Endo Endocrinology & Metabolism, Memphis, Tennessee, and vice chair of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology’s Disease State Networks, said in an interview.
“One should not want any cancer,” she said. “There are some very aggressive tumor markers in differentiated thyroid cancer that can have a worse prognosis. There are many aspects of thyroid cancer treatment that cause anxiety and a stress burden. Recovery varies from person to person.”
“There needs to be education across all sectors of healthcare, particularly in primary care,” she added. “I personally have medullary thyroid cancer that I found myself while fixing my ultrasound. There are many aspects to survivorship.”
Fidler-Benaoudia, Schulte, McMullen, and Desai declared no competing interests. Gupta is on the speaker bureau for Amgen (Tepezza) and IBSA (Tirosint) and is a creative consultant for AbbVie.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Tirzepatide Shortage Resolved? FDA Says Yes, Compounders No
The agency wrote in a clarification aimed at compounders that Lilly said it can meet the “present and projected national demand” and that compounders are restricted from making the products.
Nevertheless, patients and prescribers may still see “intermittent localized supply disruptions as the products move through the supply chain,” the FDA noted.
The Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding (APC) responded swiftly, alerting its members and the public to the resolved shortage and stating that compounders “must immediately cease preparing and dispensing compounded copies” of the two drugs.
However, APC CEO Scott Brunner added it often takes a long time for FDA-approved versions of the drug to become widely available to wholesalers, hospitals, and clinics. Even after Lilly announced greater availability for the drugs, including in a new vial format for low doses, “for most pharmacies, they’re lucky to get two or three boxes of Zepbound a day from their wholesaler — for a patient waiting list that can number in the hundreds.”
“We have already heard this morning from APC members that they are unable to fill orders for their patients,” he said.
Furthermore, he contended, “I suspect plenty of patients taking compounded tirzepatide are going to be caught flat-footed by this. They are being cut off cold turkey, their prescription no longer fillable. They’ll need to get in to see their provider to get a new prescription, and that will take some time. It’s possible that so many patients presently taking compounded GLP-1s [glucagon-like peptide 1] will be eventually switched to the FDA-approved versions — if they can afford them, of course — that it will push tirzepatide injection back into shortage.”
Commenting on the shortage resolution, endocrinologist Beverly Tchang, MD, DABOM, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City told this news organization, “we are not yet experiencing relief from the shortages, but I hope this resolves at least one barrier to access for our patients.”
“I don’t think it will create confusion,” she said. “Fortunately or unfortunately, patients and clinicians are adept by now with therapeutic transitions because we’ve been forced to do so whenever insurance withdraws coverage or a shortage recurs or a coupon expires. It’s obviously not ideal but patients are motivated and clinicians don’t give up.”
This news organization has previously reported on the impact of the shortages and how endocrinologists and obesity medicine specialists were handling them, in light of concerns about compounding pharmacies that may or may not be well founded.
Dr. Tchang declared that she is an adviser to Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency wrote in a clarification aimed at compounders that Lilly said it can meet the “present and projected national demand” and that compounders are restricted from making the products.
Nevertheless, patients and prescribers may still see “intermittent localized supply disruptions as the products move through the supply chain,” the FDA noted.
The Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding (APC) responded swiftly, alerting its members and the public to the resolved shortage and stating that compounders “must immediately cease preparing and dispensing compounded copies” of the two drugs.
However, APC CEO Scott Brunner added it often takes a long time for FDA-approved versions of the drug to become widely available to wholesalers, hospitals, and clinics. Even after Lilly announced greater availability for the drugs, including in a new vial format for low doses, “for most pharmacies, they’re lucky to get two or three boxes of Zepbound a day from their wholesaler — for a patient waiting list that can number in the hundreds.”
“We have already heard this morning from APC members that they are unable to fill orders for their patients,” he said.
Furthermore, he contended, “I suspect plenty of patients taking compounded tirzepatide are going to be caught flat-footed by this. They are being cut off cold turkey, their prescription no longer fillable. They’ll need to get in to see their provider to get a new prescription, and that will take some time. It’s possible that so many patients presently taking compounded GLP-1s [glucagon-like peptide 1] will be eventually switched to the FDA-approved versions — if they can afford them, of course — that it will push tirzepatide injection back into shortage.”
Commenting on the shortage resolution, endocrinologist Beverly Tchang, MD, DABOM, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City told this news organization, “we are not yet experiencing relief from the shortages, but I hope this resolves at least one barrier to access for our patients.”
“I don’t think it will create confusion,” she said. “Fortunately or unfortunately, patients and clinicians are adept by now with therapeutic transitions because we’ve been forced to do so whenever insurance withdraws coverage or a shortage recurs or a coupon expires. It’s obviously not ideal but patients are motivated and clinicians don’t give up.”
This news organization has previously reported on the impact of the shortages and how endocrinologists and obesity medicine specialists were handling them, in light of concerns about compounding pharmacies that may or may not be well founded.
Dr. Tchang declared that she is an adviser to Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency wrote in a clarification aimed at compounders that Lilly said it can meet the “present and projected national demand” and that compounders are restricted from making the products.
Nevertheless, patients and prescribers may still see “intermittent localized supply disruptions as the products move through the supply chain,” the FDA noted.
The Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding (APC) responded swiftly, alerting its members and the public to the resolved shortage and stating that compounders “must immediately cease preparing and dispensing compounded copies” of the two drugs.
However, APC CEO Scott Brunner added it often takes a long time for FDA-approved versions of the drug to become widely available to wholesalers, hospitals, and clinics. Even after Lilly announced greater availability for the drugs, including in a new vial format for low doses, “for most pharmacies, they’re lucky to get two or three boxes of Zepbound a day from their wholesaler — for a patient waiting list that can number in the hundreds.”
“We have already heard this morning from APC members that they are unable to fill orders for their patients,” he said.
Furthermore, he contended, “I suspect plenty of patients taking compounded tirzepatide are going to be caught flat-footed by this. They are being cut off cold turkey, their prescription no longer fillable. They’ll need to get in to see their provider to get a new prescription, and that will take some time. It’s possible that so many patients presently taking compounded GLP-1s [glucagon-like peptide 1] will be eventually switched to the FDA-approved versions — if they can afford them, of course — that it will push tirzepatide injection back into shortage.”
Commenting on the shortage resolution, endocrinologist Beverly Tchang, MD, DABOM, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City told this news organization, “we are not yet experiencing relief from the shortages, but I hope this resolves at least one barrier to access for our patients.”
“I don’t think it will create confusion,” she said. “Fortunately or unfortunately, patients and clinicians are adept by now with therapeutic transitions because we’ve been forced to do so whenever insurance withdraws coverage or a shortage recurs or a coupon expires. It’s obviously not ideal but patients are motivated and clinicians don’t give up.”
This news organization has previously reported on the impact of the shortages and how endocrinologists and obesity medicine specialists were handling them, in light of concerns about compounding pharmacies that may or may not be well founded.
Dr. Tchang declared that she is an adviser to Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Cannabis Use Rising in Diabetes: What Do Endos Need to Know?
A recent US prevalence study estimated that 9% adults with diabetes used cannabis in the last month, a 33.7% increase between 2021 and 2022. Nearly half (48.9%) of users were younger than 50 years.
Cannabis use is also increasing sharply among those aged 65 years or older, many of whom have diabetes and other chronic conditions. In this demographic, the perceived risk surrounding regular cannabis use has dropped significantly, even as the data tell another story — that they are particularly at risk from emergency department visits for cannabis poisoning.
As legalization continues and cannabis products proliferate, endocrinologists will likely face more patients of all ages seeking advice about its use. Yet with few evidence-based resources to turn to, endocrinologists advising patients in this area are mostly left fending for themselves.
Evidence ‘Limited’
“The evidence on cannabis is limited mainly because of its scheduling in the United States,” Jay Shubrook, DO, a professor and diabetologist at College of Osteopathic Medicine, Touro University California, in Vallejo, California, told this news organization.
“It was declared to be a schedule I drug in the 1970s, which meant it was ‘dangerous’ and ‘had no medical benefit.’ This made it hard to access and study in human trials.”
That will likely change soon. On May 16, 2024, the US Department of Justice submitted a proposal to move marijuana from a schedule I to a schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act, emphasizing its accepted medical use. If approved, the door will open to more investigators seeking to study the effects of cannabis.
Yet, even in Canada, where recreational use has been legal since 2018 and cannabis is sold widely with government support, there are little hard data to guide practice. In 2019, Diabetes Canada issued a position statement on recreational cannabis use in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). It sought to evaluate the effects of cannabis on metabolic factors and diabetes complications, as well as self-management behaviors in those aged 13 years or older.
The authors noted that five of the six studies upon which the statement was based did not consider or report the routes of cannabis administration, which have differing risks. In addition, their recommendations were based on grade D evidence and consensus.
What Patients Are Taking
Cannabis — also known as marijuana, weed, pot, or bud — refers to the dried flowers, leaves, stems, and seeds of the cannabis plant. The plant contains more than 100 compounds, including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is responsible for the euphoric “high,” and other active compounds, including cannabidiol (CBD), which by itself is not mind-altering.
Cannabis can be ingested in several ways. It can be smoked (ie, joints, blunts, pipes, and water pipes), ingested in edible form (mixed or infused into foods), and inhaled using electronic vaporizing devices (ie, e-cigarettes or vape pens).
Compounds in cannabis can also be extracted to make oils and concentrates that can be vaped or inhaled. Smoking oils, concentrates, and extracts from the cannabis plant, known as “dabbing,” are on the rise in the United States.
There are no validated or standard dosage recommendations for cannabis strains and formulations, THC/CBD ratios, or modes of administration. Therefore, the Canadian Pharmacists Association prepared a guide for finding a safe and effective dose for medical purposes. GoodRx, a website with information on prescription drug prices, says that larger doses of THC pose greater risks, noting that the potency of cannabis has increased from 4% in 1995 to about 14% in 2019.
Potential Risks and Benefits: Canadian and US Perspectives
Health and safety risks vary with each of the different ways of using cannabis for individuals with and without diabetes, depending on a host of patient- and product-specific factors.
In a recent article proposing a “THC unit” for Canada’s legal cannabis market, researchers reported that consumers lack familiarity with THC levels, don’t know what constitutes a “low” or “high” THC amount, have trouble dosing, overconsume, and commonly experience adverse health events from cannabis use.
A recent study suggested that most clinicians are similarly uninformed, with “a lack of knowledge of beneficial effects, adverse effects, and of how to advise patients,” even for medical cannabis.
Diabetes Canada takes a stab at summarizing what’s known with respect to cannabis and diabetes, stating that:
“Research on recreational cannabis use suggests it may negatively impact diabetes metabolic factors and self-management behaviors. The safety of recreational cannabis use has not been demonstrated, whereas regular cannabis use is associated with worsening glycemic control, more diabetes-related complications, and poorer self-care behaviors, such as adequate glucose monitoring, adherence to medications, and compliance with dietary and physical activity recommendations for people living with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.”
The American Diabetes Association’s information on cannabis consists of a patient-oriented article on CBD oil. The article stated:
“There’s a lot of hype surrounding CBD oil and diabetes. There is no noticeable effect on blood glucose (blood sugar) or insulin levels in people with type 2 diabetes. Researchers continue to study the effects of CBD on diabetes in animal studies.”
It concludes that:
“Although many claims continue to be made about CBD oil, there is little evidence of any benefit. It’s certainly not an alternative to traditional diabetes management. The safety of CBD is also unknown — it may have dangerous side effects that we won’t know about unless further research is done.”
A Roundup of Recent Studies
A smattering of recent studies have touched on various aspects of cannabis consumption and diabetes.
Angela Bryan, PhD, professor and co-director of CUChange at the University of Colorado Boulder, has been evaluating cannabis use in young adults (ages 21-40 years) in the SONIC study. Dr. Bryan reported at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions that cannabis users were more likely to have a lower body mass index and less likely to develop T2D. Furthermore, chronic cannabis users were less likely to have measures of inflammation and no loss of insulin sensitivity.
Another study by Dr. Bryan’s group found that CBD-dominant forms of cannabis were associated with acute tension reduction, which might lead to longer-term reductions in anxiety. Bryan said the findings could be relevant in the context of diabetes distress.
Similarly positive results were found in a 15-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of THC/CBD spray for neuropathic pain among treatment-resistant patients. The investigators reported that “clinically important improvements” were seen in pain, sleep quality, and subjective impressions of pain. Another small study of inhaled cannabis in treatment-refractory patients found a dose-dependent reduction in diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain.
Findings from a 9-year longitudinal study of approximately 18,000 Swedish men and women suggested no association between cannabis and subsequent T2D development after controlling for age, although these authors also called for longer follow-up and more detailed information about cannabis use to make “more robust” conclusions.
On the other side of the spectrum, a “rapid” review of recreational cannabis use in people with T1D and T2D found that recreational cannabis use may negatively impact diabetes metabolic factors and self-management behaviors and may increase risks for peripheral arterial occlusion, myocardial infarction, and renal disease. However, the authors cautioned that more robust research is needed to confirm the potential impact of cannabis on diabetes.
How to Advise Patients
When Dr. Shubrook was working with patients with diabetes in his family medicine practice in Ohio, cannabis wasn’t legal.
“’Don’t ask, don’t tell’ was the way we handled it then,” he said.
By contrast, in California, where he’s currently located, “it’s pretty well accepted and legal, and patients volunteer information about use, even if it’s recreational,” he said. “Realizing this was something we could talk about was really eye-opening to me.”
Talking to patients about cannabis use is a “20-minute conversation that details what they’re doing,” he said. He proceeds by asking questions: Are you using for recreational or medicinal purposes? What do you take? What do you take it for? Does it work?
“People will tell you,” Dr. Shubrook said. “They know exactly what it works or doesn’t work for and how it affects their glucose control, which in most cases is only minimally.”
He tells patients he would prefer they don’t inhale cannabis, given the risks posed to the lungs.
“Edibles may have a slower onset of effect, but depending on what they’re adding it to, glucose might be affected,” he noted. “And I have seen that chronic use can lead to hyperemesis syndrome.”
Overall, he said, “Take the time to talk to your patients about cannabis — it will allow them to be honest with you, and you can improve the specificity and safety of its use. If cannabis is legal in your state, encourage people to go to legal dispensaries, which will reduce the risk of it being laced with another drug that could increase the danger of use.”
A recent US prevalence study found that people with diabetes who use cannabis likely engage in other substance and psychoactive substance use, including tobacco use, binge drinking, and misuse of opioids and stimulants.
“Use of these additional substances could further exacerbate the health risks associated with diabetes and also emphasizes the importance of addressing polysubstance use among adults with diabetes,” the study’s author Benjamin H. Han, MD, Division of Geriatrics, Gerontology and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, US San Diego School of Medicine in La Jolla, California, told this news organization.
“We were surprised at how strong the associations were, especially with use of substances that can increase cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Han added. “And given the strong association we found between cannabis use and use of other psychoactive substances in diabetes, clinicians must screen all their patients for psychoactive substance use.”
Diabetes Canada’s position paper states that despite the limited evidence, “there were sufficient data to begin developing recommendations for type 1 and type 2 diabetes about education, counseling, and management related to recreational cannabis use.”
Their recommendations include the following:
- Healthcare professionals should engage their patients in discussions about substance use on a regular basis, with a nonjudgmental approach.
- The use of recreational cannabis is not recommended for adolescents and adults with diabetes.
- People with T1D should avoid recreational cannabis use because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis.
- For adults with T1D or T2D who intend to use cannabis recreationally, individualized assessment and counseling should be offered to inform them of the general risks of cannabis, with a focus on harm reduction and reduction of the risk for potential adverse effects on diabetes management and complications.
- People with T1D or T2D should be offered education on and encouraged to read public information available through resources from various Canadian health authorities about the general risks of cannabis use to reduce the risk for nondiabetes-related adverse effects of cannabis consumption.
Of note, in 2018, the Canadian government produced an exhaustive compendium of information on cannabis for healthcare professionals that includes information relevant to managing patients with diabetes.
Dr. Shubrook and Dr. Han reported no competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A recent US prevalence study estimated that 9% adults with diabetes used cannabis in the last month, a 33.7% increase between 2021 and 2022. Nearly half (48.9%) of users were younger than 50 years.
Cannabis use is also increasing sharply among those aged 65 years or older, many of whom have diabetes and other chronic conditions. In this demographic, the perceived risk surrounding regular cannabis use has dropped significantly, even as the data tell another story — that they are particularly at risk from emergency department visits for cannabis poisoning.
As legalization continues and cannabis products proliferate, endocrinologists will likely face more patients of all ages seeking advice about its use. Yet with few evidence-based resources to turn to, endocrinologists advising patients in this area are mostly left fending for themselves.
Evidence ‘Limited’
“The evidence on cannabis is limited mainly because of its scheduling in the United States,” Jay Shubrook, DO, a professor and diabetologist at College of Osteopathic Medicine, Touro University California, in Vallejo, California, told this news organization.
“It was declared to be a schedule I drug in the 1970s, which meant it was ‘dangerous’ and ‘had no medical benefit.’ This made it hard to access and study in human trials.”
That will likely change soon. On May 16, 2024, the US Department of Justice submitted a proposal to move marijuana from a schedule I to a schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act, emphasizing its accepted medical use. If approved, the door will open to more investigators seeking to study the effects of cannabis.
Yet, even in Canada, where recreational use has been legal since 2018 and cannabis is sold widely with government support, there are little hard data to guide practice. In 2019, Diabetes Canada issued a position statement on recreational cannabis use in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). It sought to evaluate the effects of cannabis on metabolic factors and diabetes complications, as well as self-management behaviors in those aged 13 years or older.
The authors noted that five of the six studies upon which the statement was based did not consider or report the routes of cannabis administration, which have differing risks. In addition, their recommendations were based on grade D evidence and consensus.
What Patients Are Taking
Cannabis — also known as marijuana, weed, pot, or bud — refers to the dried flowers, leaves, stems, and seeds of the cannabis plant. The plant contains more than 100 compounds, including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is responsible for the euphoric “high,” and other active compounds, including cannabidiol (CBD), which by itself is not mind-altering.
Cannabis can be ingested in several ways. It can be smoked (ie, joints, blunts, pipes, and water pipes), ingested in edible form (mixed or infused into foods), and inhaled using electronic vaporizing devices (ie, e-cigarettes or vape pens).
Compounds in cannabis can also be extracted to make oils and concentrates that can be vaped or inhaled. Smoking oils, concentrates, and extracts from the cannabis plant, known as “dabbing,” are on the rise in the United States.
There are no validated or standard dosage recommendations for cannabis strains and formulations, THC/CBD ratios, or modes of administration. Therefore, the Canadian Pharmacists Association prepared a guide for finding a safe and effective dose for medical purposes. GoodRx, a website with information on prescription drug prices, says that larger doses of THC pose greater risks, noting that the potency of cannabis has increased from 4% in 1995 to about 14% in 2019.
Potential Risks and Benefits: Canadian and US Perspectives
Health and safety risks vary with each of the different ways of using cannabis for individuals with and without diabetes, depending on a host of patient- and product-specific factors.
In a recent article proposing a “THC unit” for Canada’s legal cannabis market, researchers reported that consumers lack familiarity with THC levels, don’t know what constitutes a “low” or “high” THC amount, have trouble dosing, overconsume, and commonly experience adverse health events from cannabis use.
A recent study suggested that most clinicians are similarly uninformed, with “a lack of knowledge of beneficial effects, adverse effects, and of how to advise patients,” even for medical cannabis.
Diabetes Canada takes a stab at summarizing what’s known with respect to cannabis and diabetes, stating that:
“Research on recreational cannabis use suggests it may negatively impact diabetes metabolic factors and self-management behaviors. The safety of recreational cannabis use has not been demonstrated, whereas regular cannabis use is associated with worsening glycemic control, more diabetes-related complications, and poorer self-care behaviors, such as adequate glucose monitoring, adherence to medications, and compliance with dietary and physical activity recommendations for people living with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.”
The American Diabetes Association’s information on cannabis consists of a patient-oriented article on CBD oil. The article stated:
“There’s a lot of hype surrounding CBD oil and diabetes. There is no noticeable effect on blood glucose (blood sugar) or insulin levels in people with type 2 diabetes. Researchers continue to study the effects of CBD on diabetes in animal studies.”
It concludes that:
“Although many claims continue to be made about CBD oil, there is little evidence of any benefit. It’s certainly not an alternative to traditional diabetes management. The safety of CBD is also unknown — it may have dangerous side effects that we won’t know about unless further research is done.”
A Roundup of Recent Studies
A smattering of recent studies have touched on various aspects of cannabis consumption and diabetes.
Angela Bryan, PhD, professor and co-director of CUChange at the University of Colorado Boulder, has been evaluating cannabis use in young adults (ages 21-40 years) in the SONIC study. Dr. Bryan reported at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions that cannabis users were more likely to have a lower body mass index and less likely to develop T2D. Furthermore, chronic cannabis users were less likely to have measures of inflammation and no loss of insulin sensitivity.
Another study by Dr. Bryan’s group found that CBD-dominant forms of cannabis were associated with acute tension reduction, which might lead to longer-term reductions in anxiety. Bryan said the findings could be relevant in the context of diabetes distress.
Similarly positive results were found in a 15-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of THC/CBD spray for neuropathic pain among treatment-resistant patients. The investigators reported that “clinically important improvements” were seen in pain, sleep quality, and subjective impressions of pain. Another small study of inhaled cannabis in treatment-refractory patients found a dose-dependent reduction in diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain.
Findings from a 9-year longitudinal study of approximately 18,000 Swedish men and women suggested no association between cannabis and subsequent T2D development after controlling for age, although these authors also called for longer follow-up and more detailed information about cannabis use to make “more robust” conclusions.
On the other side of the spectrum, a “rapid” review of recreational cannabis use in people with T1D and T2D found that recreational cannabis use may negatively impact diabetes metabolic factors and self-management behaviors and may increase risks for peripheral arterial occlusion, myocardial infarction, and renal disease. However, the authors cautioned that more robust research is needed to confirm the potential impact of cannabis on diabetes.
How to Advise Patients
When Dr. Shubrook was working with patients with diabetes in his family medicine practice in Ohio, cannabis wasn’t legal.
“’Don’t ask, don’t tell’ was the way we handled it then,” he said.
By contrast, in California, where he’s currently located, “it’s pretty well accepted and legal, and patients volunteer information about use, even if it’s recreational,” he said. “Realizing this was something we could talk about was really eye-opening to me.”
Talking to patients about cannabis use is a “20-minute conversation that details what they’re doing,” he said. He proceeds by asking questions: Are you using for recreational or medicinal purposes? What do you take? What do you take it for? Does it work?
“People will tell you,” Dr. Shubrook said. “They know exactly what it works or doesn’t work for and how it affects their glucose control, which in most cases is only minimally.”
He tells patients he would prefer they don’t inhale cannabis, given the risks posed to the lungs.
“Edibles may have a slower onset of effect, but depending on what they’re adding it to, glucose might be affected,” he noted. “And I have seen that chronic use can lead to hyperemesis syndrome.”
Overall, he said, “Take the time to talk to your patients about cannabis — it will allow them to be honest with you, and you can improve the specificity and safety of its use. If cannabis is legal in your state, encourage people to go to legal dispensaries, which will reduce the risk of it being laced with another drug that could increase the danger of use.”
A recent US prevalence study found that people with diabetes who use cannabis likely engage in other substance and psychoactive substance use, including tobacco use, binge drinking, and misuse of opioids and stimulants.
“Use of these additional substances could further exacerbate the health risks associated with diabetes and also emphasizes the importance of addressing polysubstance use among adults with diabetes,” the study’s author Benjamin H. Han, MD, Division of Geriatrics, Gerontology and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, US San Diego School of Medicine in La Jolla, California, told this news organization.
“We were surprised at how strong the associations were, especially with use of substances that can increase cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Han added. “And given the strong association we found between cannabis use and use of other psychoactive substances in diabetes, clinicians must screen all their patients for psychoactive substance use.”
Diabetes Canada’s position paper states that despite the limited evidence, “there were sufficient data to begin developing recommendations for type 1 and type 2 diabetes about education, counseling, and management related to recreational cannabis use.”
Their recommendations include the following:
- Healthcare professionals should engage their patients in discussions about substance use on a regular basis, with a nonjudgmental approach.
- The use of recreational cannabis is not recommended for adolescents and adults with diabetes.
- People with T1D should avoid recreational cannabis use because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis.
- For adults with T1D or T2D who intend to use cannabis recreationally, individualized assessment and counseling should be offered to inform them of the general risks of cannabis, with a focus on harm reduction and reduction of the risk for potential adverse effects on diabetes management and complications.
- People with T1D or T2D should be offered education on and encouraged to read public information available through resources from various Canadian health authorities about the general risks of cannabis use to reduce the risk for nondiabetes-related adverse effects of cannabis consumption.
Of note, in 2018, the Canadian government produced an exhaustive compendium of information on cannabis for healthcare professionals that includes information relevant to managing patients with diabetes.
Dr. Shubrook and Dr. Han reported no competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A recent US prevalence study estimated that 9% adults with diabetes used cannabis in the last month, a 33.7% increase between 2021 and 2022. Nearly half (48.9%) of users were younger than 50 years.
Cannabis use is also increasing sharply among those aged 65 years or older, many of whom have diabetes and other chronic conditions. In this demographic, the perceived risk surrounding regular cannabis use has dropped significantly, even as the data tell another story — that they are particularly at risk from emergency department visits for cannabis poisoning.
As legalization continues and cannabis products proliferate, endocrinologists will likely face more patients of all ages seeking advice about its use. Yet with few evidence-based resources to turn to, endocrinologists advising patients in this area are mostly left fending for themselves.
Evidence ‘Limited’
“The evidence on cannabis is limited mainly because of its scheduling in the United States,” Jay Shubrook, DO, a professor and diabetologist at College of Osteopathic Medicine, Touro University California, in Vallejo, California, told this news organization.
“It was declared to be a schedule I drug in the 1970s, which meant it was ‘dangerous’ and ‘had no medical benefit.’ This made it hard to access and study in human trials.”
That will likely change soon. On May 16, 2024, the US Department of Justice submitted a proposal to move marijuana from a schedule I to a schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act, emphasizing its accepted medical use. If approved, the door will open to more investigators seeking to study the effects of cannabis.
Yet, even in Canada, where recreational use has been legal since 2018 and cannabis is sold widely with government support, there are little hard data to guide practice. In 2019, Diabetes Canada issued a position statement on recreational cannabis use in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). It sought to evaluate the effects of cannabis on metabolic factors and diabetes complications, as well as self-management behaviors in those aged 13 years or older.
The authors noted that five of the six studies upon which the statement was based did not consider or report the routes of cannabis administration, which have differing risks. In addition, their recommendations were based on grade D evidence and consensus.
What Patients Are Taking
Cannabis — also known as marijuana, weed, pot, or bud — refers to the dried flowers, leaves, stems, and seeds of the cannabis plant. The plant contains more than 100 compounds, including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is responsible for the euphoric “high,” and other active compounds, including cannabidiol (CBD), which by itself is not mind-altering.
Cannabis can be ingested in several ways. It can be smoked (ie, joints, blunts, pipes, and water pipes), ingested in edible form (mixed or infused into foods), and inhaled using electronic vaporizing devices (ie, e-cigarettes or vape pens).
Compounds in cannabis can also be extracted to make oils and concentrates that can be vaped or inhaled. Smoking oils, concentrates, and extracts from the cannabis plant, known as “dabbing,” are on the rise in the United States.
There are no validated or standard dosage recommendations for cannabis strains and formulations, THC/CBD ratios, or modes of administration. Therefore, the Canadian Pharmacists Association prepared a guide for finding a safe and effective dose for medical purposes. GoodRx, a website with information on prescription drug prices, says that larger doses of THC pose greater risks, noting that the potency of cannabis has increased from 4% in 1995 to about 14% in 2019.
Potential Risks and Benefits: Canadian and US Perspectives
Health and safety risks vary with each of the different ways of using cannabis for individuals with and without diabetes, depending on a host of patient- and product-specific factors.
In a recent article proposing a “THC unit” for Canada’s legal cannabis market, researchers reported that consumers lack familiarity with THC levels, don’t know what constitutes a “low” or “high” THC amount, have trouble dosing, overconsume, and commonly experience adverse health events from cannabis use.
A recent study suggested that most clinicians are similarly uninformed, with “a lack of knowledge of beneficial effects, adverse effects, and of how to advise patients,” even for medical cannabis.
Diabetes Canada takes a stab at summarizing what’s known with respect to cannabis and diabetes, stating that:
“Research on recreational cannabis use suggests it may negatively impact diabetes metabolic factors and self-management behaviors. The safety of recreational cannabis use has not been demonstrated, whereas regular cannabis use is associated with worsening glycemic control, more diabetes-related complications, and poorer self-care behaviors, such as adequate glucose monitoring, adherence to medications, and compliance with dietary and physical activity recommendations for people living with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.”
The American Diabetes Association’s information on cannabis consists of a patient-oriented article on CBD oil. The article stated:
“There’s a lot of hype surrounding CBD oil and diabetes. There is no noticeable effect on blood glucose (blood sugar) or insulin levels in people with type 2 diabetes. Researchers continue to study the effects of CBD on diabetes in animal studies.”
It concludes that:
“Although many claims continue to be made about CBD oil, there is little evidence of any benefit. It’s certainly not an alternative to traditional diabetes management. The safety of CBD is also unknown — it may have dangerous side effects that we won’t know about unless further research is done.”
A Roundup of Recent Studies
A smattering of recent studies have touched on various aspects of cannabis consumption and diabetes.
Angela Bryan, PhD, professor and co-director of CUChange at the University of Colorado Boulder, has been evaluating cannabis use in young adults (ages 21-40 years) in the SONIC study. Dr. Bryan reported at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions that cannabis users were more likely to have a lower body mass index and less likely to develop T2D. Furthermore, chronic cannabis users were less likely to have measures of inflammation and no loss of insulin sensitivity.
Another study by Dr. Bryan’s group found that CBD-dominant forms of cannabis were associated with acute tension reduction, which might lead to longer-term reductions in anxiety. Bryan said the findings could be relevant in the context of diabetes distress.
Similarly positive results were found in a 15-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of THC/CBD spray for neuropathic pain among treatment-resistant patients. The investigators reported that “clinically important improvements” were seen in pain, sleep quality, and subjective impressions of pain. Another small study of inhaled cannabis in treatment-refractory patients found a dose-dependent reduction in diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain.
Findings from a 9-year longitudinal study of approximately 18,000 Swedish men and women suggested no association between cannabis and subsequent T2D development after controlling for age, although these authors also called for longer follow-up and more detailed information about cannabis use to make “more robust” conclusions.
On the other side of the spectrum, a “rapid” review of recreational cannabis use in people with T1D and T2D found that recreational cannabis use may negatively impact diabetes metabolic factors and self-management behaviors and may increase risks for peripheral arterial occlusion, myocardial infarction, and renal disease. However, the authors cautioned that more robust research is needed to confirm the potential impact of cannabis on diabetes.
How to Advise Patients
When Dr. Shubrook was working with patients with diabetes in his family medicine practice in Ohio, cannabis wasn’t legal.
“’Don’t ask, don’t tell’ was the way we handled it then,” he said.
By contrast, in California, where he’s currently located, “it’s pretty well accepted and legal, and patients volunteer information about use, even if it’s recreational,” he said. “Realizing this was something we could talk about was really eye-opening to me.”
Talking to patients about cannabis use is a “20-minute conversation that details what they’re doing,” he said. He proceeds by asking questions: Are you using for recreational or medicinal purposes? What do you take? What do you take it for? Does it work?
“People will tell you,” Dr. Shubrook said. “They know exactly what it works or doesn’t work for and how it affects their glucose control, which in most cases is only minimally.”
He tells patients he would prefer they don’t inhale cannabis, given the risks posed to the lungs.
“Edibles may have a slower onset of effect, but depending on what they’re adding it to, glucose might be affected,” he noted. “And I have seen that chronic use can lead to hyperemesis syndrome.”
Overall, he said, “Take the time to talk to your patients about cannabis — it will allow them to be honest with you, and you can improve the specificity and safety of its use. If cannabis is legal in your state, encourage people to go to legal dispensaries, which will reduce the risk of it being laced with another drug that could increase the danger of use.”
A recent US prevalence study found that people with diabetes who use cannabis likely engage in other substance and psychoactive substance use, including tobacco use, binge drinking, and misuse of opioids and stimulants.
“Use of these additional substances could further exacerbate the health risks associated with diabetes and also emphasizes the importance of addressing polysubstance use among adults with diabetes,” the study’s author Benjamin H. Han, MD, Division of Geriatrics, Gerontology and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, US San Diego School of Medicine in La Jolla, California, told this news organization.
“We were surprised at how strong the associations were, especially with use of substances that can increase cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Han added. “And given the strong association we found between cannabis use and use of other psychoactive substances in diabetes, clinicians must screen all their patients for psychoactive substance use.”
Diabetes Canada’s position paper states that despite the limited evidence, “there were sufficient data to begin developing recommendations for type 1 and type 2 diabetes about education, counseling, and management related to recreational cannabis use.”
Their recommendations include the following:
- Healthcare professionals should engage their patients in discussions about substance use on a regular basis, with a nonjudgmental approach.
- The use of recreational cannabis is not recommended for adolescents and adults with diabetes.
- People with T1D should avoid recreational cannabis use because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis.
- For adults with T1D or T2D who intend to use cannabis recreationally, individualized assessment and counseling should be offered to inform them of the general risks of cannabis, with a focus on harm reduction and reduction of the risk for potential adverse effects on diabetes management and complications.
- People with T1D or T2D should be offered education on and encouraged to read public information available through resources from various Canadian health authorities about the general risks of cannabis use to reduce the risk for nondiabetes-related adverse effects of cannabis consumption.
Of note, in 2018, the Canadian government produced an exhaustive compendium of information on cannabis for healthcare professionals that includes information relevant to managing patients with diabetes.
Dr. Shubrook and Dr. Han reported no competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AI-Assisted Pathology Poised to Transform Liver Disease Care
Although the technology is not yet approved for routine clinical use, it’s constantly improving and aims to address the limitations inherent in today’s pathology processes.
“You do a biopsy, but instead of having a pathologist read it with their very rough scores of stage 1, 2, or 3, you read it by an AI-driven machine that can quantify it with a score of 1.5 or 1.75 instead of 1 or 2,” Vlad Ratziu, MD, PhD, professor of hepatology at the Sorbonne Université and Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière Medical School in Paris, France, and coeditor of The Journal of Hepatology, said in an interview.
“The technology is automated, more sensitive to change, and more highly quantitative. It has implications for liver disease diagnoses, clinical trials, and treatments,” added Dr. Ratziu, who has written about the promise and challenges inherent in developing treatments for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).
To explore the potential impact of AI-powered technologies for the clinic, this news organization spoke with representatives from three companies identified by Dr. Ratziu as leaders in the field: HistoIndex, PathAI, and PharmaNest. Each company uses proprietary technology augmented by AI, and their tools have been used in published trials.
Moving Toward Better Diagnoses and Disease Management
The traditional approach for staging liver fibrosis relies on trained pathologists manually evaluating stained tissue samples obtained from biopsies of the liver.
But this method, though still considered the gold standard, doesn’t always provide the granularity needed for an accurate diagnosis or a reliable assessment in clinical trials, said Dean Tai, PhD, HistoIndex’s cofounder and chief scientific officer.
Although noninvasive tests (NITs), alone or with traditional histologic examination, are increasingly used during clinical management because they are less invasive and more repeatable for disease monitoring, they are limited in their precision and ability to provide comprehensive information, Dr. Tai said. That’s because “no single NIT or single-dimensional measurement of a biomarker offers a full assessment of disease activity, fibrogenic drive, and fibrosis load.”
In contrast, AI provides “a highly reproducible and objective assessment of liver fibrosis severity,” he said. “It eliminates the variability associated with staining methods, while revealing changes in the nano-architecture and morphology of collagen fibers not discernible by the human eye or current NITs, especially in the early stages of fibrosis or in cases of simultaneous progression and regression.”
Mathieu Petitjean, PhD, founder and CEO of PharmaNest, has a similar view.
Although degree of liver fibrosis is associated with long-term outcomes of patients with MASLD, “poor detection thresholds due to their categorical nature mean that small and relevant changes are not reflected by changes in staging,” he said. “The reliable detection [with AI] of subtle changes in the phenotypes of fibrosis will significantly enrich the understanding of progression and regression of fibrosis severity.”
The ability of AI-based tools to see patterns the human eye cannot also means they could “help in predicting which patient may respond to a drug, in order to get the right treatments to the right patients as soon as possible,” said Katy Wack, PhD, vice president of clinical development at PathAI.
“Additionally, AI-based algorithms have been developed to provide more quantitative continuous scores to better capture change and discover new tissue-based biomarkers, which may be prognostic or predictive of clinical benefit,” she said.
Such tools are currently undergoing testing and validation for use in trials and diagnostically.
The standardization and reproducibility offered by AI-driven technology could facilitate more consistent diagnoses across different healthcare settings, Dr. Tai suggested. “As the integration of the technology with other blood-, imaging-, and omics-based techniques evolves, it may enable earlier detection of liver diseases, more accurate monitoring of disease progression, and better evaluation of treatment responses, ultimately improving patient care and outcomes.”
More Effective Clinical Trials
The limitations of conventional pathology may be responsible, at least in part, for the repeated failure of novel compounds to move from phase 2 to phase 3 clinical trials, and from clinical trials to approval, the sources agreed.
“In clinical trials, patients are subject to enrollment criteria using liver biopsies, which are scored with a composite scoring system involving four different histologic components to grade and stage the disease,” Dr. Wack noted.
However, there is wide variability between pathologists on biopsy scoring, and an individual pathologist presented with the same sample may give it a different score after some time has passed, she said.
That means “we are using a nonstandardized and inconsistent scoring system to determine whether a patient can be enrolled or not into a trial,” Dr. Wack said.
The change in the composite score over a follow-up period, usually 1-2 years, determines whether a patient has responded to the candidate drug and, ultimately, whether that drug could be considered for approval, Dr. Wack said.
Because scores at the baseline and follow-up timepoints are not precise and inconsistent across pathologist readers, and even the same reader over time, there are often many “false-positive” and “false-negative” responses that can result in potential therapeutics either failing or succeeding in clinical trials, she said.
To address this variability in biopsy scoring as it relates to clinical trials, regulatory bodies have recommended a consensus approach, in which multiple pathologists read the same biopsy independently and a median score is used, or pathologists convene to come to an agreement, Dr. Wack said.
“This is a very costly and burdensome approach and is still subject to interconsensus panel variation,” she said.
The introduction of digital pathology using validated digital viewers, where pathologists can view a glass slide digitally and pan and zoom over the image as they can with a microscope, means that many pathologists can read the same slide in parallel, she explained.
“If they need to discuss, they can do so efficiently over a phone call, each using their own computer screen and shared annotation tools to facilitate their discussion.”
Although this consensus approach can improve consistency, it still leads to variability in scoring across different groups of pathologists, Dr. Wack said.
This is where AI-assisted pathology comes into play.
“With this approach, a pathologist still views the image digitally, but an algorithm has predicted and highlighted key features and recommended quantitative scores,” she said.
This approach has been shown to increase precision for pathologists, thereby increasing reproducibility and standardizing scoring across timepoints and clinical trials.
What’s Ahead
These AI tools could address pathology’s lack of scalability, the result of a limited number of trained pathologists capable of doing liver biopsy assessments, Dr. Tai said.
“Digital pathology workflows enable the transformation of conventional histologic glass slides into large digital images using scanners, allowing significant productivity gains in terms of workflow and collaboration,” he said.
Although AI-assisted pathology tools are still being validated, their promise for improving diagnoses and uncovering new treatments is clear, the interviewees agreed.
Extending its use to stage fibrosis in other liver diseases, such as primary biliary cholangitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and alcoholic liver disease, is also in progress on an experimental basis but will take time to validate.
“The landscape will evolve quickly in the coming 3-4 years,” Dr. Petitjean predicted. “To start, their intended use will likely be limited to a decision-support tool to enhance the performance of pathologists and perhaps stratify or triage cases sent for routine vs expert review.”
Dr. Petitjean even suggested that the increasing role of NITs and the amount of data being generated prospectively and retrospectively around liver biomarkers could mean that liver biopsies might not be needed one day.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Although the technology is not yet approved for routine clinical use, it’s constantly improving and aims to address the limitations inherent in today’s pathology processes.
“You do a biopsy, but instead of having a pathologist read it with their very rough scores of stage 1, 2, or 3, you read it by an AI-driven machine that can quantify it with a score of 1.5 or 1.75 instead of 1 or 2,” Vlad Ratziu, MD, PhD, professor of hepatology at the Sorbonne Université and Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière Medical School in Paris, France, and coeditor of The Journal of Hepatology, said in an interview.
“The technology is automated, more sensitive to change, and more highly quantitative. It has implications for liver disease diagnoses, clinical trials, and treatments,” added Dr. Ratziu, who has written about the promise and challenges inherent in developing treatments for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).
To explore the potential impact of AI-powered technologies for the clinic, this news organization spoke with representatives from three companies identified by Dr. Ratziu as leaders in the field: HistoIndex, PathAI, and PharmaNest. Each company uses proprietary technology augmented by AI, and their tools have been used in published trials.
Moving Toward Better Diagnoses and Disease Management
The traditional approach for staging liver fibrosis relies on trained pathologists manually evaluating stained tissue samples obtained from biopsies of the liver.
But this method, though still considered the gold standard, doesn’t always provide the granularity needed for an accurate diagnosis or a reliable assessment in clinical trials, said Dean Tai, PhD, HistoIndex’s cofounder and chief scientific officer.
Although noninvasive tests (NITs), alone or with traditional histologic examination, are increasingly used during clinical management because they are less invasive and more repeatable for disease monitoring, they are limited in their precision and ability to provide comprehensive information, Dr. Tai said. That’s because “no single NIT or single-dimensional measurement of a biomarker offers a full assessment of disease activity, fibrogenic drive, and fibrosis load.”
In contrast, AI provides “a highly reproducible and objective assessment of liver fibrosis severity,” he said. “It eliminates the variability associated with staining methods, while revealing changes in the nano-architecture and morphology of collagen fibers not discernible by the human eye or current NITs, especially in the early stages of fibrosis or in cases of simultaneous progression and regression.”
Mathieu Petitjean, PhD, founder and CEO of PharmaNest, has a similar view.
Although degree of liver fibrosis is associated with long-term outcomes of patients with MASLD, “poor detection thresholds due to their categorical nature mean that small and relevant changes are not reflected by changes in staging,” he said. “The reliable detection [with AI] of subtle changes in the phenotypes of fibrosis will significantly enrich the understanding of progression and regression of fibrosis severity.”
The ability of AI-based tools to see patterns the human eye cannot also means they could “help in predicting which patient may respond to a drug, in order to get the right treatments to the right patients as soon as possible,” said Katy Wack, PhD, vice president of clinical development at PathAI.
“Additionally, AI-based algorithms have been developed to provide more quantitative continuous scores to better capture change and discover new tissue-based biomarkers, which may be prognostic or predictive of clinical benefit,” she said.
Such tools are currently undergoing testing and validation for use in trials and diagnostically.
The standardization and reproducibility offered by AI-driven technology could facilitate more consistent diagnoses across different healthcare settings, Dr. Tai suggested. “As the integration of the technology with other blood-, imaging-, and omics-based techniques evolves, it may enable earlier detection of liver diseases, more accurate monitoring of disease progression, and better evaluation of treatment responses, ultimately improving patient care and outcomes.”
More Effective Clinical Trials
The limitations of conventional pathology may be responsible, at least in part, for the repeated failure of novel compounds to move from phase 2 to phase 3 clinical trials, and from clinical trials to approval, the sources agreed.
“In clinical trials, patients are subject to enrollment criteria using liver biopsies, which are scored with a composite scoring system involving four different histologic components to grade and stage the disease,” Dr. Wack noted.
However, there is wide variability between pathologists on biopsy scoring, and an individual pathologist presented with the same sample may give it a different score after some time has passed, she said.
That means “we are using a nonstandardized and inconsistent scoring system to determine whether a patient can be enrolled or not into a trial,” Dr. Wack said.
The change in the composite score over a follow-up period, usually 1-2 years, determines whether a patient has responded to the candidate drug and, ultimately, whether that drug could be considered for approval, Dr. Wack said.
Because scores at the baseline and follow-up timepoints are not precise and inconsistent across pathologist readers, and even the same reader over time, there are often many “false-positive” and “false-negative” responses that can result in potential therapeutics either failing or succeeding in clinical trials, she said.
To address this variability in biopsy scoring as it relates to clinical trials, regulatory bodies have recommended a consensus approach, in which multiple pathologists read the same biopsy independently and a median score is used, or pathologists convene to come to an agreement, Dr. Wack said.
“This is a very costly and burdensome approach and is still subject to interconsensus panel variation,” she said.
The introduction of digital pathology using validated digital viewers, where pathologists can view a glass slide digitally and pan and zoom over the image as they can with a microscope, means that many pathologists can read the same slide in parallel, she explained.
“If they need to discuss, they can do so efficiently over a phone call, each using their own computer screen and shared annotation tools to facilitate their discussion.”
Although this consensus approach can improve consistency, it still leads to variability in scoring across different groups of pathologists, Dr. Wack said.
This is where AI-assisted pathology comes into play.
“With this approach, a pathologist still views the image digitally, but an algorithm has predicted and highlighted key features and recommended quantitative scores,” she said.
This approach has been shown to increase precision for pathologists, thereby increasing reproducibility and standardizing scoring across timepoints and clinical trials.
What’s Ahead
These AI tools could address pathology’s lack of scalability, the result of a limited number of trained pathologists capable of doing liver biopsy assessments, Dr. Tai said.
“Digital pathology workflows enable the transformation of conventional histologic glass slides into large digital images using scanners, allowing significant productivity gains in terms of workflow and collaboration,” he said.
Although AI-assisted pathology tools are still being validated, their promise for improving diagnoses and uncovering new treatments is clear, the interviewees agreed.
Extending its use to stage fibrosis in other liver diseases, such as primary biliary cholangitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and alcoholic liver disease, is also in progress on an experimental basis but will take time to validate.
“The landscape will evolve quickly in the coming 3-4 years,” Dr. Petitjean predicted. “To start, their intended use will likely be limited to a decision-support tool to enhance the performance of pathologists and perhaps stratify or triage cases sent for routine vs expert review.”
Dr. Petitjean even suggested that the increasing role of NITs and the amount of data being generated prospectively and retrospectively around liver biomarkers could mean that liver biopsies might not be needed one day.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Although the technology is not yet approved for routine clinical use, it’s constantly improving and aims to address the limitations inherent in today’s pathology processes.
“You do a biopsy, but instead of having a pathologist read it with their very rough scores of stage 1, 2, or 3, you read it by an AI-driven machine that can quantify it with a score of 1.5 or 1.75 instead of 1 or 2,” Vlad Ratziu, MD, PhD, professor of hepatology at the Sorbonne Université and Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière Medical School in Paris, France, and coeditor of The Journal of Hepatology, said in an interview.
“The technology is automated, more sensitive to change, and more highly quantitative. It has implications for liver disease diagnoses, clinical trials, and treatments,” added Dr. Ratziu, who has written about the promise and challenges inherent in developing treatments for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).
To explore the potential impact of AI-powered technologies for the clinic, this news organization spoke with representatives from three companies identified by Dr. Ratziu as leaders in the field: HistoIndex, PathAI, and PharmaNest. Each company uses proprietary technology augmented by AI, and their tools have been used in published trials.
Moving Toward Better Diagnoses and Disease Management
The traditional approach for staging liver fibrosis relies on trained pathologists manually evaluating stained tissue samples obtained from biopsies of the liver.
But this method, though still considered the gold standard, doesn’t always provide the granularity needed for an accurate diagnosis or a reliable assessment in clinical trials, said Dean Tai, PhD, HistoIndex’s cofounder and chief scientific officer.
Although noninvasive tests (NITs), alone or with traditional histologic examination, are increasingly used during clinical management because they are less invasive and more repeatable for disease monitoring, they are limited in their precision and ability to provide comprehensive information, Dr. Tai said. That’s because “no single NIT or single-dimensional measurement of a biomarker offers a full assessment of disease activity, fibrogenic drive, and fibrosis load.”
In contrast, AI provides “a highly reproducible and objective assessment of liver fibrosis severity,” he said. “It eliminates the variability associated with staining methods, while revealing changes in the nano-architecture and morphology of collagen fibers not discernible by the human eye or current NITs, especially in the early stages of fibrosis or in cases of simultaneous progression and regression.”
Mathieu Petitjean, PhD, founder and CEO of PharmaNest, has a similar view.
Although degree of liver fibrosis is associated with long-term outcomes of patients with MASLD, “poor detection thresholds due to their categorical nature mean that small and relevant changes are not reflected by changes in staging,” he said. “The reliable detection [with AI] of subtle changes in the phenotypes of fibrosis will significantly enrich the understanding of progression and regression of fibrosis severity.”
The ability of AI-based tools to see patterns the human eye cannot also means they could “help in predicting which patient may respond to a drug, in order to get the right treatments to the right patients as soon as possible,” said Katy Wack, PhD, vice president of clinical development at PathAI.
“Additionally, AI-based algorithms have been developed to provide more quantitative continuous scores to better capture change and discover new tissue-based biomarkers, which may be prognostic or predictive of clinical benefit,” she said.
Such tools are currently undergoing testing and validation for use in trials and diagnostically.
The standardization and reproducibility offered by AI-driven technology could facilitate more consistent diagnoses across different healthcare settings, Dr. Tai suggested. “As the integration of the technology with other blood-, imaging-, and omics-based techniques evolves, it may enable earlier detection of liver diseases, more accurate monitoring of disease progression, and better evaluation of treatment responses, ultimately improving patient care and outcomes.”
More Effective Clinical Trials
The limitations of conventional pathology may be responsible, at least in part, for the repeated failure of novel compounds to move from phase 2 to phase 3 clinical trials, and from clinical trials to approval, the sources agreed.
“In clinical trials, patients are subject to enrollment criteria using liver biopsies, which are scored with a composite scoring system involving four different histologic components to grade and stage the disease,” Dr. Wack noted.
However, there is wide variability between pathologists on biopsy scoring, and an individual pathologist presented with the same sample may give it a different score after some time has passed, she said.
That means “we are using a nonstandardized and inconsistent scoring system to determine whether a patient can be enrolled or not into a trial,” Dr. Wack said.
The change in the composite score over a follow-up period, usually 1-2 years, determines whether a patient has responded to the candidate drug and, ultimately, whether that drug could be considered for approval, Dr. Wack said.
Because scores at the baseline and follow-up timepoints are not precise and inconsistent across pathologist readers, and even the same reader over time, there are often many “false-positive” and “false-negative” responses that can result in potential therapeutics either failing or succeeding in clinical trials, she said.
To address this variability in biopsy scoring as it relates to clinical trials, regulatory bodies have recommended a consensus approach, in which multiple pathologists read the same biopsy independently and a median score is used, or pathologists convene to come to an agreement, Dr. Wack said.
“This is a very costly and burdensome approach and is still subject to interconsensus panel variation,” she said.
The introduction of digital pathology using validated digital viewers, where pathologists can view a glass slide digitally and pan and zoom over the image as they can with a microscope, means that many pathologists can read the same slide in parallel, she explained.
“If they need to discuss, they can do so efficiently over a phone call, each using their own computer screen and shared annotation tools to facilitate their discussion.”
Although this consensus approach can improve consistency, it still leads to variability in scoring across different groups of pathologists, Dr. Wack said.
This is where AI-assisted pathology comes into play.
“With this approach, a pathologist still views the image digitally, but an algorithm has predicted and highlighted key features and recommended quantitative scores,” she said.
This approach has been shown to increase precision for pathologists, thereby increasing reproducibility and standardizing scoring across timepoints and clinical trials.
What’s Ahead
These AI tools could address pathology’s lack of scalability, the result of a limited number of trained pathologists capable of doing liver biopsy assessments, Dr. Tai said.
“Digital pathology workflows enable the transformation of conventional histologic glass slides into large digital images using scanners, allowing significant productivity gains in terms of workflow and collaboration,” he said.
Although AI-assisted pathology tools are still being validated, their promise for improving diagnoses and uncovering new treatments is clear, the interviewees agreed.
Extending its use to stage fibrosis in other liver diseases, such as primary biliary cholangitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and alcoholic liver disease, is also in progress on an experimental basis but will take time to validate.
“The landscape will evolve quickly in the coming 3-4 years,” Dr. Petitjean predicted. “To start, their intended use will likely be limited to a decision-support tool to enhance the performance of pathologists and perhaps stratify or triage cases sent for routine vs expert review.”
Dr. Petitjean even suggested that the increasing role of NITs and the amount of data being generated prospectively and retrospectively around liver biomarkers could mean that liver biopsies might not be needed one day.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.