Clinical Endocrinology News

MADRID — Emerging data points to the urgent need for cardiovascular risk reduction in all adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), including those who are young and those diagnosed in adulthood.

At the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting, two entire oral abstract sessions were devoted to research examining cardiovascular risk specifically in people with T1D. There is increasing evidence that as with type 2 diabetes (T2D), clinical visits need to focus on other cardiovascular risk factors and glucose.

Findings included the evidence of severe coronary artery disease (CAD) in asymptomatic adults with T1D, increased risks for mortality and cardiac events in people diagnosed with T1D in adulthood, and a greater cardiovascular risk for those with overweight/obesity and among those with more cumulative exposure to both hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia.

One speaker, Dr. Rebecka Johanna Bergdal, of the Folkhälsan Research Center and the University of Helsinki, Finland, issued a “call to action,” saying, “We call on healthcare professionals to continue supporting and encouraging individuals with T1D towards better management of diabetes, including both glucose and lipid management.”

Session Moderator Krzysztof Strojek, MD, PhD, head of the Department of Internal Medicine, Diabetology and Cardiometabolic Diseases at the Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told this news organization that all the data point in the same direction for T1D management, to “look not only at A1c and blood glucose control but also lipids, hypertension, smoking status, all these risk factors recognized in type 2 ... are also important in T1D.”
 

The ‘Alarming’ Finding of CAD in Asymptomatic Patients

Michal Dubsky, MD, PhD, of the Diabetes Centre, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic, presented findings from 62 asymptomatic patients with T1D for > 10 years (mean, 36 years), with a mean A1c of 7.5% (58 mmol/mol), and no prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). They had slightly elevated CVD biomarkers, including a mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of 2.33 mmol/L, lipoprotein (a) level of 15 nmol/L, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level of 125.3 ng/L. 

All underwent a noninvasive carotid ultrasound and coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring. Of those, 12 patients had a CAC score > 400 and/or presence of two or more carotid plaques identified as high-risk.

Those 12 patients underwent coronary angiography and had a total of 29 vessels examined by optical coherence tomography (OCT), “an invasive intravascular method for assessing coronary atherosclerosis that is far more sensitive than standard coronary angiography, especially for the detection of high-risk vulnerable plaques without a hemodynamically significant stenosis,” Dr. Dubsky explained.

Coronary angiography showed obstructive CAD in 5 of the 12 patients. Their mean calcium score was 950 and mean number of carotid plaques was 2.8. Features associated with plaque vulnerability included microphage accumulation in 24 vessels, lipid-rich plaques in 23, spotty calcium in 19, and neovascularizations in 13.

Thin-cap fibroatheroma, a strong predictor of plaque rupture, was present in 7 of the 12 patients (58.3%), and four had features of very high-risk plaques, defined as thin-cap fibroatheroma with a minimal lumen area < 3.5 mm², a lipid arch > 180 degrees, and macrophages. 

“Our study showed that asymptomatic T1D patients with high CAC score and carotid plaques had very severe OCT findings. We observed a significant proportion of high-risk lesions potentially associated with plaque rupture and risk of CV death. Therefore, we believe these patients should be treated as very high-risk with target LDL below 1.4 mmol/L (55 mg/dL), even though they are completely asymptomatic,” Dr. Dubsky concluded.

He added that because OCT is invasive and costly, the CAC score can be used to guide the decision for statin use, with any score above 100 considered elevated risk. 

Study coauthor Martin Haluzik, MD, professor of internal medicine in the Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic, told this news organization, “I think it’s very alarming because some of these are basically very healthy-looking young people, so you don’t really expect them to have significant cardiovascular complications already or significant plaques. I think it shows that we should be more proactive in looking into the risk of cardiovascular complications and in looking into the early cardiovascular changes.”
 

Later Diagnosis Doesn’t Always Protect: Risk Seen in Adult-Onset T1D

Yuxia Wei, a PhD student at the Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, presented an analysis of data from Sweden’s national health databases comparing cardiovascular outcomes between 10,184 people diagnosed with T1D at ages 18-29 years, 30-39 years, and ≥ 40 years; another 375,523 people diagnosed with T2D at those ages; and 509,172 population controls matched for age, sex, and county.

Those diagnosed after age 40 years had higher A1c levels and were less likely to be using insulin pumps than those diagnosed at younger adult ages. 

Compared with population controls, at a median of about 7 years of follow-up, people with T1D had significantly higher all-cause mortality at all diagnosis age groups, with a hazard ratio of 1.71. This rose to 2.78 for those diagnosed at age 30-39 years.

Compared with those with T2D, the mortality risks weren’t significantly different at any age, but the risks for non-cardiovascular death, including from cancer and infection, were significantly higher among those diagnosed after age 40 years (1.31 overall). Those diagnosed with T1D at any adult age had lower risks for major cardiovascular events than those diagnosed with T2D. Hazard ratios ranged from 0.27 for those diagnosed at age 18-29 years to 0.78 for those diagnosed after the age of 40 years.

Smoking and A1c above target were the greatest contributors to mortality. Those two factors, along with body mass index (BMI), were the strongest contributors to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

“Adult-onset T1D carries excess risk of death and cardiovascular disease, without obvious attenuation over age at diagnosis…Smoking, A1c, and BMI are the key factors to be managed to improve prognosis in adult-onset T1D,” Ms. Wei concluded.
 

BMI: Often Overlooked in T1D, but a Major CVD Risk Factor

Two studies examined the link between overweight/obesity and cardiovascular risk in T1D. One, by Laurence Salle, MCU PH, of the Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases Department at CHU Limoges, France, was a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of 2367 people with T1D at 68 centers in France who didn’t have a cardiovascular history at baseline.

Of those, 51% had normal BMI (18.5-24.9), 31% had overweight (25-29.9), and 18% had obesity (≥ 30). Cardiovascular risk factors, including LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and hypertension increased with an increasing BMI. The 10-year CVD risk was significantly higher for those with overweight (9.61%) and obesity (9.93%) than for those with normal weight (7.24%), in both men and women. 

However, BMI was found to be an independent predictor of 10-year high cardiovascular risk in men but not women, while waist:height ratio independently predicted risk in both men and women, Dr. Salle reported.

The second BMI study, from Enrique Soto-Pedre, MBBS, of the Division of Population Health and Genomics at the University of Dundee, Scotland, presented data on a retrospective follow-up from 1995 to 2019 of 1973 people with T1D aged > 18 years at diagnosis (42% women; mean age, 34.2 years; 18.9% had obesity.

After 10 years of follow-up, those with overweight and obesity had significantly higher odds of developing arterial hypertension, even among those taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, with statistically significant adjusted hazard ratios of 1.73 and 3.37 for the obese and overweight groups, respectively. 

MACE were significantly more common among those with obesity, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.95, as was acute myocardial infarction, 3.33. 

“These results emphasize the importance of incorporating weight management into the overall management of individuals with T1D. No one has doubts about weight management in T2D, but in type 1, it’s not so clear. One of the main [concerns] would be safety [in terms of hypoglycemia],” Dr. Soto-Pedre concluded. 
 

Call for Action: Cumulative Glucose and Lipid Exposures Increase Risk

Dr. Bergdal presented data on the effects of cumulative glycemia and lipids on the risk for CAD in 3495 adults with T1D who had been diagnosed prior to the age of 40 years. The history of CAD or stroke was exclusion criteria. There were a total of 534 CAD events within a median follow-up of 19.4 years.

Cumulative glycemia, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol exposures were all significantly associated with CAD risk (P < .001 for all). With an adjustment for confounders, the highest tertile of glycemia was associated with a twofold increased risk for CAD. Both hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia were independently associated with CAD risk, Dr. Bergdal reported. 

“It’s important to minimize the time spent above A1c 7%, and lipid management in T1D must not be forgotten,” she said, prior to issuing her call for action.

Dr. Haluzik reported receiving honoraria for talks and/or consultancy and/or research funding from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Ypsomed, and Johnson & Johnson. The presenters had no disclosures.
 

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

MADRID — Emerging data points to the urgent need for cardiovascular risk reduction in all adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), including those who are young and those diagnosed in adulthood.

At the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting, two entire oral abstract sessions were devoted to research examining cardiovascular risk specifically in people with T1D. There is increasing evidence that as with type 2 diabetes (T2D), clinical visits need to focus on other cardiovascular risk factors and glucose.

Findings included the evidence of severe coronary artery disease (CAD) in asymptomatic adults with T1D, increased risks for mortality and cardiac events in people diagnosed with T1D in adulthood, and a greater cardiovascular risk for those with overweight/obesity and among those with more cumulative exposure to both hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia.

One speaker, Dr. Rebecka Johanna Bergdal, of the Folkhälsan Research Center and the University of Helsinki, Finland, issued a “call to action,” saying, “We call on healthcare professionals to continue supporting and encouraging individuals with T1D towards better management of diabetes, including both glucose and lipid management.”

Session Moderator Krzysztof Strojek, MD, PhD, head of the Department of Internal Medicine, Diabetology and Cardiometabolic Diseases at the Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told this news organization that all the data point in the same direction for T1D management, to “look not only at A1c and blood glucose control but also lipids, hypertension, smoking status, all these risk factors recognized in type 2 ... are also important in T1D.”
 

The ‘Alarming’ Finding of CAD in Asymptomatic Patients

Michal Dubsky, MD, PhD, of the Diabetes Centre, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic, presented findings from 62 asymptomatic patients with T1D for > 10 years (mean, 36 years), with a mean A1c of 7.5% (58 mmol/mol), and no prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). They had slightly elevated CVD biomarkers, including a mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of 2.33 mmol/L, lipoprotein (a) level of 15 nmol/L, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level of 125.3 ng/L. 

All underwent a noninvasive carotid ultrasound and coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring. Of those, 12 patients had a CAC score > 400 and/or presence of two or more carotid plaques identified as high-risk.

Those 12 patients underwent coronary angiography and had a total of 29 vessels examined by optical coherence tomography (OCT), “an invasive intravascular method for assessing coronary atherosclerosis that is far more sensitive than standard coronary angiography, especially for the detection of high-risk vulnerable plaques without a hemodynamically significant stenosis,” Dr. Dubsky explained.

Coronary angiography showed obstructive CAD in 5 of the 12 patients. Their mean calcium score was 950 and mean number of carotid plaques was 2.8. Features associated with plaque vulnerability included microphage accumulation in 24 vessels, lipid-rich plaques in 23, spotty calcium in 19, and neovascularizations in 13.

Thin-cap fibroatheroma, a strong predictor of plaque rupture, was present in 7 of the 12 patients (58.3%), and four had features of very high-risk plaques, defined as thin-cap fibroatheroma with a minimal lumen area < 3.5 mm², a lipid arch > 180 degrees, and macrophages. 

“Our study showed that asymptomatic T1D patients with high CAC score and carotid plaques had very severe OCT findings. We observed a significant proportion of high-risk lesions potentially associated with plaque rupture and risk of CV death. Therefore, we believe these patients should be treated as very high-risk with target LDL below 1.4 mmol/L (55 mg/dL), even though they are completely asymptomatic,” Dr. Dubsky concluded.

He added that because OCT is invasive and costly, the CAC score can be used to guide the decision for statin use, with any score above 100 considered elevated risk. 

Study coauthor Martin Haluzik, MD, professor of internal medicine in the Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic, told this news organization, “I think it’s very alarming because some of these are basically very healthy-looking young people, so you don’t really expect them to have significant cardiovascular complications already or significant plaques. I think it shows that we should be more proactive in looking into the risk of cardiovascular complications and in looking into the early cardiovascular changes.”
 

Later Diagnosis Doesn’t Always Protect: Risk Seen in Adult-Onset T1D

Yuxia Wei, a PhD student at the Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, presented an analysis of data from Sweden’s national health databases comparing cardiovascular outcomes between 10,184 people diagnosed with T1D at ages 18-29 years, 30-39 years, and ≥ 40 years; another 375,523 people diagnosed with T2D at those ages; and 509,172 population controls matched for age, sex, and county.

Those diagnosed after age 40 years had higher A1c levels and were less likely to be using insulin pumps than those diagnosed at younger adult ages. 

Compared with population controls, at a median of about 7 years of follow-up, people with T1D had significantly higher all-cause mortality at all diagnosis age groups, with a hazard ratio of 1.71. This rose to 2.78 for those diagnosed at age 30-39 years.

Compared with those with T2D, the mortality risks weren’t significantly different at any age, but the risks for non-cardiovascular death, including from cancer and infection, were significantly higher among those diagnosed after age 40 years (1.31 overall). Those diagnosed with T1D at any adult age had lower risks for major cardiovascular events than those diagnosed with T2D. Hazard ratios ranged from 0.27 for those diagnosed at age 18-29 years to 0.78 for those diagnosed after the age of 40 years.

Smoking and A1c above target were the greatest contributors to mortality. Those two factors, along with body mass index (BMI), were the strongest contributors to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

“Adult-onset T1D carries excess risk of death and cardiovascular disease, without obvious attenuation over age at diagnosis…Smoking, A1c, and BMI are the key factors to be managed to improve prognosis in adult-onset T1D,” Ms. Wei concluded.
 

BMI: Often Overlooked in T1D, but a Major CVD Risk Factor

Two studies examined the link between overweight/obesity and cardiovascular risk in T1D. One, by Laurence Salle, MCU PH, of the Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases Department at CHU Limoges, France, was a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of 2367 people with T1D at 68 centers in France who didn’t have a cardiovascular history at baseline.

Of those, 51% had normal BMI (18.5-24.9), 31% had overweight (25-29.9), and 18% had obesity (≥ 30). Cardiovascular risk factors, including LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and hypertension increased with an increasing BMI. The 10-year CVD risk was significantly higher for those with overweight (9.61%) and obesity (9.93%) than for those with normal weight (7.24%), in both men and women. 

However, BMI was found to be an independent predictor of 10-year high cardiovascular risk in men but not women, while waist:height ratio independently predicted risk in both men and women, Dr. Salle reported.

The second BMI study, from Enrique Soto-Pedre, MBBS, of the Division of Population Health and Genomics at the University of Dundee, Scotland, presented data on a retrospective follow-up from 1995 to 2019 of 1973 people with T1D aged > 18 years at diagnosis (42% women; mean age, 34.2 years; 18.9% had obesity.

After 10 years of follow-up, those with overweight and obesity had significantly higher odds of developing arterial hypertension, even among those taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, with statistically significant adjusted hazard ratios of 1.73 and 3.37 for the obese and overweight groups, respectively. 

MACE were significantly more common among those with obesity, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.95, as was acute myocardial infarction, 3.33. 

“These results emphasize the importance of incorporating weight management into the overall management of individuals with T1D. No one has doubts about weight management in T2D, but in type 1, it’s not so clear. One of the main [concerns] would be safety [in terms of hypoglycemia],” Dr. Soto-Pedre concluded. 
 

Call for Action: Cumulative Glucose and Lipid Exposures Increase Risk

Dr. Bergdal presented data on the effects of cumulative glycemia and lipids on the risk for CAD in 3495 adults with T1D who had been diagnosed prior to the age of 40 years. The history of CAD or stroke was exclusion criteria. There were a total of 534 CAD events within a median follow-up of 19.4 years.

Cumulative glycemia, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol exposures were all significantly associated with CAD risk (P < .001 for all). With an adjustment for confounders, the highest tertile of glycemia was associated with a twofold increased risk for CAD. Both hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia were independently associated with CAD risk, Dr. Bergdal reported. 

“It’s important to minimize the time spent above A1c 7%, and lipid management in T1D must not be forgotten,” she said, prior to issuing her call for action.

Dr. Haluzik reported receiving honoraria for talks and/or consultancy and/or research funding from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Ypsomed, and Johnson & Johnson. The presenters had no disclosures.
 

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

MADRID — Emerging data points to the urgent need for cardiovascular risk reduction in all adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), including those who are young and those diagnosed in adulthood.

At the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting, two entire oral abstract sessions were devoted to research examining cardiovascular risk specifically in people with T1D. There is increasing evidence that as with type 2 diabetes (T2D), clinical visits need to focus on other cardiovascular risk factors and glucose.

Findings included the evidence of severe coronary artery disease (CAD) in asymptomatic adults with T1D, increased risks for mortality and cardiac events in people diagnosed with T1D in adulthood, and a greater cardiovascular risk for those with overweight/obesity and among those with more cumulative exposure to both hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia.

One speaker, Dr. Rebecka Johanna Bergdal, of the Folkhälsan Research Center and the University of Helsinki, Finland, issued a “call to action,” saying, “We call on healthcare professionals to continue supporting and encouraging individuals with T1D towards better management of diabetes, including both glucose and lipid management.”

Session Moderator Krzysztof Strojek, MD, PhD, head of the Department of Internal Medicine, Diabetology and Cardiometabolic Diseases at the Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told this news organization that all the data point in the same direction for T1D management, to “look not only at A1c and blood glucose control but also lipids, hypertension, smoking status, all these risk factors recognized in type 2 ... are also important in T1D.”
 

The ‘Alarming’ Finding of CAD in Asymptomatic Patients

Michal Dubsky, MD, PhD, of the Diabetes Centre, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic, presented findings from 62 asymptomatic patients with T1D for > 10 years (mean, 36 years), with a mean A1c of 7.5% (58 mmol/mol), and no prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). They had slightly elevated CVD biomarkers, including a mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of 2.33 mmol/L, lipoprotein (a) level of 15 nmol/L, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level of 125.3 ng/L. 

All underwent a noninvasive carotid ultrasound and coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring. Of those, 12 patients had a CAC score > 400 and/or presence of two or more carotid plaques identified as high-risk.

Those 12 patients underwent coronary angiography and had a total of 29 vessels examined by optical coherence tomography (OCT), “an invasive intravascular method for assessing coronary atherosclerosis that is far more sensitive than standard coronary angiography, especially for the detection of high-risk vulnerable plaques without a hemodynamically significant stenosis,” Dr. Dubsky explained.

Coronary angiography showed obstructive CAD in 5 of the 12 patients. Their mean calcium score was 950 and mean number of carotid plaques was 2.8. Features associated with plaque vulnerability included microphage accumulation in 24 vessels, lipid-rich plaques in 23, spotty calcium in 19, and neovascularizations in 13.

Thin-cap fibroatheroma, a strong predictor of plaque rupture, was present in 7 of the 12 patients (58.3%), and four had features of very high-risk plaques, defined as thin-cap fibroatheroma with a minimal lumen area < 3.5 mm², a lipid arch > 180 degrees, and macrophages. 

“Our study showed that asymptomatic T1D patients with high CAC score and carotid plaques had very severe OCT findings. We observed a significant proportion of high-risk lesions potentially associated with plaque rupture and risk of CV death. Therefore, we believe these patients should be treated as very high-risk with target LDL below 1.4 mmol/L (55 mg/dL), even though they are completely asymptomatic,” Dr. Dubsky concluded.

He added that because OCT is invasive and costly, the CAC score can be used to guide the decision for statin use, with any score above 100 considered elevated risk. 

Study coauthor Martin Haluzik, MD, professor of internal medicine in the Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic, told this news organization, “I think it’s very alarming because some of these are basically very healthy-looking young people, so you don’t really expect them to have significant cardiovascular complications already or significant plaques. I think it shows that we should be more proactive in looking into the risk of cardiovascular complications and in looking into the early cardiovascular changes.”
 

Later Diagnosis Doesn’t Always Protect: Risk Seen in Adult-Onset T1D

Yuxia Wei, a PhD student at the Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, presented an analysis of data from Sweden’s national health databases comparing cardiovascular outcomes between 10,184 people diagnosed with T1D at ages 18-29 years, 30-39 years, and ≥ 40 years; another 375,523 people diagnosed with T2D at those ages; and 509,172 population controls matched for age, sex, and county.

Those diagnosed after age 40 years had higher A1c levels and were less likely to be using insulin pumps than those diagnosed at younger adult ages. 

Compared with population controls, at a median of about 7 years of follow-up, people with T1D had significantly higher all-cause mortality at all diagnosis age groups, with a hazard ratio of 1.71. This rose to 2.78 for those diagnosed at age 30-39 years.

Compared with those with T2D, the mortality risks weren’t significantly different at any age, but the risks for non-cardiovascular death, including from cancer and infection, were significantly higher among those diagnosed after age 40 years (1.31 overall). Those diagnosed with T1D at any adult age had lower risks for major cardiovascular events than those diagnosed with T2D. Hazard ratios ranged from 0.27 for those diagnosed at age 18-29 years to 0.78 for those diagnosed after the age of 40 years.

Smoking and A1c above target were the greatest contributors to mortality. Those two factors, along with body mass index (BMI), were the strongest contributors to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

“Adult-onset T1D carries excess risk of death and cardiovascular disease, without obvious attenuation over age at diagnosis…Smoking, A1c, and BMI are the key factors to be managed to improve prognosis in adult-onset T1D,” Ms. Wei concluded.
 

BMI: Often Overlooked in T1D, but a Major CVD Risk Factor

Two studies examined the link between overweight/obesity and cardiovascular risk in T1D. One, by Laurence Salle, MCU PH, of the Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases Department at CHU Limoges, France, was a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of 2367 people with T1D at 68 centers in France who didn’t have a cardiovascular history at baseline.

Of those, 51% had normal BMI (18.5-24.9), 31% had overweight (25-29.9), and 18% had obesity (≥ 30). Cardiovascular risk factors, including LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and hypertension increased with an increasing BMI. The 10-year CVD risk was significantly higher for those with overweight (9.61%) and obesity (9.93%) than for those with normal weight (7.24%), in both men and women. 

However, BMI was found to be an independent predictor of 10-year high cardiovascular risk in men but not women, while waist:height ratio independently predicted risk in both men and women, Dr. Salle reported.

The second BMI study, from Enrique Soto-Pedre, MBBS, of the Division of Population Health and Genomics at the University of Dundee, Scotland, presented data on a retrospective follow-up from 1995 to 2019 of 1973 people with T1D aged > 18 years at diagnosis (42% women; mean age, 34.2 years; 18.9% had obesity.

After 10 years of follow-up, those with overweight and obesity had significantly higher odds of developing arterial hypertension, even among those taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, with statistically significant adjusted hazard ratios of 1.73 and 3.37 for the obese and overweight groups, respectively. 

MACE were significantly more common among those with obesity, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.95, as was acute myocardial infarction, 3.33. 

“These results emphasize the importance of incorporating weight management into the overall management of individuals with T1D. No one has doubts about weight management in T2D, but in type 1, it’s not so clear. One of the main [concerns] would be safety [in terms of hypoglycemia],” Dr. Soto-Pedre concluded. 
 

Call for Action: Cumulative Glucose and Lipid Exposures Increase Risk

Dr. Bergdal presented data on the effects of cumulative glycemia and lipids on the risk for CAD in 3495 adults with T1D who had been diagnosed prior to the age of 40 years. The history of CAD or stroke was exclusion criteria. There were a total of 534 CAD events within a median follow-up of 19.4 years.

Cumulative glycemia, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol exposures were all significantly associated with CAD risk (P < .001 for all). With an adjustment for confounders, the highest tertile of glycemia was associated with a twofold increased risk for CAD. Both hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia were independently associated with CAD risk, Dr. Bergdal reported. 

“It’s important to minimize the time spent above A1c 7%, and lipid management in T1D must not be forgotten,” she said, prior to issuing her call for action.

Dr. Haluzik reported receiving honoraria for talks and/or consultancy and/or research funding from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Ypsomed, and Johnson & Johnson. The presenters had no disclosures.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Our dermatology department is composed of 25 doctors spread across 4 offices. It can be difficult to sustain cohesion so we have a few rituals to help hold us together. One is the morning huddle. This is a stand-up meeting lasting 3-5 minutes at 8:42 a.m. (just before the 8:45 a.m. patients). Led by our staff, huddle is a quick review of the priorities, issues, and celebrations across our department. While enthusiastically celebrating a staff member’s promotion one morning, a patient swung open the exam door and shouted, “What’s going on out here?! I’m sitting here waiting!” before slamming the door closed again. “Well, that was unnecessary,” our morning lead interjected as she went to reprimand him.

His behavior was easily recognizable to any doctor with children. It was an emotional outburst we call a tantrum. Although a graphic of tantrums by age would show a steep curve that drops precipitously after 4-years-old (please God, I hope), it persists throughout life. Even adults have tantrums. After? When I broke my pinky toe saving the family from flaming tornadoes a few weeks ago (I ran into the sofa), I flung the ice bag across the room in frustration. “You’ve a right to be mad,” my wife said returning the ice to where I was elevating my foot. She was spot on, it is understandable that I would be angry. It will be weeks before I can run again. And also my toe was broken. Both things were true.

Dr. Benabio

“Two things are true” is a technique for managing tantrums in toddlers. I first learned of it from Dr. Becky Kennedy, a clinical psychologist specializing in family therapy. She has a popular podcast called “Good Inside” based on her book of the same name. Her approach is to use positive psychology with an emphasis on connecting with children to not only shape behavior, but also to help them learn to manage their emotions. I read her book to level up dad skills and realized many of her principles are applicable to various types of relationships. Instead of viewing behaviors as an end, she instead recommends using them as an opportunity to probe for understanding. When someone exhibits poor behavior rather than assume they are being a jerk, try to find the most generous interpretation of what just happened. Assume they are doing the best they can. When my 4-year-old obstinately refused to go to bed despite the usual colored night lights and bedtime rituals, it seemed she was being a typical tantrum-y toddler. The more I insisted — lights-out! the more she resisted. It wasn’t until I asked why that I learned she was worried that the trash truck was going to come overnight. What seemed like just a behavioral problem, time for bed, was actually an opportunity for her to be seen and for us to connect.

I was finishing up with a patient last week when my medical assistant interrupted to advise my next patient was leaving. I walked out to see her storm into the corridor heading for the exit. “I am sorry, you must be quite frustrated having to wait for me.” “Yes, you don’t respect my time,” she said loudly enough for everyone pretending to not notice. I coaxed her back into the room and sat down. After apologizing for her wait and explaining it was because an urgent patient had been added to my schedule, she calmed down and allowed me to continue. At her previous visit, I had biopsied a firm dermal papule on her upper abdomen that turned out to be metastatic breast cancer. She was treated years ago and believed she was in complete remission. Now she was alone, terrified, and wanted her full appointment with me. Because I was running late, she assumed I wouldn’t have the time for her. It was an opportunity for me to connect with her and help her feel safe. I would have missed that opportunity if I had labeled her as just another angry “Karen” brassly asserting herself.

Dr. Kennedy talks a lot in her book about taking the “Most generous interpretation” of whatever behavioral issue arises. Take the time to validate what they are feeling and empathize as best as we can. Acknowledge that it’s normal to be angry and also these are the truths we have to work with. Two truths commonly appear in these emotional episodes. One, the immutable facts, for example, insurance doesn’t cover that drug, and two, your right to be frustrated by that. Above all, remember you, the doctor, are good inside as is your discourteous patient, disaffected staff member or sometimes mendacious teenager. “All good decisions start with feeling secure and nothing feels more secure than being recognized for the good people we are,” says Dr. Kennedy. True I believe even if we sometimes slam the door.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Our dermatology department is composed of 25 doctors spread across 4 offices. It can be difficult to sustain cohesion so we have a few rituals to help hold us together. One is the morning huddle. This is a stand-up meeting lasting 3-5 minutes at 8:42 a.m. (just before the 8:45 a.m. patients). Led by our staff, huddle is a quick review of the priorities, issues, and celebrations across our department. While enthusiastically celebrating a staff member’s promotion one morning, a patient swung open the exam door and shouted, “What’s going on out here?! I’m sitting here waiting!” before slamming the door closed again. “Well, that was unnecessary,” our morning lead interjected as she went to reprimand him.

His behavior was easily recognizable to any doctor with children. It was an emotional outburst we call a tantrum. Although a graphic of tantrums by age would show a steep curve that drops precipitously after 4-years-old (please God, I hope), it persists throughout life. Even adults have tantrums. After? When I broke my pinky toe saving the family from flaming tornadoes a few weeks ago (I ran into the sofa), I flung the ice bag across the room in frustration. “You’ve a right to be mad,” my wife said returning the ice to where I was elevating my foot. She was spot on, it is understandable that I would be angry. It will be weeks before I can run again. And also my toe was broken. Both things were true.

Dr. Benabio

“Two things are true” is a technique for managing tantrums in toddlers. I first learned of it from Dr. Becky Kennedy, a clinical psychologist specializing in family therapy. She has a popular podcast called “Good Inside” based on her book of the same name. Her approach is to use positive psychology with an emphasis on connecting with children to not only shape behavior, but also to help them learn to manage their emotions. I read her book to level up dad skills and realized many of her principles are applicable to various types of relationships. Instead of viewing behaviors as an end, she instead recommends using them as an opportunity to probe for understanding. When someone exhibits poor behavior rather than assume they are being a jerk, try to find the most generous interpretation of what just happened. Assume they are doing the best they can. When my 4-year-old obstinately refused to go to bed despite the usual colored night lights and bedtime rituals, it seemed she was being a typical tantrum-y toddler. The more I insisted — lights-out! the more she resisted. It wasn’t until I asked why that I learned she was worried that the trash truck was going to come overnight. What seemed like just a behavioral problem, time for bed, was actually an opportunity for her to be seen and for us to connect.

I was finishing up with a patient last week when my medical assistant interrupted to advise my next patient was leaving. I walked out to see her storm into the corridor heading for the exit. “I am sorry, you must be quite frustrated having to wait for me.” “Yes, you don’t respect my time,” she said loudly enough for everyone pretending to not notice. I coaxed her back into the room and sat down. After apologizing for her wait and explaining it was because an urgent patient had been added to my schedule, she calmed down and allowed me to continue. At her previous visit, I had biopsied a firm dermal papule on her upper abdomen that turned out to be metastatic breast cancer. She was treated years ago and believed she was in complete remission. Now she was alone, terrified, and wanted her full appointment with me. Because I was running late, she assumed I wouldn’t have the time for her. It was an opportunity for me to connect with her and help her feel safe. I would have missed that opportunity if I had labeled her as just another angry “Karen” brassly asserting herself.

Dr. Kennedy talks a lot in her book about taking the “Most generous interpretation” of whatever behavioral issue arises. Take the time to validate what they are feeling and empathize as best as we can. Acknowledge that it’s normal to be angry and also these are the truths we have to work with. Two truths commonly appear in these emotional episodes. One, the immutable facts, for example, insurance doesn’t cover that drug, and two, your right to be frustrated by that. Above all, remember you, the doctor, are good inside as is your discourteous patient, disaffected staff member or sometimes mendacious teenager. “All good decisions start with feeling secure and nothing feels more secure than being recognized for the good people we are,” says Dr. Kennedy. True I believe even if we sometimes slam the door.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Our dermatology department is composed of 25 doctors spread across 4 offices. It can be difficult to sustain cohesion so we have a few rituals to help hold us together. One is the morning huddle. This is a stand-up meeting lasting 3-5 minutes at 8:42 a.m. (just before the 8:45 a.m. patients). Led by our staff, huddle is a quick review of the priorities, issues, and celebrations across our department. While enthusiastically celebrating a staff member’s promotion one morning, a patient swung open the exam door and shouted, “What’s going on out here?! I’m sitting here waiting!” before slamming the door closed again. “Well, that was unnecessary,” our morning lead interjected as she went to reprimand him.

His behavior was easily recognizable to any doctor with children. It was an emotional outburst we call a tantrum. Although a graphic of tantrums by age would show a steep curve that drops precipitously after 4-years-old (please God, I hope), it persists throughout life. Even adults have tantrums. After? When I broke my pinky toe saving the family from flaming tornadoes a few weeks ago (I ran into the sofa), I flung the ice bag across the room in frustration. “You’ve a right to be mad,” my wife said returning the ice to where I was elevating my foot. She was spot on, it is understandable that I would be angry. It will be weeks before I can run again. And also my toe was broken. Both things were true.

Dr. Benabio

“Two things are true” is a technique for managing tantrums in toddlers. I first learned of it from Dr. Becky Kennedy, a clinical psychologist specializing in family therapy. She has a popular podcast called “Good Inside” based on her book of the same name. Her approach is to use positive psychology with an emphasis on connecting with children to not only shape behavior, but also to help them learn to manage their emotions. I read her book to level up dad skills and realized many of her principles are applicable to various types of relationships. Instead of viewing behaviors as an end, she instead recommends using them as an opportunity to probe for understanding. When someone exhibits poor behavior rather than assume they are being a jerk, try to find the most generous interpretation of what just happened. Assume they are doing the best they can. When my 4-year-old obstinately refused to go to bed despite the usual colored night lights and bedtime rituals, it seemed she was being a typical tantrum-y toddler. The more I insisted — lights-out! the more she resisted. It wasn’t until I asked why that I learned she was worried that the trash truck was going to come overnight. What seemed like just a behavioral problem, time for bed, was actually an opportunity for her to be seen and for us to connect.

I was finishing up with a patient last week when my medical assistant interrupted to advise my next patient was leaving. I walked out to see her storm into the corridor heading for the exit. “I am sorry, you must be quite frustrated having to wait for me.” “Yes, you don’t respect my time,” she said loudly enough for everyone pretending to not notice. I coaxed her back into the room and sat down. After apologizing for her wait and explaining it was because an urgent patient had been added to my schedule, she calmed down and allowed me to continue. At her previous visit, I had biopsied a firm dermal papule on her upper abdomen that turned out to be metastatic breast cancer. She was treated years ago and believed she was in complete remission. Now she was alone, terrified, and wanted her full appointment with me. Because I was running late, she assumed I wouldn’t have the time for her. It was an opportunity for me to connect with her and help her feel safe. I would have missed that opportunity if I had labeled her as just another angry “Karen” brassly asserting herself.

Dr. Kennedy talks a lot in her book about taking the “Most generous interpretation” of whatever behavioral issue arises. Take the time to validate what they are feeling and empathize as best as we can. Acknowledge that it’s normal to be angry and also these are the truths we have to work with. Two truths commonly appear in these emotional episodes. One, the immutable facts, for example, insurance doesn’t cover that drug, and two, your right to be frustrated by that. Above all, remember you, the doctor, are good inside as is your discourteous patient, disaffected staff member or sometimes mendacious teenager. “All good decisions start with feeling secure and nothing feels more secure than being recognized for the good people we are,” says Dr. Kennedy. True I believe even if we sometimes slam the door.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 congress in Madrid, the QWINT-2 study established that once-weekly dosing of insulin efsitora was as effective as once-daily dosing of insulin degludec for reducing A1c in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who had not previously received insulin. Study participants were, however, receiving noninsulin glucose-lowering agents, including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. 

Slightly higher rates of mild to moderate hypoglycemia were noted with efsitora compared with degludec, but no significant differences in severe hypoglycemia were observed. Nor was there any difference in weight gain between groups, and adverse events were balanced between study arms. 

This study positions insulin efsitora alongside once-weekly insulin icodec as a novel long-acting insulin therapy. In the ONWARDS 3 trial, icodec was noninferior to once-daily degludec, in terms of A1c reduction. It also had an adverse effect profile like that of efsitora with respect to hypoglycemia and weight change.

So, what are the implications of a once-weekly insulin for primary care?

“Game-changer” is an overused term, but from the perspective of primary care, it applies to once-weekly insulin.

I initiate basal insulin much less frequently these days, given the multitude of noninsulin options now available to me in primary care, particularly the GLP-1 receptor agonists and the dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonists. The American Diabetes Association/EASD 2022 consensus report also reminds me that GLP-1 receptor agonists should be considered in all individuals with T2D before insulin, unless they are contraindicated. GLP-1 receptor agonists are insulin-sparing agents with a lower injection burden and a lower risk for hypoglycemia. They also promote significant weight loss compared with basal insulin.

But progressive beta-cell decline and insulin deficiency are among the key pathophysiologic abnormalities in T2D. Eventually, many patients with T2D, despite lifestyle interventions and medication adherence, do require insulin. 

Understandably, many of my patients have reservations about commencing insulin. Significant stigma about starting insulin persists, because others often perceive insulin use as a failure to manage T2D. Patients frequently fear injections, and many are worried about how insulin therapy, specifically the risk for hypoglycemia, will affect their daily activities such as driving. 

Clinicians often experience therapeutic inertia, hesitating to escalate therapy to insulin because of a lack of confidence and competence, which often results from inadequate education. Lengthy referral-to-treatment waiting times are common in the United Kingdom, and there is concern about the workload implications associated with insulin initiation.

Workload is a particular concern for my community nursing colleagues, who must visit some of my more frail and functionally dependent patients daily to administer their insulin. 

In addition, the delivery of high-quality diabetes care in nursing homes, particularly for patients requiring insulin, has been a perennial challenge in the UK, again because of a lack of confidence and competence due to an absence of education for nursing and ancillary staff. 

Moreover, it is not appropriate to switch many of these frail patients to noninsulin therapies because of their insulinopenia, as well as the significant weight (and sometimes muscle) loss associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Also, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors are associated with a risk for volume depletion and diabetic ketoacidosis.

I believe that the availability of a once-weekly insulin will help overcome many of the above barriers.

From a patient’s viewpoint, simplification of insulin therapy with once-weekly insulin will substantially reduce the number of injections required (from 365 to 52 over 1 year). This change will improve compliance and concordance even in patients with injection anxiety. These results will hopefully translate into improved glycemic control and a lower risk for the complications of T2D. Real-world evidence for these outcomes is not yet available, however. Also, the reduced amount of insulin consumables that once-weekly dosing requires will also help improve the environmental footprint of insulin therapy.

From a clinician’s viewpoint, once-weekly insulin may seem less daunting and could reduce therapeutic inertia, thus facilitating earlier initiation of insulin therapy and reducing the risk for complications of T2D. Although education remains pivotal, this ease of dosing may be more acceptable to many clinicians because it has less of an effect on workload. This dosing could even save time because it requires less intensive follow-up than daily basal insulin does.

My community nurse colleagues were ecstatic when I mentioned that once-weekly basal insulin was on the horizon. This formulation could reduce the number of weekly home visits from 7 to just 1, thus freeing up considerable healthcare resources. And if once-weekly insulin is coupled with continuous glucose monitoring, then remote review of glucose data can further streamline and optimize the management of T2D in frail older patients. I am sure that my nursing-home colleagues will be equally enthusiastic about simplifying insulin regimens and monitoring.

Finally, an unanswered question is how I manage “sick days” for patients on weekly insulin dosing. Of course, the golden rule of never stopping insulin during intercurrent illness must be followed, but is any dose titration required for once-weekly insulin? I suspect not, but do I need to consider adding a once-daily basal insulin or rapid-acting insulin to mitigate the glucose counterregulatory hormone response during acute illness? Initially, I will be asking specialist diabetes teams for further advice on managing sick days.

In conclusion, once-weekly dosing of insulin is a game-changer for primary care and could finally be the driver to quash therapeutic inertia and address common patient barriers when escalation to insulin is required.

Dr. Fernando, general practitioner partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, Scotland, disclosed ties with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, and Sanofi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 congress in Madrid, the QWINT-2 study established that once-weekly dosing of insulin efsitora was as effective as once-daily dosing of insulin degludec for reducing A1c in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who had not previously received insulin. Study participants were, however, receiving noninsulin glucose-lowering agents, including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. 

Slightly higher rates of mild to moderate hypoglycemia were noted with efsitora compared with degludec, but no significant differences in severe hypoglycemia were observed. Nor was there any difference in weight gain between groups, and adverse events were balanced between study arms. 

This study positions insulin efsitora alongside once-weekly insulin icodec as a novel long-acting insulin therapy. In the ONWARDS 3 trial, icodec was noninferior to once-daily degludec, in terms of A1c reduction. It also had an adverse effect profile like that of efsitora with respect to hypoglycemia and weight change.

So, what are the implications of a once-weekly insulin for primary care?

“Game-changer” is an overused term, but from the perspective of primary care, it applies to once-weekly insulin.

I initiate basal insulin much less frequently these days, given the multitude of noninsulin options now available to me in primary care, particularly the GLP-1 receptor agonists and the dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonists. The American Diabetes Association/EASD 2022 consensus report also reminds me that GLP-1 receptor agonists should be considered in all individuals with T2D before insulin, unless they are contraindicated. GLP-1 receptor agonists are insulin-sparing agents with a lower injection burden and a lower risk for hypoglycemia. They also promote significant weight loss compared with basal insulin.

But progressive beta-cell decline and insulin deficiency are among the key pathophysiologic abnormalities in T2D. Eventually, many patients with T2D, despite lifestyle interventions and medication adherence, do require insulin. 

Understandably, many of my patients have reservations about commencing insulin. Significant stigma about starting insulin persists, because others often perceive insulin use as a failure to manage T2D. Patients frequently fear injections, and many are worried about how insulin therapy, specifically the risk for hypoglycemia, will affect their daily activities such as driving. 

Clinicians often experience therapeutic inertia, hesitating to escalate therapy to insulin because of a lack of confidence and competence, which often results from inadequate education. Lengthy referral-to-treatment waiting times are common in the United Kingdom, and there is concern about the workload implications associated with insulin initiation.

Workload is a particular concern for my community nursing colleagues, who must visit some of my more frail and functionally dependent patients daily to administer their insulin. 

In addition, the delivery of high-quality diabetes care in nursing homes, particularly for patients requiring insulin, has been a perennial challenge in the UK, again because of a lack of confidence and competence due to an absence of education for nursing and ancillary staff. 

Moreover, it is not appropriate to switch many of these frail patients to noninsulin therapies because of their insulinopenia, as well as the significant weight (and sometimes muscle) loss associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Also, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors are associated with a risk for volume depletion and diabetic ketoacidosis.

I believe that the availability of a once-weekly insulin will help overcome many of the above barriers.

From a patient’s viewpoint, simplification of insulin therapy with once-weekly insulin will substantially reduce the number of injections required (from 365 to 52 over 1 year). This change will improve compliance and concordance even in patients with injection anxiety. These results will hopefully translate into improved glycemic control and a lower risk for the complications of T2D. Real-world evidence for these outcomes is not yet available, however. Also, the reduced amount of insulin consumables that once-weekly dosing requires will also help improve the environmental footprint of insulin therapy.

From a clinician’s viewpoint, once-weekly insulin may seem less daunting and could reduce therapeutic inertia, thus facilitating earlier initiation of insulin therapy and reducing the risk for complications of T2D. Although education remains pivotal, this ease of dosing may be more acceptable to many clinicians because it has less of an effect on workload. This dosing could even save time because it requires less intensive follow-up than daily basal insulin does.

My community nurse colleagues were ecstatic when I mentioned that once-weekly basal insulin was on the horizon. This formulation could reduce the number of weekly home visits from 7 to just 1, thus freeing up considerable healthcare resources. And if once-weekly insulin is coupled with continuous glucose monitoring, then remote review of glucose data can further streamline and optimize the management of T2D in frail older patients. I am sure that my nursing-home colleagues will be equally enthusiastic about simplifying insulin regimens and monitoring.

Finally, an unanswered question is how I manage “sick days” for patients on weekly insulin dosing. Of course, the golden rule of never stopping insulin during intercurrent illness must be followed, but is any dose titration required for once-weekly insulin? I suspect not, but do I need to consider adding a once-daily basal insulin or rapid-acting insulin to mitigate the glucose counterregulatory hormone response during acute illness? Initially, I will be asking specialist diabetes teams for further advice on managing sick days.

In conclusion, once-weekly dosing of insulin is a game-changer for primary care and could finally be the driver to quash therapeutic inertia and address common patient barriers when escalation to insulin is required.

Dr. Fernando, general practitioner partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, Scotland, disclosed ties with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, and Sanofi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 congress in Madrid, the QWINT-2 study established that once-weekly dosing of insulin efsitora was as effective as once-daily dosing of insulin degludec for reducing A1c in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who had not previously received insulin. Study participants were, however, receiving noninsulin glucose-lowering agents, including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. 

Slightly higher rates of mild to moderate hypoglycemia were noted with efsitora compared with degludec, but no significant differences in severe hypoglycemia were observed. Nor was there any difference in weight gain between groups, and adverse events were balanced between study arms. 

This study positions insulin efsitora alongside once-weekly insulin icodec as a novel long-acting insulin therapy. In the ONWARDS 3 trial, icodec was noninferior to once-daily degludec, in terms of A1c reduction. It also had an adverse effect profile like that of efsitora with respect to hypoglycemia and weight change.

So, what are the implications of a once-weekly insulin for primary care?

“Game-changer” is an overused term, but from the perspective of primary care, it applies to once-weekly insulin.

I initiate basal insulin much less frequently these days, given the multitude of noninsulin options now available to me in primary care, particularly the GLP-1 receptor agonists and the dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonists. The American Diabetes Association/EASD 2022 consensus report also reminds me that GLP-1 receptor agonists should be considered in all individuals with T2D before insulin, unless they are contraindicated. GLP-1 receptor agonists are insulin-sparing agents with a lower injection burden and a lower risk for hypoglycemia. They also promote significant weight loss compared with basal insulin.

But progressive beta-cell decline and insulin deficiency are among the key pathophysiologic abnormalities in T2D. Eventually, many patients with T2D, despite lifestyle interventions and medication adherence, do require insulin. 

Understandably, many of my patients have reservations about commencing insulin. Significant stigma about starting insulin persists, because others often perceive insulin use as a failure to manage T2D. Patients frequently fear injections, and many are worried about how insulin therapy, specifically the risk for hypoglycemia, will affect their daily activities such as driving. 

Clinicians often experience therapeutic inertia, hesitating to escalate therapy to insulin because of a lack of confidence and competence, which often results from inadequate education. Lengthy referral-to-treatment waiting times are common in the United Kingdom, and there is concern about the workload implications associated with insulin initiation.

Workload is a particular concern for my community nursing colleagues, who must visit some of my more frail and functionally dependent patients daily to administer their insulin. 

In addition, the delivery of high-quality diabetes care in nursing homes, particularly for patients requiring insulin, has been a perennial challenge in the UK, again because of a lack of confidence and competence due to an absence of education for nursing and ancillary staff. 

Moreover, it is not appropriate to switch many of these frail patients to noninsulin therapies because of their insulinopenia, as well as the significant weight (and sometimes muscle) loss associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Also, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors are associated with a risk for volume depletion and diabetic ketoacidosis.

I believe that the availability of a once-weekly insulin will help overcome many of the above barriers.

From a patient’s viewpoint, simplification of insulin therapy with once-weekly insulin will substantially reduce the number of injections required (from 365 to 52 over 1 year). This change will improve compliance and concordance even in patients with injection anxiety. These results will hopefully translate into improved glycemic control and a lower risk for the complications of T2D. Real-world evidence for these outcomes is not yet available, however. Also, the reduced amount of insulin consumables that once-weekly dosing requires will also help improve the environmental footprint of insulin therapy.

From a clinician’s viewpoint, once-weekly insulin may seem less daunting and could reduce therapeutic inertia, thus facilitating earlier initiation of insulin therapy and reducing the risk for complications of T2D. Although education remains pivotal, this ease of dosing may be more acceptable to many clinicians because it has less of an effect on workload. This dosing could even save time because it requires less intensive follow-up than daily basal insulin does.

My community nurse colleagues were ecstatic when I mentioned that once-weekly basal insulin was on the horizon. This formulation could reduce the number of weekly home visits from 7 to just 1, thus freeing up considerable healthcare resources. And if once-weekly insulin is coupled with continuous glucose monitoring, then remote review of glucose data can further streamline and optimize the management of T2D in frail older patients. I am sure that my nursing-home colleagues will be equally enthusiastic about simplifying insulin regimens and monitoring.

Finally, an unanswered question is how I manage “sick days” for patients on weekly insulin dosing. Of course, the golden rule of never stopping insulin during intercurrent illness must be followed, but is any dose titration required for once-weekly insulin? I suspect not, but do I need to consider adding a once-daily basal insulin or rapid-acting insulin to mitigate the glucose counterregulatory hormone response during acute illness? Initially, I will be asking specialist diabetes teams for further advice on managing sick days.

In conclusion, once-weekly dosing of insulin is a game-changer for primary care and could finally be the driver to quash therapeutic inertia and address common patient barriers when escalation to insulin is required.

Dr. Fernando, general practitioner partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, Scotland, disclosed ties with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, and Sanofi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of diabetes in the United States increased by 18.6% from 2012 to 2022, with notably higher rates among racial and ethnic minorities, men, older adults, and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.

METHODOLOGY:

• Over 37 million people in the United States have diabetes, and its prevalence is only expected to increase in the coming years, making identifying high-risk demographic groups particularly crucial.
• To assess recent national trends and disparities in diabetes prevalence among US adults, researchers conducted an observational study using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and included 5,312,827 observations from 2012 to 2022.
• Diabetes was defined on the basis of a previous self-reported diagnosis using standardized questionnaires.
• The sociodemographic factors of age, sex, race, education, physical activity, income, and body mass index were used to establish the risk indicators for diabetes diagnosis.
• Age-standardized diabetes prevalence and the association between risk factors and diabetes were assessed both overall and across various sociodemographic groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall prevalence of diabetes increased by 18.6% (P < .001) from 2012 to 2022, with the highest prevalence observed among non-Hispanic Black individuals (15.8%) and people aged ≥ 65 years (23.86%).
• The likelihood of being diagnosed with diabetes was 1.15 times higher in men than in women, 5.16 times higher in adults aged 45-64 years than in those aged 18-24 years, and 3.64 times higher in those with obesity than in those with normal weight.
• The risk for being diagnosed with diabetes was 1.60 times higher among Hispanic individuals, 1.67 times higher among non-Hispanic Asian individuals, and 2.10 times higher among non-Hispanic Black individuals than among non-Hispanic White individuals.
• Individuals with a college education and higher income level were 24% and 41% less likely, respectively, to be diagnosed with diabetes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Improving access to quality care, implementing diabetes prevention programs focusing on high-risk groups, and addressing social determinants through multilevel interventions may help curb the diabetes epidemic in the United States,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sulakshan Neupane, MS, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The self-reported diagnoses and lack of clinical data may have introduced bias. Diabetes prevalence could not be analyzed in South-East Asian and South Asian populations owing to limitations in the data collection process.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was not supported by any funding, and no potential author disclosures or conflicts were identified.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of diabetes in the United States increased by 18.6% from 2012 to 2022, with notably higher rates among racial and ethnic minorities, men, older adults, and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.

METHODOLOGY:

• Over 37 million people in the United States have diabetes, and its prevalence is only expected to increase in the coming years, making identifying high-risk demographic groups particularly crucial.
• To assess recent national trends and disparities in diabetes prevalence among US adults, researchers conducted an observational study using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and included 5,312,827 observations from 2012 to 2022.
• Diabetes was defined on the basis of a previous self-reported diagnosis using standardized questionnaires.
• The sociodemographic factors of age, sex, race, education, physical activity, income, and body mass index were used to establish the risk indicators for diabetes diagnosis.
• Age-standardized diabetes prevalence and the association between risk factors and diabetes were assessed both overall and across various sociodemographic groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall prevalence of diabetes increased by 18.6% (P < .001) from 2012 to 2022, with the highest prevalence observed among non-Hispanic Black individuals (15.8%) and people aged ≥ 65 years (23.86%).
• The likelihood of being diagnosed with diabetes was 1.15 times higher in men than in women, 5.16 times higher in adults aged 45-64 years than in those aged 18-24 years, and 3.64 times higher in those with obesity than in those with normal weight.
• The risk for being diagnosed with diabetes was 1.60 times higher among Hispanic individuals, 1.67 times higher among non-Hispanic Asian individuals, and 2.10 times higher among non-Hispanic Black individuals than among non-Hispanic White individuals.
• Individuals with a college education and higher income level were 24% and 41% less likely, respectively, to be diagnosed with diabetes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Improving access to quality care, implementing diabetes prevention programs focusing on high-risk groups, and addressing social determinants through multilevel interventions may help curb the diabetes epidemic in the United States,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sulakshan Neupane, MS, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The self-reported diagnoses and lack of clinical data may have introduced bias. Diabetes prevalence could not be analyzed in South-East Asian and South Asian populations owing to limitations in the data collection process.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was not supported by any funding, and no potential author disclosures or conflicts were identified.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of diabetes in the United States increased by 18.6% from 2012 to 2022, with notably higher rates among racial and ethnic minorities, men, older adults, and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.

METHODOLOGY:

• Over 37 million people in the United States have diabetes, and its prevalence is only expected to increase in the coming years, making identifying high-risk demographic groups particularly crucial.
• To assess recent national trends and disparities in diabetes prevalence among US adults, researchers conducted an observational study using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and included 5,312,827 observations from 2012 to 2022.
• Diabetes was defined on the basis of a previous self-reported diagnosis using standardized questionnaires.
• The sociodemographic factors of age, sex, race, education, physical activity, income, and body mass index were used to establish the risk indicators for diabetes diagnosis.
• Age-standardized diabetes prevalence and the association between risk factors and diabetes were assessed both overall and across various sociodemographic groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall prevalence of diabetes increased by 18.6% (P < .001) from 2012 to 2022, with the highest prevalence observed among non-Hispanic Black individuals (15.8%) and people aged ≥ 65 years (23.86%).
• The likelihood of being diagnosed with diabetes was 1.15 times higher in men than in women, 5.16 times higher in adults aged 45-64 years than in those aged 18-24 years, and 3.64 times higher in those with obesity than in those with normal weight.
• The risk for being diagnosed with diabetes was 1.60 times higher among Hispanic individuals, 1.67 times higher among non-Hispanic Asian individuals, and 2.10 times higher among non-Hispanic Black individuals than among non-Hispanic White individuals.
• Individuals with a college education and higher income level were 24% and 41% less likely, respectively, to be diagnosed with diabetes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Improving access to quality care, implementing diabetes prevention programs focusing on high-risk groups, and addressing social determinants through multilevel interventions may help curb the diabetes epidemic in the United States,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sulakshan Neupane, MS, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The self-reported diagnoses and lack of clinical data may have introduced bias. Diabetes prevalence could not be analyzed in South-East Asian and South Asian populations owing to limitations in the data collection process.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was not supported by any funding, and no potential author disclosures or conflicts were identified.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If you’re like most primary care clinicians, your email inbox is flooded with messages from patients with questions about lab results. A common query: Should I be worried about an abnormal value on a test of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)?

For guidance, this news organization spoke with Angela Leung, MD, associate professor of medicine in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism at the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine and an endocrinologist at UCLA and the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and Karen Tsai, MD, assistant clinical professor of endocrinology at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, California. The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Why do you usually start by measuring TSH levels?

Dr. Leung: We need to measure the thyroid status in a way that integrates more information about the long-term thyroid status and not small changes in thyroid hormone levels. TSH is made by the pituitary gland in the brain, which integrates information about the signals of high and low levels from each of the different thyroid hormones.

Now we can measure the actual thyroid hormones — primarily we’re talking about T3 and T4 — but if we do that, we are relying on a single snapshot in the bloodstream at that moment. The levels might change throughout the day in response to ongoing metabolism and outside stresses. So we usually start by measuring the TSH level, which is a good representation of the compilation of all those things over the past 30 days or so.

Question: How do you describe a low TSH result to patients?

Dr. Leung: Whenever we encounter a low TSH level, we want to repeat the test because it is a dynamic test, and it can change in response to several factors. If it is indeed low, we’re thinking that perhaps there’s a little bit of extra thyroid hormone in the body. It can be either temporary or more chronic, but that higher amount of thyroid hormone is telling the pituitary gland in the brain to start making less. So TSH levels go low when we need less thyroid hormone.

Question: What are some of the reasons for a low TSH level?

Dr. Leung: One of the most common situations for a temporarily low TSH level I see is what we call nonthyroidal illness, like a common cold or just being under the weather. Other things that can artifactually lower the TSH level could be the use of steroids, such as prednisone for asthma or some sort of a rheumatologic condition. Also, the TSH level could be low if a person has been recently exposed to very high amounts of iodine, such as iodinated contrast needed for a CT scan.

If the TSH level remains persistently low, usually in the presence of high thyroid hormone (T3 and/or T4) levels, the most common reason for hyperthyroidism is Graves disease, in which there are autoantibodies — measurable in the blood — that can stimulate the thyroid gland in the neck to make extra thyroid hormone.

Question: And what does an elevated TSH level mean?

Dr. Leung: Again, we want to confirm that it is elevated. We need at least two tests to confirm a high TSH level. A persistently elevated TSH level is a signal there might be low thyroid hormone levels in the body, which could be transient or more longer lasting.

Question: What are some of the most common causes of an elevated TSH level?

Dr. Leung: If the TSH level is confirmed high and the thyroid hormone levels are low, the most common cause of hypothyroidism here in the United States is Hashimoto thyroiditis.

Globally, iodine deficiency is the most common reason for hypothyroidism and may be a problem in parts of the globe where there are endemically low iodine levels in soil, crops, and the food supply like not having enough iodized salt. The thyroid is reliant on having enough iodine as a micronutrient to make thyroid hormone. If it doesn’t, the thyroid really can’t make thyroid hormone. It’s important to also remember, though, that having too much iodine can result in hypo- or hyperthyroidism.

Dr. Tsai: I take a glance at their medication list. Some of the patients are on methimazole or levothyroxine, and those medications should be adjusted first to normalize the TSH level. Other medications like lithium and amiodarone can also cause elevated TSH levels. We are also seeing a lot of patients on cancer therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy, that can cause an elevated TSH level.

Question: If the repeat TSH test shows that TSH levels are still elevated, what comes next in your workup?

Dr. Tsai: If there’s not a real clear-cut diagnosis, I’ll order the thyroid peroxidase antibody and the thyroglobulin antibody, although thyroid peroxidase antibody, which is indicative of autoimmune thyroid disease, alone is usually sufficient to make that diagnosis.

Question: Should clinicians follow thyroid antibodies over time?

Dr. Tsai: I usually don’t repeat the antibody tests. In those circumstances where patients who were diagnosed 50-60 years ago and perhaps it is unknown if they had the thyroid antibodies measured at the time and now they’re saying, “Do I actually have Hashimoto’s?” or “Do I really need to continue this for the rest of my life?” I do repeat antibody tests to help gauge if the patient’s levothyroxine can be stopped.

Question: How important is it to follow T4 or T3 levels?

Dr. Tsai: T4 and T3 levels can help differentiate overt thyroid dysfunction — where T3 and/or T4 levels will be abnormal — from subclinical thyroid dysfunction — where T3 and T4 levels would be normal. In general, although we do not fully appreciate the best metric to monitor hypo- or hyperthyroidism, because some patients with a normal TSH level still may have symptoms of thyroid dysfunction, these peripheral thyroid hormone levels are usually the most helpful at the time of initial diagnosis.

Question: What are your criteria for initiating treatment for hypothyroidism?

Dr. Tsai: If the TSH level > 10 mIU/L, I recommend levothyroxine hormone replacement. A lot of published data support clinical benefit in this group.

There is a gray area in those patients who have a TSH level higher than the upper limit of the reference range but less than 10. If the patient doesn’t have overt hypothyroid symptoms, I discuss the findings with the patient but don’t really feel eager to treat. I recommend checking the levels again in 6 months to see where that TSH goes, and if it worsens or becomes greater than 10 mIU/L, I then recommend levothyroxine hormone replacement.

It is also important to note that a TSH level of 5-7 may be an acceptable range for older patients, and they do not require levothyroxine.

The other category is patients whose TSH level is greater than the upper limit of the normal reference range but less than 10 and with overt hypothyroid symptoms such as fatigue, unintentional weight gain, constipation, or cold intolerance. In these patients, it is worthwhile to try a low dose of levothyroxine (25-50 mcg/d) and repeat TSH and free T4 tests in 6-8 weeks and see if the TSH level normalizes.

Dr. Leung: When you look at subclinical hypothyroidism, the situation of an isolated high TSH level in the setting of normal T4 levels, if the TSH level is mildly elevated in the 5-7 mIU/L range, there’s a 60% chance that it will normalize within 6 months.

Going back to Karen’s point, a lot of people are started and maintained on low doses of thyroid hormone forever and ever. A recent study on levothyroxine use found half of the prescriptions were unnecessary.

Question: In an era where many patients obtain much of their health information from TikTok, what’s your approach with patients with a normal TSH level who feel that they should have more testing or start treatment?

Dr. Tsai: Fatigue is one of the common referrals we get into our endocrinology practice, and everyone is convinced that their thyroid is the culprit. It is important to note, however, that fatigue can be due to different diseases such as anemia, depression, sleep disorders, or a recent viral illness.

TSH tests are readily available and cheap. I don’t mind ordering the lab test again if it helps give the patient some reassurance. I also find that patients are relieved once they hear from their endocrinologist that their thyroid is unlikely to be the cause of their fatigue.

Some other endocrine causes we may consider additionally working up include adrenal insufficiency, vitamin D deficiency, and diabetes. A comprehensive metabolic panel and complete blood count is part of my workup to rule out any gross electrolyte abnormalities or any new diagnosis of anemia, liver disease, or chronic kidney disease.

Question: What are your criteria for recommending that someone see an endocrinologist?

Dr. Tsai: Our primary care colleagues can do a workup and interpretation of thyroid function tests in most cases. In the situations where the thyroid function test results are discordant (ie, elevated TSH and elevated free T4 levels or low TSH and low free T4 levels) or difficult to interpret, it would be appropriate to refer the patient to an endocrinologist.

One of the common referrals that we do get from the community is a patient’s thyroid function tests going from hyperthyroid to hypothyroid without a clear explanation or the patient is suboptimally controlled with levothyroxine or methimazole. In those circumstances, it would be worthwhile to send to an endocrinologist try to discern an underlying cause or for optimization of medication.

Dr. Leung and Dr. Tsai had no financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If you’re like most primary care clinicians, your email inbox is flooded with messages from patients with questions about lab results. A common query: Should I be worried about an abnormal value on a test of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)?

For guidance, this news organization spoke with Angela Leung, MD, associate professor of medicine in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism at the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine and an endocrinologist at UCLA and the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and Karen Tsai, MD, assistant clinical professor of endocrinology at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, California. The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Why do you usually start by measuring TSH levels?

Dr. Leung: We need to measure the thyroid status in a way that integrates more information about the long-term thyroid status and not small changes in thyroid hormone levels. TSH is made by the pituitary gland in the brain, which integrates information about the signals of high and low levels from each of the different thyroid hormones.

Now we can measure the actual thyroid hormones — primarily we’re talking about T3 and T4 — but if we do that, we are relying on a single snapshot in the bloodstream at that moment. The levels might change throughout the day in response to ongoing metabolism and outside stresses. So we usually start by measuring the TSH level, which is a good representation of the compilation of all those things over the past 30 days or so.

Question: How do you describe a low TSH result to patients?

Dr. Leung: Whenever we encounter a low TSH level, we want to repeat the test because it is a dynamic test, and it can change in response to several factors. If it is indeed low, we’re thinking that perhaps there’s a little bit of extra thyroid hormone in the body. It can be either temporary or more chronic, but that higher amount of thyroid hormone is telling the pituitary gland in the brain to start making less. So TSH levels go low when we need less thyroid hormone.

Question: What are some of the reasons for a low TSH level?

Dr. Leung: One of the most common situations for a temporarily low TSH level I see is what we call nonthyroidal illness, like a common cold or just being under the weather. Other things that can artifactually lower the TSH level could be the use of steroids, such as prednisone for asthma or some sort of a rheumatologic condition. Also, the TSH level could be low if a person has been recently exposed to very high amounts of iodine, such as iodinated contrast needed for a CT scan.

If the TSH level remains persistently low, usually in the presence of high thyroid hormone (T3 and/or T4) levels, the most common reason for hyperthyroidism is Graves disease, in which there are autoantibodies — measurable in the blood — that can stimulate the thyroid gland in the neck to make extra thyroid hormone.

Question: And what does an elevated TSH level mean?

Dr. Leung: Again, we want to confirm that it is elevated. We need at least two tests to confirm a high TSH level. A persistently elevated TSH level is a signal there might be low thyroid hormone levels in the body, which could be transient or more longer lasting.

Question: What are some of the most common causes of an elevated TSH level?

Dr. Leung: If the TSH level is confirmed high and the thyroid hormone levels are low, the most common cause of hypothyroidism here in the United States is Hashimoto thyroiditis.

Globally, iodine deficiency is the most common reason for hypothyroidism and may be a problem in parts of the globe where there are endemically low iodine levels in soil, crops, and the food supply like not having enough iodized salt. The thyroid is reliant on having enough iodine as a micronutrient to make thyroid hormone. If it doesn’t, the thyroid really can’t make thyroid hormone. It’s important to also remember, though, that having too much iodine can result in hypo- or hyperthyroidism.

Dr. Tsai: I take a glance at their medication list. Some of the patients are on methimazole or levothyroxine, and those medications should be adjusted first to normalize the TSH level. Other medications like lithium and amiodarone can also cause elevated TSH levels. We are also seeing a lot of patients on cancer therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy, that can cause an elevated TSH level.

Question: If the repeat TSH test shows that TSH levels are still elevated, what comes next in your workup?

Dr. Tsai: If there’s not a real clear-cut diagnosis, I’ll order the thyroid peroxidase antibody and the thyroglobulin antibody, although thyroid peroxidase antibody, which is indicative of autoimmune thyroid disease, alone is usually sufficient to make that diagnosis.

Question: Should clinicians follow thyroid antibodies over time?

Dr. Tsai: I usually don’t repeat the antibody tests. In those circumstances where patients who were diagnosed 50-60 years ago and perhaps it is unknown if they had the thyroid antibodies measured at the time and now they’re saying, “Do I actually have Hashimoto’s?” or “Do I really need to continue this for the rest of my life?” I do repeat antibody tests to help gauge if the patient’s levothyroxine can be stopped.

Question: How important is it to follow T4 or T3 levels?

Dr. Tsai: T4 and T3 levels can help differentiate overt thyroid dysfunction — where T3 and/or T4 levels will be abnormal — from subclinical thyroid dysfunction — where T3 and T4 levels would be normal. In general, although we do not fully appreciate the best metric to monitor hypo- or hyperthyroidism, because some patients with a normal TSH level still may have symptoms of thyroid dysfunction, these peripheral thyroid hormone levels are usually the most helpful at the time of initial diagnosis.

Question: What are your criteria for initiating treatment for hypothyroidism?

Dr. Tsai: If the TSH level > 10 mIU/L, I recommend levothyroxine hormone replacement. A lot of published data support clinical benefit in this group.

There is a gray area in those patients who have a TSH level higher than the upper limit of the reference range but less than 10. If the patient doesn’t have overt hypothyroid symptoms, I discuss the findings with the patient but don’t really feel eager to treat. I recommend checking the levels again in 6 months to see where that TSH goes, and if it worsens or becomes greater than 10 mIU/L, I then recommend levothyroxine hormone replacement.

It is also important to note that a TSH level of 5-7 may be an acceptable range for older patients, and they do not require levothyroxine.

The other category is patients whose TSH level is greater than the upper limit of the normal reference range but less than 10 and with overt hypothyroid symptoms such as fatigue, unintentional weight gain, constipation, or cold intolerance. In these patients, it is worthwhile to try a low dose of levothyroxine (25-50 mcg/d) and repeat TSH and free T4 tests in 6-8 weeks and see if the TSH level normalizes.

Dr. Leung: When you look at subclinical hypothyroidism, the situation of an isolated high TSH level in the setting of normal T4 levels, if the TSH level is mildly elevated in the 5-7 mIU/L range, there’s a 60% chance that it will normalize within 6 months.

Going back to Karen’s point, a lot of people are started and maintained on low doses of thyroid hormone forever and ever. A recent study on levothyroxine use found half of the prescriptions were unnecessary.

Question: In an era where many patients obtain much of their health information from TikTok, what’s your approach with patients with a normal TSH level who feel that they should have more testing or start treatment?

Dr. Tsai: Fatigue is one of the common referrals we get into our endocrinology practice, and everyone is convinced that their thyroid is the culprit. It is important to note, however, that fatigue can be due to different diseases such as anemia, depression, sleep disorders, or a recent viral illness.

TSH tests are readily available and cheap. I don’t mind ordering the lab test again if it helps give the patient some reassurance. I also find that patients are relieved once they hear from their endocrinologist that their thyroid is unlikely to be the cause of their fatigue.

Some other endocrine causes we may consider additionally working up include adrenal insufficiency, vitamin D deficiency, and diabetes. A comprehensive metabolic panel and complete blood count is part of my workup to rule out any gross electrolyte abnormalities or any new diagnosis of anemia, liver disease, or chronic kidney disease.

Question: What are your criteria for recommending that someone see an endocrinologist?

Dr. Tsai: Our primary care colleagues can do a workup and interpretation of thyroid function tests in most cases. In the situations where the thyroid function test results are discordant (ie, elevated TSH and elevated free T4 levels or low TSH and low free T4 levels) or difficult to interpret, it would be appropriate to refer the patient to an endocrinologist.

One of the common referrals that we do get from the community is a patient’s thyroid function tests going from hyperthyroid to hypothyroid without a clear explanation or the patient is suboptimally controlled with levothyroxine or methimazole. In those circumstances, it would be worthwhile to send to an endocrinologist try to discern an underlying cause or for optimization of medication.

Dr. Leung and Dr. Tsai had no financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If you’re like most primary care clinicians, your email inbox is flooded with messages from patients with questions about lab results. A common query: Should I be worried about an abnormal value on a test of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)?

For guidance, this news organization spoke with Angela Leung, MD, associate professor of medicine in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism at the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine and an endocrinologist at UCLA and the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and Karen Tsai, MD, assistant clinical professor of endocrinology at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, California. The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Why do you usually start by measuring TSH levels?

Dr. Leung: We need to measure the thyroid status in a way that integrates more information about the long-term thyroid status and not small changes in thyroid hormone levels. TSH is made by the pituitary gland in the brain, which integrates information about the signals of high and low levels from each of the different thyroid hormones.

Now we can measure the actual thyroid hormones — primarily we’re talking about T3 and T4 — but if we do that, we are relying on a single snapshot in the bloodstream at that moment. The levels might change throughout the day in response to ongoing metabolism and outside stresses. So we usually start by measuring the TSH level, which is a good representation of the compilation of all those things over the past 30 days or so.

Question: How do you describe a low TSH result to patients?

Dr. Leung: Whenever we encounter a low TSH level, we want to repeat the test because it is a dynamic test, and it can change in response to several factors. If it is indeed low, we’re thinking that perhaps there’s a little bit of extra thyroid hormone in the body. It can be either temporary or more chronic, but that higher amount of thyroid hormone is telling the pituitary gland in the brain to start making less. So TSH levels go low when we need less thyroid hormone.

Question: What are some of the reasons for a low TSH level?

Dr. Leung: One of the most common situations for a temporarily low TSH level I see is what we call nonthyroidal illness, like a common cold or just being under the weather. Other things that can artifactually lower the TSH level could be the use of steroids, such as prednisone for asthma or some sort of a rheumatologic condition. Also, the TSH level could be low if a person has been recently exposed to very high amounts of iodine, such as iodinated contrast needed for a CT scan.

If the TSH level remains persistently low, usually in the presence of high thyroid hormone (T3 and/or T4) levels, the most common reason for hyperthyroidism is Graves disease, in which there are autoantibodies — measurable in the blood — that can stimulate the thyroid gland in the neck to make extra thyroid hormone.

Question: And what does an elevated TSH level mean?

Dr. Leung: Again, we want to confirm that it is elevated. We need at least two tests to confirm a high TSH level. A persistently elevated TSH level is a signal there might be low thyroid hormone levels in the body, which could be transient or more longer lasting.

Question: What are some of the most common causes of an elevated TSH level?

Dr. Leung: If the TSH level is confirmed high and the thyroid hormone levels are low, the most common cause of hypothyroidism here in the United States is Hashimoto thyroiditis.

Globally, iodine deficiency is the most common reason for hypothyroidism and may be a problem in parts of the globe where there are endemically low iodine levels in soil, crops, and the food supply like not having enough iodized salt. The thyroid is reliant on having enough iodine as a micronutrient to make thyroid hormone. If it doesn’t, the thyroid really can’t make thyroid hormone. It’s important to also remember, though, that having too much iodine can result in hypo- or hyperthyroidism.

Dr. Tsai: I take a glance at their medication list. Some of the patients are on methimazole or levothyroxine, and those medications should be adjusted first to normalize the TSH level. Other medications like lithium and amiodarone can also cause elevated TSH levels. We are also seeing a lot of patients on cancer therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy, that can cause an elevated TSH level.

Question: If the repeat TSH test shows that TSH levels are still elevated, what comes next in your workup?

Dr. Tsai: If there’s not a real clear-cut diagnosis, I’ll order the thyroid peroxidase antibody and the thyroglobulin antibody, although thyroid peroxidase antibody, which is indicative of autoimmune thyroid disease, alone is usually sufficient to make that diagnosis.

Question: Should clinicians follow thyroid antibodies over time?

Dr. Tsai: I usually don’t repeat the antibody tests. In those circumstances where patients who were diagnosed 50-60 years ago and perhaps it is unknown if they had the thyroid antibodies measured at the time and now they’re saying, “Do I actually have Hashimoto’s?” or “Do I really need to continue this for the rest of my life?” I do repeat antibody tests to help gauge if the patient’s levothyroxine can be stopped.

Question: How important is it to follow T4 or T3 levels?

Dr. Tsai: T4 and T3 levels can help differentiate overt thyroid dysfunction — where T3 and/or T4 levels will be abnormal — from subclinical thyroid dysfunction — where T3 and T4 levels would be normal. In general, although we do not fully appreciate the best metric to monitor hypo- or hyperthyroidism, because some patients with a normal TSH level still may have symptoms of thyroid dysfunction, these peripheral thyroid hormone levels are usually the most helpful at the time of initial diagnosis.

Question: What are your criteria for initiating treatment for hypothyroidism?

Dr. Tsai: If the TSH level > 10 mIU/L, I recommend levothyroxine hormone replacement. A lot of published data support clinical benefit in this group.

There is a gray area in those patients who have a TSH level higher than the upper limit of the reference range but less than 10. If the patient doesn’t have overt hypothyroid symptoms, I discuss the findings with the patient but don’t really feel eager to treat. I recommend checking the levels again in 6 months to see where that TSH goes, and if it worsens or becomes greater than 10 mIU/L, I then recommend levothyroxine hormone replacement.

It is also important to note that a TSH level of 5-7 may be an acceptable range for older patients, and they do not require levothyroxine.

The other category is patients whose TSH level is greater than the upper limit of the normal reference range but less than 10 and with overt hypothyroid symptoms such as fatigue, unintentional weight gain, constipation, or cold intolerance. In these patients, it is worthwhile to try a low dose of levothyroxine (25-50 mcg/d) and repeat TSH and free T4 tests in 6-8 weeks and see if the TSH level normalizes.

Dr. Leung: When you look at subclinical hypothyroidism, the situation of an isolated high TSH level in the setting of normal T4 levels, if the TSH level is mildly elevated in the 5-7 mIU/L range, there’s a 60% chance that it will normalize within 6 months.

Going back to Karen’s point, a lot of people are started and maintained on low doses of thyroid hormone forever and ever. A recent study on levothyroxine use found half of the prescriptions were unnecessary.

Question: In an era where many patients obtain much of their health information from TikTok, what’s your approach with patients with a normal TSH level who feel that they should have more testing or start treatment?

Dr. Tsai: Fatigue is one of the common referrals we get into our endocrinology practice, and everyone is convinced that their thyroid is the culprit. It is important to note, however, that fatigue can be due to different diseases such as anemia, depression, sleep disorders, or a recent viral illness.

TSH tests are readily available and cheap. I don’t mind ordering the lab test again if it helps give the patient some reassurance. I also find that patients are relieved once they hear from their endocrinologist that their thyroid is unlikely to be the cause of their fatigue.

Some other endocrine causes we may consider additionally working up include adrenal insufficiency, vitamin D deficiency, and diabetes. A comprehensive metabolic panel and complete blood count is part of my workup to rule out any gross electrolyte abnormalities or any new diagnosis of anemia, liver disease, or chronic kidney disease.

Question: What are your criteria for recommending that someone see an endocrinologist?

Dr. Tsai: Our primary care colleagues can do a workup and interpretation of thyroid function tests in most cases. In the situations where the thyroid function test results are discordant (ie, elevated TSH and elevated free T4 levels or low TSH and low free T4 levels) or difficult to interpret, it would be appropriate to refer the patient to an endocrinologist.

One of the common referrals that we do get from the community is a patient’s thyroid function tests going from hyperthyroid to hypothyroid without a clear explanation or the patient is suboptimally controlled with levothyroxine or methimazole. In those circumstances, it would be worthwhile to send to an endocrinologist try to discern an underlying cause or for optimization of medication.

Dr. Leung and Dr. Tsai had no financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

TOPLINE:

Diabetes and prediabetes are associated with accelerated brain aging with brain age gaps of 2.29 and 0.50 years, respectively. This association is more pronounced in men and those with poor cardiometabolic health but may be mitigated by a healthy lifestyle.

METHODOLOGY:

• Diabetes is a known risk factor for cognitive impairment, dementia, and global brain atrophy but conflicting results have been reported for prediabetes, and it’s unknown whether a healthy lifestyle can counteract the negative impact of prediabetes.
• Researchers examined the cross-sectional and longitudinal relationship between hyperglycemia and brain aging, as well as the potential mitigating effect of a healthy lifestyle in 31,229 dementia-free adults (mean age, 54.8 years; 53% women) from the UK Biobank, including 13,518 participants with prediabetes and 1149 with diabetes.
• The glycemic status of the participants was determined by their medical history, medication use, and A1c levels.
• The brain age gap was calculated as a difference between chronologic age and brain age estimated from MRI data from six modalities vs several hundred brain MRI phenotypes that were modeled from a subset of healthy individuals.
• The role of sex, cardiometabolic risk factors, and a healthy lifestyle and their association with brain age was also explored, with a healthy lifestyle defined as never smoking, no or light or moderate alcohol consumption, and high physical activity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Prediabetes and diabetes were associated with a higher brain age gap than normoglycemia (beta-coefficient, 0.22 and 2.01; 95% CI, 0.10-0.34 and 1.70-2.32, respectively), and diabetes was more pronounced in men vs women and those with a higher vs lower burden of cardiometabolic risk factors.
• The brain ages of those with prediabetes and diabetes were 0.50 years and 2.29 years older on average than their respective chronologic ages.
• In an exploratory longitudinal analysis of the 2414 participants with two brain MRI scans, diabetes was linked to a 0.27-year annual increase in the brain age gap, and higher A1c, but not prediabetes, was associated with a significant increase in brain age gap.
• A healthy lifestyle attenuated the association between diabetes and a higher brain age gap (P = .003), reducing it by 1.68 years, also with a significant interaction between glycemic status and lifestyle.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight diabetes and prediabetes as ideal targets for lifestyle-based interventions to promote brain health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Abigail Dove, Aging Research Center, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The generalizability of the findings was limited due to a healthy volunteer bias in the UK Biobank. A high proportion of missing data prevented the inclusion of diet in the healthy lifestyle construct. Reverse causality may be possible as an older brain may contribute to the development of prediabetes by making it more difficult to manage medical conditions and adhere to a healthy lifestyle. A1c levels were measured only at baseline, preventing the assessment of changes in glycemic control over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported receiving funding from the Swedish Research Council; Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare; Karolinska Institutet Board of Research; Riksbankens Jubileumsfond; Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation; Alzheimerfonden; and Demensfonden. They declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Diabetes and prediabetes are associated with accelerated brain aging with brain age gaps of 2.29 and 0.50 years, respectively. This association is more pronounced in men and those with poor cardiometabolic health but may be mitigated by a healthy lifestyle.

METHODOLOGY:

• Diabetes is a known risk factor for cognitive impairment, dementia, and global brain atrophy but conflicting results have been reported for prediabetes, and it’s unknown whether a healthy lifestyle can counteract the negative impact of prediabetes.
• Researchers examined the cross-sectional and longitudinal relationship between hyperglycemia and brain aging, as well as the potential mitigating effect of a healthy lifestyle in 31,229 dementia-free adults (mean age, 54.8 years; 53% women) from the UK Biobank, including 13,518 participants with prediabetes and 1149 with diabetes.
• The glycemic status of the participants was determined by their medical history, medication use, and A1c levels.
• The brain age gap was calculated as a difference between chronologic age and brain age estimated from MRI data from six modalities vs several hundred brain MRI phenotypes that were modeled from a subset of healthy individuals.
• The role of sex, cardiometabolic risk factors, and a healthy lifestyle and their association with brain age was also explored, with a healthy lifestyle defined as never smoking, no or light or moderate alcohol consumption, and high physical activity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Prediabetes and diabetes were associated with a higher brain age gap than normoglycemia (beta-coefficient, 0.22 and 2.01; 95% CI, 0.10-0.34 and 1.70-2.32, respectively), and diabetes was more pronounced in men vs women and those with a higher vs lower burden of cardiometabolic risk factors.
• The brain ages of those with prediabetes and diabetes were 0.50 years and 2.29 years older on average than their respective chronologic ages.
• In an exploratory longitudinal analysis of the 2414 participants with two brain MRI scans, diabetes was linked to a 0.27-year annual increase in the brain age gap, and higher A1c, but not prediabetes, was associated with a significant increase in brain age gap.
• A healthy lifestyle attenuated the association between diabetes and a higher brain age gap (P = .003), reducing it by 1.68 years, also with a significant interaction between glycemic status and lifestyle.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight diabetes and prediabetes as ideal targets for lifestyle-based interventions to promote brain health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Abigail Dove, Aging Research Center, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The generalizability of the findings was limited due to a healthy volunteer bias in the UK Biobank. A high proportion of missing data prevented the inclusion of diet in the healthy lifestyle construct. Reverse causality may be possible as an older brain may contribute to the development of prediabetes by making it more difficult to manage medical conditions and adhere to a healthy lifestyle. A1c levels were measured only at baseline, preventing the assessment of changes in glycemic control over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported receiving funding from the Swedish Research Council; Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare; Karolinska Institutet Board of Research; Riksbankens Jubileumsfond; Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation; Alzheimerfonden; and Demensfonden. They declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Diabetes and prediabetes are associated with accelerated brain aging with brain age gaps of 2.29 and 0.50 years, respectively. This association is more pronounced in men and those with poor cardiometabolic health but may be mitigated by a healthy lifestyle.

METHODOLOGY:

• Diabetes is a known risk factor for cognitive impairment, dementia, and global brain atrophy but conflicting results have been reported for prediabetes, and it’s unknown whether a healthy lifestyle can counteract the negative impact of prediabetes.
• Researchers examined the cross-sectional and longitudinal relationship between hyperglycemia and brain aging, as well as the potential mitigating effect of a healthy lifestyle in 31,229 dementia-free adults (mean age, 54.8 years; 53% women) from the UK Biobank, including 13,518 participants with prediabetes and 1149 with diabetes.
• The glycemic status of the participants was determined by their medical history, medication use, and A1c levels.
• The brain age gap was calculated as a difference between chronologic age and brain age estimated from MRI data from six modalities vs several hundred brain MRI phenotypes that were modeled from a subset of healthy individuals.
• The role of sex, cardiometabolic risk factors, and a healthy lifestyle and their association with brain age was also explored, with a healthy lifestyle defined as never smoking, no or light or moderate alcohol consumption, and high physical activity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Prediabetes and diabetes were associated with a higher brain age gap than normoglycemia (beta-coefficient, 0.22 and 2.01; 95% CI, 0.10-0.34 and 1.70-2.32, respectively), and diabetes was more pronounced in men vs women and those with a higher vs lower burden of cardiometabolic risk factors.
• The brain ages of those with prediabetes and diabetes were 0.50 years and 2.29 years older on average than their respective chronologic ages.
• In an exploratory longitudinal analysis of the 2414 participants with two brain MRI scans, diabetes was linked to a 0.27-year annual increase in the brain age gap, and higher A1c, but not prediabetes, was associated with a significant increase in brain age gap.
• A healthy lifestyle attenuated the association between diabetes and a higher brain age gap (P = .003), reducing it by 1.68 years, also with a significant interaction between glycemic status and lifestyle.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight diabetes and prediabetes as ideal targets for lifestyle-based interventions to promote brain health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Abigail Dove, Aging Research Center, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The generalizability of the findings was limited due to a healthy volunteer bias in the UK Biobank. A high proportion of missing data prevented the inclusion of diet in the healthy lifestyle construct. Reverse causality may be possible as an older brain may contribute to the development of prediabetes by making it more difficult to manage medical conditions and adhere to a healthy lifestyle. A1c levels were measured only at baseline, preventing the assessment of changes in glycemic control over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported receiving funding from the Swedish Research Council; Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare; Karolinska Institutet Board of Research; Riksbankens Jubileumsfond; Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation; Alzheimerfonden; and Demensfonden. They declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher body mass index (BMI) in both partners is linked to lower fecundability and increased subfertility. Overweight and obesity in women are associated with higher odds of miscarriage.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based prospective cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, from August 9, 2017, to July 1, 2021.
• A total of 3604 women and their partners were included, with follow-up until birth.
• BMI was measured in preconception or early pregnancy, and outcomes included fecundability, subfertility, and miscarriage.
• Fecundability was defined as the probability of conceiving within 1 month and subfertility as time to pregnancy or duration of actively pursuing pregnancy of more than 12 months or use of assisted reproductive technology.
• Miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss before 22 weeks of gestation.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher BMI in women and men was associated with lower fecundability: For every unit increase in BMI, fecundability decreased (women, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; men, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00).
• Women with overweight (0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and obesity (0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) had lower fecundability than women with normal weight.
• Overweight (1.35; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63) and obesity (1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.13) in women were associated with increased odds of subfertility.
• Obesity in men was associated with increased odds of subfertility (1.69; 95% CI, 1.24-2.31).

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed in this cohort study that BMI outside of the normal category in women and men was associated with lower fecundability, subfertility, and increased odds of miscarriage. Optimizing BMI from the preconception period onward in women and men might be an important strategy to improve fertility and pregnancy outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aline J. Boxem, MD, and Vincent W. V. Jaddoe, MD, PhD, The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability may be affected by differences between included and excluded participants, who were younger and had a higher BMI. The accuracy of time-to-pregnancy duration may have been impacted by retrospectively answered questionnaires. Residual confounding might still be an issue due to the observational nature of the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Boxem and Dr. Jaddoe disclosed receiving grants from the Erasmus University Medical Centre, the Erasmus University Rotterdam, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher body mass index (BMI) in both partners is linked to lower fecundability and increased subfertility. Overweight and obesity in women are associated with higher odds of miscarriage.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based prospective cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, from August 9, 2017, to July 1, 2021.
• A total of 3604 women and their partners were included, with follow-up until birth.
• BMI was measured in preconception or early pregnancy, and outcomes included fecundability, subfertility, and miscarriage.
• Fecundability was defined as the probability of conceiving within 1 month and subfertility as time to pregnancy or duration of actively pursuing pregnancy of more than 12 months or use of assisted reproductive technology.
• Miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss before 22 weeks of gestation.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher BMI in women and men was associated with lower fecundability: For every unit increase in BMI, fecundability decreased (women, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; men, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00).
• Women with overweight (0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and obesity (0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) had lower fecundability than women with normal weight.
• Overweight (1.35; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63) and obesity (1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.13) in women were associated with increased odds of subfertility.
• Obesity in men was associated with increased odds of subfertility (1.69; 95% CI, 1.24-2.31).

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed in this cohort study that BMI outside of the normal category in women and men was associated with lower fecundability, subfertility, and increased odds of miscarriage. Optimizing BMI from the preconception period onward in women and men might be an important strategy to improve fertility and pregnancy outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aline J. Boxem, MD, and Vincent W. V. Jaddoe, MD, PhD, The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability may be affected by differences between included and excluded participants, who were younger and had a higher BMI. The accuracy of time-to-pregnancy duration may have been impacted by retrospectively answered questionnaires. Residual confounding might still be an issue due to the observational nature of the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Boxem and Dr. Jaddoe disclosed receiving grants from the Erasmus University Medical Centre, the Erasmus University Rotterdam, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher body mass index (BMI) in both partners is linked to lower fecundability and increased subfertility. Overweight and obesity in women are associated with higher odds of miscarriage.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based prospective cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, from August 9, 2017, to July 1, 2021.
• A total of 3604 women and their partners were included, with follow-up until birth.
• BMI was measured in preconception or early pregnancy, and outcomes included fecundability, subfertility, and miscarriage.
• Fecundability was defined as the probability of conceiving within 1 month and subfertility as time to pregnancy or duration of actively pursuing pregnancy of more than 12 months or use of assisted reproductive technology.
• Miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss before 22 weeks of gestation.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher BMI in women and men was associated with lower fecundability: For every unit increase in BMI, fecundability decreased (women, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; men, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00).
• Women with overweight (0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and obesity (0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) had lower fecundability than women with normal weight.
• Overweight (1.35; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63) and obesity (1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.13) in women were associated with increased odds of subfertility.
• Obesity in men was associated with increased odds of subfertility (1.69; 95% CI, 1.24-2.31).

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed in this cohort study that BMI outside of the normal category in women and men was associated with lower fecundability, subfertility, and increased odds of miscarriage. Optimizing BMI from the preconception period onward in women and men might be an important strategy to improve fertility and pregnancy outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aline J. Boxem, MD, and Vincent W. V. Jaddoe, MD, PhD, The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability may be affected by differences between included and excluded participants, who were younger and had a higher BMI. The accuracy of time-to-pregnancy duration may have been impacted by retrospectively answered questionnaires. Residual confounding might still be an issue due to the observational nature of the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Boxem and Dr. Jaddoe disclosed receiving grants from the Erasmus University Medical Centre, the Erasmus University Rotterdam, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.