Clinical Endocrinology News

With huge shifts over the past decade in the way doctors are employed — half of all doctors now work for a health system or large medical group — the idea of unionizing is not only being explored but gaining traction within the profession. In fact, 8% of the physician workforce (or 70,000 physicians) belong to a union, according to statistics gathered in 2022.

Exact numbers are hard to come by, and, interestingly, although the American Medical Association (AMA) “ supports the right of physicians to engage in collective bargaining,” the organization doesn’t track union membership among physicians, according to an AMA spokesperson. 
 

Forming a Union

One challenge is that forming a union is not only time-consuming but also difficult, owing to several barriers. For starters, the laws dictating unionization differ by state, and the rules governing unionization vary if a hospital is public or private. If there’s enough momentum from doctors leading unionization efforts, approval from hospital leaders is required before an official election can be requested from the National Labor Relations Board.

That said, for doctors who are in a union — the two most popular are the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the Doctors Council branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—the benefits are immense, especially because union members can focus on what matters, such as providing the best patient care possible.

For a profession that historically has not been unionized, this year alone, nine medical residency programs at hospitals such as Stanford Health, Montefiore Medical Center, and the University of Pennsylvania, formed unions, reported WBUR in Boston.
 

Belonging Matters 

“When you build a relationship with your patients, it’s special, and that connection isn’t replaceable,” said Nicholas VenOsdel, MD, a pediatrician at Allina Health Primary Care in Hastings, Minnesota, and a union member of the Doctors Council. “However, a lot of us have felt like that hasn’t been respected as the climate of healthcare has changed so fast.”

In fact, autonomy over how much time doctors spend with patients is driving a lot of interest in unionization.

“We don’t necessarily have that autonomy now,” said Amber Higgins, MD, an emergency physician and an obstetrician at ChristianaCare, a hospital network in Newark, Delaware, and a member of the Doctors Council. “There are so many other demands, whether it’s billing, patient documentation, or other demands from the employer, and all of that takes time away from patient care.”

Another primary driver of physician unionization is the physician burnout epidemic. Physicians collectively complain that they spend more time on electronic health record documentation and bureaucratic administration. Yet if unions can improve these working conditions, the benefit to physicians and their patients would be a welcome change.

Union members are bullish and believe that having a cohesive voice will make a difference.

“We need to use our collective voices to get back to focusing on patient care instead of staring at a computer screen for 80% of the day,” Dr. Higgins told this news organization. “So much of medicine involves getting to the correct diagnosis, listening to patients, observing them, and building a relationship with them. We need time to build that.”

With corporate consolidation and a profit-driven mandate by healthcare systems, doctors are increasingly frustrated and feel that their voices haven’t been heard enough when it comes to issues like workplace safety, working hours, and benefits, said Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, a family practice physician and president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in Sacramento, California. 

However, he adds that urging doctors to join together to fight for a better working environment hasn’t been easy.

“Doctors are individualists, and they don’t know how to work in packs like hospital administrators do,” said Dr. Bussey. “They’re hard to organize, but I want them to understand that unless they join hands, sign petitions, and speak as one voice, they’re going to lose out on an amazing opportunity.”
 

Overcoming Misperceptions About Unions

One barrier to doctors getting involved is the sentiment that unions might do the opposite of what’s intended — that is, they might further reduce a doctor’s autonomy and work flexibility. Or there may be a perception that the drive to join a union is predicated on making more money. 

Though he’s now in a union, Dr. VenOsdel, who has been in a hospital-based practice for 7 years, admits that he initially felt very differently about unions than he does today.

“Even though I have family members in healthcare unions, I had a neutral to even slightly negative view of unions,” said Dr. VenOsdel. “It took me working directly with the Minnesota Nurses Association and the Doctors Council to learn the other side of the story.”

Armed with more information, he began lobbying for stricter rules about how his state’s large healthcare systems were closing hospitals and ending much-needed community services.

“I remember standing at the Capitol in Minnesota and telling one of the members that I once felt negatively about unions,” he added. “I realized then that I only knew what employers were telling me via such things as emails about strikes — that information was all being shared from the employers’ perspective.”

The other misperception is that unions only exist to argue against management, including against colleagues who are also part of the management structure, said Dr. Higgins.

“Some doctors perceive being in a union as ‘how can those same leaders also be in a union,’” she said. She feels that they currently don’t have leadership representing them that can help with such things as restructuring their support teams or getting them help with certain tasks. “That’s another way unions can help.” 
 

Social Justice Plays a Role

For Dr. VenOsdel, being part of a union has helped him return to what he calls the “art” of medicine.

“Philosophically, the union gave me an option for change in what felt like a hopeless situation,” he said. “It wasn’t just that I was tossing the keys to someone else and saying, ‘I can’t fix this.’ Instead, we’re taking the reins back and fixing things ourselves.”

Bussey argues that as the uneven balance between administrators and providers in many healthcare organizations grows, the time to consider forming a union is now.

“We’re in a $4 trillion medical industrial revolution,” he said. “Administrators and bureaucrats are multiplying 30-fold times vs providers, and most of that $4 trillion supports things that don’t contribute to the doctor-patient relationship.”

Furthermore, union proponents say that where a one-on-one relationship between doctor and patient once existed, that has now been “triangulated” to include administrators.

“We’ve lost power in every way,” Dr. Bussey said. “We have the degrees, the liability, and the knowledge — we should have more power to make our workplaces safer and better.”

Ultimately, for some unionized doctors, the very holding of a union card is rooted in supporting social justice issues.

“When doctors realize how powerful a tool a union can be for social justice and change, this will alter perceptions of unions within our profession,” Dr. VenOsdel said. “Our union helps give us a voice to stand up for other staff who aren’t unionized and, most importantly, to stand up for the patients who need us.”
 

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

With huge shifts over the past decade in the way doctors are employed — half of all doctors now work for a health system or large medical group — the idea of unionizing is not only being explored but gaining traction within the profession. In fact, 8% of the physician workforce (or 70,000 physicians) belong to a union, according to statistics gathered in 2022.

Exact numbers are hard to come by, and, interestingly, although the American Medical Association (AMA) “ supports the right of physicians to engage in collective bargaining,” the organization doesn’t track union membership among physicians, according to an AMA spokesperson. 
 

Forming a Union

One challenge is that forming a union is not only time-consuming but also difficult, owing to several barriers. For starters, the laws dictating unionization differ by state, and the rules governing unionization vary if a hospital is public or private. If there’s enough momentum from doctors leading unionization efforts, approval from hospital leaders is required before an official election can be requested from the National Labor Relations Board.

That said, for doctors who are in a union — the two most popular are the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the Doctors Council branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—the benefits are immense, especially because union members can focus on what matters, such as providing the best patient care possible.

For a profession that historically has not been unionized, this year alone, nine medical residency programs at hospitals such as Stanford Health, Montefiore Medical Center, and the University of Pennsylvania, formed unions, reported WBUR in Boston.
 

Belonging Matters 

“When you build a relationship with your patients, it’s special, and that connection isn’t replaceable,” said Nicholas VenOsdel, MD, a pediatrician at Allina Health Primary Care in Hastings, Minnesota, and a union member of the Doctors Council. “However, a lot of us have felt like that hasn’t been respected as the climate of healthcare has changed so fast.”

In fact, autonomy over how much time doctors spend with patients is driving a lot of interest in unionization.

“We don’t necessarily have that autonomy now,” said Amber Higgins, MD, an emergency physician and an obstetrician at ChristianaCare, a hospital network in Newark, Delaware, and a member of the Doctors Council. “There are so many other demands, whether it’s billing, patient documentation, or other demands from the employer, and all of that takes time away from patient care.”

Another primary driver of physician unionization is the physician burnout epidemic. Physicians collectively complain that they spend more time on electronic health record documentation and bureaucratic administration. Yet if unions can improve these working conditions, the benefit to physicians and their patients would be a welcome change.

Union members are bullish and believe that having a cohesive voice will make a difference.

“We need to use our collective voices to get back to focusing on patient care instead of staring at a computer screen for 80% of the day,” Dr. Higgins told this news organization. “So much of medicine involves getting to the correct diagnosis, listening to patients, observing them, and building a relationship with them. We need time to build that.”

With corporate consolidation and a profit-driven mandate by healthcare systems, doctors are increasingly frustrated and feel that their voices haven’t been heard enough when it comes to issues like workplace safety, working hours, and benefits, said Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, a family practice physician and president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in Sacramento, California. 

However, he adds that urging doctors to join together to fight for a better working environment hasn’t been easy.

“Doctors are individualists, and they don’t know how to work in packs like hospital administrators do,” said Dr. Bussey. “They’re hard to organize, but I want them to understand that unless they join hands, sign petitions, and speak as one voice, they’re going to lose out on an amazing opportunity.”
 

Overcoming Misperceptions About Unions

One barrier to doctors getting involved is the sentiment that unions might do the opposite of what’s intended — that is, they might further reduce a doctor’s autonomy and work flexibility. Or there may be a perception that the drive to join a union is predicated on making more money. 

Though he’s now in a union, Dr. VenOsdel, who has been in a hospital-based practice for 7 years, admits that he initially felt very differently about unions than he does today.

“Even though I have family members in healthcare unions, I had a neutral to even slightly negative view of unions,” said Dr. VenOsdel. “It took me working directly with the Minnesota Nurses Association and the Doctors Council to learn the other side of the story.”

Armed with more information, he began lobbying for stricter rules about how his state’s large healthcare systems were closing hospitals and ending much-needed community services.

“I remember standing at the Capitol in Minnesota and telling one of the members that I once felt negatively about unions,” he added. “I realized then that I only knew what employers were telling me via such things as emails about strikes — that information was all being shared from the employers’ perspective.”

The other misperception is that unions only exist to argue against management, including against colleagues who are also part of the management structure, said Dr. Higgins.

“Some doctors perceive being in a union as ‘how can those same leaders also be in a union,’” she said. She feels that they currently don’t have leadership representing them that can help with such things as restructuring their support teams or getting them help with certain tasks. “That’s another way unions can help.” 
 

Social Justice Plays a Role

For Dr. VenOsdel, being part of a union has helped him return to what he calls the “art” of medicine.

“Philosophically, the union gave me an option for change in what felt like a hopeless situation,” he said. “It wasn’t just that I was tossing the keys to someone else and saying, ‘I can’t fix this.’ Instead, we’re taking the reins back and fixing things ourselves.”

Bussey argues that as the uneven balance between administrators and providers in many healthcare organizations grows, the time to consider forming a union is now.

“We’re in a $4 trillion medical industrial revolution,” he said. “Administrators and bureaucrats are multiplying 30-fold times vs providers, and most of that $4 trillion supports things that don’t contribute to the doctor-patient relationship.”

Furthermore, union proponents say that where a one-on-one relationship between doctor and patient once existed, that has now been “triangulated” to include administrators.

“We’ve lost power in every way,” Dr. Bussey said. “We have the degrees, the liability, and the knowledge — we should have more power to make our workplaces safer and better.”

Ultimately, for some unionized doctors, the very holding of a union card is rooted in supporting social justice issues.

“When doctors realize how powerful a tool a union can be for social justice and change, this will alter perceptions of unions within our profession,” Dr. VenOsdel said. “Our union helps give us a voice to stand up for other staff who aren’t unionized and, most importantly, to stand up for the patients who need us.”
 

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

With huge shifts over the past decade in the way doctors are employed — half of all doctors now work for a health system or large medical group — the idea of unionizing is not only being explored but gaining traction within the profession. In fact, 8% of the physician workforce (or 70,000 physicians) belong to a union, according to statistics gathered in 2022.

Exact numbers are hard to come by, and, interestingly, although the American Medical Association (AMA) “ supports the right of physicians to engage in collective bargaining,” the organization doesn’t track union membership among physicians, according to an AMA spokesperson. 
 

Forming a Union

One challenge is that forming a union is not only time-consuming but also difficult, owing to several barriers. For starters, the laws dictating unionization differ by state, and the rules governing unionization vary if a hospital is public or private. If there’s enough momentum from doctors leading unionization efforts, approval from hospital leaders is required before an official election can be requested from the National Labor Relations Board.

That said, for doctors who are in a union — the two most popular are the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the Doctors Council branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—the benefits are immense, especially because union members can focus on what matters, such as providing the best patient care possible.

For a profession that historically has not been unionized, this year alone, nine medical residency programs at hospitals such as Stanford Health, Montefiore Medical Center, and the University of Pennsylvania, formed unions, reported WBUR in Boston.
 

Belonging Matters 

“When you build a relationship with your patients, it’s special, and that connection isn’t replaceable,” said Nicholas VenOsdel, MD, a pediatrician at Allina Health Primary Care in Hastings, Minnesota, and a union member of the Doctors Council. “However, a lot of us have felt like that hasn’t been respected as the climate of healthcare has changed so fast.”

In fact, autonomy over how much time doctors spend with patients is driving a lot of interest in unionization.

“We don’t necessarily have that autonomy now,” said Amber Higgins, MD, an emergency physician and an obstetrician at ChristianaCare, a hospital network in Newark, Delaware, and a member of the Doctors Council. “There are so many other demands, whether it’s billing, patient documentation, or other demands from the employer, and all of that takes time away from patient care.”

Another primary driver of physician unionization is the physician burnout epidemic. Physicians collectively complain that they spend more time on electronic health record documentation and bureaucratic administration. Yet if unions can improve these working conditions, the benefit to physicians and their patients would be a welcome change.

Union members are bullish and believe that having a cohesive voice will make a difference.

“We need to use our collective voices to get back to focusing on patient care instead of staring at a computer screen for 80% of the day,” Dr. Higgins told this news organization. “So much of medicine involves getting to the correct diagnosis, listening to patients, observing them, and building a relationship with them. We need time to build that.”

With corporate consolidation and a profit-driven mandate by healthcare systems, doctors are increasingly frustrated and feel that their voices haven’t been heard enough when it comes to issues like workplace safety, working hours, and benefits, said Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, a family practice physician and president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in Sacramento, California. 

However, he adds that urging doctors to join together to fight for a better working environment hasn’t been easy.

“Doctors are individualists, and they don’t know how to work in packs like hospital administrators do,” said Dr. Bussey. “They’re hard to organize, but I want them to understand that unless they join hands, sign petitions, and speak as one voice, they’re going to lose out on an amazing opportunity.”
 

Overcoming Misperceptions About Unions

One barrier to doctors getting involved is the sentiment that unions might do the opposite of what’s intended — that is, they might further reduce a doctor’s autonomy and work flexibility. Or there may be a perception that the drive to join a union is predicated on making more money. 

Though he’s now in a union, Dr. VenOsdel, who has been in a hospital-based practice for 7 years, admits that he initially felt very differently about unions than he does today.

“Even though I have family members in healthcare unions, I had a neutral to even slightly negative view of unions,” said Dr. VenOsdel. “It took me working directly with the Minnesota Nurses Association and the Doctors Council to learn the other side of the story.”

Armed with more information, he began lobbying for stricter rules about how his state’s large healthcare systems were closing hospitals and ending much-needed community services.

“I remember standing at the Capitol in Minnesota and telling one of the members that I once felt negatively about unions,” he added. “I realized then that I only knew what employers were telling me via such things as emails about strikes — that information was all being shared from the employers’ perspective.”

The other misperception is that unions only exist to argue against management, including against colleagues who are also part of the management structure, said Dr. Higgins.

“Some doctors perceive being in a union as ‘how can those same leaders also be in a union,’” she said. She feels that they currently don’t have leadership representing them that can help with such things as restructuring their support teams or getting them help with certain tasks. “That’s another way unions can help.” 
 

Social Justice Plays a Role

For Dr. VenOsdel, being part of a union has helped him return to what he calls the “art” of medicine.

“Philosophically, the union gave me an option for change in what felt like a hopeless situation,” he said. “It wasn’t just that I was tossing the keys to someone else and saying, ‘I can’t fix this.’ Instead, we’re taking the reins back and fixing things ourselves.”

Bussey argues that as the uneven balance between administrators and providers in many healthcare organizations grows, the time to consider forming a union is now.

“We’re in a $4 trillion medical industrial revolution,” he said. “Administrators and bureaucrats are multiplying 30-fold times vs providers, and most of that $4 trillion supports things that don’t contribute to the doctor-patient relationship.”

Furthermore, union proponents say that where a one-on-one relationship between doctor and patient once existed, that has now been “triangulated” to include administrators.

“We’ve lost power in every way,” Dr. Bussey said. “We have the degrees, the liability, and the knowledge — we should have more power to make our workplaces safer and better.”

Ultimately, for some unionized doctors, the very holding of a union card is rooted in supporting social justice issues.

“When doctors realize how powerful a tool a union can be for social justice and change, this will alter perceptions of unions within our profession,” Dr. VenOsdel said. “Our union helps give us a voice to stand up for other staff who aren’t unionized and, most importantly, to stand up for the patients who need us.”
 

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

Tirzepatide (Zepbound) is not in shortage for now, but the weight loss drug has remained inaccessible to people without insurance coverage who can’t afford to pay out of pocket. Now, its manufacturer, Eli Lilly, has introduced a new formulation it says will “significantly expand” the supply. But not all endocrinologists are enthusiastic.

As of August 27, LillyDirect made 2.5-mg and 5-mg single-dose vials of tirzepatide available to self-pay patients with an on-label electronic prescription. Lilly’s announcement said the single-dose vials “are priced at a 50% or greater discount compared to the list price of all other incretin (glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists or GLP-1) medicines for obesity.”

For a 4-week supply of the weekly injections, the discount at LillyDirect translates to $399 for a 2.5-mg single-dose vial ($99.75 per vial) and $549 for the 5-mg dose ($137.25 per vial), which the company noted was “in line with the Zepbound savings program for noncovered individuals.” (The new direct single-dose prescriptions cannot be filled at community or retail pharmacies.)

“In a clinical study, the 5-mg maintenance dose helped patients achieve an average of 15% weight loss after 72 weeks of treatment and has been a powerful tool for millions of people with obesity looking to lose weight and keep it off,” according to the announcement.

The clinical study, which is not named or referenced in the announcement, is SURMOUNT-1, a Lilly spokesperson said in an interview. Yet, that study also found that patients achieved an average weight loss of 19.5% with 10-mg doses and 20.9% with 15-mg doses of tirzepatide. Furthermore, the percentage of participants achieving body weight reductions of ≥ 5% was 85% (5 mg), 89% (10 mg), and 91% (15 mg), showing the benefits of higher doses.

And there’s the rub.
 

‘Only Two Different Doses’

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine and a clinical scholar at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview: “My concern is, they’re only providing two different doses, 2.5 mg and 5 mg. You get somebody on it, and then they still have to go back to the traditional pens. I’m very opposed to getting patients connected to a medication they can’t then continue to take.

“Now we have starter doses that are easy to come by,” she said. “But the problem isn’t starting. The problem for all of these patients is chronic continuation of the right dose of the drug, and out-of-pocket costs become exorbitantly higher when they have to self-purchase the pens for the higher doses.

“Yes, the 5-mg dose has benefits, but not the same as higher doses,” she continued. “I have nobody for whom 5 mg is the right dose. They have to take more, sometimes within a month or 2 of starting, in order to achieve the kind of weight loss they need.”

If their insurance doesn’t cover the drug, “what are they going to do to stay on 5 mg? Or pay a crapload of money to buy three of the 5-mg doses to reach a higher dose?”

Michael Weintraub, MD, clinical assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, said that, “for many, this lower monthly cost is attainable and is a significant advancement in increasing access. For others, however, an out-of-pocket monthly cost of $349-549 for a chronic medication is still unaffordable.”

And like Dr. Peters, he said, “some patients do not lose a clinically significant amount of weight with 2.5 mg or 5 mg and require higher doses. There is no way of prescribing a higher dose of Zepbound vials, so patients would have to resort to the higher-dose auto-injector pens that are still double the price.”

A Lilly spokesperson countered in a comment: “Offering Zepbound single-dose vials in higher dosage strengths could increase the potential for dose splitting, which is not contemplated by the FDA [Food and Drug Adminstration]–approved label and may pose patient safety risks.”

But Dr. Peters wondered: “Wouldn’t dose splitting of a known-to-be-pure compound be better than getting it at a compounding pharmacy that lacks purity/safety? The one message from all of this is that patients need to know what they’re getting into. They’re starting a drug that can help with weight loss, but they’re going to be on a sub-max dose. And a higher dose is going to be double the price.”

In addition, said Robert F. Kushner, MD, a professor at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, “for the lower-dose vials, instead of administering the drug with a self-auto-injection pen, patients will need to use a needle and syringe and draw up the dose from a vial. This will take a higher skill level and health literacy that may be challenging for some patients. Patients may need additional training on how to use this new formulation. That will take additional time and resources, such as a demonstration in the office or referral to video.”

The Lilly news release noted that “patients can also purchase ancillary supplies, like syringes and needles, and will have access to important patient-friendly instructional materials on correctly administering the medicine via needle and syringe.”
 

Protection From Compounders?

According to the Lilly spokesperson, the launch of Zepbound vials “furthers our commitment to helping patients avoid the risks associated with compounded products by providing patients another option for access to genuine Lilly medicine.”

Indeed, said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program and associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, “The introduction of Zepbound/tirzepatide in single-dose vials should improve access to evidence-based obesity treatments, reducing potential risks associated with compounded additives and eliminating the need for patients to calculate correct medication doses,” which have led to accidental overdoses of compounded semaglutide.

Lilly’s spokesperson added: “We have taken multiple steps — including publishing an open letter and launching lilly.com/real-medicine — to warn the public about the risks posed by the proliferation of counterfeit, fake, unsafe, or untested knockoffs of Lilly’s genuine medicines.”

But whether these steps are strong enough to overcome the realities of cost and the need for affordable higher doses remains to be seen.

Scott Brunner, CEO of the Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding, said in a statement that the new version of Zepbound “is great news for patients. It’s a much more rational and care-focused response to the remarkable demand for their drug than the lawsuits and cease-and-desist letters Lilly has been raining down on compounding pharmacies.”

“For 20 months now,” he continued, “compounders have been a lifeline for many patients, filling prescriptions for compounded tirzepatide injection at a time when the FDA-approved drug has been in shortage. We’ll be eager to see whether Lilly’s direct-to-patient approach actually works.”

Dr. Almandoz affirmed: “Everyone wants to see improved access to evidence-based obesity care. It’s crucial to ensure patients receive the most appropriate interventions, whether it is lifestyle changes, medications, or bariatric surgery,” he said. “There are resources available, [including his recent paper], for nutrition and lifestyle modifications specifically for patients taking obesity medications, which can help clinicians guide their patients toward better health.”

Dr. Almandoz is a member of advisory boards and consults for: Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Kushner is an adviser to Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Peters and Dr. Weintraub declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tirzepatide (Zepbound) is not in shortage for now, but the weight loss drug has remained inaccessible to people without insurance coverage who can’t afford to pay out of pocket. Now, its manufacturer, Eli Lilly, has introduced a new formulation it says will “significantly expand” the supply. But not all endocrinologists are enthusiastic.

As of August 27, LillyDirect made 2.5-mg and 5-mg single-dose vials of tirzepatide available to self-pay patients with an on-label electronic prescription. Lilly’s announcement said the single-dose vials “are priced at a 50% or greater discount compared to the list price of all other incretin (glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists or GLP-1) medicines for obesity.”

For a 4-week supply of the weekly injections, the discount at LillyDirect translates to $399 for a 2.5-mg single-dose vial ($99.75 per vial) and $549 for the 5-mg dose ($137.25 per vial), which the company noted was “in line with the Zepbound savings program for noncovered individuals.” (The new direct single-dose prescriptions cannot be filled at community or retail pharmacies.)

“In a clinical study, the 5-mg maintenance dose helped patients achieve an average of 15% weight loss after 72 weeks of treatment and has been a powerful tool for millions of people with obesity looking to lose weight and keep it off,” according to the announcement.

The clinical study, which is not named or referenced in the announcement, is SURMOUNT-1, a Lilly spokesperson said in an interview. Yet, that study also found that patients achieved an average weight loss of 19.5% with 10-mg doses and 20.9% with 15-mg doses of tirzepatide. Furthermore, the percentage of participants achieving body weight reductions of ≥ 5% was 85% (5 mg), 89% (10 mg), and 91% (15 mg), showing the benefits of higher doses.

And there’s the rub.
 

‘Only Two Different Doses’

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine and a clinical scholar at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview: “My concern is, they’re only providing two different doses, 2.5 mg and 5 mg. You get somebody on it, and then they still have to go back to the traditional pens. I’m very opposed to getting patients connected to a medication they can’t then continue to take.

“Now we have starter doses that are easy to come by,” she said. “But the problem isn’t starting. The problem for all of these patients is chronic continuation of the right dose of the drug, and out-of-pocket costs become exorbitantly higher when they have to self-purchase the pens for the higher doses.

“Yes, the 5-mg dose has benefits, but not the same as higher doses,” she continued. “I have nobody for whom 5 mg is the right dose. They have to take more, sometimes within a month or 2 of starting, in order to achieve the kind of weight loss they need.”

If their insurance doesn’t cover the drug, “what are they going to do to stay on 5 mg? Or pay a crapload of money to buy three of the 5-mg doses to reach a higher dose?”

Michael Weintraub, MD, clinical assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, said that, “for many, this lower monthly cost is attainable and is a significant advancement in increasing access. For others, however, an out-of-pocket monthly cost of $349-549 for a chronic medication is still unaffordable.”

And like Dr. Peters, he said, “some patients do not lose a clinically significant amount of weight with 2.5 mg or 5 mg and require higher doses. There is no way of prescribing a higher dose of Zepbound vials, so patients would have to resort to the higher-dose auto-injector pens that are still double the price.”

A Lilly spokesperson countered in a comment: “Offering Zepbound single-dose vials in higher dosage strengths could increase the potential for dose splitting, which is not contemplated by the FDA [Food and Drug Adminstration]–approved label and may pose patient safety risks.”

But Dr. Peters wondered: “Wouldn’t dose splitting of a known-to-be-pure compound be better than getting it at a compounding pharmacy that lacks purity/safety? The one message from all of this is that patients need to know what they’re getting into. They’re starting a drug that can help with weight loss, but they’re going to be on a sub-max dose. And a higher dose is going to be double the price.”

In addition, said Robert F. Kushner, MD, a professor at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, “for the lower-dose vials, instead of administering the drug with a self-auto-injection pen, patients will need to use a needle and syringe and draw up the dose from a vial. This will take a higher skill level and health literacy that may be challenging for some patients. Patients may need additional training on how to use this new formulation. That will take additional time and resources, such as a demonstration in the office or referral to video.”

The Lilly news release noted that “patients can also purchase ancillary supplies, like syringes and needles, and will have access to important patient-friendly instructional materials on correctly administering the medicine via needle and syringe.”
 

Protection From Compounders?

According to the Lilly spokesperson, the launch of Zepbound vials “furthers our commitment to helping patients avoid the risks associated with compounded products by providing patients another option for access to genuine Lilly medicine.”

Indeed, said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program and associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, “The introduction of Zepbound/tirzepatide in single-dose vials should improve access to evidence-based obesity treatments, reducing potential risks associated with compounded additives and eliminating the need for patients to calculate correct medication doses,” which have led to accidental overdoses of compounded semaglutide.

Lilly’s spokesperson added: “We have taken multiple steps — including publishing an open letter and launching lilly.com/real-medicine — to warn the public about the risks posed by the proliferation of counterfeit, fake, unsafe, or untested knockoffs of Lilly’s genuine medicines.”

But whether these steps are strong enough to overcome the realities of cost and the need for affordable higher doses remains to be seen.

Scott Brunner, CEO of the Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding, said in a statement that the new version of Zepbound “is great news for patients. It’s a much more rational and care-focused response to the remarkable demand for their drug than the lawsuits and cease-and-desist letters Lilly has been raining down on compounding pharmacies.”

“For 20 months now,” he continued, “compounders have been a lifeline for many patients, filling prescriptions for compounded tirzepatide injection at a time when the FDA-approved drug has been in shortage. We’ll be eager to see whether Lilly’s direct-to-patient approach actually works.”

Dr. Almandoz affirmed: “Everyone wants to see improved access to evidence-based obesity care. It’s crucial to ensure patients receive the most appropriate interventions, whether it is lifestyle changes, medications, or bariatric surgery,” he said. “There are resources available, [including his recent paper], for nutrition and lifestyle modifications specifically for patients taking obesity medications, which can help clinicians guide their patients toward better health.”

Dr. Almandoz is a member of advisory boards and consults for: Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Kushner is an adviser to Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Peters and Dr. Weintraub declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tirzepatide (Zepbound) is not in shortage for now, but the weight loss drug has remained inaccessible to people without insurance coverage who can’t afford to pay out of pocket. Now, its manufacturer, Eli Lilly, has introduced a new formulation it says will “significantly expand” the supply. But not all endocrinologists are enthusiastic.

As of August 27, LillyDirect made 2.5-mg and 5-mg single-dose vials of tirzepatide available to self-pay patients with an on-label electronic prescription. Lilly’s announcement said the single-dose vials “are priced at a 50% or greater discount compared to the list price of all other incretin (glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists or GLP-1) medicines for obesity.”

For a 4-week supply of the weekly injections, the discount at LillyDirect translates to $399 for a 2.5-mg single-dose vial ($99.75 per vial) and $549 for the 5-mg dose ($137.25 per vial), which the company noted was “in line with the Zepbound savings program for noncovered individuals.” (The new direct single-dose prescriptions cannot be filled at community or retail pharmacies.)

“In a clinical study, the 5-mg maintenance dose helped patients achieve an average of 15% weight loss after 72 weeks of treatment and has been a powerful tool for millions of people with obesity looking to lose weight and keep it off,” according to the announcement.

The clinical study, which is not named or referenced in the announcement, is SURMOUNT-1, a Lilly spokesperson said in an interview. Yet, that study also found that patients achieved an average weight loss of 19.5% with 10-mg doses and 20.9% with 15-mg doses of tirzepatide. Furthermore, the percentage of participants achieving body weight reductions of ≥ 5% was 85% (5 mg), 89% (10 mg), and 91% (15 mg), showing the benefits of higher doses.

And there’s the rub.
 

‘Only Two Different Doses’

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine and a clinical scholar at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview: “My concern is, they’re only providing two different doses, 2.5 mg and 5 mg. You get somebody on it, and then they still have to go back to the traditional pens. I’m very opposed to getting patients connected to a medication they can’t then continue to take.

“Now we have starter doses that are easy to come by,” she said. “But the problem isn’t starting. The problem for all of these patients is chronic continuation of the right dose of the drug, and out-of-pocket costs become exorbitantly higher when they have to self-purchase the pens for the higher doses.

“Yes, the 5-mg dose has benefits, but not the same as higher doses,” she continued. “I have nobody for whom 5 mg is the right dose. They have to take more, sometimes within a month or 2 of starting, in order to achieve the kind of weight loss they need.”

If their insurance doesn’t cover the drug, “what are they going to do to stay on 5 mg? Or pay a crapload of money to buy three of the 5-mg doses to reach a higher dose?”

Michael Weintraub, MD, clinical assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, said that, “for many, this lower monthly cost is attainable and is a significant advancement in increasing access. For others, however, an out-of-pocket monthly cost of $349-549 for a chronic medication is still unaffordable.”

And like Dr. Peters, he said, “some patients do not lose a clinically significant amount of weight with 2.5 mg or 5 mg and require higher doses. There is no way of prescribing a higher dose of Zepbound vials, so patients would have to resort to the higher-dose auto-injector pens that are still double the price.”

A Lilly spokesperson countered in a comment: “Offering Zepbound single-dose vials in higher dosage strengths could increase the potential for dose splitting, which is not contemplated by the FDA [Food and Drug Adminstration]–approved label and may pose patient safety risks.”

But Dr. Peters wondered: “Wouldn’t dose splitting of a known-to-be-pure compound be better than getting it at a compounding pharmacy that lacks purity/safety? The one message from all of this is that patients need to know what they’re getting into. They’re starting a drug that can help with weight loss, but they’re going to be on a sub-max dose. And a higher dose is going to be double the price.”

In addition, said Robert F. Kushner, MD, a professor at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, “for the lower-dose vials, instead of administering the drug with a self-auto-injection pen, patients will need to use a needle and syringe and draw up the dose from a vial. This will take a higher skill level and health literacy that may be challenging for some patients. Patients may need additional training on how to use this new formulation. That will take additional time and resources, such as a demonstration in the office or referral to video.”

The Lilly news release noted that “patients can also purchase ancillary supplies, like syringes and needles, and will have access to important patient-friendly instructional materials on correctly administering the medicine via needle and syringe.”
 

Protection From Compounders?

According to the Lilly spokesperson, the launch of Zepbound vials “furthers our commitment to helping patients avoid the risks associated with compounded products by providing patients another option for access to genuine Lilly medicine.”

Indeed, said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program and associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, “The introduction of Zepbound/tirzepatide in single-dose vials should improve access to evidence-based obesity treatments, reducing potential risks associated with compounded additives and eliminating the need for patients to calculate correct medication doses,” which have led to accidental overdoses of compounded semaglutide.

Lilly’s spokesperson added: “We have taken multiple steps — including publishing an open letter and launching lilly.com/real-medicine — to warn the public about the risks posed by the proliferation of counterfeit, fake, unsafe, or untested knockoffs of Lilly’s genuine medicines.”

But whether these steps are strong enough to overcome the realities of cost and the need for affordable higher doses remains to be seen.

Scott Brunner, CEO of the Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding, said in a statement that the new version of Zepbound “is great news for patients. It’s a much more rational and care-focused response to the remarkable demand for their drug than the lawsuits and cease-and-desist letters Lilly has been raining down on compounding pharmacies.”

“For 20 months now,” he continued, “compounders have been a lifeline for many patients, filling prescriptions for compounded tirzepatide injection at a time when the FDA-approved drug has been in shortage. We’ll be eager to see whether Lilly’s direct-to-patient approach actually works.”

Dr. Almandoz affirmed: “Everyone wants to see improved access to evidence-based obesity care. It’s crucial to ensure patients receive the most appropriate interventions, whether it is lifestyle changes, medications, or bariatric surgery,” he said. “There are resources available, [including his recent paper], for nutrition and lifestyle modifications specifically for patients taking obesity medications, which can help clinicians guide their patients toward better health.”

Dr. Almandoz is a member of advisory boards and consults for: Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Kushner is an adviser to Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Peters and Dr. Weintraub declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the setting of isocaloric eating, time-restricted eating (TRE) did not reduce weight or improve glucose homeostasis relative to a usual eating pattern (UEP), a small randomized controlled trial found.

The results suggested that any effects of TRE on weight observed in prior studies may be due to reductions in caloric intake and not timing, according to Nisa M. Maruthur, MD, MHS, of the Division of General Internal Medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

Published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the 12-week trial randomly assigned 41 adults aged 18-69 years with obesity and prediabetes or diet-controlled diabetes 1:1 as follows: To TRE, involving a 10-hour eating window with 80% of calories consumed before 1 PM, or to UEP, involving a ≤ 16-hour window, with at least 50% of calories consumed after 5 PM. The regimen in each group was based on the OmniHeart unsaturated fat diet and the SPICE study.

“The diet was similar to the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] diet for hypertension and maybe a bit higher in unsaturated fat and micronutrients,” said study co-author Scott J. Pilla, MD, MHS, an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, in an interview. For each participant, macro- and micronutrient content remained constant throughout the study period, with total calories individually determined at baseline and ranging from 1600 to 3500 kcal/d. “That differs from some TRE studies in which calories were adjusted according to whether participants lost or gained weight,” he said. “This was a purely mechanistic study to determine the impact of time of eating alone with no change in calories.”

The Cohort

The mean age was 59 years, 93% of patients were women, and 93% were Black. The mean body mass index was 36, and the mean baseline weight was 96.2 kg — 95.6 kg in the TRE group and 103.7 kg in the UEP group.

At 12 weeks, weight decreased comparably by 2.3 kg (95% CI, 1.0-3.5) in the TRE group and by 2.6 kg (95% CI, 1.5-3.7) in the UEP group. Change in glycemic measures did not differ between the two groups.

Interestingly, self-reporting questionnaires revealed a slight reduction in physical activity in the TRE group, an effect that requires further study. “We don’t know why but anecdotally, some TRE participants said they tended to go to bed earlier,” Dr. Pilla said. Earlier bedtimes may put an end sooner to the daily eating pattern.

Subanalyses of the data are ongoing and will be published later.

“In the context of several clinical trials that suggest a benefit of TRE, our findings suggest that if or when TRE interventions induce weight loss, it is likely in part due to a reduction in energy intake, and therefore, clinicians can counsel patients that TRE may help them lose weight by decreasing their caloric intake,” the authors wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Krista A. Varady, PhD, and Vanessa M. Oddo, PhD, of the Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition at the University of Illinois–Chicago, said the study results have important clinical implications. “Many patients stop following standard-care diets (such as daily calorie restriction) because they become frustrated with having to monitor food intake vigilantly each day,” they wrote.

Gastroenterologists and Obesity

Of late, support has grown for gastroenterologists to become actively involved in obesity treatment — even to “take ownership” of this field.

In a 2023 article in Gut, Michael Camilleri, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, made the case for the natural fit between gastrointestinal (GI) specialists and obesity management. He noted that obesity is a significant risk factor for GI, pancreatic, and liver diseases. It can even affect inflammatory bowel disease.

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

In the setting of isocaloric eating, time-restricted eating (TRE) did not reduce weight or improve glucose homeostasis relative to a usual eating pattern (UEP), a small randomized controlled trial found.

The results suggested that any effects of TRE on weight observed in prior studies may be due to reductions in caloric intake and not timing, according to Nisa M. Maruthur, MD, MHS, of the Division of General Internal Medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

Published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the 12-week trial randomly assigned 41 adults aged 18-69 years with obesity and prediabetes or diet-controlled diabetes 1:1 as follows: To TRE, involving a 10-hour eating window with 80% of calories consumed before 1 PM, or to UEP, involving a ≤ 16-hour window, with at least 50% of calories consumed after 5 PM. The regimen in each group was based on the OmniHeart unsaturated fat diet and the SPICE study.

“The diet was similar to the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] diet for hypertension and maybe a bit higher in unsaturated fat and micronutrients,” said study co-author Scott J. Pilla, MD, MHS, an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, in an interview. For each participant, macro- and micronutrient content remained constant throughout the study period, with total calories individually determined at baseline and ranging from 1600 to 3500 kcal/d. “That differs from some TRE studies in which calories were adjusted according to whether participants lost or gained weight,” he said. “This was a purely mechanistic study to determine the impact of time of eating alone with no change in calories.”

The Cohort

The mean age was 59 years, 93% of patients were women, and 93% were Black. The mean body mass index was 36, and the mean baseline weight was 96.2 kg — 95.6 kg in the TRE group and 103.7 kg in the UEP group.

At 12 weeks, weight decreased comparably by 2.3 kg (95% CI, 1.0-3.5) in the TRE group and by 2.6 kg (95% CI, 1.5-3.7) in the UEP group. Change in glycemic measures did not differ between the two groups.

Interestingly, self-reporting questionnaires revealed a slight reduction in physical activity in the TRE group, an effect that requires further study. “We don’t know why but anecdotally, some TRE participants said they tended to go to bed earlier,” Dr. Pilla said. Earlier bedtimes may put an end sooner to the daily eating pattern.

Subanalyses of the data are ongoing and will be published later.

“In the context of several clinical trials that suggest a benefit of TRE, our findings suggest that if or when TRE interventions induce weight loss, it is likely in part due to a reduction in energy intake, and therefore, clinicians can counsel patients that TRE may help them lose weight by decreasing their caloric intake,” the authors wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Krista A. Varady, PhD, and Vanessa M. Oddo, PhD, of the Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition at the University of Illinois–Chicago, said the study results have important clinical implications. “Many patients stop following standard-care diets (such as daily calorie restriction) because they become frustrated with having to monitor food intake vigilantly each day,” they wrote.

Gastroenterologists and Obesity

Of late, support has grown for gastroenterologists to become actively involved in obesity treatment — even to “take ownership” of this field.

In a 2023 article in Gut, Michael Camilleri, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, made the case for the natural fit between gastrointestinal (GI) specialists and obesity management. He noted that obesity is a significant risk factor for GI, pancreatic, and liver diseases. It can even affect inflammatory bowel disease.

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

In the setting of isocaloric eating, time-restricted eating (TRE) did not reduce weight or improve glucose homeostasis relative to a usual eating pattern (UEP), a small randomized controlled trial found.

The results suggested that any effects of TRE on weight observed in prior studies may be due to reductions in caloric intake and not timing, according to Nisa M. Maruthur, MD, MHS, of the Division of General Internal Medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

Published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the 12-week trial randomly assigned 41 adults aged 18-69 years with obesity and prediabetes or diet-controlled diabetes 1:1 as follows: To TRE, involving a 10-hour eating window with 80% of calories consumed before 1 PM, or to UEP, involving a ≤ 16-hour window, with at least 50% of calories consumed after 5 PM. The regimen in each group was based on the OmniHeart unsaturated fat diet and the SPICE study.

“The diet was similar to the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] diet for hypertension and maybe a bit higher in unsaturated fat and micronutrients,” said study co-author Scott J. Pilla, MD, MHS, an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, in an interview. For each participant, macro- and micronutrient content remained constant throughout the study period, with total calories individually determined at baseline and ranging from 1600 to 3500 kcal/d. “That differs from some TRE studies in which calories were adjusted according to whether participants lost or gained weight,” he said. “This was a purely mechanistic study to determine the impact of time of eating alone with no change in calories.”

The Cohort

The mean age was 59 years, 93% of patients were women, and 93% were Black. The mean body mass index was 36, and the mean baseline weight was 96.2 kg — 95.6 kg in the TRE group and 103.7 kg in the UEP group.

At 12 weeks, weight decreased comparably by 2.3 kg (95% CI, 1.0-3.5) in the TRE group and by 2.6 kg (95% CI, 1.5-3.7) in the UEP group. Change in glycemic measures did not differ between the two groups.

Interestingly, self-reporting questionnaires revealed a slight reduction in physical activity in the TRE group, an effect that requires further study. “We don’t know why but anecdotally, some TRE participants said they tended to go to bed earlier,” Dr. Pilla said. Earlier bedtimes may put an end sooner to the daily eating pattern.

Subanalyses of the data are ongoing and will be published later.

“In the context of several clinical trials that suggest a benefit of TRE, our findings suggest that if or when TRE interventions induce weight loss, it is likely in part due to a reduction in energy intake, and therefore, clinicians can counsel patients that TRE may help them lose weight by decreasing their caloric intake,” the authors wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Krista A. Varady, PhD, and Vanessa M. Oddo, PhD, of the Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition at the University of Illinois–Chicago, said the study results have important clinical implications. “Many patients stop following standard-care diets (such as daily calorie restriction) because they become frustrated with having to monitor food intake vigilantly each day,” they wrote.

Gastroenterologists and Obesity

Of late, support has grown for gastroenterologists to become actively involved in obesity treatment — even to “take ownership” of this field.

In a 2023 article in Gut, Michael Camilleri, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, made the case for the natural fit between gastrointestinal (GI) specialists and obesity management. He noted that obesity is a significant risk factor for GI, pancreatic, and liver diseases. It can even affect inflammatory bowel disease.

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

TOPLINE:

Metformin significantly improved symptoms and resulted in hair regrowth in Black women with treatment-refractory central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), in a retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series involving 12 Black women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, with biopsy-confirmed, treatment-refractory CCCA, a chronic inflammatory hair disorder characterized by permanent hair loss, from the Johns Hopkins University alopecia clinic.
• Participants received CCCA treatment for at least 6 months and had stagnant or worsening symptoms before oral extended-release metformin (500 mg daily) was added to treatment. (Treatments included topical clobetasol, compounded minoxidil, and platelet-rich plasma injections.)
• Scalp biopsies were collected from four patients before and after metformin treatment to evaluate gene expression changes.
• Changes in clinical symptoms were assessed, including pruritus, inflammation, pain, scalp resistance, and hair regrowth, following initiation of metformin treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Metformin led to significant clinical improvement in eight patients, which included reductions in scalp pain, scalp resistance, pruritus, and inflammation. However, two patients experienced worsening symptoms.
• Six patients showed clinical evidence of hair regrowth after at least 6 months of metformin treatment with one experiencing hair loss again 3 months after discontinuing treatment.
• Transcriptomic analysis revealed 34 upregulated genes, which included upregulated of 23 hair keratin-associated proteins, and pathways related to keratinization, epidermis development, and the hair cycle. In addition, eight genes were downregulated, with pathways that included those associated with extracellular matrix organization, collagen fibril organization, and collagen metabolism.
• Gene set variation analysis showed reduced expression of T helper 17 cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathways and elevated adenosine monophosphate kinase signaling and keratin-associated proteins after treatment with metformin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Metformin’s ability to concomitantly target fibrosis and inflammation provides a plausible mechanism for its therapeutic effects in CCCA and other fibrosing alopecia disorders,” the authors concluded. But, they added, “larger prospective, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to rigorously evaluate metformin’s efficacy and optimal dosing for treatment of cicatricial alopecias.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron Bao, Department of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and was published online on September 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small sample size, retrospective design, lack of a placebo control group, and the single-center setting limited the generalizability of the study findings. In addition, the absence of a validated activity or severity scale for CCCA and the single posttreatment sampling limit the assessment and comparison of clinical symptoms and transcriptomic changes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the American Academy of Dermatology. One author reported several ties with pharmaceutical companies, a pending patent, and authorship for the UpToDate section on CCCA.

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:

Metformin significantly improved symptoms and resulted in hair regrowth in Black women with treatment-refractory central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), in a retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series involving 12 Black women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, with biopsy-confirmed, treatment-refractory CCCA, a chronic inflammatory hair disorder characterized by permanent hair loss, from the Johns Hopkins University alopecia clinic.
• Participants received CCCA treatment for at least 6 months and had stagnant or worsening symptoms before oral extended-release metformin (500 mg daily) was added to treatment. (Treatments included topical clobetasol, compounded minoxidil, and platelet-rich plasma injections.)
• Scalp biopsies were collected from four patients before and after metformin treatment to evaluate gene expression changes.
• Changes in clinical symptoms were assessed, including pruritus, inflammation, pain, scalp resistance, and hair regrowth, following initiation of metformin treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Metformin led to significant clinical improvement in eight patients, which included reductions in scalp pain, scalp resistance, pruritus, and inflammation. However, two patients experienced worsening symptoms.
• Six patients showed clinical evidence of hair regrowth after at least 6 months of metformin treatment with one experiencing hair loss again 3 months after discontinuing treatment.
• Transcriptomic analysis revealed 34 upregulated genes, which included upregulated of 23 hair keratin-associated proteins, and pathways related to keratinization, epidermis development, and the hair cycle. In addition, eight genes were downregulated, with pathways that included those associated with extracellular matrix organization, collagen fibril organization, and collagen metabolism.
• Gene set variation analysis showed reduced expression of T helper 17 cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathways and elevated adenosine monophosphate kinase signaling and keratin-associated proteins after treatment with metformin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Metformin’s ability to concomitantly target fibrosis and inflammation provides a plausible mechanism for its therapeutic effects in CCCA and other fibrosing alopecia disorders,” the authors concluded. But, they added, “larger prospective, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to rigorously evaluate metformin’s efficacy and optimal dosing for treatment of cicatricial alopecias.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron Bao, Department of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and was published online on September 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small sample size, retrospective design, lack of a placebo control group, and the single-center setting limited the generalizability of the study findings. In addition, the absence of a validated activity or severity scale for CCCA and the single posttreatment sampling limit the assessment and comparison of clinical symptoms and transcriptomic changes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the American Academy of Dermatology. One author reported several ties with pharmaceutical companies, a pending patent, and authorship for the UpToDate section on CCCA.

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:

Metformin significantly improved symptoms and resulted in hair regrowth in Black women with treatment-refractory central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), in a retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series involving 12 Black women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, with biopsy-confirmed, treatment-refractory CCCA, a chronic inflammatory hair disorder characterized by permanent hair loss, from the Johns Hopkins University alopecia clinic.
• Participants received CCCA treatment for at least 6 months and had stagnant or worsening symptoms before oral extended-release metformin (500 mg daily) was added to treatment. (Treatments included topical clobetasol, compounded minoxidil, and platelet-rich plasma injections.)
• Scalp biopsies were collected from four patients before and after metformin treatment to evaluate gene expression changes.
• Changes in clinical symptoms were assessed, including pruritus, inflammation, pain, scalp resistance, and hair regrowth, following initiation of metformin treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Metformin led to significant clinical improvement in eight patients, which included reductions in scalp pain, scalp resistance, pruritus, and inflammation. However, two patients experienced worsening symptoms.
• Six patients showed clinical evidence of hair regrowth after at least 6 months of metformin treatment with one experiencing hair loss again 3 months after discontinuing treatment.
• Transcriptomic analysis revealed 34 upregulated genes, which included upregulated of 23 hair keratin-associated proteins, and pathways related to keratinization, epidermis development, and the hair cycle. In addition, eight genes were downregulated, with pathways that included those associated with extracellular matrix organization, collagen fibril organization, and collagen metabolism.
• Gene set variation analysis showed reduced expression of T helper 17 cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathways and elevated adenosine monophosphate kinase signaling and keratin-associated proteins after treatment with metformin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Metformin’s ability to concomitantly target fibrosis and inflammation provides a plausible mechanism for its therapeutic effects in CCCA and other fibrosing alopecia disorders,” the authors concluded. But, they added, “larger prospective, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to rigorously evaluate metformin’s efficacy and optimal dosing for treatment of cicatricial alopecias.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron Bao, Department of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and was published online on September 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small sample size, retrospective design, lack of a placebo control group, and the single-center setting limited the generalizability of the study findings. In addition, the absence of a validated activity or severity scale for CCCA and the single posttreatment sampling limit the assessment and comparison of clinical symptoms and transcriptomic changes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the American Academy of Dermatology. One author reported several ties with pharmaceutical companies, a pending patent, and authorship for the UpToDate section on CCCA.

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:

An impaired central sensitivity to thyroid hormone may be associated with an increased risk for death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and normal thyroid function.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have shown that abnormal levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) are associated with a higher mortality risk in patients with CKD, but whether the risk extends to those with normal thyroid function remains controversial.
• Researchers investigated the association between central sensitivity to thyroid hormone and the risk for all-cause mortality in 1303 euthyroid patients with CKD (mean age, 60 years; 59% women) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database (2007-2012).
• All participants had CKD stages I-IV, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and/or a urinary albumin to urinary creatinine ratio ≥ 30 mg/g.
• The central sensitivity to thyroid hormone was primarily evaluated using a new central thyroid hormone resistance index, the Thyroid Feedback Quantile–based Index (TFQI), using free thyroxine and TSH concentrations.
• The participants were followed for a median duration of 115 months, during which 503 died.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with CKD who died during the follow-up period had a significantly higher TFQI (P < .001) than those who survived.
• The rates of all-cause mortality increased from 26.61% in the lowest TFQI tertile to 40.89% in the highest tertile (P = .001).
• A per unit increase in the TFQI was associated with a 40% increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.79).
• This association between TFQI level and all-cause mortality persisted in all subgroups stratified by age, gender, race, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and CKD stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study demonstrates that impaired sensitivity to thyroid hormone might be associated with all-cause mortality in CKD patients with normal thyroid function, independent of other traditional risk factors and comorbidities,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Qichao Yang and Ru Dong, Department of Endocrinology, Affiliated Wujin Hospital of Jiangsu University, Changzhou, China, and was published online on August 6, 2024, in BMC Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Thyroid function was measured only at baseline, and the changes in thyroid function over time were not measured. The study excluded people on thyroid hormone replacement therapy but did not consider other medication use that might have affected thyroid function, such as beta-blockers, steroids, and amiodarone. Thyroid-related antibodies, metabolic syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were not included in the analysis as possible confounding factors. The US-based sample requires further validation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Changzhou Health Commission. The authors declared no competing interests.

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:

An impaired central sensitivity to thyroid hormone may be associated with an increased risk for death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and normal thyroid function.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have shown that abnormal levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) are associated with a higher mortality risk in patients with CKD, but whether the risk extends to those with normal thyroid function remains controversial.
• Researchers investigated the association between central sensitivity to thyroid hormone and the risk for all-cause mortality in 1303 euthyroid patients with CKD (mean age, 60 years; 59% women) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database (2007-2012).
• All participants had CKD stages I-IV, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and/or a urinary albumin to urinary creatinine ratio ≥ 30 mg/g.
• The central sensitivity to thyroid hormone was primarily evaluated using a new central thyroid hormone resistance index, the Thyroid Feedback Quantile–based Index (TFQI), using free thyroxine and TSH concentrations.
• The participants were followed for a median duration of 115 months, during which 503 died.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with CKD who died during the follow-up period had a significantly higher TFQI (P < .001) than those who survived.
• The rates of all-cause mortality increased from 26.61% in the lowest TFQI tertile to 40.89% in the highest tertile (P = .001).
• A per unit increase in the TFQI was associated with a 40% increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.79).
• This association between TFQI level and all-cause mortality persisted in all subgroups stratified by age, gender, race, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and CKD stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study demonstrates that impaired sensitivity to thyroid hormone might be associated with all-cause mortality in CKD patients with normal thyroid function, independent of other traditional risk factors and comorbidities,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Qichao Yang and Ru Dong, Department of Endocrinology, Affiliated Wujin Hospital of Jiangsu University, Changzhou, China, and was published online on August 6, 2024, in BMC Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Thyroid function was measured only at baseline, and the changes in thyroid function over time were not measured. The study excluded people on thyroid hormone replacement therapy but did not consider other medication use that might have affected thyroid function, such as beta-blockers, steroids, and amiodarone. Thyroid-related antibodies, metabolic syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were not included in the analysis as possible confounding factors. The US-based sample requires further validation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Changzhou Health Commission. The authors declared no competing interests.

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:

An impaired central sensitivity to thyroid hormone may be associated with an increased risk for death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and normal thyroid function.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have shown that abnormal levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) are associated with a higher mortality risk in patients with CKD, but whether the risk extends to those with normal thyroid function remains controversial.
• Researchers investigated the association between central sensitivity to thyroid hormone and the risk for all-cause mortality in 1303 euthyroid patients with CKD (mean age, 60 years; 59% women) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database (2007-2012).
• All participants had CKD stages I-IV, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and/or a urinary albumin to urinary creatinine ratio ≥ 30 mg/g.
• The central sensitivity to thyroid hormone was primarily evaluated using a new central thyroid hormone resistance index, the Thyroid Feedback Quantile–based Index (TFQI), using free thyroxine and TSH concentrations.
• The participants were followed for a median duration of 115 months, during which 503 died.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with CKD who died during the follow-up period had a significantly higher TFQI (P < .001) than those who survived.
• The rates of all-cause mortality increased from 26.61% in the lowest TFQI tertile to 40.89% in the highest tertile (P = .001).
• A per unit increase in the TFQI was associated with a 40% increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.79).
• This association between TFQI level and all-cause mortality persisted in all subgroups stratified by age, gender, race, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and CKD stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study demonstrates that impaired sensitivity to thyroid hormone might be associated with all-cause mortality in CKD patients with normal thyroid function, independent of other traditional risk factors and comorbidities,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Qichao Yang and Ru Dong, Department of Endocrinology, Affiliated Wujin Hospital of Jiangsu University, Changzhou, China, and was published online on August 6, 2024, in BMC Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Thyroid function was measured only at baseline, and the changes in thyroid function over time were not measured. The study excluded people on thyroid hormone replacement therapy but did not consider other medication use that might have affected thyroid function, such as beta-blockers, steroids, and amiodarone. Thyroid-related antibodies, metabolic syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were not included in the analysis as possible confounding factors. The US-based sample requires further validation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Changzhou Health Commission. The authors declared no competing interests.

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.

A surprising new report by the Mercer consulting firm projects that the American healthcare workforce will face a small shortfall in 2028 — a shortage of less than 1% of all employees. The report even projects a surplus of tens of thousands of registered nurses and home health aides — and even a small surplus of physicians in some states.

Mercer’s projections are rosier than federal workforce projections, which paint a grimmer picture of impending shortages.

“The labor market is a little more stabilized right now, and most healthcare systems are seeing less turnover,” Dan Lezotte, PhD, a partner with Mercer, said in an interview. But he noted “critical shortages” are still expected in some areas.

Mercer last projected workforce numbers in a 2020-2021 report released during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, “the labor market is drastically different,” Dr. Lezotte said. Health workforce shortages and surpluses have long varied significantly by region across the country.

The report forecasts a small surplus of physicians in 2028 but not in states such as California, New York, and Texas. The upper Midwest states will largely see doctor surpluses while Southern states face shortages. Some states with general physician surpluses may still experience shortages of specialists.

A surplus of nearly 30,000 registered nurses is expected, but New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are projected to have a combined shortage of 16,000 nurses.

Overall, the report projects a shortage of more than 100,000 healthcare workers nationally by 2028. That’s less than 1% of the entire healthcare workforce of 18.6 million expected by then.

The report also predicts a shortage of nurse practitioners, especially in California and New York, and a shortage of 73,000 nursing assistants, especially in California, New York, and Texas.

“Healthcare systems are having the most difficulty hiring and hanging on to those workers who are supposed to take up the load off physicians and nurses,” Dr. Lezotte said. “They’re competing not only with other healthcare systems but with other industries like Amazon warehouses or McDonald’s in California paying $20 an hour. Healthcare was a little slow to keep up with that. In a lot of healthcare systems, that’s their biggest headache right now.”

On the other hand, the report projects a national surplus of 48,000 home health/personal care aides.

That surprised Bianca K. Frogner, PhD, director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“We are seeing increasing movement of investments toward moving patients out of skilled nursing facilities and keeping them in the home and community, which requires many more home health aides,” Dr. Frogner said. “Given such high turnover in this occupation, it’s hard to know if the surplus is really a surplus or if they will quickly be employed.”

Dr. Frogner receives grants and contracts from not-for-profit entities to investigate issues related to the health workforce.

Dr. Lezotte said the report’s findings are based on data from sources such as public and private databases and job postings. According to the report, “projections were made up to 2028 based on historical data up to 2023,” and “supply projections were derived using a linear autoregressive model based on historical supply within each occupation and geography.”

It’s not clear why some states like New York are expected to have huge shortages, but migration might be a factor, along with a lack of nearby nursing schools, Dr. Lezotte said.

As for shortages, Dr. Lezotte said healthcare systems will have to understand their local workforce situation and adapt. “They’ll need to be more proactive about their employee value proposition” via competitive pay and benefits Flexibility regarding scheduling is also important.

“They’re going to have to figure out how to up their game,” he said.

What about states with surpluses? They might be target-rich environments for states facing shortages, he said.
 

Positive Outlook Not Shared by Other Researchers

Other workforce projections conflict with Mercer’s, according to Jean Moore, DrPH, and Gaetano Forte, MS, director and assistant director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York.

The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects a 10% shortage of registered nurses and a 13% shortage of physicians in 2031. The agency didn’t make projections for home health aides because that workforce is in flux.

Why are Mercer’s projections so different? Dr. Lezotte said other projections assume that equity efforts will bring healthcare to everyone who needs it. The report assumes this won’t happen, he said. As a result, it expects there will be fewer patients who need to be served by workers.

Other projections expect a shortage of 300,000 registered nurses by 2035, Mr. Forte said. But the number of nurse practitioners in New York is growing quickly, Dr. Moore said.

Dr. Moore said it’s difficult to interpret Mercer’s findings because the company doesn’t provide enough information about its methodology.

“At some level, it’s not particularly useful regarding what the next steps are,” she said. “Projections should make you think about what you should do to change and improve, to create more of what you need.”

The Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Albany has provided consulting services to multiple companies that provide healthcare workforce projections. It has no relationship with Mercer.

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

A surprising new report by the Mercer consulting firm projects that the American healthcare workforce will face a small shortfall in 2028 — a shortage of less than 1% of all employees. The report even projects a surplus of tens of thousands of registered nurses and home health aides — and even a small surplus of physicians in some states.

Mercer’s projections are rosier than federal workforce projections, which paint a grimmer picture of impending shortages.

“The labor market is a little more stabilized right now, and most healthcare systems are seeing less turnover,” Dan Lezotte, PhD, a partner with Mercer, said in an interview. But he noted “critical shortages” are still expected in some areas.

Mercer last projected workforce numbers in a 2020-2021 report released during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, “the labor market is drastically different,” Dr. Lezotte said. Health workforce shortages and surpluses have long varied significantly by region across the country.

The report forecasts a small surplus of physicians in 2028 but not in states such as California, New York, and Texas. The upper Midwest states will largely see doctor surpluses while Southern states face shortages. Some states with general physician surpluses may still experience shortages of specialists.

A surplus of nearly 30,000 registered nurses is expected, but New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are projected to have a combined shortage of 16,000 nurses.

Overall, the report projects a shortage of more than 100,000 healthcare workers nationally by 2028. That’s less than 1% of the entire healthcare workforce of 18.6 million expected by then.

The report also predicts a shortage of nurse practitioners, especially in California and New York, and a shortage of 73,000 nursing assistants, especially in California, New York, and Texas.

“Healthcare systems are having the most difficulty hiring and hanging on to those workers who are supposed to take up the load off physicians and nurses,” Dr. Lezotte said. “They’re competing not only with other healthcare systems but with other industries like Amazon warehouses or McDonald’s in California paying $20 an hour. Healthcare was a little slow to keep up with that. In a lot of healthcare systems, that’s their biggest headache right now.”

On the other hand, the report projects a national surplus of 48,000 home health/personal care aides.

That surprised Bianca K. Frogner, PhD, director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“We are seeing increasing movement of investments toward moving patients out of skilled nursing facilities and keeping them in the home and community, which requires many more home health aides,” Dr. Frogner said. “Given such high turnover in this occupation, it’s hard to know if the surplus is really a surplus or if they will quickly be employed.”

Dr. Frogner receives grants and contracts from not-for-profit entities to investigate issues related to the health workforce.

Dr. Lezotte said the report’s findings are based on data from sources such as public and private databases and job postings. According to the report, “projections were made up to 2028 based on historical data up to 2023,” and “supply projections were derived using a linear autoregressive model based on historical supply within each occupation and geography.”

It’s not clear why some states like New York are expected to have huge shortages, but migration might be a factor, along with a lack of nearby nursing schools, Dr. Lezotte said.

As for shortages, Dr. Lezotte said healthcare systems will have to understand their local workforce situation and adapt. “They’ll need to be more proactive about their employee value proposition” via competitive pay and benefits Flexibility regarding scheduling is also important.

“They’re going to have to figure out how to up their game,” he said.

What about states with surpluses? They might be target-rich environments for states facing shortages, he said.
 

Positive Outlook Not Shared by Other Researchers

Other workforce projections conflict with Mercer’s, according to Jean Moore, DrPH, and Gaetano Forte, MS, director and assistant director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York.

The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects a 10% shortage of registered nurses and a 13% shortage of physicians in 2031. The agency didn’t make projections for home health aides because that workforce is in flux.

Why are Mercer’s projections so different? Dr. Lezotte said other projections assume that equity efforts will bring healthcare to everyone who needs it. The report assumes this won’t happen, he said. As a result, it expects there will be fewer patients who need to be served by workers.

Other projections expect a shortage of 300,000 registered nurses by 2035, Mr. Forte said. But the number of nurse practitioners in New York is growing quickly, Dr. Moore said.

Dr. Moore said it’s difficult to interpret Mercer’s findings because the company doesn’t provide enough information about its methodology.

“At some level, it’s not particularly useful regarding what the next steps are,” she said. “Projections should make you think about what you should do to change and improve, to create more of what you need.”

The Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Albany has provided consulting services to multiple companies that provide healthcare workforce projections. It has no relationship with Mercer.

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

A surprising new report by the Mercer consulting firm projects that the American healthcare workforce will face a small shortfall in 2028 — a shortage of less than 1% of all employees. The report even projects a surplus of tens of thousands of registered nurses and home health aides — and even a small surplus of physicians in some states.

Mercer’s projections are rosier than federal workforce projections, which paint a grimmer picture of impending shortages.

“The labor market is a little more stabilized right now, and most healthcare systems are seeing less turnover,” Dan Lezotte, PhD, a partner with Mercer, said in an interview. But he noted “critical shortages” are still expected in some areas.

Mercer last projected workforce numbers in a 2020-2021 report released during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, “the labor market is drastically different,” Dr. Lezotte said. Health workforce shortages and surpluses have long varied significantly by region across the country.

The report forecasts a small surplus of physicians in 2028 but not in states such as California, New York, and Texas. The upper Midwest states will largely see doctor surpluses while Southern states face shortages. Some states with general physician surpluses may still experience shortages of specialists.

A surplus of nearly 30,000 registered nurses is expected, but New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are projected to have a combined shortage of 16,000 nurses.

Overall, the report projects a shortage of more than 100,000 healthcare workers nationally by 2028. That’s less than 1% of the entire healthcare workforce of 18.6 million expected by then.

The report also predicts a shortage of nurse practitioners, especially in California and New York, and a shortage of 73,000 nursing assistants, especially in California, New York, and Texas.

“Healthcare systems are having the most difficulty hiring and hanging on to those workers who are supposed to take up the load off physicians and nurses,” Dr. Lezotte said. “They’re competing not only with other healthcare systems but with other industries like Amazon warehouses or McDonald’s in California paying $20 an hour. Healthcare was a little slow to keep up with that. In a lot of healthcare systems, that’s their biggest headache right now.”

On the other hand, the report projects a national surplus of 48,000 home health/personal care aides.

That surprised Bianca K. Frogner, PhD, director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“We are seeing increasing movement of investments toward moving patients out of skilled nursing facilities and keeping them in the home and community, which requires many more home health aides,” Dr. Frogner said. “Given such high turnover in this occupation, it’s hard to know if the surplus is really a surplus or if they will quickly be employed.”

Dr. Frogner receives grants and contracts from not-for-profit entities to investigate issues related to the health workforce.

Dr. Lezotte said the report’s findings are based on data from sources such as public and private databases and job postings. According to the report, “projections were made up to 2028 based on historical data up to 2023,” and “supply projections were derived using a linear autoregressive model based on historical supply within each occupation and geography.”

It’s not clear why some states like New York are expected to have huge shortages, but migration might be a factor, along with a lack of nearby nursing schools, Dr. Lezotte said.

As for shortages, Dr. Lezotte said healthcare systems will have to understand their local workforce situation and adapt. “They’ll need to be more proactive about their employee value proposition” via competitive pay and benefits Flexibility regarding scheduling is also important.

“They’re going to have to figure out how to up their game,” he said.

What about states with surpluses? They might be target-rich environments for states facing shortages, he said.
 

Positive Outlook Not Shared by Other Researchers

Other workforce projections conflict with Mercer’s, according to Jean Moore, DrPH, and Gaetano Forte, MS, director and assistant director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York.

The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects a 10% shortage of registered nurses and a 13% shortage of physicians in 2031. The agency didn’t make projections for home health aides because that workforce is in flux.

Why are Mercer’s projections so different? Dr. Lezotte said other projections assume that equity efforts will bring healthcare to everyone who needs it. The report assumes this won’t happen, he said. As a result, it expects there will be fewer patients who need to be served by workers.

Other projections expect a shortage of 300,000 registered nurses by 2035, Mr. Forte said. But the number of nurse practitioners in New York is growing quickly, Dr. Moore said.

Dr. Moore said it’s difficult to interpret Mercer’s findings because the company doesn’t provide enough information about its methodology.

“At some level, it’s not particularly useful regarding what the next steps are,” she said. “Projections should make you think about what you should do to change and improve, to create more of what you need.”

The Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Albany has provided consulting services to multiple companies that provide healthcare workforce projections. It has no relationship with Mercer.

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

TOPLINE:

The metabolically unhealthy obesity phenotype, with its multiple comorbidities, may be the most practical group of people with obesity to screen for Cushing syndrome rather than all patients with obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a key clinical feature of Cushing syndrome and shares many overlapping characteristics. An ongoing debate continues about the need to screen patients with obesity for the rare endocrine disease, but phenotypes known as metabolically healthy or unhealthy obesity may help better define an at-risk population.
• To assess the prevalence of Cushing syndrome by metabolic health status, researchers conducted a retrospective study of 1008 patients with obesity (mean age, 40 years; 83% women; body mass index ≥ 30) seen at an endocrinology outpatient clinic in Turkey between December 2020 and June 2022.
• They screened patients for Cushing syndrome with an overnight dexamethasone suppression test (1 mg DST), an oral dexamethasone dose given at 11 PM followed by a fasting blood sample for cortisol measurement the next morning. A serum cortisol level < 1.8 mcg/dL indicated normal suppression.
• Patients were categorized into those with metabolically healthy obesity (n = 229) or metabolically unhealthy obesity (n = 779) based on the absence or presence of comorbidities such as diabetes, prediabetes, coronary artery disease, hypertension, or dyslipidemia.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall prevalence of Cushing syndrome in the study cohort was 0.2%, with only two patients definitively diagnosed after more tests and the remaining 10 classified as having subclinical hypercortisolism.
• Cortisol levels following the 1 mg DST were higher in the metabolically unhealthy obesity group than in the metabolically healthy obesity group (P = .001).
• Among the 12 patients with unsuppressed levels of cortisol, 11 belonged to the metabolically unhealthy obesity group, indicating a strong association between metabolic health and the levels of cortisol.
• The test demonstrated a specificity of 99% and sensitivity of 100% for screening Cushing syndrome in patients with obesity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening all patients with obesity for CS [Cushing syndrome] without considering any associated metabolic conditions appears impractical and unnecessary in everyday clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “However, it may be more reasonable and applicable to selectively screen the patients with obesity having comorbidities such as DM [diabetes mellitus], hypertension, dyslipidemia, or coronary artery disease, which lead to a metabolically unhealthy phenotype, rather than all individuals with obesity,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sema Hepsen, Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Ankara, Turkey, was published online in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The single-center design of the study and inclusion of patients from a single racial group may limit the generalizability of the findings. The retrospective design prevented the retrieval of all relevant data on clinical features and fat distribution.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye. The authors declared no 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:

The metabolically unhealthy obesity phenotype, with its multiple comorbidities, may be the most practical group of people with obesity to screen for Cushing syndrome rather than all patients with obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a key clinical feature of Cushing syndrome and shares many overlapping characteristics. An ongoing debate continues about the need to screen patients with obesity for the rare endocrine disease, but phenotypes known as metabolically healthy or unhealthy obesity may help better define an at-risk population.
• To assess the prevalence of Cushing syndrome by metabolic health status, researchers conducted a retrospective study of 1008 patients with obesity (mean age, 40 years; 83% women; body mass index ≥ 30) seen at an endocrinology outpatient clinic in Turkey between December 2020 and June 2022.
• They screened patients for Cushing syndrome with an overnight dexamethasone suppression test (1 mg DST), an oral dexamethasone dose given at 11 PM followed by a fasting blood sample for cortisol measurement the next morning. A serum cortisol level < 1.8 mcg/dL indicated normal suppression.
• Patients were categorized into those with metabolically healthy obesity (n = 229) or metabolically unhealthy obesity (n = 779) based on the absence or presence of comorbidities such as diabetes, prediabetes, coronary artery disease, hypertension, or dyslipidemia.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall prevalence of Cushing syndrome in the study cohort was 0.2%, with only two patients definitively diagnosed after more tests and the remaining 10 classified as having subclinical hypercortisolism.
• Cortisol levels following the 1 mg DST were higher in the metabolically unhealthy obesity group than in the metabolically healthy obesity group (P = .001).
• Among the 12 patients with unsuppressed levels of cortisol, 11 belonged to the metabolically unhealthy obesity group, indicating a strong association between metabolic health and the levels of cortisol.
• The test demonstrated a specificity of 99% and sensitivity of 100% for screening Cushing syndrome in patients with obesity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening all patients with obesity for CS [Cushing syndrome] without considering any associated metabolic conditions appears impractical and unnecessary in everyday clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “However, it may be more reasonable and applicable to selectively screen the patients with obesity having comorbidities such as DM [diabetes mellitus], hypertension, dyslipidemia, or coronary artery disease, which lead to a metabolically unhealthy phenotype, rather than all individuals with obesity,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sema Hepsen, Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Ankara, Turkey, was published online in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The single-center design of the study and inclusion of patients from a single racial group may limit the generalizability of the findings. The retrospective design prevented the retrieval of all relevant data on clinical features and fat distribution.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye. The authors declared no 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:

The metabolically unhealthy obesity phenotype, with its multiple comorbidities, may be the most practical group of people with obesity to screen for Cushing syndrome rather than all patients with obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a key clinical feature of Cushing syndrome and shares many overlapping characteristics. An ongoing debate continues about the need to screen patients with obesity for the rare endocrine disease, but phenotypes known as metabolically healthy or unhealthy obesity may help better define an at-risk population.
• To assess the prevalence of Cushing syndrome by metabolic health status, researchers conducted a retrospective study of 1008 patients with obesity (mean age, 40 years; 83% women; body mass index ≥ 30) seen at an endocrinology outpatient clinic in Turkey between December 2020 and June 2022.
• They screened patients for Cushing syndrome with an overnight dexamethasone suppression test (1 mg DST), an oral dexamethasone dose given at 11 PM followed by a fasting blood sample for cortisol measurement the next morning. A serum cortisol level < 1.8 mcg/dL indicated normal suppression.
• Patients were categorized into those with metabolically healthy obesity (n = 229) or metabolically unhealthy obesity (n = 779) based on the absence or presence of comorbidities such as diabetes, prediabetes, coronary artery disease, hypertension, or dyslipidemia.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall prevalence of Cushing syndrome in the study cohort was 0.2%, with only two patients definitively diagnosed after more tests and the remaining 10 classified as having subclinical hypercortisolism.
• Cortisol levels following the 1 mg DST were higher in the metabolically unhealthy obesity group than in the metabolically healthy obesity group (P = .001).
• Among the 12 patients with unsuppressed levels of cortisol, 11 belonged to the metabolically unhealthy obesity group, indicating a strong association between metabolic health and the levels of cortisol.
• The test demonstrated a specificity of 99% and sensitivity of 100% for screening Cushing syndrome in patients with obesity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening all patients with obesity for CS [Cushing syndrome] without considering any associated metabolic conditions appears impractical and unnecessary in everyday clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “However, it may be more reasonable and applicable to selectively screen the patients with obesity having comorbidities such as DM [diabetes mellitus], hypertension, dyslipidemia, or coronary artery disease, which lead to a metabolically unhealthy phenotype, rather than all individuals with obesity,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sema Hepsen, Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Ankara, Turkey, was published online in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The single-center design of the study and inclusion of patients from a single racial group may limit the generalizability of the findings. The retrospective design prevented the retrieval of all relevant data on clinical features and fat distribution.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye. The authors declared no 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.

A so-called “oatzempic” diet has been bouncing around the internet posing as a cheap — and available — weight loss alternative to Ozempic.

Fans of the diet, made trendy by TikTok postings and a clever name, claim that an oat-based smoothie helps people quickly shed lots of weight. The smoothie is made by blending 1/2 cup of oats, 1 cup of water, a squeeze of lime, and maybe a dash of cinnamon or other flavoring agents, typically as the first meal of the day, often after fasting, followed by normal meals.

Despite the hype, the oatzempic drink is a far cry from Ozempic (semaglutide), the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medication the Food and Drug Administration has approved only for type 2 diabetes management but used off label for weight loss.

So how do pulverized oats stack up against prescription-based GLP-1s? According to two nutrition experts, they’re not as effective as some TikTok influencers claim. And in people with diabetes, the diet can be dangerous.
 

Nutritionists Answer Questions on Oatzempic

Caroline West Passerrello, EdD, RDN, LDN, an instructor and community coordinator in the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Emma Laing, PhD, RDN, LD, a clinical professor and director of dietetics in the College of Family and Consumer Sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, talked about this fad in emails.

Can the ‘oatzempic’ diet help people lose weight?

Dr. Passerrello: Oats are particularly high in soluble fiber, and high-fiber foods can increase the natural production of GLPs. But studies are mixed on whether this happens when eating oats.

The high content of soluble beta-glucan fiber in oats and the appetite-suppressing citric acid in lime can potentially promote decreased appetite and increased satiety. But a bowl of oatmeal, though not as trendy, will probably produce the same results.

Is the oatzempic diet safe for people with type 2 diabetes?

Dr. Laing: This diet has the potential to cause harm. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. Rapid weight loss is unsustainable and can be harmful, and frequent spikes in blood sugar can harm adults and children with diabetes. So the oatzempic diet’s safety depends on the rate of weight loss and the effect on blood sugar. While it provides beta-glucan from oats and citric acid from lime juice, it is missing protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content and stabilize blood sugar.

Maintaining relatively consistent, normal-range blood glucose concentrations is key for managing diabetes and lowering the risks for other health complications. Carbohydrate sources consumed on their own can produce greater blood sugar fluctuations than when combined with proteins and fats, which slow carbohydrate digestion speed. So pairing oats with fruits, vegetables, healthy fats, and protein sources enhances the flavor, texture, and nutrient composition of the dish and can help slow the postprandial rise in blood glucose.

In the long term, any restrictive fad diet likely cannot be sustained and increases the risk for malnutrition, metabolic rate slowing to conserve energy, depression, social isolation, or eating disorder.

Additional considerations apply to children, with or without diabetes. Restrictive, extreme diets that promise quick results typically “work” by promoting body water and muscle mass losses. Such diets are not only contraindicated in children, who are undergoing rapid growth and development, but also unsustainable and can lead to physical and psychological problems that carry into adulthood.

What strategies and tactics can physicians use to effectively communicate with their patients about safe and effective diets?

Dr. Laing: Encourage patients to be skeptical of social media trends that seem too good to be true. Many [social media] creators lack the education or professional credentials to offer sound nutrition advice, and their posts could do harm. Explain that individual nutrition needs differ considerably based on age, activity patterns, health conditions, and medications, and one person’s way of eating or success is often not realistic for someone else.

Encourage open dialogue and provide nonjudgmental advice. If the taste of oatzempic intrigues patients, there is likely no harm in experimenting. Work on ensuring their meals are adequate in calories and contain sources of protein and healthy fats to prevent spikes in blood glucose. It’s crucial to communicate that weight loss doesn’t always equate with improved health.

Sharing information from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the American Diabetes Association can equip patients with tools they can implement under their clinician’s guidance. A provider’s greatest ally in diabetes care is a registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN) who is a Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist. RDNs will determine specific energy and nutrient needs and provide medical nutrition therapy such as carbohydrate counting, simplified meal plans, healthy food choices, exchange lists, and behavior strategies to help patients manage their diabetes. Many insurance plans cover these services.

What additional comments would you like to share with clinicians whose patients may ask them about the oatzempic diet?

Dr. Passerrello: What we do consistently matters. If your patient likes the taste of oatzempic in one meal a day, it’s a way to get more oats into their diet, if they focus their other meals on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, lean protein, and unsaturated fats.

Diets are out, and sustainable dietary patterns are in. Diets are one-size-fits-all, whereas a sustainable dietary pattern is individualized based on a person’s goals, medical history, taste preferences, budget, and lifestyle. Visit MyPlate.gov or work with an RDN [visit https://www.eatright.org/find-a-nutrition-expert to find nutritionists near your patients] to determine what a sustainable dietary pattern looks like.

What do clinicians need to know about claims on social media that a related drink — ‘ricezempic’ — aids weight loss?

Dr. Laing: Ricezempic promoters claim that drinking the beverage — typically made by soaking 1/2 cup of uncooked white rice in 1 cup of water and the juice from half a lime, then discarding the rice and drinking the liquid before breakfast — will lead to weight loss because the strained water provides a small dose of resistant starch, which is a source of prebiotics. Studies have shown that ingesting prebiotics may help lower blood cholesterol, improve blood glucose and insulin sensitivity, and benefit digestive function; however, more research is needed to determine specifics and if prebiotics are proven for weight loss.

Does ricezempic work?

Dr. Laing: There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. Even if ricezempic provides a small amount of resistant starch and hydration from the rice water and citric acid from the lime juice, it is missing fiber, protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content of a meal or snack and stabilize blood sugar.

What advice do you have for clinicians whose patients with diabetes ask them about ricezempic?

Dr. Laing: I would not suggest that patients rely on ricezempic to support their health. There is no scientific evidence to show that people will lose weight in the short or long term by drinking ricezempic before a meal (or as a meal replacement).

If your patients are aiming to increase their intake of prebiotics, they are naturally found in various vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and seeds and in yogurt and high-fiber breads and cereals. A nutritious eating pattern that includes these foods is most beneficial for health.

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

A so-called “oatzempic” diet has been bouncing around the internet posing as a cheap — and available — weight loss alternative to Ozempic.

Fans of the diet, made trendy by TikTok postings and a clever name, claim that an oat-based smoothie helps people quickly shed lots of weight. The smoothie is made by blending 1/2 cup of oats, 1 cup of water, a squeeze of lime, and maybe a dash of cinnamon or other flavoring agents, typically as the first meal of the day, often after fasting, followed by normal meals.

Despite the hype, the oatzempic drink is a far cry from Ozempic (semaglutide), the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medication the Food and Drug Administration has approved only for type 2 diabetes management but used off label for weight loss.

So how do pulverized oats stack up against prescription-based GLP-1s? According to two nutrition experts, they’re not as effective as some TikTok influencers claim. And in people with diabetes, the diet can be dangerous.
 

Nutritionists Answer Questions on Oatzempic

Caroline West Passerrello, EdD, RDN, LDN, an instructor and community coordinator in the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Emma Laing, PhD, RDN, LD, a clinical professor and director of dietetics in the College of Family and Consumer Sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, talked about this fad in emails.

Can the ‘oatzempic’ diet help people lose weight?

Dr. Passerrello: Oats are particularly high in soluble fiber, and high-fiber foods can increase the natural production of GLPs. But studies are mixed on whether this happens when eating oats.

The high content of soluble beta-glucan fiber in oats and the appetite-suppressing citric acid in lime can potentially promote decreased appetite and increased satiety. But a bowl of oatmeal, though not as trendy, will probably produce the same results.

Is the oatzempic diet safe for people with type 2 diabetes?

Dr. Laing: This diet has the potential to cause harm. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. Rapid weight loss is unsustainable and can be harmful, and frequent spikes in blood sugar can harm adults and children with diabetes. So the oatzempic diet’s safety depends on the rate of weight loss and the effect on blood sugar. While it provides beta-glucan from oats and citric acid from lime juice, it is missing protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content and stabilize blood sugar.

Maintaining relatively consistent, normal-range blood glucose concentrations is key for managing diabetes and lowering the risks for other health complications. Carbohydrate sources consumed on their own can produce greater blood sugar fluctuations than when combined with proteins and fats, which slow carbohydrate digestion speed. So pairing oats with fruits, vegetables, healthy fats, and protein sources enhances the flavor, texture, and nutrient composition of the dish and can help slow the postprandial rise in blood glucose.

In the long term, any restrictive fad diet likely cannot be sustained and increases the risk for malnutrition, metabolic rate slowing to conserve energy, depression, social isolation, or eating disorder.

Additional considerations apply to children, with or without diabetes. Restrictive, extreme diets that promise quick results typically “work” by promoting body water and muscle mass losses. Such diets are not only contraindicated in children, who are undergoing rapid growth and development, but also unsustainable and can lead to physical and psychological problems that carry into adulthood.

What strategies and tactics can physicians use to effectively communicate with their patients about safe and effective diets?

Dr. Laing: Encourage patients to be skeptical of social media trends that seem too good to be true. Many [social media] creators lack the education or professional credentials to offer sound nutrition advice, and their posts could do harm. Explain that individual nutrition needs differ considerably based on age, activity patterns, health conditions, and medications, and one person’s way of eating or success is often not realistic for someone else.

Encourage open dialogue and provide nonjudgmental advice. If the taste of oatzempic intrigues patients, there is likely no harm in experimenting. Work on ensuring their meals are adequate in calories and contain sources of protein and healthy fats to prevent spikes in blood glucose. It’s crucial to communicate that weight loss doesn’t always equate with improved health.

Sharing information from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the American Diabetes Association can equip patients with tools they can implement under their clinician’s guidance. A provider’s greatest ally in diabetes care is a registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN) who is a Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist. RDNs will determine specific energy and nutrient needs and provide medical nutrition therapy such as carbohydrate counting, simplified meal plans, healthy food choices, exchange lists, and behavior strategies to help patients manage their diabetes. Many insurance plans cover these services.

What additional comments would you like to share with clinicians whose patients may ask them about the oatzempic diet?

Dr. Passerrello: What we do consistently matters. If your patient likes the taste of oatzempic in one meal a day, it’s a way to get more oats into their diet, if they focus their other meals on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, lean protein, and unsaturated fats.

Diets are out, and sustainable dietary patterns are in. Diets are one-size-fits-all, whereas a sustainable dietary pattern is individualized based on a person’s goals, medical history, taste preferences, budget, and lifestyle. Visit MyPlate.gov or work with an RDN [visit https://www.eatright.org/find-a-nutrition-expert to find nutritionists near your patients] to determine what a sustainable dietary pattern looks like.

What do clinicians need to know about claims on social media that a related drink — ‘ricezempic’ — aids weight loss?

Dr. Laing: Ricezempic promoters claim that drinking the beverage — typically made by soaking 1/2 cup of uncooked white rice in 1 cup of water and the juice from half a lime, then discarding the rice and drinking the liquid before breakfast — will lead to weight loss because the strained water provides a small dose of resistant starch, which is a source of prebiotics. Studies have shown that ingesting prebiotics may help lower blood cholesterol, improve blood glucose and insulin sensitivity, and benefit digestive function; however, more research is needed to determine specifics and if prebiotics are proven for weight loss.

Does ricezempic work?

Dr. Laing: There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. Even if ricezempic provides a small amount of resistant starch and hydration from the rice water and citric acid from the lime juice, it is missing fiber, protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content of a meal or snack and stabilize blood sugar.

What advice do you have for clinicians whose patients with diabetes ask them about ricezempic?

Dr. Laing: I would not suggest that patients rely on ricezempic to support their health. There is no scientific evidence to show that people will lose weight in the short or long term by drinking ricezempic before a meal (or as a meal replacement).

If your patients are aiming to increase their intake of prebiotics, they are naturally found in various vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and seeds and in yogurt and high-fiber breads and cereals. A nutritious eating pattern that includes these foods is most beneficial for health.

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

A so-called “oatzempic” diet has been bouncing around the internet posing as a cheap — and available — weight loss alternative to Ozempic.

Fans of the diet, made trendy by TikTok postings and a clever name, claim that an oat-based smoothie helps people quickly shed lots of weight. The smoothie is made by blending 1/2 cup of oats, 1 cup of water, a squeeze of lime, and maybe a dash of cinnamon or other flavoring agents, typically as the first meal of the day, often after fasting, followed by normal meals.

Despite the hype, the oatzempic drink is a far cry from Ozempic (semaglutide), the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medication the Food and Drug Administration has approved only for type 2 diabetes management but used off label for weight loss.

So how do pulverized oats stack up against prescription-based GLP-1s? According to two nutrition experts, they’re not as effective as some TikTok influencers claim. And in people with diabetes, the diet can be dangerous.
 

Nutritionists Answer Questions on Oatzempic

Caroline West Passerrello, EdD, RDN, LDN, an instructor and community coordinator in the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Emma Laing, PhD, RDN, LD, a clinical professor and director of dietetics in the College of Family and Consumer Sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, talked about this fad in emails.

Can the ‘oatzempic’ diet help people lose weight?

Dr. Passerrello: Oats are particularly high in soluble fiber, and high-fiber foods can increase the natural production of GLPs. But studies are mixed on whether this happens when eating oats.

The high content of soluble beta-glucan fiber in oats and the appetite-suppressing citric acid in lime can potentially promote decreased appetite and increased satiety. But a bowl of oatmeal, though not as trendy, will probably produce the same results.

Is the oatzempic diet safe for people with type 2 diabetes?

Dr. Laing: This diet has the potential to cause harm. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. Rapid weight loss is unsustainable and can be harmful, and frequent spikes in blood sugar can harm adults and children with diabetes. So the oatzempic diet’s safety depends on the rate of weight loss and the effect on blood sugar. While it provides beta-glucan from oats and citric acid from lime juice, it is missing protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content and stabilize blood sugar.

Maintaining relatively consistent, normal-range blood glucose concentrations is key for managing diabetes and lowering the risks for other health complications. Carbohydrate sources consumed on their own can produce greater blood sugar fluctuations than when combined with proteins and fats, which slow carbohydrate digestion speed. So pairing oats with fruits, vegetables, healthy fats, and protein sources enhances the flavor, texture, and nutrient composition of the dish and can help slow the postprandial rise in blood glucose.

In the long term, any restrictive fad diet likely cannot be sustained and increases the risk for malnutrition, metabolic rate slowing to conserve energy, depression, social isolation, or eating disorder.

Additional considerations apply to children, with or without diabetes. Restrictive, extreme diets that promise quick results typically “work” by promoting body water and muscle mass losses. Such diets are not only contraindicated in children, who are undergoing rapid growth and development, but also unsustainable and can lead to physical and psychological problems that carry into adulthood.

What strategies and tactics can physicians use to effectively communicate with their patients about safe and effective diets?

Dr. Laing: Encourage patients to be skeptical of social media trends that seem too good to be true. Many [social media] creators lack the education or professional credentials to offer sound nutrition advice, and their posts could do harm. Explain that individual nutrition needs differ considerably based on age, activity patterns, health conditions, and medications, and one person’s way of eating or success is often not realistic for someone else.

Encourage open dialogue and provide nonjudgmental advice. If the taste of oatzempic intrigues patients, there is likely no harm in experimenting. Work on ensuring their meals are adequate in calories and contain sources of protein and healthy fats to prevent spikes in blood glucose. It’s crucial to communicate that weight loss doesn’t always equate with improved health.

Sharing information from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the American Diabetes Association can equip patients with tools they can implement under their clinician’s guidance. A provider’s greatest ally in diabetes care is a registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN) who is a Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist. RDNs will determine specific energy and nutrient needs and provide medical nutrition therapy such as carbohydrate counting, simplified meal plans, healthy food choices, exchange lists, and behavior strategies to help patients manage their diabetes. Many insurance plans cover these services.

What additional comments would you like to share with clinicians whose patients may ask them about the oatzempic diet?

Dr. Passerrello: What we do consistently matters. If your patient likes the taste of oatzempic in one meal a day, it’s a way to get more oats into their diet, if they focus their other meals on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, lean protein, and unsaturated fats.

Diets are out, and sustainable dietary patterns are in. Diets are one-size-fits-all, whereas a sustainable dietary pattern is individualized based on a person’s goals, medical history, taste preferences, budget, and lifestyle. Visit MyPlate.gov or work with an RDN [visit https://www.eatright.org/find-a-nutrition-expert to find nutritionists near your patients] to determine what a sustainable dietary pattern looks like.

What do clinicians need to know about claims on social media that a related drink — ‘ricezempic’ — aids weight loss?

Dr. Laing: Ricezempic promoters claim that drinking the beverage — typically made by soaking 1/2 cup of uncooked white rice in 1 cup of water and the juice from half a lime, then discarding the rice and drinking the liquid before breakfast — will lead to weight loss because the strained water provides a small dose of resistant starch, which is a source of prebiotics. Studies have shown that ingesting prebiotics may help lower blood cholesterol, improve blood glucose and insulin sensitivity, and benefit digestive function; however, more research is needed to determine specifics and if prebiotics are proven for weight loss.

Does ricezempic work?

Dr. Laing: There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. Even if ricezempic provides a small amount of resistant starch and hydration from the rice water and citric acid from the lime juice, it is missing fiber, protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content of a meal or snack and stabilize blood sugar.

What advice do you have for clinicians whose patients with diabetes ask them about ricezempic?

Dr. Laing: I would not suggest that patients rely on ricezempic to support their health. There is no scientific evidence to show that people will lose weight in the short or long term by drinking ricezempic before a meal (or as a meal replacement).

If your patients are aiming to increase their intake of prebiotics, they are naturally found in various vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and seeds and in yogurt and high-fiber breads and cereals. A nutritious eating pattern that includes these foods is most beneficial for health.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increases breast cancer risk in women with a strong family history of breast cancer. These women have a striking cumulative risk of developing breast cancer (age, 50-80 years) of 22.4%, according to a new modelling study of UK women.

METHODOLOGY:

This was a modeling study integrating two data-sets of UK women: the BOADICEA dataset of age-specific breast cancer risk with family history and the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, which covers relative risk for breast cancer with different types and durations of MHT.

Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:

• “Average” family history of breast cancer has unknown affected family members;
• “Modest” family history comprises a single first-degree relative with breast cancer at the age of 60 years.
• “Intermediate” family history comprises a single first-degree relative who developed breast cancer at the age of 40 years.
• “Strong” family history comprises two first-degree relatives who developed breast cancer at the age of 50 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The lowest risk category: “Average” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 9.8% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 1.7%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 11.0% and 1.8%, respectively.
• The highest risk category: “Strong” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 19.6% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 3.2%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 22.4% and 3.5%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded that, “These integrated data will enable more accurate estimates of absolute and attributable risk associated with MHT exposure for women with a family history of breast cancer, informing shared decision-making.”

SOURCE:

The lead author is Catherine Huntley of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, England. The study appeared in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included modeling study that did not directly measure individuals with combined risks.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by several sources including Cancer Research UK. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increases breast cancer risk in women with a strong family history of breast cancer. These women have a striking cumulative risk of developing breast cancer (age, 50-80 years) of 22.4%, according to a new modelling study of UK women.

METHODOLOGY:

This was a modeling study integrating two data-sets of UK women: the BOADICEA dataset of age-specific breast cancer risk with family history and the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, which covers relative risk for breast cancer with different types and durations of MHT.

Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:

• “Average” family history of breast cancer has unknown affected family members;
• “Modest” family history comprises a single first-degree relative with breast cancer at the age of 60 years.
• “Intermediate” family history comprises a single first-degree relative who developed breast cancer at the age of 40 years.
• “Strong” family history comprises two first-degree relatives who developed breast cancer at the age of 50 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The lowest risk category: “Average” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 9.8% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 1.7%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 11.0% and 1.8%, respectively.
• The highest risk category: “Strong” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 19.6% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 3.2%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 22.4% and 3.5%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded that, “These integrated data will enable more accurate estimates of absolute and attributable risk associated with MHT exposure for women with a family history of breast cancer, informing shared decision-making.”

SOURCE:

The lead author is Catherine Huntley of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, England. The study appeared in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included modeling study that did not directly measure individuals with combined risks.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by several sources including Cancer Research UK. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increases breast cancer risk in women with a strong family history of breast cancer. These women have a striking cumulative risk of developing breast cancer (age, 50-80 years) of 22.4%, according to a new modelling study of UK women.

METHODOLOGY:

This was a modeling study integrating two data-sets of UK women: the BOADICEA dataset of age-specific breast cancer risk with family history and the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, which covers relative risk for breast cancer with different types and durations of MHT.

Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:

• “Average” family history of breast cancer has unknown affected family members;
• “Modest” family history comprises a single first-degree relative with breast cancer at the age of 60 years.
• “Intermediate” family history comprises a single first-degree relative who developed breast cancer at the age of 40 years.
• “Strong” family history comprises two first-degree relatives who developed breast cancer at the age of 50 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The lowest risk category: “Average” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 9.8% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 1.7%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 11.0% and 1.8%, respectively.
• The highest risk category: “Strong” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 19.6% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 3.2%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 22.4% and 3.5%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded that, “These integrated data will enable more accurate estimates of absolute and attributable risk associated with MHT exposure for women with a family history of breast cancer, informing shared decision-making.”

SOURCE:

The lead author is Catherine Huntley of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, England. The study appeared in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included modeling study that did not directly measure individuals with combined risks.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by several sources including Cancer Research UK. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.