User login
What’s the ‘secret sauce’ to help patients move more?
“Just Do It” is a cute marketing slogan. But let’s face it: Clinically, it doesn’t work well. Most people just don’t exercise. according to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Furthermore, when surveyed about aerobic exercise and strength training, only 24.6% meet these weekly recommendations. These low rates of physical activity are alarming, given the immense benefits of exercise in improving mental and physical health and well-being.
Many people know that exercise is good for them but struggle to go workout consistently. I know firsthand how challenging this can be. In addition to being an integrative obesity specialist, I have gone from 0 minutes of physical activity in 2014 to becoming a fitness enthusiast who’s run more than 5,300 miles over 8 years. I know that as doctors and clinicians, we can profoundly influence our patients’ exercise journey.
Here are five tips to help motivate your patients make the change from “I Won’t Do It” to “I’m Doing It.”
Tip 1: ‘[Clinician], heal thyself’
Data don’t lie. Doctors who move more are more likely to counsel patients on exercise. I’ve been the doctor on both sides of the exercise spectrum. At my heaviest weight and lowest physical activity level, I felt hypocritical counseling patients on exercise.
If and when I counseled my patients on exercise, it was very directive and impersonal. When I started running consistently, I went to the opposite end of the spectrum. In my running zeal, it took a while for me to understand that not everyone wants to run dozens of miles a week. Shocking! Some people can’t handle intense workouts. The “I did it so you can too” perspective wasn’t helpful for long-term change in most patients.
What has been beneficial is recalling the obstacles and emotions I had (and still have) with staying consistent with physical activity. When physicians and clinicians move regularly, we’re more equipped to give our patients genuine counseling based on practicality rather than theory.
Now that self-reflection has been addressed, let’s get to patient counseling.
Tip 2: Motivate, don’t berate
Lectures on why patients should exercise are less helpful than asking, “Why aren›t you able to exercise more often?”
Asking open-ended questions is essential in motivational interviewing. Motivational interviewing promotes behavioral change through collaborative conversation.
Instead of telling the patient what to do, motivational interviewing seeks to establish a person’s why and create an effective plan based on their motivation. Asking open-ended questions is also helpful in determining any challenges to regular exercise, rather than calling these challenges “excuses,” which can be counterproductive.
I encourage patients to embrace challenges as opportunities for improvement. If they say: “I can’t find time to work out,” I suggest that they create time to work out by walking 10-15 minutes during lunch or after dinner. The information gleaned from open-ended questions helps set practical SMARTER goals, which we will discuss next.
Tip 3: Set SMARTER goals
After assessing the patient’s motivation and barriers, use this information to transform their desire to change into an actionable plan through a SMARTER goal. SMARTER stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-Sensitive, Enjoyable, and Rewarding. Practical goals have each of these components. That’s why “Just Do It” or even “Exercise 150 minutes a week” isn’t a clear path for actionable change. SMARTER goals go beyond what to do and help people personalize how to change.
For example, the SMARTER version of “exercise 150 minutes a week” for a busy person who works 50 hours a week may look like this: “My goal is to incorporate 150 minutes of physical activity through 60 minutes of aerobic exercise Monday through Friday (20-minute lunch walks) and 90 minutes of combination resistance training on the weekend (two 45-minute sessions) while listening to my favorite music. To meet my goal, I will reward myself by calling a friend to catch up or buy myself a new workout outfit.”
Exercise prescriptions are another helpful way to empower patients with a realistic exercise strategy. In my practice, I developed my own exercise prescription which focuses on overcoming time barriers to exercise and finding personally enjoyable exercises. To enhance self-directed physical activity, I›ve found it useful to have patients complete part of the “exercise prescription” on their own before or after their visit.
Tip 4: Use accountability tools
Making a SMARTER goal is one thing, but sticking with it takes regular reinforcement. Even with the best plan, once patients leave the office, there are many distractions from their goals. Accountability is the secret sauce to cultivating consistency. Fitness trackers are an affordable form of accountability. Studies show that wearing a fitness tracker can help people get up to 40 minutes of extra walking, compared with people who don’t wear trackers.
Additionally, clinicians can use different ways to offer exercise accountability. For example, more frequent check-ins, individually or in groups, can be helpful. The increase in telehealth has made interval visits easier. Reimbursement and time can limit clinician-level accountability, however. Other options are referring patients to online support groups or programs sponsored by the government or organizations. For years, I coled a Walk With a Doc chapter in Richmond, Va. There are chapters throughout the country.
Tip 5: Prepare and PLAN for setbacks
Breaking news: Most plans don’t go quite as envisioned. Accounting for the potential of setbacks early on helps patients set realistic expectations. As physicians and clinicians, we can help our patients anticipate a few likely obstacles. This may lessen the impact when a setback occurs. Also, it’s helpful to have the patient prepare for a setback with a PLAN for recovering quickly. PLAN stands for Ponder what happened; Learn from it; Adjust the original goal; Now get back on track. Getting back on track as soon as possible is important to keep patients motivated and prevent muscle deconditioning.
Exercise is medicine. Physical inactivity is a leading contributor to many preventable diseases. Although the physical activity statistics are disappointing, improvement is possible. Many systemic changes are needed to increase physical activity on a population level.
While waiting for more extensive changes, we have the power to equip patients with personalized, actionable tools for improving and maintaining physical activity.
We can transform one person at a time through our clinical encounters. Let’s use effective tools to help patients shift from “I Won’t Do It” to “I’m Doing It.”
Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness,” was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Just Do It” is a cute marketing slogan. But let’s face it: Clinically, it doesn’t work well. Most people just don’t exercise. according to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Furthermore, when surveyed about aerobic exercise and strength training, only 24.6% meet these weekly recommendations. These low rates of physical activity are alarming, given the immense benefits of exercise in improving mental and physical health and well-being.
Many people know that exercise is good for them but struggle to go workout consistently. I know firsthand how challenging this can be. In addition to being an integrative obesity specialist, I have gone from 0 minutes of physical activity in 2014 to becoming a fitness enthusiast who’s run more than 5,300 miles over 8 years. I know that as doctors and clinicians, we can profoundly influence our patients’ exercise journey.
Here are five tips to help motivate your patients make the change from “I Won’t Do It” to “I’m Doing It.”
Tip 1: ‘[Clinician], heal thyself’
Data don’t lie. Doctors who move more are more likely to counsel patients on exercise. I’ve been the doctor on both sides of the exercise spectrum. At my heaviest weight and lowest physical activity level, I felt hypocritical counseling patients on exercise.
If and when I counseled my patients on exercise, it was very directive and impersonal. When I started running consistently, I went to the opposite end of the spectrum. In my running zeal, it took a while for me to understand that not everyone wants to run dozens of miles a week. Shocking! Some people can’t handle intense workouts. The “I did it so you can too” perspective wasn’t helpful for long-term change in most patients.
What has been beneficial is recalling the obstacles and emotions I had (and still have) with staying consistent with physical activity. When physicians and clinicians move regularly, we’re more equipped to give our patients genuine counseling based on practicality rather than theory.
Now that self-reflection has been addressed, let’s get to patient counseling.
Tip 2: Motivate, don’t berate
Lectures on why patients should exercise are less helpful than asking, “Why aren›t you able to exercise more often?”
Asking open-ended questions is essential in motivational interviewing. Motivational interviewing promotes behavioral change through collaborative conversation.
Instead of telling the patient what to do, motivational interviewing seeks to establish a person’s why and create an effective plan based on their motivation. Asking open-ended questions is also helpful in determining any challenges to regular exercise, rather than calling these challenges “excuses,” which can be counterproductive.
I encourage patients to embrace challenges as opportunities for improvement. If they say: “I can’t find time to work out,” I suggest that they create time to work out by walking 10-15 minutes during lunch or after dinner. The information gleaned from open-ended questions helps set practical SMARTER goals, which we will discuss next.
Tip 3: Set SMARTER goals
After assessing the patient’s motivation and barriers, use this information to transform their desire to change into an actionable plan through a SMARTER goal. SMARTER stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-Sensitive, Enjoyable, and Rewarding. Practical goals have each of these components. That’s why “Just Do It” or even “Exercise 150 minutes a week” isn’t a clear path for actionable change. SMARTER goals go beyond what to do and help people personalize how to change.
For example, the SMARTER version of “exercise 150 minutes a week” for a busy person who works 50 hours a week may look like this: “My goal is to incorporate 150 minutes of physical activity through 60 minutes of aerobic exercise Monday through Friday (20-minute lunch walks) and 90 minutes of combination resistance training on the weekend (two 45-minute sessions) while listening to my favorite music. To meet my goal, I will reward myself by calling a friend to catch up or buy myself a new workout outfit.”
Exercise prescriptions are another helpful way to empower patients with a realistic exercise strategy. In my practice, I developed my own exercise prescription which focuses on overcoming time barriers to exercise and finding personally enjoyable exercises. To enhance self-directed physical activity, I›ve found it useful to have patients complete part of the “exercise prescription” on their own before or after their visit.
Tip 4: Use accountability tools
Making a SMARTER goal is one thing, but sticking with it takes regular reinforcement. Even with the best plan, once patients leave the office, there are many distractions from their goals. Accountability is the secret sauce to cultivating consistency. Fitness trackers are an affordable form of accountability. Studies show that wearing a fitness tracker can help people get up to 40 minutes of extra walking, compared with people who don’t wear trackers.
Additionally, clinicians can use different ways to offer exercise accountability. For example, more frequent check-ins, individually or in groups, can be helpful. The increase in telehealth has made interval visits easier. Reimbursement and time can limit clinician-level accountability, however. Other options are referring patients to online support groups or programs sponsored by the government or organizations. For years, I coled a Walk With a Doc chapter in Richmond, Va. There are chapters throughout the country.
Tip 5: Prepare and PLAN for setbacks
Breaking news: Most plans don’t go quite as envisioned. Accounting for the potential of setbacks early on helps patients set realistic expectations. As physicians and clinicians, we can help our patients anticipate a few likely obstacles. This may lessen the impact when a setback occurs. Also, it’s helpful to have the patient prepare for a setback with a PLAN for recovering quickly. PLAN stands for Ponder what happened; Learn from it; Adjust the original goal; Now get back on track. Getting back on track as soon as possible is important to keep patients motivated and prevent muscle deconditioning.
Exercise is medicine. Physical inactivity is a leading contributor to many preventable diseases. Although the physical activity statistics are disappointing, improvement is possible. Many systemic changes are needed to increase physical activity on a population level.
While waiting for more extensive changes, we have the power to equip patients with personalized, actionable tools for improving and maintaining physical activity.
We can transform one person at a time through our clinical encounters. Let’s use effective tools to help patients shift from “I Won’t Do It” to “I’m Doing It.”
Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness,” was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Just Do It” is a cute marketing slogan. But let’s face it: Clinically, it doesn’t work well. Most people just don’t exercise. according to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Furthermore, when surveyed about aerobic exercise and strength training, only 24.6% meet these weekly recommendations. These low rates of physical activity are alarming, given the immense benefits of exercise in improving mental and physical health and well-being.
Many people know that exercise is good for them but struggle to go workout consistently. I know firsthand how challenging this can be. In addition to being an integrative obesity specialist, I have gone from 0 minutes of physical activity in 2014 to becoming a fitness enthusiast who’s run more than 5,300 miles over 8 years. I know that as doctors and clinicians, we can profoundly influence our patients’ exercise journey.
Here are five tips to help motivate your patients make the change from “I Won’t Do It” to “I’m Doing It.”
Tip 1: ‘[Clinician], heal thyself’
Data don’t lie. Doctors who move more are more likely to counsel patients on exercise. I’ve been the doctor on both sides of the exercise spectrum. At my heaviest weight and lowest physical activity level, I felt hypocritical counseling patients on exercise.
If and when I counseled my patients on exercise, it was very directive and impersonal. When I started running consistently, I went to the opposite end of the spectrum. In my running zeal, it took a while for me to understand that not everyone wants to run dozens of miles a week. Shocking! Some people can’t handle intense workouts. The “I did it so you can too” perspective wasn’t helpful for long-term change in most patients.
What has been beneficial is recalling the obstacles and emotions I had (and still have) with staying consistent with physical activity. When physicians and clinicians move regularly, we’re more equipped to give our patients genuine counseling based on practicality rather than theory.
Now that self-reflection has been addressed, let’s get to patient counseling.
Tip 2: Motivate, don’t berate
Lectures on why patients should exercise are less helpful than asking, “Why aren›t you able to exercise more often?”
Asking open-ended questions is essential in motivational interviewing. Motivational interviewing promotes behavioral change through collaborative conversation.
Instead of telling the patient what to do, motivational interviewing seeks to establish a person’s why and create an effective plan based on their motivation. Asking open-ended questions is also helpful in determining any challenges to regular exercise, rather than calling these challenges “excuses,” which can be counterproductive.
I encourage patients to embrace challenges as opportunities for improvement. If they say: “I can’t find time to work out,” I suggest that they create time to work out by walking 10-15 minutes during lunch or after dinner. The information gleaned from open-ended questions helps set practical SMARTER goals, which we will discuss next.
Tip 3: Set SMARTER goals
After assessing the patient’s motivation and barriers, use this information to transform their desire to change into an actionable plan through a SMARTER goal. SMARTER stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-Sensitive, Enjoyable, and Rewarding. Practical goals have each of these components. That’s why “Just Do It” or even “Exercise 150 minutes a week” isn’t a clear path for actionable change. SMARTER goals go beyond what to do and help people personalize how to change.
For example, the SMARTER version of “exercise 150 minutes a week” for a busy person who works 50 hours a week may look like this: “My goal is to incorporate 150 minutes of physical activity through 60 minutes of aerobic exercise Monday through Friday (20-minute lunch walks) and 90 minutes of combination resistance training on the weekend (two 45-minute sessions) while listening to my favorite music. To meet my goal, I will reward myself by calling a friend to catch up or buy myself a new workout outfit.”
Exercise prescriptions are another helpful way to empower patients with a realistic exercise strategy. In my practice, I developed my own exercise prescription which focuses on overcoming time barriers to exercise and finding personally enjoyable exercises. To enhance self-directed physical activity, I›ve found it useful to have patients complete part of the “exercise prescription” on their own before or after their visit.
Tip 4: Use accountability tools
Making a SMARTER goal is one thing, but sticking with it takes regular reinforcement. Even with the best plan, once patients leave the office, there are many distractions from their goals. Accountability is the secret sauce to cultivating consistency. Fitness trackers are an affordable form of accountability. Studies show that wearing a fitness tracker can help people get up to 40 minutes of extra walking, compared with people who don’t wear trackers.
Additionally, clinicians can use different ways to offer exercise accountability. For example, more frequent check-ins, individually or in groups, can be helpful. The increase in telehealth has made interval visits easier. Reimbursement and time can limit clinician-level accountability, however. Other options are referring patients to online support groups or programs sponsored by the government or organizations. For years, I coled a Walk With a Doc chapter in Richmond, Va. There are chapters throughout the country.
Tip 5: Prepare and PLAN for setbacks
Breaking news: Most plans don’t go quite as envisioned. Accounting for the potential of setbacks early on helps patients set realistic expectations. As physicians and clinicians, we can help our patients anticipate a few likely obstacles. This may lessen the impact when a setback occurs. Also, it’s helpful to have the patient prepare for a setback with a PLAN for recovering quickly. PLAN stands for Ponder what happened; Learn from it; Adjust the original goal; Now get back on track. Getting back on track as soon as possible is important to keep patients motivated and prevent muscle deconditioning.
Exercise is medicine. Physical inactivity is a leading contributor to many preventable diseases. Although the physical activity statistics are disappointing, improvement is possible. Many systemic changes are needed to increase physical activity on a population level.
While waiting for more extensive changes, we have the power to equip patients with personalized, actionable tools for improving and maintaining physical activity.
We can transform one person at a time through our clinical encounters. Let’s use effective tools to help patients shift from “I Won’t Do It” to “I’m Doing It.”
Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness,” was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mediterranean diet linked to 24% reduction in CVD risk in women
The Mediterranean diet appears to be associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in women, new observational data suggest.
Those who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet had a 24% lower risk for cardiovascular disease and 23% lower risk for death.
“A healthy diet is a huge factor in preventing heart disease. However, current guidelines on preventing heart disease lack sex-specific recommendations,” said senior author Sarah Zaman, MBBS, PhD, an associate professor of medicine and principal research fellow at the University of Sydney’s Westmead Applied Research Centre.
“Historically, research trials and studies have had predominantly male participants or lacked sex-specific analysis,” she said. “Our results will pave the way to bridge this gap and also highlight the need for more research to ensure health guidelines and policies include diverse perspectives.”
The study was published online in the journal Heart.
Analyzing cardiovascular outcomes
Dr. Zaman and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies published between 2006 and 2021 that reported a Mediterranean diet score and included either all women or had stratified outcomes by sex. They excluded studies that referred to only certain components of the Mediterranean diet or combined it with other lifestyle-related factors.
The studies, which were mainly conducted in the United States and Europe, included 722,495 adult women without previous clinical or subclinical CVD, with a median follow-up of 12.5 years.
Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was defined as the highest category reporting the highest range of Mediterranean diet scores, and lower adherence was defined as the lowest category reporting lowest scores. Incident CVD included coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events, and patient-reported CVD.
Overall, higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with lower CVD incidence (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.81), total mortality (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.80), and coronary heart disease (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87).
Stroke incidence was also lower among women who adhered to the Mediterranean diet, although it wasn’t considered statistically significant (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.01).
Additional analyses found similar reductions in risk across women of different ethnicities. Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was associated with lower CVD incidence for both women of European descent (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and women of non-European descent – Asian, Native Hawaiian, and African American – (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
The results didn’t materially change in sensitivity analyses, the authors note. Excluding one study at a time, the pooled HRs for the highest versus the lowest Mediterranean diet adherence ranged from 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70-0.98) for incident CVD and from 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.80) to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) for total mortality among women.
At the same time, the authors pointed to several limitations, including the observational nature of all of the studies, the reliance on self-reported food frequency questionnaires, and heterogeneity in the adjustments for influential factors across the studies.
Additional considerations
Dr. Zaman and colleagues called for more sex-specific research in cardiology, including risk factors related to premature menopause, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus.
Future studies should also explore the underlying mechanisms that may explain the links between the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular disease, and death, the authors write. For instance, the diet may reduce inflammation and cardiovascular risk factors through antioxidant and beneficial gut microbiome pathways. Other components of the diet – such as polyphenols, nitrates, omega-3 fatty acids, higher fiber intake, and reduced glycemic load – may also play a role.
“It was striking to see how strong the long-term cardioprotective properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern were,” said Samia Mora, MD, MHS, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
Dr. Mora, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched potential mechanisms related to the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular events, and diabetes in women. She and colleagues have found that women with high adherence to the diet are more likely to have lower inflammation, insulin resistance, body mass index, and blood pressure, as well as improved lipid and metabolic profiles.
“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving inflammation, insulin resistance, and cardiometabolic health through evidence-based dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet,” she said. “As health care providers, we should promote the healthy dietary attributes of the Mediterranean diet, especially as many of our patients in the U.S. are less familiar with the Mediterranean diet and how to incorporate its components into daily food intake.”
The study did not receive any funding. Dr. Zaman was supported by a Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mora reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Mediterranean diet appears to be associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in women, new observational data suggest.
Those who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet had a 24% lower risk for cardiovascular disease and 23% lower risk for death.
“A healthy diet is a huge factor in preventing heart disease. However, current guidelines on preventing heart disease lack sex-specific recommendations,” said senior author Sarah Zaman, MBBS, PhD, an associate professor of medicine and principal research fellow at the University of Sydney’s Westmead Applied Research Centre.
“Historically, research trials and studies have had predominantly male participants or lacked sex-specific analysis,” she said. “Our results will pave the way to bridge this gap and also highlight the need for more research to ensure health guidelines and policies include diverse perspectives.”
The study was published online in the journal Heart.
Analyzing cardiovascular outcomes
Dr. Zaman and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies published between 2006 and 2021 that reported a Mediterranean diet score and included either all women or had stratified outcomes by sex. They excluded studies that referred to only certain components of the Mediterranean diet or combined it with other lifestyle-related factors.
The studies, which were mainly conducted in the United States and Europe, included 722,495 adult women without previous clinical or subclinical CVD, with a median follow-up of 12.5 years.
Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was defined as the highest category reporting the highest range of Mediterranean diet scores, and lower adherence was defined as the lowest category reporting lowest scores. Incident CVD included coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events, and patient-reported CVD.
Overall, higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with lower CVD incidence (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.81), total mortality (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.80), and coronary heart disease (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87).
Stroke incidence was also lower among women who adhered to the Mediterranean diet, although it wasn’t considered statistically significant (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.01).
Additional analyses found similar reductions in risk across women of different ethnicities. Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was associated with lower CVD incidence for both women of European descent (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and women of non-European descent – Asian, Native Hawaiian, and African American – (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
The results didn’t materially change in sensitivity analyses, the authors note. Excluding one study at a time, the pooled HRs for the highest versus the lowest Mediterranean diet adherence ranged from 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70-0.98) for incident CVD and from 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.80) to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) for total mortality among women.
At the same time, the authors pointed to several limitations, including the observational nature of all of the studies, the reliance on self-reported food frequency questionnaires, and heterogeneity in the adjustments for influential factors across the studies.
Additional considerations
Dr. Zaman and colleagues called for more sex-specific research in cardiology, including risk factors related to premature menopause, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus.
Future studies should also explore the underlying mechanisms that may explain the links between the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular disease, and death, the authors write. For instance, the diet may reduce inflammation and cardiovascular risk factors through antioxidant and beneficial gut microbiome pathways. Other components of the diet – such as polyphenols, nitrates, omega-3 fatty acids, higher fiber intake, and reduced glycemic load – may also play a role.
“It was striking to see how strong the long-term cardioprotective properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern were,” said Samia Mora, MD, MHS, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
Dr. Mora, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched potential mechanisms related to the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular events, and diabetes in women. She and colleagues have found that women with high adherence to the diet are more likely to have lower inflammation, insulin resistance, body mass index, and blood pressure, as well as improved lipid and metabolic profiles.
“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving inflammation, insulin resistance, and cardiometabolic health through evidence-based dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet,” she said. “As health care providers, we should promote the healthy dietary attributes of the Mediterranean diet, especially as many of our patients in the U.S. are less familiar with the Mediterranean diet and how to incorporate its components into daily food intake.”
The study did not receive any funding. Dr. Zaman was supported by a Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mora reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Mediterranean diet appears to be associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in women, new observational data suggest.
Those who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet had a 24% lower risk for cardiovascular disease and 23% lower risk for death.
“A healthy diet is a huge factor in preventing heart disease. However, current guidelines on preventing heart disease lack sex-specific recommendations,” said senior author Sarah Zaman, MBBS, PhD, an associate professor of medicine and principal research fellow at the University of Sydney’s Westmead Applied Research Centre.
“Historically, research trials and studies have had predominantly male participants or lacked sex-specific analysis,” she said. “Our results will pave the way to bridge this gap and also highlight the need for more research to ensure health guidelines and policies include diverse perspectives.”
The study was published online in the journal Heart.
Analyzing cardiovascular outcomes
Dr. Zaman and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies published between 2006 and 2021 that reported a Mediterranean diet score and included either all women or had stratified outcomes by sex. They excluded studies that referred to only certain components of the Mediterranean diet or combined it with other lifestyle-related factors.
The studies, which were mainly conducted in the United States and Europe, included 722,495 adult women without previous clinical or subclinical CVD, with a median follow-up of 12.5 years.
Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was defined as the highest category reporting the highest range of Mediterranean diet scores, and lower adherence was defined as the lowest category reporting lowest scores. Incident CVD included coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events, and patient-reported CVD.
Overall, higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with lower CVD incidence (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.81), total mortality (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.80), and coronary heart disease (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87).
Stroke incidence was also lower among women who adhered to the Mediterranean diet, although it wasn’t considered statistically significant (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.01).
Additional analyses found similar reductions in risk across women of different ethnicities. Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was associated with lower CVD incidence for both women of European descent (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and women of non-European descent – Asian, Native Hawaiian, and African American – (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
The results didn’t materially change in sensitivity analyses, the authors note. Excluding one study at a time, the pooled HRs for the highest versus the lowest Mediterranean diet adherence ranged from 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70-0.98) for incident CVD and from 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.80) to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) for total mortality among women.
At the same time, the authors pointed to several limitations, including the observational nature of all of the studies, the reliance on self-reported food frequency questionnaires, and heterogeneity in the adjustments for influential factors across the studies.
Additional considerations
Dr. Zaman and colleagues called for more sex-specific research in cardiology, including risk factors related to premature menopause, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus.
Future studies should also explore the underlying mechanisms that may explain the links between the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular disease, and death, the authors write. For instance, the diet may reduce inflammation and cardiovascular risk factors through antioxidant and beneficial gut microbiome pathways. Other components of the diet – such as polyphenols, nitrates, omega-3 fatty acids, higher fiber intake, and reduced glycemic load – may also play a role.
“It was striking to see how strong the long-term cardioprotective properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern were,” said Samia Mora, MD, MHS, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
Dr. Mora, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched potential mechanisms related to the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular events, and diabetes in women. She and colleagues have found that women with high adherence to the diet are more likely to have lower inflammation, insulin resistance, body mass index, and blood pressure, as well as improved lipid and metabolic profiles.
“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving inflammation, insulin resistance, and cardiometabolic health through evidence-based dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet,” she said. “As health care providers, we should promote the healthy dietary attributes of the Mediterranean diet, especially as many of our patients in the U.S. are less familiar with the Mediterranean diet and how to incorporate its components into daily food intake.”
The study did not receive any funding. Dr. Zaman was supported by a Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mora reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ozempic: The latest weight loss craze and how over-prescribing is harming patients
Social media and mainstream media websites are full of stories on the new wonder weight loss drug: Ozempic. Even Hollywood stars are talking about it.
Recently, the zealous prescribing of this diabetes medication fueled a 6-month shortage making it difficult for anyone to get it. Part of the problem stems from digital access to these medications where a patient can get a prescription online or via a telemedicine platform. Additionally, certain weight loss programs contributed to promoting the weight loss benefits.
Ozempic is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, with the generic name semaglutide, that lowers hemoglobin A1c in patients with diabetes and lowers the risk of cardiovascular events. Semaglutide is also sold as Wegovy, which is indicated for weight loss. Both Ozempic and Wegovy are sold in multiple doses, but the target dose for Wegovy is higher.
Weight loss with Wegovy is, on average, higher than that seen with Ozempic. However, it is often more difficult to get Wegovy covered by health insurance companies.
As doctors, we must be stewards of the medications we are prescribing. Clearly, the Internet should not be driving our prescribing habits. Prescribing Ozempic for weight loss can make it more difficult for patients with diabetes to receive it, and we should consider other options until it is more available and/or receives FDA approval for treating obesity.
Most of us have seen our patients with diabetes having difficulty getting a prescription for Ozempic filled, either because it is on back-order or because of a lack of coverage. Insurance companies have no incentive to lower the cost when it is in such high demand at its current rate. For these patients, lowering their A1c can be life-saving and prevent complications of diabetes, such as kidney failure and heart disease. In our current environment, we should reserve prescribing Ozempic for our patients with diabetes who need it more. Wegovy is available and can be prescribed for patients wishing to lose weight.
Many patients are looking for a magic cure. Neither medication is that. Patients need to start with making lifestyle changes first. In primary care, advising on and helping patients implement those are often our most difficult tasks. However, no medication is going to work unless the patient makes adjustments to their diet and amount and type of movement they are doing. In patients who have a hard time changing their diet, lowering carbohydrate intake may be a good first step. Exercising, or being more active if a patient is unable to formally exercise, is an important therapy.
As we all know, metformin is the usual preferred method for the treatment of type 2 diabetes unless contraindicated in a given patient. There are many oral diabetes medications available, and which of these and how these are prescribed need to be tailored to the individual patient. Ozempic can be used when a patient is failing on metformin, or other oral meds, or if they would rather do a weekly injection rather than remembering to take daily pills, for example.
Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. According to the CDC, more than 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Additionally, millions of children between the ages of 2 and 19 are now considered obese, and the medical complications for these individuals ares yet to be seen. Plus, many of us are seeing higher frequencies of diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic medical conditions in adolescents in our daily practices.
Our war against obesity is a fight for future lives and having more tools available is definitely a help. Like with patients with diabetes, all treatment regimens should start off with lifestyle modifications. Fad diets rarely result in long-term weight loss.
There are several medications now available to help with weight loss, Wegovy being just one of them. Patients often come to us with their own personal preferences, and it is our job to guide them on the best course to take. Some people may prefer a weekly injection. There are oral medications available, such as Contrave and Phentermine, and the best one should be decided upon by the patient and doctor after a discussion of the risks.
Let’s stop prescribing Ozempic for weight loss because nonphysicians say we should. Leave it for our patients with diabetes, those whose lives may depend on taking it. If we didn’t have other medications available, it would be a very different story. But, we do, and we need to resist the pressure others place on us and do the right thing for all of our patients.
*This article was updated on 3/23/2023.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She has no conflicts related to this piece. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.
Social media and mainstream media websites are full of stories on the new wonder weight loss drug: Ozempic. Even Hollywood stars are talking about it.
Recently, the zealous prescribing of this diabetes medication fueled a 6-month shortage making it difficult for anyone to get it. Part of the problem stems from digital access to these medications where a patient can get a prescription online or via a telemedicine platform. Additionally, certain weight loss programs contributed to promoting the weight loss benefits.
Ozempic is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, with the generic name semaglutide, that lowers hemoglobin A1c in patients with diabetes and lowers the risk of cardiovascular events. Semaglutide is also sold as Wegovy, which is indicated for weight loss. Both Ozempic and Wegovy are sold in multiple doses, but the target dose for Wegovy is higher.
Weight loss with Wegovy is, on average, higher than that seen with Ozempic. However, it is often more difficult to get Wegovy covered by health insurance companies.
As doctors, we must be stewards of the medications we are prescribing. Clearly, the Internet should not be driving our prescribing habits. Prescribing Ozempic for weight loss can make it more difficult for patients with diabetes to receive it, and we should consider other options until it is more available and/or receives FDA approval for treating obesity.
Most of us have seen our patients with diabetes having difficulty getting a prescription for Ozempic filled, either because it is on back-order or because of a lack of coverage. Insurance companies have no incentive to lower the cost when it is in such high demand at its current rate. For these patients, lowering their A1c can be life-saving and prevent complications of diabetes, such as kidney failure and heart disease. In our current environment, we should reserve prescribing Ozempic for our patients with diabetes who need it more. Wegovy is available and can be prescribed for patients wishing to lose weight.
Many patients are looking for a magic cure. Neither medication is that. Patients need to start with making lifestyle changes first. In primary care, advising on and helping patients implement those are often our most difficult tasks. However, no medication is going to work unless the patient makes adjustments to their diet and amount and type of movement they are doing. In patients who have a hard time changing their diet, lowering carbohydrate intake may be a good first step. Exercising, or being more active if a patient is unable to formally exercise, is an important therapy.
As we all know, metformin is the usual preferred method for the treatment of type 2 diabetes unless contraindicated in a given patient. There are many oral diabetes medications available, and which of these and how these are prescribed need to be tailored to the individual patient. Ozempic can be used when a patient is failing on metformin, or other oral meds, or if they would rather do a weekly injection rather than remembering to take daily pills, for example.
Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. According to the CDC, more than 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Additionally, millions of children between the ages of 2 and 19 are now considered obese, and the medical complications for these individuals ares yet to be seen. Plus, many of us are seeing higher frequencies of diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic medical conditions in adolescents in our daily practices.
Our war against obesity is a fight for future lives and having more tools available is definitely a help. Like with patients with diabetes, all treatment regimens should start off with lifestyle modifications. Fad diets rarely result in long-term weight loss.
There are several medications now available to help with weight loss, Wegovy being just one of them. Patients often come to us with their own personal preferences, and it is our job to guide them on the best course to take. Some people may prefer a weekly injection. There are oral medications available, such as Contrave and Phentermine, and the best one should be decided upon by the patient and doctor after a discussion of the risks.
Let’s stop prescribing Ozempic for weight loss because nonphysicians say we should. Leave it for our patients with diabetes, those whose lives may depend on taking it. If we didn’t have other medications available, it would be a very different story. But, we do, and we need to resist the pressure others place on us and do the right thing for all of our patients.
*This article was updated on 3/23/2023.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She has no conflicts related to this piece. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.
Social media and mainstream media websites are full of stories on the new wonder weight loss drug: Ozempic. Even Hollywood stars are talking about it.
Recently, the zealous prescribing of this diabetes medication fueled a 6-month shortage making it difficult for anyone to get it. Part of the problem stems from digital access to these medications where a patient can get a prescription online or via a telemedicine platform. Additionally, certain weight loss programs contributed to promoting the weight loss benefits.
Ozempic is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, with the generic name semaglutide, that lowers hemoglobin A1c in patients with diabetes and lowers the risk of cardiovascular events. Semaglutide is also sold as Wegovy, which is indicated for weight loss. Both Ozempic and Wegovy are sold in multiple doses, but the target dose for Wegovy is higher.
Weight loss with Wegovy is, on average, higher than that seen with Ozempic. However, it is often more difficult to get Wegovy covered by health insurance companies.
As doctors, we must be stewards of the medications we are prescribing. Clearly, the Internet should not be driving our prescribing habits. Prescribing Ozempic for weight loss can make it more difficult for patients with diabetes to receive it, and we should consider other options until it is more available and/or receives FDA approval for treating obesity.
Most of us have seen our patients with diabetes having difficulty getting a prescription for Ozempic filled, either because it is on back-order or because of a lack of coverage. Insurance companies have no incentive to lower the cost when it is in such high demand at its current rate. For these patients, lowering their A1c can be life-saving and prevent complications of diabetes, such as kidney failure and heart disease. In our current environment, we should reserve prescribing Ozempic for our patients with diabetes who need it more. Wegovy is available and can be prescribed for patients wishing to lose weight.
Many patients are looking for a magic cure. Neither medication is that. Patients need to start with making lifestyle changes first. In primary care, advising on and helping patients implement those are often our most difficult tasks. However, no medication is going to work unless the patient makes adjustments to their diet and amount and type of movement they are doing. In patients who have a hard time changing their diet, lowering carbohydrate intake may be a good first step. Exercising, or being more active if a patient is unable to formally exercise, is an important therapy.
As we all know, metformin is the usual preferred method for the treatment of type 2 diabetes unless contraindicated in a given patient. There are many oral diabetes medications available, and which of these and how these are prescribed need to be tailored to the individual patient. Ozempic can be used when a patient is failing on metformin, or other oral meds, or if they would rather do a weekly injection rather than remembering to take daily pills, for example.
Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. According to the CDC, more than 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Additionally, millions of children between the ages of 2 and 19 are now considered obese, and the medical complications for these individuals ares yet to be seen. Plus, many of us are seeing higher frequencies of diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic medical conditions in adolescents in our daily practices.
Our war against obesity is a fight for future lives and having more tools available is definitely a help. Like with patients with diabetes, all treatment regimens should start off with lifestyle modifications. Fad diets rarely result in long-term weight loss.
There are several medications now available to help with weight loss, Wegovy being just one of them. Patients often come to us with their own personal preferences, and it is our job to guide them on the best course to take. Some people may prefer a weekly injection. There are oral medications available, such as Contrave and Phentermine, and the best one should be decided upon by the patient and doctor after a discussion of the risks.
Let’s stop prescribing Ozempic for weight loss because nonphysicians say we should. Leave it for our patients with diabetes, those whose lives may depend on taking it. If we didn’t have other medications available, it would be a very different story. But, we do, and we need to resist the pressure others place on us and do the right thing for all of our patients.
*This article was updated on 3/23/2023.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She has no conflicts related to this piece. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.
TikTok’s fave weight loss drugs: Link to thyroid cancer?
With #Ozempic and #ozempicweightloss continuing to trend on social media, along with the mainstream media focusing on celebrities who rely on Ozempic (semaglutide) for weight loss, the daily requests for this new medication have been increasing.
Accompanying these requests are concerns and questions about potential risks, including this most recent message from one of my patients: “Dr. P – I saw the warnings. Is this medication going to make me get thyroid cancer? Please let me know!”
Let’s look at what we know to date, including recent studies, and how to advise our patients on this very hot topic.
Using GLP-1 receptor agonists for obesity
We have extensive prior experience with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as semaglutide, for treating type 2 diabetes and now recently as agents for weight loss.
Large clinical trials have documented the benefits of this medication class not only for weight reduction but also for cardiovascular and renal benefits in patients with diabetes. The subcutaneously injectable medications work by promoting insulin secretion, slowing gastric emptying, and suppressing glucagon secretion, with a low risk for hypoglycemia.
The Food and Drug Administration approved daily-injection GLP-1 agonist liraglutide for weight loss in 2014, and weekly-injection semaglutide for chronic weight management in 2021, in patients with a body mass index ≥ 27 with at least one weight-related condition or a BMI ≥ 30.
The brand name for semaglutide approved for weight loss is Wegovy, and the dose is slightly higher (maximum 2.4 mg/wk) than that of Ozempic (maximum 2.0 mg/wk), which is semaglutide approved for type 2 diabetes.
In trials for weight loss, data showed a mean change in body weight of almost 15% in the semaglutide group at week 68 compared with placebo, which is very impressive, particularly compared with other FDA-approved oral long-term weight loss medications.
The newest synthetic dual-acting agent is tirzepatide, which targets GLP-1 but is also a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist. The weekly subcutaneous injection was approved in May 2022 as Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes and produced even greater weight loss than semaglutide in clinical trials. Tirzepatide is now in trials for obesity and is under expedited review by the FDA for weight loss.
Why the concern about thyroid cancer?
Early on with the FDA approvals of GLP-1 agonists, a warning accompanied the products’ labels to not use this class of medications in patients with medullary thyroid cancer, a family history of medullary thyroid cancer, or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. This warning was based on data from animal studies.
Human pancreatic cells aren’t the only cells that express GLP-1 receptors. These receptors are also expressed by parafollicular cells (C cells) of the thyroid, which secrete calcitonin and are the cells involved in medullary thyroid cancer. A dose-related and duration-dependent increase in thyroid C-cell tumor incidence was noted in rodents. The same relationship was not demonstrated in monkeys. Humans have far fewer C cells than rats, and human C cells have very low expression of the GLP-1 receptor.
Over a decade ago, a study examining the FDA’s database of reported adverse events found an increased risk for thyroid cancer in patients treated with exenatide, another GLP-1 agonist. The reporting system wasn’t designed to distinguish thyroid cancer subtypes.
Numerous subsequent studies didn’t confirm this relationship. The LEADER trial looked at liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes and showed no effect of GLP-1 receptor activation on human serum calcitonin levels, C-cell proliferation, or C-cell malignancy. Similarly, a large meta-analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes didn’t find a statistically increased risk for thyroid cancer with liraglutide, and no thyroid malignancies were reported with exenatide.
Two U.S. administrative databases from commercial health plans (a retrospective cohort study and a nested case-control study) compared type 2 diabetes patients who were taking exenatide vs. other antidiabetic drugs and found that exenatide was not significantly associated with an increased risk for thyroid cancer.
And a recent meta-analysis of 45 trials showed no significant effects on the occurrence of thyroid cancer with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Of note, it did find an increased risk for overall thyroid disorders, although there was no clear statistically significant finding pointing to a specific thyroid disorder.
Differing from prior studies, a recent nationwide French health care system study provided newer data suggesting a moderate increased risk for thyroid cancer in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking GLP-1 agonists. The increase in relative risk was noted for all types of thyroid cancer in patients using GLP-1 receptor agonists for 1-3 years.
An accompanying commentary by Caroline A. Thompson, PhD, and Til Stürmer, MD, provides perspective on this study’s potential limitations. These include detection bias, as the study results focused only on the statistically significant data. Also discussed were limitations to the case-control design, issues with claims-based tumor type classification (unavailability of surgical pathology), and an inability to adjust for family history and obesity, which is a risk factor alone for thyroid cancer. There was also no adjustment for exposure to head/neck radiation.
While this study has important findings to consider, it deserves further investigation, with future studies linking data to tumor registry data before a change is made in clinical practice.
No clear relationship has been drawn between GLP-1 receptor agonists and thyroid cancer in humans. Numerous confounding factors limit the data. Studies generally don’t specify the type of thyroid cancer, and they lump medullary thyroid cancer, the rarest form, with papillary thyroid cancer.
Is a detection bias present where weight loss makes nodules more visible on the neck among those treated with GLP-1 agonists? And/or are patients treated with GLP-1 agonists being screened more stringently for thyroid nodules and/or cancer?
How to advise our patients and respond to the EMR messages
The TikTok videos may continue, the celebrity chatter may increase, and we, as physicians, will continue to look to real-world data with randomized controlled trials to tailor our decision-making and guide our patients.
Thyroid cancer remains a rare outcome, and GLP-1 receptor agonists remain a very important and beneficial treatment option for the right patient.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With #Ozempic and #ozempicweightloss continuing to trend on social media, along with the mainstream media focusing on celebrities who rely on Ozempic (semaglutide) for weight loss, the daily requests for this new medication have been increasing.
Accompanying these requests are concerns and questions about potential risks, including this most recent message from one of my patients: “Dr. P – I saw the warnings. Is this medication going to make me get thyroid cancer? Please let me know!”
Let’s look at what we know to date, including recent studies, and how to advise our patients on this very hot topic.
Using GLP-1 receptor agonists for obesity
We have extensive prior experience with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as semaglutide, for treating type 2 diabetes and now recently as agents for weight loss.
Large clinical trials have documented the benefits of this medication class not only for weight reduction but also for cardiovascular and renal benefits in patients with diabetes. The subcutaneously injectable medications work by promoting insulin secretion, slowing gastric emptying, and suppressing glucagon secretion, with a low risk for hypoglycemia.
The Food and Drug Administration approved daily-injection GLP-1 agonist liraglutide for weight loss in 2014, and weekly-injection semaglutide for chronic weight management in 2021, in patients with a body mass index ≥ 27 with at least one weight-related condition or a BMI ≥ 30.
The brand name for semaglutide approved for weight loss is Wegovy, and the dose is slightly higher (maximum 2.4 mg/wk) than that of Ozempic (maximum 2.0 mg/wk), which is semaglutide approved for type 2 diabetes.
In trials for weight loss, data showed a mean change in body weight of almost 15% in the semaglutide group at week 68 compared with placebo, which is very impressive, particularly compared with other FDA-approved oral long-term weight loss medications.
The newest synthetic dual-acting agent is tirzepatide, which targets GLP-1 but is also a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist. The weekly subcutaneous injection was approved in May 2022 as Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes and produced even greater weight loss than semaglutide in clinical trials. Tirzepatide is now in trials for obesity and is under expedited review by the FDA for weight loss.
Why the concern about thyroid cancer?
Early on with the FDA approvals of GLP-1 agonists, a warning accompanied the products’ labels to not use this class of medications in patients with medullary thyroid cancer, a family history of medullary thyroid cancer, or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. This warning was based on data from animal studies.
Human pancreatic cells aren’t the only cells that express GLP-1 receptors. These receptors are also expressed by parafollicular cells (C cells) of the thyroid, which secrete calcitonin and are the cells involved in medullary thyroid cancer. A dose-related and duration-dependent increase in thyroid C-cell tumor incidence was noted in rodents. The same relationship was not demonstrated in monkeys. Humans have far fewer C cells than rats, and human C cells have very low expression of the GLP-1 receptor.
Over a decade ago, a study examining the FDA’s database of reported adverse events found an increased risk for thyroid cancer in patients treated with exenatide, another GLP-1 agonist. The reporting system wasn’t designed to distinguish thyroid cancer subtypes.
Numerous subsequent studies didn’t confirm this relationship. The LEADER trial looked at liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes and showed no effect of GLP-1 receptor activation on human serum calcitonin levels, C-cell proliferation, or C-cell malignancy. Similarly, a large meta-analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes didn’t find a statistically increased risk for thyroid cancer with liraglutide, and no thyroid malignancies were reported with exenatide.
Two U.S. administrative databases from commercial health plans (a retrospective cohort study and a nested case-control study) compared type 2 diabetes patients who were taking exenatide vs. other antidiabetic drugs and found that exenatide was not significantly associated with an increased risk for thyroid cancer.
And a recent meta-analysis of 45 trials showed no significant effects on the occurrence of thyroid cancer with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Of note, it did find an increased risk for overall thyroid disorders, although there was no clear statistically significant finding pointing to a specific thyroid disorder.
Differing from prior studies, a recent nationwide French health care system study provided newer data suggesting a moderate increased risk for thyroid cancer in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking GLP-1 agonists. The increase in relative risk was noted for all types of thyroid cancer in patients using GLP-1 receptor agonists for 1-3 years.
An accompanying commentary by Caroline A. Thompson, PhD, and Til Stürmer, MD, provides perspective on this study’s potential limitations. These include detection bias, as the study results focused only on the statistically significant data. Also discussed were limitations to the case-control design, issues with claims-based tumor type classification (unavailability of surgical pathology), and an inability to adjust for family history and obesity, which is a risk factor alone for thyroid cancer. There was also no adjustment for exposure to head/neck radiation.
While this study has important findings to consider, it deserves further investigation, with future studies linking data to tumor registry data before a change is made in clinical practice.
No clear relationship has been drawn between GLP-1 receptor agonists and thyroid cancer in humans. Numerous confounding factors limit the data. Studies generally don’t specify the type of thyroid cancer, and they lump medullary thyroid cancer, the rarest form, with papillary thyroid cancer.
Is a detection bias present where weight loss makes nodules more visible on the neck among those treated with GLP-1 agonists? And/or are patients treated with GLP-1 agonists being screened more stringently for thyroid nodules and/or cancer?
How to advise our patients and respond to the EMR messages
The TikTok videos may continue, the celebrity chatter may increase, and we, as physicians, will continue to look to real-world data with randomized controlled trials to tailor our decision-making and guide our patients.
Thyroid cancer remains a rare outcome, and GLP-1 receptor agonists remain a very important and beneficial treatment option for the right patient.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With #Ozempic and #ozempicweightloss continuing to trend on social media, along with the mainstream media focusing on celebrities who rely on Ozempic (semaglutide) for weight loss, the daily requests for this new medication have been increasing.
Accompanying these requests are concerns and questions about potential risks, including this most recent message from one of my patients: “Dr. P – I saw the warnings. Is this medication going to make me get thyroid cancer? Please let me know!”
Let’s look at what we know to date, including recent studies, and how to advise our patients on this very hot topic.
Using GLP-1 receptor agonists for obesity
We have extensive prior experience with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as semaglutide, for treating type 2 diabetes and now recently as agents for weight loss.
Large clinical trials have documented the benefits of this medication class not only for weight reduction but also for cardiovascular and renal benefits in patients with diabetes. The subcutaneously injectable medications work by promoting insulin secretion, slowing gastric emptying, and suppressing glucagon secretion, with a low risk for hypoglycemia.
The Food and Drug Administration approved daily-injection GLP-1 agonist liraglutide for weight loss in 2014, and weekly-injection semaglutide for chronic weight management in 2021, in patients with a body mass index ≥ 27 with at least one weight-related condition or a BMI ≥ 30.
The brand name for semaglutide approved for weight loss is Wegovy, and the dose is slightly higher (maximum 2.4 mg/wk) than that of Ozempic (maximum 2.0 mg/wk), which is semaglutide approved for type 2 diabetes.
In trials for weight loss, data showed a mean change in body weight of almost 15% in the semaglutide group at week 68 compared with placebo, which is very impressive, particularly compared with other FDA-approved oral long-term weight loss medications.
The newest synthetic dual-acting agent is tirzepatide, which targets GLP-1 but is also a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist. The weekly subcutaneous injection was approved in May 2022 as Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes and produced even greater weight loss than semaglutide in clinical trials. Tirzepatide is now in trials for obesity and is under expedited review by the FDA for weight loss.
Why the concern about thyroid cancer?
Early on with the FDA approvals of GLP-1 agonists, a warning accompanied the products’ labels to not use this class of medications in patients with medullary thyroid cancer, a family history of medullary thyroid cancer, or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. This warning was based on data from animal studies.
Human pancreatic cells aren’t the only cells that express GLP-1 receptors. These receptors are also expressed by parafollicular cells (C cells) of the thyroid, which secrete calcitonin and are the cells involved in medullary thyroid cancer. A dose-related and duration-dependent increase in thyroid C-cell tumor incidence was noted in rodents. The same relationship was not demonstrated in monkeys. Humans have far fewer C cells than rats, and human C cells have very low expression of the GLP-1 receptor.
Over a decade ago, a study examining the FDA’s database of reported adverse events found an increased risk for thyroid cancer in patients treated with exenatide, another GLP-1 agonist. The reporting system wasn’t designed to distinguish thyroid cancer subtypes.
Numerous subsequent studies didn’t confirm this relationship. The LEADER trial looked at liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes and showed no effect of GLP-1 receptor activation on human serum calcitonin levels, C-cell proliferation, or C-cell malignancy. Similarly, a large meta-analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes didn’t find a statistically increased risk for thyroid cancer with liraglutide, and no thyroid malignancies were reported with exenatide.
Two U.S. administrative databases from commercial health plans (a retrospective cohort study and a nested case-control study) compared type 2 diabetes patients who were taking exenatide vs. other antidiabetic drugs and found that exenatide was not significantly associated with an increased risk for thyroid cancer.
And a recent meta-analysis of 45 trials showed no significant effects on the occurrence of thyroid cancer with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Of note, it did find an increased risk for overall thyroid disorders, although there was no clear statistically significant finding pointing to a specific thyroid disorder.
Differing from prior studies, a recent nationwide French health care system study provided newer data suggesting a moderate increased risk for thyroid cancer in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking GLP-1 agonists. The increase in relative risk was noted for all types of thyroid cancer in patients using GLP-1 receptor agonists for 1-3 years.
An accompanying commentary by Caroline A. Thompson, PhD, and Til Stürmer, MD, provides perspective on this study’s potential limitations. These include detection bias, as the study results focused only on the statistically significant data. Also discussed were limitations to the case-control design, issues with claims-based tumor type classification (unavailability of surgical pathology), and an inability to adjust for family history and obesity, which is a risk factor alone for thyroid cancer. There was also no adjustment for exposure to head/neck radiation.
While this study has important findings to consider, it deserves further investigation, with future studies linking data to tumor registry data before a change is made in clinical practice.
No clear relationship has been drawn between GLP-1 receptor agonists and thyroid cancer in humans. Numerous confounding factors limit the data. Studies generally don’t specify the type of thyroid cancer, and they lump medullary thyroid cancer, the rarest form, with papillary thyroid cancer.
Is a detection bias present where weight loss makes nodules more visible on the neck among those treated with GLP-1 agonists? And/or are patients treated with GLP-1 agonists being screened more stringently for thyroid nodules and/or cancer?
How to advise our patients and respond to the EMR messages
The TikTok videos may continue, the celebrity chatter may increase, and we, as physicians, will continue to look to real-world data with randomized controlled trials to tailor our decision-making and guide our patients.
Thyroid cancer remains a rare outcome, and GLP-1 receptor agonists remain a very important and beneficial treatment option for the right patient.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
High caffeine levels may lower body fat, type 2 diabetes risks
the results of a new study suggest.
Explaining that caffeine has thermogenic effects, the researchers note that previous short-term studies have linked caffeine intake with reductions in weight and fat mass. And observational data have shown associations between coffee consumption and lower risks of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
In an effort to isolate the effects of caffeine from those of other food and drink components, Susanna C. Larsson, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and colleagues used data from studies of mainly European populations to examine two specific genetic mutations that have been linked to a slower speed of caffeine metabolism.
The two gene variants resulted in “genetically predicted, lifelong, higher plasma caffeine concentrations,” the researchers note “and were associated with lower body mass index and fat mass, as well as a lower risk of type 2 diabetes.”
Approximately half of the effect of caffeine on type 2 diabetes was estimated to be mediated through body mass index (BMI) reduction.
The work was published online March 14 in BMJ Medicine.
“This publication supports existing studies suggesting a link between caffeine consumption and increased fat burn,” notes Stephen Lawrence, MBChB, Warwick (England) University. “The big leap of faith that the authors have made is to assume that the weight loss brought about by increased caffeine consumption is sufficient to reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” he told the UK Science Media Centre.
“It does not, however, prove cause and effect.”
The researchers agree, noting: “Further clinical study is warranted to investigate the translational potential of these findings towards reducing the burden of metabolic disease.”
Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, a senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity at the University of Exeter (England), emphasized that this genetic study “shows links and potential health benefits for people with certain genes attributed to a faster [caffeine] metabolism as a hereditary trait and potentially a better metabolism.”
“It does not study or recommend drinking more coffee, which was not the purpose of this research,” she told the UK Science Media Centre.
Using Mendelian randomization, Dr. Larsson and colleagues examined data that came from a genomewide association meta-analysis of 9,876 individuals of European ancestry from six population-based studies.
Genetically predicted higher plasma caffeine concentrations in those carrying the two gene variants were associated with a lower BMI, with one standard deviation increase in predicted plasma caffeine equaling about 4.8 kg/m2 in BMI (P < .001).
For whole-body fat mass, one standard deviation increase in plasma caffeine equaled a reduction of about 9.5 kg (P < .001). However, there was no significant association with fat-free body mass (P = .17).
Genetically predicted higher plasma caffeine concentrations were also associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes in the FinnGen study (odds ratio, 0.77 per standard deviation increase; P < .001) and the DIAMANTE consortia (0.84, P < .001).
Combined, the odds ratio of type 2 diabetes per standard deviation of plasma caffeine increase was 0.81 (P < .001).
Dr. Larsson and colleagues calculated that approximately 43% of the protective effect of plasma caffeine on type 2 diabetes was mediated through BMI.
They did not find any strong associations between genetically predicted plasma caffeine concentrations and risk of any of the studied cardiovascular disease outcomes (ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke).
The thermogenic response to caffeine has been previously quantified as an approximate 100 kcal increase in energy expenditure per 100 mg daily caffeine intake, an amount that could result in reduced obesity risk. Another possible mechanism is enhanced satiety and suppressed energy intake with higher caffeine levels, the researchers say.
“Long-term clinical studies investigating the effect of caffeine intake on fat mass and type 2 diabetes risk are warranted,” they note. “Randomized controlled trials are warranted to assess whether noncaloric caffeine-containing beverages might play a role in reducing the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes.”
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, and Swedish Research Council. Dr. Larsson, Dr. Lawrence, and Dr. Kos have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
the results of a new study suggest.
Explaining that caffeine has thermogenic effects, the researchers note that previous short-term studies have linked caffeine intake with reductions in weight and fat mass. And observational data have shown associations between coffee consumption and lower risks of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
In an effort to isolate the effects of caffeine from those of other food and drink components, Susanna C. Larsson, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and colleagues used data from studies of mainly European populations to examine two specific genetic mutations that have been linked to a slower speed of caffeine metabolism.
The two gene variants resulted in “genetically predicted, lifelong, higher plasma caffeine concentrations,” the researchers note “and were associated with lower body mass index and fat mass, as well as a lower risk of type 2 diabetes.”
Approximately half of the effect of caffeine on type 2 diabetes was estimated to be mediated through body mass index (BMI) reduction.
The work was published online March 14 in BMJ Medicine.
“This publication supports existing studies suggesting a link between caffeine consumption and increased fat burn,” notes Stephen Lawrence, MBChB, Warwick (England) University. “The big leap of faith that the authors have made is to assume that the weight loss brought about by increased caffeine consumption is sufficient to reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” he told the UK Science Media Centre.
“It does not, however, prove cause and effect.”
The researchers agree, noting: “Further clinical study is warranted to investigate the translational potential of these findings towards reducing the burden of metabolic disease.”
Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, a senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity at the University of Exeter (England), emphasized that this genetic study “shows links and potential health benefits for people with certain genes attributed to a faster [caffeine] metabolism as a hereditary trait and potentially a better metabolism.”
“It does not study or recommend drinking more coffee, which was not the purpose of this research,” she told the UK Science Media Centre.
Using Mendelian randomization, Dr. Larsson and colleagues examined data that came from a genomewide association meta-analysis of 9,876 individuals of European ancestry from six population-based studies.
Genetically predicted higher plasma caffeine concentrations in those carrying the two gene variants were associated with a lower BMI, with one standard deviation increase in predicted plasma caffeine equaling about 4.8 kg/m2 in BMI (P < .001).
For whole-body fat mass, one standard deviation increase in plasma caffeine equaled a reduction of about 9.5 kg (P < .001). However, there was no significant association with fat-free body mass (P = .17).
Genetically predicted higher plasma caffeine concentrations were also associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes in the FinnGen study (odds ratio, 0.77 per standard deviation increase; P < .001) and the DIAMANTE consortia (0.84, P < .001).
Combined, the odds ratio of type 2 diabetes per standard deviation of plasma caffeine increase was 0.81 (P < .001).
Dr. Larsson and colleagues calculated that approximately 43% of the protective effect of plasma caffeine on type 2 diabetes was mediated through BMI.
They did not find any strong associations between genetically predicted plasma caffeine concentrations and risk of any of the studied cardiovascular disease outcomes (ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke).
The thermogenic response to caffeine has been previously quantified as an approximate 100 kcal increase in energy expenditure per 100 mg daily caffeine intake, an amount that could result in reduced obesity risk. Another possible mechanism is enhanced satiety and suppressed energy intake with higher caffeine levels, the researchers say.
“Long-term clinical studies investigating the effect of caffeine intake on fat mass and type 2 diabetes risk are warranted,” they note. “Randomized controlled trials are warranted to assess whether noncaloric caffeine-containing beverages might play a role in reducing the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes.”
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, and Swedish Research Council. Dr. Larsson, Dr. Lawrence, and Dr. Kos have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
the results of a new study suggest.
Explaining that caffeine has thermogenic effects, the researchers note that previous short-term studies have linked caffeine intake with reductions in weight and fat mass. And observational data have shown associations between coffee consumption and lower risks of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
In an effort to isolate the effects of caffeine from those of other food and drink components, Susanna C. Larsson, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and colleagues used data from studies of mainly European populations to examine two specific genetic mutations that have been linked to a slower speed of caffeine metabolism.
The two gene variants resulted in “genetically predicted, lifelong, higher plasma caffeine concentrations,” the researchers note “and were associated with lower body mass index and fat mass, as well as a lower risk of type 2 diabetes.”
Approximately half of the effect of caffeine on type 2 diabetes was estimated to be mediated through body mass index (BMI) reduction.
The work was published online March 14 in BMJ Medicine.
“This publication supports existing studies suggesting a link between caffeine consumption and increased fat burn,” notes Stephen Lawrence, MBChB, Warwick (England) University. “The big leap of faith that the authors have made is to assume that the weight loss brought about by increased caffeine consumption is sufficient to reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” he told the UK Science Media Centre.
“It does not, however, prove cause and effect.”
The researchers agree, noting: “Further clinical study is warranted to investigate the translational potential of these findings towards reducing the burden of metabolic disease.”
Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, a senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity at the University of Exeter (England), emphasized that this genetic study “shows links and potential health benefits for people with certain genes attributed to a faster [caffeine] metabolism as a hereditary trait and potentially a better metabolism.”
“It does not study or recommend drinking more coffee, which was not the purpose of this research,” she told the UK Science Media Centre.
Using Mendelian randomization, Dr. Larsson and colleagues examined data that came from a genomewide association meta-analysis of 9,876 individuals of European ancestry from six population-based studies.
Genetically predicted higher plasma caffeine concentrations in those carrying the two gene variants were associated with a lower BMI, with one standard deviation increase in predicted plasma caffeine equaling about 4.8 kg/m2 in BMI (P < .001).
For whole-body fat mass, one standard deviation increase in plasma caffeine equaled a reduction of about 9.5 kg (P < .001). However, there was no significant association with fat-free body mass (P = .17).
Genetically predicted higher plasma caffeine concentrations were also associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes in the FinnGen study (odds ratio, 0.77 per standard deviation increase; P < .001) and the DIAMANTE consortia (0.84, P < .001).
Combined, the odds ratio of type 2 diabetes per standard deviation of plasma caffeine increase was 0.81 (P < .001).
Dr. Larsson and colleagues calculated that approximately 43% of the protective effect of plasma caffeine on type 2 diabetes was mediated through BMI.
They did not find any strong associations between genetically predicted plasma caffeine concentrations and risk of any of the studied cardiovascular disease outcomes (ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke).
The thermogenic response to caffeine has been previously quantified as an approximate 100 kcal increase in energy expenditure per 100 mg daily caffeine intake, an amount that could result in reduced obesity risk. Another possible mechanism is enhanced satiety and suppressed energy intake with higher caffeine levels, the researchers say.
“Long-term clinical studies investigating the effect of caffeine intake on fat mass and type 2 diabetes risk are warranted,” they note. “Randomized controlled trials are warranted to assess whether noncaloric caffeine-containing beverages might play a role in reducing the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes.”
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, and Swedish Research Council. Dr. Larsson, Dr. Lawrence, and Dr. Kos have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BMJ MEDICINE
Will new guidelines widen the gap in treating childhood obesity?
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nearly one in five children have obesity. Since the 1980s, the number of children with obesity has been increasing, with each generation reaching higher rates and greater weights at earlier ages. Even with extensive efforts from parents, clinicians, educators, and policymakers to limit the excessive weight gain among children, the number of obesity and severe obesity diagnoses keeps rising.
In response to this critical public health challenge, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced new clinical practice guidelines for the evaluation and management of obesity in children and adolescents. Developed by an expert panel, the new AAP guidelines present a departure in the conceptualization of obesity, recognizing the role that social determinants of health play in contributing to excessive weight gain.
As a community health researcher who investigates disparities in childhood obesity, I applaud the paradigm shift from the AAP. I specifically endorse the recognition that obesity is a very serious metabolic disease that won’t go away unless we introduce systemic changes and effective treatments.
However, I, like so many of my colleagues and anyone aware of the access barriers to the recommended treatments, worry about the consequences that the new guidelines will have in the context of current and future health disparities.
A recent study, published in Pediatrics, showed that childhood obesity disparities are widening. Younger generations of children are reaching higher weights at younger ages. These alarming trends are greater among Black children and children growing up with the greatest socioeconomic disadvantages. The new AAP guidelines – even while driven by good intentions – can exacerbate these differences and set children who are able to live healthy lives further apart from those with disproportionate obesity risks, who lack access to the treatments recommended by the AAP.
Rather than “watchful waiting,” to see if children outgrow obesity, the new guidelines call for “aggressive treatment,” as reported by this news organization. At least 26 hours of in-person intensive health behavior and lifestyle counseling and treatment are recommended for children aged 2 years old or older who meet the obesity criteria. For children aged 12 years or older, the AAP recommends complementing lifestyle counseling with pharmacotherapy. This breakthrough welcomes the use of promising antiobesity medications (for example, orlistat, Wegovy [semaglutide], Saxenda [liraglutide], Qsymia (phentermine and topiramate]) approved by the Food and Drug Administration for long-term use in children aged 12 and up. For children 13 years or older with severe obesity, bariatric surgery should be considered.
Will cost barriers continue to increase disparity?
The very promising semaglutide (Wegovy) is a GLP-1–based medication currently offered for about $1,000 per month. As with other chronic diseases, children should be prepared to take obesity medications for prolonged periods of time. A study conducted in adults found that when the medication is suspended, any weight loss can be regained. The costs of bariatric surgery total over $20,000.
In the U.S. health care system, at current prices, very few of the children in need of the medications or surgical treatments have access to them. Most private health insurance companies and Medicaid reject coverage for childhood obesity treatments. Barriers to treatment access are greater for Black and Hispanic children, children growing up in poverty, and children living in the U.S. South region, all of whom are more likely to develop obesity earlier in life than their White and wealthier counterparts.
The AAP recognized that a substantial time and financial commitment is required to follow the new treatment recommendations. Members of the AAP Expert Committee that developed the guidelines stated that they are “aware of the multitude of barriers to treatment that patients and their families face.”
Nevertheless, the recognition of the role of social determinants of health in the development of childhood obesity didn’t motivate the introduction of treatment options that aren’t unattainable for most U.S. families.
It’s important to step away from the conclusion that because of the price tag, at the population level, the new AAP guidelines will be inconsequential. This conclusion fails to recognize the potential harm that the guidelines may introduce. In the context of childhood obesity disparities, the new treatment recommendations probably will widen the childhood obesity prevalence gap between the haves – who will benefit from the options available to reduce childhood obesity – and the have-nots, whose obesity rates will continue with their growth.
We live in a world of the haves and have-nots. This applies to financial resources as well as obesity rates. In the long term, the optimists hope that the GLP-1 medications will become ubiquitous, generics will be developed, and insurance companies will expand coverage and grant access to most children in need of effective obesity treatment options. Until this happens, unless intentional policies are promptly introduced, childhood obesity disparities will continue to widen.
To avoid the increasing disparities, brave and intentional actions are required. A lack of attention dealt to this known problem will result in a lost opportunity for the AAP, legislators, and others in a position to help U.S. children.
Liliana Aguayo, PhD, MPH, is assistant professor, Clinical Research Track, Hubert Department of Global Health, Emory University, Atlanta. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nearly one in five children have obesity. Since the 1980s, the number of children with obesity has been increasing, with each generation reaching higher rates and greater weights at earlier ages. Even with extensive efforts from parents, clinicians, educators, and policymakers to limit the excessive weight gain among children, the number of obesity and severe obesity diagnoses keeps rising.
In response to this critical public health challenge, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced new clinical practice guidelines for the evaluation and management of obesity in children and adolescents. Developed by an expert panel, the new AAP guidelines present a departure in the conceptualization of obesity, recognizing the role that social determinants of health play in contributing to excessive weight gain.
As a community health researcher who investigates disparities in childhood obesity, I applaud the paradigm shift from the AAP. I specifically endorse the recognition that obesity is a very serious metabolic disease that won’t go away unless we introduce systemic changes and effective treatments.
However, I, like so many of my colleagues and anyone aware of the access barriers to the recommended treatments, worry about the consequences that the new guidelines will have in the context of current and future health disparities.
A recent study, published in Pediatrics, showed that childhood obesity disparities are widening. Younger generations of children are reaching higher weights at younger ages. These alarming trends are greater among Black children and children growing up with the greatest socioeconomic disadvantages. The new AAP guidelines – even while driven by good intentions – can exacerbate these differences and set children who are able to live healthy lives further apart from those with disproportionate obesity risks, who lack access to the treatments recommended by the AAP.
Rather than “watchful waiting,” to see if children outgrow obesity, the new guidelines call for “aggressive treatment,” as reported by this news organization. At least 26 hours of in-person intensive health behavior and lifestyle counseling and treatment are recommended for children aged 2 years old or older who meet the obesity criteria. For children aged 12 years or older, the AAP recommends complementing lifestyle counseling with pharmacotherapy. This breakthrough welcomes the use of promising antiobesity medications (for example, orlistat, Wegovy [semaglutide], Saxenda [liraglutide], Qsymia (phentermine and topiramate]) approved by the Food and Drug Administration for long-term use in children aged 12 and up. For children 13 years or older with severe obesity, bariatric surgery should be considered.
Will cost barriers continue to increase disparity?
The very promising semaglutide (Wegovy) is a GLP-1–based medication currently offered for about $1,000 per month. As with other chronic diseases, children should be prepared to take obesity medications for prolonged periods of time. A study conducted in adults found that when the medication is suspended, any weight loss can be regained. The costs of bariatric surgery total over $20,000.
In the U.S. health care system, at current prices, very few of the children in need of the medications or surgical treatments have access to them. Most private health insurance companies and Medicaid reject coverage for childhood obesity treatments. Barriers to treatment access are greater for Black and Hispanic children, children growing up in poverty, and children living in the U.S. South region, all of whom are more likely to develop obesity earlier in life than their White and wealthier counterparts.
The AAP recognized that a substantial time and financial commitment is required to follow the new treatment recommendations. Members of the AAP Expert Committee that developed the guidelines stated that they are “aware of the multitude of barriers to treatment that patients and their families face.”
Nevertheless, the recognition of the role of social determinants of health in the development of childhood obesity didn’t motivate the introduction of treatment options that aren’t unattainable for most U.S. families.
It’s important to step away from the conclusion that because of the price tag, at the population level, the new AAP guidelines will be inconsequential. This conclusion fails to recognize the potential harm that the guidelines may introduce. In the context of childhood obesity disparities, the new treatment recommendations probably will widen the childhood obesity prevalence gap between the haves – who will benefit from the options available to reduce childhood obesity – and the have-nots, whose obesity rates will continue with their growth.
We live in a world of the haves and have-nots. This applies to financial resources as well as obesity rates. In the long term, the optimists hope that the GLP-1 medications will become ubiquitous, generics will be developed, and insurance companies will expand coverage and grant access to most children in need of effective obesity treatment options. Until this happens, unless intentional policies are promptly introduced, childhood obesity disparities will continue to widen.
To avoid the increasing disparities, brave and intentional actions are required. A lack of attention dealt to this known problem will result in a lost opportunity for the AAP, legislators, and others in a position to help U.S. children.
Liliana Aguayo, PhD, MPH, is assistant professor, Clinical Research Track, Hubert Department of Global Health, Emory University, Atlanta. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nearly one in five children have obesity. Since the 1980s, the number of children with obesity has been increasing, with each generation reaching higher rates and greater weights at earlier ages. Even with extensive efforts from parents, clinicians, educators, and policymakers to limit the excessive weight gain among children, the number of obesity and severe obesity diagnoses keeps rising.
In response to this critical public health challenge, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced new clinical practice guidelines for the evaluation and management of obesity in children and adolescents. Developed by an expert panel, the new AAP guidelines present a departure in the conceptualization of obesity, recognizing the role that social determinants of health play in contributing to excessive weight gain.
As a community health researcher who investigates disparities in childhood obesity, I applaud the paradigm shift from the AAP. I specifically endorse the recognition that obesity is a very serious metabolic disease that won’t go away unless we introduce systemic changes and effective treatments.
However, I, like so many of my colleagues and anyone aware of the access barriers to the recommended treatments, worry about the consequences that the new guidelines will have in the context of current and future health disparities.
A recent study, published in Pediatrics, showed that childhood obesity disparities are widening. Younger generations of children are reaching higher weights at younger ages. These alarming trends are greater among Black children and children growing up with the greatest socioeconomic disadvantages. The new AAP guidelines – even while driven by good intentions – can exacerbate these differences and set children who are able to live healthy lives further apart from those with disproportionate obesity risks, who lack access to the treatments recommended by the AAP.
Rather than “watchful waiting,” to see if children outgrow obesity, the new guidelines call for “aggressive treatment,” as reported by this news organization. At least 26 hours of in-person intensive health behavior and lifestyle counseling and treatment are recommended for children aged 2 years old or older who meet the obesity criteria. For children aged 12 years or older, the AAP recommends complementing lifestyle counseling with pharmacotherapy. This breakthrough welcomes the use of promising antiobesity medications (for example, orlistat, Wegovy [semaglutide], Saxenda [liraglutide], Qsymia (phentermine and topiramate]) approved by the Food and Drug Administration for long-term use in children aged 12 and up. For children 13 years or older with severe obesity, bariatric surgery should be considered.
Will cost barriers continue to increase disparity?
The very promising semaglutide (Wegovy) is a GLP-1–based medication currently offered for about $1,000 per month. As with other chronic diseases, children should be prepared to take obesity medications for prolonged periods of time. A study conducted in adults found that when the medication is suspended, any weight loss can be regained. The costs of bariatric surgery total over $20,000.
In the U.S. health care system, at current prices, very few of the children in need of the medications or surgical treatments have access to them. Most private health insurance companies and Medicaid reject coverage for childhood obesity treatments. Barriers to treatment access are greater for Black and Hispanic children, children growing up in poverty, and children living in the U.S. South region, all of whom are more likely to develop obesity earlier in life than their White and wealthier counterparts.
The AAP recognized that a substantial time and financial commitment is required to follow the new treatment recommendations. Members of the AAP Expert Committee that developed the guidelines stated that they are “aware of the multitude of barriers to treatment that patients and their families face.”
Nevertheless, the recognition of the role of social determinants of health in the development of childhood obesity didn’t motivate the introduction of treatment options that aren’t unattainable for most U.S. families.
It’s important to step away from the conclusion that because of the price tag, at the population level, the new AAP guidelines will be inconsequential. This conclusion fails to recognize the potential harm that the guidelines may introduce. In the context of childhood obesity disparities, the new treatment recommendations probably will widen the childhood obesity prevalence gap between the haves – who will benefit from the options available to reduce childhood obesity – and the have-nots, whose obesity rates will continue with their growth.
We live in a world of the haves and have-nots. This applies to financial resources as well as obesity rates. In the long term, the optimists hope that the GLP-1 medications will become ubiquitous, generics will be developed, and insurance companies will expand coverage and grant access to most children in need of effective obesity treatment options. Until this happens, unless intentional policies are promptly introduced, childhood obesity disparities will continue to widen.
To avoid the increasing disparities, brave and intentional actions are required. A lack of attention dealt to this known problem will result in a lost opportunity for the AAP, legislators, and others in a position to help U.S. children.
Liliana Aguayo, PhD, MPH, is assistant professor, Clinical Research Track, Hubert Department of Global Health, Emory University, Atlanta. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Factors linked with increased VTE risk in COVID outpatients
Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.
The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
Nearly 400,000 patients studied
Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.
VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.
“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.
The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
Factors linked with high VTE risk
They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2.
The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
Are routine anticoagulants justified?
Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.
“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population
The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.
Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.
Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk
“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.
”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.
Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
Unanswered questions
Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.
However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.
“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.
The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.
Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”
Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.
Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.
The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.
Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.
The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
Nearly 400,000 patients studied
Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.
VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.
“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.
The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
Factors linked with high VTE risk
They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2.
The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
Are routine anticoagulants justified?
Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.
“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population
The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.
Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.
Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk
“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.
”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.
Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
Unanswered questions
Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.
However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.
“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.
The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.
Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”
Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.
Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.
The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.
Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.
The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
Nearly 400,000 patients studied
Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.
VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.
“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.
The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
Factors linked with high VTE risk
They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2.
The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
Are routine anticoagulants justified?
Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.
“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population
The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.
Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.
Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk
“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.
”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.
Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
Unanswered questions
Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.
However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.
“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.
The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.
Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”
Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.
Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.
The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Treat together: Tackle heart disease and obesity simultaneously
say the authors of a new state-of-the-art review.
“CVD and obesity are common conditions that frequently coexist. We cannot treat one of these conditions while ignoring the other,” Rosana G. Bianchettin, MD, of the division of cardiovascular diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in their review, recently published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The review outlines, for example, how obesity can impair common imaging tests used to diagnose heart disease, potentially reducing their accuracy.
And cardiac procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, open heart surgery, and revascularization all involve greater risk in the setting of obesity, while procedures such as valve replacement and heart transplantation carry a greater likelihood of failure.
Obesity can also alter drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.
Weight reduction is an important part of the management of patients with cardiovascular disease and obesity, and “cardiac rehabilitation programs represent a potential opportunity for structured interventions,” the authors noted. However, “when other measures are insufficient, bariatric surgery can improve outcomes.”
They also advised against relying solely on body mass index (BMI) to assess adiposity: “It is prudent to investigate a range of complementary ... parameters alongside standard BMI calculations (accounting for age, race, and sex), including measures of central obesity, such as waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and weight-to-height ratio.”
Excess fat acts as filter and can skew diagnostic results
“Obesity affects nearly all the diagnostic tests used in cardiology, such as ECG, CT scan, MRI, and echocardiogram,” senior author Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Mayo Clinic, explained in a statement.
The review includes a detailed table of these key obesity-related challenges. With electrocardiograms, for example, obesity can cause displacement of the heart, increased cardiac workload, and widening of the distance between the heart and the recording electrodes.
Obesity also lowers the sensitivity of exercise echocardiography, and use of CT coronary angiogram is completely precluded in people with a BMI above 40 kg/m2. In interventional radiology, there may be poor visualization of target areas.
“Excess fat acts as a kind of filter and can skew test readings to under- or overdiagnosis,” noted Dr. Lopez-Jimenez.
Therapeutic challenges: Drugs may work differently
A longer table in the review summarizes the therapeutic challenges involved in lifestyle modification, pharmacology, cardiac procedures, and other therapeutic measures for people with the two conditions.
Obesity can limit a person’s ability to exercise, for example, and smoking cessation may promote overeating and further weight gain.
Moreover, “tailoring pharmacotherapy is difficult because of unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors in people with obesity that alter distribution, metabolism, and elimination of drugs. Each drug also has special properties that must be considered when it is administrated,” the authors wrote.
Examples include the higher volume of distribution of lipophilic drugs in those with increased fat mass, alterations in liver metabolism, and difficulties with anticoagulant dosing.
Cardiac rehabilitation is an intervention opportunity
Although cardiac rehabilitation is “a cornerstone in secondary prevention” for people who have experienced a cardiac event, only 8% of such programs include formal in-house behavioral weight-loss programs.
But that could be remedied and expanded with the use of options such as home-based rehabilitation and telephone counseling, particularly in rural communities, Dr. Bianchettin and colleagues said.
“Motivated individuals will benefit from multicomponent approaches and should be encouraged to set specific, proximal, shared goals with their health care professional. A multitude of tools are available to support self-monitoring (e.g., smartphone applications, food diaries), and scheduled regular follow-up and feedback on progress can help to maintain motivation,” they wrote.
The bottom line, said Dr. Lopez-Jimenez: “Obesity is an important risk factor to address in patients with heart disease and it requires us to do something. ... The patient needs to know that their clinician can help them lose weight. Overall, weight-loss solutions come down to finding the right therapy for the patient.”
Dr. Bianchettin reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lopez-Jimenez has reported conducting research related to 3D body assessment with Select Research, Mayo Clinic, and may benefit in the future if the technology is commercialized; he has not received any relevant monetary, financial, or other type of compensation to date, in relationship to this arrangement. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
say the authors of a new state-of-the-art review.
“CVD and obesity are common conditions that frequently coexist. We cannot treat one of these conditions while ignoring the other,” Rosana G. Bianchettin, MD, of the division of cardiovascular diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in their review, recently published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The review outlines, for example, how obesity can impair common imaging tests used to diagnose heart disease, potentially reducing their accuracy.
And cardiac procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, open heart surgery, and revascularization all involve greater risk in the setting of obesity, while procedures such as valve replacement and heart transplantation carry a greater likelihood of failure.
Obesity can also alter drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.
Weight reduction is an important part of the management of patients with cardiovascular disease and obesity, and “cardiac rehabilitation programs represent a potential opportunity for structured interventions,” the authors noted. However, “when other measures are insufficient, bariatric surgery can improve outcomes.”
They also advised against relying solely on body mass index (BMI) to assess adiposity: “It is prudent to investigate a range of complementary ... parameters alongside standard BMI calculations (accounting for age, race, and sex), including measures of central obesity, such as waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and weight-to-height ratio.”
Excess fat acts as filter and can skew diagnostic results
“Obesity affects nearly all the diagnostic tests used in cardiology, such as ECG, CT scan, MRI, and echocardiogram,” senior author Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Mayo Clinic, explained in a statement.
The review includes a detailed table of these key obesity-related challenges. With electrocardiograms, for example, obesity can cause displacement of the heart, increased cardiac workload, and widening of the distance between the heart and the recording electrodes.
Obesity also lowers the sensitivity of exercise echocardiography, and use of CT coronary angiogram is completely precluded in people with a BMI above 40 kg/m2. In interventional radiology, there may be poor visualization of target areas.
“Excess fat acts as a kind of filter and can skew test readings to under- or overdiagnosis,” noted Dr. Lopez-Jimenez.
Therapeutic challenges: Drugs may work differently
A longer table in the review summarizes the therapeutic challenges involved in lifestyle modification, pharmacology, cardiac procedures, and other therapeutic measures for people with the two conditions.
Obesity can limit a person’s ability to exercise, for example, and smoking cessation may promote overeating and further weight gain.
Moreover, “tailoring pharmacotherapy is difficult because of unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors in people with obesity that alter distribution, metabolism, and elimination of drugs. Each drug also has special properties that must be considered when it is administrated,” the authors wrote.
Examples include the higher volume of distribution of lipophilic drugs in those with increased fat mass, alterations in liver metabolism, and difficulties with anticoagulant dosing.
Cardiac rehabilitation is an intervention opportunity
Although cardiac rehabilitation is “a cornerstone in secondary prevention” for people who have experienced a cardiac event, only 8% of such programs include formal in-house behavioral weight-loss programs.
But that could be remedied and expanded with the use of options such as home-based rehabilitation and telephone counseling, particularly in rural communities, Dr. Bianchettin and colleagues said.
“Motivated individuals will benefit from multicomponent approaches and should be encouraged to set specific, proximal, shared goals with their health care professional. A multitude of tools are available to support self-monitoring (e.g., smartphone applications, food diaries), and scheduled regular follow-up and feedback on progress can help to maintain motivation,” they wrote.
The bottom line, said Dr. Lopez-Jimenez: “Obesity is an important risk factor to address in patients with heart disease and it requires us to do something. ... The patient needs to know that their clinician can help them lose weight. Overall, weight-loss solutions come down to finding the right therapy for the patient.”
Dr. Bianchettin reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lopez-Jimenez has reported conducting research related to 3D body assessment with Select Research, Mayo Clinic, and may benefit in the future if the technology is commercialized; he has not received any relevant monetary, financial, or other type of compensation to date, in relationship to this arrangement. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
say the authors of a new state-of-the-art review.
“CVD and obesity are common conditions that frequently coexist. We cannot treat one of these conditions while ignoring the other,” Rosana G. Bianchettin, MD, of the division of cardiovascular diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in their review, recently published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The review outlines, for example, how obesity can impair common imaging tests used to diagnose heart disease, potentially reducing their accuracy.
And cardiac procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, open heart surgery, and revascularization all involve greater risk in the setting of obesity, while procedures such as valve replacement and heart transplantation carry a greater likelihood of failure.
Obesity can also alter drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.
Weight reduction is an important part of the management of patients with cardiovascular disease and obesity, and “cardiac rehabilitation programs represent a potential opportunity for structured interventions,” the authors noted. However, “when other measures are insufficient, bariatric surgery can improve outcomes.”
They also advised against relying solely on body mass index (BMI) to assess adiposity: “It is prudent to investigate a range of complementary ... parameters alongside standard BMI calculations (accounting for age, race, and sex), including measures of central obesity, such as waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and weight-to-height ratio.”
Excess fat acts as filter and can skew diagnostic results
“Obesity affects nearly all the diagnostic tests used in cardiology, such as ECG, CT scan, MRI, and echocardiogram,” senior author Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Mayo Clinic, explained in a statement.
The review includes a detailed table of these key obesity-related challenges. With electrocardiograms, for example, obesity can cause displacement of the heart, increased cardiac workload, and widening of the distance between the heart and the recording electrodes.
Obesity also lowers the sensitivity of exercise echocardiography, and use of CT coronary angiogram is completely precluded in people with a BMI above 40 kg/m2. In interventional radiology, there may be poor visualization of target areas.
“Excess fat acts as a kind of filter and can skew test readings to under- or overdiagnosis,” noted Dr. Lopez-Jimenez.
Therapeutic challenges: Drugs may work differently
A longer table in the review summarizes the therapeutic challenges involved in lifestyle modification, pharmacology, cardiac procedures, and other therapeutic measures for people with the two conditions.
Obesity can limit a person’s ability to exercise, for example, and smoking cessation may promote overeating and further weight gain.
Moreover, “tailoring pharmacotherapy is difficult because of unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors in people with obesity that alter distribution, metabolism, and elimination of drugs. Each drug also has special properties that must be considered when it is administrated,” the authors wrote.
Examples include the higher volume of distribution of lipophilic drugs in those with increased fat mass, alterations in liver metabolism, and difficulties with anticoagulant dosing.
Cardiac rehabilitation is an intervention opportunity
Although cardiac rehabilitation is “a cornerstone in secondary prevention” for people who have experienced a cardiac event, only 8% of such programs include formal in-house behavioral weight-loss programs.
But that could be remedied and expanded with the use of options such as home-based rehabilitation and telephone counseling, particularly in rural communities, Dr. Bianchettin and colleagues said.
“Motivated individuals will benefit from multicomponent approaches and should be encouraged to set specific, proximal, shared goals with their health care professional. A multitude of tools are available to support self-monitoring (e.g., smartphone applications, food diaries), and scheduled regular follow-up and feedback on progress can help to maintain motivation,” they wrote.
The bottom line, said Dr. Lopez-Jimenez: “Obesity is an important risk factor to address in patients with heart disease and it requires us to do something. ... The patient needs to know that their clinician can help them lose weight. Overall, weight-loss solutions come down to finding the right therapy for the patient.”
Dr. Bianchettin reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lopez-Jimenez has reported conducting research related to 3D body assessment with Select Research, Mayo Clinic, and may benefit in the future if the technology is commercialized; he has not received any relevant monetary, financial, or other type of compensation to date, in relationship to this arrangement. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
What’s it like to take Ozempic? A doctor’s own story
With the rising popularity of weight-loss drug injections, I’ve received many questions from patients about the pros, cons, and costs. While Ozempic (semaglutide) is perhaps the best known, it’s technically an agent approved only for type 2 diabetes that has been used off label for obesity. The same substance, semaglutide, is approved for use in obesity, but at a higher dose, under the brand name Wegovy. Alternatives are available, and results will vary depending on the specific agent used and the individual.
Ultimately, I decided to try these new injections for myself. I am not a paid representative for, nor an advocate of, any of these medications; I’m here only to share my personal experience.
In my discussions with patients about weight, I sometimes felt like an imposter. While I was overweight by medical standards, I fortunately had none of the underlying health problems. I wasn’t on medications for blood pressure nor did I have diabetes, but I was counseling people to lose weight and eat better while not always following my own advice.
Since having children and turning 40, my metabolism, like many other women’s, seems to have plummeted. I tried a number of older weight-loss medications, like phentermine and phendimetrazine, under the supervision of medical professionals.
Each time, the efforts worked for a short while, particularly when I followed good portion control and practiced moderate exercise. Once the side effects (that is, tachycardia, palpitations, mood changes, constipation) became intolerable, or I became tired or fearful of being on the medications too long, I’d stop and I would regain some of the weight.
When the newer subcutaneous injectable medications arrived on the scene and I started to talk to my patients about them, I was intrigued by their novel mode of action and seeming benefits.
These medications, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, were first approved for type 2 diabetes, and it soon became apparent that patients were losing significant amounts of weight taking them, so manufacturers conducted further trials in obesity patients without type 2 diabetes.
The first of these, liraglutide, is injected daily and was first approved as Victoza for type 2 diabetes; it later received an additional approval for obesity, in December 2014, as Saxenda.
Semaglutide, another of the new GLP-1 agonists, was first approved for type 2 diabetes as Ozempic but again was found to lead to substantial weight loss, so a subsequent approval of the drug for obesity, as Wegovy, came in June 2021. Semaglutide is injected once a week.
Semaglutide was branded a “game changer” when it was licensed for obesity because the mean weight loss seen in trials was around 15%, more than for any other drug and approaching what could be achieved with bariatric surgery, some doctors said.
These medications work in a different way from the older weight loss drugs, which had focused on the use of amphetamines. The newer medications became very popular because treating obesity helps lower blood glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, kidney disease risk, and other comorbidities that occur with diabetes. Plus, for most people, there were fewer side effects.
I first tried Saxenda when it arrived on the market, via some samples that our pharmaceutical representative brought, both out of curiosity and to see if it would help me lose the stubborn baby weight. I ended up stopping the daily injections after my second or third week because of nausea and vomiting. I took a break, got a prescription for antinausea medicine, and tried again because it did indeed decrease my appetite. However, when I took my prescription to the pharmacy, my insurance wouldn’t cover it. It happens to doctors, too.
Fast-forward to 2017-2018. The baby weight was still holding on despite lifestyle changes, diet, and exercising. The newer drug classes hit the market, and again we had samples from our reps.
When Ozempic was on backorder, I switched to a low dose of Mounjaro (tirzepatide), a new dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, approved for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, again using it off label as a weekly injection, as it isn’t currently approved for weight loss. However, it does produce significant weight loss and is awaiting approval for obesity.
With these new medications, I noticed that both my patients and I didn’t complain as much about nausea and vomiting, but I did experience stomach upset, constipation, and acid reflux.
The appetite suppression is effective. It slows down the emptying of the gut so I feel full longer. I’ve lost 30 lb with these weekly injections and would like to lose another 20 lb. I follow a routine of reasonable, portion-controlled eating and moderate exercise (30 minutes of cardiovascular activity at least two to three times a week).
Discontinuing the medications may cause rebound weight gain, especially if I’m no longer following a routine of healthy eating and/or moderate exercise. I deal with minimal constipation by taking stool softeners, and I take antacids for acid reflux.
Here’s what I recommend applying when working with patients who have obesity: First, explain how these medications work. Then conduct a health history to make sure these injections are right for them. Patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer can’t take these medications. You also want to monitor use in patients with a history of hypoglycemia so their blood sugar doesn’t drop too low. It’s also important to make sure your patients are able to afford the medication. My husband takes Ozempic for diabetes, and recently we were told that a refill would cost about $1,500 a month, even with insurance. “Covered” doesn’t necessarily mean affordable.
Take a baseline hemoglobin A1c and repeat it after the patient has been on the medication for 2-3 weeks. Also remind them that they can’t rely solely on the medication but need to practice portion control and healthier eating and to exercise more.
For myself, I want to lose those remaining 20 lb or so by eating healthy and being physically active without having to rely on medication for the rest of my life. Research on these medications is still early so we don’t know the long-term effects yet.
As clinicians, I feel it’s okay to be honest with our patients about our own personal struggles to help them understand that they are not alone and that losing weight is a challenge for everyone.
Dr. Swiner is a family physician in Durham, N.C. She reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With the rising popularity of weight-loss drug injections, I’ve received many questions from patients about the pros, cons, and costs. While Ozempic (semaglutide) is perhaps the best known, it’s technically an agent approved only for type 2 diabetes that has been used off label for obesity. The same substance, semaglutide, is approved for use in obesity, but at a higher dose, under the brand name Wegovy. Alternatives are available, and results will vary depending on the specific agent used and the individual.
Ultimately, I decided to try these new injections for myself. I am not a paid representative for, nor an advocate of, any of these medications; I’m here only to share my personal experience.
In my discussions with patients about weight, I sometimes felt like an imposter. While I was overweight by medical standards, I fortunately had none of the underlying health problems. I wasn’t on medications for blood pressure nor did I have diabetes, but I was counseling people to lose weight and eat better while not always following my own advice.
Since having children and turning 40, my metabolism, like many other women’s, seems to have plummeted. I tried a number of older weight-loss medications, like phentermine and phendimetrazine, under the supervision of medical professionals.
Each time, the efforts worked for a short while, particularly when I followed good portion control and practiced moderate exercise. Once the side effects (that is, tachycardia, palpitations, mood changes, constipation) became intolerable, or I became tired or fearful of being on the medications too long, I’d stop and I would regain some of the weight.
When the newer subcutaneous injectable medications arrived on the scene and I started to talk to my patients about them, I was intrigued by their novel mode of action and seeming benefits.
These medications, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, were first approved for type 2 diabetes, and it soon became apparent that patients were losing significant amounts of weight taking them, so manufacturers conducted further trials in obesity patients without type 2 diabetes.
The first of these, liraglutide, is injected daily and was first approved as Victoza for type 2 diabetes; it later received an additional approval for obesity, in December 2014, as Saxenda.
Semaglutide, another of the new GLP-1 agonists, was first approved for type 2 diabetes as Ozempic but again was found to lead to substantial weight loss, so a subsequent approval of the drug for obesity, as Wegovy, came in June 2021. Semaglutide is injected once a week.
Semaglutide was branded a “game changer” when it was licensed for obesity because the mean weight loss seen in trials was around 15%, more than for any other drug and approaching what could be achieved with bariatric surgery, some doctors said.
These medications work in a different way from the older weight loss drugs, which had focused on the use of amphetamines. The newer medications became very popular because treating obesity helps lower blood glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, kidney disease risk, and other comorbidities that occur with diabetes. Plus, for most people, there were fewer side effects.
I first tried Saxenda when it arrived on the market, via some samples that our pharmaceutical representative brought, both out of curiosity and to see if it would help me lose the stubborn baby weight. I ended up stopping the daily injections after my second or third week because of nausea and vomiting. I took a break, got a prescription for antinausea medicine, and tried again because it did indeed decrease my appetite. However, when I took my prescription to the pharmacy, my insurance wouldn’t cover it. It happens to doctors, too.
Fast-forward to 2017-2018. The baby weight was still holding on despite lifestyle changes, diet, and exercising. The newer drug classes hit the market, and again we had samples from our reps.
When Ozempic was on backorder, I switched to a low dose of Mounjaro (tirzepatide), a new dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, approved for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, again using it off label as a weekly injection, as it isn’t currently approved for weight loss. However, it does produce significant weight loss and is awaiting approval for obesity.
With these new medications, I noticed that both my patients and I didn’t complain as much about nausea and vomiting, but I did experience stomach upset, constipation, and acid reflux.
The appetite suppression is effective. It slows down the emptying of the gut so I feel full longer. I’ve lost 30 lb with these weekly injections and would like to lose another 20 lb. I follow a routine of reasonable, portion-controlled eating and moderate exercise (30 minutes of cardiovascular activity at least two to three times a week).
Discontinuing the medications may cause rebound weight gain, especially if I’m no longer following a routine of healthy eating and/or moderate exercise. I deal with minimal constipation by taking stool softeners, and I take antacids for acid reflux.
Here’s what I recommend applying when working with patients who have obesity: First, explain how these medications work. Then conduct a health history to make sure these injections are right for them. Patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer can’t take these medications. You also want to monitor use in patients with a history of hypoglycemia so their blood sugar doesn’t drop too low. It’s also important to make sure your patients are able to afford the medication. My husband takes Ozempic for diabetes, and recently we were told that a refill would cost about $1,500 a month, even with insurance. “Covered” doesn’t necessarily mean affordable.
Take a baseline hemoglobin A1c and repeat it after the patient has been on the medication for 2-3 weeks. Also remind them that they can’t rely solely on the medication but need to practice portion control and healthier eating and to exercise more.
For myself, I want to lose those remaining 20 lb or so by eating healthy and being physically active without having to rely on medication for the rest of my life. Research on these medications is still early so we don’t know the long-term effects yet.
As clinicians, I feel it’s okay to be honest with our patients about our own personal struggles to help them understand that they are not alone and that losing weight is a challenge for everyone.
Dr. Swiner is a family physician in Durham, N.C. She reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With the rising popularity of weight-loss drug injections, I’ve received many questions from patients about the pros, cons, and costs. While Ozempic (semaglutide) is perhaps the best known, it’s technically an agent approved only for type 2 diabetes that has been used off label for obesity. The same substance, semaglutide, is approved for use in obesity, but at a higher dose, under the brand name Wegovy. Alternatives are available, and results will vary depending on the specific agent used and the individual.
Ultimately, I decided to try these new injections for myself. I am not a paid representative for, nor an advocate of, any of these medications; I’m here only to share my personal experience.
In my discussions with patients about weight, I sometimes felt like an imposter. While I was overweight by medical standards, I fortunately had none of the underlying health problems. I wasn’t on medications for blood pressure nor did I have diabetes, but I was counseling people to lose weight and eat better while not always following my own advice.
Since having children and turning 40, my metabolism, like many other women’s, seems to have plummeted. I tried a number of older weight-loss medications, like phentermine and phendimetrazine, under the supervision of medical professionals.
Each time, the efforts worked for a short while, particularly when I followed good portion control and practiced moderate exercise. Once the side effects (that is, tachycardia, palpitations, mood changes, constipation) became intolerable, or I became tired or fearful of being on the medications too long, I’d stop and I would regain some of the weight.
When the newer subcutaneous injectable medications arrived on the scene and I started to talk to my patients about them, I was intrigued by their novel mode of action and seeming benefits.
These medications, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, were first approved for type 2 diabetes, and it soon became apparent that patients were losing significant amounts of weight taking them, so manufacturers conducted further trials in obesity patients without type 2 diabetes.
The first of these, liraglutide, is injected daily and was first approved as Victoza for type 2 diabetes; it later received an additional approval for obesity, in December 2014, as Saxenda.
Semaglutide, another of the new GLP-1 agonists, was first approved for type 2 diabetes as Ozempic but again was found to lead to substantial weight loss, so a subsequent approval of the drug for obesity, as Wegovy, came in June 2021. Semaglutide is injected once a week.
Semaglutide was branded a “game changer” when it was licensed for obesity because the mean weight loss seen in trials was around 15%, more than for any other drug and approaching what could be achieved with bariatric surgery, some doctors said.
These medications work in a different way from the older weight loss drugs, which had focused on the use of amphetamines. The newer medications became very popular because treating obesity helps lower blood glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, kidney disease risk, and other comorbidities that occur with diabetes. Plus, for most people, there were fewer side effects.
I first tried Saxenda when it arrived on the market, via some samples that our pharmaceutical representative brought, both out of curiosity and to see if it would help me lose the stubborn baby weight. I ended up stopping the daily injections after my second or third week because of nausea and vomiting. I took a break, got a prescription for antinausea medicine, and tried again because it did indeed decrease my appetite. However, when I took my prescription to the pharmacy, my insurance wouldn’t cover it. It happens to doctors, too.
Fast-forward to 2017-2018. The baby weight was still holding on despite lifestyle changes, diet, and exercising. The newer drug classes hit the market, and again we had samples from our reps.
When Ozempic was on backorder, I switched to a low dose of Mounjaro (tirzepatide), a new dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, approved for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, again using it off label as a weekly injection, as it isn’t currently approved for weight loss. However, it does produce significant weight loss and is awaiting approval for obesity.
With these new medications, I noticed that both my patients and I didn’t complain as much about nausea and vomiting, but I did experience stomach upset, constipation, and acid reflux.
The appetite suppression is effective. It slows down the emptying of the gut so I feel full longer. I’ve lost 30 lb with these weekly injections and would like to lose another 20 lb. I follow a routine of reasonable, portion-controlled eating and moderate exercise (30 minutes of cardiovascular activity at least two to three times a week).
Discontinuing the medications may cause rebound weight gain, especially if I’m no longer following a routine of healthy eating and/or moderate exercise. I deal with minimal constipation by taking stool softeners, and I take antacids for acid reflux.
Here’s what I recommend applying when working with patients who have obesity: First, explain how these medications work. Then conduct a health history to make sure these injections are right for them. Patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer can’t take these medications. You also want to monitor use in patients with a history of hypoglycemia so their blood sugar doesn’t drop too low. It’s also important to make sure your patients are able to afford the medication. My husband takes Ozempic for diabetes, and recently we were told that a refill would cost about $1,500 a month, even with insurance. “Covered” doesn’t necessarily mean affordable.
Take a baseline hemoglobin A1c and repeat it after the patient has been on the medication for 2-3 weeks. Also remind them that they can’t rely solely on the medication but need to practice portion control and healthier eating and to exercise more.
For myself, I want to lose those remaining 20 lb or so by eating healthy and being physically active without having to rely on medication for the rest of my life. Research on these medications is still early so we don’t know the long-term effects yet.
As clinicians, I feel it’s okay to be honest with our patients about our own personal struggles to help them understand that they are not alone and that losing weight is a challenge for everyone.
Dr. Swiner is a family physician in Durham, N.C. She reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Causal link found between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes
Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.
“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.
The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.
To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.
The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.
They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.
The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.
The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.
Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”
Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”
Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”
He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.
Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.
“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.
The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.
To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.
The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.
They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.
The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.
The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.
Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”
Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”
Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”
He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.
Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.
“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.
The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.
To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.
The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.
They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.
The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.
The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.
Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”
Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”
Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”
He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.
FROM DIABETOLOGIA