User login
Is Being ‘Manly’ a Threat to a Man’s Health?
When my normally adorable cat Biscuit bit my ankle in a playful stalking exercise gone wrong, I washed it with soap and some rubbing alcohol, slapped on a Band-Aid, and went about my day.
The next morning, when it was swollen, I told myself it was probably just a hematoma and went about my day.
The next day, when the swelling had increased and red lines started creeping up my leg, I called my doctor. Long story short, I ended up hospitalized for intravenous antibiotics.
This is all to say that, yes, I’m sort of an idiot, but also to introduce the idea that maybe I minimized my very obvious lymphangitis because I am a man.
This week, we have empirical evidence that men downplay their medical symptoms — and that manlier men downplay them even more.
I’m going to talk about a study that links manliness (or, scientifically speaking, “male gender expressivity”) to medical diagnoses that are based on hard evidence and medical diagnoses that are based on self-report. You see where this is going but I want to walk you through the methods here because they are fairly interesting.
This study used data from the US National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. This study enrolled 20,000 adolescents who were in grades 7-12 in the 1994-1995 school year and has been following them ever since — about 30 years so far.
The authors wanted to link early gender roles to long-term outcomes, so they cut that 20,000 number down to the 4230 males in the group who had complete follow-up.
Now comes the first interesting question. How do you quantify the “male gender expressivity” of boys in 7th-12th grade? There was no survey item that asked them how masculine or manly they felt. What the authors did was look at the surveys that were administered and identify the questions on those surveys where boys and girls gave the most disparate answers. I have some examples here. 
Some of these questions make sense when it comes to gender expressivity: “How often do you cry?” for example, has a lot of validity for the social construct that is gender. But some questions where boys and girls gave very different answers — like “How often do you exercise?” — don’t quite fit that mold. Regardless, this structure allowed the researchers to take individual kids’ responses to these questions and combine them into what amounts to a manliness score — how much their answers aligned with the typical male answer.
The score was established in adolescence — which is interesting because I’m sure some of this stuff may change over time — but notable because adolescence is where many gender roles develop.
Now we can fast-forward 30 years and see how these manliness scores link to various outcomes. The authors were interested in fairly common diseases: diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.
Let’s start simply. Are males with higher gender expressivity in adolescence more or less likely to have these diseases in the future?
Not really. Those above the average in male gender expressivity had similar rates of hypertension and hyperlipidemia as those below the median. They were actually a bit less likely to have diabetes.
But that’s not what’s really interesting here.
I told you that there was no difference in the rate of hypertension among those with high vs low male gender expressivity. But there was a significant difference in their answer to the question “Do you have hypertension?” The same was seen for hyperlipidemia. In other words, those with higher manliness scores are less likely to admit (or perhaps know) that they have a particular disease.
You can see the relationship across the manliness spectrum here in a series of adjusted models. The x-axis is the male gender expressivity score, and the y-axis is the percentage of people who report having the disease that we know they have based on the actual laboratory tests or vital sign measurements. As manliness increases, the self-report of a given disease decreases.
There are some important consequences of this systematic denial. Specifically, men with the diseases of interest who have higher male gender expressivity are less likely to get treatment. And, as we all know, the lack of treatment of something like hypertension puts people at risk for bad downstream outcomes.
Putting this all together, I’m not that surprised. Society trains boys from a young age to behave in certain ways: to hide emotions, to eschew vulnerability, to not complain when we are hurt. And those lessons can persist into later life. Whether the disease that strikes is hypertension or Pasteurella multocida from a slightly psychotic house cat, men are more likely to ignore it, to their detriment. 
So, gents, be brave. Get your blood tests and check your blood pressure. If there’s something wrong, admit it, and fix it. After all, fixing problems — that’s a manly thing, right?
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
When my normally adorable cat Biscuit bit my ankle in a playful stalking exercise gone wrong, I washed it with soap and some rubbing alcohol, slapped on a Band-Aid, and went about my day.
The next morning, when it was swollen, I told myself it was probably just a hematoma and went about my day.
The next day, when the swelling had increased and red lines started creeping up my leg, I called my doctor. Long story short, I ended up hospitalized for intravenous antibiotics.
This is all to say that, yes, I’m sort of an idiot, but also to introduce the idea that maybe I minimized my very obvious lymphangitis because I am a man.
This week, we have empirical evidence that men downplay their medical symptoms — and that manlier men downplay them even more.
I’m going to talk about a study that links manliness (or, scientifically speaking, “male gender expressivity”) to medical diagnoses that are based on hard evidence and medical diagnoses that are based on self-report. You see where this is going but I want to walk you through the methods here because they are fairly interesting.
This study used data from the US National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. This study enrolled 20,000 adolescents who were in grades 7-12 in the 1994-1995 school year and has been following them ever since — about 30 years so far.
The authors wanted to link early gender roles to long-term outcomes, so they cut that 20,000 number down to the 4230 males in the group who had complete follow-up.
Now comes the first interesting question. How do you quantify the “male gender expressivity” of boys in 7th-12th grade? There was no survey item that asked them how masculine or manly they felt. What the authors did was look at the surveys that were administered and identify the questions on those surveys where boys and girls gave the most disparate answers. I have some examples here.
Some of these questions make sense when it comes to gender expressivity: “How often do you cry?” for example, has a lot of validity for the social construct that is gender. But some questions where boys and girls gave very different answers — like “How often do you exercise?” — don’t quite fit that mold. Regardless, this structure allowed the researchers to take individual kids’ responses to these questions and combine them into what amounts to a manliness score — how much their answers aligned with the typical male answer.
The score was established in adolescence — which is interesting because I’m sure some of this stuff may change over time — but notable because adolescence is where many gender roles develop.
Now we can fast-forward 30 years and see how these manliness scores link to various outcomes. The authors were interested in fairly common diseases: diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.
Let’s start simply. Are males with higher gender expressivity in adolescence more or less likely to have these diseases in the future?
Not really. Those above the average in male gender expressivity had similar rates of hypertension and hyperlipidemia as those below the median. They were actually a bit less likely to have diabetes.
But that’s not what’s really interesting here.
I told you that there was no difference in the rate of hypertension among those with high vs low male gender expressivity. But there was a significant difference in their answer to the question “Do you have hypertension?” The same was seen for hyperlipidemia. In other words, those with higher manliness scores are less likely to admit (or perhaps know) that they have a particular disease.
You can see the relationship across the manliness spectrum here in a series of adjusted models. The x-axis is the male gender expressivity score, and the y-axis is the percentage of people who report having the disease that we know they have based on the actual laboratory tests or vital sign measurements. As manliness increases, the self-report of a given disease decreases.
There are some important consequences of this systematic denial. Specifically, men with the diseases of interest who have higher male gender expressivity are less likely to get treatment. And, as we all know, the lack of treatment of something like hypertension puts people at risk for bad downstream outcomes.
Putting this all together, I’m not that surprised. Society trains boys from a young age to behave in certain ways: to hide emotions, to eschew vulnerability, to not complain when we are hurt. And those lessons can persist into later life. Whether the disease that strikes is hypertension or Pasteurella multocida from a slightly psychotic house cat, men are more likely to ignore it, to their detriment.
So, gents, be brave. Get your blood tests and check your blood pressure. If there’s something wrong, admit it, and fix it. After all, fixing problems — that’s a manly thing, right?
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
When my normally adorable cat Biscuit bit my ankle in a playful stalking exercise gone wrong, I washed it with soap and some rubbing alcohol, slapped on a Band-Aid, and went about my day.
The next morning, when it was swollen, I told myself it was probably just a hematoma and went about my day.
The next day, when the swelling had increased and red lines started creeping up my leg, I called my doctor. Long story short, I ended up hospitalized for intravenous antibiotics.
This is all to say that, yes, I’m sort of an idiot, but also to introduce the idea that maybe I minimized my very obvious lymphangitis because I am a man.
This week, we have empirical evidence that men downplay their medical symptoms — and that manlier men downplay them even more.
I’m going to talk about a study that links manliness (or, scientifically speaking, “male gender expressivity”) to medical diagnoses that are based on hard evidence and medical diagnoses that are based on self-report. You see where this is going but I want to walk you through the methods here because they are fairly interesting.
This study used data from the US National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. This study enrolled 20,000 adolescents who were in grades 7-12 in the 1994-1995 school year and has been following them ever since — about 30 years so far.
The authors wanted to link early gender roles to long-term outcomes, so they cut that 20,000 number down to the 4230 males in the group who had complete follow-up.
Now comes the first interesting question. How do you quantify the “male gender expressivity” of boys in 7th-12th grade? There was no survey item that asked them how masculine or manly they felt. What the authors did was look at the surveys that were administered and identify the questions on those surveys where boys and girls gave the most disparate answers. I have some examples here.
Some of these questions make sense when it comes to gender expressivity: “How often do you cry?” for example, has a lot of validity for the social construct that is gender. But some questions where boys and girls gave very different answers — like “How often do you exercise?” — don’t quite fit that mold. Regardless, this structure allowed the researchers to take individual kids’ responses to these questions and combine them into what amounts to a manliness score — how much their answers aligned with the typical male answer.
The score was established in adolescence — which is interesting because I’m sure some of this stuff may change over time — but notable because adolescence is where many gender roles develop.
Now we can fast-forward 30 years and see how these manliness scores link to various outcomes. The authors were interested in fairly common diseases: diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.
Let’s start simply. Are males with higher gender expressivity in adolescence more or less likely to have these diseases in the future?
Not really. Those above the average in male gender expressivity had similar rates of hypertension and hyperlipidemia as those below the median. They were actually a bit less likely to have diabetes.
But that’s not what’s really interesting here.
I told you that there was no difference in the rate of hypertension among those with high vs low male gender expressivity. But there was a significant difference in their answer to the question “Do you have hypertension?” The same was seen for hyperlipidemia. In other words, those with higher manliness scores are less likely to admit (or perhaps know) that they have a particular disease.
You can see the relationship across the manliness spectrum here in a series of adjusted models. The x-axis is the male gender expressivity score, and the y-axis is the percentage of people who report having the disease that we know they have based on the actual laboratory tests or vital sign measurements. As manliness increases, the self-report of a given disease decreases.
There are some important consequences of this systematic denial. Specifically, men with the diseases of interest who have higher male gender expressivity are less likely to get treatment. And, as we all know, the lack of treatment of something like hypertension puts people at risk for bad downstream outcomes.
Putting this all together, I’m not that surprised. Society trains boys from a young age to behave in certain ways: to hide emotions, to eschew vulnerability, to not complain when we are hurt. And those lessons can persist into later life. Whether the disease that strikes is hypertension or Pasteurella multocida from a slightly psychotic house cat, men are more likely to ignore it, to their detriment.
So, gents, be brave. Get your blood tests and check your blood pressure. If there’s something wrong, admit it, and fix it. After all, fixing problems — that’s a manly thing, right?
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Know the Ins and Outs of Prescribing Obesity Medications in Pediatric Patients
ORLANDO, FLORIDA — The rationale for using obesity medications in pediatric patients is that it’s using “a biological intervention to treat a biologically based disease,” according to Claudia Fox, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics and codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Fox provided
“This field is changing so rapidly that even over the course of the last 3 or 4 months, the verbiage around what we should be calling these interventions has changed,” Fox noted. Instead of “anti-obesity” medications, “most of us are now using the term obesity medications to highlight or to reduce chances of stigma and bias that can come along with this topic.”
Jessica Ivers, MD, a pediatrician at Swedish Pediatrics in Seattle, Washington, said she found the session very informative, particularly because she doesn’t think many pediatricians currently feel very comfortable prescribing obesity medications.
“It answered questions that any general pediatrician would have, and it’s kind of a new field that people are learning about,” Ivers said. “I think we just need more education. It’s just too new, and people haven’t had the education and the support from colleagues to [use the medications].”
Fox first reminded attendees of precisely what obesity is: A chronic, relapsing, multifactorial, neurobehavioral disease that involves the accumulation and/or distribution of excess body fat that results in impaired health. AAP clinical practice guidelines currently advise that youth aged 12 years or older who have obesity be offered weight loss pharmacotherapy as an adjunct to lifestyle treatment, taking into consideration the indications, risks, and benefits of each medication.
That doesn’t necessarily mean every child aged 12 years or older with a body mass index (BMI) of at least the 95th percentile should be prescribed one of these medications, Fox said. But pediatricians should start becoming familiar with the options and recognize that part of reducing the stigma of this disease is emphasizing that these medications are prescribed not for “weight loss” but to treat the disease of obesity, Fox said. The guidelines advise “early, intensive care” and focusing on the whole child, “using a family-centered and nonstigmatizing approach that acknowledges obesity’s biologic, social, and structural drivers.”
Offer the Full Spectrum of Care Early On
Early intervention means starting obesity treatment at diagnosis, without watchful waiting or the previously recommended staged approach. Instead of trying lifestyle therapy for 3-6 months, then considering the addition of medication, and then considering bariatric surgery, “we should be offering the full spectrum of obesity care as appropriate for that individual patient,” Fox said.
Some children with severe obesity may need the combination of lifestyle therapy and pharmacotherapy right up front, whereas another might be able to try lifestyle therapy alone for a while first. “What we know is that, for most interventions, whether it is lifestyle therapy, a medication, or bariatric surgery, early response typically predicts longer-term response,” Fox said. A study conducted by her group, for example, found that a 3% BMI reduction after 1 month with lifestyle therapy was very predictive of clinically meaningful BMI reduction at 1 year.
As with any medical treatment, physicians need to weigh the risks of the medication — short-term side effects and unknown long-term risks (or benefits) — against the risks of not treating. Because obesity is a progressive disease, “if we don’t treat it, most will develop comorbid conditions, or worsening of their already present comorbid conditions, and this does indeed lead to shortened life expectancy,” Fox said. Those who should be treated with medication are obviously those in whom the benefits outweigh the risks, Fox said, which depends on their age, their comorbidities, the severity of obesity, and the safety and efficacy of medication options.
“If I have a patient who has maybe class 2 obesity but no other comorbid conditions, I may be less inclined to start an obesity medication than a kid who has class 1 obesity and obstructive sleep apnea, for instance,” Fox said. “Some of the medications are very, very potent and effective. If you have a kid who maybe has less severe forms of obesity, perhaps they don’t need something that’s so potent.”
BMI trajectory is also a factor to consider. She said she may not be too concerned about a 16-year-old who has always been at the 95th percentile and is otherwise healthy, but the situation is different for a 16-year-old who used to be in the 25th percentile and has rapidly progressed to the 50th and then 75th percentiles in a trajectory heading straight up.
Another factor that may come into play is the patient and family preferences, though Fox noted that weight bias and stigma often interfere here. If obesity medications are brought up, the family may bring up the need for more exercise and better meal prep at home.
“They have this sense that they just need to try harder, that if they did that, the obesity would somehow get better on its own,” Fox said. “That’s an internalized bias that it’s somehow their fault, rather than realizing that this is indeed a biological disorder.”
Finally, clinicians may want to consider the child’s response to lifestyle therapy and whether they have already had bariatric surgery because these medications can be prescribed in people who did not have an adequate response to surgery.
Overview of the Medications
There are currently six obesity medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in youth: Phentermine, orlistat, liraglutide, phentermine/topiramate, semaglutide, and setmelanotide.
Of these, orlistat is rarely used now because it results in the least amount of change in BMI (about a 3% loss change in BMI), has a lot of gastrointestinal side effects, often is not covered by insurance, and is expensive out of pocket. Setmelanotide is indicated only in those aged 6 years or older who have obesity because of Bardet-Biedl syndrome or one of three other rare genetic conditions: a POMC, LEPR, or PCSK1 deficiency. Fox therefore focused on the other medications besides these two.
While nearly all the currently available obesity medications are only approved in those aged 12 years or older, Fox noted that studies are ongoing at younger ages, so some of these medications may receive approval in younger populations in the future. The only one currently available for a younger age is liraglutide, which is approved down to 6 years old in children with type 2 diabetes.
“Very young kids who have very severe forms of obesity need intervention, and unfortunately, at this point, we really don’t have much to offer them,” Fox said.
Fox highlighted six key factors to consider in selecting a medication for those aged 12 years or older, though one of these, in the US healthcare system, can tend to trump all the others. Those factors are mechanism of action, side effect profile, effects on other diagnoses, patient/family preferences, provider comfort, and finally — the potentially overruling one — insurance coverage and access.
“These days, insurance coverage and access are really the No. 1 driver when I’m seeing a patient,” Fox said. “The first thing I do is look at their insurance and then also look at what kind of updates our pharmacist has given us about which medication is currently in stock.”
Each medication has different properties that should be considered with the child’s health profile. For example, topiramate is a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor so likely shouldn’t be prescribed in a child who is taking any other carbonic anhydrase inhibitor. Fox said she probably wouldn’t prescribe phentermine in a child with severe anxiety because it might enhance the anxiety effect. But if a child has migraines, she may be more inclined to try phentermine/topiramate first because the topiramate may help with the migraines. Similarly, if a child has type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, she may lean toward one of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist drugs.
Liraglutide and Semaglutide
Liraglutide and semaglutide are both GLP-1 receptor agonists administered subcutaneously to reduce appetite, increase satiety, slow gastric emptying, and reduce the food reward response in the brain. Liraglutide can result in up to 4.5%-5% change in BMI, and semaglutide, the most potent of all the medications, can result in up to a 17% change in BMI.
Liraglutide and semaglutide are both approved for patients aged 12 years or older who weigh at least 60 kg and have a BMI of at least the 95th percentile. Liraglutide is also approved for those aged 10 years or older with type 2 diabetes. Both are contraindicated in those with a family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia II. The risks to watch for include pancreatitis and gallbladder disease. Also keep in mind if you have a patient with type 1 diabetes and insulin resistance; prescribing a GLP-1 agonist is appropriate, but their insulin needs will decrease, necessitating close monitoring of their blood glucose, Fox noted.
These GLP-1 medications can be considered for those who have insurance coverage for them, who have diabetes or prediabetes, who are comfortable with daily (liraglutide) or weekly (semaglutide) injections, who have food cravings, and who have poor satiety or satiation. Without insurance, these medications are very expensive.
The most common side effects include injection site reactions and nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, though all these usually fade and can be minimized with small portions and slower eating if needed. Less common possible side effects can include abdominal pain, constipation, headache, dizziness, fatigue, and hypoglycemia. If patients develop severe belly pain that radiates to their back, they should be assessed for pancreatitis.
It’s also important to demonstrate for patients how to do the injections, Fox said. Liraglutide dosing begins at 0.6 mg daily for a week, followed by a week at 1.2 mg, a week at 1.8 mg, a week at 2.4 mg, and then 3 mg daily. Semaglutide dosing starts at 0.25 mg weekly for 4 weeks, then going up each subsequent month as needed to 0.5 mg, then 1 mg, then 1.7 mg, and finally 2.4 mg. Though there’s no standard follow-up schedule for these medications, Fox suggested considering monthly visits for the first 3 months and then every 2-3 months to assess heart rate and blood pressure, the injection site, adherence, side effects, and the effect on BMI and eating.
“Are they getting appetite suppression, but not too much appetite suppression?” Fox said. “Just like in eating disorder treatment, we want our patients to eat regularly spaced meals. If their appetite is so suppressed that they are hardly eating anything, that’s a problem.”
Fox also offered the following additional pearls about these medications:
- Though manufacturers have struggled to keep up with demand, the shortages of these medications are improving. However, beware the compounding pharmacies filling the gap because compounded medications are not FDA approved, and quality control issues are a concern.
- Prior authorizations are usually needed, and common reasons for denial to anticipate include lack of documentation on not having contraindications, the patient not following a low-calorie diet or engaging in physical activity, and the patient not having seen a registered dietitian.
- Patients should expect gastrointestinal side effects, but ondansetron can be prescribed to lessen the intensity.
Phentermine/Topiramate
Phentermine/topiramate extended-release is a once-daily oral tablet, with the phentermine acting to reduce appetite (by simulating the release of norepinephrine) and the topiramate reducing caloric intake and food reward response (by increasing gamma-aminobutyric acid activity). It’s approved for those aged 12 years or older with a BMI of at least the 95th percentile and should be considered in those with strong hunger, low energy, binge eating disorder, or migraines, as well as those who have insurance coverage for it. It can result in up to a 10% change in BMI.
Contraindications include pregnancy, substance use, cardiovascular disease (though it’s okay in patients with controlled hypertension), hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, and monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) use. Fox emphasized the teratogenic effects, so patients capable of pregnancy need to be on reliable birth control. The most common side effects include paresthesia, dizziness, dysgeusia, insomnia, and constipation.
A risk of topiramate is kidney stones, so patients should drink a lot of water, especially in hot weather, Fox said. Other risks can include metabolic acidosis, suicidality, poor cognitive function, high blood pressure, and renal impairment.
“If your patient is struggling academically, I might use this medication a bit more cautiously, particularly when the dose gets above 100 mg a day,” Fox said. “That’s when the cognitive effects tend to emerge more strongly.”
Patients with congenital heart disease should meet with their cardiologist before starting this medication, and although patients taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) can take this, there is a potential increased risk for serotonin syndrome because phentermine has a little bit of serotonergic activity, she said.
Before prescribing, do an exam to ensure the patient doesn’t have a heart murmur, isn’t hypertensive, isn’t pregnant, has normal kidney function, and has bicarbonate in a reasonable range. Dosing begins with a daily 3.75/23-mg capsule for 2 weeks, followed by 2 weeks at 7.5 mg/46 mg. As with the GLP-1 drugs, Fox advises considering monthly follow-ups for the first 3 months and then visits every 2-3 months. Each visit should include the assessment of cardiovascular health, heart rate, blood pressure, side effects, pregnancy risk, and the medication’s effect on BMI and eating. If the patient is tolerating a dose of 7.5 mg/46 mg, it can be increased to 11.25 mg/69 mg for 2 weeks and then to 15 mg/92 mg. Bicarbonate and creatinine should be checked every 6-12 months; if bicarbonate < 18 mEq/L, the dose should be reduced and then bicarbonate should be checked again a month later.
Fox noted that this drug is expected to go off patent in late 2024 or in 2025, which will substantially reduce the cost. It’s also possible to prescribe phentermine and topiramate separately, which may reduce costs or help with insurance coverage and can allow for evening dosing of topiramate.
Phentermine
Phentermine alone is only approved for those older than 16 years who have a BMI of at least 30, or at least 27 with weight-related comorbidities, and it’s not approved for use longer than 12 weeks. It results in a BMI change of up to 5%. It should be considered in those with strong hunger and low energy and in those who don’t have adequate insurance coverage because out-of-pocket costs can be as little as $5/mo.
Contraindications are the same as those for the combined pill above: Substance use, cardiovascular disease, hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, MAOI use, and agitation. Again, take caution with patients who have hypertension, have congenital heart disease, or take SSRIs or insulin.
Side effects can include palpitations, tachycardia, dry mouth, headache, insomnia, and anxiety. The dose starts at 15 mg daily, and Fox advises following a similar follow-up as with the other medications, at which clinicians should assess BMI, the medication’s effect on eating, cardiovascular health, and side effects and have a discussion about off-label use. Off-label use refers to prescriptions lasting longer than 12 weeks, but it’s arguably safer than attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder stimulants because of the lower addiction potential, Fox said.
What Else to Know
Because obesity is a chronic disease, treatment will be ongoing, Fox noted. A lot of people will ask when or where the “off-ramp” for these medications is, but many people will need these medications long term just as someone with other chronic diseases requires lifetime pharmacotherapy. The treatment intensity will vary based on disease severity and individual characteristics, Fox said.
For those feeling overwhelmed by the options, Fox advises clinicians to start by picking one medication to learn and then spending the time to read the FDA package insert in full. Get samples and then closely follow patients to learn that medication well before moving on to learn another. She also noted the opportunity for pediatricians to see a pediatric obesity medicine fellowship.
No external funding was used for the presentation. Fox is a site principal investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Ivers had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO, FLORIDA — The rationale for using obesity medications in pediatric patients is that it’s using “a biological intervention to treat a biologically based disease,” according to Claudia Fox, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics and codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Fox provided
“This field is changing so rapidly that even over the course of the last 3 or 4 months, the verbiage around what we should be calling these interventions has changed,” Fox noted. Instead of “anti-obesity” medications, “most of us are now using the term obesity medications to highlight or to reduce chances of stigma and bias that can come along with this topic.”
Jessica Ivers, MD, a pediatrician at Swedish Pediatrics in Seattle, Washington, said she found the session very informative, particularly because she doesn’t think many pediatricians currently feel very comfortable prescribing obesity medications.
“It answered questions that any general pediatrician would have, and it’s kind of a new field that people are learning about,” Ivers said. “I think we just need more education. It’s just too new, and people haven’t had the education and the support from colleagues to [use the medications].”
Fox first reminded attendees of precisely what obesity is: A chronic, relapsing, multifactorial, neurobehavioral disease that involves the accumulation and/or distribution of excess body fat that results in impaired health. AAP clinical practice guidelines currently advise that youth aged 12 years or older who have obesity be offered weight loss pharmacotherapy as an adjunct to lifestyle treatment, taking into consideration the indications, risks, and benefits of each medication.
That doesn’t necessarily mean every child aged 12 years or older with a body mass index (BMI) of at least the 95th percentile should be prescribed one of these medications, Fox said. But pediatricians should start becoming familiar with the options and recognize that part of reducing the stigma of this disease is emphasizing that these medications are prescribed not for “weight loss” but to treat the disease of obesity, Fox said. The guidelines advise “early, intensive care” and focusing on the whole child, “using a family-centered and nonstigmatizing approach that acknowledges obesity’s biologic, social, and structural drivers.”
Offer the Full Spectrum of Care Early On
Early intervention means starting obesity treatment at diagnosis, without watchful waiting or the previously recommended staged approach. Instead of trying lifestyle therapy for 3-6 months, then considering the addition of medication, and then considering bariatric surgery, “we should be offering the full spectrum of obesity care as appropriate for that individual patient,” Fox said.
Some children with severe obesity may need the combination of lifestyle therapy and pharmacotherapy right up front, whereas another might be able to try lifestyle therapy alone for a while first. “What we know is that, for most interventions, whether it is lifestyle therapy, a medication, or bariatric surgery, early response typically predicts longer-term response,” Fox said. A study conducted by her group, for example, found that a 3% BMI reduction after 1 month with lifestyle therapy was very predictive of clinically meaningful BMI reduction at 1 year.
As with any medical treatment, physicians need to weigh the risks of the medication — short-term side effects and unknown long-term risks (or benefits) — against the risks of not treating. Because obesity is a progressive disease, “if we don’t treat it, most will develop comorbid conditions, or worsening of their already present comorbid conditions, and this does indeed lead to shortened life expectancy,” Fox said. Those who should be treated with medication are obviously those in whom the benefits outweigh the risks, Fox said, which depends on their age, their comorbidities, the severity of obesity, and the safety and efficacy of medication options.
“If I have a patient who has maybe class 2 obesity but no other comorbid conditions, I may be less inclined to start an obesity medication than a kid who has class 1 obesity and obstructive sleep apnea, for instance,” Fox said. “Some of the medications are very, very potent and effective. If you have a kid who maybe has less severe forms of obesity, perhaps they don’t need something that’s so potent.”
BMI trajectory is also a factor to consider. She said she may not be too concerned about a 16-year-old who has always been at the 95th percentile and is otherwise healthy, but the situation is different for a 16-year-old who used to be in the 25th percentile and has rapidly progressed to the 50th and then 75th percentiles in a trajectory heading straight up.
Another factor that may come into play is the patient and family preferences, though Fox noted that weight bias and stigma often interfere here. If obesity medications are brought up, the family may bring up the need for more exercise and better meal prep at home.
“They have this sense that they just need to try harder, that if they did that, the obesity would somehow get better on its own,” Fox said. “That’s an internalized bias that it’s somehow their fault, rather than realizing that this is indeed a biological disorder.”
Finally, clinicians may want to consider the child’s response to lifestyle therapy and whether they have already had bariatric surgery because these medications can be prescribed in people who did not have an adequate response to surgery.
Overview of the Medications
There are currently six obesity medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in youth: Phentermine, orlistat, liraglutide, phentermine/topiramate, semaglutide, and setmelanotide.
Of these, orlistat is rarely used now because it results in the least amount of change in BMI (about a 3% loss change in BMI), has a lot of gastrointestinal side effects, often is not covered by insurance, and is expensive out of pocket. Setmelanotide is indicated only in those aged 6 years or older who have obesity because of Bardet-Biedl syndrome or one of three other rare genetic conditions: a POMC, LEPR, or PCSK1 deficiency. Fox therefore focused on the other medications besides these two.
While nearly all the currently available obesity medications are only approved in those aged 12 years or older, Fox noted that studies are ongoing at younger ages, so some of these medications may receive approval in younger populations in the future. The only one currently available for a younger age is liraglutide, which is approved down to 6 years old in children with type 2 diabetes.
“Very young kids who have very severe forms of obesity need intervention, and unfortunately, at this point, we really don’t have much to offer them,” Fox said.
Fox highlighted six key factors to consider in selecting a medication for those aged 12 years or older, though one of these, in the US healthcare system, can tend to trump all the others. Those factors are mechanism of action, side effect profile, effects on other diagnoses, patient/family preferences, provider comfort, and finally — the potentially overruling one — insurance coverage and access.
“These days, insurance coverage and access are really the No. 1 driver when I’m seeing a patient,” Fox said. “The first thing I do is look at their insurance and then also look at what kind of updates our pharmacist has given us about which medication is currently in stock.”
Each medication has different properties that should be considered with the child’s health profile. For example, topiramate is a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor so likely shouldn’t be prescribed in a child who is taking any other carbonic anhydrase inhibitor. Fox said she probably wouldn’t prescribe phentermine in a child with severe anxiety because it might enhance the anxiety effect. But if a child has migraines, she may be more inclined to try phentermine/topiramate first because the topiramate may help with the migraines. Similarly, if a child has type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, she may lean toward one of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist drugs.
Liraglutide and Semaglutide
Liraglutide and semaglutide are both GLP-1 receptor agonists administered subcutaneously to reduce appetite, increase satiety, slow gastric emptying, and reduce the food reward response in the brain. Liraglutide can result in up to 4.5%-5% change in BMI, and semaglutide, the most potent of all the medications, can result in up to a 17% change in BMI.
Liraglutide and semaglutide are both approved for patients aged 12 years or older who weigh at least 60 kg and have a BMI of at least the 95th percentile. Liraglutide is also approved for those aged 10 years or older with type 2 diabetes. Both are contraindicated in those with a family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia II. The risks to watch for include pancreatitis and gallbladder disease. Also keep in mind if you have a patient with type 1 diabetes and insulin resistance; prescribing a GLP-1 agonist is appropriate, but their insulin needs will decrease, necessitating close monitoring of their blood glucose, Fox noted.
These GLP-1 medications can be considered for those who have insurance coverage for them, who have diabetes or prediabetes, who are comfortable with daily (liraglutide) or weekly (semaglutide) injections, who have food cravings, and who have poor satiety or satiation. Without insurance, these medications are very expensive.
The most common side effects include injection site reactions and nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, though all these usually fade and can be minimized with small portions and slower eating if needed. Less common possible side effects can include abdominal pain, constipation, headache, dizziness, fatigue, and hypoglycemia. If patients develop severe belly pain that radiates to their back, they should be assessed for pancreatitis.
It’s also important to demonstrate for patients how to do the injections, Fox said. Liraglutide dosing begins at 0.6 mg daily for a week, followed by a week at 1.2 mg, a week at 1.8 mg, a week at 2.4 mg, and then 3 mg daily. Semaglutide dosing starts at 0.25 mg weekly for 4 weeks, then going up each subsequent month as needed to 0.5 mg, then 1 mg, then 1.7 mg, and finally 2.4 mg. Though there’s no standard follow-up schedule for these medications, Fox suggested considering monthly visits for the first 3 months and then every 2-3 months to assess heart rate and blood pressure, the injection site, adherence, side effects, and the effect on BMI and eating.
“Are they getting appetite suppression, but not too much appetite suppression?” Fox said. “Just like in eating disorder treatment, we want our patients to eat regularly spaced meals. If their appetite is so suppressed that they are hardly eating anything, that’s a problem.”
Fox also offered the following additional pearls about these medications:
- Though manufacturers have struggled to keep up with demand, the shortages of these medications are improving. However, beware the compounding pharmacies filling the gap because compounded medications are not FDA approved, and quality control issues are a concern.
- Prior authorizations are usually needed, and common reasons for denial to anticipate include lack of documentation on not having contraindications, the patient not following a low-calorie diet or engaging in physical activity, and the patient not having seen a registered dietitian.
- Patients should expect gastrointestinal side effects, but ondansetron can be prescribed to lessen the intensity.
Phentermine/Topiramate
Phentermine/topiramate extended-release is a once-daily oral tablet, with the phentermine acting to reduce appetite (by simulating the release of norepinephrine) and the topiramate reducing caloric intake and food reward response (by increasing gamma-aminobutyric acid activity). It’s approved for those aged 12 years or older with a BMI of at least the 95th percentile and should be considered in those with strong hunger, low energy, binge eating disorder, or migraines, as well as those who have insurance coverage for it. It can result in up to a 10% change in BMI.
Contraindications include pregnancy, substance use, cardiovascular disease (though it’s okay in patients with controlled hypertension), hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, and monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) use. Fox emphasized the teratogenic effects, so patients capable of pregnancy need to be on reliable birth control. The most common side effects include paresthesia, dizziness, dysgeusia, insomnia, and constipation.
A risk of topiramate is kidney stones, so patients should drink a lot of water, especially in hot weather, Fox said. Other risks can include metabolic acidosis, suicidality, poor cognitive function, high blood pressure, and renal impairment.
“If your patient is struggling academically, I might use this medication a bit more cautiously, particularly when the dose gets above 100 mg a day,” Fox said. “That’s when the cognitive effects tend to emerge more strongly.”
Patients with congenital heart disease should meet with their cardiologist before starting this medication, and although patients taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) can take this, there is a potential increased risk for serotonin syndrome because phentermine has a little bit of serotonergic activity, she said.
Before prescribing, do an exam to ensure the patient doesn’t have a heart murmur, isn’t hypertensive, isn’t pregnant, has normal kidney function, and has bicarbonate in a reasonable range. Dosing begins with a daily 3.75/23-mg capsule for 2 weeks, followed by 2 weeks at 7.5 mg/46 mg. As with the GLP-1 drugs, Fox advises considering monthly follow-ups for the first 3 months and then visits every 2-3 months. Each visit should include the assessment of cardiovascular health, heart rate, blood pressure, side effects, pregnancy risk, and the medication’s effect on BMI and eating. If the patient is tolerating a dose of 7.5 mg/46 mg, it can be increased to 11.25 mg/69 mg for 2 weeks and then to 15 mg/92 mg. Bicarbonate and creatinine should be checked every 6-12 months; if bicarbonate < 18 mEq/L, the dose should be reduced and then bicarbonate should be checked again a month later.
Fox noted that this drug is expected to go off patent in late 2024 or in 2025, which will substantially reduce the cost. It’s also possible to prescribe phentermine and topiramate separately, which may reduce costs or help with insurance coverage and can allow for evening dosing of topiramate.
Phentermine
Phentermine alone is only approved for those older than 16 years who have a BMI of at least 30, or at least 27 with weight-related comorbidities, and it’s not approved for use longer than 12 weeks. It results in a BMI change of up to 5%. It should be considered in those with strong hunger and low energy and in those who don’t have adequate insurance coverage because out-of-pocket costs can be as little as $5/mo.
Contraindications are the same as those for the combined pill above: Substance use, cardiovascular disease, hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, MAOI use, and agitation. Again, take caution with patients who have hypertension, have congenital heart disease, or take SSRIs or insulin.
Side effects can include palpitations, tachycardia, dry mouth, headache, insomnia, and anxiety. The dose starts at 15 mg daily, and Fox advises following a similar follow-up as with the other medications, at which clinicians should assess BMI, the medication’s effect on eating, cardiovascular health, and side effects and have a discussion about off-label use. Off-label use refers to prescriptions lasting longer than 12 weeks, but it’s arguably safer than attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder stimulants because of the lower addiction potential, Fox said.
What Else to Know
Because obesity is a chronic disease, treatment will be ongoing, Fox noted. A lot of people will ask when or where the “off-ramp” for these medications is, but many people will need these medications long term just as someone with other chronic diseases requires lifetime pharmacotherapy. The treatment intensity will vary based on disease severity and individual characteristics, Fox said.
For those feeling overwhelmed by the options, Fox advises clinicians to start by picking one medication to learn and then spending the time to read the FDA package insert in full. Get samples and then closely follow patients to learn that medication well before moving on to learn another. She also noted the opportunity for pediatricians to see a pediatric obesity medicine fellowship.
No external funding was used for the presentation. Fox is a site principal investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Ivers had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO, FLORIDA — The rationale for using obesity medications in pediatric patients is that it’s using “a biological intervention to treat a biologically based disease,” according to Claudia Fox, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics and codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Fox provided
“This field is changing so rapidly that even over the course of the last 3 or 4 months, the verbiage around what we should be calling these interventions has changed,” Fox noted. Instead of “anti-obesity” medications, “most of us are now using the term obesity medications to highlight or to reduce chances of stigma and bias that can come along with this topic.”
Jessica Ivers, MD, a pediatrician at Swedish Pediatrics in Seattle, Washington, said she found the session very informative, particularly because she doesn’t think many pediatricians currently feel very comfortable prescribing obesity medications.
“It answered questions that any general pediatrician would have, and it’s kind of a new field that people are learning about,” Ivers said. “I think we just need more education. It’s just too new, and people haven’t had the education and the support from colleagues to [use the medications].”
Fox first reminded attendees of precisely what obesity is: A chronic, relapsing, multifactorial, neurobehavioral disease that involves the accumulation and/or distribution of excess body fat that results in impaired health. AAP clinical practice guidelines currently advise that youth aged 12 years or older who have obesity be offered weight loss pharmacotherapy as an adjunct to lifestyle treatment, taking into consideration the indications, risks, and benefits of each medication.
That doesn’t necessarily mean every child aged 12 years or older with a body mass index (BMI) of at least the 95th percentile should be prescribed one of these medications, Fox said. But pediatricians should start becoming familiar with the options and recognize that part of reducing the stigma of this disease is emphasizing that these medications are prescribed not for “weight loss” but to treat the disease of obesity, Fox said. The guidelines advise “early, intensive care” and focusing on the whole child, “using a family-centered and nonstigmatizing approach that acknowledges obesity’s biologic, social, and structural drivers.”
Offer the Full Spectrum of Care Early On
Early intervention means starting obesity treatment at diagnosis, without watchful waiting or the previously recommended staged approach. Instead of trying lifestyle therapy for 3-6 months, then considering the addition of medication, and then considering bariatric surgery, “we should be offering the full spectrum of obesity care as appropriate for that individual patient,” Fox said.
Some children with severe obesity may need the combination of lifestyle therapy and pharmacotherapy right up front, whereas another might be able to try lifestyle therapy alone for a while first. “What we know is that, for most interventions, whether it is lifestyle therapy, a medication, or bariatric surgery, early response typically predicts longer-term response,” Fox said. A study conducted by her group, for example, found that a 3% BMI reduction after 1 month with lifestyle therapy was very predictive of clinically meaningful BMI reduction at 1 year.
As with any medical treatment, physicians need to weigh the risks of the medication — short-term side effects and unknown long-term risks (or benefits) — against the risks of not treating. Because obesity is a progressive disease, “if we don’t treat it, most will develop comorbid conditions, or worsening of their already present comorbid conditions, and this does indeed lead to shortened life expectancy,” Fox said. Those who should be treated with medication are obviously those in whom the benefits outweigh the risks, Fox said, which depends on their age, their comorbidities, the severity of obesity, and the safety and efficacy of medication options.
“If I have a patient who has maybe class 2 obesity but no other comorbid conditions, I may be less inclined to start an obesity medication than a kid who has class 1 obesity and obstructive sleep apnea, for instance,” Fox said. “Some of the medications are very, very potent and effective. If you have a kid who maybe has less severe forms of obesity, perhaps they don’t need something that’s so potent.”
BMI trajectory is also a factor to consider. She said she may not be too concerned about a 16-year-old who has always been at the 95th percentile and is otherwise healthy, but the situation is different for a 16-year-old who used to be in the 25th percentile and has rapidly progressed to the 50th and then 75th percentiles in a trajectory heading straight up.
Another factor that may come into play is the patient and family preferences, though Fox noted that weight bias and stigma often interfere here. If obesity medications are brought up, the family may bring up the need for more exercise and better meal prep at home.
“They have this sense that they just need to try harder, that if they did that, the obesity would somehow get better on its own,” Fox said. “That’s an internalized bias that it’s somehow their fault, rather than realizing that this is indeed a biological disorder.”
Finally, clinicians may want to consider the child’s response to lifestyle therapy and whether they have already had bariatric surgery because these medications can be prescribed in people who did not have an adequate response to surgery.
Overview of the Medications
There are currently six obesity medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in youth: Phentermine, orlistat, liraglutide, phentermine/topiramate, semaglutide, and setmelanotide.
Of these, orlistat is rarely used now because it results in the least amount of change in BMI (about a 3% loss change in BMI), has a lot of gastrointestinal side effects, often is not covered by insurance, and is expensive out of pocket. Setmelanotide is indicated only in those aged 6 years or older who have obesity because of Bardet-Biedl syndrome or one of three other rare genetic conditions: a POMC, LEPR, or PCSK1 deficiency. Fox therefore focused on the other medications besides these two.
While nearly all the currently available obesity medications are only approved in those aged 12 years or older, Fox noted that studies are ongoing at younger ages, so some of these medications may receive approval in younger populations in the future. The only one currently available for a younger age is liraglutide, which is approved down to 6 years old in children with type 2 diabetes.
“Very young kids who have very severe forms of obesity need intervention, and unfortunately, at this point, we really don’t have much to offer them,” Fox said.
Fox highlighted six key factors to consider in selecting a medication for those aged 12 years or older, though one of these, in the US healthcare system, can tend to trump all the others. Those factors are mechanism of action, side effect profile, effects on other diagnoses, patient/family preferences, provider comfort, and finally — the potentially overruling one — insurance coverage and access.
“These days, insurance coverage and access are really the No. 1 driver when I’m seeing a patient,” Fox said. “The first thing I do is look at their insurance and then also look at what kind of updates our pharmacist has given us about which medication is currently in stock.”
Each medication has different properties that should be considered with the child’s health profile. For example, topiramate is a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor so likely shouldn’t be prescribed in a child who is taking any other carbonic anhydrase inhibitor. Fox said she probably wouldn’t prescribe phentermine in a child with severe anxiety because it might enhance the anxiety effect. But if a child has migraines, she may be more inclined to try phentermine/topiramate first because the topiramate may help with the migraines. Similarly, if a child has type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, she may lean toward one of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist drugs.
Liraglutide and Semaglutide
Liraglutide and semaglutide are both GLP-1 receptor agonists administered subcutaneously to reduce appetite, increase satiety, slow gastric emptying, and reduce the food reward response in the brain. Liraglutide can result in up to 4.5%-5% change in BMI, and semaglutide, the most potent of all the medications, can result in up to a 17% change in BMI.
Liraglutide and semaglutide are both approved for patients aged 12 years or older who weigh at least 60 kg and have a BMI of at least the 95th percentile. Liraglutide is also approved for those aged 10 years or older with type 2 diabetes. Both are contraindicated in those with a family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia II. The risks to watch for include pancreatitis and gallbladder disease. Also keep in mind if you have a patient with type 1 diabetes and insulin resistance; prescribing a GLP-1 agonist is appropriate, but their insulin needs will decrease, necessitating close monitoring of their blood glucose, Fox noted.
These GLP-1 medications can be considered for those who have insurance coverage for them, who have diabetes or prediabetes, who are comfortable with daily (liraglutide) or weekly (semaglutide) injections, who have food cravings, and who have poor satiety or satiation. Without insurance, these medications are very expensive.
The most common side effects include injection site reactions and nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, though all these usually fade and can be minimized with small portions and slower eating if needed. Less common possible side effects can include abdominal pain, constipation, headache, dizziness, fatigue, and hypoglycemia. If patients develop severe belly pain that radiates to their back, they should be assessed for pancreatitis.
It’s also important to demonstrate for patients how to do the injections, Fox said. Liraglutide dosing begins at 0.6 mg daily for a week, followed by a week at 1.2 mg, a week at 1.8 mg, a week at 2.4 mg, and then 3 mg daily. Semaglutide dosing starts at 0.25 mg weekly for 4 weeks, then going up each subsequent month as needed to 0.5 mg, then 1 mg, then 1.7 mg, and finally 2.4 mg. Though there’s no standard follow-up schedule for these medications, Fox suggested considering monthly visits for the first 3 months and then every 2-3 months to assess heart rate and blood pressure, the injection site, adherence, side effects, and the effect on BMI and eating.
“Are they getting appetite suppression, but not too much appetite suppression?” Fox said. “Just like in eating disorder treatment, we want our patients to eat regularly spaced meals. If their appetite is so suppressed that they are hardly eating anything, that’s a problem.”
Fox also offered the following additional pearls about these medications:
- Though manufacturers have struggled to keep up with demand, the shortages of these medications are improving. However, beware the compounding pharmacies filling the gap because compounded medications are not FDA approved, and quality control issues are a concern.
- Prior authorizations are usually needed, and common reasons for denial to anticipate include lack of documentation on not having contraindications, the patient not following a low-calorie diet or engaging in physical activity, and the patient not having seen a registered dietitian.
- Patients should expect gastrointestinal side effects, but ondansetron can be prescribed to lessen the intensity.
Phentermine/Topiramate
Phentermine/topiramate extended-release is a once-daily oral tablet, with the phentermine acting to reduce appetite (by simulating the release of norepinephrine) and the topiramate reducing caloric intake and food reward response (by increasing gamma-aminobutyric acid activity). It’s approved for those aged 12 years or older with a BMI of at least the 95th percentile and should be considered in those with strong hunger, low energy, binge eating disorder, or migraines, as well as those who have insurance coverage for it. It can result in up to a 10% change in BMI.
Contraindications include pregnancy, substance use, cardiovascular disease (though it’s okay in patients with controlled hypertension), hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, and monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) use. Fox emphasized the teratogenic effects, so patients capable of pregnancy need to be on reliable birth control. The most common side effects include paresthesia, dizziness, dysgeusia, insomnia, and constipation.
A risk of topiramate is kidney stones, so patients should drink a lot of water, especially in hot weather, Fox said. Other risks can include metabolic acidosis, suicidality, poor cognitive function, high blood pressure, and renal impairment.
“If your patient is struggling academically, I might use this medication a bit more cautiously, particularly when the dose gets above 100 mg a day,” Fox said. “That’s when the cognitive effects tend to emerge more strongly.”
Patients with congenital heart disease should meet with their cardiologist before starting this medication, and although patients taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) can take this, there is a potential increased risk for serotonin syndrome because phentermine has a little bit of serotonergic activity, she said.
Before prescribing, do an exam to ensure the patient doesn’t have a heart murmur, isn’t hypertensive, isn’t pregnant, has normal kidney function, and has bicarbonate in a reasonable range. Dosing begins with a daily 3.75/23-mg capsule for 2 weeks, followed by 2 weeks at 7.5 mg/46 mg. As with the GLP-1 drugs, Fox advises considering monthly follow-ups for the first 3 months and then visits every 2-3 months. Each visit should include the assessment of cardiovascular health, heart rate, blood pressure, side effects, pregnancy risk, and the medication’s effect on BMI and eating. If the patient is tolerating a dose of 7.5 mg/46 mg, it can be increased to 11.25 mg/69 mg for 2 weeks and then to 15 mg/92 mg. Bicarbonate and creatinine should be checked every 6-12 months; if bicarbonate < 18 mEq/L, the dose should be reduced and then bicarbonate should be checked again a month later.
Fox noted that this drug is expected to go off patent in late 2024 or in 2025, which will substantially reduce the cost. It’s also possible to prescribe phentermine and topiramate separately, which may reduce costs or help with insurance coverage and can allow for evening dosing of topiramate.
Phentermine
Phentermine alone is only approved for those older than 16 years who have a BMI of at least 30, or at least 27 with weight-related comorbidities, and it’s not approved for use longer than 12 weeks. It results in a BMI change of up to 5%. It should be considered in those with strong hunger and low energy and in those who don’t have adequate insurance coverage because out-of-pocket costs can be as little as $5/mo.
Contraindications are the same as those for the combined pill above: Substance use, cardiovascular disease, hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, MAOI use, and agitation. Again, take caution with patients who have hypertension, have congenital heart disease, or take SSRIs or insulin.
Side effects can include palpitations, tachycardia, dry mouth, headache, insomnia, and anxiety. The dose starts at 15 mg daily, and Fox advises following a similar follow-up as with the other medications, at which clinicians should assess BMI, the medication’s effect on eating, cardiovascular health, and side effects and have a discussion about off-label use. Off-label use refers to prescriptions lasting longer than 12 weeks, but it’s arguably safer than attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder stimulants because of the lower addiction potential, Fox said.
What Else to Know
Because obesity is a chronic disease, treatment will be ongoing, Fox noted. A lot of people will ask when or where the “off-ramp” for these medications is, but many people will need these medications long term just as someone with other chronic diseases requires lifetime pharmacotherapy. The treatment intensity will vary based on disease severity and individual characteristics, Fox said.
For those feeling overwhelmed by the options, Fox advises clinicians to start by picking one medication to learn and then spending the time to read the FDA package insert in full. Get samples and then closely follow patients to learn that medication well before moving on to learn another. She also noted the opportunity for pediatricians to see a pediatric obesity medicine fellowship.
No external funding was used for the presentation. Fox is a site principal investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Ivers had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAP 2024
Commentary: Comparing Migraine Treatments, November 2024
With increasing options for migraine therapy, the right choice for each patient might not be clear. And many individual patients could experience relief from any of the different choices, meaning that there is often more than one “right” answer when it comes to selecting a migraine treatment approach for each patient. Triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which have been around for decades, have shown consistent success in treating migraine episodes. Newer therapies could be safer for patients who have contraindications to triptans or NSAIDs, and these newer medications could be more effective for some patients, but we are still trying to fully understand which types of patients. Studies aimed at reaching conclusions regarding comparisons between triptans, calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors (CGRPi), and other treatments can help us determine which of the different categories of treatments are most effective for certain migraine populations (age or migraine subtype) or indications (acute vs preventive therapy).
A review published in 2023 in Aging and Disease described several markers of aging that are associated with migraine, including epigenetic aging and oxidative stress.2 The review authors noted that markers of cellular senescence (ie, irreversible inhibition of cellular division) were increased in association with migraine. Additionally, endothelial progenitor cells, which reflect an increased ability for cell renewal, were decreased among migraine patients compared with the control group.
Telomeres, composed of nucleotides, are part of chromosome structures, serving to protect the molecular integrity of DNA. It has been established that shortened telomeres, often considered a reflection of aging and a marker of high potential for genetic and cellular damage, are a risk factor for physiologic changes that occur with the aging process. The 2024 Scientific Reports cross-sectional study included data from 6169 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) from 1999 to 2002.1 The researchers used statistical analysis to determine whether there was an age-influenced telomere length in relation to migraine. They found that “telomere length was inversely associated with migraine risk in those aged 20-50 years, while no relationship was observed in those aged > 50 years.” The significance of this association among the younger group, but not among the older group, is not clear.
The limited research regarding the links between migraine and physiologic markers of aging has not untangled cause-and-effect distinctions. And while there is no evidence that preventing or treating migraine could slow down these pro-aging molecular processes, we do know that the distress of migraine episodes contributes to pain, anxiety, stress, depression, and sleep disruption. Given that we can’t change a patient’s hereditary predisposition to migraines, we can make an effort to alleviate the impact of migraine by using the tools that we have.
An article published in September 2024 in the BMJ described the results of a meta-analysis that included “137 randomized controlled trials with 89,445 participants allocated to 1 of 17 active interventions or placebo.”3 Treatments included NSAIDs, paracetamol, triptans, and CGRPi. The authors observed that triptans “had the best profiles and were more efficacious” than other treatment categories, including CGRPi. Interestingly, they observed that eletriptan and ibuprofen performed better for sustained pain freedom. Efficacy and sustained relief are crucial for patients with migraine, and for those who experience relief with simple over-the-counter ibuprofen, it makes sense to avoid making changes. But for those who are not getting the relief they need with established migraine therapies, trying the newer medications, such as CGRPi, could provide a solution. It is also important to keep in mind that triptans are contraindicated for some patients, such as those with a high-risk cardiovascular profile. Additionally, some patients may have contraindications to NSAIDs.
Prevention is another important aspect of migraine care. A September 2024 article in Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain used a retrospective cohort analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) data, which included 1245 patients using a variety of migraine preventive therapies: antidepressants, antiseizure medications, beta-blockers, and CGRPi.4 The researchers reported that patients taking “CGRPi had a statistically significant reduction in pain T-scores (60.4 [standard deviation (SD) 7.4] to 58.4 [SD 8.2], p = 0.003), especially those who switched from other preventative medications to CGRPi.” This, along with the BMJ meta-analysis,3 helps in assessing relative benefits for treatments of acute migraine episodes and for migraine prevention. However, the efficacy of various types of therapy highlights the value of considering all options for each patient.
Individual patient characteristics, particularly contraindications, also play an important role in guiding therapeutic selection. And trial and error remain part of migraine treatment, given that there are no pretesting determinants that can predict treatment success for individual patients. We need to emphasize to patients that effective migraine therapy is obtainable and important — for comfort, quality of life, and possibly overall healthy aging.
References
- Geng D, Liu H, Wang H, Wang H. Telomere length exhibits inverse association with migraine among Americans aged 20-50 years, without implications beyond age 50: a cross-sectional study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:22597. Source
- Fila M, Pawlowska E, Szczepanska J, Blasiak J. Different aspects of aging in migraine. Aging Dis. 2023;14:6. Source
- Karlsson WK, Ostinelli EG, Zhuang ZA, et al. Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2024;386:e080107. Source
- Peasah SK, Soh YH, Huang Y, Nguyen J, Hanmer J, Good C. Patient reported outcomes and real-world use of calcitonin gene-related peptide medications in migraine. Headache. Published online September 30, 202 Source
With increasing options for migraine therapy, the right choice for each patient might not be clear. And many individual patients could experience relief from any of the different choices, meaning that there is often more than one “right” answer when it comes to selecting a migraine treatment approach for each patient. Triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which have been around for decades, have shown consistent success in treating migraine episodes. Newer therapies could be safer for patients who have contraindications to triptans or NSAIDs, and these newer medications could be more effective for some patients, but we are still trying to fully understand which types of patients. Studies aimed at reaching conclusions regarding comparisons between triptans, calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors (CGRPi), and other treatments can help us determine which of the different categories of treatments are most effective for certain migraine populations (age or migraine subtype) or indications (acute vs preventive therapy).
A review published in 2023 in Aging and Disease described several markers of aging that are associated with migraine, including epigenetic aging and oxidative stress.2 The review authors noted that markers of cellular senescence (ie, irreversible inhibition of cellular division) were increased in association with migraine. Additionally, endothelial progenitor cells, which reflect an increased ability for cell renewal, were decreased among migraine patients compared with the control group.
Telomeres, composed of nucleotides, are part of chromosome structures, serving to protect the molecular integrity of DNA. It has been established that shortened telomeres, often considered a reflection of aging and a marker of high potential for genetic and cellular damage, are a risk factor for physiologic changes that occur with the aging process. The 2024 Scientific Reports cross-sectional study included data from 6169 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) from 1999 to 2002.1 The researchers used statistical analysis to determine whether there was an age-influenced telomere length in relation to migraine. They found that “telomere length was inversely associated with migraine risk in those aged 20-50 years, while no relationship was observed in those aged > 50 years.” The significance of this association among the younger group, but not among the older group, is not clear.
The limited research regarding the links between migraine and physiologic markers of aging has not untangled cause-and-effect distinctions. And while there is no evidence that preventing or treating migraine could slow down these pro-aging molecular processes, we do know that the distress of migraine episodes contributes to pain, anxiety, stress, depression, and sleep disruption. Given that we can’t change a patient’s hereditary predisposition to migraines, we can make an effort to alleviate the impact of migraine by using the tools that we have.
An article published in September 2024 in the BMJ described the results of a meta-analysis that included “137 randomized controlled trials with 89,445 participants allocated to 1 of 17 active interventions or placebo.”3 Treatments included NSAIDs, paracetamol, triptans, and CGRPi. The authors observed that triptans “had the best profiles and were more efficacious” than other treatment categories, including CGRPi. Interestingly, they observed that eletriptan and ibuprofen performed better for sustained pain freedom. Efficacy and sustained relief are crucial for patients with migraine, and for those who experience relief with simple over-the-counter ibuprofen, it makes sense to avoid making changes. But for those who are not getting the relief they need with established migraine therapies, trying the newer medications, such as CGRPi, could provide a solution. It is also important to keep in mind that triptans are contraindicated for some patients, such as those with a high-risk cardiovascular profile. Additionally, some patients may have contraindications to NSAIDs.
Prevention is another important aspect of migraine care. A September 2024 article in Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain used a retrospective cohort analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) data, which included 1245 patients using a variety of migraine preventive therapies: antidepressants, antiseizure medications, beta-blockers, and CGRPi.4 The researchers reported that patients taking “CGRPi had a statistically significant reduction in pain T-scores (60.4 [standard deviation (SD) 7.4] to 58.4 [SD 8.2], p = 0.003), especially those who switched from other preventative medications to CGRPi.” This, along with the BMJ meta-analysis,3 helps in assessing relative benefits for treatments of acute migraine episodes and for migraine prevention. However, the efficacy of various types of therapy highlights the value of considering all options for each patient.
Individual patient characteristics, particularly contraindications, also play an important role in guiding therapeutic selection. And trial and error remain part of migraine treatment, given that there are no pretesting determinants that can predict treatment success for individual patients. We need to emphasize to patients that effective migraine therapy is obtainable and important — for comfort, quality of life, and possibly overall healthy aging.
References
- Geng D, Liu H, Wang H, Wang H. Telomere length exhibits inverse association with migraine among Americans aged 20-50 years, without implications beyond age 50: a cross-sectional study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:22597. Source
- Fila M, Pawlowska E, Szczepanska J, Blasiak J. Different aspects of aging in migraine. Aging Dis. 2023;14:6. Source
- Karlsson WK, Ostinelli EG, Zhuang ZA, et al. Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2024;386:e080107. Source
- Peasah SK, Soh YH, Huang Y, Nguyen J, Hanmer J, Good C. Patient reported outcomes and real-world use of calcitonin gene-related peptide medications in migraine. Headache. Published online September 30, 202 Source
With increasing options for migraine therapy, the right choice for each patient might not be clear. And many individual patients could experience relief from any of the different choices, meaning that there is often more than one “right” answer when it comes to selecting a migraine treatment approach for each patient. Triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which have been around for decades, have shown consistent success in treating migraine episodes. Newer therapies could be safer for patients who have contraindications to triptans or NSAIDs, and these newer medications could be more effective for some patients, but we are still trying to fully understand which types of patients. Studies aimed at reaching conclusions regarding comparisons between triptans, calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors (CGRPi), and other treatments can help us determine which of the different categories of treatments are most effective for certain migraine populations (age or migraine subtype) or indications (acute vs preventive therapy).
A review published in 2023 in Aging and Disease described several markers of aging that are associated with migraine, including epigenetic aging and oxidative stress.2 The review authors noted that markers of cellular senescence (ie, irreversible inhibition of cellular division) were increased in association with migraine. Additionally, endothelial progenitor cells, which reflect an increased ability for cell renewal, were decreased among migraine patients compared with the control group.
Telomeres, composed of nucleotides, are part of chromosome structures, serving to protect the molecular integrity of DNA. It has been established that shortened telomeres, often considered a reflection of aging and a marker of high potential for genetic and cellular damage, are a risk factor for physiologic changes that occur with the aging process. The 2024 Scientific Reports cross-sectional study included data from 6169 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) from 1999 to 2002.1 The researchers used statistical analysis to determine whether there was an age-influenced telomere length in relation to migraine. They found that “telomere length was inversely associated with migraine risk in those aged 20-50 years, while no relationship was observed in those aged > 50 years.” The significance of this association among the younger group, but not among the older group, is not clear.
The limited research regarding the links between migraine and physiologic markers of aging has not untangled cause-and-effect distinctions. And while there is no evidence that preventing or treating migraine could slow down these pro-aging molecular processes, we do know that the distress of migraine episodes contributes to pain, anxiety, stress, depression, and sleep disruption. Given that we can’t change a patient’s hereditary predisposition to migraines, we can make an effort to alleviate the impact of migraine by using the tools that we have.
An article published in September 2024 in the BMJ described the results of a meta-analysis that included “137 randomized controlled trials with 89,445 participants allocated to 1 of 17 active interventions or placebo.”3 Treatments included NSAIDs, paracetamol, triptans, and CGRPi. The authors observed that triptans “had the best profiles and were more efficacious” than other treatment categories, including CGRPi. Interestingly, they observed that eletriptan and ibuprofen performed better for sustained pain freedom. Efficacy and sustained relief are crucial for patients with migraine, and for those who experience relief with simple over-the-counter ibuprofen, it makes sense to avoid making changes. But for those who are not getting the relief they need with established migraine therapies, trying the newer medications, such as CGRPi, could provide a solution. It is also important to keep in mind that triptans are contraindicated for some patients, such as those with a high-risk cardiovascular profile. Additionally, some patients may have contraindications to NSAIDs.
Prevention is another important aspect of migraine care. A September 2024 article in Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain used a retrospective cohort analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) data, which included 1245 patients using a variety of migraine preventive therapies: antidepressants, antiseizure medications, beta-blockers, and CGRPi.4 The researchers reported that patients taking “CGRPi had a statistically significant reduction in pain T-scores (60.4 [standard deviation (SD) 7.4] to 58.4 [SD 8.2], p = 0.003), especially those who switched from other preventative medications to CGRPi.” This, along with the BMJ meta-analysis,3 helps in assessing relative benefits for treatments of acute migraine episodes and for migraine prevention. However, the efficacy of various types of therapy highlights the value of considering all options for each patient.
Individual patient characteristics, particularly contraindications, also play an important role in guiding therapeutic selection. And trial and error remain part of migraine treatment, given that there are no pretesting determinants that can predict treatment success for individual patients. We need to emphasize to patients that effective migraine therapy is obtainable and important — for comfort, quality of life, and possibly overall healthy aging.
References
- Geng D, Liu H, Wang H, Wang H. Telomere length exhibits inverse association with migraine among Americans aged 20-50 years, without implications beyond age 50: a cross-sectional study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:22597. Source
- Fila M, Pawlowska E, Szczepanska J, Blasiak J. Different aspects of aging in migraine. Aging Dis. 2023;14:6. Source
- Karlsson WK, Ostinelli EG, Zhuang ZA, et al. Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2024;386:e080107. Source
- Peasah SK, Soh YH, Huang Y, Nguyen J, Hanmer J, Good C. Patient reported outcomes and real-world use of calcitonin gene-related peptide medications in migraine. Headache. Published online September 30, 202 Source
Thyroid Cancer Overdiagnosis Continues Despite Cautions
according to a recently published global study.
The proportion of thyroid cancer cases attributable to overdiagnosis globally was higher in women (78%) than in men (68%), with this rate varying substantially across countries, wrote Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, and coauthors in an October paper in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
Overdiagnosis refers to the diagnosis of lesions that would not cause symptoms and that would not progress, if left alone.
Increased testing for thyroid cancer, fueled in large part by the expansion of imaging technologies and progressively more intense and disorganized scrutiny of the thyroid, led many people to be treated for often indolent lesions, exposing them to potential side effects as well as financial and emotional distress.
Li and coauthors estimate that more than 1.7 million people might have been overdiagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in 63 countries.
“Overdiagnosis clearly emerged in some high-resource countries with private-based health systems in which access to healthcare overrules regulatory controls (eg, in the USA) and in some high-quality public health systems with easy and broad access to thyroid gland diagnostic examinations (eg, in Canada),” Li and coauthors wrote. “Conversely, thyroid cancer is less commonly diagnosed in those countries in which access to diagnosis is guided by strong regulatory rules (eg, in Nordic countries).”
Their study drew from almost 40 years of research, including the latest available data from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC’s) Global Cancer Observatory. Li and coauthors examined patterns in the time trends of thyroid cancer, mortality data, and trends in diagnosis of thyroid cancer before testing became common in many nations.
This approach is needed in estimating overdiagnosis, where it’s not possible to see what’s happening on a case-by-case level, Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, a scientist at IARC’s Cancer Surveillance Branch, said in an interview.
Researchers can’t tell whether an individual’s detected early-stage cancers would have remained indolent for years or eventually would have put their life at risk, he said. Instead, the patterns emerge through larger studies of the reported cases of cancer like thyroid tumors and then looking at separate datasets on mortality.
“We can only see that as a big phenomenon when we look at population-based data,” Vaccarella said.
Persisting Problem
Recognition of the harms of overdiagnosis has resulted in some reduction of the incidence of thyroid cancer in the United States, Li and coauthors wrote. After adjusting for age, incidence has fallen from 19 per 100,000 women in 2013 to 16 per 100,000 women in 2017. The proportion of thyroid cancer attributed to overdiagnosis has dropped from 76% to 68% in the country.
The paper adds to the evidence suggesting that the rise in screening has not changed mortality rates for thyroid cancer. For example, Li and coauthors reported seeing “a small decrease in thyroid cancer mortality rates over time in some European countries, but this decline (less than 1 per 100,000 women) is marginal compared with the increases in incidence (reaching around 100 per 100,000 women).”
“Moreover, previous data show that the downward mortality trends had begun before the wide use of ultrasonography for early detection and that period and birth cohort effects have been declining, probably due to treatment advances and reduced prevalence of risk factors, such as the reduction in iodine deficiency,” they wrote.
In an interview, Amanda Davis, MD, of AnMed, a nonprofit health system based in Anderson, South Carolina, said the new paper from Li and Vaccarella provides further evidence for a cautious approach to thyroid nodules given concerns about overdiagnosis.
If early detection of cancer via discovery of thyroid nodules actually helped patients, mortality rates would have dropped with expansion of screening and the resulting diagnoses, said Davis, who is an associate program director at AnMed’s family medicine residency program and affiliate professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
In many cases, people learn they have thyroid lesions after being tested for other conditions such as ultrasound done on carotid arteries to check for stroke risk. The most common form of thyroid cancer is the papillary form. Papillary thyroid cancer tends to be slow growing, carries a low risk for distant metastasis, and in many cases poses little risk. Some small (< 1 cm) papillary thyroid cancers can be monitored with active surveillance as opposed to thyroid lobectomy.
“So just finding more nodules incidentally or through screening ultrasound and even finding more papillary cancers via these methods does not make people healthier or decrease mortality,” Davis said.
“So just finding more things and even finding more papillary cancers does not increase our ability to treat people and keep them alive longer,” Davis said.
The 5-year survival rate for thyroid cancer overall is 98.1% and varies from 99.9% for localized disease to 55.3% for distant disease, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said in a 2017 publication in JAMA. The task force that year gave a “D” rating on screening of asymptomatic people for thyroid cancer. That means there’s moderate certainty that screening for thyroid cancer in asymptomatic persons results in harms that outweigh the benefits. The decision to give this “D” rating meant this screening is not recommended. That’s still the panel’s view.
“You can think of it as a “D” for ‘don’t screen for thyroid cancer,’ ” in people who present no symptoms of this illness, John Wong, MD, the vice chair of the USPSTF, said in an interview.
In primary care, the challenge is assessing thyroid nodules detected when people undergo testing for another reason, such as an ultrasound of the carotid artery to check for stroke risk.
Thyroid nodules can be detected by ultrasonography in up to 68% of the general population, reported a study in American Family Physician. Nodules with suspicious features or ≥ 1 cm require fine needle aspiration. The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology can be used to classify samples, with molecular testing applied to guide treatment when fine needle aspiration yields an indeterminate result.
New Thinking on Thyroid Cancer
There’s been a shift in recent years in the approach to how physicians should proceed if certain kinds of thyroid cancer are detected, Cari M. Kitahara, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute noted in a comment accompanying the Li paper.
“Clinicians need to be judicious in the use of thyroid ultrasonography, the diagnostic follow-up of incidentally detected thyroid nodules, and determining the optimal course of treatment,” Kitahara wrote. “For low-risk and incidentally detected tumors, strong consideration should be given to less intensive treatment options (eg, lobectomy, delayed treatment, and active surveillance).”
The American Thyroid Association guidelines encourage de-escalation of treatment for low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma up to 4 cm.
Physicians often need to make clear to patients how a diagnosis of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer differs from other oncology diagnoses, R. Michael Tuttle, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, said in an interview.
“I’ll frequently say that everything you’ve ever learned about cancer, you need to forget,” Tuttle said.
Some patients will mistakenly think any cancer diagnosis is a likely death sentence, meaning they should rush to get aggressive treatment. Tuttle has been a leader for many years in efforts in advancing active surveillance as an option for certain people with low-risk thyroid cancer.
“I often start my consultation by saying: ‘We’re going to choose between two right answers here. One right answer is watching right. One right answer is going to surgery,’ ” Tuttle said.
Patients with low-risk thyroid cancer tend to fall into two camps, with maximalists likely to seek quick treatment and minimalists more inclined for surveillance if that’s an option for them, Tuttle said. As opinions have shifted within the medical community about approaches to low-risk thyroid cancer, there’s also been some growing awareness among the public about thyroid overdiagnosis.
“Ten or 15 years ago, people thought we were crazy” to consider active surveillance as an option for low-risk thyroid cancers,” Tuttle said. “Now we have swung, at least in some of the public opinion, to this recognition that every little speck of cancer doesn’t need to be immediately taken out of your body.”
Some patients express regret about having learned that they have low-risk thyroid cancer, Tuttle said.
“Over the last 5 years, it’s not uncommon for patients to ask me, ‘Is this one of those that needs to be treated now, or is this one of those that we wish we would have never found?’ Or people will say, ‘My doctor talked me into an ultrasound, I didn’t want it’ or ‘I had a car wreck, and I found this nodule and I wished I had never found it.’ ”
This study from Li and coauthors was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, the Young Talents Program of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, the Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian Ministry of Health. Davis and Tuttle had no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a recently published global study.
The proportion of thyroid cancer cases attributable to overdiagnosis globally was higher in women (78%) than in men (68%), with this rate varying substantially across countries, wrote Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, and coauthors in an October paper in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
Overdiagnosis refers to the diagnosis of lesions that would not cause symptoms and that would not progress, if left alone.
Increased testing for thyroid cancer, fueled in large part by the expansion of imaging technologies and progressively more intense and disorganized scrutiny of the thyroid, led many people to be treated for often indolent lesions, exposing them to potential side effects as well as financial and emotional distress.
Li and coauthors estimate that more than 1.7 million people might have been overdiagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in 63 countries.
“Overdiagnosis clearly emerged in some high-resource countries with private-based health systems in which access to healthcare overrules regulatory controls (eg, in the USA) and in some high-quality public health systems with easy and broad access to thyroid gland diagnostic examinations (eg, in Canada),” Li and coauthors wrote. “Conversely, thyroid cancer is less commonly diagnosed in those countries in which access to diagnosis is guided by strong regulatory rules (eg, in Nordic countries).”
Their study drew from almost 40 years of research, including the latest available data from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC’s) Global Cancer Observatory. Li and coauthors examined patterns in the time trends of thyroid cancer, mortality data, and trends in diagnosis of thyroid cancer before testing became common in many nations.
This approach is needed in estimating overdiagnosis, where it’s not possible to see what’s happening on a case-by-case level, Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, a scientist at IARC’s Cancer Surveillance Branch, said in an interview.
Researchers can’t tell whether an individual’s detected early-stage cancers would have remained indolent for years or eventually would have put their life at risk, he said. Instead, the patterns emerge through larger studies of the reported cases of cancer like thyroid tumors and then looking at separate datasets on mortality.
“We can only see that as a big phenomenon when we look at population-based data,” Vaccarella said.
Persisting Problem
Recognition of the harms of overdiagnosis has resulted in some reduction of the incidence of thyroid cancer in the United States, Li and coauthors wrote. After adjusting for age, incidence has fallen from 19 per 100,000 women in 2013 to 16 per 100,000 women in 2017. The proportion of thyroid cancer attributed to overdiagnosis has dropped from 76% to 68% in the country.
The paper adds to the evidence suggesting that the rise in screening has not changed mortality rates for thyroid cancer. For example, Li and coauthors reported seeing “a small decrease in thyroid cancer mortality rates over time in some European countries, but this decline (less than 1 per 100,000 women) is marginal compared with the increases in incidence (reaching around 100 per 100,000 women).”
“Moreover, previous data show that the downward mortality trends had begun before the wide use of ultrasonography for early detection and that period and birth cohort effects have been declining, probably due to treatment advances and reduced prevalence of risk factors, such as the reduction in iodine deficiency,” they wrote.
In an interview, Amanda Davis, MD, of AnMed, a nonprofit health system based in Anderson, South Carolina, said the new paper from Li and Vaccarella provides further evidence for a cautious approach to thyroid nodules given concerns about overdiagnosis.
If early detection of cancer via discovery of thyroid nodules actually helped patients, mortality rates would have dropped with expansion of screening and the resulting diagnoses, said Davis, who is an associate program director at AnMed’s family medicine residency program and affiliate professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
In many cases, people learn they have thyroid lesions after being tested for other conditions such as ultrasound done on carotid arteries to check for stroke risk. The most common form of thyroid cancer is the papillary form. Papillary thyroid cancer tends to be slow growing, carries a low risk for distant metastasis, and in many cases poses little risk. Some small (< 1 cm) papillary thyroid cancers can be monitored with active surveillance as opposed to thyroid lobectomy.
“So just finding more nodules incidentally or through screening ultrasound and even finding more papillary cancers via these methods does not make people healthier or decrease mortality,” Davis said.
“So just finding more things and even finding more papillary cancers does not increase our ability to treat people and keep them alive longer,” Davis said.
The 5-year survival rate for thyroid cancer overall is 98.1% and varies from 99.9% for localized disease to 55.3% for distant disease, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said in a 2017 publication in JAMA. The task force that year gave a “D” rating on screening of asymptomatic people for thyroid cancer. That means there’s moderate certainty that screening for thyroid cancer in asymptomatic persons results in harms that outweigh the benefits. The decision to give this “D” rating meant this screening is not recommended. That’s still the panel’s view.
“You can think of it as a “D” for ‘don’t screen for thyroid cancer,’ ” in people who present no symptoms of this illness, John Wong, MD, the vice chair of the USPSTF, said in an interview.
In primary care, the challenge is assessing thyroid nodules detected when people undergo testing for another reason, such as an ultrasound of the carotid artery to check for stroke risk.
Thyroid nodules can be detected by ultrasonography in up to 68% of the general population, reported a study in American Family Physician. Nodules with suspicious features or ≥ 1 cm require fine needle aspiration. The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology can be used to classify samples, with molecular testing applied to guide treatment when fine needle aspiration yields an indeterminate result.
New Thinking on Thyroid Cancer
There’s been a shift in recent years in the approach to how physicians should proceed if certain kinds of thyroid cancer are detected, Cari M. Kitahara, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute noted in a comment accompanying the Li paper.
“Clinicians need to be judicious in the use of thyroid ultrasonography, the diagnostic follow-up of incidentally detected thyroid nodules, and determining the optimal course of treatment,” Kitahara wrote. “For low-risk and incidentally detected tumors, strong consideration should be given to less intensive treatment options (eg, lobectomy, delayed treatment, and active surveillance).”
The American Thyroid Association guidelines encourage de-escalation of treatment for low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma up to 4 cm.
Physicians often need to make clear to patients how a diagnosis of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer differs from other oncology diagnoses, R. Michael Tuttle, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, said in an interview.
“I’ll frequently say that everything you’ve ever learned about cancer, you need to forget,” Tuttle said.
Some patients will mistakenly think any cancer diagnosis is a likely death sentence, meaning they should rush to get aggressive treatment. Tuttle has been a leader for many years in efforts in advancing active surveillance as an option for certain people with low-risk thyroid cancer.
“I often start my consultation by saying: ‘We’re going to choose between two right answers here. One right answer is watching right. One right answer is going to surgery,’ ” Tuttle said.
Patients with low-risk thyroid cancer tend to fall into two camps, with maximalists likely to seek quick treatment and minimalists more inclined for surveillance if that’s an option for them, Tuttle said. As opinions have shifted within the medical community about approaches to low-risk thyroid cancer, there’s also been some growing awareness among the public about thyroid overdiagnosis.
“Ten or 15 years ago, people thought we were crazy” to consider active surveillance as an option for low-risk thyroid cancers,” Tuttle said. “Now we have swung, at least in some of the public opinion, to this recognition that every little speck of cancer doesn’t need to be immediately taken out of your body.”
Some patients express regret about having learned that they have low-risk thyroid cancer, Tuttle said.
“Over the last 5 years, it’s not uncommon for patients to ask me, ‘Is this one of those that needs to be treated now, or is this one of those that we wish we would have never found?’ Or people will say, ‘My doctor talked me into an ultrasound, I didn’t want it’ or ‘I had a car wreck, and I found this nodule and I wished I had never found it.’ ”
This study from Li and coauthors was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, the Young Talents Program of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, the Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian Ministry of Health. Davis and Tuttle had no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a recently published global study.
The proportion of thyroid cancer cases attributable to overdiagnosis globally was higher in women (78%) than in men (68%), with this rate varying substantially across countries, wrote Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, and coauthors in an October paper in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
Overdiagnosis refers to the diagnosis of lesions that would not cause symptoms and that would not progress, if left alone.
Increased testing for thyroid cancer, fueled in large part by the expansion of imaging technologies and progressively more intense and disorganized scrutiny of the thyroid, led many people to be treated for often indolent lesions, exposing them to potential side effects as well as financial and emotional distress.
Li and coauthors estimate that more than 1.7 million people might have been overdiagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in 63 countries.
“Overdiagnosis clearly emerged in some high-resource countries with private-based health systems in which access to healthcare overrules regulatory controls (eg, in the USA) and in some high-quality public health systems with easy and broad access to thyroid gland diagnostic examinations (eg, in Canada),” Li and coauthors wrote. “Conversely, thyroid cancer is less commonly diagnosed in those countries in which access to diagnosis is guided by strong regulatory rules (eg, in Nordic countries).”
Their study drew from almost 40 years of research, including the latest available data from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC’s) Global Cancer Observatory. Li and coauthors examined patterns in the time trends of thyroid cancer, mortality data, and trends in diagnosis of thyroid cancer before testing became common in many nations.
This approach is needed in estimating overdiagnosis, where it’s not possible to see what’s happening on a case-by-case level, Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, a scientist at IARC’s Cancer Surveillance Branch, said in an interview.
Researchers can’t tell whether an individual’s detected early-stage cancers would have remained indolent for years or eventually would have put their life at risk, he said. Instead, the patterns emerge through larger studies of the reported cases of cancer like thyroid tumors and then looking at separate datasets on mortality.
“We can only see that as a big phenomenon when we look at population-based data,” Vaccarella said.
Persisting Problem
Recognition of the harms of overdiagnosis has resulted in some reduction of the incidence of thyroid cancer in the United States, Li and coauthors wrote. After adjusting for age, incidence has fallen from 19 per 100,000 women in 2013 to 16 per 100,000 women in 2017. The proportion of thyroid cancer attributed to overdiagnosis has dropped from 76% to 68% in the country.
The paper adds to the evidence suggesting that the rise in screening has not changed mortality rates for thyroid cancer. For example, Li and coauthors reported seeing “a small decrease in thyroid cancer mortality rates over time in some European countries, but this decline (less than 1 per 100,000 women) is marginal compared with the increases in incidence (reaching around 100 per 100,000 women).”
“Moreover, previous data show that the downward mortality trends had begun before the wide use of ultrasonography for early detection and that period and birth cohort effects have been declining, probably due to treatment advances and reduced prevalence of risk factors, such as the reduction in iodine deficiency,” they wrote.
In an interview, Amanda Davis, MD, of AnMed, a nonprofit health system based in Anderson, South Carolina, said the new paper from Li and Vaccarella provides further evidence for a cautious approach to thyroid nodules given concerns about overdiagnosis.
If early detection of cancer via discovery of thyroid nodules actually helped patients, mortality rates would have dropped with expansion of screening and the resulting diagnoses, said Davis, who is an associate program director at AnMed’s family medicine residency program and affiliate professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
In many cases, people learn they have thyroid lesions after being tested for other conditions such as ultrasound done on carotid arteries to check for stroke risk. The most common form of thyroid cancer is the papillary form. Papillary thyroid cancer tends to be slow growing, carries a low risk for distant metastasis, and in many cases poses little risk. Some small (< 1 cm) papillary thyroid cancers can be monitored with active surveillance as opposed to thyroid lobectomy.
“So just finding more nodules incidentally or through screening ultrasound and even finding more papillary cancers via these methods does not make people healthier or decrease mortality,” Davis said.
“So just finding more things and even finding more papillary cancers does not increase our ability to treat people and keep them alive longer,” Davis said.
The 5-year survival rate for thyroid cancer overall is 98.1% and varies from 99.9% for localized disease to 55.3% for distant disease, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said in a 2017 publication in JAMA. The task force that year gave a “D” rating on screening of asymptomatic people for thyroid cancer. That means there’s moderate certainty that screening for thyroid cancer in asymptomatic persons results in harms that outweigh the benefits. The decision to give this “D” rating meant this screening is not recommended. That’s still the panel’s view.
“You can think of it as a “D” for ‘don’t screen for thyroid cancer,’ ” in people who present no symptoms of this illness, John Wong, MD, the vice chair of the USPSTF, said in an interview.
In primary care, the challenge is assessing thyroid nodules detected when people undergo testing for another reason, such as an ultrasound of the carotid artery to check for stroke risk.
Thyroid nodules can be detected by ultrasonography in up to 68% of the general population, reported a study in American Family Physician. Nodules with suspicious features or ≥ 1 cm require fine needle aspiration. The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology can be used to classify samples, with molecular testing applied to guide treatment when fine needle aspiration yields an indeterminate result.
New Thinking on Thyroid Cancer
There’s been a shift in recent years in the approach to how physicians should proceed if certain kinds of thyroid cancer are detected, Cari M. Kitahara, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute noted in a comment accompanying the Li paper.
“Clinicians need to be judicious in the use of thyroid ultrasonography, the diagnostic follow-up of incidentally detected thyroid nodules, and determining the optimal course of treatment,” Kitahara wrote. “For low-risk and incidentally detected tumors, strong consideration should be given to less intensive treatment options (eg, lobectomy, delayed treatment, and active surveillance).”
The American Thyroid Association guidelines encourage de-escalation of treatment for low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma up to 4 cm.
Physicians often need to make clear to patients how a diagnosis of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer differs from other oncology diagnoses, R. Michael Tuttle, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, said in an interview.
“I’ll frequently say that everything you’ve ever learned about cancer, you need to forget,” Tuttle said.
Some patients will mistakenly think any cancer diagnosis is a likely death sentence, meaning they should rush to get aggressive treatment. Tuttle has been a leader for many years in efforts in advancing active surveillance as an option for certain people with low-risk thyroid cancer.
“I often start my consultation by saying: ‘We’re going to choose between two right answers here. One right answer is watching right. One right answer is going to surgery,’ ” Tuttle said.
Patients with low-risk thyroid cancer tend to fall into two camps, with maximalists likely to seek quick treatment and minimalists more inclined for surveillance if that’s an option for them, Tuttle said. As opinions have shifted within the medical community about approaches to low-risk thyroid cancer, there’s also been some growing awareness among the public about thyroid overdiagnosis.
“Ten or 15 years ago, people thought we were crazy” to consider active surveillance as an option for low-risk thyroid cancers,” Tuttle said. “Now we have swung, at least in some of the public opinion, to this recognition that every little speck of cancer doesn’t need to be immediately taken out of your body.”
Some patients express regret about having learned that they have low-risk thyroid cancer, Tuttle said.
“Over the last 5 years, it’s not uncommon for patients to ask me, ‘Is this one of those that needs to be treated now, or is this one of those that we wish we would have never found?’ Or people will say, ‘My doctor talked me into an ultrasound, I didn’t want it’ or ‘I had a car wreck, and I found this nodule and I wished I had never found it.’ ”
This study from Li and coauthors was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, the Young Talents Program of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, the Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian Ministry of Health. Davis and Tuttle had no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET DIABETES & ENDOCRINOLOGY
FIT Completion and Yield Similar in Younger and Older Adults
, a new study has found.
The study also found a similar low 3% rate of CRC detected at colonoscopy in both the younger and older adults.
“Our study suggests that adults ages 45-49 have a colorectal cancer risk that is similar to what we see in adults age 50,” senior author Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist and research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research (DOR) in Oakland, California, said in a news release.
“The low number of cancers we found also provides support for initially offering younger adults a non-invasive test, like FIT, to determine which patients would benefit from a colonoscopy,” Lee noted.
Timely and Important Question
“This study addresses a timely and important clinical question, namely, is FIT an acceptable screening modality in patients aged 45-49,” Ziad F. Gellad, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.
“The finding that FIT completion and yield in younger patients is similar to those aged 50 and above is good news because it supports the use of this screening modality in the younger cohort,” said Gellad, section chief, gastroenterology, Durham VA Health Care System.
The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered the age to start CRC screening from 50 to 45 years, in response to studies showing an increased rate of CRC in adults aged 45-49 years.
The decision to start CRC screening at age 45 was made based on modeling studies, which are dependent on assumptions, co-first author Theodore R. Levin, MD, who is also a gastroenterologist and research scientist at Kaiser Permanente DOR, said in an interview.
“We thought it was important to collect real-world data on the experience of screening in this age group. We had no basis to know whether younger people would take up screening or if the yield of screening would be sufficiently high to warrant starting screening in this age group,” said Levin.
The researchers compared FIT screening completion and outcomes in 213,928 patients aged 45-49 years and 53,804 patients aged 50 years who received a FIT kit for the first time. The patients were from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Washington, and Colorado.
Overall, FIT completion rates were slightly higher in the younger adults than in the 50-year-olds (38.9% vs 37.5%; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.05), although the younger patients from Colorado were substantially less apt to complete a FIT (30.7% vs 40.2%; aRR, 0.77).
In the overall 45- to 49-year age group, 3.6% of adults had a positive FIT result, only slightly lower than the 4% positivity rate in the 50-year age group (aRR, 0.91).
About two thirds of adults in both groups who had a positive FIT result went on to have a colonoscopy within 3 months of receiving the test result.
Adenoma detection during colonoscopy was slightly lower in the younger than in the older group (58.8% vs 67.7%; aRR, 0.88). However, yields were similar for adenoma with advanced histology (13.2% vs 15.9%; aRR, 0.86), polyp with high-grade dysplasia (3.4% vs 5.1%; aRR, 0.68), sessile serrated lesion (10.3% vs 11.7%; aRR, 0.92), and CRC (2.8% vs 2.7%; aRR, 1.10).
FIT First Fits With Younger Adults’ Busy Lives
“Overall, people under 50 have lower incidence of cancer than people in their 50s, 60s, and 70s. However, if you do a test like FIT first, you can improve the yield of colonoscopy, which is a much more efficient strategy,” Levin said.
He noted that younger people are the least likely to be screened.
“They are busy with work and family responsibilities and may not realize that they are at risk for CRC. It is important to offer them a test that is easy to perform and does not require them to miss a day of work or arrange for a driver. They should be offered an option to screen with a stool-based test as an easy way to fit CRC screening into their busy lives,” Levin said.
Gellad said the study also highlights the limitations of FIT, “namely, that the low uptake and suboptimal colonoscopy follow-up of positive tests, also extend into the lower age group.”
Additionally, Gellad said he hopes other large systems will replicate this study to address the generalizability of these findings outside the Kaiser system.
The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Sydney R. Garfield Memorial Fund. Disclosures for study authors are available with the original article. Gellad consulted for Merck & Co. and Novo Nordisk and is a co-founder of Higgs Boson, Inc.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new study has found.
The study also found a similar low 3% rate of CRC detected at colonoscopy in both the younger and older adults.
“Our study suggests that adults ages 45-49 have a colorectal cancer risk that is similar to what we see in adults age 50,” senior author Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist and research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research (DOR) in Oakland, California, said in a news release.
“The low number of cancers we found also provides support for initially offering younger adults a non-invasive test, like FIT, to determine which patients would benefit from a colonoscopy,” Lee noted.
Timely and Important Question
“This study addresses a timely and important clinical question, namely, is FIT an acceptable screening modality in patients aged 45-49,” Ziad F. Gellad, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.
“The finding that FIT completion and yield in younger patients is similar to those aged 50 and above is good news because it supports the use of this screening modality in the younger cohort,” said Gellad, section chief, gastroenterology, Durham VA Health Care System.
The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered the age to start CRC screening from 50 to 45 years, in response to studies showing an increased rate of CRC in adults aged 45-49 years.
The decision to start CRC screening at age 45 was made based on modeling studies, which are dependent on assumptions, co-first author Theodore R. Levin, MD, who is also a gastroenterologist and research scientist at Kaiser Permanente DOR, said in an interview.
“We thought it was important to collect real-world data on the experience of screening in this age group. We had no basis to know whether younger people would take up screening or if the yield of screening would be sufficiently high to warrant starting screening in this age group,” said Levin.
The researchers compared FIT screening completion and outcomes in 213,928 patients aged 45-49 years and 53,804 patients aged 50 years who received a FIT kit for the first time. The patients were from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Washington, and Colorado.
Overall, FIT completion rates were slightly higher in the younger adults than in the 50-year-olds (38.9% vs 37.5%; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.05), although the younger patients from Colorado were substantially less apt to complete a FIT (30.7% vs 40.2%; aRR, 0.77).
In the overall 45- to 49-year age group, 3.6% of adults had a positive FIT result, only slightly lower than the 4% positivity rate in the 50-year age group (aRR, 0.91).
About two thirds of adults in both groups who had a positive FIT result went on to have a colonoscopy within 3 months of receiving the test result.
Adenoma detection during colonoscopy was slightly lower in the younger than in the older group (58.8% vs 67.7%; aRR, 0.88). However, yields were similar for adenoma with advanced histology (13.2% vs 15.9%; aRR, 0.86), polyp with high-grade dysplasia (3.4% vs 5.1%; aRR, 0.68), sessile serrated lesion (10.3% vs 11.7%; aRR, 0.92), and CRC (2.8% vs 2.7%; aRR, 1.10).
FIT First Fits With Younger Adults’ Busy Lives
“Overall, people under 50 have lower incidence of cancer than people in their 50s, 60s, and 70s. However, if you do a test like FIT first, you can improve the yield of colonoscopy, which is a much more efficient strategy,” Levin said.
He noted that younger people are the least likely to be screened.
“They are busy with work and family responsibilities and may not realize that they are at risk for CRC. It is important to offer them a test that is easy to perform and does not require them to miss a day of work or arrange for a driver. They should be offered an option to screen with a stool-based test as an easy way to fit CRC screening into their busy lives,” Levin said.
Gellad said the study also highlights the limitations of FIT, “namely, that the low uptake and suboptimal colonoscopy follow-up of positive tests, also extend into the lower age group.”
Additionally, Gellad said he hopes other large systems will replicate this study to address the generalizability of these findings outside the Kaiser system.
The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Sydney R. Garfield Memorial Fund. Disclosures for study authors are available with the original article. Gellad consulted for Merck & Co. and Novo Nordisk and is a co-founder of Higgs Boson, Inc.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new study has found.
The study also found a similar low 3% rate of CRC detected at colonoscopy in both the younger and older adults.
“Our study suggests that adults ages 45-49 have a colorectal cancer risk that is similar to what we see in adults age 50,” senior author Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist and research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research (DOR) in Oakland, California, said in a news release.
“The low number of cancers we found also provides support for initially offering younger adults a non-invasive test, like FIT, to determine which patients would benefit from a colonoscopy,” Lee noted.
Timely and Important Question
“This study addresses a timely and important clinical question, namely, is FIT an acceptable screening modality in patients aged 45-49,” Ziad F. Gellad, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.
“The finding that FIT completion and yield in younger patients is similar to those aged 50 and above is good news because it supports the use of this screening modality in the younger cohort,” said Gellad, section chief, gastroenterology, Durham VA Health Care System.
The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered the age to start CRC screening from 50 to 45 years, in response to studies showing an increased rate of CRC in adults aged 45-49 years.
The decision to start CRC screening at age 45 was made based on modeling studies, which are dependent on assumptions, co-first author Theodore R. Levin, MD, who is also a gastroenterologist and research scientist at Kaiser Permanente DOR, said in an interview.
“We thought it was important to collect real-world data on the experience of screening in this age group. We had no basis to know whether younger people would take up screening or if the yield of screening would be sufficiently high to warrant starting screening in this age group,” said Levin.
The researchers compared FIT screening completion and outcomes in 213,928 patients aged 45-49 years and 53,804 patients aged 50 years who received a FIT kit for the first time. The patients were from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Washington, and Colorado.
Overall, FIT completion rates were slightly higher in the younger adults than in the 50-year-olds (38.9% vs 37.5%; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.05), although the younger patients from Colorado were substantially less apt to complete a FIT (30.7% vs 40.2%; aRR, 0.77).
In the overall 45- to 49-year age group, 3.6% of adults had a positive FIT result, only slightly lower than the 4% positivity rate in the 50-year age group (aRR, 0.91).
About two thirds of adults in both groups who had a positive FIT result went on to have a colonoscopy within 3 months of receiving the test result.
Adenoma detection during colonoscopy was slightly lower in the younger than in the older group (58.8% vs 67.7%; aRR, 0.88). However, yields were similar for adenoma with advanced histology (13.2% vs 15.9%; aRR, 0.86), polyp with high-grade dysplasia (3.4% vs 5.1%; aRR, 0.68), sessile serrated lesion (10.3% vs 11.7%; aRR, 0.92), and CRC (2.8% vs 2.7%; aRR, 1.10).
FIT First Fits With Younger Adults’ Busy Lives
“Overall, people under 50 have lower incidence of cancer than people in their 50s, 60s, and 70s. However, if you do a test like FIT first, you can improve the yield of colonoscopy, which is a much more efficient strategy,” Levin said.
He noted that younger people are the least likely to be screened.
“They are busy with work and family responsibilities and may not realize that they are at risk for CRC. It is important to offer them a test that is easy to perform and does not require them to miss a day of work or arrange for a driver. They should be offered an option to screen with a stool-based test as an easy way to fit CRC screening into their busy lives,” Levin said.
Gellad said the study also highlights the limitations of FIT, “namely, that the low uptake and suboptimal colonoscopy follow-up of positive tests, also extend into the lower age group.”
Additionally, Gellad said he hopes other large systems will replicate this study to address the generalizability of these findings outside the Kaiser system.
The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Sydney R. Garfield Memorial Fund. Disclosures for study authors are available with the original article. Gellad consulted for Merck & Co. and Novo Nordisk and is a co-founder of Higgs Boson, Inc.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Ultraprocessed Foods Associated With Relapse Risk in Crohn’s Disease
VIENNA —
Certain subgroups of UPFs, specifically bread, pastries, and starch as well as oil and spreads, exhibited the strongest association with relapse risks of approximately threefold.
“In addition to treating active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), we want to maintain remission for the long term,” Chen Sarbagili Shabat, PhD, clinical dietitian from Tel Aviv Medical Center in Israel, said in an interview. “It’s highly important. We know environmental factors are associated with the disease, which is why we can treat active disease with diet. Likewise, we can manage CD in a remission state with diet.”
This is the first prospective study of this particular level of UPFs in people with Crohn’s disease who are in remission, noted Shabat, who presented the findings at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.
Previously, a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies showed that a diet high in UPFs is associated with a 70% increased risk for development of CD, and a longitudinal study showed that “Western” dietary patterns were associated with relapse risk in patients with IBD, Shabat reported.
Effect of High vs Low Intake of UPFs
The current single-center, prospective cohort study, followed 111 patients with CD every 3 months until relapse for up to 1 year.
Participants were aged 18-75 years (mean age, 38 years), with a median disease duration of 8.7 years. They were required to have maintained steroid-free clinical remission (Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI), < 5) for 3 months or more. The median duration of clinical remission at recruitment was 3 years.
Data collection included HBI level, medication type and dosage to ensure constant therapy and full compliance, and a stool sample for fecal calprotectin measurement.
The primary outcome comprised a clinical relapse HBI ≥ 5 over the 12-month follow-up or a change in disease activity requiring a change in medication, hospitalization, or any IBD-related surgery.
Participants were asked to complete a processed food questionnaire to assess the intake of UPFs and a food frequency questionnaire to assess the total intake of energy, macronutrients, and micronutrients. UPFs were divided into high and low intakes using a median cutoff of 3.6 servings/day.
The low intake group included 57 participants, and the high intake group included 54.
A total of 24 patients (21.6%) experienced a clinical relapse event, 7 in the low intake group vs 17 in the high intake group (hazard ratio [HR], 3.86; 95% CI, 1.30-11.47; P = .015 after adjustments).
In a subset of 97 patients with baseline fecal calprotectin measurements, 6 (n = 50) in the low intake group experienced a clinical relapse vs 15 (n = 47) in the high intake group (HR, 4.32; 95% CI, 1.36-13.73; P = .013 after adjustments).
Fecal calprotectin results were also suggestive of an association between high intake of UPFs and gut inflammation, Shabat reported.
Food Groups and Emulsifiers
UPFs were divided into subgroups: Bread, pastries, and starch; oils and spreads; ultraprocessed meat; sweet products and desserts; and ultraprocessed beverages.
The highest associations with relapse were in the subgroup of bread, pastries, and starch (HR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.26-8.25) and the subgroup of oils and spreads (HR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.02-7.45).
“The selection of healthy food is highly important, especially since we know that certain food ingredients can contribute to the pathogenesis of CD,” Shabat said. Patients can use partial enteral nutrition to provide 40%-50% of daily caloric intake in order to maintain remission, but she acknowledged it can be really difficult to adhere to.
She concluded by asserting that the study results, along with future research, should contribute to establishing nutritional guidelines to reduce UPF consumption in patients with CD in order to maintain remission.
Commenting on the study, Kevin Whelan, PhD, professor of dietetics and head of the Department of Nutritional Sciences at King’s College London in England, said that he was intrigued by the subgroup analysis that showed breads, pastries, oils, and spreads as having the strongest association with relapse risk.
He also remarked that these foods almost ubiquitously contain emulsifiers, and so the association might have less to do with UPFs in general and more to do with emulsifiers.
Concurring, Shabat noted that, while emulsifiers can negatively influence the microbiota and the gut barrier function, as well as contribute to intestinal inflammation, further mechanistic studies are required to understand these effects.
We need to determine if all additives have the same effect on the inflammatory process and also need studies looking at UPFs alone, she added.
Shabat reported receiving personal fees from Nestle Health Science (Wolfson Medical Center IP) for consulting and speaking and from Takeda and Ferring for speaking. Whelan reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA —
Certain subgroups of UPFs, specifically bread, pastries, and starch as well as oil and spreads, exhibited the strongest association with relapse risks of approximately threefold.
“In addition to treating active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), we want to maintain remission for the long term,” Chen Sarbagili Shabat, PhD, clinical dietitian from Tel Aviv Medical Center in Israel, said in an interview. “It’s highly important. We know environmental factors are associated with the disease, which is why we can treat active disease with diet. Likewise, we can manage CD in a remission state with diet.”
This is the first prospective study of this particular level of UPFs in people with Crohn’s disease who are in remission, noted Shabat, who presented the findings at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.
Previously, a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies showed that a diet high in UPFs is associated with a 70% increased risk for development of CD, and a longitudinal study showed that “Western” dietary patterns were associated with relapse risk in patients with IBD, Shabat reported.
Effect of High vs Low Intake of UPFs
The current single-center, prospective cohort study, followed 111 patients with CD every 3 months until relapse for up to 1 year.
Participants were aged 18-75 years (mean age, 38 years), with a median disease duration of 8.7 years. They were required to have maintained steroid-free clinical remission (Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI), < 5) for 3 months or more. The median duration of clinical remission at recruitment was 3 years.
Data collection included HBI level, medication type and dosage to ensure constant therapy and full compliance, and a stool sample for fecal calprotectin measurement.
The primary outcome comprised a clinical relapse HBI ≥ 5 over the 12-month follow-up or a change in disease activity requiring a change in medication, hospitalization, or any IBD-related surgery.
Participants were asked to complete a processed food questionnaire to assess the intake of UPFs and a food frequency questionnaire to assess the total intake of energy, macronutrients, and micronutrients. UPFs were divided into high and low intakes using a median cutoff of 3.6 servings/day.
The low intake group included 57 participants, and the high intake group included 54.
A total of 24 patients (21.6%) experienced a clinical relapse event, 7 in the low intake group vs 17 in the high intake group (hazard ratio [HR], 3.86; 95% CI, 1.30-11.47; P = .015 after adjustments).
In a subset of 97 patients with baseline fecal calprotectin measurements, 6 (n = 50) in the low intake group experienced a clinical relapse vs 15 (n = 47) in the high intake group (HR, 4.32; 95% CI, 1.36-13.73; P = .013 after adjustments).
Fecal calprotectin results were also suggestive of an association between high intake of UPFs and gut inflammation, Shabat reported.
Food Groups and Emulsifiers
UPFs were divided into subgroups: Bread, pastries, and starch; oils and spreads; ultraprocessed meat; sweet products and desserts; and ultraprocessed beverages.
The highest associations with relapse were in the subgroup of bread, pastries, and starch (HR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.26-8.25) and the subgroup of oils and spreads (HR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.02-7.45).
“The selection of healthy food is highly important, especially since we know that certain food ingredients can contribute to the pathogenesis of CD,” Shabat said. Patients can use partial enteral nutrition to provide 40%-50% of daily caloric intake in order to maintain remission, but she acknowledged it can be really difficult to adhere to.
She concluded by asserting that the study results, along with future research, should contribute to establishing nutritional guidelines to reduce UPF consumption in patients with CD in order to maintain remission.
Commenting on the study, Kevin Whelan, PhD, professor of dietetics and head of the Department of Nutritional Sciences at King’s College London in England, said that he was intrigued by the subgroup analysis that showed breads, pastries, oils, and spreads as having the strongest association with relapse risk.
He also remarked that these foods almost ubiquitously contain emulsifiers, and so the association might have less to do with UPFs in general and more to do with emulsifiers.
Concurring, Shabat noted that, while emulsifiers can negatively influence the microbiota and the gut barrier function, as well as contribute to intestinal inflammation, further mechanistic studies are required to understand these effects.
We need to determine if all additives have the same effect on the inflammatory process and also need studies looking at UPFs alone, she added.
Shabat reported receiving personal fees from Nestle Health Science (Wolfson Medical Center IP) for consulting and speaking and from Takeda and Ferring for speaking. Whelan reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA —
Certain subgroups of UPFs, specifically bread, pastries, and starch as well as oil and spreads, exhibited the strongest association with relapse risks of approximately threefold.
“In addition to treating active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), we want to maintain remission for the long term,” Chen Sarbagili Shabat, PhD, clinical dietitian from Tel Aviv Medical Center in Israel, said in an interview. “It’s highly important. We know environmental factors are associated with the disease, which is why we can treat active disease with diet. Likewise, we can manage CD in a remission state with diet.”
This is the first prospective study of this particular level of UPFs in people with Crohn’s disease who are in remission, noted Shabat, who presented the findings at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.
Previously, a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies showed that a diet high in UPFs is associated with a 70% increased risk for development of CD, and a longitudinal study showed that “Western” dietary patterns were associated with relapse risk in patients with IBD, Shabat reported.
Effect of High vs Low Intake of UPFs
The current single-center, prospective cohort study, followed 111 patients with CD every 3 months until relapse for up to 1 year.
Participants were aged 18-75 years (mean age, 38 years), with a median disease duration of 8.7 years. They were required to have maintained steroid-free clinical remission (Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI), < 5) for 3 months or more. The median duration of clinical remission at recruitment was 3 years.
Data collection included HBI level, medication type and dosage to ensure constant therapy and full compliance, and a stool sample for fecal calprotectin measurement.
The primary outcome comprised a clinical relapse HBI ≥ 5 over the 12-month follow-up or a change in disease activity requiring a change in medication, hospitalization, or any IBD-related surgery.
Participants were asked to complete a processed food questionnaire to assess the intake of UPFs and a food frequency questionnaire to assess the total intake of energy, macronutrients, and micronutrients. UPFs were divided into high and low intakes using a median cutoff of 3.6 servings/day.
The low intake group included 57 participants, and the high intake group included 54.
A total of 24 patients (21.6%) experienced a clinical relapse event, 7 in the low intake group vs 17 in the high intake group (hazard ratio [HR], 3.86; 95% CI, 1.30-11.47; P = .015 after adjustments).
In a subset of 97 patients with baseline fecal calprotectin measurements, 6 (n = 50) in the low intake group experienced a clinical relapse vs 15 (n = 47) in the high intake group (HR, 4.32; 95% CI, 1.36-13.73; P = .013 after adjustments).
Fecal calprotectin results were also suggestive of an association between high intake of UPFs and gut inflammation, Shabat reported.
Food Groups and Emulsifiers
UPFs were divided into subgroups: Bread, pastries, and starch; oils and spreads; ultraprocessed meat; sweet products and desserts; and ultraprocessed beverages.
The highest associations with relapse were in the subgroup of bread, pastries, and starch (HR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.26-8.25) and the subgroup of oils and spreads (HR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.02-7.45).
“The selection of healthy food is highly important, especially since we know that certain food ingredients can contribute to the pathogenesis of CD,” Shabat said. Patients can use partial enteral nutrition to provide 40%-50% of daily caloric intake in order to maintain remission, but she acknowledged it can be really difficult to adhere to.
She concluded by asserting that the study results, along with future research, should contribute to establishing nutritional guidelines to reduce UPF consumption in patients with CD in order to maintain remission.
Commenting on the study, Kevin Whelan, PhD, professor of dietetics and head of the Department of Nutritional Sciences at King’s College London in England, said that he was intrigued by the subgroup analysis that showed breads, pastries, oils, and spreads as having the strongest association with relapse risk.
He also remarked that these foods almost ubiquitously contain emulsifiers, and so the association might have less to do with UPFs in general and more to do with emulsifiers.
Concurring, Shabat noted that, while emulsifiers can negatively influence the microbiota and the gut barrier function, as well as contribute to intestinal inflammation, further mechanistic studies are required to understand these effects.
We need to determine if all additives have the same effect on the inflammatory process and also need studies looking at UPFs alone, she added.
Shabat reported receiving personal fees from Nestle Health Science (Wolfson Medical Center IP) for consulting and speaking and from Takeda and Ferring for speaking. Whelan reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM UEG 2024
Starting Mammograms at Age 40: Will Women Benefit?
Last April, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its breast cancer screening guidelines to recommend average-risk women start their screening mammograms at age 40, instead of age 50, and continue every other year until age 74.
The USPSTF’s recent recommendations align with those from major organizations, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American College of Radiology. The latest update comes from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which recommended a start age of 40 and continued screening either annually or every 2 years.
For USPSTF, the decision to recommend the earlier screening age, instead of keeping the choice an individualized one, was largely driven by the steady rise in breast cancer diagnoses among women in their 40s, alongside evidence that Black women are more likely to get breast cancer younger and die from the disease compared with White women.
But is this recommendation to screen earlier a change for the better?
Opinions vary.
USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, believes the new recommendation is the right move.
“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Wong told Medscape last year.
However, in a recent Viewpoint in JAMA Internal Medicine, experts from the University of California San Francisco expressed their reservations about shifting the recommended screening age a decade earlier.
The trio — Karla Kerlikowske, MD, Laura Esserman, MD, and Jeffrey Tice, MD — called the new recommendations “surprising” given the lack of new randomized control trial data to support the change as well as data that show breast cancer deaths have been decreasing among women, including younger women.
More specifically, breast cancer deaths for women under 50 have decreased from 5.9 to 3.9 per 100,000 individuals between 2000 and 2020 — a decline that can likely be attributed to better treatments rather than increased screening effectiveness, the Viewpoint authors said.
However, moving the screening age earlier would not markedly improve survival for most women, the authors argued. According to USPSTF modeling, starting mammograms at age 40 instead of 50 could avert only 1.3 additional breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened biennially and 1.8 additional breast cancer deaths among Black women.
Starting screening at 40, however, does come with an array of potential harms. These include 65 more benign biopsies per 1000 women screened, 1 in 2 women with a false-positive mammography result (503 per 1000), and 1 in 500 women with an over-diagnosed breast cancer, meaning the cancer would not have become clinically evident in their lifetime.
The use of digital breast tomosynthesis can slightly reduce the number of false-positives and benign biopsies compared to older mammography techniques, but these small improvements did not sway the overall pro-con assessment for the Viewpoint authors.
“False-positive results require additional imaging and are associated with anxiety for patients,” the authors noted. “Women who have benign biopsies may experience the potential adverse effects of biopsies, such as bleeding, infection, and scarring unnecessarily; and over-diagnosis may lead to unnecessary treatment.”
Kenneth Lin, MD, MPH, family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency in Pennsylvania, agreed that starting mammograms at age 40 is not a change for the better.
Lin and colleagues conducted an analysis based on data from the USPSTF’s 2016 breast cancer screening report that similarly found 1 additional breast cancer death prevented per 1000 women screened starting at 40 vs 50, at a cost of 576 more false-positive results, 67 more benign breast biopsies, and 2 women diagnosed and treated unnecessarily.
Overall, “there is no compelling evidence to change our clinical approach to breast cancer screening for women in their 40s: individual decision-making based on patient preferences and values,” Lin wrote in a recent Medscape commentary.
But several experts not involved in the USPSTF recommendations agree with the change.
The updated recommendation to begin mammograms at age 40 for women at average risk “aligns with accumulating data suggesting that earlier and more frequent screening can save more lives, and is widely seen as a positive step,” said Lisa Abramson, MD, a radiologist specializing in breast imaging with Mount Sinai Health System and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.
Melissa Fana, MD, a breast surgical oncologist at NYU Langone Health, agreed that the revised recommendation is justified and “will undoubtedly save lives.”
“The recent change in the screening recommendation was meant to be inclusive, and provide women, particularly women aged 40 to 49 the opportunity to screen with mammography,” Fana said.
One major argument in favor of earlier screening is that it will help address racial inequities in breast cancer diagnoses, treatment, and deaths. Despite a 5% lower incidence of breast cancer, Black women are more likely to be diagnosed with distant-stage cancer or more aggressive breast cancer subtypes, such as triple-negative, compared with White women, and are more likely to die from breast cancer.
“We hope that the earlier initiation of mammography screening across the board will have a great net benefit in outcomes for Black women especially, who have been shown to have the poorest outcomes when it comes to breast cancer, in part because of long-standing inequities in social determinants of health,” said Cherie C. Hill, MD, FACOG, an ob.gyn. at Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, who coauthored the recent ACOG recommendations.
The Viewpoint authors Kerlikowske, Esserman and Tice agreed that Black women may benefit more from earlier screening. However, earlier screening does not address the underlying disparities in treatment and follow-up care for Black women, and it is unclear whether screening alone will help improve breast cancer mortality rates for Black women, the authors noted.
There is one place where experts seem to align: the importance of educating patients about their personal risk.
The Viewpoint authors favor a risk-based approach to help women decide whether to start screening before age 50.
“Engaging women in informed decision-making based on their invasive and advanced breast cancer risk would be a patient-centered approach toward tailored screening, informing when to consider starting screening and how often to screen,” the experts wrote.
For a woman to truly make an educated decision on whether she would like to screen or wait after age 40, she would at least need to know what her specific lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is, not the average risk is for American women in general, Fana told this news organization.
“Risk assessment calculators are widely available and include factors such as family history and reproductive history, and this information can evolve over time and affect lifetime risk,” Fana noted. But “some women just do not get this information.”
Abramson explained that ob.gyns. and primary care physicians will likely play a larger role in the early assessment of breast cancer risk, including discussions about genetic testing and personal risk factors starting as early as age 25.
“For clinicians, the emphasis may be on educating patients about their individual risk, ensuring timely mammograms, and referring higher-risk individuals for further testing or consultations with specialists,” Abramson added.
Esserman reported being a Blue Cross Medical Advisory Panel member, an uncompensated board member of Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, which funds the I-SPY trial through the University of California, San Francisco, and having an investigator-initiated trial for high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) funded through UCSF by Moderna for a DCIS phase 1 study. Tice and Kerlikowske reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute outside the submitted work. Abramson and Fana have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Last April, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its breast cancer screening guidelines to recommend average-risk women start their screening mammograms at age 40, instead of age 50, and continue every other year until age 74.
The USPSTF’s recent recommendations align with those from major organizations, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American College of Radiology. The latest update comes from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which recommended a start age of 40 and continued screening either annually or every 2 years.
For USPSTF, the decision to recommend the earlier screening age, instead of keeping the choice an individualized one, was largely driven by the steady rise in breast cancer diagnoses among women in their 40s, alongside evidence that Black women are more likely to get breast cancer younger and die from the disease compared with White women.
But is this recommendation to screen earlier a change for the better?
Opinions vary.
USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, believes the new recommendation is the right move.
“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Wong told Medscape last year.
However, in a recent Viewpoint in JAMA Internal Medicine, experts from the University of California San Francisco expressed their reservations about shifting the recommended screening age a decade earlier.
The trio — Karla Kerlikowske, MD, Laura Esserman, MD, and Jeffrey Tice, MD — called the new recommendations “surprising” given the lack of new randomized control trial data to support the change as well as data that show breast cancer deaths have been decreasing among women, including younger women.
More specifically, breast cancer deaths for women under 50 have decreased from 5.9 to 3.9 per 100,000 individuals between 2000 and 2020 — a decline that can likely be attributed to better treatments rather than increased screening effectiveness, the Viewpoint authors said.
However, moving the screening age earlier would not markedly improve survival for most women, the authors argued. According to USPSTF modeling, starting mammograms at age 40 instead of 50 could avert only 1.3 additional breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened biennially and 1.8 additional breast cancer deaths among Black women.
Starting screening at 40, however, does come with an array of potential harms. These include 65 more benign biopsies per 1000 women screened, 1 in 2 women with a false-positive mammography result (503 per 1000), and 1 in 500 women with an over-diagnosed breast cancer, meaning the cancer would not have become clinically evident in their lifetime.
The use of digital breast tomosynthesis can slightly reduce the number of false-positives and benign biopsies compared to older mammography techniques, but these small improvements did not sway the overall pro-con assessment for the Viewpoint authors.
“False-positive results require additional imaging and are associated with anxiety for patients,” the authors noted. “Women who have benign biopsies may experience the potential adverse effects of biopsies, such as bleeding, infection, and scarring unnecessarily; and over-diagnosis may lead to unnecessary treatment.”
Kenneth Lin, MD, MPH, family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency in Pennsylvania, agreed that starting mammograms at age 40 is not a change for the better.
Lin and colleagues conducted an analysis based on data from the USPSTF’s 2016 breast cancer screening report that similarly found 1 additional breast cancer death prevented per 1000 women screened starting at 40 vs 50, at a cost of 576 more false-positive results, 67 more benign breast biopsies, and 2 women diagnosed and treated unnecessarily.
Overall, “there is no compelling evidence to change our clinical approach to breast cancer screening for women in their 40s: individual decision-making based on patient preferences and values,” Lin wrote in a recent Medscape commentary.
But several experts not involved in the USPSTF recommendations agree with the change.
The updated recommendation to begin mammograms at age 40 for women at average risk “aligns with accumulating data suggesting that earlier and more frequent screening can save more lives, and is widely seen as a positive step,” said Lisa Abramson, MD, a radiologist specializing in breast imaging with Mount Sinai Health System and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.
Melissa Fana, MD, a breast surgical oncologist at NYU Langone Health, agreed that the revised recommendation is justified and “will undoubtedly save lives.”
“The recent change in the screening recommendation was meant to be inclusive, and provide women, particularly women aged 40 to 49 the opportunity to screen with mammography,” Fana said.
One major argument in favor of earlier screening is that it will help address racial inequities in breast cancer diagnoses, treatment, and deaths. Despite a 5% lower incidence of breast cancer, Black women are more likely to be diagnosed with distant-stage cancer or more aggressive breast cancer subtypes, such as triple-negative, compared with White women, and are more likely to die from breast cancer.
“We hope that the earlier initiation of mammography screening across the board will have a great net benefit in outcomes for Black women especially, who have been shown to have the poorest outcomes when it comes to breast cancer, in part because of long-standing inequities in social determinants of health,” said Cherie C. Hill, MD, FACOG, an ob.gyn. at Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, who coauthored the recent ACOG recommendations.
The Viewpoint authors Kerlikowske, Esserman and Tice agreed that Black women may benefit more from earlier screening. However, earlier screening does not address the underlying disparities in treatment and follow-up care for Black women, and it is unclear whether screening alone will help improve breast cancer mortality rates for Black women, the authors noted.
There is one place where experts seem to align: the importance of educating patients about their personal risk.
The Viewpoint authors favor a risk-based approach to help women decide whether to start screening before age 50.
“Engaging women in informed decision-making based on their invasive and advanced breast cancer risk would be a patient-centered approach toward tailored screening, informing when to consider starting screening and how often to screen,” the experts wrote.
For a woman to truly make an educated decision on whether she would like to screen or wait after age 40, she would at least need to know what her specific lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is, not the average risk is for American women in general, Fana told this news organization.
“Risk assessment calculators are widely available and include factors such as family history and reproductive history, and this information can evolve over time and affect lifetime risk,” Fana noted. But “some women just do not get this information.”
Abramson explained that ob.gyns. and primary care physicians will likely play a larger role in the early assessment of breast cancer risk, including discussions about genetic testing and personal risk factors starting as early as age 25.
“For clinicians, the emphasis may be on educating patients about their individual risk, ensuring timely mammograms, and referring higher-risk individuals for further testing or consultations with specialists,” Abramson added.
Esserman reported being a Blue Cross Medical Advisory Panel member, an uncompensated board member of Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, which funds the I-SPY trial through the University of California, San Francisco, and having an investigator-initiated trial for high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) funded through UCSF by Moderna for a DCIS phase 1 study. Tice and Kerlikowske reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute outside the submitted work. Abramson and Fana have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Last April, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its breast cancer screening guidelines to recommend average-risk women start their screening mammograms at age 40, instead of age 50, and continue every other year until age 74.
The USPSTF’s recent recommendations align with those from major organizations, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American College of Radiology. The latest update comes from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which recommended a start age of 40 and continued screening either annually or every 2 years.
For USPSTF, the decision to recommend the earlier screening age, instead of keeping the choice an individualized one, was largely driven by the steady rise in breast cancer diagnoses among women in their 40s, alongside evidence that Black women are more likely to get breast cancer younger and die from the disease compared with White women.
But is this recommendation to screen earlier a change for the better?
Opinions vary.
USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, believes the new recommendation is the right move.
“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Wong told Medscape last year.
However, in a recent Viewpoint in JAMA Internal Medicine, experts from the University of California San Francisco expressed their reservations about shifting the recommended screening age a decade earlier.
The trio — Karla Kerlikowske, MD, Laura Esserman, MD, and Jeffrey Tice, MD — called the new recommendations “surprising” given the lack of new randomized control trial data to support the change as well as data that show breast cancer deaths have been decreasing among women, including younger women.
More specifically, breast cancer deaths for women under 50 have decreased from 5.9 to 3.9 per 100,000 individuals between 2000 and 2020 — a decline that can likely be attributed to better treatments rather than increased screening effectiveness, the Viewpoint authors said.
However, moving the screening age earlier would not markedly improve survival for most women, the authors argued. According to USPSTF modeling, starting mammograms at age 40 instead of 50 could avert only 1.3 additional breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened biennially and 1.8 additional breast cancer deaths among Black women.
Starting screening at 40, however, does come with an array of potential harms. These include 65 more benign biopsies per 1000 women screened, 1 in 2 women with a false-positive mammography result (503 per 1000), and 1 in 500 women with an over-diagnosed breast cancer, meaning the cancer would not have become clinically evident in their lifetime.
The use of digital breast tomosynthesis can slightly reduce the number of false-positives and benign biopsies compared to older mammography techniques, but these small improvements did not sway the overall pro-con assessment for the Viewpoint authors.
“False-positive results require additional imaging and are associated with anxiety for patients,” the authors noted. “Women who have benign biopsies may experience the potential adverse effects of biopsies, such as bleeding, infection, and scarring unnecessarily; and over-diagnosis may lead to unnecessary treatment.”
Kenneth Lin, MD, MPH, family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency in Pennsylvania, agreed that starting mammograms at age 40 is not a change for the better.
Lin and colleagues conducted an analysis based on data from the USPSTF’s 2016 breast cancer screening report that similarly found 1 additional breast cancer death prevented per 1000 women screened starting at 40 vs 50, at a cost of 576 more false-positive results, 67 more benign breast biopsies, and 2 women diagnosed and treated unnecessarily.
Overall, “there is no compelling evidence to change our clinical approach to breast cancer screening for women in their 40s: individual decision-making based on patient preferences and values,” Lin wrote in a recent Medscape commentary.
But several experts not involved in the USPSTF recommendations agree with the change.
The updated recommendation to begin mammograms at age 40 for women at average risk “aligns with accumulating data suggesting that earlier and more frequent screening can save more lives, and is widely seen as a positive step,” said Lisa Abramson, MD, a radiologist specializing in breast imaging with Mount Sinai Health System and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.
Melissa Fana, MD, a breast surgical oncologist at NYU Langone Health, agreed that the revised recommendation is justified and “will undoubtedly save lives.”
“The recent change in the screening recommendation was meant to be inclusive, and provide women, particularly women aged 40 to 49 the opportunity to screen with mammography,” Fana said.
One major argument in favor of earlier screening is that it will help address racial inequities in breast cancer diagnoses, treatment, and deaths. Despite a 5% lower incidence of breast cancer, Black women are more likely to be diagnosed with distant-stage cancer or more aggressive breast cancer subtypes, such as triple-negative, compared with White women, and are more likely to die from breast cancer.
“We hope that the earlier initiation of mammography screening across the board will have a great net benefit in outcomes for Black women especially, who have been shown to have the poorest outcomes when it comes to breast cancer, in part because of long-standing inequities in social determinants of health,” said Cherie C. Hill, MD, FACOG, an ob.gyn. at Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, who coauthored the recent ACOG recommendations.
The Viewpoint authors Kerlikowske, Esserman and Tice agreed that Black women may benefit more from earlier screening. However, earlier screening does not address the underlying disparities in treatment and follow-up care for Black women, and it is unclear whether screening alone will help improve breast cancer mortality rates for Black women, the authors noted.
There is one place where experts seem to align: the importance of educating patients about their personal risk.
The Viewpoint authors favor a risk-based approach to help women decide whether to start screening before age 50.
“Engaging women in informed decision-making based on their invasive and advanced breast cancer risk would be a patient-centered approach toward tailored screening, informing when to consider starting screening and how often to screen,” the experts wrote.
For a woman to truly make an educated decision on whether she would like to screen or wait after age 40, she would at least need to know what her specific lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is, not the average risk is for American women in general, Fana told this news organization.
“Risk assessment calculators are widely available and include factors such as family history and reproductive history, and this information can evolve over time and affect lifetime risk,” Fana noted. But “some women just do not get this information.”
Abramson explained that ob.gyns. and primary care physicians will likely play a larger role in the early assessment of breast cancer risk, including discussions about genetic testing and personal risk factors starting as early as age 25.
“For clinicians, the emphasis may be on educating patients about their individual risk, ensuring timely mammograms, and referring higher-risk individuals for further testing or consultations with specialists,” Abramson added.
Esserman reported being a Blue Cross Medical Advisory Panel member, an uncompensated board member of Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, which funds the I-SPY trial through the University of California, San Francisco, and having an investigator-initiated trial for high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) funded through UCSF by Moderna for a DCIS phase 1 study. Tice and Kerlikowske reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute outside the submitted work. Abramson and Fana have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Impact of a Metformin Recall on Patient Hemoglobin A1c Levels at a VA Network
About 1 in 10 Americans have diabetes mellitus (DM), of which about 90% to 95% are diagnosed with type 2 DM (T2DM) and veterans are disproportionately affected.1,2 About 25% enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) have T2DM, which has been attributed to exposure to herbicides (eg, Agent Orange), decreased physical activity resulting from past physical strain, chronic pain, and other physical limitations resulting from military service.3-5
Pharmacologic management of DM is guided by the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions and comorbid diagnoses. Current DM management guidelines recommend patients with comorbid atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or congestive heart failure receive first-line diabetes therapy with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1) agonist.
Metformin remains a first-line pharmacologic option for the treatment of T2DM with the goal of achieving glycemic management when lifestyle interventions are insufficient.6,7 Newer antihyperglycemic therapies have been studied as adjunct therapy to metformin. However, there is limited literature comparing metformin directly to other medication classes for the treatment of T2DM.8-13 A systematic review of treatment-naive patients found HbA1c reductions were similar whether patients received metformin vs an SGLT-2 inhibitor, GLP-1 agonist, sulfonylurea, or thiazolidinedione monotherapy.10 The analysis found dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors had inferior HbA1c reduction compared to metformin.10 A Japanese systematic review compared metformin to thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas, glinides, DPP-4 inhibitors, α-glucosidase inhibitors, or SGLT-2 inhibitors for ≥ 12 weeks but found no statistically significant differences in
On May 28, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked 5 pharmaceutical companies to voluntarily recall certain formulations of metformin. This action was taken when FDA testing revealed unacceptably high levels of N-Nitrosodimethylamine, a probable carcinogen.14 This FDA recall of metformin extended-release, referred to as metformin sustained-action (SA) within the VHA electronic medication file but the same type of formulation, prompted clinicians to revisit and revise the pharmacologic regimens of patients taking the drug. Because of the paucity of head-to-head trials comparing metformin with newer alternative antihyperglycemic therapies, the effect of treatment change was unknown. In response, we aimed to establish a data registry within Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 6.
Registry Development
The VISN 6 registry was established to gather long-term, observational, head-to-head data that would allow review of HbA1c levels before and after the recall, as well as HbA1c levels broken down by the agent that patients were switched to after the recall. Another goal was to explore prescribing trends following the recall.
Data Access Request Tracker approval was obtained and a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Information and Computing Infrastructure workspace was developed to host the registry data. The research cohort was established from this data, and the registry framework was finalized using Structured Query Language (SQL). The SQL coding allows for recurring data updates for all individuals within the cohort including date of birth, race, sex, ethnicity, VHA facility visited, weight, body mass index, HbA1c level, creatinine clearance, serum creatinine, antihyperglycemic medication prescriptions, adverse drug reactions, medication adherence (as defined by ≥ 80% refill history), and hospitalizations related to diabetes. For the purposes of this initial analysis, registry data included demographics, diabetes medications, and HbA1c results.
METHODS
This study was a concurrent, observational, multicenter, registry-based study conducted at the Western North Carolina VA Health Care System (WNCVAHCS). The study was approved by the WNCVAHCS institutional review board and research and development committees.
All patients aged ≥ 18 years with T2DM and receiving health care from VISN 6 facilities who had an active metformin SA prescription on, and 1 year prior to, June 1, 2020 (the initial date VHA began implementing the FDA metformin recall) were entered into the registry. Data from 1 year prior were collected to provide a baseline. Veterans were excluded if they received metformin SA for any indication other than T2DM, there was no pre- or postrecall HbA1c measurement, or death. We included 15,594 VISN 6 veterans.
Registry data were analyzed to determine whether a significant change in HbA1c level occurred after the metformin recall and in response to alternative agents being prescribed. Data from veterans who met all inclusion criteria were assessed during the year before and after June 1, 2020. Demographic data were analyzed using frequency and descriptive statistics. The Shapiro Wilkes test was performed, and data were found to be nonparametric; therefore the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate the hypothesis that HbA1c levels were not impacted by the recall.
Our sample size allowed us to create exact matched pairs of 9130 individuals and utilize rank-biserial correlation to establish effect size. Following this initial population-level test, we constructed 2 models. The first, a linear mixed-effects model, focused solely on the interaction effects between the pre- and postrecall periods and various medication classes on HbA1c levels. Second, we constructed a random-effects within-between model (REWB) to evaluate the impact ofmedication classes and demographic variables. Statistical significance was measured at P < .05 with conservative power at .90. The effect size was set to 1.0, reflecting a minimum clinically important difference. Literature establishes 0.5 as a modest level of HbA1c improvement and 1.0 as a clinically significant improvement.
RESULTS
Preliminary results included 15,594 veterans who received a metformin SA prescription as of June 1, 2020 from VISN 6 facilities; 15,392 veterans had a drug exposure end on June 1, 2020, indicating their standard therapy of metformin SA was discontinued following the FDA recall. Two hundred and two veterans were excluded from the registry because they continued to receive metformin SA from existing stock at a VISN6 facility.
Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test
We created exact pairs by iterating the data and finding the closest measurements for each patient before and after the recall. This has the advantage over averaging a patient’s pre- and post-HbA1c levels, as it allows for a rank-biserial correlation. Using the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test, V was 20,100,707 (P < .001), indicating a significant effect. The –0.29 rank-biserial correlation, which was computed to assess the effect size of the recall, suggests that the median HbA1c level was lower postrecall vs prerecall. The magnitude of the correlation suggests a moderate effect size, and while the recall had a noticeable impact at a population level, it was not extreme (Table 2).
Linear Mixed-Effects Model
The binary variable for medication class exposure suggests the use of a logit link function for binary outcomes within the multilevel modeling framework.15 We employed a linear mixed-effects model to investigate the impact that switching from metformin SA to other T2DM medications had on HbA1c levels. The model was adjusted for patient-specific random effects and included interaction terms between the recall period (before and after) and the usage of different T2DM medications.
Model Fit and Random Effects
The model demonstrated a residual maximum likelihood criterion of 100,219.7, indicating its fit to the data. Notably, the random effects analysis revealed a substantial variability in baseline HbA1c levels across patients (SD, 0.94), highlighting the importance of individual differences in DM management. Medication classes with zero or near-zero exposure rate were removed. Due to demographic homogeneity, the model did not converge on demographic variables. Veterans were taking a mean of 1.8 T2DM medications and metformin SA was most common (Table 3).
During the postrecall period, metformin SA remained the most frequently prescribed medication class. This may be attributed to the existence of multiple manufacturers of metformin SA, some of which may not have been impacted by the recall. VISN 6 medical centers could have sought metformin SA outside of the usual procurement path following the recall.
Complex Random Effects Model
We employed a complex REWB model that evaluated the impact of medication classes on HbA1c levels, accounting for both within and between subject effects of these medications, along with demographic variables (sex, race, and ethnicity) (eAppendix). This model accounts for individual-level changes over time (within-patient effects) and between groups of patients (between-patient effects). This is a more comprehensive model aimed at understanding the broader impact of medications on HbA1c levels across diverse patient groups.
Most demographic categories did not demonstrate significant effects in this model. Black individuals experienced a slight increase in HbA1c levels compared with other racial categories that was not statistically significant. However, this model confirms the findings from the linear mixed-effects model that GLP-1 agonists showed a substantial decrease in HbA1c levels within patients (coefficient –0.5; 95% CI, –0.56 to –0.44; P < .001) and a moderate increase between patients (coefficient, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.12-0.31; P < .001). Additionally, SGLT-2 inhibitors had a notable decrease within patients (coefficient, –0.27; 95% CI, –0.32 to –0.22; P < .001).Another notable finding with our REWB model is insulin usage was associated with high HbA1c levels, but only between subjects. Long-acting insulin (coefficient, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P <. 001) and mixed insulin (coefficient, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.94-1.24; P < .001) both displayed marked increases between patients, suggesting future analysis may benefit from stratifying across insulin users and nonusers.
Fixed Effect Analysis
The fixed effects analysis yielded several notable findings. The intercept, representing the mean baseline HbA1c level, was estimated at 7.8% (58 mmol/mol). The coefficient for the period (postrecall) was not statistically significant, indicating no overall change in HbA1c levels from before to after the recall when specific medication classes were not considered (Table 4). Among medication classes examined, several showed significant associations with HbA1c levels. DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists were associated with a decrease in HbA1c levels, with coefficients of −0.08 and −0.24, respectively. Long-acting insulin and metformin immediate-release (IR) were associated with an increase in HbA1c levels, as indicated by their positive coefficients of 0.38 and 0.16, respectively. Mixed insulin formulations and sulfonylureas showed an association with decreased HbA1c levels.
Interaction Effects
The interaction terms between the recall period and the medication classes provided insights into the differential impact of the medication switch postrecall. Notably, the interaction term for long-acting insulin (coefficient, −0.10) was significant, suggesting a differential effect on HbA1c levels postrecall. Other medications, like metformin IR, also exhibited significant interaction effects, indicating changes in the impact on HbA1c levels in the postrecall period. The binary variable for medication class exposure suggests the use of a logit link function for binary outcomes within the multilevel modeling framework.15 We did not address the potential for cross cluster heterogeneity due to different medication classes.
DISCUSSION
This study is an ongoing, concurrent, observational, multicenter, registry-based study consisting of VISN 6 veterans who have T2DM and were prescribed metformin SA on June 1, 2020. This initial aim was to evaluate change in HbA1c levels following the FDA metformin recall. While there was substantial variability in baseline HbA1c levels across the patients, the mean baseline HbA1c level at 7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Patients taking GLP-1 agonists showed substantial decrease in HbA1c levels (coefficient; –0.5; 95% CI, –0.56 to –0.44; P <. 001). Patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors had a notable decrease in HbA1c (coefficient, –0.27; 95% CI, –0.32 to –0.22; P < .001). Despite this, the coefficient for the postrecall period was not statistically significant, indicating no overall change in HbA1c levels from pre- to postrecall when specific medication classes were not considered.
Further analysis included assessment of prescribing trends postrecall. There was an increase in SGLT-2 inhibitor, GLP-1 agonist, and DPP-4 inhibitor prescribing. Considering the growing evidence of the cardiovascular and renal benefits of these medication classes, specifically the GLP-1 agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors, this trend would be expected.
Limitations
This study cohort did not capture veterans with T2DM who transferred their health care to VISN 6 after June 1, 2020, and continued to receive metformin SA from the prior facility. Inclusion of these veterans would have increased the registry population. Additionally, the cohort did not identify veterans who continued to receive metformin SA through a source other than the VA. Without that information, the registry cohort may include veterans thought to have either transitioned to a different therapy or to no other T2DM therapy after the recall.
Given that DM can progress over time, it is possible the transition to a new medication after the recall was the result of suboptimal management, or in response to an adverse effect from a previous medication, and not solely due to the metformin SA recall. In addition, there are several factors that could impact HbA1c level over time that were not accounted for in this study, such as medication adherence and lifestyle modifications.
The notable level of metformin SA prescriptions, despite the recall, may be attributed to several factors. First, not all patients stopped metformin completely. Review of the prescription data indicated that some veterans were provided with limited refills at select VA medical centers that had supplies (medication lots not recalled). Access to a safe supply of metformin SA after the recall may have varied among VISN 6 facilities. It is also possible that as new supplies of metformin SA became available, veterans restarted metformin SA. This may have been resumed while continuing a new medication prescribed at the beginning of the recall. As the year progressed after the recall, an increase in metformin SA prescriptions likely occurred as supplies became available and clinicians/veterans chose to resume this medication therapy.
Conclusions
Results of this initial registry study found no difference in HbA1c levels across the study population after the metformin SA recall. However, there was clinical difference in the HbA1c within veterans prescribed SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists. As expected, prescribing trends showed an increase in these agents after the recall. With the known benefits of these medications beyond glucose lowering, it is anticipated the cohort of veterans prescribed these medications will continue to grow.
The VISN 6 research registry allowed this study to gain an important snapshot in time following the metformin SA recall, and will serve as an important resource for future DM research endeavors. It will allow for ongoing evaluation of the impact of the transition to alternative T2DM medications after the metformin SA recall. Future exploration will include evaluation of adverse drug reactions, DM-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits related to T2DM, changes in renal function, and cardiovascular events among all diabetes medication classes.
Acknowledgments
The study team thanks the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure for their help and expertise throughout this project. The authors acknowledge the contributions of Philip Nelson, PharmD, and Brian Peek, PharmD.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Type 2 diabetes. Updated April 18, 2023. Accessed September 18, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/type2.html
- ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, et al. 2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of care in diabetes—2023. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(Supplement_1):S19-S40. doi:10.2337/dc23-S002
- Liu Y, Sayam S, Shao X, et al. Prevalence of and trends in diabetes among veterans, United States, 2005–2014. Prev Chronic Dis. 2017;14:E135. doi:10.5888/pcd14.170230
- Yi SW, Hong JS, Ohrr H, Yi JJ. Agent Orange exposure and disease prevalence in Korean Vietnam veterans: the Korean veterans health study. Environ Res. 2014;133:56-65. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2014.04.027
- Price LE, Gephart S, Shea K. The VA’s Corporate Data Warehouse: Uses and Implications for Nursing Research and Practice. Nurs Adm Q. 2015;39(4):311-318. doi:10.1097/NAQ.0000000000000118
- ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, et al. 9. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: standards of care in diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(suppl 1):S140-S157. doi:10.2337/dc23-S009
- Samson SL, Vellanki P, Blonde L, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Comprehensive Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm - 2023 Update. Endocr Pract. 2023;29(5):305-340. doi:10.1016/j.eprac.2023.02.001
- Bennett WL, Maruthur NM, Singh S, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of medications for type 2 diabetes: an update including new drugs and 2-drug combinations. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(9):602-613. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-9-201105030-00336
- Bolen S, Feldman L, Vassy J, et al. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and safety of oral medications for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(6):386-399. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-6-200709180-00178
- Tsapas A, Avgerinos I, Karagiannis T, et al. Comparative effectiveness of glucose-lowering drugs for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(4):278-286. doi:10.7326/M20-0864
- Nishimura R, Taniguchi M, Takeshima T, Iwasaki K. Efficacy and safety of metformin versus the other oral antidiabetic drugs in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients: a network meta-analysis. Adv Ther. 2022;39(1):632-654. doi:10.1007/s12325-021-01979-1
- Russell-Jones D, Cuddihy RM, Hanefeld M, et al. Efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly versus metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin used as monotherapy in drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (DURATION-4): a 26-week double-blind study. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(2):252-258. doi:10.2337/dc11-1107
- Umpierrez G, Tofé Povedano S, Pérez Manghi F, Shurzinske L, Pechtner V. Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy versus metformin in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-3). Diabetes Care. 2014;37(8):2168-2176. doi:10.2337/dc13-2759
- US Food and Drug Administration. FDA alerts patients and health care professionals to nitrosamine impurity findings in certain metformin extended-release products [press release]. May 28, 2020. Accessed October 16, 2024. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-alerts-patients-and-health-care-professionals-nitrosamine-impurity-findings-certain-metformin
- Bell A, Jones K. Explaining fixed effects: random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data. PSRM. 2015;3(1):133-153. doi:10.1017/psrm.2014.7
About 1 in 10 Americans have diabetes mellitus (DM), of which about 90% to 95% are diagnosed with type 2 DM (T2DM) and veterans are disproportionately affected.1,2 About 25% enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) have T2DM, which has been attributed to exposure to herbicides (eg, Agent Orange), decreased physical activity resulting from past physical strain, chronic pain, and other physical limitations resulting from military service.3-5
Pharmacologic management of DM is guided by the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions and comorbid diagnoses. Current DM management guidelines recommend patients with comorbid atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or congestive heart failure receive first-line diabetes therapy with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1) agonist.
Metformin remains a first-line pharmacologic option for the treatment of T2DM with the goal of achieving glycemic management when lifestyle interventions are insufficient.6,7 Newer antihyperglycemic therapies have been studied as adjunct therapy to metformin. However, there is limited literature comparing metformin directly to other medication classes for the treatment of T2DM.8-13 A systematic review of treatment-naive patients found HbA1c reductions were similar whether patients received metformin vs an SGLT-2 inhibitor, GLP-1 agonist, sulfonylurea, or thiazolidinedione monotherapy.10 The analysis found dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors had inferior HbA1c reduction compared to metformin.10 A Japanese systematic review compared metformin to thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas, glinides, DPP-4 inhibitors, α-glucosidase inhibitors, or SGLT-2 inhibitors for ≥ 12 weeks but found no statistically significant differences in
On May 28, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked 5 pharmaceutical companies to voluntarily recall certain formulations of metformin. This action was taken when FDA testing revealed unacceptably high levels of N-Nitrosodimethylamine, a probable carcinogen.14 This FDA recall of metformin extended-release, referred to as metformin sustained-action (SA) within the VHA electronic medication file but the same type of formulation, prompted clinicians to revisit and revise the pharmacologic regimens of patients taking the drug. Because of the paucity of head-to-head trials comparing metformin with newer alternative antihyperglycemic therapies, the effect of treatment change was unknown. In response, we aimed to establish a data registry within Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 6.
Registry Development
The VISN 6 registry was established to gather long-term, observational, head-to-head data that would allow review of HbA1c levels before and after the recall, as well as HbA1c levels broken down by the agent that patients were switched to after the recall. Another goal was to explore prescribing trends following the recall.
Data Access Request Tracker approval was obtained and a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Information and Computing Infrastructure workspace was developed to host the registry data. The research cohort was established from this data, and the registry framework was finalized using Structured Query Language (SQL). The SQL coding allows for recurring data updates for all individuals within the cohort including date of birth, race, sex, ethnicity, VHA facility visited, weight, body mass index, HbA1c level, creatinine clearance, serum creatinine, antihyperglycemic medication prescriptions, adverse drug reactions, medication adherence (as defined by ≥ 80% refill history), and hospitalizations related to diabetes. For the purposes of this initial analysis, registry data included demographics, diabetes medications, and HbA1c results.
METHODS
This study was a concurrent, observational, multicenter, registry-based study conducted at the Western North Carolina VA Health Care System (WNCVAHCS). The study was approved by the WNCVAHCS institutional review board and research and development committees.
All patients aged ≥ 18 years with T2DM and receiving health care from VISN 6 facilities who had an active metformin SA prescription on, and 1 year prior to, June 1, 2020 (the initial date VHA began implementing the FDA metformin recall) were entered into the registry. Data from 1 year prior were collected to provide a baseline. Veterans were excluded if they received metformin SA for any indication other than T2DM, there was no pre- or postrecall HbA1c measurement, or death. We included 15,594 VISN 6 veterans.
Registry data were analyzed to determine whether a significant change in HbA1c level occurred after the metformin recall and in response to alternative agents being prescribed. Data from veterans who met all inclusion criteria were assessed during the year before and after June 1, 2020. Demographic data were analyzed using frequency and descriptive statistics. The Shapiro Wilkes test was performed, and data were found to be nonparametric; therefore the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate the hypothesis that HbA1c levels were not impacted by the recall.
Our sample size allowed us to create exact matched pairs of 9130 individuals and utilize rank-biserial correlation to establish effect size. Following this initial population-level test, we constructed 2 models. The first, a linear mixed-effects model, focused solely on the interaction effects between the pre- and postrecall periods and various medication classes on HbA1c levels. Second, we constructed a random-effects within-between model (REWB) to evaluate the impact ofmedication classes and demographic variables. Statistical significance was measured at P < .05 with conservative power at .90. The effect size was set to 1.0, reflecting a minimum clinically important difference. Literature establishes 0.5 as a modest level of HbA1c improvement and 1.0 as a clinically significant improvement.
RESULTS
Preliminary results included 15,594 veterans who received a metformin SA prescription as of June 1, 2020 from VISN 6 facilities; 15,392 veterans had a drug exposure end on June 1, 2020, indicating their standard therapy of metformin SA was discontinued following the FDA recall. Two hundred and two veterans were excluded from the registry because they continued to receive metformin SA from existing stock at a VISN6 facility.
Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test
We created exact pairs by iterating the data and finding the closest measurements for each patient before and after the recall. This has the advantage over averaging a patient’s pre- and post-HbA1c levels, as it allows for a rank-biserial correlation. Using the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test, V was 20,100,707 (P < .001), indicating a significant effect. The –0.29 rank-biserial correlation, which was computed to assess the effect size of the recall, suggests that the median HbA1c level was lower postrecall vs prerecall. The magnitude of the correlation suggests a moderate effect size, and while the recall had a noticeable impact at a population level, it was not extreme (Table 2).
Linear Mixed-Effects Model
The binary variable for medication class exposure suggests the use of a logit link function for binary outcomes within the multilevel modeling framework.15 We employed a linear mixed-effects model to investigate the impact that switching from metformin SA to other T2DM medications had on HbA1c levels. The model was adjusted for patient-specific random effects and included interaction terms between the recall period (before and after) and the usage of different T2DM medications.
Model Fit and Random Effects
The model demonstrated a residual maximum likelihood criterion of 100,219.7, indicating its fit to the data. Notably, the random effects analysis revealed a substantial variability in baseline HbA1c levels across patients (SD, 0.94), highlighting the importance of individual differences in DM management. Medication classes with zero or near-zero exposure rate were removed. Due to demographic homogeneity, the model did not converge on demographic variables. Veterans were taking a mean of 1.8 T2DM medications and metformin SA was most common (Table 3).
During the postrecall period, metformin SA remained the most frequently prescribed medication class. This may be attributed to the existence of multiple manufacturers of metformin SA, some of which may not have been impacted by the recall. VISN 6 medical centers could have sought metformin SA outside of the usual procurement path following the recall.
Complex Random Effects Model
We employed a complex REWB model that evaluated the impact of medication classes on HbA1c levels, accounting for both within and between subject effects of these medications, along with demographic variables (sex, race, and ethnicity) (eAppendix). This model accounts for individual-level changes over time (within-patient effects) and between groups of patients (between-patient effects). This is a more comprehensive model aimed at understanding the broader impact of medications on HbA1c levels across diverse patient groups.
Most demographic categories did not demonstrate significant effects in this model. Black individuals experienced a slight increase in HbA1c levels compared with other racial categories that was not statistically significant. However, this model confirms the findings from the linear mixed-effects model that GLP-1 agonists showed a substantial decrease in HbA1c levels within patients (coefficient –0.5; 95% CI, –0.56 to –0.44; P < .001) and a moderate increase between patients (coefficient, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.12-0.31; P < .001). Additionally, SGLT-2 inhibitors had a notable decrease within patients (coefficient, –0.27; 95% CI, –0.32 to –0.22; P < .001).Another notable finding with our REWB model is insulin usage was associated with high HbA1c levels, but only between subjects. Long-acting insulin (coefficient, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P <. 001) and mixed insulin (coefficient, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.94-1.24; P < .001) both displayed marked increases between patients, suggesting future analysis may benefit from stratifying across insulin users and nonusers.
Fixed Effect Analysis
The fixed effects analysis yielded several notable findings. The intercept, representing the mean baseline HbA1c level, was estimated at 7.8% (58 mmol/mol). The coefficient for the period (postrecall) was not statistically significant, indicating no overall change in HbA1c levels from before to after the recall when specific medication classes were not considered (Table 4). Among medication classes examined, several showed significant associations with HbA1c levels. DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists were associated with a decrease in HbA1c levels, with coefficients of −0.08 and −0.24, respectively. Long-acting insulin and metformin immediate-release (IR) were associated with an increase in HbA1c levels, as indicated by their positive coefficients of 0.38 and 0.16, respectively. Mixed insulin formulations and sulfonylureas showed an association with decreased HbA1c levels.
Interaction Effects
The interaction terms between the recall period and the medication classes provided insights into the differential impact of the medication switch postrecall. Notably, the interaction term for long-acting insulin (coefficient, −0.10) was significant, suggesting a differential effect on HbA1c levels postrecall. Other medications, like metformin IR, also exhibited significant interaction effects, indicating changes in the impact on HbA1c levels in the postrecall period. The binary variable for medication class exposure suggests the use of a logit link function for binary outcomes within the multilevel modeling framework.15 We did not address the potential for cross cluster heterogeneity due to different medication classes.
DISCUSSION
This study is an ongoing, concurrent, observational, multicenter, registry-based study consisting of VISN 6 veterans who have T2DM and were prescribed metformin SA on June 1, 2020. This initial aim was to evaluate change in HbA1c levels following the FDA metformin recall. While there was substantial variability in baseline HbA1c levels across the patients, the mean baseline HbA1c level at 7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Patients taking GLP-1 agonists showed substantial decrease in HbA1c levels (coefficient; –0.5; 95% CI, –0.56 to –0.44; P <. 001). Patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors had a notable decrease in HbA1c (coefficient, –0.27; 95% CI, –0.32 to –0.22; P < .001). Despite this, the coefficient for the postrecall period was not statistically significant, indicating no overall change in HbA1c levels from pre- to postrecall when specific medication classes were not considered.
Further analysis included assessment of prescribing trends postrecall. There was an increase in SGLT-2 inhibitor, GLP-1 agonist, and DPP-4 inhibitor prescribing. Considering the growing evidence of the cardiovascular and renal benefits of these medication classes, specifically the GLP-1 agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors, this trend would be expected.
Limitations
This study cohort did not capture veterans with T2DM who transferred their health care to VISN 6 after June 1, 2020, and continued to receive metformin SA from the prior facility. Inclusion of these veterans would have increased the registry population. Additionally, the cohort did not identify veterans who continued to receive metformin SA through a source other than the VA. Without that information, the registry cohort may include veterans thought to have either transitioned to a different therapy or to no other T2DM therapy after the recall.
Given that DM can progress over time, it is possible the transition to a new medication after the recall was the result of suboptimal management, or in response to an adverse effect from a previous medication, and not solely due to the metformin SA recall. In addition, there are several factors that could impact HbA1c level over time that were not accounted for in this study, such as medication adherence and lifestyle modifications.
The notable level of metformin SA prescriptions, despite the recall, may be attributed to several factors. First, not all patients stopped metformin completely. Review of the prescription data indicated that some veterans were provided with limited refills at select VA medical centers that had supplies (medication lots not recalled). Access to a safe supply of metformin SA after the recall may have varied among VISN 6 facilities. It is also possible that as new supplies of metformin SA became available, veterans restarted metformin SA. This may have been resumed while continuing a new medication prescribed at the beginning of the recall. As the year progressed after the recall, an increase in metformin SA prescriptions likely occurred as supplies became available and clinicians/veterans chose to resume this medication therapy.
Conclusions
Results of this initial registry study found no difference in HbA1c levels across the study population after the metformin SA recall. However, there was clinical difference in the HbA1c within veterans prescribed SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists. As expected, prescribing trends showed an increase in these agents after the recall. With the known benefits of these medications beyond glucose lowering, it is anticipated the cohort of veterans prescribed these medications will continue to grow.
The VISN 6 research registry allowed this study to gain an important snapshot in time following the metformin SA recall, and will serve as an important resource for future DM research endeavors. It will allow for ongoing evaluation of the impact of the transition to alternative T2DM medications after the metformin SA recall. Future exploration will include evaluation of adverse drug reactions, DM-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits related to T2DM, changes in renal function, and cardiovascular events among all diabetes medication classes.
Acknowledgments
The study team thanks the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure for their help and expertise throughout this project. The authors acknowledge the contributions of Philip Nelson, PharmD, and Brian Peek, PharmD.
About 1 in 10 Americans have diabetes mellitus (DM), of which about 90% to 95% are diagnosed with type 2 DM (T2DM) and veterans are disproportionately affected.1,2 About 25% enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) have T2DM, which has been attributed to exposure to herbicides (eg, Agent Orange), decreased physical activity resulting from past physical strain, chronic pain, and other physical limitations resulting from military service.3-5
Pharmacologic management of DM is guided by the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions and comorbid diagnoses. Current DM management guidelines recommend patients with comorbid atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or congestive heart failure receive first-line diabetes therapy with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1) agonist.
Metformin remains a first-line pharmacologic option for the treatment of T2DM with the goal of achieving glycemic management when lifestyle interventions are insufficient.6,7 Newer antihyperglycemic therapies have been studied as adjunct therapy to metformin. However, there is limited literature comparing metformin directly to other medication classes for the treatment of T2DM.8-13 A systematic review of treatment-naive patients found HbA1c reductions were similar whether patients received metformin vs an SGLT-2 inhibitor, GLP-1 agonist, sulfonylurea, or thiazolidinedione monotherapy.10 The analysis found dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors had inferior HbA1c reduction compared to metformin.10 A Japanese systematic review compared metformin to thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas, glinides, DPP-4 inhibitors, α-glucosidase inhibitors, or SGLT-2 inhibitors for ≥ 12 weeks but found no statistically significant differences in
On May 28, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked 5 pharmaceutical companies to voluntarily recall certain formulations of metformin. This action was taken when FDA testing revealed unacceptably high levels of N-Nitrosodimethylamine, a probable carcinogen.14 This FDA recall of metformin extended-release, referred to as metformin sustained-action (SA) within the VHA electronic medication file but the same type of formulation, prompted clinicians to revisit and revise the pharmacologic regimens of patients taking the drug. Because of the paucity of head-to-head trials comparing metformin with newer alternative antihyperglycemic therapies, the effect of treatment change was unknown. In response, we aimed to establish a data registry within Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 6.
Registry Development
The VISN 6 registry was established to gather long-term, observational, head-to-head data that would allow review of HbA1c levels before and after the recall, as well as HbA1c levels broken down by the agent that patients were switched to after the recall. Another goal was to explore prescribing trends following the recall.
Data Access Request Tracker approval was obtained and a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Information and Computing Infrastructure workspace was developed to host the registry data. The research cohort was established from this data, and the registry framework was finalized using Structured Query Language (SQL). The SQL coding allows for recurring data updates for all individuals within the cohort including date of birth, race, sex, ethnicity, VHA facility visited, weight, body mass index, HbA1c level, creatinine clearance, serum creatinine, antihyperglycemic medication prescriptions, adverse drug reactions, medication adherence (as defined by ≥ 80% refill history), and hospitalizations related to diabetes. For the purposes of this initial analysis, registry data included demographics, diabetes medications, and HbA1c results.
METHODS
This study was a concurrent, observational, multicenter, registry-based study conducted at the Western North Carolina VA Health Care System (WNCVAHCS). The study was approved by the WNCVAHCS institutional review board and research and development committees.
All patients aged ≥ 18 years with T2DM and receiving health care from VISN 6 facilities who had an active metformin SA prescription on, and 1 year prior to, June 1, 2020 (the initial date VHA began implementing the FDA metformin recall) were entered into the registry. Data from 1 year prior were collected to provide a baseline. Veterans were excluded if they received metformin SA for any indication other than T2DM, there was no pre- or postrecall HbA1c measurement, or death. We included 15,594 VISN 6 veterans.
Registry data were analyzed to determine whether a significant change in HbA1c level occurred after the metformin recall and in response to alternative agents being prescribed. Data from veterans who met all inclusion criteria were assessed during the year before and after June 1, 2020. Demographic data were analyzed using frequency and descriptive statistics. The Shapiro Wilkes test was performed, and data were found to be nonparametric; therefore the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate the hypothesis that HbA1c levels were not impacted by the recall.
Our sample size allowed us to create exact matched pairs of 9130 individuals and utilize rank-biserial correlation to establish effect size. Following this initial population-level test, we constructed 2 models. The first, a linear mixed-effects model, focused solely on the interaction effects between the pre- and postrecall periods and various medication classes on HbA1c levels. Second, we constructed a random-effects within-between model (REWB) to evaluate the impact ofmedication classes and demographic variables. Statistical significance was measured at P < .05 with conservative power at .90. The effect size was set to 1.0, reflecting a minimum clinically important difference. Literature establishes 0.5 as a modest level of HbA1c improvement and 1.0 as a clinically significant improvement.
RESULTS
Preliminary results included 15,594 veterans who received a metformin SA prescription as of June 1, 2020 from VISN 6 facilities; 15,392 veterans had a drug exposure end on June 1, 2020, indicating their standard therapy of metformin SA was discontinued following the FDA recall. Two hundred and two veterans were excluded from the registry because they continued to receive metformin SA from existing stock at a VISN6 facility.
Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test
We created exact pairs by iterating the data and finding the closest measurements for each patient before and after the recall. This has the advantage over averaging a patient’s pre- and post-HbA1c levels, as it allows for a rank-biserial correlation. Using the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test, V was 20,100,707 (P < .001), indicating a significant effect. The –0.29 rank-biserial correlation, which was computed to assess the effect size of the recall, suggests that the median HbA1c level was lower postrecall vs prerecall. The magnitude of the correlation suggests a moderate effect size, and while the recall had a noticeable impact at a population level, it was not extreme (Table 2).
Linear Mixed-Effects Model
The binary variable for medication class exposure suggests the use of a logit link function for binary outcomes within the multilevel modeling framework.15 We employed a linear mixed-effects model to investigate the impact that switching from metformin SA to other T2DM medications had on HbA1c levels. The model was adjusted for patient-specific random effects and included interaction terms between the recall period (before and after) and the usage of different T2DM medications.
Model Fit and Random Effects
The model demonstrated a residual maximum likelihood criterion of 100,219.7, indicating its fit to the data. Notably, the random effects analysis revealed a substantial variability in baseline HbA1c levels across patients (SD, 0.94), highlighting the importance of individual differences in DM management. Medication classes with zero or near-zero exposure rate were removed. Due to demographic homogeneity, the model did not converge on demographic variables. Veterans were taking a mean of 1.8 T2DM medications and metformin SA was most common (Table 3).
During the postrecall period, metformin SA remained the most frequently prescribed medication class. This may be attributed to the existence of multiple manufacturers of metformin SA, some of which may not have been impacted by the recall. VISN 6 medical centers could have sought metformin SA outside of the usual procurement path following the recall.
Complex Random Effects Model
We employed a complex REWB model that evaluated the impact of medication classes on HbA1c levels, accounting for both within and between subject effects of these medications, along with demographic variables (sex, race, and ethnicity) (eAppendix). This model accounts for individual-level changes over time (within-patient effects) and between groups of patients (between-patient effects). This is a more comprehensive model aimed at understanding the broader impact of medications on HbA1c levels across diverse patient groups.
Most demographic categories did not demonstrate significant effects in this model. Black individuals experienced a slight increase in HbA1c levels compared with other racial categories that was not statistically significant. However, this model confirms the findings from the linear mixed-effects model that GLP-1 agonists showed a substantial decrease in HbA1c levels within patients (coefficient –0.5; 95% CI, –0.56 to –0.44; P < .001) and a moderate increase between patients (coefficient, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.12-0.31; P < .001). Additionally, SGLT-2 inhibitors had a notable decrease within patients (coefficient, –0.27; 95% CI, –0.32 to –0.22; P < .001).Another notable finding with our REWB model is insulin usage was associated with high HbA1c levels, but only between subjects. Long-acting insulin (coefficient, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P <. 001) and mixed insulin (coefficient, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.94-1.24; P < .001) both displayed marked increases between patients, suggesting future analysis may benefit from stratifying across insulin users and nonusers.
Fixed Effect Analysis
The fixed effects analysis yielded several notable findings. The intercept, representing the mean baseline HbA1c level, was estimated at 7.8% (58 mmol/mol). The coefficient for the period (postrecall) was not statistically significant, indicating no overall change in HbA1c levels from before to after the recall when specific medication classes were not considered (Table 4). Among medication classes examined, several showed significant associations with HbA1c levels. DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists were associated with a decrease in HbA1c levels, with coefficients of −0.08 and −0.24, respectively. Long-acting insulin and metformin immediate-release (IR) were associated with an increase in HbA1c levels, as indicated by their positive coefficients of 0.38 and 0.16, respectively. Mixed insulin formulations and sulfonylureas showed an association with decreased HbA1c levels.
Interaction Effects
The interaction terms between the recall period and the medication classes provided insights into the differential impact of the medication switch postrecall. Notably, the interaction term for long-acting insulin (coefficient, −0.10) was significant, suggesting a differential effect on HbA1c levels postrecall. Other medications, like metformin IR, also exhibited significant interaction effects, indicating changes in the impact on HbA1c levels in the postrecall period. The binary variable for medication class exposure suggests the use of a logit link function for binary outcomes within the multilevel modeling framework.15 We did not address the potential for cross cluster heterogeneity due to different medication classes.
DISCUSSION
This study is an ongoing, concurrent, observational, multicenter, registry-based study consisting of VISN 6 veterans who have T2DM and were prescribed metformin SA on June 1, 2020. This initial aim was to evaluate change in HbA1c levels following the FDA metformin recall. While there was substantial variability in baseline HbA1c levels across the patients, the mean baseline HbA1c level at 7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Patients taking GLP-1 agonists showed substantial decrease in HbA1c levels (coefficient; –0.5; 95% CI, –0.56 to –0.44; P <. 001). Patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors had a notable decrease in HbA1c (coefficient, –0.27; 95% CI, –0.32 to –0.22; P < .001). Despite this, the coefficient for the postrecall period was not statistically significant, indicating no overall change in HbA1c levels from pre- to postrecall when specific medication classes were not considered.
Further analysis included assessment of prescribing trends postrecall. There was an increase in SGLT-2 inhibitor, GLP-1 agonist, and DPP-4 inhibitor prescribing. Considering the growing evidence of the cardiovascular and renal benefits of these medication classes, specifically the GLP-1 agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors, this trend would be expected.
Limitations
This study cohort did not capture veterans with T2DM who transferred their health care to VISN 6 after June 1, 2020, and continued to receive metformin SA from the prior facility. Inclusion of these veterans would have increased the registry population. Additionally, the cohort did not identify veterans who continued to receive metformin SA through a source other than the VA. Without that information, the registry cohort may include veterans thought to have either transitioned to a different therapy or to no other T2DM therapy after the recall.
Given that DM can progress over time, it is possible the transition to a new medication after the recall was the result of suboptimal management, or in response to an adverse effect from a previous medication, and not solely due to the metformin SA recall. In addition, there are several factors that could impact HbA1c level over time that were not accounted for in this study, such as medication adherence and lifestyle modifications.
The notable level of metformin SA prescriptions, despite the recall, may be attributed to several factors. First, not all patients stopped metformin completely. Review of the prescription data indicated that some veterans were provided with limited refills at select VA medical centers that had supplies (medication lots not recalled). Access to a safe supply of metformin SA after the recall may have varied among VISN 6 facilities. It is also possible that as new supplies of metformin SA became available, veterans restarted metformin SA. This may have been resumed while continuing a new medication prescribed at the beginning of the recall. As the year progressed after the recall, an increase in metformin SA prescriptions likely occurred as supplies became available and clinicians/veterans chose to resume this medication therapy.
Conclusions
Results of this initial registry study found no difference in HbA1c levels across the study population after the metformin SA recall. However, there was clinical difference in the HbA1c within veterans prescribed SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists. As expected, prescribing trends showed an increase in these agents after the recall. With the known benefits of these medications beyond glucose lowering, it is anticipated the cohort of veterans prescribed these medications will continue to grow.
The VISN 6 research registry allowed this study to gain an important snapshot in time following the metformin SA recall, and will serve as an important resource for future DM research endeavors. It will allow for ongoing evaluation of the impact of the transition to alternative T2DM medications after the metformin SA recall. Future exploration will include evaluation of adverse drug reactions, DM-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits related to T2DM, changes in renal function, and cardiovascular events among all diabetes medication classes.
Acknowledgments
The study team thanks the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure for their help and expertise throughout this project. The authors acknowledge the contributions of Philip Nelson, PharmD, and Brian Peek, PharmD.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Type 2 diabetes. Updated April 18, 2023. Accessed September 18, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/type2.html
- ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, et al. 2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of care in diabetes—2023. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(Supplement_1):S19-S40. doi:10.2337/dc23-S002
- Liu Y, Sayam S, Shao X, et al. Prevalence of and trends in diabetes among veterans, United States, 2005–2014. Prev Chronic Dis. 2017;14:E135. doi:10.5888/pcd14.170230
- Yi SW, Hong JS, Ohrr H, Yi JJ. Agent Orange exposure and disease prevalence in Korean Vietnam veterans: the Korean veterans health study. Environ Res. 2014;133:56-65. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2014.04.027
- Price LE, Gephart S, Shea K. The VA’s Corporate Data Warehouse: Uses and Implications for Nursing Research and Practice. Nurs Adm Q. 2015;39(4):311-318. doi:10.1097/NAQ.0000000000000118
- ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, et al. 9. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: standards of care in diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(suppl 1):S140-S157. doi:10.2337/dc23-S009
- Samson SL, Vellanki P, Blonde L, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Comprehensive Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm - 2023 Update. Endocr Pract. 2023;29(5):305-340. doi:10.1016/j.eprac.2023.02.001
- Bennett WL, Maruthur NM, Singh S, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of medications for type 2 diabetes: an update including new drugs and 2-drug combinations. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(9):602-613. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-9-201105030-00336
- Bolen S, Feldman L, Vassy J, et al. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and safety of oral medications for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(6):386-399. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-6-200709180-00178
- Tsapas A, Avgerinos I, Karagiannis T, et al. Comparative effectiveness of glucose-lowering drugs for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(4):278-286. doi:10.7326/M20-0864
- Nishimura R, Taniguchi M, Takeshima T, Iwasaki K. Efficacy and safety of metformin versus the other oral antidiabetic drugs in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients: a network meta-analysis. Adv Ther. 2022;39(1):632-654. doi:10.1007/s12325-021-01979-1
- Russell-Jones D, Cuddihy RM, Hanefeld M, et al. Efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly versus metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin used as monotherapy in drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (DURATION-4): a 26-week double-blind study. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(2):252-258. doi:10.2337/dc11-1107
- Umpierrez G, Tofé Povedano S, Pérez Manghi F, Shurzinske L, Pechtner V. Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy versus metformin in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-3). Diabetes Care. 2014;37(8):2168-2176. doi:10.2337/dc13-2759
- US Food and Drug Administration. FDA alerts patients and health care professionals to nitrosamine impurity findings in certain metformin extended-release products [press release]. May 28, 2020. Accessed October 16, 2024. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-alerts-patients-and-health-care-professionals-nitrosamine-impurity-findings-certain-metformin
- Bell A, Jones K. Explaining fixed effects: random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data. PSRM. 2015;3(1):133-153. doi:10.1017/psrm.2014.7
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Type 2 diabetes. Updated April 18, 2023. Accessed September 18, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/type2.html
- ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, et al. 2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of care in diabetes—2023. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(Supplement_1):S19-S40. doi:10.2337/dc23-S002
- Liu Y, Sayam S, Shao X, et al. Prevalence of and trends in diabetes among veterans, United States, 2005–2014. Prev Chronic Dis. 2017;14:E135. doi:10.5888/pcd14.170230
- Yi SW, Hong JS, Ohrr H, Yi JJ. Agent Orange exposure and disease prevalence in Korean Vietnam veterans: the Korean veterans health study. Environ Res. 2014;133:56-65. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2014.04.027
- Price LE, Gephart S, Shea K. The VA’s Corporate Data Warehouse: Uses and Implications for Nursing Research and Practice. Nurs Adm Q. 2015;39(4):311-318. doi:10.1097/NAQ.0000000000000118
- ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, et al. 9. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: standards of care in diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(suppl 1):S140-S157. doi:10.2337/dc23-S009
- Samson SL, Vellanki P, Blonde L, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Comprehensive Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm - 2023 Update. Endocr Pract. 2023;29(5):305-340. doi:10.1016/j.eprac.2023.02.001
- Bennett WL, Maruthur NM, Singh S, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of medications for type 2 diabetes: an update including new drugs and 2-drug combinations. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(9):602-613. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-9-201105030-00336
- Bolen S, Feldman L, Vassy J, et al. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and safety of oral medications for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(6):386-399. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-6-200709180-00178
- Tsapas A, Avgerinos I, Karagiannis T, et al. Comparative effectiveness of glucose-lowering drugs for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(4):278-286. doi:10.7326/M20-0864
- Nishimura R, Taniguchi M, Takeshima T, Iwasaki K. Efficacy and safety of metformin versus the other oral antidiabetic drugs in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients: a network meta-analysis. Adv Ther. 2022;39(1):632-654. doi:10.1007/s12325-021-01979-1
- Russell-Jones D, Cuddihy RM, Hanefeld M, et al. Efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly versus metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin used as monotherapy in drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (DURATION-4): a 26-week double-blind study. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(2):252-258. doi:10.2337/dc11-1107
- Umpierrez G, Tofé Povedano S, Pérez Manghi F, Shurzinske L, Pechtner V. Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy versus metformin in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-3). Diabetes Care. 2014;37(8):2168-2176. doi:10.2337/dc13-2759
- US Food and Drug Administration. FDA alerts patients and health care professionals to nitrosamine impurity findings in certain metformin extended-release products [press release]. May 28, 2020. Accessed October 16, 2024. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-alerts-patients-and-health-care-professionals-nitrosamine-impurity-findings-certain-metformin
- Bell A, Jones K. Explaining fixed effects: random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data. PSRM. 2015;3(1):133-153. doi:10.1017/psrm.2014.7
Cendakimab That Targets IL-13 Shows Promise in Eosinophilic Esophagitis
VIENNA — , according to interim results of a pivotal phase 3 trial.
Treatment with cendakimab also improved key endoscopic and histologic features, even in patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to steroids, reported Alain Schoepfer, MD, gastroenterologist from Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, in Switzerland.
The drug was generally safe and well tolerated up to 24 weeks of treatment, added Schoepfer, who presented the results during a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.
Targeting IL-13 Shows ‘Surprisingly Good Results’
EoE is a chronic, progressive, immune-mediated, inflammatory disease that is mainly driven by the cytokine, IL-13.
In a prior phase 2 study, cendakimab, which selectively binds to IL-13 and blocks its interaction with both the IL-13Ra1 and the IL-13Ra2 receptors, was shown to improve symptoms and endoscopic features of EoE.
For the current phase 3 trial, participants were required to have a peak eosinophil count (PEC) of ≥ 15 eosinophils (eos)/high power field (hpf) and 4 or more days of dysphagia over the 2 weeks prior to the start of the study. In addition, they had to have shown a complete lack of response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment for 8 weeks or more.
A total of 430 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 48 weeks; subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 24 weeks, then once every 2 weeks for a further 24 weeks; or subcutaneous placebo once weekly for 48 weeks.
Patient characteristics were similar across randomization groups. The majority of participants were men, with a mean age of 35 years (range, 12-75 years); adolescents comprised 6%-11% of the total. The disease duration was around 5-6 years for all participants, of which 45% were on a stable PPI dosage and around 65% had steroid intolerance or an inadequate response. The endoscopic reference score was around 10 across all groups. The mean PEC was around 160 eos/hpf in the cendakimab arms vs 200 eos/hpf in the placebo arm.
Schoepfer reported results for the coprimary endpoints — the mean change from baseline in dysphagia days and the proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response (PEC ≤ 6 eos/hpf) — at week 24. At this point, a total of 286 patients had received treatment with 360 mg of cendakimab once weekly, and 143 had received placebo.
The change in dysphagia days was −6.1 in patients on cendakimab once weekly vs −4.2 in patients on placebo (P = .0005). The proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response was 28.6% in the treatment arm vs 2.2% in the placebo arm.
The results were similar for patients who were classified as having had a steroid inadequate response. The change in dysphagia days was −6.3 in the cendakimab group vs −4.7 in the placebo group (P = .0156). The eosinophil histologic response was 29.5% in the treatment group vs 2.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001).
Endoscopic response, a key secondary endpoint, showed a change from baseline to week 24 in the endoscopic features of EoE. The total endoscopic reference scores were −5.2 for patients on cendakimab once weekly and −1.2 for patients on placebo (P < .0001).
The safety profile of cendakimab was “unspectacular,” Schoepfer said, with adverse events related to the study drug occurring in 30% of patients in the treatment arm vs 18.9% of those in the placebo arm. He noted that as the trial was conducted during the COVID pandemic, there were some infections.
Serious adverse events, which were assessed by investigators to not be related to the study drug, occurred in 1.8% and 2.8% of patients on cendakimab and placebo, respectively. Drug discontinuation occurred in 1.4% in the cendakimab group and 0.7% in the placebo group. There were no deaths.
“We really need drugs for this disease, given that there are very few alternatives to steroids and PPIs,” Co-moderator Ram Dickman, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, said in an interview.
Right now, we have dupilumab, which targets two receptors: IL-4 and IL-13. But targeting IL-13 by itself “is showing surprisingly good results,” so cendakimab is a good candidate to be in “the first line of biologic treatments,” Dickman said.
“It’s safe and works rapidly,” he added. “Given this is a phase 3 study, I believe we’ll see it on the market.”
Schoepfer has served as a consultant for Regeneron/Sanofi, Adare/Ellodi, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr. Falk Pharma, Gossamer Bio, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, Takeda, and Vifor; received grant/research support from Adare/Ellodi, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, and Regeneron/Sanofi. Dickman has declared no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA — , according to interim results of a pivotal phase 3 trial.
Treatment with cendakimab also improved key endoscopic and histologic features, even in patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to steroids, reported Alain Schoepfer, MD, gastroenterologist from Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, in Switzerland.
The drug was generally safe and well tolerated up to 24 weeks of treatment, added Schoepfer, who presented the results during a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.
Targeting IL-13 Shows ‘Surprisingly Good Results’
EoE is a chronic, progressive, immune-mediated, inflammatory disease that is mainly driven by the cytokine, IL-13.
In a prior phase 2 study, cendakimab, which selectively binds to IL-13 and blocks its interaction with both the IL-13Ra1 and the IL-13Ra2 receptors, was shown to improve symptoms and endoscopic features of EoE.
For the current phase 3 trial, participants were required to have a peak eosinophil count (PEC) of ≥ 15 eosinophils (eos)/high power field (hpf) and 4 or more days of dysphagia over the 2 weeks prior to the start of the study. In addition, they had to have shown a complete lack of response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment for 8 weeks or more.
A total of 430 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 48 weeks; subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 24 weeks, then once every 2 weeks for a further 24 weeks; or subcutaneous placebo once weekly for 48 weeks.
Patient characteristics were similar across randomization groups. The majority of participants were men, with a mean age of 35 years (range, 12-75 years); adolescents comprised 6%-11% of the total. The disease duration was around 5-6 years for all participants, of which 45% were on a stable PPI dosage and around 65% had steroid intolerance or an inadequate response. The endoscopic reference score was around 10 across all groups. The mean PEC was around 160 eos/hpf in the cendakimab arms vs 200 eos/hpf in the placebo arm.
Schoepfer reported results for the coprimary endpoints — the mean change from baseline in dysphagia days and the proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response (PEC ≤ 6 eos/hpf) — at week 24. At this point, a total of 286 patients had received treatment with 360 mg of cendakimab once weekly, and 143 had received placebo.
The change in dysphagia days was −6.1 in patients on cendakimab once weekly vs −4.2 in patients on placebo (P = .0005). The proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response was 28.6% in the treatment arm vs 2.2% in the placebo arm.
The results were similar for patients who were classified as having had a steroid inadequate response. The change in dysphagia days was −6.3 in the cendakimab group vs −4.7 in the placebo group (P = .0156). The eosinophil histologic response was 29.5% in the treatment group vs 2.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001).
Endoscopic response, a key secondary endpoint, showed a change from baseline to week 24 in the endoscopic features of EoE. The total endoscopic reference scores were −5.2 for patients on cendakimab once weekly and −1.2 for patients on placebo (P < .0001).
The safety profile of cendakimab was “unspectacular,” Schoepfer said, with adverse events related to the study drug occurring in 30% of patients in the treatment arm vs 18.9% of those in the placebo arm. He noted that as the trial was conducted during the COVID pandemic, there were some infections.
Serious adverse events, which were assessed by investigators to not be related to the study drug, occurred in 1.8% and 2.8% of patients on cendakimab and placebo, respectively. Drug discontinuation occurred in 1.4% in the cendakimab group and 0.7% in the placebo group. There were no deaths.
“We really need drugs for this disease, given that there are very few alternatives to steroids and PPIs,” Co-moderator Ram Dickman, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, said in an interview.
Right now, we have dupilumab, which targets two receptors: IL-4 and IL-13. But targeting IL-13 by itself “is showing surprisingly good results,” so cendakimab is a good candidate to be in “the first line of biologic treatments,” Dickman said.
“It’s safe and works rapidly,” he added. “Given this is a phase 3 study, I believe we’ll see it on the market.”
Schoepfer has served as a consultant for Regeneron/Sanofi, Adare/Ellodi, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr. Falk Pharma, Gossamer Bio, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, Takeda, and Vifor; received grant/research support from Adare/Ellodi, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, and Regeneron/Sanofi. Dickman has declared no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA — , according to interim results of a pivotal phase 3 trial.
Treatment with cendakimab also improved key endoscopic and histologic features, even in patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to steroids, reported Alain Schoepfer, MD, gastroenterologist from Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, in Switzerland.
The drug was generally safe and well tolerated up to 24 weeks of treatment, added Schoepfer, who presented the results during a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.
Targeting IL-13 Shows ‘Surprisingly Good Results’
EoE is a chronic, progressive, immune-mediated, inflammatory disease that is mainly driven by the cytokine, IL-13.
In a prior phase 2 study, cendakimab, which selectively binds to IL-13 and blocks its interaction with both the IL-13Ra1 and the IL-13Ra2 receptors, was shown to improve symptoms and endoscopic features of EoE.
For the current phase 3 trial, participants were required to have a peak eosinophil count (PEC) of ≥ 15 eosinophils (eos)/high power field (hpf) and 4 or more days of dysphagia over the 2 weeks prior to the start of the study. In addition, they had to have shown a complete lack of response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment for 8 weeks or more.
A total of 430 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 48 weeks; subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 24 weeks, then once every 2 weeks for a further 24 weeks; or subcutaneous placebo once weekly for 48 weeks.
Patient characteristics were similar across randomization groups. The majority of participants were men, with a mean age of 35 years (range, 12-75 years); adolescents comprised 6%-11% of the total. The disease duration was around 5-6 years for all participants, of which 45% were on a stable PPI dosage and around 65% had steroid intolerance or an inadequate response. The endoscopic reference score was around 10 across all groups. The mean PEC was around 160 eos/hpf in the cendakimab arms vs 200 eos/hpf in the placebo arm.
Schoepfer reported results for the coprimary endpoints — the mean change from baseline in dysphagia days and the proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response (PEC ≤ 6 eos/hpf) — at week 24. At this point, a total of 286 patients had received treatment with 360 mg of cendakimab once weekly, and 143 had received placebo.
The change in dysphagia days was −6.1 in patients on cendakimab once weekly vs −4.2 in patients on placebo (P = .0005). The proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response was 28.6% in the treatment arm vs 2.2% in the placebo arm.
The results were similar for patients who were classified as having had a steroid inadequate response. The change in dysphagia days was −6.3 in the cendakimab group vs −4.7 in the placebo group (P = .0156). The eosinophil histologic response was 29.5% in the treatment group vs 2.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001).
Endoscopic response, a key secondary endpoint, showed a change from baseline to week 24 in the endoscopic features of EoE. The total endoscopic reference scores were −5.2 for patients on cendakimab once weekly and −1.2 for patients on placebo (P < .0001).
The safety profile of cendakimab was “unspectacular,” Schoepfer said, with adverse events related to the study drug occurring in 30% of patients in the treatment arm vs 18.9% of those in the placebo arm. He noted that as the trial was conducted during the COVID pandemic, there were some infections.
Serious adverse events, which were assessed by investigators to not be related to the study drug, occurred in 1.8% and 2.8% of patients on cendakimab and placebo, respectively. Drug discontinuation occurred in 1.4% in the cendakimab group and 0.7% in the placebo group. There were no deaths.
“We really need drugs for this disease, given that there are very few alternatives to steroids and PPIs,” Co-moderator Ram Dickman, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, said in an interview.
Right now, we have dupilumab, which targets two receptors: IL-4 and IL-13. But targeting IL-13 by itself “is showing surprisingly good results,” so cendakimab is a good candidate to be in “the first line of biologic treatments,” Dickman said.
“It’s safe and works rapidly,” he added. “Given this is a phase 3 study, I believe we’ll see it on the market.”
Schoepfer has served as a consultant for Regeneron/Sanofi, Adare/Ellodi, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr. Falk Pharma, Gossamer Bio, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, Takeda, and Vifor; received grant/research support from Adare/Ellodi, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, and Regeneron/Sanofi. Dickman has declared no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM UEG 2024
American Diabetes Association Advises on Hospital CGM Use
, based in part on data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The statement, Consensus Considerations and Good Practice Points for Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Hospital Settings, was published on October 25, 2024, in Diabetes Care.
“This is something that requires close collaboration with many groups in the hospital ... There needs to be really good guidance within the hospital as to when it can be used, in which patients, and what checks and balances need to be in place,” statement lead author Julie L.V. Shaw, PhD, Laboratory Director at Renfrew Victoria Hospital and St. Francis Memorial Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.
CGM use in the outpatient setting continues to grow, among people with type 2 as well as type 1 diabetes. The devices are worn on the body for up to 15 days via a subcutaneously-inserted sensor that detects glucose in interstitial fluid every 1-15 minutes. The readings generally track with blood glucose levels, although discrepancies can occur and may be even more relevant in hospital settings.
About 1 in 4 hospitalized patients have diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada temporarily authorized the use of CGM systems in hospitals to supplement point-of-care glucose testing, as an emergency measure to reduce healthcare worker exposure and preserve personal protective equipment. That FDA authorization expired on November 7, 2023, and currently hospital CGM use in the United States is technically off-label, although it is often allowed for patients who already use CGM systems.
The new statement summarizes clinical study data and also addresses the potential benefits of CGM systems for inpatients, existing guidance, analytical and clinical evaluation of CGM performance, safety factors, staff training, clinical workflow, and hospital policies. Also covered are issues around quality assurance, integration of CGM data into electronic health records, cost considerations, and barriers to implementation.
The “good practice points for consideration” in the document are as follows:
- If healthcare professionals want to use CGM systems beyond their intended use, eg, to replace or reduce point-of-care glucose measurements, analytical and clinical performance should be assessed.
- The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2nd Edition of POCT05 — Performance Metrics for Continuous Interstitial Glucose Monitoring provides helpful guidance.
- Potential interferences that preclude patients from being eligible for CGM should be noted, and staff must be aware that CGM can’t be used for clinical decision-making in these patients.
- A CGM system and/or inpatient glycemia management committee should oversee the development and implementation of hospital-approved policies and procedures for CGM use in the hospital. This committee should have representatives from nursing leadership, physician leadership (e.g., endocrinologists, internal medicine specialists, hospitalists), laboratory, information services, hospital administration, pharmacy, and risk management/legal.
- Policies for patient-owned and hospital-owned CGM devices should be developed, and staff should be trained in their use.
“During the pandemic, there was a lot of research on CGM use in the hospital setting, so we could look at how it works and was it safe. I think we have some good data to show where it can be used,” said Shaw, who also heads the Division of Biochemistry at the Ottawa Hospital. She added, “There’s quite a bit we still don’t know, but I think with some guidance in place about when not to use it, there are certainly patient populations who could benefit from it in the hospital setting.”
Shaw had no disclosures. Another author is general manager and medical director of the Institute for Diabetes Technology (IfDT), which carries out clinical studies, eg, with medical devices for diabetes therapy, on its own initiative and on behalf of various companies. Another author is an IfDT employee. Other authors have received speakers’ honoraria or consulting fees in the last 3 years from Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, BOYDSense, Dexcom, Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk, Perfood, PharmaSens, Roche, Sinocare, Terumo, and Ypsomed.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, based in part on data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The statement, Consensus Considerations and Good Practice Points for Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Hospital Settings, was published on October 25, 2024, in Diabetes Care.
“This is something that requires close collaboration with many groups in the hospital ... There needs to be really good guidance within the hospital as to when it can be used, in which patients, and what checks and balances need to be in place,” statement lead author Julie L.V. Shaw, PhD, Laboratory Director at Renfrew Victoria Hospital and St. Francis Memorial Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.
CGM use in the outpatient setting continues to grow, among people with type 2 as well as type 1 diabetes. The devices are worn on the body for up to 15 days via a subcutaneously-inserted sensor that detects glucose in interstitial fluid every 1-15 minutes. The readings generally track with blood glucose levels, although discrepancies can occur and may be even more relevant in hospital settings.
About 1 in 4 hospitalized patients have diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada temporarily authorized the use of CGM systems in hospitals to supplement point-of-care glucose testing, as an emergency measure to reduce healthcare worker exposure and preserve personal protective equipment. That FDA authorization expired on November 7, 2023, and currently hospital CGM use in the United States is technically off-label, although it is often allowed for patients who already use CGM systems.
The new statement summarizes clinical study data and also addresses the potential benefits of CGM systems for inpatients, existing guidance, analytical and clinical evaluation of CGM performance, safety factors, staff training, clinical workflow, and hospital policies. Also covered are issues around quality assurance, integration of CGM data into electronic health records, cost considerations, and barriers to implementation.
The “good practice points for consideration” in the document are as follows:
- If healthcare professionals want to use CGM systems beyond their intended use, eg, to replace or reduce point-of-care glucose measurements, analytical and clinical performance should be assessed.
- The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2nd Edition of POCT05 — Performance Metrics for Continuous Interstitial Glucose Monitoring provides helpful guidance.
- Potential interferences that preclude patients from being eligible for CGM should be noted, and staff must be aware that CGM can’t be used for clinical decision-making in these patients.
- A CGM system and/or inpatient glycemia management committee should oversee the development and implementation of hospital-approved policies and procedures for CGM use in the hospital. This committee should have representatives from nursing leadership, physician leadership (e.g., endocrinologists, internal medicine specialists, hospitalists), laboratory, information services, hospital administration, pharmacy, and risk management/legal.
- Policies for patient-owned and hospital-owned CGM devices should be developed, and staff should be trained in their use.
“During the pandemic, there was a lot of research on CGM use in the hospital setting, so we could look at how it works and was it safe. I think we have some good data to show where it can be used,” said Shaw, who also heads the Division of Biochemistry at the Ottawa Hospital. She added, “There’s quite a bit we still don’t know, but I think with some guidance in place about when not to use it, there are certainly patient populations who could benefit from it in the hospital setting.”
Shaw had no disclosures. Another author is general manager and medical director of the Institute for Diabetes Technology (IfDT), which carries out clinical studies, eg, with medical devices for diabetes therapy, on its own initiative and on behalf of various companies. Another author is an IfDT employee. Other authors have received speakers’ honoraria or consulting fees in the last 3 years from Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, BOYDSense, Dexcom, Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk, Perfood, PharmaSens, Roche, Sinocare, Terumo, and Ypsomed.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, based in part on data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The statement, Consensus Considerations and Good Practice Points for Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Hospital Settings, was published on October 25, 2024, in Diabetes Care.
“This is something that requires close collaboration with many groups in the hospital ... There needs to be really good guidance within the hospital as to when it can be used, in which patients, and what checks and balances need to be in place,” statement lead author Julie L.V. Shaw, PhD, Laboratory Director at Renfrew Victoria Hospital and St. Francis Memorial Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.
CGM use in the outpatient setting continues to grow, among people with type 2 as well as type 1 diabetes. The devices are worn on the body for up to 15 days via a subcutaneously-inserted sensor that detects glucose in interstitial fluid every 1-15 minutes. The readings generally track with blood glucose levels, although discrepancies can occur and may be even more relevant in hospital settings.
About 1 in 4 hospitalized patients have diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada temporarily authorized the use of CGM systems in hospitals to supplement point-of-care glucose testing, as an emergency measure to reduce healthcare worker exposure and preserve personal protective equipment. That FDA authorization expired on November 7, 2023, and currently hospital CGM use in the United States is technically off-label, although it is often allowed for patients who already use CGM systems.
The new statement summarizes clinical study data and also addresses the potential benefits of CGM systems for inpatients, existing guidance, analytical and clinical evaluation of CGM performance, safety factors, staff training, clinical workflow, and hospital policies. Also covered are issues around quality assurance, integration of CGM data into electronic health records, cost considerations, and barriers to implementation.
The “good practice points for consideration” in the document are as follows:
- If healthcare professionals want to use CGM systems beyond their intended use, eg, to replace or reduce point-of-care glucose measurements, analytical and clinical performance should be assessed.
- The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2nd Edition of POCT05 — Performance Metrics for Continuous Interstitial Glucose Monitoring provides helpful guidance.
- Potential interferences that preclude patients from being eligible for CGM should be noted, and staff must be aware that CGM can’t be used for clinical decision-making in these patients.
- A CGM system and/or inpatient glycemia management committee should oversee the development and implementation of hospital-approved policies and procedures for CGM use in the hospital. This committee should have representatives from nursing leadership, physician leadership (e.g., endocrinologists, internal medicine specialists, hospitalists), laboratory, information services, hospital administration, pharmacy, and risk management/legal.
- Policies for patient-owned and hospital-owned CGM devices should be developed, and staff should be trained in their use.
“During the pandemic, there was a lot of research on CGM use in the hospital setting, so we could look at how it works and was it safe. I think we have some good data to show where it can be used,” said Shaw, who also heads the Division of Biochemistry at the Ottawa Hospital. She added, “There’s quite a bit we still don’t know, but I think with some guidance in place about when not to use it, there are certainly patient populations who could benefit from it in the hospital setting.”
Shaw had no disclosures. Another author is general manager and medical director of the Institute for Diabetes Technology (IfDT), which carries out clinical studies, eg, with medical devices for diabetes therapy, on its own initiative and on behalf of various companies. Another author is an IfDT employee. Other authors have received speakers’ honoraria or consulting fees in the last 3 years from Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, BOYDSense, Dexcom, Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk, Perfood, PharmaSens, Roche, Sinocare, Terumo, and Ypsomed.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.