Latest News

WASHINGTON — Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications appear beneficial for people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis, two new studies suggest. 

“The risk of cardiovascular disease is thought to be at least double that for people with lupus ... and we know the risk of progressing to end-stage renal disease [ESKD] for patients with lupus nephritis can be as high as 10%-30%, so there’s clearly a major unmet need for new treatments and approaches to improve these outcomes, perhaps with adjunctive treatment beyond our typical immunosuppressive therapy,” April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). 

The GLP-1 RAs are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. They also have proven cardiovascular benefit, along with emerging data suggesting kidney protection independent of glucose lowering. Jorge presented findings from a study using data from the US multicenter electronic health record database TriNetX, showing that, among patients who had both T2D and SLE, those using GLP-1 RAs had lower risks for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), venous thrombosis, kidney disease progression, and all-cause mortality, compared with those using a different class of T2D medication. 

A second study using TriNetX, presented at the same ACR meeting session by Anna-Kay Palmer, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, showed that GLP-1 RAs reduced the risk of progression to ESKD in patients with lupus nephritis, possibly caused by reductions in pro-inflammatory mediators.

Asked to comment, session moderator Diane L. Kamen, MD, professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina Division of Rheumatology, Charleston, said in an interview that she definitely supports the use of GLP-1 RAs for patients who have SLE and/or lupus nephritis and also a drug label indication, either T2D or obesity. “[The GLP-1 RA prescriber] will usually run it by rheumatology to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with any of their other medical treatment, and it’s very reassuring to know that they could actually get a win-win.” 

But as far as prescribing off-label for those with SLE/lupus nephritis who don’t have other GLP-1 RA indications, Kamen said, “that’s a black hole at this point. We need to do those prospective studies. But if they have another indication, yes.”

 

Cardiovascular, Kidney Benefits of GLP-1 RAs

Jorge noted that patients with lupus were excluded from the randomized clinical trials of GLP-1 RAs, so the current study was designed to investigate the potential impact of these medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis. 

From TriNetX data for 46 healthcare organizations nationwide, a total of 96,511 patients with both SLE and T2D but not ESKD had initiated either a GLP-1 RA or another diabetes drug class, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), between October 2006 and August 2021. Of those, 29,177 had lupus nephritis. 

Propensity score matching for factors such as demographics, lupus severity, comorbidities, and medication use was used to emulate a randomized trial. This yielded 25,838 with SLE and T2D, of whom 910 initiated a GLP-1 RA and 1004 started a DPP4i, and 12,387 with lupus nephritis and T2D, including 267 on a GLP-1 RA and 324 on a DPP4i. After matching, the mean age was 55 years, more than 90% were women, and just under half were White individuals. About one third had chronic kidney disease stages ≥ 3, and about 15% had heart failure. 

Over an average follow-up time of 1.2-1.4 years among those with SLE, the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) for those taking a GLP-1 RA vs a DPP4i was 0.66, a significant difference. And for venous thrombosis, the HR was also significant at 0.49.

Kidney disease progression, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of 30% or more or new ESKD, was significantly less likely in the GLP-1 RA group, with a HR of 0.77. All-cause mortality also was dramatically reduced (HR, 0.26). As expected, there was no difference in control outcome, genital infections (HR, 1.02). 

In the subgroup with lupus nephritis, there were also lower risks for both MACE (HR, 0.64) and for renal progression (HR, 0.70). “The findings suggest similar cardiac and kidney benefits among patients with SLE and lupus nephritis as have been observed in other populations,” Jorge concluded. 

Kamen commented that the study design “was pretty brilliant, because you wouldn’t be able to do a placebo-controlled trial since the indication was diabetes ... but the fact is you do see that the GLP-1 RA gets the benefit whereas the other drug does not.”

Next steps, Jorge said, will be mechanistic studies to better understand the effects of GLP-1 RAs in lupus and other rheumatic diseases, prospective studies of GLP-1 RAs in SLE and lupus nephritis without diabetes, and clarification of ideal timing for GLP-1 RA use in SLE and lupus nephritis. 

“Ideally, with our prospective studies with these patients we can try to isolate the effect on patients with lupus and also better understand whether there might be an impact on disease activity through the anti-inflammatory effects of these medications, rather than just the cardioprotective and nephroprotective benefits,” she said. 

 

In Those With Lupus Nephritis, Kidney Protection Seen

In her presentation, Palmer noted that, despite immunosuppressive therapies for SLE, 10%-20% of patients who develop lupus nephritis will progress to ESKD within 5 years of diagnosis. 

She added that GLP-1 RAs have been shown to reduce albuminuria in people with diabetes and have been hypothesized to reduce inflammation through multiple pathways, thereby potentially reducing kidney disease independently of the presence of diabetes or weight loss. These pathways include modulating immune cell signaling and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines. 

Based on all this, Palmer and colleagues used International Classification of Diseases – 10th edition diagnostic codes in TriNetX to identify 839 patients who had been diagnosed with lupus nephritis between 2014 and 2024 and who were prescribed liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, or exenatide for any time after the lupus nephritis diagnosis. Another 29,840 patients with lupus nephritis had not used GLP-1 RAs. 

After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, presence of hypertension, diabetes, use of immunosuppressive and diabetes medication, smoking, obesity, and statin use, there were 735 individuals in each group. About two thirds in each had diabetes, whereas the rest had been prescribed the GLP-1 RAs for other indications. 

Patients who were not on GLP-1 RAs were twice as likely to develop ESKD or dialysis (8.88% vs 3.971%; odds ratio, 2.35; P = .001). 

Kamen pointed out that not including the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers was a study flaw. On the other hand, the fact that not everyone in this study had diabetes was an advantage.

Jorge received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cabaletta Bio, and the Lupus Clinical Investigator Network. Kamen is an adviser/review panel member for Alpine Immune Sciences. Palmer had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications appear beneficial for people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis, two new studies suggest. 

“The risk of cardiovascular disease is thought to be at least double that for people with lupus ... and we know the risk of progressing to end-stage renal disease [ESKD] for patients with lupus nephritis can be as high as 10%-30%, so there’s clearly a major unmet need for new treatments and approaches to improve these outcomes, perhaps with adjunctive treatment beyond our typical immunosuppressive therapy,” April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). 

The GLP-1 RAs are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. They also have proven cardiovascular benefit, along with emerging data suggesting kidney protection independent of glucose lowering. Jorge presented findings from a study using data from the US multicenter electronic health record database TriNetX, showing that, among patients who had both T2D and SLE, those using GLP-1 RAs had lower risks for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), venous thrombosis, kidney disease progression, and all-cause mortality, compared with those using a different class of T2D medication. 

A second study using TriNetX, presented at the same ACR meeting session by Anna-Kay Palmer, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, showed that GLP-1 RAs reduced the risk of progression to ESKD in patients with lupus nephritis, possibly caused by reductions in pro-inflammatory mediators.

Asked to comment, session moderator Diane L. Kamen, MD, professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina Division of Rheumatology, Charleston, said in an interview that she definitely supports the use of GLP-1 RAs for patients who have SLE and/or lupus nephritis and also a drug label indication, either T2D or obesity. “[The GLP-1 RA prescriber] will usually run it by rheumatology to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with any of their other medical treatment, and it’s very reassuring to know that they could actually get a win-win.” 

But as far as prescribing off-label for those with SLE/lupus nephritis who don’t have other GLP-1 RA indications, Kamen said, “that’s a black hole at this point. We need to do those prospective studies. But if they have another indication, yes.”

 

Cardiovascular, Kidney Benefits of GLP-1 RAs

Jorge noted that patients with lupus were excluded from the randomized clinical trials of GLP-1 RAs, so the current study was designed to investigate the potential impact of these medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis. 

From TriNetX data for 46 healthcare organizations nationwide, a total of 96,511 patients with both SLE and T2D but not ESKD had initiated either a GLP-1 RA or another diabetes drug class, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), between October 2006 and August 2021. Of those, 29,177 had lupus nephritis. 

Propensity score matching for factors such as demographics, lupus severity, comorbidities, and medication use was used to emulate a randomized trial. This yielded 25,838 with SLE and T2D, of whom 910 initiated a GLP-1 RA and 1004 started a DPP4i, and 12,387 with lupus nephritis and T2D, including 267 on a GLP-1 RA and 324 on a DPP4i. After matching, the mean age was 55 years, more than 90% were women, and just under half were White individuals. About one third had chronic kidney disease stages ≥ 3, and about 15% had heart failure. 

Over an average follow-up time of 1.2-1.4 years among those with SLE, the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) for those taking a GLP-1 RA vs a DPP4i was 0.66, a significant difference. And for venous thrombosis, the HR was also significant at 0.49.

Kidney disease progression, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of 30% or more or new ESKD, was significantly less likely in the GLP-1 RA group, with a HR of 0.77. All-cause mortality also was dramatically reduced (HR, 0.26). As expected, there was no difference in control outcome, genital infections (HR, 1.02). 

In the subgroup with lupus nephritis, there were also lower risks for both MACE (HR, 0.64) and for renal progression (HR, 0.70). “The findings suggest similar cardiac and kidney benefits among patients with SLE and lupus nephritis as have been observed in other populations,” Jorge concluded. 

Kamen commented that the study design “was pretty brilliant, because you wouldn’t be able to do a placebo-controlled trial since the indication was diabetes ... but the fact is you do see that the GLP-1 RA gets the benefit whereas the other drug does not.”

Next steps, Jorge said, will be mechanistic studies to better understand the effects of GLP-1 RAs in lupus and other rheumatic diseases, prospective studies of GLP-1 RAs in SLE and lupus nephritis without diabetes, and clarification of ideal timing for GLP-1 RA use in SLE and lupus nephritis. 

“Ideally, with our prospective studies with these patients we can try to isolate the effect on patients with lupus and also better understand whether there might be an impact on disease activity through the anti-inflammatory effects of these medications, rather than just the cardioprotective and nephroprotective benefits,” she said. 

 

In Those With Lupus Nephritis, Kidney Protection Seen

In her presentation, Palmer noted that, despite immunosuppressive therapies for SLE, 10%-20% of patients who develop lupus nephritis will progress to ESKD within 5 years of diagnosis. 

She added that GLP-1 RAs have been shown to reduce albuminuria in people with diabetes and have been hypothesized to reduce inflammation through multiple pathways, thereby potentially reducing kidney disease independently of the presence of diabetes or weight loss. These pathways include modulating immune cell signaling and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines. 

Based on all this, Palmer and colleagues used International Classification of Diseases – 10th edition diagnostic codes in TriNetX to identify 839 patients who had been diagnosed with lupus nephritis between 2014 and 2024 and who were prescribed liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, or exenatide for any time after the lupus nephritis diagnosis. Another 29,840 patients with lupus nephritis had not used GLP-1 RAs. 

After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, presence of hypertension, diabetes, use of immunosuppressive and diabetes medication, smoking, obesity, and statin use, there were 735 individuals in each group. About two thirds in each had diabetes, whereas the rest had been prescribed the GLP-1 RAs for other indications. 

Patients who were not on GLP-1 RAs were twice as likely to develop ESKD or dialysis (8.88% vs 3.971%; odds ratio, 2.35; P = .001). 

Kamen pointed out that not including the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers was a study flaw. On the other hand, the fact that not everyone in this study had diabetes was an advantage.

Jorge received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cabaletta Bio, and the Lupus Clinical Investigator Network. Kamen is an adviser/review panel member for Alpine Immune Sciences. Palmer had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications appear beneficial for people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis, two new studies suggest. 

“The risk of cardiovascular disease is thought to be at least double that for people with lupus ... and we know the risk of progressing to end-stage renal disease [ESKD] for patients with lupus nephritis can be as high as 10%-30%, so there’s clearly a major unmet need for new treatments and approaches to improve these outcomes, perhaps with adjunctive treatment beyond our typical immunosuppressive therapy,” April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). 

The GLP-1 RAs are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. They also have proven cardiovascular benefit, along with emerging data suggesting kidney protection independent of glucose lowering. Jorge presented findings from a study using data from the US multicenter electronic health record database TriNetX, showing that, among patients who had both T2D and SLE, those using GLP-1 RAs had lower risks for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), venous thrombosis, kidney disease progression, and all-cause mortality, compared with those using a different class of T2D medication. 

A second study using TriNetX, presented at the same ACR meeting session by Anna-Kay Palmer, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, showed that GLP-1 RAs reduced the risk of progression to ESKD in patients with lupus nephritis, possibly caused by reductions in pro-inflammatory mediators.

Asked to comment, session moderator Diane L. Kamen, MD, professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina Division of Rheumatology, Charleston, said in an interview that she definitely supports the use of GLP-1 RAs for patients who have SLE and/or lupus nephritis and also a drug label indication, either T2D or obesity. “[The GLP-1 RA prescriber] will usually run it by rheumatology to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with any of their other medical treatment, and it’s very reassuring to know that they could actually get a win-win.” 

But as far as prescribing off-label for those with SLE/lupus nephritis who don’t have other GLP-1 RA indications, Kamen said, “that’s a black hole at this point. We need to do those prospective studies. But if they have another indication, yes.”

 

Cardiovascular, Kidney Benefits of GLP-1 RAs

Jorge noted that patients with lupus were excluded from the randomized clinical trials of GLP-1 RAs, so the current study was designed to investigate the potential impact of these medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis. 

From TriNetX data for 46 healthcare organizations nationwide, a total of 96,511 patients with both SLE and T2D but not ESKD had initiated either a GLP-1 RA or another diabetes drug class, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), between October 2006 and August 2021. Of those, 29,177 had lupus nephritis. 

Propensity score matching for factors such as demographics, lupus severity, comorbidities, and medication use was used to emulate a randomized trial. This yielded 25,838 with SLE and T2D, of whom 910 initiated a GLP-1 RA and 1004 started a DPP4i, and 12,387 with lupus nephritis and T2D, including 267 on a GLP-1 RA and 324 on a DPP4i. After matching, the mean age was 55 years, more than 90% were women, and just under half were White individuals. About one third had chronic kidney disease stages ≥ 3, and about 15% had heart failure. 

Over an average follow-up time of 1.2-1.4 years among those with SLE, the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) for those taking a GLP-1 RA vs a DPP4i was 0.66, a significant difference. And for venous thrombosis, the HR was also significant at 0.49.

Kidney disease progression, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of 30% or more or new ESKD, was significantly less likely in the GLP-1 RA group, with a HR of 0.77. All-cause mortality also was dramatically reduced (HR, 0.26). As expected, there was no difference in control outcome, genital infections (HR, 1.02). 

In the subgroup with lupus nephritis, there were also lower risks for both MACE (HR, 0.64) and for renal progression (HR, 0.70). “The findings suggest similar cardiac and kidney benefits among patients with SLE and lupus nephritis as have been observed in other populations,” Jorge concluded. 

Kamen commented that the study design “was pretty brilliant, because you wouldn’t be able to do a placebo-controlled trial since the indication was diabetes ... but the fact is you do see that the GLP-1 RA gets the benefit whereas the other drug does not.”

Next steps, Jorge said, will be mechanistic studies to better understand the effects of GLP-1 RAs in lupus and other rheumatic diseases, prospective studies of GLP-1 RAs in SLE and lupus nephritis without diabetes, and clarification of ideal timing for GLP-1 RA use in SLE and lupus nephritis. 

“Ideally, with our prospective studies with these patients we can try to isolate the effect on patients with lupus and also better understand whether there might be an impact on disease activity through the anti-inflammatory effects of these medications, rather than just the cardioprotective and nephroprotective benefits,” she said. 

 

In Those With Lupus Nephritis, Kidney Protection Seen

In her presentation, Palmer noted that, despite immunosuppressive therapies for SLE, 10%-20% of patients who develop lupus nephritis will progress to ESKD within 5 years of diagnosis. 

She added that GLP-1 RAs have been shown to reduce albuminuria in people with diabetes and have been hypothesized to reduce inflammation through multiple pathways, thereby potentially reducing kidney disease independently of the presence of diabetes or weight loss. These pathways include modulating immune cell signaling and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines. 

Based on all this, Palmer and colleagues used International Classification of Diseases – 10th edition diagnostic codes in TriNetX to identify 839 patients who had been diagnosed with lupus nephritis between 2014 and 2024 and who were prescribed liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, or exenatide for any time after the lupus nephritis diagnosis. Another 29,840 patients with lupus nephritis had not used GLP-1 RAs. 

After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, presence of hypertension, diabetes, use of immunosuppressive and diabetes medication, smoking, obesity, and statin use, there were 735 individuals in each group. About two thirds in each had diabetes, whereas the rest had been prescribed the GLP-1 RAs for other indications. 

Patients who were not on GLP-1 RAs were twice as likely to develop ESKD or dialysis (8.88% vs 3.971%; odds ratio, 2.35; P = .001). 

Kamen pointed out that not including the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers was a study flaw. On the other hand, the fact that not everyone in this study had diabetes was an advantage.

Jorge received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cabaletta Bio, and the Lupus Clinical Investigator Network. Kamen is an adviser/review panel member for Alpine Immune Sciences. Palmer had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In older postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), pyridoxamine treatment has potential to prevent fractures and protect bone tissue by targeting advanced glycation end products and also lowers levels of A1c, an early glycation product.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite greater bone density and low bone turnover, people with T2D have increased fractures risk and higher associated mortality, but previous research linking advanced glycation end products (AGEs) to bone fragility suggests an AGE inhibitor could be a novel therapeutic strategy to prevent the accumulation of AGE in bone tissue.
• This randomized clinical trial, conducted at the Metabolic Bone Disease Unit of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, from December 2017 to February 2021, assessed the efficacy of the vitamin B6 metabolite pyridoxamine, an AGE inhibitor, in promoting bone formation in 55 older postmenopausal women with T2D.
• The participants received either 200 mg of oral pyridoxamine dihydrochloride (n = 27; mean age, 75.6 years) or matching placebo tablets (n = 28; mean age, 73.1 years) twice daily for 1 year.
• The primary outcome was the change in the levels of the bone formation marker Procollagen Type I Intact N-terminal Propeptide (P1NP) from baseline to after 12 months of treatment.
• Other outcomes included changes in bone mineral density measured at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and 1/3 radius using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; A1c levels; and skin autofluorescence at 12 months, a surrogate for bone AGEs. The safety of pyridoxamine was evaluated by monitoring neurologic findings and adverse events because high doses of the parent vitamin B6 have been reported to cause neurotoxicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 months, pyridoxamine treatment increased P1NP levels by 23% (P = .028) compared with 4.1% with placebo (P = .576), a “nearly significant difference.”
• Bone mineral density at the femoral neck increased by 2.64% with pyridoxamine but decreased by 0.91% with placebo (P = .007), with no changes at the lumbar spine, total hip, or 1/3 radius. The levels of bone resorption markers or skin autofluorescence were not significantly different between the groups.
• A1c levels decreased by 0.38% in the pyridoxamine group and correlated with increased P1NP levels, compared with a 0.05% increase in the placebo group (P = .04).
• Pyridoxamine was well tolerated. Four serious adverse events were reported in the pyridoxamine group and seven in the placebo group; none of these were related to the trial treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings suggest that AGE inhibition might clinically improve the low bone formation state of T2D, and that PM [pyridoxamine] might warrant further investigation as a potential disease mechanism-directed approach for the therapy of T2D bone fragility,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aiden V. Brossfield, Metabolic Bone Disease Unit, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings were preliminary. The study’s small sample size and individual variability led to a lack of statistical significance. The exclusion of men may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of 1 year may have been insufficient for detecting changes in skin AGEs. The levels of circulating AGEs or pyridoxamine were not measured, which could have provided additional insights.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the US National Institute on Aging. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

In older postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), pyridoxamine treatment has potential to prevent fractures and protect bone tissue by targeting advanced glycation end products and also lowers levels of A1c, an early glycation product.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite greater bone density and low bone turnover, people with T2D have increased fractures risk and higher associated mortality, but previous research linking advanced glycation end products (AGEs) to bone fragility suggests an AGE inhibitor could be a novel therapeutic strategy to prevent the accumulation of AGE in bone tissue.
• This randomized clinical trial, conducted at the Metabolic Bone Disease Unit of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, from December 2017 to February 2021, assessed the efficacy of the vitamin B6 metabolite pyridoxamine, an AGE inhibitor, in promoting bone formation in 55 older postmenopausal women with T2D.
• The participants received either 200 mg of oral pyridoxamine dihydrochloride (n = 27; mean age, 75.6 years) or matching placebo tablets (n = 28; mean age, 73.1 years) twice daily for 1 year.
• The primary outcome was the change in the levels of the bone formation marker Procollagen Type I Intact N-terminal Propeptide (P1NP) from baseline to after 12 months of treatment.
• Other outcomes included changes in bone mineral density measured at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and 1/3 radius using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; A1c levels; and skin autofluorescence at 12 months, a surrogate for bone AGEs. The safety of pyridoxamine was evaluated by monitoring neurologic findings and adverse events because high doses of the parent vitamin B6 have been reported to cause neurotoxicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 months, pyridoxamine treatment increased P1NP levels by 23% (P = .028) compared with 4.1% with placebo (P = .576), a “nearly significant difference.”
• Bone mineral density at the femoral neck increased by 2.64% with pyridoxamine but decreased by 0.91% with placebo (P = .007), with no changes at the lumbar spine, total hip, or 1/3 radius. The levels of bone resorption markers or skin autofluorescence were not significantly different between the groups.
• A1c levels decreased by 0.38% in the pyridoxamine group and correlated with increased P1NP levels, compared with a 0.05% increase in the placebo group (P = .04).
• Pyridoxamine was well tolerated. Four serious adverse events were reported in the pyridoxamine group and seven in the placebo group; none of these were related to the trial treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings suggest that AGE inhibition might clinically improve the low bone formation state of T2D, and that PM [pyridoxamine] might warrant further investigation as a potential disease mechanism-directed approach for the therapy of T2D bone fragility,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aiden V. Brossfield, Metabolic Bone Disease Unit, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings were preliminary. The study’s small sample size and individual variability led to a lack of statistical significance. The exclusion of men may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of 1 year may have been insufficient for detecting changes in skin AGEs. The levels of circulating AGEs or pyridoxamine were not measured, which could have provided additional insights.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the US National Institute on Aging. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

In older postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), pyridoxamine treatment has potential to prevent fractures and protect bone tissue by targeting advanced glycation end products and also lowers levels of A1c, an early glycation product.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite greater bone density and low bone turnover, people with T2D have increased fractures risk and higher associated mortality, but previous research linking advanced glycation end products (AGEs) to bone fragility suggests an AGE inhibitor could be a novel therapeutic strategy to prevent the accumulation of AGE in bone tissue.
• This randomized clinical trial, conducted at the Metabolic Bone Disease Unit of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, from December 2017 to February 2021, assessed the efficacy of the vitamin B6 metabolite pyridoxamine, an AGE inhibitor, in promoting bone formation in 55 older postmenopausal women with T2D.
• The participants received either 200 mg of oral pyridoxamine dihydrochloride (n = 27; mean age, 75.6 years) or matching placebo tablets (n = 28; mean age, 73.1 years) twice daily for 1 year.
• The primary outcome was the change in the levels of the bone formation marker Procollagen Type I Intact N-terminal Propeptide (P1NP) from baseline to after 12 months of treatment.
• Other outcomes included changes in bone mineral density measured at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and 1/3 radius using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; A1c levels; and skin autofluorescence at 12 months, a surrogate for bone AGEs. The safety of pyridoxamine was evaluated by monitoring neurologic findings and adverse events because high doses of the parent vitamin B6 have been reported to cause neurotoxicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 months, pyridoxamine treatment increased P1NP levels by 23% (P = .028) compared with 4.1% with placebo (P = .576), a “nearly significant difference.”
• Bone mineral density at the femoral neck increased by 2.64% with pyridoxamine but decreased by 0.91% with placebo (P = .007), with no changes at the lumbar spine, total hip, or 1/3 radius. The levels of bone resorption markers or skin autofluorescence were not significantly different between the groups.
• A1c levels decreased by 0.38% in the pyridoxamine group and correlated with increased P1NP levels, compared with a 0.05% increase in the placebo group (P = .04).
• Pyridoxamine was well tolerated. Four serious adverse events were reported in the pyridoxamine group and seven in the placebo group; none of these were related to the trial treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings suggest that AGE inhibition might clinically improve the low bone formation state of T2D, and that PM [pyridoxamine] might warrant further investigation as a potential disease mechanism-directed approach for the therapy of T2D bone fragility,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aiden V. Brossfield, Metabolic Bone Disease Unit, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings were preliminary. The study’s small sample size and individual variability led to a lack of statistical significance. The exclusion of men may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of 1 year may have been insufficient for detecting changes in skin AGEs. The levels of circulating AGEs or pyridoxamine were not measured, which could have provided additional insights.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the US National Institute on Aging. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

There was a recent Sermo post bemoaning the demise of fish tanks, and the calming they bring, in medical waiting rooms.

Aquariums, I agree, have a soporific effect on humans. I’m not immune myself on the rare occasions I encounter one. There’s something relaxing about watching the fish slowly glide back and forth while you admire their different colors, sizes, and patterns. This is why they persisted in a lot of places, such as videotapes (remember “Video Fish Tank”?), screen savers, and a key plot point in Finding Nemo.

 

Personally, I’d much rather watch a fish tank in a waiting room then have a TV blaring at me with news, doctor bios, and direct-to-consumer drug ads. I suspect my patients feel the same way. When I get the occasional offer for a free waiting room TV that will play some customized feed about my practice and “ask your doctor” treatments, I send it off to be recycled into kitchen towels.

I think the real reason fish tanks are gone is that eternal bugaboo of medicine: money.

Margins in most practices, including mine, are thin, and a real fish tank (I’m not talking about a guppy in a bowl) aren’t cheap. They take, well, fish, and the most colorful ones are saltwater. Then they take a pump, heater, chemicals, food, plants, and decorations. Then you have to throw in the cost of a service with expertise in maintaining them (let’s face it, none of us have time to do that ourselves) ...

You want to add that to your overhead? Me neither.

My waiting room, as a result, is pretty bland. A handful of magazines, some books of classic Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, and Doonesbury cartoons. The magazines are older, but relatively timeless ones, like issues of the Smithsonian or National Geographic. I don’t put out news magazines of any kind. If I’m not going to read the news, my patients shouldn’t have to either. My lobby should be relaxing.

We also live in an era where patients bring their own entertainment, on phones or iPads, to read while waiting. There are often days when I straighten up the waiting room while closing and the magazines haven’t been touched.

Yes, I miss fish tanks. But, like so many other things, they’ve become a casualty of modern medicine. They simply don’t make financial sense.

I’d rather cut corners in the waiting room than with patient care.

 

Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

There was a recent Sermo post bemoaning the demise of fish tanks, and the calming they bring, in medical waiting rooms.

Aquariums, I agree, have a soporific effect on humans. I’m not immune myself on the rare occasions I encounter one. There’s something relaxing about watching the fish slowly glide back and forth while you admire their different colors, sizes, and patterns. This is why they persisted in a lot of places, such as videotapes (remember “Video Fish Tank”?), screen savers, and a key plot point in Finding Nemo.

 

Personally, I’d much rather watch a fish tank in a waiting room then have a TV blaring at me with news, doctor bios, and direct-to-consumer drug ads. I suspect my patients feel the same way. When I get the occasional offer for a free waiting room TV that will play some customized feed about my practice and “ask your doctor” treatments, I send it off to be recycled into kitchen towels.

I think the real reason fish tanks are gone is that eternal bugaboo of medicine: money.

Margins in most practices, including mine, are thin, and a real fish tank (I’m not talking about a guppy in a bowl) aren’t cheap. They take, well, fish, and the most colorful ones are saltwater. Then they take a pump, heater, chemicals, food, plants, and decorations. Then you have to throw in the cost of a service with expertise in maintaining them (let’s face it, none of us have time to do that ourselves) ...

You want to add that to your overhead? Me neither.

My waiting room, as a result, is pretty bland. A handful of magazines, some books of classic Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, and Doonesbury cartoons. The magazines are older, but relatively timeless ones, like issues of the Smithsonian or National Geographic. I don’t put out news magazines of any kind. If I’m not going to read the news, my patients shouldn’t have to either. My lobby should be relaxing.

We also live in an era where patients bring their own entertainment, on phones or iPads, to read while waiting. There are often days when I straighten up the waiting room while closing and the magazines haven’t been touched.

Yes, I miss fish tanks. But, like so many other things, they’ve become a casualty of modern medicine. They simply don’t make financial sense.

I’d rather cut corners in the waiting room than with patient care.

 

Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

There was a recent Sermo post bemoaning the demise of fish tanks, and the calming they bring, in medical waiting rooms.

Aquariums, I agree, have a soporific effect on humans. I’m not immune myself on the rare occasions I encounter one. There’s something relaxing about watching the fish slowly glide back and forth while you admire their different colors, sizes, and patterns. This is why they persisted in a lot of places, such as videotapes (remember “Video Fish Tank”?), screen savers, and a key plot point in Finding Nemo.

 

Personally, I’d much rather watch a fish tank in a waiting room then have a TV blaring at me with news, doctor bios, and direct-to-consumer drug ads. I suspect my patients feel the same way. When I get the occasional offer for a free waiting room TV that will play some customized feed about my practice and “ask your doctor” treatments, I send it off to be recycled into kitchen towels.

I think the real reason fish tanks are gone is that eternal bugaboo of medicine: money.

Margins in most practices, including mine, are thin, and a real fish tank (I’m not talking about a guppy in a bowl) aren’t cheap. They take, well, fish, and the most colorful ones are saltwater. Then they take a pump, heater, chemicals, food, plants, and decorations. Then you have to throw in the cost of a service with expertise in maintaining them (let’s face it, none of us have time to do that ourselves) ...

You want to add that to your overhead? Me neither.

My waiting room, as a result, is pretty bland. A handful of magazines, some books of classic Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, and Doonesbury cartoons. The magazines are older, but relatively timeless ones, like issues of the Smithsonian or National Geographic. I don’t put out news magazines of any kind. If I’m not going to read the news, my patients shouldn’t have to either. My lobby should be relaxing.

We also live in an era where patients bring their own entertainment, on phones or iPads, to read while waiting. There are often days when I straighten up the waiting room while closing and the magazines haven’t been touched.

Yes, I miss fish tanks. But, like so many other things, they’ve become a casualty of modern medicine. They simply don’t make financial sense.

I’d rather cut corners in the waiting room than with patient care.

 

Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

President-elect Donald Trump’s vision for the nation’s top health agencies is coming into focus with three nominations announced Nov. 22 that drew both criticism and praise:

• Surgeon and health researcher Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, to lead the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
• Former Republican congressman and physician David J. Weldon, MD, for director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
• Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat, MD, for surgeon general.

Earlier in November, Trump nominated vaccine skeptic and former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Here’s what to know about the latest nominees, who, like Kennedy, must be confirmed by the US Senate.

 

Martin A. Makary

Currently a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and chief of islet transplant surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Makary co-invented in 2006 a surgery checklist that became a widely-used patient safety tool. 

As a US FDA commissioner, Makary would preside over a $6.5 billion agency with more than 18,000 employees. The agency, part of HHS, oversees human and animal drugs and vaccines, medical devices, food, tobacco and other products. Some of Makary’s views align closely with those of HHS nominee Kennedy. 

Makary is also chief medical officer of telehealth platform Sesame.

Makary was primarily known as a health researcher and author of books about price transparency and the cost of health care until the COVID-19 pandemic, when he became an outspoken critic of the federal response, lambasting restrictions and mandates advocated by the CDC and other public health officials. 

In 2023, Makary told the House Select Subcommittee on the COVID Pandemic that federal officials had ignored what he called “natural immunity.” Studies have shown that natural immunity is “at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, and probably better,” testified Makary.

Makary called for an overhaul of the US FDA in a 2021 Fox News opinion, saying that its culture was “defined by counterproductive rigidity and a refusal to adapt.”

Blind Spots, his most recent book, takes on what he calls “medical dogma” and challenges conventional views on subjects ranging from the microbiome to marijuana to cancer prevention, hormone replacement therapy, antibiotics and peanut allergies.

In an interview he posted to X, Makary blames inappropriate use of antibiotics for a variety of childhood illnesses. He cites increases in obesity, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, asthma, celiac disease, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease as all potentially causally related to antibiotics given in childhood.

Makary is an advisor to two conservative think tanks, the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, and to Paragon Health Institute, begun in 2021 by two former top officials in the previous Trump administration.

Makary would “cut the bureaucratic red tape at the agency to make sure Americans get the medical cures and treatments they deserve,” Trump said on his social media platform, Truth Social, and in a press release.

While Los Angeles Times owner and physician-entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, MBBCh, MSc, praised the nomination of Makary (and the two other nominees) as “inspired,” other physicians criticized Makary for his anti-COVID mandate views and “fear-mongering” over COVID vaccine side effects.

 

Janette Nesheiwat

As surgeon general, Nesheiwat would serve as the top “health communicator in chief” and oversee the 6000 member US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

She is a frequent medical contributor to Fox News and serves as a medical director for a group of urgent care clinics in New York. She received her medical degree from the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine and completed a family medicine residency at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. She is board-certified in family medicine.

Nesheiwat sells vitamin supplements on her website and in December will publish a book on “miracles in medicine” and her Christian faith. 

Trump said in a statement that Nesheiwat “is a fierce advocate and strong communicator for preventive medicine and public health. She is committed to ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, quality healthcare, and believes in empowering individuals to take charge of their health to live longer, healthier lives.”

While Nesheiwat was critical of COVID mandates, she voiced more support for COVID vaccines and mask-wearing during the pandemic than her fellow nominees, leading some Trump supporters to criticize her nomination. 

“A good appointment, happy about this: I got to know @DoctorJanette during the pandemic, exchanging information. She is very smart, thoughtful, interested in learning, and a compassionate doctor, and…a truly nice person,” noted vaccine researcher Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said on X.

 

David J. Weldon

If confirmed, former congressman Weldon would oversee the sprawling CDC, an agency with a roughly $17 billion budget, 15,000 employees or contractors, and numerous centers covering everything from health statistics to vaccines to epidemiology.

After earning his medical degree from the University at Buffalo School of Medicine, Weldon served in the US Army and US Army reserve. The Republican later served for 14 years in Congress representing Florida’s 15th district, which covers the Tampa region.

He now practices as an internist in Brevard County, Florida.

In Congress, Weldon raised concerns about the safety of some vaccines and promoted the false narrative that a former vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, caused autism, the Washington Post reported. Thimerosal has not been used in child vaccines for more than two decades. He also introduced a bill to move vaccine safety oversight from the CDC to an independent agency within HHS.

Trump said in a statement that Weldon “will proudly restore the CDC to its true purpose, and will work to end the Chronic Disease Epidemic.” 

But some physicians criticized Weldon for what they called his anti-vaccine views.

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

President-elect Donald Trump’s vision for the nation’s top health agencies is coming into focus with three nominations announced Nov. 22 that drew both criticism and praise:

• Surgeon and health researcher Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, to lead the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
• Former Republican congressman and physician David J. Weldon, MD, for director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
• Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat, MD, for surgeon general.

Earlier in November, Trump nominated vaccine skeptic and former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Here’s what to know about the latest nominees, who, like Kennedy, must be confirmed by the US Senate.

 

Martin A. Makary

Currently a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and chief of islet transplant surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Makary co-invented in 2006 a surgery checklist that became a widely-used patient safety tool. 

As a US FDA commissioner, Makary would preside over a $6.5 billion agency with more than 18,000 employees. The agency, part of HHS, oversees human and animal drugs and vaccines, medical devices, food, tobacco and other products. Some of Makary’s views align closely with those of HHS nominee Kennedy. 

Makary is also chief medical officer of telehealth platform Sesame.

Makary was primarily known as a health researcher and author of books about price transparency and the cost of health care until the COVID-19 pandemic, when he became an outspoken critic of the federal response, lambasting restrictions and mandates advocated by the CDC and other public health officials. 

In 2023, Makary told the House Select Subcommittee on the COVID Pandemic that federal officials had ignored what he called “natural immunity.” Studies have shown that natural immunity is “at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, and probably better,” testified Makary.

Makary called for an overhaul of the US FDA in a 2021 Fox News opinion, saying that its culture was “defined by counterproductive rigidity and a refusal to adapt.”

Blind Spots, his most recent book, takes on what he calls “medical dogma” and challenges conventional views on subjects ranging from the microbiome to marijuana to cancer prevention, hormone replacement therapy, antibiotics and peanut allergies.

In an interview he posted to X, Makary blames inappropriate use of antibiotics for a variety of childhood illnesses. He cites increases in obesity, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, asthma, celiac disease, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease as all potentially causally related to antibiotics given in childhood.

Makary is an advisor to two conservative think tanks, the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, and to Paragon Health Institute, begun in 2021 by two former top officials in the previous Trump administration.

Makary would “cut the bureaucratic red tape at the agency to make sure Americans get the medical cures and treatments they deserve,” Trump said on his social media platform, Truth Social, and in a press release.

While Los Angeles Times owner and physician-entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, MBBCh, MSc, praised the nomination of Makary (and the two other nominees) as “inspired,” other physicians criticized Makary for his anti-COVID mandate views and “fear-mongering” over COVID vaccine side effects.

 

Janette Nesheiwat

As surgeon general, Nesheiwat would serve as the top “health communicator in chief” and oversee the 6000 member US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

She is a frequent medical contributor to Fox News and serves as a medical director for a group of urgent care clinics in New York. She received her medical degree from the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine and completed a family medicine residency at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. She is board-certified in family medicine.

Nesheiwat sells vitamin supplements on her website and in December will publish a book on “miracles in medicine” and her Christian faith. 

Trump said in a statement that Nesheiwat “is a fierce advocate and strong communicator for preventive medicine and public health. She is committed to ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, quality healthcare, and believes in empowering individuals to take charge of their health to live longer, healthier lives.”

While Nesheiwat was critical of COVID mandates, she voiced more support for COVID vaccines and mask-wearing during the pandemic than her fellow nominees, leading some Trump supporters to criticize her nomination. 

“A good appointment, happy about this: I got to know @DoctorJanette during the pandemic, exchanging information. She is very smart, thoughtful, interested in learning, and a compassionate doctor, and…a truly nice person,” noted vaccine researcher Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said on X.

 

David J. Weldon

If confirmed, former congressman Weldon would oversee the sprawling CDC, an agency with a roughly $17 billion budget, 15,000 employees or contractors, and numerous centers covering everything from health statistics to vaccines to epidemiology.

After earning his medical degree from the University at Buffalo School of Medicine, Weldon served in the US Army and US Army reserve. The Republican later served for 14 years in Congress representing Florida’s 15th district, which covers the Tampa region.

He now practices as an internist in Brevard County, Florida.

In Congress, Weldon raised concerns about the safety of some vaccines and promoted the false narrative that a former vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, caused autism, the Washington Post reported. Thimerosal has not been used in child vaccines for more than two decades. He also introduced a bill to move vaccine safety oversight from the CDC to an independent agency within HHS.

Trump said in a statement that Weldon “will proudly restore the CDC to its true purpose, and will work to end the Chronic Disease Epidemic.” 

But some physicians criticized Weldon for what they called his anti-vaccine views.

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

President-elect Donald Trump’s vision for the nation’s top health agencies is coming into focus with three nominations announced Nov. 22 that drew both criticism and praise:

• Surgeon and health researcher Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, to lead the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
• Former Republican congressman and physician David J. Weldon, MD, for director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
• Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat, MD, for surgeon general.

Earlier in November, Trump nominated vaccine skeptic and former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Here’s what to know about the latest nominees, who, like Kennedy, must be confirmed by the US Senate.

 

Martin A. Makary

Currently a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and chief of islet transplant surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Makary co-invented in 2006 a surgery checklist that became a widely-used patient safety tool. 

As a US FDA commissioner, Makary would preside over a $6.5 billion agency with more than 18,000 employees. The agency, part of HHS, oversees human and animal drugs and vaccines, medical devices, food, tobacco and other products. Some of Makary’s views align closely with those of HHS nominee Kennedy. 

Makary is also chief medical officer of telehealth platform Sesame.

Makary was primarily known as a health researcher and author of books about price transparency and the cost of health care until the COVID-19 pandemic, when he became an outspoken critic of the federal response, lambasting restrictions and mandates advocated by the CDC and other public health officials. 

In 2023, Makary told the House Select Subcommittee on the COVID Pandemic that federal officials had ignored what he called “natural immunity.” Studies have shown that natural immunity is “at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, and probably better,” testified Makary.

Makary called for an overhaul of the US FDA in a 2021 Fox News opinion, saying that its culture was “defined by counterproductive rigidity and a refusal to adapt.”

Blind Spots, his most recent book, takes on what he calls “medical dogma” and challenges conventional views on subjects ranging from the microbiome to marijuana to cancer prevention, hormone replacement therapy, antibiotics and peanut allergies.

In an interview he posted to X, Makary blames inappropriate use of antibiotics for a variety of childhood illnesses. He cites increases in obesity, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, asthma, celiac disease, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease as all potentially causally related to antibiotics given in childhood.

Makary is an advisor to two conservative think tanks, the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, and to Paragon Health Institute, begun in 2021 by two former top officials in the previous Trump administration.

Makary would “cut the bureaucratic red tape at the agency to make sure Americans get the medical cures and treatments they deserve,” Trump said on his social media platform, Truth Social, and in a press release.

While Los Angeles Times owner and physician-entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, MBBCh, MSc, praised the nomination of Makary (and the two other nominees) as “inspired,” other physicians criticized Makary for his anti-COVID mandate views and “fear-mongering” over COVID vaccine side effects.

 

Janette Nesheiwat

As surgeon general, Nesheiwat would serve as the top “health communicator in chief” and oversee the 6000 member US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

She is a frequent medical contributor to Fox News and serves as a medical director for a group of urgent care clinics in New York. She received her medical degree from the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine and completed a family medicine residency at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. She is board-certified in family medicine.

Nesheiwat sells vitamin supplements on her website and in December will publish a book on “miracles in medicine” and her Christian faith. 

Trump said in a statement that Nesheiwat “is a fierce advocate and strong communicator for preventive medicine and public health. She is committed to ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, quality healthcare, and believes in empowering individuals to take charge of their health to live longer, healthier lives.”

While Nesheiwat was critical of COVID mandates, she voiced more support for COVID vaccines and mask-wearing during the pandemic than her fellow nominees, leading some Trump supporters to criticize her nomination. 

“A good appointment, happy about this: I got to know @DoctorJanette during the pandemic, exchanging information. She is very smart, thoughtful, interested in learning, and a compassionate doctor, and…a truly nice person,” noted vaccine researcher Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said on X.

 

David J. Weldon

If confirmed, former congressman Weldon would oversee the sprawling CDC, an agency with a roughly $17 billion budget, 15,000 employees or contractors, and numerous centers covering everything from health statistics to vaccines to epidemiology.

After earning his medical degree from the University at Buffalo School of Medicine, Weldon served in the US Army and US Army reserve. The Republican later served for 14 years in Congress representing Florida’s 15th district, which covers the Tampa region.

He now practices as an internist in Brevard County, Florida.

In Congress, Weldon raised concerns about the safety of some vaccines and promoted the false narrative that a former vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, caused autism, the Washington Post reported. Thimerosal has not been used in child vaccines for more than two decades. He also introduced a bill to move vaccine safety oversight from the CDC to an independent agency within HHS.

Trump said in a statement that Weldon “will proudly restore the CDC to its true purpose, and will work to end the Chronic Disease Epidemic.” 

But some physicians criticized Weldon for what they called his anti-vaccine views.

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

TOPLINE:

Up to one in seven young adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) have clinically significant hepatic fibrosis, signaling the crucial need for screening in this population to aid early detection and intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers aimed to assess the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis (stage ≥ 2) in young adults without a history of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypothesizing that the rates would be comparable with those in older adults, especially in the presence of cardiometabolic risk factors.
• Overall, 1420 participants aged 21-79 years with or without T2D (63% or 37%, respectively) were included from outpatient clinics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and divided into two age groups: < 45 years (n = 243) and ≥ 45 years (n = 1177).
• All the participants underwent assessment of liver stiffness via transient elastography, with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) or liver biopsy recommended when indicated.
• Participants also underwent a medical history review, physical examination, and fasting blood tests to rule out secondary causes of liver disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 52% of participants had hepatic steatosis, and 9.5% had clinically significant fibrosis.
• There were no significant differences in the frequencies of hepatic steatosis (50.2% vs 52.7%; P = .6) or clinically significant hepatic fibrosis (7.5% vs 9.9%; P = .2) observed between young and older adults.
• The presence of either T2D or obesity was linked to an increased prevalence of both hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in both the age groups (P < .01).
• In young and older adults, the presence of both T2D and obesity led to the highest rates of both hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis, with the latter rate being statistically similar between the groups (15.7% vs 17.3%; P = .2).
• The presence of T2D and obesity was the strongest risk factors for hepatic fibrosis in young adults (odds ratios, 4.33 and 1.16, respectively; P < .05 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical implication is that young adults with obesity and T2D carry a high risk of future cirrhosis, possibly as high as older adults, and must be aggressively screened at the first visit and carefully followed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Anu Sharma, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, was published online in Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The diagnosis of clinically significant hepatic fibrosis was confirmed via MRE and/or liver biopsy in only 30% of all participants. The study population included a slightly higher proportion of young adults with obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic risk factors than that in national averages, which may have limited its generalizability. Genetic variants associated with MASLD were not included in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded partly by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Echosens. One author disclosed receiving research support and serving as a consultant for various pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Up to one in seven young adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) have clinically significant hepatic fibrosis, signaling the crucial need for screening in this population to aid early detection and intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers aimed to assess the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis (stage ≥ 2) in young adults without a history of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypothesizing that the rates would be comparable with those in older adults, especially in the presence of cardiometabolic risk factors.
• Overall, 1420 participants aged 21-79 years with or without T2D (63% or 37%, respectively) were included from outpatient clinics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and divided into two age groups: < 45 years (n = 243) and ≥ 45 years (n = 1177).
• All the participants underwent assessment of liver stiffness via transient elastography, with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) or liver biopsy recommended when indicated.
• Participants also underwent a medical history review, physical examination, and fasting blood tests to rule out secondary causes of liver disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 52% of participants had hepatic steatosis, and 9.5% had clinically significant fibrosis.
• There were no significant differences in the frequencies of hepatic steatosis (50.2% vs 52.7%; P = .6) or clinically significant hepatic fibrosis (7.5% vs 9.9%; P = .2) observed between young and older adults.
• The presence of either T2D or obesity was linked to an increased prevalence of both hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in both the age groups (P < .01).
• In young and older adults, the presence of both T2D and obesity led to the highest rates of both hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis, with the latter rate being statistically similar between the groups (15.7% vs 17.3%; P = .2).
• The presence of T2D and obesity was the strongest risk factors for hepatic fibrosis in young adults (odds ratios, 4.33 and 1.16, respectively; P < .05 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical implication is that young adults with obesity and T2D carry a high risk of future cirrhosis, possibly as high as older adults, and must be aggressively screened at the first visit and carefully followed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Anu Sharma, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, was published online in Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The diagnosis of clinically significant hepatic fibrosis was confirmed via MRE and/or liver biopsy in only 30% of all participants. The study population included a slightly higher proportion of young adults with obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic risk factors than that in national averages, which may have limited its generalizability. Genetic variants associated with MASLD were not included in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded partly by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Echosens. One author disclosed receiving research support and serving as a consultant for various pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Up to one in seven young adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) have clinically significant hepatic fibrosis, signaling the crucial need for screening in this population to aid early detection and intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers aimed to assess the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis (stage ≥ 2) in young adults without a history of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypothesizing that the rates would be comparable with those in older adults, especially in the presence of cardiometabolic risk factors.
• Overall, 1420 participants aged 21-79 years with or without T2D (63% or 37%, respectively) were included from outpatient clinics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and divided into two age groups: < 45 years (n = 243) and ≥ 45 years (n = 1177).
• All the participants underwent assessment of liver stiffness via transient elastography, with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) or liver biopsy recommended when indicated.
• Participants also underwent a medical history review, physical examination, and fasting blood tests to rule out secondary causes of liver disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 52% of participants had hepatic steatosis, and 9.5% had clinically significant fibrosis.
• There were no significant differences in the frequencies of hepatic steatosis (50.2% vs 52.7%; P = .6) or clinically significant hepatic fibrosis (7.5% vs 9.9%; P = .2) observed between young and older adults.
• The presence of either T2D or obesity was linked to an increased prevalence of both hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in both the age groups (P < .01).
• In young and older adults, the presence of both T2D and obesity led to the highest rates of both hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis, with the latter rate being statistically similar between the groups (15.7% vs 17.3%; P = .2).
• The presence of T2D and obesity was the strongest risk factors for hepatic fibrosis in young adults (odds ratios, 4.33 and 1.16, respectively; P < .05 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical implication is that young adults with obesity and T2D carry a high risk of future cirrhosis, possibly as high as older adults, and must be aggressively screened at the first visit and carefully followed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Anu Sharma, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, was published online in Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The diagnosis of clinically significant hepatic fibrosis was confirmed via MRE and/or liver biopsy in only 30% of all participants. The study population included a slightly higher proportion of young adults with obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic risk factors than that in national averages, which may have limited its generalizability. Genetic variants associated with MASLD were not included in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded partly by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Echosens. One author disclosed receiving research support and serving as a consultant for various pharmaceutical companies.

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

Two Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panels are urging the agency to eliminate the risk management program for the antipsychotic drug clozapine, saying that restrictions are limiting access to a life-changing and life-saving medication for people with schizophrenia.

Members of the Drug Safety and Risk Management and Psychopharmacologic Drugs advisory committees held a joint meeting on November 19 to address whether frequently revised restrictions that have been in place since clozapine was introduced in 1989 should be changed again. Clozapine — the only FDA-approved drug for treatment-resistant schizophrenia — can cause severe neutropenia, so is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Management Strategy (REMS).

Calling the current rules overly burdensome, a majority of committee members voted against continuing a requirement that pharmacies and physicians must provide documentation of a patient’s absolute neutrophil count (ANC) results through the REMS. Monitoring should continue, as directed in the labeling, said the panel.

Panelists also voted overwhelmingly that it is not necessary to mandate physician education about clozapine’s risk of neutropenia and the need for ANC monitoring.

The panel did not vote, however, on whether the REMS should be eliminated altogether. The FDA did not pose that as a voting question for the panels’ consideration.

Following intense lobbying by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and others, the FDA announced in 2022 that the agency would exercise “enforcement discretion” by allowing prescribers and pharmacists to skirt the clozapine REMS rules. But the agency doesn’t know whether the program is meeting its goals, said Tiffany R. Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Among other things, the REMS requires that physicians and pharmacists be certified to prescribe and dispense the drug, that patients be enrolled, and that patient status forms be submitted monthly, showing ANC levels and appropriateness of continuing treatment. 

At the meeting, FDA officials said that 148,000 outpatient clozapine prescriptions were written in 2023. But an estimated 814,000–1.2 million Americans have treatment-resistant schizophrenia, the main indication for clozapine.

“We know the drug is being underutilized,” said Farchione, adding that the agency wants to ensure that physicians and pharmacists “can use the drug, use it safely and help the patients who need it.” 

 

REMS a ‘Hindrance’

As reported by this news organization, research presented earlier this year at the APA annual meeting showed that the risk of moderate and severe neutropenia is low to minimal in people taking clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Those findings prompted the study’s investigators to suggest clozapine REMS should be reconsidered.

In the November 19th committee meeting, many panelists said that clozapine was no more dangerous than many antipsychotics and that the administrative requirements were preventing clinicians from prescribing.

“I have fantasized for years about abolishing the clozapine REMS,” said Jacob S. Ballon, MD, MPH, a temporary panel member and associate professor of psychiatry at Stanford University in California.

Panelists Jess Fiedorowicz, MD, PhD, professor and senior research chair in adult psychiatry at the University of Ottawa, Canada; Megan J. Ehret, PharmD, MS, a panelist and professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore; and Rajesh Narendran, MD, a professor in radiology and psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in Pennsylvania, agreed.

“I strongly feel that the REMS at this point is just a hindrance,” Narendran said. “I think you should get rid of the REMS.”

However, panelist Walter Dunn, MD, PhD, staff psychiatrist at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, cautioned that modifying or eliminating the REMS might not necessarily increase prescribers. If monitoring ANC levels is still recommended in labeling, clinicians will still regard it as the standard of care, said Dunn. And “there are a whole host of other issues associated with clozapine,” that he said were “more concerning.” 

Many patients are accessing clozapine without going through the REMS, which is also of concern to the FDA and drug manufacturers. 

“We estimate about 42,000 patients are not participating in the REMS, said James Shamp, VP of data intelligence and program analytics at United BioSource, a company that supports drug makers.

Leah Hart, PharmD, a risk management analyst with the FDA, told the panel that the agency estimates that 25%-35% of patients taking clozapine may not be participating in the REMS. 

“Today, prescribers, pharmacies, and patients do not have to participate in the REMS in order patients to obtain clozapine,” Hart said.

 

Public Testimony Sways Panel

But psychiatrists, pharmacists, families, and patients who testified during the 90-minute open portion of the meeting disagreed with that assessment, saying the REMS program had a devastatingly chilling effect on clozapine access.

Patty Taggart of Las Vegas said her daughter had nine suicide attempts over the past 14 years, while having tried eight different antipsychotics. In August, after the most-recent attempt, Taggart begged the psychiatrist to prescribe clozapine to her daughter. The clinician refused, citing the REMS. After her daughter’s discharge, Taggart said she found another provider who would prescribe the medication.

Lisa Castellanos said her son Daniel had been treated with a variety of antipsychotics but denied clozapine until he was arrested in 2012 for assault during a psychotic break. The state used the medication to improve Daniel’s mental state so he could stand trial. But when he went to jail after accepting a plea deal, the prison stopped the clozapine. Daniel has since deteriorated and was recently ruled ineligible for parole.

Patients and families also described being rejected at pharmacies — most of which, despite the FDA’s supposed “enforcement discretion” continue to rigorously follow REMS requirements. 

Many panelists said they were moved by patients and family testimony. A dozen or more members of the public were wearing black t-shirts with white writing that declared: “Clozapine is the safest antipsychotic in the world.” 

 

‘Blood-for-Drug Program’

Brian Barnett, MD, director of the psychiatric treatment-resistance program at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, said during the public portion of the meeting that “many pharmacies simply refuse to dispense clozapine likely because of the administrative burden and lack of financial incentives.” 

Others want faxed lab results even when the results have been filed electronically, he said. “One of the most dangerous features of the current REMS system is its inflexibility, driven by the so-called ‘no blood, no drug’ ethos which has been baked into the minds of America’s pharmacists.”

“This is a blood-for-drug program,” agreed Rachel Strieff of Tempe, Arizona, who noted that her advocacy group, Angry Moms, and others had submitted 4,000 signatures calling for the end of the REMS. “The largest category of patients harmed by the clozapine REMS have never taken a single dose,” she said, noting that millions of eligible individuals are not getting the drug.

Panel chair James Floyd, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, said the public testimony was “very moving.” Families and patients had described “the intensity of suffering that people go through prior to getting to clozapine,” he added.

“We have to listen to that,” said Floyd.


“I want you to know that we hear you,” said Farchione. “We’re here today because of you and your loved ones. And your stories are important, and your experience is important, and what you’ve shared today will have an impact on regulatory decision making.”

While the FDA typically follows its panels’ advice, it’s unclear if the agency will do so for clozapine REMS or when it will release its final decision.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panels are urging the agency to eliminate the risk management program for the antipsychotic drug clozapine, saying that restrictions are limiting access to a life-changing and life-saving medication for people with schizophrenia.

Members of the Drug Safety and Risk Management and Psychopharmacologic Drugs advisory committees held a joint meeting on November 19 to address whether frequently revised restrictions that have been in place since clozapine was introduced in 1989 should be changed again. Clozapine — the only FDA-approved drug for treatment-resistant schizophrenia — can cause severe neutropenia, so is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Management Strategy (REMS).

Calling the current rules overly burdensome, a majority of committee members voted against continuing a requirement that pharmacies and physicians must provide documentation of a patient’s absolute neutrophil count (ANC) results through the REMS. Monitoring should continue, as directed in the labeling, said the panel.

Panelists also voted overwhelmingly that it is not necessary to mandate physician education about clozapine’s risk of neutropenia and the need for ANC monitoring.

The panel did not vote, however, on whether the REMS should be eliminated altogether. The FDA did not pose that as a voting question for the panels’ consideration.

Following intense lobbying by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and others, the FDA announced in 2022 that the agency would exercise “enforcement discretion” by allowing prescribers and pharmacists to skirt the clozapine REMS rules. But the agency doesn’t know whether the program is meeting its goals, said Tiffany R. Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Among other things, the REMS requires that physicians and pharmacists be certified to prescribe and dispense the drug, that patients be enrolled, and that patient status forms be submitted monthly, showing ANC levels and appropriateness of continuing treatment. 

At the meeting, FDA officials said that 148,000 outpatient clozapine prescriptions were written in 2023. But an estimated 814,000–1.2 million Americans have treatment-resistant schizophrenia, the main indication for clozapine.

“We know the drug is being underutilized,” said Farchione, adding that the agency wants to ensure that physicians and pharmacists “can use the drug, use it safely and help the patients who need it.” 

 

REMS a ‘Hindrance’

As reported by this news organization, research presented earlier this year at the APA annual meeting showed that the risk of moderate and severe neutropenia is low to minimal in people taking clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Those findings prompted the study’s investigators to suggest clozapine REMS should be reconsidered.

In the November 19th committee meeting, many panelists said that clozapine was no more dangerous than many antipsychotics and that the administrative requirements were preventing clinicians from prescribing.

“I have fantasized for years about abolishing the clozapine REMS,” said Jacob S. Ballon, MD, MPH, a temporary panel member and associate professor of psychiatry at Stanford University in California.

Panelists Jess Fiedorowicz, MD, PhD, professor and senior research chair in adult psychiatry at the University of Ottawa, Canada; Megan J. Ehret, PharmD, MS, a panelist and professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore; and Rajesh Narendran, MD, a professor in radiology and psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in Pennsylvania, agreed.

“I strongly feel that the REMS at this point is just a hindrance,” Narendran said. “I think you should get rid of the REMS.”

However, panelist Walter Dunn, MD, PhD, staff psychiatrist at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, cautioned that modifying or eliminating the REMS might not necessarily increase prescribers. If monitoring ANC levels is still recommended in labeling, clinicians will still regard it as the standard of care, said Dunn. And “there are a whole host of other issues associated with clozapine,” that he said were “more concerning.” 

Many patients are accessing clozapine without going through the REMS, which is also of concern to the FDA and drug manufacturers. 

“We estimate about 42,000 patients are not participating in the REMS, said James Shamp, VP of data intelligence and program analytics at United BioSource, a company that supports drug makers.

Leah Hart, PharmD, a risk management analyst with the FDA, told the panel that the agency estimates that 25%-35% of patients taking clozapine may not be participating in the REMS. 

“Today, prescribers, pharmacies, and patients do not have to participate in the REMS in order patients to obtain clozapine,” Hart said.

 

Public Testimony Sways Panel

But psychiatrists, pharmacists, families, and patients who testified during the 90-minute open portion of the meeting disagreed with that assessment, saying the REMS program had a devastatingly chilling effect on clozapine access.

Patty Taggart of Las Vegas said her daughter had nine suicide attempts over the past 14 years, while having tried eight different antipsychotics. In August, after the most-recent attempt, Taggart begged the psychiatrist to prescribe clozapine to her daughter. The clinician refused, citing the REMS. After her daughter’s discharge, Taggart said she found another provider who would prescribe the medication.

Lisa Castellanos said her son Daniel had been treated with a variety of antipsychotics but denied clozapine until he was arrested in 2012 for assault during a psychotic break. The state used the medication to improve Daniel’s mental state so he could stand trial. But when he went to jail after accepting a plea deal, the prison stopped the clozapine. Daniel has since deteriorated and was recently ruled ineligible for parole.

Patients and families also described being rejected at pharmacies — most of which, despite the FDA’s supposed “enforcement discretion” continue to rigorously follow REMS requirements. 

Many panelists said they were moved by patients and family testimony. A dozen or more members of the public were wearing black t-shirts with white writing that declared: “Clozapine is the safest antipsychotic in the world.” 

 

‘Blood-for-Drug Program’

Brian Barnett, MD, director of the psychiatric treatment-resistance program at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, said during the public portion of the meeting that “many pharmacies simply refuse to dispense clozapine likely because of the administrative burden and lack of financial incentives.” 

Others want faxed lab results even when the results have been filed electronically, he said. “One of the most dangerous features of the current REMS system is its inflexibility, driven by the so-called ‘no blood, no drug’ ethos which has been baked into the minds of America’s pharmacists.”

“This is a blood-for-drug program,” agreed Rachel Strieff of Tempe, Arizona, who noted that her advocacy group, Angry Moms, and others had submitted 4,000 signatures calling for the end of the REMS. “The largest category of patients harmed by the clozapine REMS have never taken a single dose,” she said, noting that millions of eligible individuals are not getting the drug.

Panel chair James Floyd, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, said the public testimony was “very moving.” Families and patients had described “the intensity of suffering that people go through prior to getting to clozapine,” he added.

“We have to listen to that,” said Floyd.


“I want you to know that we hear you,” said Farchione. “We’re here today because of you and your loved ones. And your stories are important, and your experience is important, and what you’ve shared today will have an impact on regulatory decision making.”

While the FDA typically follows its panels’ advice, it’s unclear if the agency will do so for clozapine REMS or when it will release its final decision.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panels are urging the agency to eliminate the risk management program for the antipsychotic drug clozapine, saying that restrictions are limiting access to a life-changing and life-saving medication for people with schizophrenia.

Members of the Drug Safety and Risk Management and Psychopharmacologic Drugs advisory committees held a joint meeting on November 19 to address whether frequently revised restrictions that have been in place since clozapine was introduced in 1989 should be changed again. Clozapine — the only FDA-approved drug for treatment-resistant schizophrenia — can cause severe neutropenia, so is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Management Strategy (REMS).

Calling the current rules overly burdensome, a majority of committee members voted against continuing a requirement that pharmacies and physicians must provide documentation of a patient’s absolute neutrophil count (ANC) results through the REMS. Monitoring should continue, as directed in the labeling, said the panel.

Panelists also voted overwhelmingly that it is not necessary to mandate physician education about clozapine’s risk of neutropenia and the need for ANC monitoring.

The panel did not vote, however, on whether the REMS should be eliminated altogether. The FDA did not pose that as a voting question for the panels’ consideration.

Following intense lobbying by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and others, the FDA announced in 2022 that the agency would exercise “enforcement discretion” by allowing prescribers and pharmacists to skirt the clozapine REMS rules. But the agency doesn’t know whether the program is meeting its goals, said Tiffany R. Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Among other things, the REMS requires that physicians and pharmacists be certified to prescribe and dispense the drug, that patients be enrolled, and that patient status forms be submitted monthly, showing ANC levels and appropriateness of continuing treatment. 

At the meeting, FDA officials said that 148,000 outpatient clozapine prescriptions were written in 2023. But an estimated 814,000–1.2 million Americans have treatment-resistant schizophrenia, the main indication for clozapine.

“We know the drug is being underutilized,” said Farchione, adding that the agency wants to ensure that physicians and pharmacists “can use the drug, use it safely and help the patients who need it.” 

 

REMS a ‘Hindrance’

As reported by this news organization, research presented earlier this year at the APA annual meeting showed that the risk of moderate and severe neutropenia is low to minimal in people taking clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Those findings prompted the study’s investigators to suggest clozapine REMS should be reconsidered.

In the November 19th committee meeting, many panelists said that clozapine was no more dangerous than many antipsychotics and that the administrative requirements were preventing clinicians from prescribing.

“I have fantasized for years about abolishing the clozapine REMS,” said Jacob S. Ballon, MD, MPH, a temporary panel member and associate professor of psychiatry at Stanford University in California.

Panelists Jess Fiedorowicz, MD, PhD, professor and senior research chair in adult psychiatry at the University of Ottawa, Canada; Megan J. Ehret, PharmD, MS, a panelist and professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore; and Rajesh Narendran, MD, a professor in radiology and psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in Pennsylvania, agreed.

“I strongly feel that the REMS at this point is just a hindrance,” Narendran said. “I think you should get rid of the REMS.”

However, panelist Walter Dunn, MD, PhD, staff psychiatrist at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, cautioned that modifying or eliminating the REMS might not necessarily increase prescribers. If monitoring ANC levels is still recommended in labeling, clinicians will still regard it as the standard of care, said Dunn. And “there are a whole host of other issues associated with clozapine,” that he said were “more concerning.” 

Many patients are accessing clozapine without going through the REMS, which is also of concern to the FDA and drug manufacturers. 

“We estimate about 42,000 patients are not participating in the REMS, said James Shamp, VP of data intelligence and program analytics at United BioSource, a company that supports drug makers.

Leah Hart, PharmD, a risk management analyst with the FDA, told the panel that the agency estimates that 25%-35% of patients taking clozapine may not be participating in the REMS. 

“Today, prescribers, pharmacies, and patients do not have to participate in the REMS in order patients to obtain clozapine,” Hart said.

 

Public Testimony Sways Panel

But psychiatrists, pharmacists, families, and patients who testified during the 90-minute open portion of the meeting disagreed with that assessment, saying the REMS program had a devastatingly chilling effect on clozapine access.

Patty Taggart of Las Vegas said her daughter had nine suicide attempts over the past 14 years, while having tried eight different antipsychotics. In August, after the most-recent attempt, Taggart begged the psychiatrist to prescribe clozapine to her daughter. The clinician refused, citing the REMS. After her daughter’s discharge, Taggart said she found another provider who would prescribe the medication.

Lisa Castellanos said her son Daniel had been treated with a variety of antipsychotics but denied clozapine until he was arrested in 2012 for assault during a psychotic break. The state used the medication to improve Daniel’s mental state so he could stand trial. But when he went to jail after accepting a plea deal, the prison stopped the clozapine. Daniel has since deteriorated and was recently ruled ineligible for parole.

Patients and families also described being rejected at pharmacies — most of which, despite the FDA’s supposed “enforcement discretion” continue to rigorously follow REMS requirements. 

Many panelists said they were moved by patients and family testimony. A dozen or more members of the public were wearing black t-shirts with white writing that declared: “Clozapine is the safest antipsychotic in the world.” 

 

‘Blood-for-Drug Program’

Brian Barnett, MD, director of the psychiatric treatment-resistance program at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, said during the public portion of the meeting that “many pharmacies simply refuse to dispense clozapine likely because of the administrative burden and lack of financial incentives.” 

Others want faxed lab results even when the results have been filed electronically, he said. “One of the most dangerous features of the current REMS system is its inflexibility, driven by the so-called ‘no blood, no drug’ ethos which has been baked into the minds of America’s pharmacists.”

“This is a blood-for-drug program,” agreed Rachel Strieff of Tempe, Arizona, who noted that her advocacy group, Angry Moms, and others had submitted 4,000 signatures calling for the end of the REMS. “The largest category of patients harmed by the clozapine REMS have never taken a single dose,” she said, noting that millions of eligible individuals are not getting the drug.

Panel chair James Floyd, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, said the public testimony was “very moving.” Families and patients had described “the intensity of suffering that people go through prior to getting to clozapine,” he added.

“We have to listen to that,” said Floyd.


“I want you to know that we hear you,” said Farchione. “We’re here today because of you and your loved ones. And your stories are important, and your experience is important, and what you’ve shared today will have an impact on regulatory decision making.”

While the FDA typically follows its panels’ advice, it’s unclear if the agency will do so for clozapine REMS or when it will release its final decision.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently published consensus guidelines for low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) treatment of hair loss provide best-practice recommendations in areas ranging from pretreatment considerations and counseling to patient monitoring. With large randomized, controlled trials lacking, the guidelines authors and other dermatologists said the paper provides practical pointers that should increase clinicians’ confidence in prescribing LDOM for hair loss.

Comfort and Confidence

Benjamin N. Ungar, MD, director of the Alopecia Center of Excellence at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York City, said he hopes that the guidelines will “make dermatologists in practice more comfortable with the use of low-dose oral minoxidil to treat different kinds of hair loss, and therefore, more patients will benefit.” He was not an author of the paper, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology on November 20, but was asked to comment.

Members of the multidisciplinary Low-Dose Oral Minoxidil Initiation steering committee recruited dermatologists with hair loss expertise from 12 countries. Using a modified four-round Delphi process that required at least 70% agreement, the group of 43 dermatologists crafted 76 consensus statements. “Notably,” said Co-senior author Jennifer Fu, MD, director of the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, “27 items achieved at least 90% consensus after the first two rounds, indicating broad agreement in expert practice.”

Indications for LDOM

At least 90% of experts concurred regarding the appropriateness of LDOM use for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and age-related thinning and in cases where topical minoxidil proves ineffective or problematic. Additional situations in which LDOM might provide direct benefit involve follicular miniaturization, such as alopecia areata, or hair cycle disruption, such as chemotherapy. The authors also recommended considering LDOM over topical minoxidil when the latter is more expensive and when patients desire enhanced hypertrichosis.

 

Contraindications and Precautions

Before prescribing LDOM, the authors wrote, clinicians may consult with primary care or cardiology when contraindications (cardiovascular issues, pregnancy/nursing, and potential drug interactions) or precautions (history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, or impaired kidney function) exist. Patients with precautions may require blood pressure monitoring, as well as monitoring for adverse effects of treatment. The panel also suggested the latter for all patients at the time of LDOM initiation and dose escalation. The authors advised against routine baseline laboratory and EKG testing in cases without relevant precautions.

Dosing Considerations

Along with systemic adverse event risk and baseline hair loss severity, key dosing considerations include patient age, sex, and whether patients desire hypertrichosis. Consensus on daily doses for adolescent females and males begins at 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, respectively, and ranges up to 2.5 mg for adolescent females vs 5 mg for adult females and adolescent and adult males.

Presently, said Ungar, many dermatologists — including some who prescribe LDOM — remain uncomfortable even with very low doses, perhaps because of an invalid perception of cardiovascular safety issues including potential hypotension and pericardial effusions. However, recently published data include a review published November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which showed no significant effect of LDOM on blood pressure. And in a September Journal of Drugs in Dermatology article the authors found no impact on pericardial effusions in a 100-patient cohort.

Some dermatologists worry about the impact hypertrichosis may have on patients, Ungar added. Although incidence estimates range from 15% to 30%, he said, more than half of his patients experience hypertrichosis. “However, most continue treatment because the beneficial effects outweigh the effect of hypertrichosis.”



 

Practical Roadmap

Adam Friedman, MD, who was not involved with the publication, applauds its inclusion of pragmatic clinical guidance, which he said consensus papers often lack. “This paper sets a great roadmap for working low-dose oral minoxidil into your clinical practice, Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

Rather than limiting LDOM use to AGA, he said, the paper is most helpful in showing the spectrum of disease states for which the expert panel prescribes LDOM. “We use it as adjunctive therapy for many other things, both scarring and nonscarring hair loss,” he added.

In appropriate clinical contexts, the authors wrote, clinicians may consider combining LDOM with spironolactone or beta-blockers. Friedman said that in his hands, combining LDOM with a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) is “absolutely outstanding.” Minoxidil increases blood flow to the scalp, he explained, while 5ARIs prevent production of dihydrotestosterone, which miniaturizes hair.

Fu said, “We hope these consensus outcomes will be helpful to dermatology colleagues as they consider using LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patient populations. We anticipate that these guidelines will be updated as additional evidence-based data emerges and are encouraged that we are already seeing new publications on this topic.”

Important areas for future research, she noted, include pediatric use of LDOM, the comparative efficacy of topical vs oral minoxidil, the safety of oral minoxidil for patients with a history of allergic contact dermatitis to topical minoxidil, and the use of other off-label forms of minoxidil, such as compounded oral minoxidil and sublingual minoxidil.

The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Dermatology Medical Student Summer Research Fellowship Program. Fu reported personal fees from Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, and Sun Pharma outside of the study. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the paper. Ungar and Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently published consensus guidelines for low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) treatment of hair loss provide best-practice recommendations in areas ranging from pretreatment considerations and counseling to patient monitoring. With large randomized, controlled trials lacking, the guidelines authors and other dermatologists said the paper provides practical pointers that should increase clinicians’ confidence in prescribing LDOM for hair loss.

Comfort and Confidence

Benjamin N. Ungar, MD, director of the Alopecia Center of Excellence at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York City, said he hopes that the guidelines will “make dermatologists in practice more comfortable with the use of low-dose oral minoxidil to treat different kinds of hair loss, and therefore, more patients will benefit.” He was not an author of the paper, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology on November 20, but was asked to comment.

Members of the multidisciplinary Low-Dose Oral Minoxidil Initiation steering committee recruited dermatologists with hair loss expertise from 12 countries. Using a modified four-round Delphi process that required at least 70% agreement, the group of 43 dermatologists crafted 76 consensus statements. “Notably,” said Co-senior author Jennifer Fu, MD, director of the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, “27 items achieved at least 90% consensus after the first two rounds, indicating broad agreement in expert practice.”

Indications for LDOM

At least 90% of experts concurred regarding the appropriateness of LDOM use for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and age-related thinning and in cases where topical minoxidil proves ineffective or problematic. Additional situations in which LDOM might provide direct benefit involve follicular miniaturization, such as alopecia areata, or hair cycle disruption, such as chemotherapy. The authors also recommended considering LDOM over topical minoxidil when the latter is more expensive and when patients desire enhanced hypertrichosis.

 

Contraindications and Precautions

Before prescribing LDOM, the authors wrote, clinicians may consult with primary care or cardiology when contraindications (cardiovascular issues, pregnancy/nursing, and potential drug interactions) or precautions (history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, or impaired kidney function) exist. Patients with precautions may require blood pressure monitoring, as well as monitoring for adverse effects of treatment. The panel also suggested the latter for all patients at the time of LDOM initiation and dose escalation. The authors advised against routine baseline laboratory and EKG testing in cases without relevant precautions.

Dosing Considerations

Along with systemic adverse event risk and baseline hair loss severity, key dosing considerations include patient age, sex, and whether patients desire hypertrichosis. Consensus on daily doses for adolescent females and males begins at 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, respectively, and ranges up to 2.5 mg for adolescent females vs 5 mg for adult females and adolescent and adult males.

Presently, said Ungar, many dermatologists — including some who prescribe LDOM — remain uncomfortable even with very low doses, perhaps because of an invalid perception of cardiovascular safety issues including potential hypotension and pericardial effusions. However, recently published data include a review published November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which showed no significant effect of LDOM on blood pressure. And in a September Journal of Drugs in Dermatology article the authors found no impact on pericardial effusions in a 100-patient cohort.

Some dermatologists worry about the impact hypertrichosis may have on patients, Ungar added. Although incidence estimates range from 15% to 30%, he said, more than half of his patients experience hypertrichosis. “However, most continue treatment because the beneficial effects outweigh the effect of hypertrichosis.”



 

Practical Roadmap

Adam Friedman, MD, who was not involved with the publication, applauds its inclusion of pragmatic clinical guidance, which he said consensus papers often lack. “This paper sets a great roadmap for working low-dose oral minoxidil into your clinical practice, Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

Rather than limiting LDOM use to AGA, he said, the paper is most helpful in showing the spectrum of disease states for which the expert panel prescribes LDOM. “We use it as adjunctive therapy for many other things, both scarring and nonscarring hair loss,” he added.

In appropriate clinical contexts, the authors wrote, clinicians may consider combining LDOM with spironolactone or beta-blockers. Friedman said that in his hands, combining LDOM with a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) is “absolutely outstanding.” Minoxidil increases blood flow to the scalp, he explained, while 5ARIs prevent production of dihydrotestosterone, which miniaturizes hair.

Fu said, “We hope these consensus outcomes will be helpful to dermatology colleagues as they consider using LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patient populations. We anticipate that these guidelines will be updated as additional evidence-based data emerges and are encouraged that we are already seeing new publications on this topic.”

Important areas for future research, she noted, include pediatric use of LDOM, the comparative efficacy of topical vs oral minoxidil, the safety of oral minoxidil for patients with a history of allergic contact dermatitis to topical minoxidil, and the use of other off-label forms of minoxidil, such as compounded oral minoxidil and sublingual minoxidil.

The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Dermatology Medical Student Summer Research Fellowship Program. Fu reported personal fees from Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, and Sun Pharma outside of the study. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the paper. Ungar and Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently published consensus guidelines for low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) treatment of hair loss provide best-practice recommendations in areas ranging from pretreatment considerations and counseling to patient monitoring. With large randomized, controlled trials lacking, the guidelines authors and other dermatologists said the paper provides practical pointers that should increase clinicians’ confidence in prescribing LDOM for hair loss.

Comfort and Confidence

Benjamin N. Ungar, MD, director of the Alopecia Center of Excellence at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York City, said he hopes that the guidelines will “make dermatologists in practice more comfortable with the use of low-dose oral minoxidil to treat different kinds of hair loss, and therefore, more patients will benefit.” He was not an author of the paper, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology on November 20, but was asked to comment.

Members of the multidisciplinary Low-Dose Oral Minoxidil Initiation steering committee recruited dermatologists with hair loss expertise from 12 countries. Using a modified four-round Delphi process that required at least 70% agreement, the group of 43 dermatologists crafted 76 consensus statements. “Notably,” said Co-senior author Jennifer Fu, MD, director of the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, “27 items achieved at least 90% consensus after the first two rounds, indicating broad agreement in expert practice.”

Indications for LDOM

At least 90% of experts concurred regarding the appropriateness of LDOM use for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and age-related thinning and in cases where topical minoxidil proves ineffective or problematic. Additional situations in which LDOM might provide direct benefit involve follicular miniaturization, such as alopecia areata, or hair cycle disruption, such as chemotherapy. The authors also recommended considering LDOM over topical minoxidil when the latter is more expensive and when patients desire enhanced hypertrichosis.

 

Contraindications and Precautions

Before prescribing LDOM, the authors wrote, clinicians may consult with primary care or cardiology when contraindications (cardiovascular issues, pregnancy/nursing, and potential drug interactions) or precautions (history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, or impaired kidney function) exist. Patients with precautions may require blood pressure monitoring, as well as monitoring for adverse effects of treatment. The panel also suggested the latter for all patients at the time of LDOM initiation and dose escalation. The authors advised against routine baseline laboratory and EKG testing in cases without relevant precautions.

Dosing Considerations

Along with systemic adverse event risk and baseline hair loss severity, key dosing considerations include patient age, sex, and whether patients desire hypertrichosis. Consensus on daily doses for adolescent females and males begins at 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, respectively, and ranges up to 2.5 mg for adolescent females vs 5 mg for adult females and adolescent and adult males.

Presently, said Ungar, many dermatologists — including some who prescribe LDOM — remain uncomfortable even with very low doses, perhaps because of an invalid perception of cardiovascular safety issues including potential hypotension and pericardial effusions. However, recently published data include a review published November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which showed no significant effect of LDOM on blood pressure. And in a September Journal of Drugs in Dermatology article the authors found no impact on pericardial effusions in a 100-patient cohort.

Some dermatologists worry about the impact hypertrichosis may have on patients, Ungar added. Although incidence estimates range from 15% to 30%, he said, more than half of his patients experience hypertrichosis. “However, most continue treatment because the beneficial effects outweigh the effect of hypertrichosis.”



 

Practical Roadmap

Adam Friedman, MD, who was not involved with the publication, applauds its inclusion of pragmatic clinical guidance, which he said consensus papers often lack. “This paper sets a great roadmap for working low-dose oral minoxidil into your clinical practice, Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

Rather than limiting LDOM use to AGA, he said, the paper is most helpful in showing the spectrum of disease states for which the expert panel prescribes LDOM. “We use it as adjunctive therapy for many other things, both scarring and nonscarring hair loss,” he added.

In appropriate clinical contexts, the authors wrote, clinicians may consider combining LDOM with spironolactone or beta-blockers. Friedman said that in his hands, combining LDOM with a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) is “absolutely outstanding.” Minoxidil increases blood flow to the scalp, he explained, while 5ARIs prevent production of dihydrotestosterone, which miniaturizes hair.

Fu said, “We hope these consensus outcomes will be helpful to dermatology colleagues as they consider using LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patient populations. We anticipate that these guidelines will be updated as additional evidence-based data emerges and are encouraged that we are already seeing new publications on this topic.”

Important areas for future research, she noted, include pediatric use of LDOM, the comparative efficacy of topical vs oral minoxidil, the safety of oral minoxidil for patients with a history of allergic contact dermatitis to topical minoxidil, and the use of other off-label forms of minoxidil, such as compounded oral minoxidil and sublingual minoxidil.

The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Dermatology Medical Student Summer Research Fellowship Program. Fu reported personal fees from Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, and Sun Pharma outside of the study. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the paper. Ungar and Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If we’ve learned anything about obesity prevention it’s that if we wait too long the die is cast and our success rate is nil. The GLP-1 antagonists seem to be a workable solution for treating the adult and adolescent population, but I have been afraid that their success will divert too much of our attention away from prevention.

Fortunately, there still seems to be a few researchers committed to the age group in which obesity could be headed off before our only option is treatment. In one recent study, “Neighborhood Food Access in Early Life and Trajectories of Child Body Mass Index and Obesity,” researchers collected data from more than 28,000 children in 55 cohorts during the period from 1994 to 2023). The investigators found that residence in a low–food access, low-income neighborhoods during pregnancy and early childhood was associated with higher BMI “Z” scores, a higher risk of obesity, and severe obesity in childhood. The researchers defined low food access as living greater than 0.5 miles away from a grocery store in an urban setting or greater than 10 minutes away in a rural setting. I don’t think those associations should surprise us, but having some data from a large population may be valuable should we ever find the political will to undertake any steps toward prevention.

I found a Viewpoint article published 2 weeks earlier in the same journal, titled, “The Exposome as a Key to Understanding Pediatric Health Disparities.” I know what the “biome” is and have heard gastroenterologists expound on the power that billions of our little single-celled friends residing in our gut have on seemingly unrelated and spatially distant events in our body. But, “exposome” was a new word for me, although it turns out the concept is simple and one I had harbored since late childhood. 

 

The opening sentence of the article reads “One’s environment profoundly changes health outcomes throughout one’s lifespan.” That truism was obvious to my 7-year-old self as I observed my playmates who lived in a poorly kept house in the less desirable area two blocks away and didn’t eat breakfast and were sick more often than the rest of us more-fortunates.

The authors define the exposome as the “totality of an individual’s non-genetic exposures, including psychosocial experiences, structural social determinants, chemical pollution, and neighborhood infrastructure.” This seems to be a pretty complete description of the nurture side of the nature versus nurture conversation. 

I suspect that, like me, most of you through observation and intuition have included your own interpretation of the exposome in your professional activities. However, the authors feel we could be more robust in our efforts and claim that “current pediatric practice largely neglects to characterize health disparities in terms of salient environmental practices.” They go on to call for incorporation of an “exposome lens in pediatric research and healthcare delivery.”

I’m not sure this is a valid criticism. There is certainly more that could be done when it comes to research that examines the effect of environmental stressors. And, I suspect the authors would view this recent paper on the association between neighborhood food access as a step in the right direction. However, when it comes to healthcare delivery, at least at the level where the stethoscope meets the chest, I think, or at least hope, the authors are underestimating the observational skills and sensitivity of primary care providers.

We were all taught to take an appropriate medical history when evaluating a patient. And, through our formal education, our personal observations and through exposure to papers like this one on food access we must be aware of the effect of environmental stressors on our patients’ health. Is there more we could learn about those kind of associations? Certainly. This is where a more broadly focused exposome lens could be most effective. 

The authors of the article observed: “The effect of the exposome is not uniform for all individuals but rather intersects across identities precipitating unique outcomes.” The practical reality is that to generate statistically significant data research must look at identities. This doesn’t mean that large population studies are without value. However, it does obligate investigators to include that caveat about the uniqueness of the individual in their conclusions. And, it is our duty as providers to keep this reality in mind as we interpret studies we read in the context of each individual patient. 

When it comes to healthcare delivery at the structural level, I am concerned that we are moving in a direction that is making it more difficult for the provider to become familiar with the patient’s exposome. I am talking about an over-reliance on the team care delivery model that too often results in the “We never/seldom see the same provider” patient complaint.

I don’t care how slick and user-friendly a practice’s EHR system is; the best way to learn about a patient’s exposome is by repeated exposure (pun unintended) to the same provider. This isn’t always possible, and a well-crafted and conscientiously managed EHR can fill in some of the gaps. But, it is a distant second best. 

Awareness of the importance of the exposome is only the starting point. Finding the political will to make the changes necessary to improve our patients’ outcomes is the bigger challenge. Grocery stores well-stocked with healthy foods don’t just pop up where we want them because we think they may hold answer to preventing pediatric obesity.

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

If we’ve learned anything about obesity prevention it’s that if we wait too long the die is cast and our success rate is nil. The GLP-1 antagonists seem to be a workable solution for treating the adult and adolescent population, but I have been afraid that their success will divert too much of our attention away from prevention.

Fortunately, there still seems to be a few researchers committed to the age group in which obesity could be headed off before our only option is treatment. In one recent study, “Neighborhood Food Access in Early Life and Trajectories of Child Body Mass Index and Obesity,” researchers collected data from more than 28,000 children in 55 cohorts during the period from 1994 to 2023). The investigators found that residence in a low–food access, low-income neighborhoods during pregnancy and early childhood was associated with higher BMI “Z” scores, a higher risk of obesity, and severe obesity in childhood. The researchers defined low food access as living greater than 0.5 miles away from a grocery store in an urban setting or greater than 10 minutes away in a rural setting. I don’t think those associations should surprise us, but having some data from a large population may be valuable should we ever find the political will to undertake any steps toward prevention.

I found a Viewpoint article published 2 weeks earlier in the same journal, titled, “The Exposome as a Key to Understanding Pediatric Health Disparities.” I know what the “biome” is and have heard gastroenterologists expound on the power that billions of our little single-celled friends residing in our gut have on seemingly unrelated and spatially distant events in our body. But, “exposome” was a new word for me, although it turns out the concept is simple and one I had harbored since late childhood. 

 

The opening sentence of the article reads “One’s environment profoundly changes health outcomes throughout one’s lifespan.” That truism was obvious to my 7-year-old self as I observed my playmates who lived in a poorly kept house in the less desirable area two blocks away and didn’t eat breakfast and were sick more often than the rest of us more-fortunates.

The authors define the exposome as the “totality of an individual’s non-genetic exposures, including psychosocial experiences, structural social determinants, chemical pollution, and neighborhood infrastructure.” This seems to be a pretty complete description of the nurture side of the nature versus nurture conversation. 

I suspect that, like me, most of you through observation and intuition have included your own interpretation of the exposome in your professional activities. However, the authors feel we could be more robust in our efforts and claim that “current pediatric practice largely neglects to characterize health disparities in terms of salient environmental practices.” They go on to call for incorporation of an “exposome lens in pediatric research and healthcare delivery.”

I’m not sure this is a valid criticism. There is certainly more that could be done when it comes to research that examines the effect of environmental stressors. And, I suspect the authors would view this recent paper on the association between neighborhood food access as a step in the right direction. However, when it comes to healthcare delivery, at least at the level where the stethoscope meets the chest, I think, or at least hope, the authors are underestimating the observational skills and sensitivity of primary care providers.

We were all taught to take an appropriate medical history when evaluating a patient. And, through our formal education, our personal observations and through exposure to papers like this one on food access we must be aware of the effect of environmental stressors on our patients’ health. Is there more we could learn about those kind of associations? Certainly. This is where a more broadly focused exposome lens could be most effective. 

The authors of the article observed: “The effect of the exposome is not uniform for all individuals but rather intersects across identities precipitating unique outcomes.” The practical reality is that to generate statistically significant data research must look at identities. This doesn’t mean that large population studies are without value. However, it does obligate investigators to include that caveat about the uniqueness of the individual in their conclusions. And, it is our duty as providers to keep this reality in mind as we interpret studies we read in the context of each individual patient. 

When it comes to healthcare delivery at the structural level, I am concerned that we are moving in a direction that is making it more difficult for the provider to become familiar with the patient’s exposome. I am talking about an over-reliance on the team care delivery model that too often results in the “We never/seldom see the same provider” patient complaint.

I don’t care how slick and user-friendly a practice’s EHR system is; the best way to learn about a patient’s exposome is by repeated exposure (pun unintended) to the same provider. This isn’t always possible, and a well-crafted and conscientiously managed EHR can fill in some of the gaps. But, it is a distant second best. 

Awareness of the importance of the exposome is only the starting point. Finding the political will to make the changes necessary to improve our patients’ outcomes is the bigger challenge. Grocery stores well-stocked with healthy foods don’t just pop up where we want them because we think they may hold answer to preventing pediatric obesity.

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

If we’ve learned anything about obesity prevention it’s that if we wait too long the die is cast and our success rate is nil. The GLP-1 antagonists seem to be a workable solution for treating the adult and adolescent population, but I have been afraid that their success will divert too much of our attention away from prevention.

Fortunately, there still seems to be a few researchers committed to the age group in which obesity could be headed off before our only option is treatment. In one recent study, “Neighborhood Food Access in Early Life and Trajectories of Child Body Mass Index and Obesity,” researchers collected data from more than 28,000 children in 55 cohorts during the period from 1994 to 2023). The investigators found that residence in a low–food access, low-income neighborhoods during pregnancy and early childhood was associated with higher BMI “Z” scores, a higher risk of obesity, and severe obesity in childhood. The researchers defined low food access as living greater than 0.5 miles away from a grocery store in an urban setting or greater than 10 minutes away in a rural setting. I don’t think those associations should surprise us, but having some data from a large population may be valuable should we ever find the political will to undertake any steps toward prevention.

I found a Viewpoint article published 2 weeks earlier in the same journal, titled, “The Exposome as a Key to Understanding Pediatric Health Disparities.” I know what the “biome” is and have heard gastroenterologists expound on the power that billions of our little single-celled friends residing in our gut have on seemingly unrelated and spatially distant events in our body. But, “exposome” was a new word for me, although it turns out the concept is simple and one I had harbored since late childhood. 

 

The opening sentence of the article reads “One’s environment profoundly changes health outcomes throughout one’s lifespan.” That truism was obvious to my 7-year-old self as I observed my playmates who lived in a poorly kept house in the less desirable area two blocks away and didn’t eat breakfast and were sick more often than the rest of us more-fortunates.

The authors define the exposome as the “totality of an individual’s non-genetic exposures, including psychosocial experiences, structural social determinants, chemical pollution, and neighborhood infrastructure.” This seems to be a pretty complete description of the nurture side of the nature versus nurture conversation. 

I suspect that, like me, most of you through observation and intuition have included your own interpretation of the exposome in your professional activities. However, the authors feel we could be more robust in our efforts and claim that “current pediatric practice largely neglects to characterize health disparities in terms of salient environmental practices.” They go on to call for incorporation of an “exposome lens in pediatric research and healthcare delivery.”

I’m not sure this is a valid criticism. There is certainly more that could be done when it comes to research that examines the effect of environmental stressors. And, I suspect the authors would view this recent paper on the association between neighborhood food access as a step in the right direction. However, when it comes to healthcare delivery, at least at the level where the stethoscope meets the chest, I think, or at least hope, the authors are underestimating the observational skills and sensitivity of primary care providers.

We were all taught to take an appropriate medical history when evaluating a patient. And, through our formal education, our personal observations and through exposure to papers like this one on food access we must be aware of the effect of environmental stressors on our patients’ health. Is there more we could learn about those kind of associations? Certainly. This is where a more broadly focused exposome lens could be most effective. 

The authors of the article observed: “The effect of the exposome is not uniform for all individuals but rather intersects across identities precipitating unique outcomes.” The practical reality is that to generate statistically significant data research must look at identities. This doesn’t mean that large population studies are without value. However, it does obligate investigators to include that caveat about the uniqueness of the individual in their conclusions. And, it is our duty as providers to keep this reality in mind as we interpret studies we read in the context of each individual patient. 

When it comes to healthcare delivery at the structural level, I am concerned that we are moving in a direction that is making it more difficult for the provider to become familiar with the patient’s exposome. I am talking about an over-reliance on the team care delivery model that too often results in the “We never/seldom see the same provider” patient complaint.

I don’t care how slick and user-friendly a practice’s EHR system is; the best way to learn about a patient’s exposome is by repeated exposure (pun unintended) to the same provider. This isn’t always possible, and a well-crafted and conscientiously managed EHR can fill in some of the gaps. But, it is a distant second best. 

Awareness of the importance of the exposome is only the starting point. Finding the political will to make the changes necessary to improve our patients’ outcomes is the bigger challenge. Grocery stores well-stocked with healthy foods don’t just pop up where we want them because we think they may hold answer to preventing pediatric obesity.

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies for chronic back and/or leg pain is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for reduced pain intensity and functional disability, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials that compared conventional and novel SCS therapies with CMM.
• More than 1500 adults with chronic back and/or leg pain and no past history of receiving SCS therapies were included.
• Novel therapies included high frequency, burst, differential target multiplexed, and closed-loop SCS; conventional therapies included tonic SCS wave forms.
• Study outcomes included pain intensity in the back and in the leg, proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain reduction in the back and in the leg, quality of life as measured by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index, and functional disability on the Oswestry Disability Index.
• The analysis included data from multiple follow-up points at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, with 6-month data being those from the longest mutually reported timepoint across all outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both conventional and novel SCS therapies demonstrated superior efficacy vs CMM in pain reduction, but the novel SCS therapies were more likely to provide ≥ 50% reduction in back pain (odds ratio, 8.76; 95% credible interval [CrI], 3.84-22.31).
• Both SCS therapies showed a significant reduction in pain intensity, with novel SCS providing the greatest mean difference (MD) for back pain (–2.34; 95% CrI, –2.96 to –1.73) and lower leg pain (MD, –4.01; 95% CrI, –5.31 to –2.75).
• Quality of life improved with both types of SCS therapies, with novel SCS therapies yielding the highest MD (0.17; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.21) in EQ-5D index score.
• Conventional SCS showed greater improvement in functionality vs CMM, yielding the lowest MD (–7.10; 95% CrI, –10.91 to –3.36) in Oswestry Disability Index score.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that SCS was associated with improved pain and QOL [quality of life] and reduced disability, compared with CMM, after 6 months of follow-up. These findings highlight the potential of SCS therapies as an effective and valuable option in chronic pain management,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Frank J.P.M. Huygen, PhD, MD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up data restricted the inclusion of extended outcome assessments. Most included studies showed a high risk for bias. Safety estimates could not be evaluated as adverse events were only reported as procedure-related outcomes, which are not applicable for CMM. Additionally, the network meta-analytical approach, which combined evidence from studies with varying patient eligibility criteria, may have introduced bias because of between-study heterogeneity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Medtronic. Huygen reported receiving personal fees from Abbott, Saluda, and Grunenthal outside the submitted work. The four other authors reported receiving funding from Medtronic.

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

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies for chronic back and/or leg pain is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for reduced pain intensity and functional disability, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials that compared conventional and novel SCS therapies with CMM.
• More than 1500 adults with chronic back and/or leg pain and no past history of receiving SCS therapies were included.
• Novel therapies included high frequency, burst, differential target multiplexed, and closed-loop SCS; conventional therapies included tonic SCS wave forms.
• Study outcomes included pain intensity in the back and in the leg, proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain reduction in the back and in the leg, quality of life as measured by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index, and functional disability on the Oswestry Disability Index.
• The analysis included data from multiple follow-up points at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, with 6-month data being those from the longest mutually reported timepoint across all outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both conventional and novel SCS therapies demonstrated superior efficacy vs CMM in pain reduction, but the novel SCS therapies were more likely to provide ≥ 50% reduction in back pain (odds ratio, 8.76; 95% credible interval [CrI], 3.84-22.31).
• Both SCS therapies showed a significant reduction in pain intensity, with novel SCS providing the greatest mean difference (MD) for back pain (–2.34; 95% CrI, –2.96 to –1.73) and lower leg pain (MD, –4.01; 95% CrI, –5.31 to –2.75).
• Quality of life improved with both types of SCS therapies, with novel SCS therapies yielding the highest MD (0.17; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.21) in EQ-5D index score.
• Conventional SCS showed greater improvement in functionality vs CMM, yielding the lowest MD (–7.10; 95% CrI, –10.91 to –3.36) in Oswestry Disability Index score.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that SCS was associated with improved pain and QOL [quality of life] and reduced disability, compared with CMM, after 6 months of follow-up. These findings highlight the potential of SCS therapies as an effective and valuable option in chronic pain management,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Frank J.P.M. Huygen, PhD, MD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up data restricted the inclusion of extended outcome assessments. Most included studies showed a high risk for bias. Safety estimates could not be evaluated as adverse events were only reported as procedure-related outcomes, which are not applicable for CMM. Additionally, the network meta-analytical approach, which combined evidence from studies with varying patient eligibility criteria, may have introduced bias because of between-study heterogeneity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Medtronic. Huygen reported receiving personal fees from Abbott, Saluda, and Grunenthal outside the submitted work. The four other authors reported receiving funding from Medtronic.

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

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies for chronic back and/or leg pain is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for reduced pain intensity and functional disability, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials that compared conventional and novel SCS therapies with CMM.
• More than 1500 adults with chronic back and/or leg pain and no past history of receiving SCS therapies were included.
• Novel therapies included high frequency, burst, differential target multiplexed, and closed-loop SCS; conventional therapies included tonic SCS wave forms.
• Study outcomes included pain intensity in the back and in the leg, proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain reduction in the back and in the leg, quality of life as measured by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index, and functional disability on the Oswestry Disability Index.
• The analysis included data from multiple follow-up points at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, with 6-month data being those from the longest mutually reported timepoint across all outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both conventional and novel SCS therapies demonstrated superior efficacy vs CMM in pain reduction, but the novel SCS therapies were more likely to provide ≥ 50% reduction in back pain (odds ratio, 8.76; 95% credible interval [CrI], 3.84-22.31).
• Both SCS therapies showed a significant reduction in pain intensity, with novel SCS providing the greatest mean difference (MD) for back pain (–2.34; 95% CrI, –2.96 to –1.73) and lower leg pain (MD, –4.01; 95% CrI, –5.31 to –2.75).
• Quality of life improved with both types of SCS therapies, with novel SCS therapies yielding the highest MD (0.17; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.21) in EQ-5D index score.
• Conventional SCS showed greater improvement in functionality vs CMM, yielding the lowest MD (–7.10; 95% CrI, –10.91 to –3.36) in Oswestry Disability Index score.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that SCS was associated with improved pain and QOL [quality of life] and reduced disability, compared with CMM, after 6 months of follow-up. These findings highlight the potential of SCS therapies as an effective and valuable option in chronic pain management,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Frank J.P.M. Huygen, PhD, MD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up data restricted the inclusion of extended outcome assessments. Most included studies showed a high risk for bias. Safety estimates could not be evaluated as adverse events were only reported as procedure-related outcomes, which are not applicable for CMM. Additionally, the network meta-analytical approach, which combined evidence from studies with varying patient eligibility criteria, may have introduced bias because of between-study heterogeneity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Medtronic. Huygen reported receiving personal fees from Abbott, Saluda, and Grunenthal outside the submitted work. The four other authors reported receiving funding from Medtronic.

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