Diabetes

TOPLINE:

A program combining theoretical training with free disposal containers can effectively increase knowledge and improve sharps waste disposal practices among patients with diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• A significant number of patients with diabetes administer insulin at home. Unsafe waste disposal including insulin pens, syringes, and lancets increases the risk for needle-stick injuries, microbial infections, and plastic waste accumulation, highlighting the need for safe disposal practices.
• Researchers conducted an experimental study at El-Horraya Polyclinic in Alexandria, Egypt, between November 2022 and April 2023 to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention program in improving knowledge and practices related to safe sharps disposal among patients with diabetes.
• Overall, 100 patients (median age, 61 years; 92% living in urban areas) with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes were recruited and divided into the educational intervention (n = 50) and nonintervention (n = 50) groups; majority (67%) had diabetes for more than 10 years.
• The intervention group received educational sessions addressing improper disposal risks and environmental impacts along with practical demonstrations of correct sharps disposal methods; they were also given free puncture-resistant containers to safely dispose of the sharp waste generated from diabetes management.
• Assessments were performed at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months postintervention, evaluating knowledge levels (poor: < 50%, fair: 50% to < 70%, good: 70%-100%) and practice scores (poor: 0-6, fair: 7-10, good: 11-14).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 58% of the patients used insulin pens, and approximately 75% required two doses of insulin daily.
• The median monthly disposal was 10 syringes per patient among syringe users and eight pen needles per patient among pen users.
• At baseline, there were no differences in the knowledge scores between the intervention and nonintervention groups; however, at both 2 and 4 months, the intervention group showed a significantly higher median knowledge score than the nonintervention group (P < .001 for both).
• Likewise, practice scores also showed marked improvements in the intervention group, compared with the nonintervention group at the end of the program (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“The success of the environmental education program underscores the need for targeted interventions to enhance patient knowledge and safe sharps disposal practices. By offering accessible disposal options and raising awareness, healthcare facilities can significantly contribute to preventing accidental needle-stick injuries and reducing the risk of infectious disease transmission,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hossam Mohamed Hassan Soliman, High Institute of Public Health, Alexandria University, Egypt. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Interview bias and self-reporting bias in data collection were major limitations of this study. The quasi-experimental design, lacking randomization, may have limited the strength of causal inferences.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was received for this study, and the authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A program combining theoretical training with free disposal containers can effectively increase knowledge and improve sharps waste disposal practices among patients with diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• A significant number of patients with diabetes administer insulin at home. Unsafe waste disposal including insulin pens, syringes, and lancets increases the risk for needle-stick injuries, microbial infections, and plastic waste accumulation, highlighting the need for safe disposal practices.
• Researchers conducted an experimental study at El-Horraya Polyclinic in Alexandria, Egypt, between November 2022 and April 2023 to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention program in improving knowledge and practices related to safe sharps disposal among patients with diabetes.
• Overall, 100 patients (median age, 61 years; 92% living in urban areas) with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes were recruited and divided into the educational intervention (n = 50) and nonintervention (n = 50) groups; majority (67%) had diabetes for more than 10 years.
• The intervention group received educational sessions addressing improper disposal risks and environmental impacts along with practical demonstrations of correct sharps disposal methods; they were also given free puncture-resistant containers to safely dispose of the sharp waste generated from diabetes management.
• Assessments were performed at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months postintervention, evaluating knowledge levels (poor: < 50%, fair: 50% to < 70%, good: 70%-100%) and practice scores (poor: 0-6, fair: 7-10, good: 11-14).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 58% of the patients used insulin pens, and approximately 75% required two doses of insulin daily.
• The median monthly disposal was 10 syringes per patient among syringe users and eight pen needles per patient among pen users.
• At baseline, there were no differences in the knowledge scores between the intervention and nonintervention groups; however, at both 2 and 4 months, the intervention group showed a significantly higher median knowledge score than the nonintervention group (P < .001 for both).
• Likewise, practice scores also showed marked improvements in the intervention group, compared with the nonintervention group at the end of the program (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“The success of the environmental education program underscores the need for targeted interventions to enhance patient knowledge and safe sharps disposal practices. By offering accessible disposal options and raising awareness, healthcare facilities can significantly contribute to preventing accidental needle-stick injuries and reducing the risk of infectious disease transmission,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hossam Mohamed Hassan Soliman, High Institute of Public Health, Alexandria University, Egypt. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Interview bias and self-reporting bias in data collection were major limitations of this study. The quasi-experimental design, lacking randomization, may have limited the strength of causal inferences.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was received for this study, and the authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A program combining theoretical training with free disposal containers can effectively increase knowledge and improve sharps waste disposal practices among patients with diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• A significant number of patients with diabetes administer insulin at home. Unsafe waste disposal including insulin pens, syringes, and lancets increases the risk for needle-stick injuries, microbial infections, and plastic waste accumulation, highlighting the need for safe disposal practices.
• Researchers conducted an experimental study at El-Horraya Polyclinic in Alexandria, Egypt, between November 2022 and April 2023 to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention program in improving knowledge and practices related to safe sharps disposal among patients with diabetes.
• Overall, 100 patients (median age, 61 years; 92% living in urban areas) with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes were recruited and divided into the educational intervention (n = 50) and nonintervention (n = 50) groups; majority (67%) had diabetes for more than 10 years.
• The intervention group received educational sessions addressing improper disposal risks and environmental impacts along with practical demonstrations of correct sharps disposal methods; they were also given free puncture-resistant containers to safely dispose of the sharp waste generated from diabetes management.
• Assessments were performed at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months postintervention, evaluating knowledge levels (poor: < 50%, fair: 50% to < 70%, good: 70%-100%) and practice scores (poor: 0-6, fair: 7-10, good: 11-14).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 58% of the patients used insulin pens, and approximately 75% required two doses of insulin daily.
• The median monthly disposal was 10 syringes per patient among syringe users and eight pen needles per patient among pen users.
• At baseline, there were no differences in the knowledge scores between the intervention and nonintervention groups; however, at both 2 and 4 months, the intervention group showed a significantly higher median knowledge score than the nonintervention group (P < .001 for both).
• Likewise, practice scores also showed marked improvements in the intervention group, compared with the nonintervention group at the end of the program (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“The success of the environmental education program underscores the need for targeted interventions to enhance patient knowledge and safe sharps disposal practices. By offering accessible disposal options and raising awareness, healthcare facilities can significantly contribute to preventing accidental needle-stick injuries and reducing the risk of infectious disease transmission,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hossam Mohamed Hassan Soliman, High Institute of Public Health, Alexandria University, Egypt. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Interview bias and self-reporting bias in data collection were major limitations of this study. The quasi-experimental design, lacking randomization, may have limited the strength of causal inferences.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was received for this study, and the authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

December 31, 2024

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’m Tamaan K. Osbourne-Roberts, family medicine physician and lifestyle medicine physician, here to discuss GLP-1 receptor agonist (RA) contraindications — the skinny on when not to prescribe. 

It can be hard not to think of GLP-1 RAs like Ozempic and Mounjaro as silver bullets, long-awaited miracle drugs that we should probably be putting in the water. And it’s true they have the potential to help a lot of people. 

However, there are definitely groups of patients who should not take these drugs or should take them with caution. They include the following: 

Patients with a family history of certain cancers. Given that GLP-1 RAs can increase the risk for thyroid cancer, patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 should not take these drugs.

Gut motility issues. Since one of the primary mechanisms of action for these drugs is to slow down the gut, patients with gastroparesis — diabetic or otherwise — or other gut motility issues should avoid these drugs. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease also should not use GLP-1 RAs. 

Pancreatitis. These medications can increase the risk for serious pancreatitis on their own, so use in patients who have had pancreatitis already is not recommended.

Renal impairment. An eGFR [estimated glomerular filtrationrate] below threshold, typically around 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², excludes GLP-1 RAs for some patients. Be certain to check the threshold for individual medications before prescribing. 

And finally, pregnancy. These drugs generally should not be used in pregnancy, and people of childbearing age with the ability to become pregnant should use contraception while taking these medications.

GLP-1 RAs are great medications and have the potential to revolutionize obesity medicine, but like all drugs, it’s important to use them safely. Knowing when not to prescribe them is an important step in ensuring patient safety and will help ensure they are available for those who need them.

Tamaan K. Osbourne-Roberts, MD, MBA, Denver, Colorado, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

December 31, 2024

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’m Tamaan K. Osbourne-Roberts, family medicine physician and lifestyle medicine physician, here to discuss GLP-1 receptor agonist (RA) contraindications — the skinny on when not to prescribe. 

It can be hard not to think of GLP-1 RAs like Ozempic and Mounjaro as silver bullets, long-awaited miracle drugs that we should probably be putting in the water. And it’s true they have the potential to help a lot of people. 

However, there are definitely groups of patients who should not take these drugs or should take them with caution. They include the following: 

Patients with a family history of certain cancers. Given that GLP-1 RAs can increase the risk for thyroid cancer, patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 should not take these drugs.

Gut motility issues. Since one of the primary mechanisms of action for these drugs is to slow down the gut, patients with gastroparesis — diabetic or otherwise — or other gut motility issues should avoid these drugs. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease also should not use GLP-1 RAs. 

Pancreatitis. These medications can increase the risk for serious pancreatitis on their own, so use in patients who have had pancreatitis already is not recommended.

Renal impairment. An eGFR [estimated glomerular filtrationrate] below threshold, typically around 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², excludes GLP-1 RAs for some patients. Be certain to check the threshold for individual medications before prescribing. 

And finally, pregnancy. These drugs generally should not be used in pregnancy, and people of childbearing age with the ability to become pregnant should use contraception while taking these medications.

GLP-1 RAs are great medications and have the potential to revolutionize obesity medicine, but like all drugs, it’s important to use them safely. Knowing when not to prescribe them is an important step in ensuring patient safety and will help ensure they are available for those who need them.

Tamaan K. Osbourne-Roberts, MD, MBA, Denver, Colorado, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

December 31, 2024

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’m Tamaan K. Osbourne-Roberts, family medicine physician and lifestyle medicine physician, here to discuss GLP-1 receptor agonist (RA) contraindications — the skinny on when not to prescribe. 

It can be hard not to think of GLP-1 RAs like Ozempic and Mounjaro as silver bullets, long-awaited miracle drugs that we should probably be putting in the water. And it’s true they have the potential to help a lot of people. 

However, there are definitely groups of patients who should not take these drugs or should take them with caution. They include the following: 

Patients with a family history of certain cancers. Given that GLP-1 RAs can increase the risk for thyroid cancer, patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 should not take these drugs.

Gut motility issues. Since one of the primary mechanisms of action for these drugs is to slow down the gut, patients with gastroparesis — diabetic or otherwise — or other gut motility issues should avoid these drugs. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease also should not use GLP-1 RAs. 

Pancreatitis. These medications can increase the risk for serious pancreatitis on their own, so use in patients who have had pancreatitis already is not recommended.

Renal impairment. An eGFR [estimated glomerular filtrationrate] below threshold, typically around 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², excludes GLP-1 RAs for some patients. Be certain to check the threshold for individual medications before prescribing. 

And finally, pregnancy. These drugs generally should not be used in pregnancy, and people of childbearing age with the ability to become pregnant should use contraception while taking these medications.

GLP-1 RAs are great medications and have the potential to revolutionize obesity medicine, but like all drugs, it’s important to use them safely. Knowing when not to prescribe them is an important step in ensuring patient safety and will help ensure they are available for those who need them.

Tamaan K. Osbourne-Roberts, MD, MBA, Denver, Colorado, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Long-term daily supplementation with moderate (1600 international units [IU]) or high (3200 IU) doses of vitamin D3 doesn’t reduce the risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D) among generally healthy older adults who have serum vitamin D levels sufficient for bone health.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Observational studies have consistently linked low vitamin D levels with an increased risk for T2D, and short-term randomized trials have shown a protective effect of vitamin D supplementation for those with impaired glucose metabolism but not in populations of average risk-taking low doses.
• The Finnish Vitamin D Trial, conducted from 2012 to 2018 in generally healthy men (≥ 60 years) and women (≥ 65 years) without a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, assessed the effects of 5 years of moderate and high vitamin D3 supplementation on the incidence of major chronic diseases.
• This analysis of T2D incidence included 2271 older participants (mean age, 68.2 years; 43.9% women) without self-reported use of diabetes medications at baseline.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 760), 1600 IU/d of vitamin D3 (n = 744), or 3200 IU/d of vitamin D3 (n = 767) and followed for a mean duration of 4.2 years, with T2D incidence assessed by diagnostic code from health registries.
• A representative subcohort of 505 participants underwent detailed investigations including blood sampling at months 0, 6, 12, and 24 for serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 [25(OH)D3], plasma glucose, and insulin concentrations.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference in T2D incidence was observed between groups: Placebo (5.0%; 38 people), 1600 IU/d (4.2%; 31 people), and 3200 IU/d (4.7%; 36 people; P = .731 for trend), with no appreciable sex differences.
• When stratified by body mass index (BMI), a lower incidence of T2D with vitamin D supplementation was observed among those with a BMI < 25 (with wide CIs), but not among those with a higher BMI.
• In the subcohort, no significant differences in changes in plasma glucose, insulin concentrations, BMI, or waist circumference with vitamin D3 were observed between the three treatment groups during the 24-month follow-up (P ≥ .19).
• In an analysis excluding T2D from the first 2 years, researchers observed a potentially increased risk for T2D with increasing vitamin D dose (with wide CIs).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings do not suggest benefits of long-term moderate- or high-dose vitamin D3 supplementation for incidence of type 2 diabetes or glucose metabolism or body size among generally healthy older vitamin D–sufficient men and women who were not at high risk for type 2 diabetes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jyrki K. Virtanen, University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio, and was published online in Diabetologia.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on national health registries to collect data on incident T2D events, which may have led to some T2D cases being missed. Data on serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations were available for the subcohort only, which prevented the investigation of whether vitamin D–deficient participants would have benefited from supplementation. The study was not specifically designed or powered for diabetes prevention, and information on participants’ diabetes history at baseline was not available. Wide CIs suggest uncertainty around some of the findings. Study participants were White and older, so caution is needed in generalizing results to groups of other ages, races and ethnicities, and different vitamin D levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, Juho Vainio Foundation, and other sources. Some authors reported receiving grants or travel support from pharmaceutical companies and certain institutions.

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:

Long-term daily supplementation with moderate (1600 international units [IU]) or high (3200 IU) doses of vitamin D3 doesn’t reduce the risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D) among generally healthy older adults who have serum vitamin D levels sufficient for bone health.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Observational studies have consistently linked low vitamin D levels with an increased risk for T2D, and short-term randomized trials have shown a protective effect of vitamin D supplementation for those with impaired glucose metabolism but not in populations of average risk-taking low doses.
• The Finnish Vitamin D Trial, conducted from 2012 to 2018 in generally healthy men (≥ 60 years) and women (≥ 65 years) without a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, assessed the effects of 5 years of moderate and high vitamin D3 supplementation on the incidence of major chronic diseases.
• This analysis of T2D incidence included 2271 older participants (mean age, 68.2 years; 43.9% women) without self-reported use of diabetes medications at baseline.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 760), 1600 IU/d of vitamin D3 (n = 744), or 3200 IU/d of vitamin D3 (n = 767) and followed for a mean duration of 4.2 years, with T2D incidence assessed by diagnostic code from health registries.
• A representative subcohort of 505 participants underwent detailed investigations including blood sampling at months 0, 6, 12, and 24 for serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 [25(OH)D3], plasma glucose, and insulin concentrations.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference in T2D incidence was observed between groups: Placebo (5.0%; 38 people), 1600 IU/d (4.2%; 31 people), and 3200 IU/d (4.7%; 36 people; P = .731 for trend), with no appreciable sex differences.
• When stratified by body mass index (BMI), a lower incidence of T2D with vitamin D supplementation was observed among those with a BMI < 25 (with wide CIs), but not among those with a higher BMI.
• In the subcohort, no significant differences in changes in plasma glucose, insulin concentrations, BMI, or waist circumference with vitamin D3 were observed between the three treatment groups during the 24-month follow-up (P ≥ .19).
• In an analysis excluding T2D from the first 2 years, researchers observed a potentially increased risk for T2D with increasing vitamin D dose (with wide CIs).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings do not suggest benefits of long-term moderate- or high-dose vitamin D3 supplementation for incidence of type 2 diabetes or glucose metabolism or body size among generally healthy older vitamin D–sufficient men and women who were not at high risk for type 2 diabetes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jyrki K. Virtanen, University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio, and was published online in Diabetologia.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on national health registries to collect data on incident T2D events, which may have led to some T2D cases being missed. Data on serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations were available for the subcohort only, which prevented the investigation of whether vitamin D–deficient participants would have benefited from supplementation. The study was not specifically designed or powered for diabetes prevention, and information on participants’ diabetes history at baseline was not available. Wide CIs suggest uncertainty around some of the findings. Study participants were White and older, so caution is needed in generalizing results to groups of other ages, races and ethnicities, and different vitamin D levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, Juho Vainio Foundation, and other sources. Some authors reported receiving grants or travel support from pharmaceutical companies and certain institutions.

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:

Long-term daily supplementation with moderate (1600 international units [IU]) or high (3200 IU) doses of vitamin D3 doesn’t reduce the risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D) among generally healthy older adults who have serum vitamin D levels sufficient for bone health.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Observational studies have consistently linked low vitamin D levels with an increased risk for T2D, and short-term randomized trials have shown a protective effect of vitamin D supplementation for those with impaired glucose metabolism but not in populations of average risk-taking low doses.
• The Finnish Vitamin D Trial, conducted from 2012 to 2018 in generally healthy men (≥ 60 years) and women (≥ 65 years) without a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, assessed the effects of 5 years of moderate and high vitamin D3 supplementation on the incidence of major chronic diseases.
• This analysis of T2D incidence included 2271 older participants (mean age, 68.2 years; 43.9% women) without self-reported use of diabetes medications at baseline.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 760), 1600 IU/d of vitamin D3 (n = 744), or 3200 IU/d of vitamin D3 (n = 767) and followed for a mean duration of 4.2 years, with T2D incidence assessed by diagnostic code from health registries.
• A representative subcohort of 505 participants underwent detailed investigations including blood sampling at months 0, 6, 12, and 24 for serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 [25(OH)D3], plasma glucose, and insulin concentrations.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference in T2D incidence was observed between groups: Placebo (5.0%; 38 people), 1600 IU/d (4.2%; 31 people), and 3200 IU/d (4.7%; 36 people; P = .731 for trend), with no appreciable sex differences.
• When stratified by body mass index (BMI), a lower incidence of T2D with vitamin D supplementation was observed among those with a BMI < 25 (with wide CIs), but not among those with a higher BMI.
• In the subcohort, no significant differences in changes in plasma glucose, insulin concentrations, BMI, or waist circumference with vitamin D3 were observed between the three treatment groups during the 24-month follow-up (P ≥ .19).
• In an analysis excluding T2D from the first 2 years, researchers observed a potentially increased risk for T2D with increasing vitamin D dose (with wide CIs).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings do not suggest benefits of long-term moderate- or high-dose vitamin D3 supplementation for incidence of type 2 diabetes or glucose metabolism or body size among generally healthy older vitamin D–sufficient men and women who were not at high risk for type 2 diabetes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jyrki K. Virtanen, University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio, and was published online in Diabetologia.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on national health registries to collect data on incident T2D events, which may have led to some T2D cases being missed. Data on serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations were available for the subcohort only, which prevented the investigation of whether vitamin D–deficient participants would have benefited from supplementation. The study was not specifically designed or powered for diabetes prevention, and information on participants’ diabetes history at baseline was not available. Wide CIs suggest uncertainty around some of the findings. Study participants were White and older, so caution is needed in generalizing results to groups of other ages, races and ethnicities, and different vitamin D levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, Juho Vainio Foundation, and other sources. Some authors reported receiving grants or travel support from pharmaceutical companies and certain institutions.

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.

Estimation of cardiovascular risk (CVR) in individuals living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) was a key topic presented by Sophie Borot, MD, from Besançon University Hospital, Besançon, France, at the 40th congress of the French Society of Endocrinology. Borot highlighted the complexities of this subject, outlining several factors that contribute to its challenges.

A Heterogeneous Disease

T1D is a highly heterogeneous condition, and the patients included in studies reflect this diversity:

• The impact of blood glucose levels on CVR changes depending on diabetes duration, its history, the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes, average A1c levels over several years, and the patient’s age at diagnosis.
• A T1D diagnosis from the 1980s involved different management strategies compared with a diagnosis today.
• Patient profiles also vary based on complications such as nephropathy or cardiac autonomic neuropathy.
• Diffuse and distal arterial damage in T1D leads to more subtle and delayed pathologic events than in type 2 diabetes (T2D).
• Most clinical studies assess CVR over 10 years, but a 20- or 30-year evaluation would be more relevant.
• Patients may share CVR factors with the general population (eg, family history, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, obesity, hypertension, or elevated low-density lipoprotein [LDL] levels), raising questions about possible overlap with metabolic syndrome.
• Study criteria differ, with a focus on outcomes such as cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction and stroke, or other endpoints.
• CVR is measured using either absolute or relative values, with varying units of measurement.

A Recent Awareness

The concept of CVR in T1D is relatively new. Until the publication of the prospective Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study in 2005, it was believed that T1D control had no impact on CVR. However, follow-up results from the same cohort of 50,000 patients, published in 2022 after 30 years of observation, revealed that CVR was 20% higher in patients who received conventional hyperglycemia-targeted treatment than those undergoing intensive treatment. The CVR increases in conjunction with diabetes duration. The study also showed that even well-controlled glycemia in T1D carries CVR (primarily due to microangiopathy), and that the most critical factor for CVR is not A1c control but rather LDL cholesterol levels.

These findings were corroborated by a Danish prospective study, which demonstrated that while CVR increased in conjunction with the number of risk factors, it was 82% higher in patients with T1D than in a control group — even in the absence of risk factors.
 

Key Takeaways

At diagnosis, a fundamental difference exists between T1D and T2D in terms of the urgency to address CVR. In T2D, diabetes may have progressed for years before diagnosis, necessitating immediate CVR reduction efforts. In contrast, T1D is often diagnosed in younger patients with initially low CVR, raising questions about the optimal timing for interventions such as statin prescriptions.

Recommendations

The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines (2024) include the following recommendations:

For adults with T1D, treatment should mirror that for T2D:

• Between ages 20 and 40, statins are recommended if at least one CVR factor is present.
• For children 10 years of age or older with T1D, the LDL target is < 1.0 g/L. Statins are prescribed if LDL exceeds 1.6 g/L without CVR factors or 1.3 g/L with at least one CVR factor.

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines (2023) include the following:

• For the first time, a dedicated chapter addresses T1D. Like the American guidelines, routine statin use after age 40 is recommended.
• Before age 40, statins are prescribed if there is at least one CVR factor (microangiopathy) or a 10-year CVR ≥ 10% (based on a CVR calculator).

The International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes guidelines (2022) recommend:

• For children 10 years of age or older, the LDL target is < 1.0 g/L. Statins are recommended if LDL exceeds 1.3 g/L.

CAC Score in High CVR

The French Society of Cardiology and the French-speaking Society of Diabetology recommend incorporating the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score to refine CVR classification in high-risk patients. For those without prior cardiovascular events, LDL targets vary based on CAC and age. For example:

• High-risk patients with a CAC of 0-10 are reclassified as moderate risk, with an LDL target of < 1 g/L.
• A CAC ≥ 400 indicates very high risk, warranting coronary exploration.
• Patients under 50 years of age with a CAC of 11-100 remain high risk, with an LDL target of 0.7 g/L.

Conclusion

CVR in patients with T1D remains challenging to define. However, it is essential to consider long-term outcomes, planning for 30 or 40 years into the future. This involves educating patients about the importance of prevention, even when reassuring numbers are seen in their youth.

This story was translated from Univadis France 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.

Estimation of cardiovascular risk (CVR) in individuals living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) was a key topic presented by Sophie Borot, MD, from Besançon University Hospital, Besançon, France, at the 40th congress of the French Society of Endocrinology. Borot highlighted the complexities of this subject, outlining several factors that contribute to its challenges.

A Heterogeneous Disease

T1D is a highly heterogeneous condition, and the patients included in studies reflect this diversity:

• The impact of blood glucose levels on CVR changes depending on diabetes duration, its history, the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes, average A1c levels over several years, and the patient’s age at diagnosis.
• A T1D diagnosis from the 1980s involved different management strategies compared with a diagnosis today.
• Patient profiles also vary based on complications such as nephropathy or cardiac autonomic neuropathy.
• Diffuse and distal arterial damage in T1D leads to more subtle and delayed pathologic events than in type 2 diabetes (T2D).
• Most clinical studies assess CVR over 10 years, but a 20- or 30-year evaluation would be more relevant.
• Patients may share CVR factors with the general population (eg, family history, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, obesity, hypertension, or elevated low-density lipoprotein [LDL] levels), raising questions about possible overlap with metabolic syndrome.
• Study criteria differ, with a focus on outcomes such as cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction and stroke, or other endpoints.
• CVR is measured using either absolute or relative values, with varying units of measurement.

A Recent Awareness

The concept of CVR in T1D is relatively new. Until the publication of the prospective Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study in 2005, it was believed that T1D control had no impact on CVR. However, follow-up results from the same cohort of 50,000 patients, published in 2022 after 30 years of observation, revealed that CVR was 20% higher in patients who received conventional hyperglycemia-targeted treatment than those undergoing intensive treatment. The CVR increases in conjunction with diabetes duration. The study also showed that even well-controlled glycemia in T1D carries CVR (primarily due to microangiopathy), and that the most critical factor for CVR is not A1c control but rather LDL cholesterol levels.

These findings were corroborated by a Danish prospective study, which demonstrated that while CVR increased in conjunction with the number of risk factors, it was 82% higher in patients with T1D than in a control group — even in the absence of risk factors.
 

Key Takeaways

At diagnosis, a fundamental difference exists between T1D and T2D in terms of the urgency to address CVR. In T2D, diabetes may have progressed for years before diagnosis, necessitating immediate CVR reduction efforts. In contrast, T1D is often diagnosed in younger patients with initially low CVR, raising questions about the optimal timing for interventions such as statin prescriptions.

Recommendations

The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines (2024) include the following recommendations:

For adults with T1D, treatment should mirror that for T2D:

• Between ages 20 and 40, statins are recommended if at least one CVR factor is present.
• For children 10 years of age or older with T1D, the LDL target is < 1.0 g/L. Statins are prescribed if LDL exceeds 1.6 g/L without CVR factors or 1.3 g/L with at least one CVR factor.

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines (2023) include the following:

• For the first time, a dedicated chapter addresses T1D. Like the American guidelines, routine statin use after age 40 is recommended.
• Before age 40, statins are prescribed if there is at least one CVR factor (microangiopathy) or a 10-year CVR ≥ 10% (based on a CVR calculator).

The International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes guidelines (2022) recommend:

• For children 10 years of age or older, the LDL target is < 1.0 g/L. Statins are recommended if LDL exceeds 1.3 g/L.

CAC Score in High CVR

The French Society of Cardiology and the French-speaking Society of Diabetology recommend incorporating the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score to refine CVR classification in high-risk patients. For those without prior cardiovascular events, LDL targets vary based on CAC and age. For example:

• High-risk patients with a CAC of 0-10 are reclassified as moderate risk, with an LDL target of < 1 g/L.
• A CAC ≥ 400 indicates very high risk, warranting coronary exploration.
• Patients under 50 years of age with a CAC of 11-100 remain high risk, with an LDL target of 0.7 g/L.

Conclusion

CVR in patients with T1D remains challenging to define. However, it is essential to consider long-term outcomes, planning for 30 or 40 years into the future. This involves educating patients about the importance of prevention, even when reassuring numbers are seen in their youth.

This story was translated from Univadis France 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.

Estimation of cardiovascular risk (CVR) in individuals living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) was a key topic presented by Sophie Borot, MD, from Besançon University Hospital, Besançon, France, at the 40th congress of the French Society of Endocrinology. Borot highlighted the complexities of this subject, outlining several factors that contribute to its challenges.

A Heterogeneous Disease

T1D is a highly heterogeneous condition, and the patients included in studies reflect this diversity:

• The impact of blood glucose levels on CVR changes depending on diabetes duration, its history, the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes, average A1c levels over several years, and the patient’s age at diagnosis.
• A T1D diagnosis from the 1980s involved different management strategies compared with a diagnosis today.
• Patient profiles also vary based on complications such as nephropathy or cardiac autonomic neuropathy.
• Diffuse and distal arterial damage in T1D leads to more subtle and delayed pathologic events than in type 2 diabetes (T2D).
• Most clinical studies assess CVR over 10 years, but a 20- or 30-year evaluation would be more relevant.
• Patients may share CVR factors with the general population (eg, family history, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, obesity, hypertension, or elevated low-density lipoprotein [LDL] levels), raising questions about possible overlap with metabolic syndrome.
• Study criteria differ, with a focus on outcomes such as cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction and stroke, or other endpoints.
• CVR is measured using either absolute or relative values, with varying units of measurement.

A Recent Awareness

The concept of CVR in T1D is relatively new. Until the publication of the prospective Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study in 2005, it was believed that T1D control had no impact on CVR. However, follow-up results from the same cohort of 50,000 patients, published in 2022 after 30 years of observation, revealed that CVR was 20% higher in patients who received conventional hyperglycemia-targeted treatment than those undergoing intensive treatment. The CVR increases in conjunction with diabetes duration. The study also showed that even well-controlled glycemia in T1D carries CVR (primarily due to microangiopathy), and that the most critical factor for CVR is not A1c control but rather LDL cholesterol levels.

These findings were corroborated by a Danish prospective study, which demonstrated that while CVR increased in conjunction with the number of risk factors, it was 82% higher in patients with T1D than in a control group — even in the absence of risk factors.
 

Key Takeaways

At diagnosis, a fundamental difference exists between T1D and T2D in terms of the urgency to address CVR. In T2D, diabetes may have progressed for years before diagnosis, necessitating immediate CVR reduction efforts. In contrast, T1D is often diagnosed in younger patients with initially low CVR, raising questions about the optimal timing for interventions such as statin prescriptions.

Recommendations

The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines (2024) include the following recommendations:

For adults with T1D, treatment should mirror that for T2D:

• Between ages 20 and 40, statins are recommended if at least one CVR factor is present.
• For children 10 years of age or older with T1D, the LDL target is < 1.0 g/L. Statins are prescribed if LDL exceeds 1.6 g/L without CVR factors or 1.3 g/L with at least one CVR factor.

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines (2023) include the following:

• For the first time, a dedicated chapter addresses T1D. Like the American guidelines, routine statin use after age 40 is recommended.
• Before age 40, statins are prescribed if there is at least one CVR factor (microangiopathy) or a 10-year CVR ≥ 10% (based on a CVR calculator).

The International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes guidelines (2022) recommend:

• For children 10 years of age or older, the LDL target is < 1.0 g/L. Statins are recommended if LDL exceeds 1.3 g/L.

CAC Score in High CVR

The French Society of Cardiology and the French-speaking Society of Diabetology recommend incorporating the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score to refine CVR classification in high-risk patients. For those without prior cardiovascular events, LDL targets vary based on CAC and age. For example:

• High-risk patients with a CAC of 0-10 are reclassified as moderate risk, with an LDL target of < 1 g/L.
• A CAC ≥ 400 indicates very high risk, warranting coronary exploration.
• Patients under 50 years of age with a CAC of 11-100 remain high risk, with an LDL target of 0.7 g/L.

Conclusion

CVR in patients with T1D remains challenging to define. However, it is essential to consider long-term outcomes, planning for 30 or 40 years into the future. This involves educating patients about the importance of prevention, even when reassuring numbers are seen in their youth.

This story was translated from Univadis France 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:

Adults aged 50 years who were born preterm have a higher risk for hypertension but lower risk for cardiovascular events than those born at term, with similar risks for diabetes, prediabetes, and dyslipidemia between groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a prospective cohort study of the Auckland Steroid Trial — the first randomized trial of antenatal corticosteroids (betamethasone) for women who were at risk for preterm birth, conducted in Auckland, New Zealand, between December 1969 and February 1974.
• They analyzed 470 participants, including 424 survivors recruited between January 2020 and May 2022 and 46 participants who died after infancy.
• The outcomes for 326 participants born preterm (mean age, 49.4 years) and 144 participants born at term (mean age, 49.2 years) were assessed using either a questionnaire, administrative datasets, or both.
• The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular events or risk factors, defined as a history of a major adverse cardiovascular event or the presence of at least one cardiovascular risk factor, including diabetes mellitus, prediabetes, treated dyslipidemia, and treated hypertension.
• The secondary outcomes included respiratory, mental health, educational, and other health outcomes, as well as components of the primary outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The composite of cardiovascular events or risk factors occurred in 34.5% of participants born preterm and 29.9% of participants born at term, with no differences in the risk factor components.
• The risk for cardiovascular events was lower in participants born preterm than in those born at term (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.33; P = .013).
• The participants born preterm had a higher risk for high blood pressure (aRR, 1.74; P = .007) and the composite of treated hypertension or self-reported diagnosis of high blood pressure (aRR, 1.63; P = .010) than those born at term.
• From randomization to the 50-year follow-up, death from any cause was more common in those born preterm than in those born at term (aRR, 2.29; P < .0001), whereas the diagnosis or treatment of a mental health disorder was less common (P = .007); no differences were observed between the groups for other outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Those aware of being born preterm also may be more likely to seek preventive treatments, potentially resulting in a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease but a greater prevalence of risk factors if defined by a treatment such as treated dyslipidemia or treated hypertension,” the authors wrote.

“In this cohort, the survival advantage of the term-born control group abated after infancy, with a higher all-cause mortality rate, compared with that of the group born preterm,” wrote Jonathan S. Litt, MD, MPH, ScD, and Henning Tiemeier, MD, PhD, in a related commentary published in Pediatrics.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anthony G. B. Walters, MBChB, Liggins Institute, Auckland, New Zealand. It was published online on December 16, 2024, in Pediatrics .

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size limited the ability to detect subtle differences between groups and the validity of subgroup analyses. Attrition bias may have occurred because of low follow-up rates among presumed survivors. Bias could have been introduced because of lack of consent for access to the administrative dataset or from missing data from the participants in the questionnaire. The lack of in-person assessments for blood pressure and blood tests, resulting from geographical dispersion over 50 years, may have led to underestimation of some outcomes. Additionally, as most participants were born moderately or late preterm, with a median gestational age of 34.1 weeks, findings may not be generalizable to those born preterm at earlier gestational ages.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported in part by the Aotearoa Foundation, the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Cure Kids New Zealand, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. The authors of both the study and the commentary reported 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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults aged 50 years who were born preterm have a higher risk for hypertension but lower risk for cardiovascular events than those born at term, with similar risks for diabetes, prediabetes, and dyslipidemia between groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a prospective cohort study of the Auckland Steroid Trial — the first randomized trial of antenatal corticosteroids (betamethasone) for women who were at risk for preterm birth, conducted in Auckland, New Zealand, between December 1969 and February 1974.
• They analyzed 470 participants, including 424 survivors recruited between January 2020 and May 2022 and 46 participants who died after infancy.
• The outcomes for 326 participants born preterm (mean age, 49.4 years) and 144 participants born at term (mean age, 49.2 years) were assessed using either a questionnaire, administrative datasets, or both.
• The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular events or risk factors, defined as a history of a major adverse cardiovascular event or the presence of at least one cardiovascular risk factor, including diabetes mellitus, prediabetes, treated dyslipidemia, and treated hypertension.
• The secondary outcomes included respiratory, mental health, educational, and other health outcomes, as well as components of the primary outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The composite of cardiovascular events or risk factors occurred in 34.5% of participants born preterm and 29.9% of participants born at term, with no differences in the risk factor components.
• The risk for cardiovascular events was lower in participants born preterm than in those born at term (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.33; P = .013).
• The participants born preterm had a higher risk for high blood pressure (aRR, 1.74; P = .007) and the composite of treated hypertension or self-reported diagnosis of high blood pressure (aRR, 1.63; P = .010) than those born at term.
• From randomization to the 50-year follow-up, death from any cause was more common in those born preterm than in those born at term (aRR, 2.29; P < .0001), whereas the diagnosis or treatment of a mental health disorder was less common (P = .007); no differences were observed between the groups for other outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Those aware of being born preterm also may be more likely to seek preventive treatments, potentially resulting in a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease but a greater prevalence of risk factors if defined by a treatment such as treated dyslipidemia or treated hypertension,” the authors wrote.

“In this cohort, the survival advantage of the term-born control group abated after infancy, with a higher all-cause mortality rate, compared with that of the group born preterm,” wrote Jonathan S. Litt, MD, MPH, ScD, and Henning Tiemeier, MD, PhD, in a related commentary published in Pediatrics.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anthony G. B. Walters, MBChB, Liggins Institute, Auckland, New Zealand. It was published online on December 16, 2024, in Pediatrics .

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size limited the ability to detect subtle differences between groups and the validity of subgroup analyses. Attrition bias may have occurred because of low follow-up rates among presumed survivors. Bias could have been introduced because of lack of consent for access to the administrative dataset or from missing data from the participants in the questionnaire. The lack of in-person assessments for blood pressure and blood tests, resulting from geographical dispersion over 50 years, may have led to underestimation of some outcomes. Additionally, as most participants were born moderately or late preterm, with a median gestational age of 34.1 weeks, findings may not be generalizable to those born preterm at earlier gestational ages.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported in part by the Aotearoa Foundation, the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Cure Kids New Zealand, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. The authors of both the study and the commentary reported 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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults aged 50 years who were born preterm have a higher risk for hypertension but lower risk for cardiovascular events than those born at term, with similar risks for diabetes, prediabetes, and dyslipidemia between groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a prospective cohort study of the Auckland Steroid Trial — the first randomized trial of antenatal corticosteroids (betamethasone) for women who were at risk for preterm birth, conducted in Auckland, New Zealand, between December 1969 and February 1974.
• They analyzed 470 participants, including 424 survivors recruited between January 2020 and May 2022 and 46 participants who died after infancy.
• The outcomes for 326 participants born preterm (mean age, 49.4 years) and 144 participants born at term (mean age, 49.2 years) were assessed using either a questionnaire, administrative datasets, or both.
• The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular events or risk factors, defined as a history of a major adverse cardiovascular event or the presence of at least one cardiovascular risk factor, including diabetes mellitus, prediabetes, treated dyslipidemia, and treated hypertension.
• The secondary outcomes included respiratory, mental health, educational, and other health outcomes, as well as components of the primary outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The composite of cardiovascular events or risk factors occurred in 34.5% of participants born preterm and 29.9% of participants born at term, with no differences in the risk factor components.
• The risk for cardiovascular events was lower in participants born preterm than in those born at term (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.33; P = .013).
• The participants born preterm had a higher risk for high blood pressure (aRR, 1.74; P = .007) and the composite of treated hypertension or self-reported diagnosis of high blood pressure (aRR, 1.63; P = .010) than those born at term.
• From randomization to the 50-year follow-up, death from any cause was more common in those born preterm than in those born at term (aRR, 2.29; P < .0001), whereas the diagnosis or treatment of a mental health disorder was less common (P = .007); no differences were observed between the groups for other outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Those aware of being born preterm also may be more likely to seek preventive treatments, potentially resulting in a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease but a greater prevalence of risk factors if defined by a treatment such as treated dyslipidemia or treated hypertension,” the authors wrote.

“In this cohort, the survival advantage of the term-born control group abated after infancy, with a higher all-cause mortality rate, compared with that of the group born preterm,” wrote Jonathan S. Litt, MD, MPH, ScD, and Henning Tiemeier, MD, PhD, in a related commentary published in Pediatrics.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anthony G. B. Walters, MBChB, Liggins Institute, Auckland, New Zealand. It was published online on December 16, 2024, in Pediatrics .

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size limited the ability to detect subtle differences between groups and the validity of subgroup analyses. Attrition bias may have occurred because of low follow-up rates among presumed survivors. Bias could have been introduced because of lack of consent for access to the administrative dataset or from missing data from the participants in the questionnaire. The lack of in-person assessments for blood pressure and blood tests, resulting from geographical dispersion over 50 years, may have led to underestimation of some outcomes. Additionally, as most participants were born moderately or late preterm, with a median gestational age of 34.1 weeks, findings may not be generalizable to those born preterm at earlier gestational ages.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported in part by the Aotearoa Foundation, the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Cure Kids New Zealand, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. The authors of both the study and the commentary reported 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 appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians frequently reach out to Catherine Varney, DO, asking if it’s safe to prescribe glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) to patients with thyroid disorders, such as hypothyroidism, goiter, hyperthyroidism, and nodules.

The concerns often stem from prior animal studies that revealed a link between the medications and abnormal alterations in thyroid C cells.

“What physicians need to understand is that the increased risk of thyroid cancers is specifically in those with a personal or family history of multiple endocrine neoplasia 2 (MEN2) syndrome or medullary thyroid carcinoma [MTC],” said Varney, an assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Virginia (UVA) and obesity medicine director for UVA Health, both in Charlottesville.

MTC is a common manifestation of the MEN2 syndrome, a genetic disorder that affects the endocrine glands and can cause tumors in the thyroid gland. However, MTC is very rare, making up only 3%-5% of all thyroid cancers, Varney said.

More common types of thyroid cancers, such as papillary thyroid cancer, are not contraindications to GLP-1 RAs, said Laura Davisson, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and director of Medical Weight Management at West Virginia University, Morgantown. Papillary thyroid cancer makes up about 80% of all thyroid cancers.

If physicians are thinking about prescribing GLP-1 RAs, it’s important to learn the specific types of thyroid disorders in a patient or in their family history, Davisson said. A history of thyroid conditions, such as Graves disease, Hashimoto thyroiditis, or disorders requiring a patient to take thyroid medicine, such as levothyroxine, does not preclude a person from taking GLP-1 RAs.

If a patient does not know their family history, then a discussion about whether GLP-1 RAs are right for them should take place, Davisson said.

“They should take into consideration the risks and benefits of the medicine, and the fact that medullary thyroid cancer and MEN2 syndrome are rare, making the chances of them running in their family low,” she said. “If the patient understands the risks, they may decide the potential benefits may outweigh the risks.”

Keep in mind that the elevated risk for medullary thyroid carcinoma has not been clearly demonstrated in humans during clinical trials, only in rodents, Varney added. Rodents are more likely to develop thyroid cancer after exposure to a GLP-1 RA because rodents have higher numbers of GLP-1 receptors in their thyroid cells.

The risk for thyroid cancer is also dose dependent, and the amount of GLP-1 RA that induced thyroid tumors in the rodents was 8-60 times higher than that given to humans, Varney said.

“Nonetheless, there have been case reports of MTC in humans after taking GLP-1 RA,” she said.

 

What About GLP-1 RAs and Pancreatitis?

Pancreatitis is another condition that requires consideration when it comes to prescribing GLP-1 RAs.

While some studies show that GLP-1 RA analogs can increase the risk for pancreatitis, it’s important to know the reason behind pancreatitis before making a prescription decision, said Anila Chadha, MD, a family physician and obesity medicine physician at Dignity Health in Bakersfield, California.

If the pancreatitis is caused by alcohol or is medication induced, GLP-1 RAs are not recommended, Chadha said. If gallbladder stones are behind the pancreatitis, that’s different.

“If a patient has a well-documented history of gallstone-induced pancreatitis and the patient has had a cholecystectomy, it would be OK to prescribe GLP-1 [medications] after shared decision-making with the patient,” she said.

Some patients worry about taking GLP-1 RAs if they have other types of pancreatic disease beyond pancreatitis, said Davisson, but guidelines do not identify conditions such as pancreatic cysts or a family history of pancreatic cancer as contraindications to GLP-1 RAs.

However, be mindful that GLP-1 RA medications can increase gallbladder disease, Chadha said. A 2022 analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine, for example, found that the use of GLP-1 RAs was associated with an increased risk for gallbladder or biliary diseases, especially when used at higher doses, for longer durations, and for weight loss.

If a history of gallstones is present, physicians should tell patients that GLP-1 RA analogs can increase biliary colic, chances of cholecystitis, or even cholecystitis, Chadha said.

Gallbladder disease itself is not a contraindication, she said, but these patients can experience more disease complications when taking GLP-1 RAs.

Varney recently treated a middle-aged female patient who experienced biliary colic after taking a GLP-1 RA medication. The patient had a starting body mass index (BMI) of about 45 and lost 24% of her starting weight over 12 months using a combination of strengthening and cardiovascular training; a reduced-calorie, high-protein diet; and semaglutide for weight loss, Varney said.

The patient began developing upper gastrointestinal symptoms, including mild biliary colic, without concerning lab findings. An ultrasound revealed that she had new gallstones, compared with an ultrasound a few years prior. Varney started the patient on ursodeoxycholic acid, and over the course of 6 weeks, the patient’s symptoms gradually improved and eventually resolved.

“In a situation like this, many physicians might have discontinued the obesity medication, potentially deciding not to restart it due to the symptoms she was experiencing,” Varney said. “However, I believe it’s important to recognize that these medications offer far more than just weight loss benefits. The positive effects extend to cardiovascular, metabolic, and mental health, which are often overlooked when the focus is solely on the number on the scale or BMI.”

Other medical conditions that GLP-1 RAs may exacerbate include gastroparesis and diabetic retinopathy, Chadha noted. GLP-1 RA drugs can worsen these conditions and are not recommended for patients with such a history.

Nor are GLP-1 RA medications a good idea for patients struggling with severe constipation.

“It is very difficult to tolerate these medications because it can make constipation worse,” Chadha said. “In addition, if a patient struggles with severe heartburn, it can make the tolerability of these medications difficult.”

 

What Patients Should Know Before Using GLP-1 RAs

Not every overweight patient is a good candidate for GLP-1 RAs, and it’s important that doctors explain why the medications may not be right for them, Davisson said.

“If a patient only has a few pounds to lose (15-20 lb) and does not accept that these medications are intended to be a long-term treatment for the chronic diseases of diabetes or obesity, then they might not be a good candidate for the medication,” Davisson said.

Also essential is making sure patients are willing to follow appropriate healthy eating guidelines when on the medications, including getting enough protein and produce to maintain lean body mass and the necessary fiber to keep bowel habits regular.

Varney often hears concerns from physicians about the long-term effects of GLP-1 RAs. She said this class of medications has been used for nearly 20 years to treat type 2 diabetes, and the data over the past two decades have shown that the benefits of GLP-1 RAs far outweigh the risks for most patients.

Recent studies have also highlighted significant long-term benefits, including a marked reduction in cardiovascular events, heart failure, and kidney disease, she said.

“These outcomes underscore the effectiveness and safety of GLP-1 RAs not just for obesity treatment but for improving overall health, particularly in high-risk populations,” she said. “As physicians, it’s crucial to consider this extensive body of evidence when evaluating the use of these medications for patients, especially when the potential health benefits extend well beyond weight loss alone.”

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

Clinicians frequently reach out to Catherine Varney, DO, asking if it’s safe to prescribe glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) to patients with thyroid disorders, such as hypothyroidism, goiter, hyperthyroidism, and nodules.

The concerns often stem from prior animal studies that revealed a link between the medications and abnormal alterations in thyroid C cells.

“What physicians need to understand is that the increased risk of thyroid cancers is specifically in those with a personal or family history of multiple endocrine neoplasia 2 (MEN2) syndrome or medullary thyroid carcinoma [MTC],” said Varney, an assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Virginia (UVA) and obesity medicine director for UVA Health, both in Charlottesville.

MTC is a common manifestation of the MEN2 syndrome, a genetic disorder that affects the endocrine glands and can cause tumors in the thyroid gland. However, MTC is very rare, making up only 3%-5% of all thyroid cancers, Varney said.

More common types of thyroid cancers, such as papillary thyroid cancer, are not contraindications to GLP-1 RAs, said Laura Davisson, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and director of Medical Weight Management at West Virginia University, Morgantown. Papillary thyroid cancer makes up about 80% of all thyroid cancers.

If physicians are thinking about prescribing GLP-1 RAs, it’s important to learn the specific types of thyroid disorders in a patient or in their family history, Davisson said. A history of thyroid conditions, such as Graves disease, Hashimoto thyroiditis, or disorders requiring a patient to take thyroid medicine, such as levothyroxine, does not preclude a person from taking GLP-1 RAs.

If a patient does not know their family history, then a discussion about whether GLP-1 RAs are right for them should take place, Davisson said.

“They should take into consideration the risks and benefits of the medicine, and the fact that medullary thyroid cancer and MEN2 syndrome are rare, making the chances of them running in their family low,” she said. “If the patient understands the risks, they may decide the potential benefits may outweigh the risks.”

Keep in mind that the elevated risk for medullary thyroid carcinoma has not been clearly demonstrated in humans during clinical trials, only in rodents, Varney added. Rodents are more likely to develop thyroid cancer after exposure to a GLP-1 RA because rodents have higher numbers of GLP-1 receptors in their thyroid cells.

The risk for thyroid cancer is also dose dependent, and the amount of GLP-1 RA that induced thyroid tumors in the rodents was 8-60 times higher than that given to humans, Varney said.

“Nonetheless, there have been case reports of MTC in humans after taking GLP-1 RA,” she said.

 

What About GLP-1 RAs and Pancreatitis?

Pancreatitis is another condition that requires consideration when it comes to prescribing GLP-1 RAs.

While some studies show that GLP-1 RA analogs can increase the risk for pancreatitis, it’s important to know the reason behind pancreatitis before making a prescription decision, said Anila Chadha, MD, a family physician and obesity medicine physician at Dignity Health in Bakersfield, California.

If the pancreatitis is caused by alcohol or is medication induced, GLP-1 RAs are not recommended, Chadha said. If gallbladder stones are behind the pancreatitis, that’s different.

“If a patient has a well-documented history of gallstone-induced pancreatitis and the patient has had a cholecystectomy, it would be OK to prescribe GLP-1 [medications] after shared decision-making with the patient,” she said.

Some patients worry about taking GLP-1 RAs if they have other types of pancreatic disease beyond pancreatitis, said Davisson, but guidelines do not identify conditions such as pancreatic cysts or a family history of pancreatic cancer as contraindications to GLP-1 RAs.

However, be mindful that GLP-1 RA medications can increase gallbladder disease, Chadha said. A 2022 analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine, for example, found that the use of GLP-1 RAs was associated with an increased risk for gallbladder or biliary diseases, especially when used at higher doses, for longer durations, and for weight loss.

If a history of gallstones is present, physicians should tell patients that GLP-1 RA analogs can increase biliary colic, chances of cholecystitis, or even cholecystitis, Chadha said.

Gallbladder disease itself is not a contraindication, she said, but these patients can experience more disease complications when taking GLP-1 RAs.

Varney recently treated a middle-aged female patient who experienced biliary colic after taking a GLP-1 RA medication. The patient had a starting body mass index (BMI) of about 45 and lost 24% of her starting weight over 12 months using a combination of strengthening and cardiovascular training; a reduced-calorie, high-protein diet; and semaglutide for weight loss, Varney said.

The patient began developing upper gastrointestinal symptoms, including mild biliary colic, without concerning lab findings. An ultrasound revealed that she had new gallstones, compared with an ultrasound a few years prior. Varney started the patient on ursodeoxycholic acid, and over the course of 6 weeks, the patient’s symptoms gradually improved and eventually resolved.

“In a situation like this, many physicians might have discontinued the obesity medication, potentially deciding not to restart it due to the symptoms she was experiencing,” Varney said. “However, I believe it’s important to recognize that these medications offer far more than just weight loss benefits. The positive effects extend to cardiovascular, metabolic, and mental health, which are often overlooked when the focus is solely on the number on the scale or BMI.”

Other medical conditions that GLP-1 RAs may exacerbate include gastroparesis and diabetic retinopathy, Chadha noted. GLP-1 RA drugs can worsen these conditions and are not recommended for patients with such a history.

Nor are GLP-1 RA medications a good idea for patients struggling with severe constipation.

“It is very difficult to tolerate these medications because it can make constipation worse,” Chadha said. “In addition, if a patient struggles with severe heartburn, it can make the tolerability of these medications difficult.”

 

What Patients Should Know Before Using GLP-1 RAs

Not every overweight patient is a good candidate for GLP-1 RAs, and it’s important that doctors explain why the medications may not be right for them, Davisson said.

“If a patient only has a few pounds to lose (15-20 lb) and does not accept that these medications are intended to be a long-term treatment for the chronic diseases of diabetes or obesity, then they might not be a good candidate for the medication,” Davisson said.

Also essential is making sure patients are willing to follow appropriate healthy eating guidelines when on the medications, including getting enough protein and produce to maintain lean body mass and the necessary fiber to keep bowel habits regular.

Varney often hears concerns from physicians about the long-term effects of GLP-1 RAs. She said this class of medications has been used for nearly 20 years to treat type 2 diabetes, and the data over the past two decades have shown that the benefits of GLP-1 RAs far outweigh the risks for most patients.

Recent studies have also highlighted significant long-term benefits, including a marked reduction in cardiovascular events, heart failure, and kidney disease, she said.

“These outcomes underscore the effectiveness and safety of GLP-1 RAs not just for obesity treatment but for improving overall health, particularly in high-risk populations,” she said. “As physicians, it’s crucial to consider this extensive body of evidence when evaluating the use of these medications for patients, especially when the potential health benefits extend well beyond weight loss alone.”

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

Clinicians frequently reach out to Catherine Varney, DO, asking if it’s safe to prescribe glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) to patients with thyroid disorders, such as hypothyroidism, goiter, hyperthyroidism, and nodules.

The concerns often stem from prior animal studies that revealed a link between the medications and abnormal alterations in thyroid C cells.

“What physicians need to understand is that the increased risk of thyroid cancers is specifically in those with a personal or family history of multiple endocrine neoplasia 2 (MEN2) syndrome or medullary thyroid carcinoma [MTC],” said Varney, an assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Virginia (UVA) and obesity medicine director for UVA Health, both in Charlottesville.

MTC is a common manifestation of the MEN2 syndrome, a genetic disorder that affects the endocrine glands and can cause tumors in the thyroid gland. However, MTC is very rare, making up only 3%-5% of all thyroid cancers, Varney said.

More common types of thyroid cancers, such as papillary thyroid cancer, are not contraindications to GLP-1 RAs, said Laura Davisson, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and director of Medical Weight Management at West Virginia University, Morgantown. Papillary thyroid cancer makes up about 80% of all thyroid cancers.

If physicians are thinking about prescribing GLP-1 RAs, it’s important to learn the specific types of thyroid disorders in a patient or in their family history, Davisson said. A history of thyroid conditions, such as Graves disease, Hashimoto thyroiditis, or disorders requiring a patient to take thyroid medicine, such as levothyroxine, does not preclude a person from taking GLP-1 RAs.

If a patient does not know their family history, then a discussion about whether GLP-1 RAs are right for them should take place, Davisson said.

“They should take into consideration the risks and benefits of the medicine, and the fact that medullary thyroid cancer and MEN2 syndrome are rare, making the chances of them running in their family low,” she said. “If the patient understands the risks, they may decide the potential benefits may outweigh the risks.”

Keep in mind that the elevated risk for medullary thyroid carcinoma has not been clearly demonstrated in humans during clinical trials, only in rodents, Varney added. Rodents are more likely to develop thyroid cancer after exposure to a GLP-1 RA because rodents have higher numbers of GLP-1 receptors in their thyroid cells.

The risk for thyroid cancer is also dose dependent, and the amount of GLP-1 RA that induced thyroid tumors in the rodents was 8-60 times higher than that given to humans, Varney said.

“Nonetheless, there have been case reports of MTC in humans after taking GLP-1 RA,” she said.

 

What About GLP-1 RAs and Pancreatitis?

Pancreatitis is another condition that requires consideration when it comes to prescribing GLP-1 RAs.

While some studies show that GLP-1 RA analogs can increase the risk for pancreatitis, it’s important to know the reason behind pancreatitis before making a prescription decision, said Anila Chadha, MD, a family physician and obesity medicine physician at Dignity Health in Bakersfield, California.

If the pancreatitis is caused by alcohol or is medication induced, GLP-1 RAs are not recommended, Chadha said. If gallbladder stones are behind the pancreatitis, that’s different.

“If a patient has a well-documented history of gallstone-induced pancreatitis and the patient has had a cholecystectomy, it would be OK to prescribe GLP-1 [medications] after shared decision-making with the patient,” she said.

Some patients worry about taking GLP-1 RAs if they have other types of pancreatic disease beyond pancreatitis, said Davisson, but guidelines do not identify conditions such as pancreatic cysts or a family history of pancreatic cancer as contraindications to GLP-1 RAs.

However, be mindful that GLP-1 RA medications can increase gallbladder disease, Chadha said. A 2022 analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine, for example, found that the use of GLP-1 RAs was associated with an increased risk for gallbladder or biliary diseases, especially when used at higher doses, for longer durations, and for weight loss.

If a history of gallstones is present, physicians should tell patients that GLP-1 RA analogs can increase biliary colic, chances of cholecystitis, or even cholecystitis, Chadha said.

Gallbladder disease itself is not a contraindication, she said, but these patients can experience more disease complications when taking GLP-1 RAs.

Varney recently treated a middle-aged female patient who experienced biliary colic after taking a GLP-1 RA medication. The patient had a starting body mass index (BMI) of about 45 and lost 24% of her starting weight over 12 months using a combination of strengthening and cardiovascular training; a reduced-calorie, high-protein diet; and semaglutide for weight loss, Varney said.

The patient began developing upper gastrointestinal symptoms, including mild biliary colic, without concerning lab findings. An ultrasound revealed that she had new gallstones, compared with an ultrasound a few years prior. Varney started the patient on ursodeoxycholic acid, and over the course of 6 weeks, the patient’s symptoms gradually improved and eventually resolved.

“In a situation like this, many physicians might have discontinued the obesity medication, potentially deciding not to restart it due to the symptoms she was experiencing,” Varney said. “However, I believe it’s important to recognize that these medications offer far more than just weight loss benefits. The positive effects extend to cardiovascular, metabolic, and mental health, which are often overlooked when the focus is solely on the number on the scale or BMI.”

Other medical conditions that GLP-1 RAs may exacerbate include gastroparesis and diabetic retinopathy, Chadha noted. GLP-1 RA drugs can worsen these conditions and are not recommended for patients with such a history.

Nor are GLP-1 RA medications a good idea for patients struggling with severe constipation.

“It is very difficult to tolerate these medications because it can make constipation worse,” Chadha said. “In addition, if a patient struggles with severe heartburn, it can make the tolerability of these medications difficult.”

 

What Patients Should Know Before Using GLP-1 RAs

Not every overweight patient is a good candidate for GLP-1 RAs, and it’s important that doctors explain why the medications may not be right for them, Davisson said.

“If a patient only has a few pounds to lose (15-20 lb) and does not accept that these medications are intended to be a long-term treatment for the chronic diseases of diabetes or obesity, then they might not be a good candidate for the medication,” Davisson said.

Also essential is making sure patients are willing to follow appropriate healthy eating guidelines when on the medications, including getting enough protein and produce to maintain lean body mass and the necessary fiber to keep bowel habits regular.

Varney often hears concerns from physicians about the long-term effects of GLP-1 RAs. She said this class of medications has been used for nearly 20 years to treat type 2 diabetes, and the data over the past two decades have shown that the benefits of GLP-1 RAs far outweigh the risks for most patients.

Recent studies have also highlighted significant long-term benefits, including a marked reduction in cardiovascular events, heart failure, and kidney disease, she said.

“These outcomes underscore the effectiveness and safety of GLP-1 RAs not just for obesity treatment but for improving overall health, particularly in high-risk populations,” she said. “As physicians, it’s crucial to consider this extensive body of evidence when evaluating the use of these medications for patients, especially when the potential health benefits extend well beyond weight loss alone.”

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

TOPLINE:

Among older veterans with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as an add-on therapy is associated with a higher risk for peripheral artery disease (PAD)-related surgical events than the use of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some placebo-controlled randomized trials have reported an increased risk for amputation with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases; however, the evidence remains unconfirmed by other subsequent trials.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of US veterans with T2D initiating SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP-4 inhibitors (a reference drug) as an add-on to metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin treatment alone or in combination.
• The primary outcome was the time to the first surgical event for PAD (amputation, peripheral revascularization and bypass, or peripheral vascular stent).
• A Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare PAD event risk between the SGLT2 inhibitor and DPP-4 inhibitor groups, allowing events up to 90 days or 360 days after stopping SGLT2 inhibitors.

TAKEAWAY:

• After propensity score weighting, 76,072 episodes of SGLT2 inhibitor use (94% empagliflozin, 4% canagliflozin, and 2% dapagliflozin) and 75,833 episodes of DPP-4 inhibitor use (45% saxagliptin, 34% alogliptin, 15% sitagliptin, and 6% linagliptin) were included.
• Participants had a median age of 69 years and a median duration of diabetes of 10.1 years.
• SGLT2 inhibitor users had higher PAD-related surgical events than DPP-4 inhibitor users (874 vs 780), with event rates of 11.2 vs 10.0 per 1000 person-years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.18).
• The cumulative probability of PAD-related surgical events at 4 years was higher for SGLT2 inhibitor users than for DPP-4 inhibitor users (4.0% vs 2.8%, respectively).
• The results remained consistent after 90 and 360 days of stopping SGLT2 inhibitors.
• SGLT2 inhibitor use was also associated with a higher risk for amputation (aHR, 1.15) and revascularization (aHR, 1.25) events than DPP-4 inhibitor use.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results underscore the need to determine the safety of [SGLT2 inhibitor] use among patients with diabetes who remain at very high risk for PAD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Katherine E. Griffin, Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, and published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded patients whose initial diabetes treatment was not metformin, insulin, or sulfonylurea, which might have influenced the interpretation of the results. The median follow-up period of approximately 0.7 years for both groups may have affected the number of amputations and revascularization events observed. The study population primarily comprised White men, limiting generalizability to women and other demographic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding through an investigator-initiated grant from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Science Research and Development. Two authors received partial research support through a grant from the Center for Diabetes Translation Research. All authors received partial support from the VETWISE-LHS Center of Innovation. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to the article were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Among older veterans with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as an add-on therapy is associated with a higher risk for peripheral artery disease (PAD)-related surgical events than the use of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some placebo-controlled randomized trials have reported an increased risk for amputation with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases; however, the evidence remains unconfirmed by other subsequent trials.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of US veterans with T2D initiating SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP-4 inhibitors (a reference drug) as an add-on to metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin treatment alone or in combination.
• The primary outcome was the time to the first surgical event for PAD (amputation, peripheral revascularization and bypass, or peripheral vascular stent).
• A Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare PAD event risk between the SGLT2 inhibitor and DPP-4 inhibitor groups, allowing events up to 90 days or 360 days after stopping SGLT2 inhibitors.

TAKEAWAY:

• After propensity score weighting, 76,072 episodes of SGLT2 inhibitor use (94% empagliflozin, 4% canagliflozin, and 2% dapagliflozin) and 75,833 episodes of DPP-4 inhibitor use (45% saxagliptin, 34% alogliptin, 15% sitagliptin, and 6% linagliptin) were included.
• Participants had a median age of 69 years and a median duration of diabetes of 10.1 years.
• SGLT2 inhibitor users had higher PAD-related surgical events than DPP-4 inhibitor users (874 vs 780), with event rates of 11.2 vs 10.0 per 1000 person-years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.18).
• The cumulative probability of PAD-related surgical events at 4 years was higher for SGLT2 inhibitor users than for DPP-4 inhibitor users (4.0% vs 2.8%, respectively).
• The results remained consistent after 90 and 360 days of stopping SGLT2 inhibitors.
• SGLT2 inhibitor use was also associated with a higher risk for amputation (aHR, 1.15) and revascularization (aHR, 1.25) events than DPP-4 inhibitor use.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results underscore the need to determine the safety of [SGLT2 inhibitor] use among patients with diabetes who remain at very high risk for PAD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Katherine E. Griffin, Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, and published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded patients whose initial diabetes treatment was not metformin, insulin, or sulfonylurea, which might have influenced the interpretation of the results. The median follow-up period of approximately 0.7 years for both groups may have affected the number of amputations and revascularization events observed. The study population primarily comprised White men, limiting generalizability to women and other demographic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding through an investigator-initiated grant from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Science Research and Development. Two authors received partial research support through a grant from the Center for Diabetes Translation Research. All authors received partial support from the VETWISE-LHS Center of Innovation. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to the article were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Among older veterans with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as an add-on therapy is associated with a higher risk for peripheral artery disease (PAD)-related surgical events than the use of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some placebo-controlled randomized trials have reported an increased risk for amputation with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases; however, the evidence remains unconfirmed by other subsequent trials.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of US veterans with T2D initiating SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP-4 inhibitors (a reference drug) as an add-on to metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin treatment alone or in combination.
• The primary outcome was the time to the first surgical event for PAD (amputation, peripheral revascularization and bypass, or peripheral vascular stent).
• A Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare PAD event risk between the SGLT2 inhibitor and DPP-4 inhibitor groups, allowing events up to 90 days or 360 days after stopping SGLT2 inhibitors.

TAKEAWAY:

• After propensity score weighting, 76,072 episodes of SGLT2 inhibitor use (94% empagliflozin, 4% canagliflozin, and 2% dapagliflozin) and 75,833 episodes of DPP-4 inhibitor use (45% saxagliptin, 34% alogliptin, 15% sitagliptin, and 6% linagliptin) were included.
• Participants had a median age of 69 years and a median duration of diabetes of 10.1 years.
• SGLT2 inhibitor users had higher PAD-related surgical events than DPP-4 inhibitor users (874 vs 780), with event rates of 11.2 vs 10.0 per 1000 person-years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.18).
• The cumulative probability of PAD-related surgical events at 4 years was higher for SGLT2 inhibitor users than for DPP-4 inhibitor users (4.0% vs 2.8%, respectively).
• The results remained consistent after 90 and 360 days of stopping SGLT2 inhibitors.
• SGLT2 inhibitor use was also associated with a higher risk for amputation (aHR, 1.15) and revascularization (aHR, 1.25) events than DPP-4 inhibitor use.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results underscore the need to determine the safety of [SGLT2 inhibitor] use among patients with diabetes who remain at very high risk for PAD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Katherine E. Griffin, Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, and published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded patients whose initial diabetes treatment was not metformin, insulin, or sulfonylurea, which might have influenced the interpretation of the results. The median follow-up period of approximately 0.7 years for both groups may have affected the number of amputations and revascularization events observed. The study population primarily comprised White men, limiting generalizability to women and other demographic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding through an investigator-initiated grant from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Science Research and Development. Two authors received partial research support through a grant from the Center for Diabetes Translation Research. All authors received partial support from the VETWISE-LHS Center of Innovation. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to the article were reported.

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

Evidence is mounting that new therapies already used to treat gut diseases, type 2 diabetes, and obesity may help people with alcohol use disorder (AUD).

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, first used to treat diabetes and now widely used for weight loss, and fecal microbiota transplants (FMTs), used to treat diseases such as recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, are advancing in clinical trials as potential options for treating AUD.

 

AUD Affects 28.9 Million People in the United States

In 2023, 28.9 million people aged 12 years or older in the United States had AUD (10.2% of the people in this age group). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three medical therapies: Acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram to help keep people with the disorder from returning to heavy drinking. Acamprosate’s mechanism of action is not clear, but it is thought to modulate and normalize alcohol-related changes in brain activity, thereby reducing withdrawal symptoms. Naltrexone blocks opioid receptors to reduce alcohol cravings. Disulfiram causes a toxic physical reaction when mixed with alcohol.

Some with AUD also benefit from behavioral therapies and support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous. But for others, nothing has worked, and that’s part of the reason Lorenzo Leggio, MD, PhD, a scientist in the field of alcohol addiction with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), told this news organization that this is the “most exciting moment” for AUD treatment in his more than 2 decades of research in this area.

 

GLP-1 Agonists Showing Consistent Results

GLP-1 receptor agonists work by modulating the brain’s reward pathways, including the areas that regulate cravings and motivation.

“By dampening the reward signals associated with alcohol consumption, GLP-1 agonists may reduce cravings and heavy drinking episodes,” Fares Qeadan, PhD, MS, associate professor of biostatistics in the Department of Public Health Sciences at Loyola University Chicago in Illinois, told this news organization.

“The unique aspect of GLP-1 agonists is their ability to target both metabolic and reward systems in the brain,” he said. While naltrexone or acamprosate blocks the effects of alcohol or reduces withdrawal symptoms, “GLP-1 agonists approach addiction through a broader mechanism, potentially addressing underlying factors that contribute to cravings and compulsive behaviors,” he said.

As part of a study published in October in Addiction, Qeadan’s team found that people with AUD who were prescribed GLP-1 agonists had a 50% lower rate of severe intoxication than those who were not prescribed those medications.

“While this is observational and not yet definitive, it highlights the potential of these drugs to complement existing treatments for AUD,” he said.

Another study, a nationwide cohort study published in JAMA Psychiatry, found that using the GLP-1 receptor agonists semaglutide and liraglutide was linked to a lower risk for AUD-related hospitalizations than traditional AUD medications.

A systematic review, published last month in eClinical Medicine, concluded that, though there is little high-quality evidence demonstrating the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on alcohol use, “subgroup analysis from two [randomized, controlled trials] and supporting data from four observational studies suggest that GLP-1 [receptor agonists] may reduce alcohol consumption and improve outcomes in some individuals.”

Studying individual differences in response may have implications for personalized medicine, Qeadan said, as treatments could be tailored to those most likely to benefit, such as people with both metabolic dysfunction and AUD.

“These medications may offer hope for patients who struggle with addiction and have not responded to traditional therapies,” Qeadan said.

 

Exploring FMT as AUD Treatment

FMT is also a new research focus for treating AUD. Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, a gastroenterologist and liver specialist at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, is leading the Intestinal Microbiota Transplant in Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease (IMPACT) trial.

AUD has been linked with gut microbial alterations that worsen with cirrhosis. Research has shown that alcohol consumption changes the diversity of bacteria and can lead to bacterial overgrowth and progression of alcohol-associated liver disease.

FMT has been effective in rebalancing gut bacteria by transferring healthy stool from screened donors into patients who have developed an overgrowth of harmful bacteria. In the IMPACT trial, participants, who have not previously received traditional treatment for AUD or for whom treatment has not worked, are randomized either to the oral treatment capsule, which contains freeze-dried stool from a donor with healthy gut bacteria, or placebo.

The trial, sponsored by the NIH, is halfway through its target enrollment of 80.

In a previous smaller, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study, also led by Bajaj and published in Hepatology, 9 of the 10 volunteers who had severe AUD and cirrhosis experienced fewer alcohol cravings and had lower consumption after 15 days. Only three of the placebo participants saw similar improvements. Those who received the microbiota transplant also had fewer AUD-related events over 6 months.

Bajaj said that, if trials show FMT is safe and effective, he envisions the treatment as one tool in a multidisciplinary, integrated clinic that would include a hepatologist and mental health clinicians.

One benefit of the FMT treatment approach is it is given once or twice only, rather than administered regularly.

 

Current Treatments Work, But More are Needed

Leggio, who is clinical director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Intramural Research Program, said: “We know that alcohol use disorder, and addiction in general, is a brain disease. We also know that the brain does not work in isolation. The brain is constantly interacting with the rest of the body, including with the gut.”

Leggio said it’s important to note that the three FDA-approved medications do work for alcohol addiction. He said they work as well as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depression and beta-blockers for chronic heart failure.

But there are only three, and they don’t work for everyone, he noted. Those are among the reasons developing new treatments is important. New treatments could be used as an alternative or in combination with already approved treatments.

FMT is in “the very early stages” of trials testing its use for AUD, Leggio noted, adding that the studies by Bajaj’s team are among the very few addressing gut dysbiosis in AUD, and all have involved small numbers of patients. “It’s promising. It’s intriguing. It’s exciting. But we are just at the beginning.”

 

Results Consistent Across Species, Labs

GLP-1 agonists are further along in trials but still not ready for prescribing for AUD, Leggio said. The positive results have been consistent across species, different labs, and different research teams around the world.

Researchers have also explored through electronic health record emulation trials whether people already taking GLP-1 agonists for diabetes or obesity drink less alcohol compared with matched cohorts not taking GLP-1s. “They consistently show that the people who are on GLP-1s drink less,” he said.

“[Emulation trials] don’t replace the need for randomized controlled trials, Leggio noted. Leggio’s team is currently working on a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial studying GLP-1s in relation to AUD.

 

New Directions 20-Year Highlight

This whole line of research represents “new hope” and has many implications, Leggio said. “I have been in this business for 20-plus years, and I think this is themost exciting moment when we have a very promising target in GLP-1s.”

Regardless of efficacy, he said, the focus on GLP-1 agonists and FMT for AUD has people talking more about addiction and the brain-body connection rather than assuming AUD is a result of poor choices and “bad behavior.”

The momentum of new treatments could also lead to patients and physicians having conversations about existing treatments.

“Hopefully, this momentum will help us destigmatize addiction, and by destigmatizing addiction, there will be an uptick in use of currently approved medications,” Leggio said.

Qeadan, Bajaj, and Leggio reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Evidence is mounting that new therapies already used to treat gut diseases, type 2 diabetes, and obesity may help people with alcohol use disorder (AUD).

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, first used to treat diabetes and now widely used for weight loss, and fecal microbiota transplants (FMTs), used to treat diseases such as recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, are advancing in clinical trials as potential options for treating AUD.

 

AUD Affects 28.9 Million People in the United States

In 2023, 28.9 million people aged 12 years or older in the United States had AUD (10.2% of the people in this age group). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three medical therapies: Acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram to help keep people with the disorder from returning to heavy drinking. Acamprosate’s mechanism of action is not clear, but it is thought to modulate and normalize alcohol-related changes in brain activity, thereby reducing withdrawal symptoms. Naltrexone blocks opioid receptors to reduce alcohol cravings. Disulfiram causes a toxic physical reaction when mixed with alcohol.

Some with AUD also benefit from behavioral therapies and support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous. But for others, nothing has worked, and that’s part of the reason Lorenzo Leggio, MD, PhD, a scientist in the field of alcohol addiction with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), told this news organization that this is the “most exciting moment” for AUD treatment in his more than 2 decades of research in this area.

 

GLP-1 Agonists Showing Consistent Results

GLP-1 receptor agonists work by modulating the brain’s reward pathways, including the areas that regulate cravings and motivation.

“By dampening the reward signals associated with alcohol consumption, GLP-1 agonists may reduce cravings and heavy drinking episodes,” Fares Qeadan, PhD, MS, associate professor of biostatistics in the Department of Public Health Sciences at Loyola University Chicago in Illinois, told this news organization.

“The unique aspect of GLP-1 agonists is their ability to target both metabolic and reward systems in the brain,” he said. While naltrexone or acamprosate blocks the effects of alcohol or reduces withdrawal symptoms, “GLP-1 agonists approach addiction through a broader mechanism, potentially addressing underlying factors that contribute to cravings and compulsive behaviors,” he said.

As part of a study published in October in Addiction, Qeadan’s team found that people with AUD who were prescribed GLP-1 agonists had a 50% lower rate of severe intoxication than those who were not prescribed those medications.

“While this is observational and not yet definitive, it highlights the potential of these drugs to complement existing treatments for AUD,” he said.

Another study, a nationwide cohort study published in JAMA Psychiatry, found that using the GLP-1 receptor agonists semaglutide and liraglutide was linked to a lower risk for AUD-related hospitalizations than traditional AUD medications.

A systematic review, published last month in eClinical Medicine, concluded that, though there is little high-quality evidence demonstrating the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on alcohol use, “subgroup analysis from two [randomized, controlled trials] and supporting data from four observational studies suggest that GLP-1 [receptor agonists] may reduce alcohol consumption and improve outcomes in some individuals.”

Studying individual differences in response may have implications for personalized medicine, Qeadan said, as treatments could be tailored to those most likely to benefit, such as people with both metabolic dysfunction and AUD.

“These medications may offer hope for patients who struggle with addiction and have not responded to traditional therapies,” Qeadan said.

 

Exploring FMT as AUD Treatment

FMT is also a new research focus for treating AUD. Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, a gastroenterologist and liver specialist at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, is leading the Intestinal Microbiota Transplant in Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease (IMPACT) trial.

AUD has been linked with gut microbial alterations that worsen with cirrhosis. Research has shown that alcohol consumption changes the diversity of bacteria and can lead to bacterial overgrowth and progression of alcohol-associated liver disease.

FMT has been effective in rebalancing gut bacteria by transferring healthy stool from screened donors into patients who have developed an overgrowth of harmful bacteria. In the IMPACT trial, participants, who have not previously received traditional treatment for AUD or for whom treatment has not worked, are randomized either to the oral treatment capsule, which contains freeze-dried stool from a donor with healthy gut bacteria, or placebo.

The trial, sponsored by the NIH, is halfway through its target enrollment of 80.

In a previous smaller, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study, also led by Bajaj and published in Hepatology, 9 of the 10 volunteers who had severe AUD and cirrhosis experienced fewer alcohol cravings and had lower consumption after 15 days. Only three of the placebo participants saw similar improvements. Those who received the microbiota transplant also had fewer AUD-related events over 6 months.

Bajaj said that, if trials show FMT is safe and effective, he envisions the treatment as one tool in a multidisciplinary, integrated clinic that would include a hepatologist and mental health clinicians.

One benefit of the FMT treatment approach is it is given once or twice only, rather than administered regularly.

 

Current Treatments Work, But More are Needed

Leggio, who is clinical director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Intramural Research Program, said: “We know that alcohol use disorder, and addiction in general, is a brain disease. We also know that the brain does not work in isolation. The brain is constantly interacting with the rest of the body, including with the gut.”

Leggio said it’s important to note that the three FDA-approved medications do work for alcohol addiction. He said they work as well as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depression and beta-blockers for chronic heart failure.

But there are only three, and they don’t work for everyone, he noted. Those are among the reasons developing new treatments is important. New treatments could be used as an alternative or in combination with already approved treatments.

FMT is in “the very early stages” of trials testing its use for AUD, Leggio noted, adding that the studies by Bajaj’s team are among the very few addressing gut dysbiosis in AUD, and all have involved small numbers of patients. “It’s promising. It’s intriguing. It’s exciting. But we are just at the beginning.”

 

Results Consistent Across Species, Labs

GLP-1 agonists are further along in trials but still not ready for prescribing for AUD, Leggio said. The positive results have been consistent across species, different labs, and different research teams around the world.

Researchers have also explored through electronic health record emulation trials whether people already taking GLP-1 agonists for diabetes or obesity drink less alcohol compared with matched cohorts not taking GLP-1s. “They consistently show that the people who are on GLP-1s drink less,” he said.

“[Emulation trials] don’t replace the need for randomized controlled trials, Leggio noted. Leggio’s team is currently working on a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial studying GLP-1s in relation to AUD.

 

New Directions 20-Year Highlight

This whole line of research represents “new hope” and has many implications, Leggio said. “I have been in this business for 20-plus years, and I think this is themost exciting moment when we have a very promising target in GLP-1s.”

Regardless of efficacy, he said, the focus on GLP-1 agonists and FMT for AUD has people talking more about addiction and the brain-body connection rather than assuming AUD is a result of poor choices and “bad behavior.”

The momentum of new treatments could also lead to patients and physicians having conversations about existing treatments.

“Hopefully, this momentum will help us destigmatize addiction, and by destigmatizing addiction, there will be an uptick in use of currently approved medications,” Leggio said.

Qeadan, Bajaj, and Leggio reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Evidence is mounting that new therapies already used to treat gut diseases, type 2 diabetes, and obesity may help people with alcohol use disorder (AUD).

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, first used to treat diabetes and now widely used for weight loss, and fecal microbiota transplants (FMTs), used to treat diseases such as recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, are advancing in clinical trials as potential options for treating AUD.

 

AUD Affects 28.9 Million People in the United States

In 2023, 28.9 million people aged 12 years or older in the United States had AUD (10.2% of the people in this age group). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three medical therapies: Acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram to help keep people with the disorder from returning to heavy drinking. Acamprosate’s mechanism of action is not clear, but it is thought to modulate and normalize alcohol-related changes in brain activity, thereby reducing withdrawal symptoms. Naltrexone blocks opioid receptors to reduce alcohol cravings. Disulfiram causes a toxic physical reaction when mixed with alcohol.

Some with AUD also benefit from behavioral therapies and support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous. But for others, nothing has worked, and that’s part of the reason Lorenzo Leggio, MD, PhD, a scientist in the field of alcohol addiction with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), told this news organization that this is the “most exciting moment” for AUD treatment in his more than 2 decades of research in this area.

 

GLP-1 Agonists Showing Consistent Results

GLP-1 receptor agonists work by modulating the brain’s reward pathways, including the areas that regulate cravings and motivation.

“By dampening the reward signals associated with alcohol consumption, GLP-1 agonists may reduce cravings and heavy drinking episodes,” Fares Qeadan, PhD, MS, associate professor of biostatistics in the Department of Public Health Sciences at Loyola University Chicago in Illinois, told this news organization.

“The unique aspect of GLP-1 agonists is their ability to target both metabolic and reward systems in the brain,” he said. While naltrexone or acamprosate blocks the effects of alcohol or reduces withdrawal symptoms, “GLP-1 agonists approach addiction through a broader mechanism, potentially addressing underlying factors that contribute to cravings and compulsive behaviors,” he said.

As part of a study published in October in Addiction, Qeadan’s team found that people with AUD who were prescribed GLP-1 agonists had a 50% lower rate of severe intoxication than those who were not prescribed those medications.

“While this is observational and not yet definitive, it highlights the potential of these drugs to complement existing treatments for AUD,” he said.

Another study, a nationwide cohort study published in JAMA Psychiatry, found that using the GLP-1 receptor agonists semaglutide and liraglutide was linked to a lower risk for AUD-related hospitalizations than traditional AUD medications.

A systematic review, published last month in eClinical Medicine, concluded that, though there is little high-quality evidence demonstrating the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on alcohol use, “subgroup analysis from two [randomized, controlled trials] and supporting data from four observational studies suggest that GLP-1 [receptor agonists] may reduce alcohol consumption and improve outcomes in some individuals.”

Studying individual differences in response may have implications for personalized medicine, Qeadan said, as treatments could be tailored to those most likely to benefit, such as people with both metabolic dysfunction and AUD.

“These medications may offer hope for patients who struggle with addiction and have not responded to traditional therapies,” Qeadan said.

 

Exploring FMT as AUD Treatment

FMT is also a new research focus for treating AUD. Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, a gastroenterologist and liver specialist at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, is leading the Intestinal Microbiota Transplant in Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease (IMPACT) trial.

AUD has been linked with gut microbial alterations that worsen with cirrhosis. Research has shown that alcohol consumption changes the diversity of bacteria and can lead to bacterial overgrowth and progression of alcohol-associated liver disease.

FMT has been effective in rebalancing gut bacteria by transferring healthy stool from screened donors into patients who have developed an overgrowth of harmful bacteria. In the IMPACT trial, participants, who have not previously received traditional treatment for AUD or for whom treatment has not worked, are randomized either to the oral treatment capsule, which contains freeze-dried stool from a donor with healthy gut bacteria, or placebo.

The trial, sponsored by the NIH, is halfway through its target enrollment of 80.

In a previous smaller, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study, also led by Bajaj and published in Hepatology, 9 of the 10 volunteers who had severe AUD and cirrhosis experienced fewer alcohol cravings and had lower consumption after 15 days. Only three of the placebo participants saw similar improvements. Those who received the microbiota transplant also had fewer AUD-related events over 6 months.

Bajaj said that, if trials show FMT is safe and effective, he envisions the treatment as one tool in a multidisciplinary, integrated clinic that would include a hepatologist and mental health clinicians.

One benefit of the FMT treatment approach is it is given once or twice only, rather than administered regularly.

 

Current Treatments Work, But More are Needed

Leggio, who is clinical director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Intramural Research Program, said: “We know that alcohol use disorder, and addiction in general, is a brain disease. We also know that the brain does not work in isolation. The brain is constantly interacting with the rest of the body, including with the gut.”

Leggio said it’s important to note that the three FDA-approved medications do work for alcohol addiction. He said they work as well as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depression and beta-blockers for chronic heart failure.

But there are only three, and they don’t work for everyone, he noted. Those are among the reasons developing new treatments is important. New treatments could be used as an alternative or in combination with already approved treatments.

FMT is in “the very early stages” of trials testing its use for AUD, Leggio noted, adding that the studies by Bajaj’s team are among the very few addressing gut dysbiosis in AUD, and all have involved small numbers of patients. “It’s promising. It’s intriguing. It’s exciting. But we are just at the beginning.”

 

Results Consistent Across Species, Labs

GLP-1 agonists are further along in trials but still not ready for prescribing for AUD, Leggio said. The positive results have been consistent across species, different labs, and different research teams around the world.

Researchers have also explored through electronic health record emulation trials whether people already taking GLP-1 agonists for diabetes or obesity drink less alcohol compared with matched cohorts not taking GLP-1s. “They consistently show that the people who are on GLP-1s drink less,” he said.

“[Emulation trials] don’t replace the need for randomized controlled trials, Leggio noted. Leggio’s team is currently working on a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial studying GLP-1s in relation to AUD.

 

New Directions 20-Year Highlight

This whole line of research represents “new hope” and has many implications, Leggio said. “I have been in this business for 20-plus years, and I think this is themost exciting moment when we have a very promising target in GLP-1s.”

Regardless of efficacy, he said, the focus on GLP-1 agonists and FMT for AUD has people talking more about addiction and the brain-body connection rather than assuming AUD is a result of poor choices and “bad behavior.”

The momentum of new treatments could also lead to patients and physicians having conversations about existing treatments.

“Hopefully, this momentum will help us destigmatize addiction, and by destigmatizing addiction, there will be an uptick in use of currently approved medications,” Leggio said.

Qeadan, Bajaj, and Leggio reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Every year, an estimated 45 million Americans attempt some kind of diet to shed weight, especially after the holidays. Whether or not an individual is on a successful weight loss journey, at some point they probably will experience “diet fatigue.” This is the mental and emotional exhaustion associated with engaging in dieting behaviors like calorie counting, weighing and measuring food, meal planning and prepping, and restricting certain foods. 

Diet fatigue is a huge reason (but certainly not the only reason) why diets fail, as dieters can become so burned out that they ditch their diet, return to their former eating habits, blame themselves for their diet failure, and then repeat the cycle.

Alison* became my client just as her diet fatigue was starting to settle in. She had already lost 25 pounds in the prior 6 months while in a coaching program that focused primarily on hitting calorie and macro targets. She had been following an extremely high-protein regimen that relied heavily on animal sources and protein powders. I’m not against using powders to supplement protein needs, but in Alison’s case, she was consuming a powder-and-milk concoction twice per day in place of a meal with actual food. Not only had she become plain sick of the powder, but she was also concerned that all the protein was pushing vegetables off her plate. Alison had been following this plan quite strictly but admitted to indulging in weekend sweets. She recognized that this occasional indulgence could quickly morph into a full-on habit and undo her progress. While Alison had not yet reached her goal weight, we both agreed that she needed to change up her eating routine. 

Getting a patient through diet fatigue involves identifying which dieting behaviors are causing them the most angst and then guiding them toward a more sustainable approach that provides a similar benefit. For example, many dieters develop a huge disdain for calorie tracking, which they most often describe as tedious. One alternative to tracking calories is food journaling, which encourages accountability and mindfulness but is not as time-consuming as plugging every single ingredient you ingest into an app. Alison, however, didn’t have a problem with tracking, nor with weighing her food (as a Type A personality, she preferred having this kind of control). But she was clearly lacking a few things in her previous diet: variety, fiber, and flavor. In short, Alison was not enjoying her food — hence, her increased desire for treats on weekends, which she saw as a kind of reward for “being good” all week. 

To keep Alison from slipping into a weekend bingeing pattern, we discussed a few tweaks to her regimen. First, we had to ditch the protein powder in favor of balanced meals. I recommended reducing her daily protein target, which I felt was unnecessarily high. This provided some wiggle room to add a well-rounded dinner. I encouraged her to start adding spices and herbs to make dishes more exciting. 

Finally — and this one might be controversial — I encouraged Alison to actually plan for a weekly indulgence. In my experience working in the weight management space, complete restriction of a desired food always backfires, so it made sense for Alison to simply build the chocolate into her plan in a reasonable way. 

I’m confident that Alison will reach her weight loss goal (and keep the weight off) if food continues to bring her pleasure. When it comes to weight loss, I believe that if the solution is temporary, success will also be temporary. As a dietitian, preaching sustainable, long-term habit changes is my priority, not just because it’s responsible, but because it’s the only approach that truly works.

*Patient’s name changed to protect privacy. 

Ms. Hanks is a registered dietitian at Well by Messer in New York City. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Every year, an estimated 45 million Americans attempt some kind of diet to shed weight, especially after the holidays. Whether or not an individual is on a successful weight loss journey, at some point they probably will experience “diet fatigue.” This is the mental and emotional exhaustion associated with engaging in dieting behaviors like calorie counting, weighing and measuring food, meal planning and prepping, and restricting certain foods. 

Diet fatigue is a huge reason (but certainly not the only reason) why diets fail, as dieters can become so burned out that they ditch their diet, return to their former eating habits, blame themselves for their diet failure, and then repeat the cycle.

Alison* became my client just as her diet fatigue was starting to settle in. She had already lost 25 pounds in the prior 6 months while in a coaching program that focused primarily on hitting calorie and macro targets. She had been following an extremely high-protein regimen that relied heavily on animal sources and protein powders. I’m not against using powders to supplement protein needs, but in Alison’s case, she was consuming a powder-and-milk concoction twice per day in place of a meal with actual food. Not only had she become plain sick of the powder, but she was also concerned that all the protein was pushing vegetables off her plate. Alison had been following this plan quite strictly but admitted to indulging in weekend sweets. She recognized that this occasional indulgence could quickly morph into a full-on habit and undo her progress. While Alison had not yet reached her goal weight, we both agreed that she needed to change up her eating routine. 

Getting a patient through diet fatigue involves identifying which dieting behaviors are causing them the most angst and then guiding them toward a more sustainable approach that provides a similar benefit. For example, many dieters develop a huge disdain for calorie tracking, which they most often describe as tedious. One alternative to tracking calories is food journaling, which encourages accountability and mindfulness but is not as time-consuming as plugging every single ingredient you ingest into an app. Alison, however, didn’t have a problem with tracking, nor with weighing her food (as a Type A personality, she preferred having this kind of control). But she was clearly lacking a few things in her previous diet: variety, fiber, and flavor. In short, Alison was not enjoying her food — hence, her increased desire for treats on weekends, which she saw as a kind of reward for “being good” all week. 

To keep Alison from slipping into a weekend bingeing pattern, we discussed a few tweaks to her regimen. First, we had to ditch the protein powder in favor of balanced meals. I recommended reducing her daily protein target, which I felt was unnecessarily high. This provided some wiggle room to add a well-rounded dinner. I encouraged her to start adding spices and herbs to make dishes more exciting. 

Finally — and this one might be controversial — I encouraged Alison to actually plan for a weekly indulgence. In my experience working in the weight management space, complete restriction of a desired food always backfires, so it made sense for Alison to simply build the chocolate into her plan in a reasonable way. 

I’m confident that Alison will reach her weight loss goal (and keep the weight off) if food continues to bring her pleasure. When it comes to weight loss, I believe that if the solution is temporary, success will also be temporary. As a dietitian, preaching sustainable, long-term habit changes is my priority, not just because it’s responsible, but because it’s the only approach that truly works.

*Patient’s name changed to protect privacy. 

Ms. Hanks is a registered dietitian at Well by Messer in New York City. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Every year, an estimated 45 million Americans attempt some kind of diet to shed weight, especially after the holidays. Whether or not an individual is on a successful weight loss journey, at some point they probably will experience “diet fatigue.” This is the mental and emotional exhaustion associated with engaging in dieting behaviors like calorie counting, weighing and measuring food, meal planning and prepping, and restricting certain foods. 

Diet fatigue is a huge reason (but certainly not the only reason) why diets fail, as dieters can become so burned out that they ditch their diet, return to their former eating habits, blame themselves for their diet failure, and then repeat the cycle.

Alison* became my client just as her diet fatigue was starting to settle in. She had already lost 25 pounds in the prior 6 months while in a coaching program that focused primarily on hitting calorie and macro targets. She had been following an extremely high-protein regimen that relied heavily on animal sources and protein powders. I’m not against using powders to supplement protein needs, but in Alison’s case, she was consuming a powder-and-milk concoction twice per day in place of a meal with actual food. Not only had she become plain sick of the powder, but she was also concerned that all the protein was pushing vegetables off her plate. Alison had been following this plan quite strictly but admitted to indulging in weekend sweets. She recognized that this occasional indulgence could quickly morph into a full-on habit and undo her progress. While Alison had not yet reached her goal weight, we both agreed that she needed to change up her eating routine. 

Getting a patient through diet fatigue involves identifying which dieting behaviors are causing them the most angst and then guiding them toward a more sustainable approach that provides a similar benefit. For example, many dieters develop a huge disdain for calorie tracking, which they most often describe as tedious. One alternative to tracking calories is food journaling, which encourages accountability and mindfulness but is not as time-consuming as plugging every single ingredient you ingest into an app. Alison, however, didn’t have a problem with tracking, nor with weighing her food (as a Type A personality, she preferred having this kind of control). But she was clearly lacking a few things in her previous diet: variety, fiber, and flavor. In short, Alison was not enjoying her food — hence, her increased desire for treats on weekends, which she saw as a kind of reward for “being good” all week. 

To keep Alison from slipping into a weekend bingeing pattern, we discussed a few tweaks to her regimen. First, we had to ditch the protein powder in favor of balanced meals. I recommended reducing her daily protein target, which I felt was unnecessarily high. This provided some wiggle room to add a well-rounded dinner. I encouraged her to start adding spices and herbs to make dishes more exciting. 

Finally — and this one might be controversial — I encouraged Alison to actually plan for a weekly indulgence. In my experience working in the weight management space, complete restriction of a desired food always backfires, so it made sense for Alison to simply build the chocolate into her plan in a reasonable way. 

I’m confident that Alison will reach her weight loss goal (and keep the weight off) if food continues to bring her pleasure. When it comes to weight loss, I believe that if the solution is temporary, success will also be temporary. As a dietitian, preaching sustainable, long-term habit changes is my priority, not just because it’s responsible, but because it’s the only approach that truly works.

*Patient’s name changed to protect privacy. 

Ms. Hanks is a registered dietitian at Well by Messer in New York City. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Mannkind expects to submit a request for a supplemental new drug application meeting to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its inhaled human insulin (Afrezza Inhalation Powder). Currently indicated to improve glycemic control in adults with diabetes, the company announced 6-month results from its phase 3 INHALE-1 study of inhaled human insulin in children and adolescents aged 4-17.

METHODOLOGY:

• INHALE-1 is a 26-week, open-label clinical trial that randomized 230 subjects aged 4-17 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes to either inhaled pre-meal insulin or multiple daily injections (MDI) of rapid-acting insulin analog, both in combination with basal insulin.
• The primary endpoint was a noninferior change in hemoglobin A1c levels, compared with MDI after 26 weeks.
• A 26-week extension phase in which all remaining MDI patients were switched to inhaled insulin is ongoing.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the full intent-to-treat (ITT) population analysis, the between-group difference in mean A1c change over 26 weeks exceeded the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.4% (0.435%), but this was largely driven by the variability of a single patient who didn’t adhere to the study protocol.
• A modified ITT analysis excluding that person did not exceed the predetermined threshold of 0.4% (0.370%), thereby establishing noninferiority of inhaled insulin with MDI.
• Over 26 weeks of treatment, there were no differences in lung function parameters between the treatment groups, with mean forced expiratory volume at 1 second (FEV1) at baseline vs 26 weeks of 2.901 liters (99.6% of predicted) vs 2.934 L (96.6%) in the inhaled insulin group and 2.948 L (102.3%) vs 2.957 (98%), respectively, in the MDI group.
• There were no differences between groups or concerns in other safety measures, including hypoglycemia.

IN PRACTICE:

“It was exciting to partner with MannKind and help lead this study to potentially expand the use of inhaled insulin, which is currently used successfully by many adults with diabetes, to a population that hasn’t had a treatment option other than injectable insulin in the history of their care,” said INHALE-1 investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, founder of the Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.

“The 6-month results are clinically meaningful and show Afrezza as a potential future treatment option for a growing pediatric population living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Beck added.

 

SOURCE:

The results of the study were announced at a Mannkind press release on December 16, 2024.

SAFETY INFORMATION:

Inhaled insulin is not recommended for the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis or in patients who smoke or have recently stopped smoking.

Warning: Risk for acute bronchospasm in patients with chronic lung disease

• Acute bronchospasm has been observed in Afrezza-treated patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Afrezza is contraindicated in patients with chronic lung disease such as asthma or COPD
• Before initiating Afrezza, perform a detailed medical history, physical examination, and spirometry (FEV1) to identify potential lung disease in all patients
• Most common adverse reactions are hypoglycemia, cough, and throat pain or irritation.
•  

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by MannKind.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mannkind expects to submit a request for a supplemental new drug application meeting to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its inhaled human insulin (Afrezza Inhalation Powder). Currently indicated to improve glycemic control in adults with diabetes, the company announced 6-month results from its phase 3 INHALE-1 study of inhaled human insulin in children and adolescents aged 4-17.

METHODOLOGY:

• INHALE-1 is a 26-week, open-label clinical trial that randomized 230 subjects aged 4-17 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes to either inhaled pre-meal insulin or multiple daily injections (MDI) of rapid-acting insulin analog, both in combination with basal insulin.
• The primary endpoint was a noninferior change in hemoglobin A1c levels, compared with MDI after 26 weeks.
• A 26-week extension phase in which all remaining MDI patients were switched to inhaled insulin is ongoing.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the full intent-to-treat (ITT) population analysis, the between-group difference in mean A1c change over 26 weeks exceeded the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.4% (0.435%), but this was largely driven by the variability of a single patient who didn’t adhere to the study protocol.
• A modified ITT analysis excluding that person did not exceed the predetermined threshold of 0.4% (0.370%), thereby establishing noninferiority of inhaled insulin with MDI.
• Over 26 weeks of treatment, there were no differences in lung function parameters between the treatment groups, with mean forced expiratory volume at 1 second (FEV1) at baseline vs 26 weeks of 2.901 liters (99.6% of predicted) vs 2.934 L (96.6%) in the inhaled insulin group and 2.948 L (102.3%) vs 2.957 (98%), respectively, in the MDI group.
• There were no differences between groups or concerns in other safety measures, including hypoglycemia.

IN PRACTICE:

“It was exciting to partner with MannKind and help lead this study to potentially expand the use of inhaled insulin, which is currently used successfully by many adults with diabetes, to a population that hasn’t had a treatment option other than injectable insulin in the history of their care,” said INHALE-1 investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, founder of the Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.

“The 6-month results are clinically meaningful and show Afrezza as a potential future treatment option for a growing pediatric population living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Beck added.

 

SOURCE:

The results of the study were announced at a Mannkind press release on December 16, 2024.

SAFETY INFORMATION:

Inhaled insulin is not recommended for the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis or in patients who smoke or have recently stopped smoking.

Warning: Risk for acute bronchospasm in patients with chronic lung disease

• Acute bronchospasm has been observed in Afrezza-treated patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Afrezza is contraindicated in patients with chronic lung disease such as asthma or COPD
• Before initiating Afrezza, perform a detailed medical history, physical examination, and spirometry (FEV1) to identify potential lung disease in all patients
• Most common adverse reactions are hypoglycemia, cough, and throat pain or irritation.
•  

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by MannKind.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mannkind expects to submit a request for a supplemental new drug application meeting to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its inhaled human insulin (Afrezza Inhalation Powder). Currently indicated to improve glycemic control in adults with diabetes, the company announced 6-month results from its phase 3 INHALE-1 study of inhaled human insulin in children and adolescents aged 4-17.

METHODOLOGY:

• INHALE-1 is a 26-week, open-label clinical trial that randomized 230 subjects aged 4-17 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes to either inhaled pre-meal insulin or multiple daily injections (MDI) of rapid-acting insulin analog, both in combination with basal insulin.
• The primary endpoint was a noninferior change in hemoglobin A1c levels, compared with MDI after 26 weeks.
• A 26-week extension phase in which all remaining MDI patients were switched to inhaled insulin is ongoing.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the full intent-to-treat (ITT) population analysis, the between-group difference in mean A1c change over 26 weeks exceeded the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.4% (0.435%), but this was largely driven by the variability of a single patient who didn’t adhere to the study protocol.
• A modified ITT analysis excluding that person did not exceed the predetermined threshold of 0.4% (0.370%), thereby establishing noninferiority of inhaled insulin with MDI.
• Over 26 weeks of treatment, there were no differences in lung function parameters between the treatment groups, with mean forced expiratory volume at 1 second (FEV1) at baseline vs 26 weeks of 2.901 liters (99.6% of predicted) vs 2.934 L (96.6%) in the inhaled insulin group and 2.948 L (102.3%) vs 2.957 (98%), respectively, in the MDI group.
• There were no differences between groups or concerns in other safety measures, including hypoglycemia.

IN PRACTICE:

“It was exciting to partner with MannKind and help lead this study to potentially expand the use of inhaled insulin, which is currently used successfully by many adults with diabetes, to a population that hasn’t had a treatment option other than injectable insulin in the history of their care,” said INHALE-1 investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, founder of the Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.

“The 6-month results are clinically meaningful and show Afrezza as a potential future treatment option for a growing pediatric population living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Beck added.

 

SOURCE:

The results of the study were announced at a Mannkind press release on December 16, 2024.

SAFETY INFORMATION:

Inhaled insulin is not recommended for the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis or in patients who smoke or have recently stopped smoking.

Warning: Risk for acute bronchospasm in patients with chronic lung disease

• Acute bronchospasm has been observed in Afrezza-treated patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Afrezza is contraindicated in patients with chronic lung disease such as asthma or COPD
• Before initiating Afrezza, perform a detailed medical history, physical examination, and spirometry (FEV1) to identify potential lung disease in all patients
• Most common adverse reactions are hypoglycemia, cough, and throat pain or irritation.
•  

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by MannKind.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.