Diabetes

Among people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), the fibrosis progression rate was higher among those who also had diabetes, according to new findings presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

NAFLD patients with type 2 diabetes progressed by one stage about every 6 years, compared with one stage about every 8 years among patients without diabetes, said Daniel Huang, MBBS, a visiting scholar at the University of California San Diego (UCSD) NAFLD Research Center and a transplant hepatologist at National University Hospital in Singapore.

“We now know that fibrosis stage is a major determinant of liver-related outcomes in NAFLD, as well as overall mortality,” he said. “Liver fibrosis progresses by approximately one stage every 7 years for individuals with NASH (nonalcoholic steatohepatitis).”

Recent UCSD data have indicated that about 14% of patients over age 50 with type 2 diabetes have NAFLD with advanced fibrosis, he noted. Previous studies have shown that diabetes is associated with higher rates of advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, but limited data exist around whether the fibrosis progression rate is higher among diabetics.
 

National study cohort

Dr. Huang and colleagues conducted a multicenter, multiethnic prospective cohort study within the NASH Clinical Research Network consortium to examine the fibrosis progression rate and the fibrosis regression rate among patients with or without diabetes. The study included adult participants at eight sites across the United States who had biopsy-confirmed NAFLD and available paired liver biopsies that were at least 1 year apart.

Clinical and laboratory data were obtained at enrollment and prospectively at 48-week intervals and recorded at the time of any liver biopsies. A central pathology committee conducted the liver histology assessment, and the entire pathology committee was blinded to clinical data and the sequence of liver biopsy. The fibrosis progression and regression rates were defined as the change in fibrosis stage over time between biopsies, measured in years.

The study comprised 447 adult participants with NAFLD: 208 patients with type 2 diabetes and 239 patients without diabetes, Dr. Huang said. The mean age was 51, and the mean body mass index was 34.7. The patients with diabetes were more likely to be older, to be women, and to have metabolic syndrome, NASH, and a higher fibrosis stage.

Notably, the median HbA1c among patients with diabetes was 6.8%, indicating a cohort with fairly well-controlled blood sugar. The median time between biopsies was 3.3 years.
 

Difference in progression, not regression

Overall, 151 participants (34%) experienced fibrosis progression, the primary study outcome. In a secondary outcome, 102 participants (23%) had fibrosis regression. The remaining 194 participants (43%) had no change in fibrosis stage. About 26% of patients with types 2 diabetes progressed to advanced fibrosis, as compared with 14.1% of patients without diabetes.

Among all those with fibrosis progression, the rate was 0.15 stages per year, with an average progression rate of one stage over 6.7 years. For patients with diabetes, the progression rate was significantly higher at 0.17 stages per year, compared with 0.13 stages per year among patients without diabetes, Dr. Huang said. That translated to an average progression of one stage over 5.9 years for patients with diabetes and 7.7 years for patients without diabetes.

In contrast, the regression rate was similar between those with or without diabetes at baseline, at –0.13 stages per year for those with diabetes versus –0.14 stages per year for those without diabetes. The similar outcome translated to an average regression of one stage over 7.7 years among those with diabetes and 7.1 years among those without diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes was an independent predictor of fibrosis progression in NAFLD, in both unadjusted and multivariable adjusted models, including baseline fibrosis stage, Dr. Huang said. In addition, patients with diabetes had a significantly higher cumulative incidence of fibrosis progression at 4 years (23% versus 19%), 8 years (59% versus 49%), and 12 years (93% versus 76%).

The research team didn’t find a significant difference in HbA1c as a predictor of fibrosis progression when using a cutoff of 7%.

“It is possible that poor glycemic control may accelerate fibrosis further, but we need studies to validate this,” Dr. Huang said. “These data have important implications for clinical practice and clinical trial design. Patients with NAFLD and diabetes may require more frequent monitoring for disease progression.”

The NASH Clinical Research Network consortium is sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Huang has served on an advisory board for Eisai. The other authors declared various research support and advisory roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Among people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), the fibrosis progression rate was higher among those who also had diabetes, according to new findings presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

NAFLD patients with type 2 diabetes progressed by one stage about every 6 years, compared with one stage about every 8 years among patients without diabetes, said Daniel Huang, MBBS, a visiting scholar at the University of California San Diego (UCSD) NAFLD Research Center and a transplant hepatologist at National University Hospital in Singapore.

“We now know that fibrosis stage is a major determinant of liver-related outcomes in NAFLD, as well as overall mortality,” he said. “Liver fibrosis progresses by approximately one stage every 7 years for individuals with NASH (nonalcoholic steatohepatitis).”

Recent UCSD data have indicated that about 14% of patients over age 50 with type 2 diabetes have NAFLD with advanced fibrosis, he noted. Previous studies have shown that diabetes is associated with higher rates of advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, but limited data exist around whether the fibrosis progression rate is higher among diabetics.
 

National study cohort

Dr. Huang and colleagues conducted a multicenter, multiethnic prospective cohort study within the NASH Clinical Research Network consortium to examine the fibrosis progression rate and the fibrosis regression rate among patients with or without diabetes. The study included adult participants at eight sites across the United States who had biopsy-confirmed NAFLD and available paired liver biopsies that were at least 1 year apart.

Clinical and laboratory data were obtained at enrollment and prospectively at 48-week intervals and recorded at the time of any liver biopsies. A central pathology committee conducted the liver histology assessment, and the entire pathology committee was blinded to clinical data and the sequence of liver biopsy. The fibrosis progression and regression rates were defined as the change in fibrosis stage over time between biopsies, measured in years.

The study comprised 447 adult participants with NAFLD: 208 patients with type 2 diabetes and 239 patients without diabetes, Dr. Huang said. The mean age was 51, and the mean body mass index was 34.7. The patients with diabetes were more likely to be older, to be women, and to have metabolic syndrome, NASH, and a higher fibrosis stage.

Notably, the median HbA1c among patients with diabetes was 6.8%, indicating a cohort with fairly well-controlled blood sugar. The median time between biopsies was 3.3 years.
 

Difference in progression, not regression

Overall, 151 participants (34%) experienced fibrosis progression, the primary study outcome. In a secondary outcome, 102 participants (23%) had fibrosis regression. The remaining 194 participants (43%) had no change in fibrosis stage. About 26% of patients with types 2 diabetes progressed to advanced fibrosis, as compared with 14.1% of patients without diabetes.

Among all those with fibrosis progression, the rate was 0.15 stages per year, with an average progression rate of one stage over 6.7 years. For patients with diabetes, the progression rate was significantly higher at 0.17 stages per year, compared with 0.13 stages per year among patients without diabetes, Dr. Huang said. That translated to an average progression of one stage over 5.9 years for patients with diabetes and 7.7 years for patients without diabetes.

In contrast, the regression rate was similar between those with or without diabetes at baseline, at –0.13 stages per year for those with diabetes versus –0.14 stages per year for those without diabetes. The similar outcome translated to an average regression of one stage over 7.7 years among those with diabetes and 7.1 years among those without diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes was an independent predictor of fibrosis progression in NAFLD, in both unadjusted and multivariable adjusted models, including baseline fibrosis stage, Dr. Huang said. In addition, patients with diabetes had a significantly higher cumulative incidence of fibrosis progression at 4 years (23% versus 19%), 8 years (59% versus 49%), and 12 years (93% versus 76%).

The research team didn’t find a significant difference in HbA1c as a predictor of fibrosis progression when using a cutoff of 7%.

“It is possible that poor glycemic control may accelerate fibrosis further, but we need studies to validate this,” Dr. Huang said. “These data have important implications for clinical practice and clinical trial design. Patients with NAFLD and diabetes may require more frequent monitoring for disease progression.”

The NASH Clinical Research Network consortium is sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Huang has served on an advisory board for Eisai. The other authors declared various research support and advisory roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Among people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), the fibrosis progression rate was higher among those who also had diabetes, according to new findings presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

NAFLD patients with type 2 diabetes progressed by one stage about every 6 years, compared with one stage about every 8 years among patients without diabetes, said Daniel Huang, MBBS, a visiting scholar at the University of California San Diego (UCSD) NAFLD Research Center and a transplant hepatologist at National University Hospital in Singapore.

“We now know that fibrosis stage is a major determinant of liver-related outcomes in NAFLD, as well as overall mortality,” he said. “Liver fibrosis progresses by approximately one stage every 7 years for individuals with NASH (nonalcoholic steatohepatitis).”

Recent UCSD data have indicated that about 14% of patients over age 50 with type 2 diabetes have NAFLD with advanced fibrosis, he noted. Previous studies have shown that diabetes is associated with higher rates of advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, but limited data exist around whether the fibrosis progression rate is higher among diabetics.
 

National study cohort

Dr. Huang and colleagues conducted a multicenter, multiethnic prospective cohort study within the NASH Clinical Research Network consortium to examine the fibrosis progression rate and the fibrosis regression rate among patients with or without diabetes. The study included adult participants at eight sites across the United States who had biopsy-confirmed NAFLD and available paired liver biopsies that were at least 1 year apart.

Clinical and laboratory data were obtained at enrollment and prospectively at 48-week intervals and recorded at the time of any liver biopsies. A central pathology committee conducted the liver histology assessment, and the entire pathology committee was blinded to clinical data and the sequence of liver biopsy. The fibrosis progression and regression rates were defined as the change in fibrosis stage over time between biopsies, measured in years.

The study comprised 447 adult participants with NAFLD: 208 patients with type 2 diabetes and 239 patients without diabetes, Dr. Huang said. The mean age was 51, and the mean body mass index was 34.7. The patients with diabetes were more likely to be older, to be women, and to have metabolic syndrome, NASH, and a higher fibrosis stage.

Notably, the median HbA1c among patients with diabetes was 6.8%, indicating a cohort with fairly well-controlled blood sugar. The median time between biopsies was 3.3 years.
 

Difference in progression, not regression

Overall, 151 participants (34%) experienced fibrosis progression, the primary study outcome. In a secondary outcome, 102 participants (23%) had fibrosis regression. The remaining 194 participants (43%) had no change in fibrosis stage. About 26% of patients with types 2 diabetes progressed to advanced fibrosis, as compared with 14.1% of patients without diabetes.

Among all those with fibrosis progression, the rate was 0.15 stages per year, with an average progression rate of one stage over 6.7 years. For patients with diabetes, the progression rate was significantly higher at 0.17 stages per year, compared with 0.13 stages per year among patients without diabetes, Dr. Huang said. That translated to an average progression of one stage over 5.9 years for patients with diabetes and 7.7 years for patients without diabetes.

In contrast, the regression rate was similar between those with or without diabetes at baseline, at –0.13 stages per year for those with diabetes versus –0.14 stages per year for those without diabetes. The similar outcome translated to an average regression of one stage over 7.7 years among those with diabetes and 7.1 years among those without diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes was an independent predictor of fibrosis progression in NAFLD, in both unadjusted and multivariable adjusted models, including baseline fibrosis stage, Dr. Huang said. In addition, patients with diabetes had a significantly higher cumulative incidence of fibrosis progression at 4 years (23% versus 19%), 8 years (59% versus 49%), and 12 years (93% versus 76%).

The research team didn’t find a significant difference in HbA1c as a predictor of fibrosis progression when using a cutoff of 7%.

“It is possible that poor glycemic control may accelerate fibrosis further, but we need studies to validate this,” Dr. Huang said. “These data have important implications for clinical practice and clinical trial design. Patients with NAFLD and diabetes may require more frequent monitoring for disease progression.”

The NASH Clinical Research Network consortium is sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Huang has served on an advisory board for Eisai. The other authors declared various research support and advisory roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

CHICAGO – Despite a 25% reduction in triglycerides (TGs) along with similar reductions in very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), and remnant cholesterol, a novel agent failed to provide any protection in a multinational trial against a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

“Our data further highlight the complexity of lipid mediators of residual risk among patients with insulin resistance who are receiving statin therapy,” reported Aruna Das Pradhan, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Queen Mary University, London.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

No benefit from fibrates seen in statin era

“We have not seen a significant cardiovascular event reduction with a fibrate in the statin era,” according to Karol Watson, MD, PhD, director of the UCLA Women’s Cardiovascular Health Center, Los Angeles.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Lipid profile improved as predicted

Yet, in regard to an improvement in the lipid profile, pemafibrate performed as predicted. When compared to placebo 4 months into the trial, pemafibrate was associated with median reductions of 26.2% in TGs, 25.8% in VLDL, and 25.6% in remnant cholesterol, which is cholesterol transported in TG-rich lipoproteins after lipolysis and lipoprotein remodeling.

Furthermore, pemafibrate was associated with a median 27.6% reduction relative to placebo in apolipoprotein C-III and a median 4.8% reduction in apolipoprotein E, all of which would be expected to reduce CV risk.

The findings of PROMINENT were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine immediately after their presentation.

The findings of this study do not eliminate any hope for lowering residual CV risk with TG reductions, but they do suggest the relationship with other lipid subfractions is complex, according to Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“I think that the lack of efficacy despite TG lowering may be largely due to a lack of an overall decrease in the apolipoprotein B level,” speculated Dr. Virani, who wrote an editorial that accompanied publication of the PROMINENT results.

He noted that pemafibrate is implicated in converting remnant cholesterol to LDL cholesterol, which might be one reason for a counterproductive effect on CV risk.

“In order for therapies that lower TG levels to be effective, they probably have to have mechanisms to increase clearance of TG-rich remnant lipoprotein cholesterol particles rather than just converting remnant lipoproteins to LDL,” Dr. Virani explained in an attempt to unravel the interplay of these variables.

Although this study enrolled patients “who would be predicted to have the most benefit from a TG-lowering strategy,” Dr. Watson agreed that these results do not necessarily extend to other means of lowering TG. However, it might draw into question the value of pemafibrate and perhaps other drugs in this class for treatment of hypertriglyceridemia. In addition to a lack of CV benefit, treatment was not without risks, including a higher rate of thromboembolism and adverse renal events.

Dr. Das Pradhan reported financial relationships with Denka, Medtelligence, Optum, Novo Nordisk, and Kowa, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Esperion.

CHICAGO – Despite a 25% reduction in triglycerides (TGs) along with similar reductions in very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), and remnant cholesterol, a novel agent failed to provide any protection in a multinational trial against a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

“Our data further highlight the complexity of lipid mediators of residual risk among patients with insulin resistance who are receiving statin therapy,” reported Aruna Das Pradhan, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Queen Mary University, London.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

No benefit from fibrates seen in statin era

“We have not seen a significant cardiovascular event reduction with a fibrate in the statin era,” according to Karol Watson, MD, PhD, director of the UCLA Women’s Cardiovascular Health Center, Los Angeles.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Lipid profile improved as predicted

Yet, in regard to an improvement in the lipid profile, pemafibrate performed as predicted. When compared to placebo 4 months into the trial, pemafibrate was associated with median reductions of 26.2% in TGs, 25.8% in VLDL, and 25.6% in remnant cholesterol, which is cholesterol transported in TG-rich lipoproteins after lipolysis and lipoprotein remodeling.

Furthermore, pemafibrate was associated with a median 27.6% reduction relative to placebo in apolipoprotein C-III and a median 4.8% reduction in apolipoprotein E, all of which would be expected to reduce CV risk.

The findings of PROMINENT were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine immediately after their presentation.

The findings of this study do not eliminate any hope for lowering residual CV risk with TG reductions, but they do suggest the relationship with other lipid subfractions is complex, according to Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“I think that the lack of efficacy despite TG lowering may be largely due to a lack of an overall decrease in the apolipoprotein B level,” speculated Dr. Virani, who wrote an editorial that accompanied publication of the PROMINENT results.

He noted that pemafibrate is implicated in converting remnant cholesterol to LDL cholesterol, which might be one reason for a counterproductive effect on CV risk.

“In order for therapies that lower TG levels to be effective, they probably have to have mechanisms to increase clearance of TG-rich remnant lipoprotein cholesterol particles rather than just converting remnant lipoproteins to LDL,” Dr. Virani explained in an attempt to unravel the interplay of these variables.

Although this study enrolled patients “who would be predicted to have the most benefit from a TG-lowering strategy,” Dr. Watson agreed that these results do not necessarily extend to other means of lowering TG. However, it might draw into question the value of pemafibrate and perhaps other drugs in this class for treatment of hypertriglyceridemia. In addition to a lack of CV benefit, treatment was not without risks, including a higher rate of thromboembolism and adverse renal events.

Dr. Das Pradhan reported financial relationships with Denka, Medtelligence, Optum, Novo Nordisk, and Kowa, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Esperion.

CHICAGO – Despite a 25% reduction in triglycerides (TGs) along with similar reductions in very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), and remnant cholesterol, a novel agent failed to provide any protection in a multinational trial against a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

“Our data further highlight the complexity of lipid mediators of residual risk among patients with insulin resistance who are receiving statin therapy,” reported Aruna Das Pradhan, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Queen Mary University, London.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

No benefit from fibrates seen in statin era

“We have not seen a significant cardiovascular event reduction with a fibrate in the statin era,” according to Karol Watson, MD, PhD, director of the UCLA Women’s Cardiovascular Health Center, Los Angeles.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Lipid profile improved as predicted

Yet, in regard to an improvement in the lipid profile, pemafibrate performed as predicted. When compared to placebo 4 months into the trial, pemafibrate was associated with median reductions of 26.2% in TGs, 25.8% in VLDL, and 25.6% in remnant cholesterol, which is cholesterol transported in TG-rich lipoproteins after lipolysis and lipoprotein remodeling.

Furthermore, pemafibrate was associated with a median 27.6% reduction relative to placebo in apolipoprotein C-III and a median 4.8% reduction in apolipoprotein E, all of which would be expected to reduce CV risk.

The findings of PROMINENT were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine immediately after their presentation.

The findings of this study do not eliminate any hope for lowering residual CV risk with TG reductions, but they do suggest the relationship with other lipid subfractions is complex, according to Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“I think that the lack of efficacy despite TG lowering may be largely due to a lack of an overall decrease in the apolipoprotein B level,” speculated Dr. Virani, who wrote an editorial that accompanied publication of the PROMINENT results.

He noted that pemafibrate is implicated in converting remnant cholesterol to LDL cholesterol, which might be one reason for a counterproductive effect on CV risk.

“In order for therapies that lower TG levels to be effective, they probably have to have mechanisms to increase clearance of TG-rich remnant lipoprotein cholesterol particles rather than just converting remnant lipoproteins to LDL,” Dr. Virani explained in an attempt to unravel the interplay of these variables.

Although this study enrolled patients “who would be predicted to have the most benefit from a TG-lowering strategy,” Dr. Watson agreed that these results do not necessarily extend to other means of lowering TG. However, it might draw into question the value of pemafibrate and perhaps other drugs in this class for treatment of hypertriglyceridemia. In addition to a lack of CV benefit, treatment was not without risks, including a higher rate of thromboembolism and adverse renal events.

Dr. Das Pradhan reported financial relationships with Denka, Medtelligence, Optum, Novo Nordisk, and Kowa, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Esperion.

Performing moderate to vigorous activity (MVPA) in the afternoon or evening may improve blood glucose control to a greater extent than exercising evenly throughout the day, new research suggests.

The data come from 775 participants with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 26.2 kg/m² in the observational Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study. Use of activity monitors for four consecutive days showed that performance of MVPA (defined as activity with intensity of > 3 metabolic equivalents of task) in the afternoon or evening was associated with up to 25% reduced insulin resistance compared with an even distribution of activity during the day.

“This is one of the first studies where in humans the relation between timing of physical activity and insulin resistance was examined,” lead author Jeroen van der Velde of the department of clinical epidemiology, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

Moreover, he noted that, while previous intervention studies have shown greater blood glucose reduction with high-intensity exercise performed in the afternoon, compared with the morning, in people with impaired glucose metabolism or type 2 diabetes, “as far as I am aware, we were the first to use a population-based study in a general population to study this.”

Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity, University of Exeter (England), said: “This study is novel in that it relates the timing of physical activity if performed in the morning, afternoon, or evening to insulin resistance and fat content. This is from a cohort of middle-aged Dutch people between ages 45-65 studied 10 years ago and based on self-reports of weight and eating behavior and who were found to be generally overweight.”
 

Is it down to circadian rhythm?

“The results are of interest in that if the chosen timing was in the afternoon [63% of studied population] or evening (8% of the studied population), it seemed to relate with improved metabolism when compared to the morning exercising [16% of population]. ... Whether this was due to the (timing) of activity is yet to be shown,” Dr. Kos told the UK Science Media Centre.

Mr. van der Velde agrees that the effect may be explained at least in part by the circadian rhythm of the body. “Physical activity may act as ... a cue for the activation of clock genes. Previous research has suggested that our body’s muscular system and oxidative system are also affected by our circadian rhythm and their peak activity seems to be in the late afternoon. So, being mostly active in this time period ... may elicit greater metabolic responses compared to being active in the morning.”

But, he cautioned, “I think it is important to realize that we are just beginning to understand the potential impact of physical activity timing. At this stage, I believe it is most important to be physically active in general. So ... if the morning is the only time of the day to go for a walk or a run, certainly do this.”

Dr. Kos concurred: “As this is not an intervention study, further research is needed to explain the cause of the observed association.”

Mr. van der Velde also added that it’s not yet clear which individuals or subgroups might experience additional benefits from timed activities. That’s the current research focus of a large consortium of several research institutes in the Netherlands and Canada.
 

Timed exercise reduces insulin resistance but not liver fat

The findings were published online in Diabetologia.

The study population included men and women living in the greater Leiden area in the western Netherlands who were aged 45-65 years and self-reported a BMI of 27 or higher. A second cohort included inhabitants of one municipality who were invited to participate regardless of their BMI. All wore the activity monitors for 4 consecutive days and nights during their usual activities.

Neither sedentary time nor breaks in sedentary time (defined as a period of activity with an acceleration greater than 0.75 m/s2 following a sedentary period) were associated with lower insulin resistance, as calculated by blood sampling.

However, the number of breaks in sedentary time was associated with a significant 22% higher liver fat content, assessed with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

One reason for the lack of effect of breaks on insulin resistance, the authors theorized, is that this was a real-world observational study where regular breaks aren’t common. Alternatively, people might not have been intensively active enough during breaks to make a difference.

After adjustment for total body fat, an additional hour of MVPA was associated with a 5% drop in insulin resistance. An additional hour of MVPA in 5-minute bouts was associated with 9% lower insulin resistance.

Also after adjustments, insulin resistance was reduced significantly in participants who were most active in the afternoon, by 18%, or evening, by 25%, whereas insulin resistance was not affected among those who were most active in the morning (–3%), all compared with people who distributed their MVPA throughout the day.

Timing of MVPA was not associated with liver fat content, and there were no significant differences in liver fat content and insulin resistance between groups based on timing of light physical activity.

“This is just speculation, but perhaps for fat accumulation in the liver the circadian system is less involved. Or perhaps timing of other lifestyle variables are more important here, such as dietary intake,” Mr. van der Velde said.

Finally, he observed, “timing of physical activity is most likely just a piece of the puzzle. Timing of other lifestyle behavior, such as sleep, and food intake are important cues for our circadian system as well, and it is likely that all these behaviors interact with each other.”

The NEO study is supported by Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative, an initiative supported by the Dutch Heart Foundation, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development/Partnership Diabetes/Dutch Diabetes foundation Breakthrough. Mr. van der Velde has reported no further disclosures.

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

Performing moderate to vigorous activity (MVPA) in the afternoon or evening may improve blood glucose control to a greater extent than exercising evenly throughout the day, new research suggests.

The data come from 775 participants with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 26.2 kg/m² in the observational Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study. Use of activity monitors for four consecutive days showed that performance of MVPA (defined as activity with intensity of > 3 metabolic equivalents of task) in the afternoon or evening was associated with up to 25% reduced insulin resistance compared with an even distribution of activity during the day.

“This is one of the first studies where in humans the relation between timing of physical activity and insulin resistance was examined,” lead author Jeroen van der Velde of the department of clinical epidemiology, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

Moreover, he noted that, while previous intervention studies have shown greater blood glucose reduction with high-intensity exercise performed in the afternoon, compared with the morning, in people with impaired glucose metabolism or type 2 diabetes, “as far as I am aware, we were the first to use a population-based study in a general population to study this.”

Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity, University of Exeter (England), said: “This study is novel in that it relates the timing of physical activity if performed in the morning, afternoon, or evening to insulin resistance and fat content. This is from a cohort of middle-aged Dutch people between ages 45-65 studied 10 years ago and based on self-reports of weight and eating behavior and who were found to be generally overweight.”
 

Is it down to circadian rhythm?

“The results are of interest in that if the chosen timing was in the afternoon [63% of studied population] or evening (8% of the studied population), it seemed to relate with improved metabolism when compared to the morning exercising [16% of population]. ... Whether this was due to the (timing) of activity is yet to be shown,” Dr. Kos told the UK Science Media Centre.

Mr. van der Velde agrees that the effect may be explained at least in part by the circadian rhythm of the body. “Physical activity may act as ... a cue for the activation of clock genes. Previous research has suggested that our body’s muscular system and oxidative system are also affected by our circadian rhythm and their peak activity seems to be in the late afternoon. So, being mostly active in this time period ... may elicit greater metabolic responses compared to being active in the morning.”

But, he cautioned, “I think it is important to realize that we are just beginning to understand the potential impact of physical activity timing. At this stage, I believe it is most important to be physically active in general. So ... if the morning is the only time of the day to go for a walk or a run, certainly do this.”

Dr. Kos concurred: “As this is not an intervention study, further research is needed to explain the cause of the observed association.”

Mr. van der Velde also added that it’s not yet clear which individuals or subgroups might experience additional benefits from timed activities. That’s the current research focus of a large consortium of several research institutes in the Netherlands and Canada.
 

Timed exercise reduces insulin resistance but not liver fat

The findings were published online in Diabetologia.

The study population included men and women living in the greater Leiden area in the western Netherlands who were aged 45-65 years and self-reported a BMI of 27 or higher. A second cohort included inhabitants of one municipality who were invited to participate regardless of their BMI. All wore the activity monitors for 4 consecutive days and nights during their usual activities.

Neither sedentary time nor breaks in sedentary time (defined as a period of activity with an acceleration greater than 0.75 m/s2 following a sedentary period) were associated with lower insulin resistance, as calculated by blood sampling.

However, the number of breaks in sedentary time was associated with a significant 22% higher liver fat content, assessed with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

One reason for the lack of effect of breaks on insulin resistance, the authors theorized, is that this was a real-world observational study where regular breaks aren’t common. Alternatively, people might not have been intensively active enough during breaks to make a difference.

After adjustment for total body fat, an additional hour of MVPA was associated with a 5% drop in insulin resistance. An additional hour of MVPA in 5-minute bouts was associated with 9% lower insulin resistance.

Also after adjustments, insulin resistance was reduced significantly in participants who were most active in the afternoon, by 18%, or evening, by 25%, whereas insulin resistance was not affected among those who were most active in the morning (–3%), all compared with people who distributed their MVPA throughout the day.

Timing of MVPA was not associated with liver fat content, and there were no significant differences in liver fat content and insulin resistance between groups based on timing of light physical activity.

“This is just speculation, but perhaps for fat accumulation in the liver the circadian system is less involved. Or perhaps timing of other lifestyle variables are more important here, such as dietary intake,” Mr. van der Velde said.

Finally, he observed, “timing of physical activity is most likely just a piece of the puzzle. Timing of other lifestyle behavior, such as sleep, and food intake are important cues for our circadian system as well, and it is likely that all these behaviors interact with each other.”

The NEO study is supported by Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative, an initiative supported by the Dutch Heart Foundation, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development/Partnership Diabetes/Dutch Diabetes foundation Breakthrough. Mr. van der Velde has reported no further disclosures.

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

Performing moderate to vigorous activity (MVPA) in the afternoon or evening may improve blood glucose control to a greater extent than exercising evenly throughout the day, new research suggests.

The data come from 775 participants with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 26.2 kg/m² in the observational Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study. Use of activity monitors for four consecutive days showed that performance of MVPA (defined as activity with intensity of > 3 metabolic equivalents of task) in the afternoon or evening was associated with up to 25% reduced insulin resistance compared with an even distribution of activity during the day.

“This is one of the first studies where in humans the relation between timing of physical activity and insulin resistance was examined,” lead author Jeroen van der Velde of the department of clinical epidemiology, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

Moreover, he noted that, while previous intervention studies have shown greater blood glucose reduction with high-intensity exercise performed in the afternoon, compared with the morning, in people with impaired glucose metabolism or type 2 diabetes, “as far as I am aware, we were the first to use a population-based study in a general population to study this.”

Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity, University of Exeter (England), said: “This study is novel in that it relates the timing of physical activity if performed in the morning, afternoon, or evening to insulin resistance and fat content. This is from a cohort of middle-aged Dutch people between ages 45-65 studied 10 years ago and based on self-reports of weight and eating behavior and who were found to be generally overweight.”
 

Is it down to circadian rhythm?

“The results are of interest in that if the chosen timing was in the afternoon [63% of studied population] or evening (8% of the studied population), it seemed to relate with improved metabolism when compared to the morning exercising [16% of population]. ... Whether this was due to the (timing) of activity is yet to be shown,” Dr. Kos told the UK Science Media Centre.

Mr. van der Velde agrees that the effect may be explained at least in part by the circadian rhythm of the body. “Physical activity may act as ... a cue for the activation of clock genes. Previous research has suggested that our body’s muscular system and oxidative system are also affected by our circadian rhythm and their peak activity seems to be in the late afternoon. So, being mostly active in this time period ... may elicit greater metabolic responses compared to being active in the morning.”

But, he cautioned, “I think it is important to realize that we are just beginning to understand the potential impact of physical activity timing. At this stage, I believe it is most important to be physically active in general. So ... if the morning is the only time of the day to go for a walk or a run, certainly do this.”

Dr. Kos concurred: “As this is not an intervention study, further research is needed to explain the cause of the observed association.”

Mr. van der Velde also added that it’s not yet clear which individuals or subgroups might experience additional benefits from timed activities. That’s the current research focus of a large consortium of several research institutes in the Netherlands and Canada.
 

Timed exercise reduces insulin resistance but not liver fat

The findings were published online in Diabetologia.

The study population included men and women living in the greater Leiden area in the western Netherlands who were aged 45-65 years and self-reported a BMI of 27 or higher. A second cohort included inhabitants of one municipality who were invited to participate regardless of their BMI. All wore the activity monitors for 4 consecutive days and nights during their usual activities.

Neither sedentary time nor breaks in sedentary time (defined as a period of activity with an acceleration greater than 0.75 m/s2 following a sedentary period) were associated with lower insulin resistance, as calculated by blood sampling.

However, the number of breaks in sedentary time was associated with a significant 22% higher liver fat content, assessed with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

One reason for the lack of effect of breaks on insulin resistance, the authors theorized, is that this was a real-world observational study where regular breaks aren’t common. Alternatively, people might not have been intensively active enough during breaks to make a difference.

After adjustment for total body fat, an additional hour of MVPA was associated with a 5% drop in insulin resistance. An additional hour of MVPA in 5-minute bouts was associated with 9% lower insulin resistance.

Also after adjustments, insulin resistance was reduced significantly in participants who were most active in the afternoon, by 18%, or evening, by 25%, whereas insulin resistance was not affected among those who were most active in the morning (–3%), all compared with people who distributed their MVPA throughout the day.

Timing of MVPA was not associated with liver fat content, and there were no significant differences in liver fat content and insulin resistance between groups based on timing of light physical activity.

“This is just speculation, but perhaps for fat accumulation in the liver the circadian system is less involved. Or perhaps timing of other lifestyle variables are more important here, such as dietary intake,” Mr. van der Velde said.

Finally, he observed, “timing of physical activity is most likely just a piece of the puzzle. Timing of other lifestyle behavior, such as sleep, and food intake are important cues for our circadian system as well, and it is likely that all these behaviors interact with each other.”

The NEO study is supported by Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative, an initiative supported by the Dutch Heart Foundation, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development/Partnership Diabetes/Dutch Diabetes foundation Breakthrough. Mr. van der Velde has reported no further disclosures.

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

ObesityWeek 2022 is the largest international conference on obesity, with over 100 sessions, and coincides with the 40th anniversary of the Obesity Society. Being held Nov. 1-4, it is a hybrid meeting that participants can attend onsite in sunny San Diego or virtually.
 

“The meeting offers a wide perspective, from basic science, all the way to public policy on studies of treatment and prevention of obesity,” program planning chair for ObesityWeek, Kelly C. Allison, PhD, said in an interview.

Rodrigo Cuel/Thinkstock

The Presidential Plenary session on Nov. 1 will kick off the meeting with “a series of 10-minute rapid talks on cutting-edge topics in the field,” noted Dr. Allison, who is also director, Center for Weight and Eating Disorders, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, and professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia.

Among others, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, will speak about “New developments in anti-obesity pharmacotherapy,” and Theodore K. Kyle, RPh, MBA, will discuss “Reducing barriers to treatment: Insurance coverage.”

“We’re seeing some pretty effective antiobesity medication, but still they are not being covered by many insurances,” said Dr. Allison. Some clinicians might be hesitant to prescribe antiobesity medications, remembering older drugs that were pulled from the market for health concerns, and some patients may also have concerns, she speculated. There is a need for greater education about the current antiobesity drugs.

In his presidential address, Dan Bessesen, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, will discuss “Regulation of body weight and adaptive responses to weight loss.”

Pediatric obesity is a major focus of this year›s conference too, Allison noted.

At 8 a.m on Nov. 3, The Obesity Society, the World Obesity Federation, the European Association for the Study of Obesity, and Obesity Canada will present a joint symposium, “International innovations in pediatric obesity,” with speakers from Canada, Australia, and Ireland discussing ongoing paradigm shifts in the prevention and treatment of pediatric obesity.

Two hours later, at a joint symposium by the American Academy of Pediatrics/The Obesity Society, attendees will get a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the new AAP Obesity Clinical Practice Guideline for children and adolescents with obesity.

The conference tracks reflect the broad scope of this event: Track 1: Metabolism and Integrative Physiology; Track 2: Neuroscience; Track 3: Interventional and Clinical Studies; Track 4: Population Health; Track 5: Clinical/Professional Practice; Track 6: Policy/Public Health, and a subtrack: Eradicating Treatment Barriers.

Dr. Allison highlighted the following oral presentations and posters about antiobesity drugs:

• “Once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg in adolescents with overweight or obesity,” with an extended Q&A session, Nov. 2.
• “Clinical outcomes with medication use in tertiary pediatric weight management program,” by Enayet and colleagues. Poster 030.
• “The metabolically healthy obese paradigm and liver fat content in the Fels longitudinal study,” by Garza and colleagues Oral 055, Nov. 2.
• “Phase 3 clinical trial of metformin for treatment of COVID-19 in adults with overweight and obesity,” by Bramante and colleagues. Oral 067, Nov. 3. This trial was published in the  (N Engl J Med. 2022;387:599-610). 
• “Glucagon/GLP-1 receptor dual agonist BI 456906 reduces bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes,” by Rosenstock and colleagues. Oral-063, Nov. 3. 
• “A randomized controlled trial of naltrexone and bupropion and behavior therapy for binge-eating disorder,” by Grilo and colleagues. Oral 066, Nov. 3.

And on Nov. 4, researchers will present four oral abstracts about the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which is approved for type 2 diabetes and now has fast track designation for weight loss from the Food and Drug Administration. Oral abstracts 109, 110, 111, and 112 cover weight loss with tirzepatide across different age groups, body mass indexes, and comorbidities, as well as quality of life.

Dr. Allison also highlighted the following presentations that cover other diverse topics:

• Family-based treatment: “Pilot study to inform a randomized controlled trial of HeLP: Obesity prevention & treatment for the entire Hispanic family,” by Haemer and colleagues. Oral 029. November 2.
• Bariatric surgery: “Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy from 2010-2016: A nationwide cohort study,” Oral 014. Nov. 2.
• Prevention/public health: “Impact of positive and negative front-of-package food labels in a randomized experiment,” by Grummon and colleagues. Oral 068. Nov. 3.
• Time-restricted eating: “Effects of 8-hour time restricted eating for weight loss over 12 months,” by Gabel and colleagues. Oral 102. Nov. 4.
• Patient management: “Identifying interprofessional drivers of practice gaps in the management of patients with obesity,” by Robinson and colleagues. Poster 055.

On Nov. 4, researchers will present five winning papers that will be published in the December issue of the Obesity journal about GLP-1 agonists versus bariatric surgery; monoacylglycerol O-acyltransferase 1 in mice; a behavioral weight-loss intervention; the Canberra Obesity Management Service; and macronutrient (im)balance in an obesogenic environment.

“I’m always excited to hear some talks that are outside of my comfort area to understand the mechanisms of obesity better,” concluded Dr. Allison.

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

ObesityWeek 2022 is the largest international conference on obesity, with over 100 sessions, and coincides with the 40th anniversary of the Obesity Society. Being held Nov. 1-4, it is a hybrid meeting that participants can attend onsite in sunny San Diego or virtually.
 

“The meeting offers a wide perspective, from basic science, all the way to public policy on studies of treatment and prevention of obesity,” program planning chair for ObesityWeek, Kelly C. Allison, PhD, said in an interview.

Rodrigo Cuel/Thinkstock

The Presidential Plenary session on Nov. 1 will kick off the meeting with “a series of 10-minute rapid talks on cutting-edge topics in the field,” noted Dr. Allison, who is also director, Center for Weight and Eating Disorders, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, and professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia.

Among others, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, will speak about “New developments in anti-obesity pharmacotherapy,” and Theodore K. Kyle, RPh, MBA, will discuss “Reducing barriers to treatment: Insurance coverage.”

“We’re seeing some pretty effective antiobesity medication, but still they are not being covered by many insurances,” said Dr. Allison. Some clinicians might be hesitant to prescribe antiobesity medications, remembering older drugs that were pulled from the market for health concerns, and some patients may also have concerns, she speculated. There is a need for greater education about the current antiobesity drugs.

In his presidential address, Dan Bessesen, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, will discuss “Regulation of body weight and adaptive responses to weight loss.”

Pediatric obesity is a major focus of this year›s conference too, Allison noted.

At 8 a.m on Nov. 3, The Obesity Society, the World Obesity Federation, the European Association for the Study of Obesity, and Obesity Canada will present a joint symposium, “International innovations in pediatric obesity,” with speakers from Canada, Australia, and Ireland discussing ongoing paradigm shifts in the prevention and treatment of pediatric obesity.

Two hours later, at a joint symposium by the American Academy of Pediatrics/The Obesity Society, attendees will get a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the new AAP Obesity Clinical Practice Guideline for children and adolescents with obesity.

The conference tracks reflect the broad scope of this event: Track 1: Metabolism and Integrative Physiology; Track 2: Neuroscience; Track 3: Interventional and Clinical Studies; Track 4: Population Health; Track 5: Clinical/Professional Practice; Track 6: Policy/Public Health, and a subtrack: Eradicating Treatment Barriers.

Dr. Allison highlighted the following oral presentations and posters about antiobesity drugs:

• “Once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg in adolescents with overweight or obesity,” with an extended Q&A session, Nov. 2.
• “Clinical outcomes with medication use in tertiary pediatric weight management program,” by Enayet and colleagues. Poster 030.
• “The metabolically healthy obese paradigm and liver fat content in the Fels longitudinal study,” by Garza and colleagues Oral 055, Nov. 2.
• “Phase 3 clinical trial of metformin for treatment of COVID-19 in adults with overweight and obesity,” by Bramante and colleagues. Oral 067, Nov. 3. This trial was published in the  (N Engl J Med. 2022;387:599-610). 
• “Glucagon/GLP-1 receptor dual agonist BI 456906 reduces bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes,” by Rosenstock and colleagues. Oral-063, Nov. 3. 
• “A randomized controlled trial of naltrexone and bupropion and behavior therapy for binge-eating disorder,” by Grilo and colleagues. Oral 066, Nov. 3.

And on Nov. 4, researchers will present four oral abstracts about the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which is approved for type 2 diabetes and now has fast track designation for weight loss from the Food and Drug Administration. Oral abstracts 109, 110, 111, and 112 cover weight loss with tirzepatide across different age groups, body mass indexes, and comorbidities, as well as quality of life.

Dr. Allison also highlighted the following presentations that cover other diverse topics:

• Family-based treatment: “Pilot study to inform a randomized controlled trial of HeLP: Obesity prevention & treatment for the entire Hispanic family,” by Haemer and colleagues. Oral 029. November 2.
• Bariatric surgery: “Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy from 2010-2016: A nationwide cohort study,” Oral 014. Nov. 2.
• Prevention/public health: “Impact of positive and negative front-of-package food labels in a randomized experiment,” by Grummon and colleagues. Oral 068. Nov. 3.
• Time-restricted eating: “Effects of 8-hour time restricted eating for weight loss over 12 months,” by Gabel and colleagues. Oral 102. Nov. 4.
• Patient management: “Identifying interprofessional drivers of practice gaps in the management of patients with obesity,” by Robinson and colleagues. Poster 055.

On Nov. 4, researchers will present five winning papers that will be published in the December issue of the Obesity journal about GLP-1 agonists versus bariatric surgery; monoacylglycerol O-acyltransferase 1 in mice; a behavioral weight-loss intervention; the Canberra Obesity Management Service; and macronutrient (im)balance in an obesogenic environment.

“I’m always excited to hear some talks that are outside of my comfort area to understand the mechanisms of obesity better,” concluded Dr. Allison.

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

ObesityWeek 2022 is the largest international conference on obesity, with over 100 sessions, and coincides with the 40th anniversary of the Obesity Society. Being held Nov. 1-4, it is a hybrid meeting that participants can attend onsite in sunny San Diego or virtually.
 

“The meeting offers a wide perspective, from basic science, all the way to public policy on studies of treatment and prevention of obesity,” program planning chair for ObesityWeek, Kelly C. Allison, PhD, said in an interview.

Rodrigo Cuel/Thinkstock

The Presidential Plenary session on Nov. 1 will kick off the meeting with “a series of 10-minute rapid talks on cutting-edge topics in the field,” noted Dr. Allison, who is also director, Center for Weight and Eating Disorders, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, and professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia.

Among others, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, will speak about “New developments in anti-obesity pharmacotherapy,” and Theodore K. Kyle, RPh, MBA, will discuss “Reducing barriers to treatment: Insurance coverage.”

“We’re seeing some pretty effective antiobesity medication, but still they are not being covered by many insurances,” said Dr. Allison. Some clinicians might be hesitant to prescribe antiobesity medications, remembering older drugs that were pulled from the market for health concerns, and some patients may also have concerns, she speculated. There is a need for greater education about the current antiobesity drugs.

In his presidential address, Dan Bessesen, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, will discuss “Regulation of body weight and adaptive responses to weight loss.”

Pediatric obesity is a major focus of this year›s conference too, Allison noted.

At 8 a.m on Nov. 3, The Obesity Society, the World Obesity Federation, the European Association for the Study of Obesity, and Obesity Canada will present a joint symposium, “International innovations in pediatric obesity,” with speakers from Canada, Australia, and Ireland discussing ongoing paradigm shifts in the prevention and treatment of pediatric obesity.

Two hours later, at a joint symposium by the American Academy of Pediatrics/The Obesity Society, attendees will get a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the new AAP Obesity Clinical Practice Guideline for children and adolescents with obesity.

The conference tracks reflect the broad scope of this event: Track 1: Metabolism and Integrative Physiology; Track 2: Neuroscience; Track 3: Interventional and Clinical Studies; Track 4: Population Health; Track 5: Clinical/Professional Practice; Track 6: Policy/Public Health, and a subtrack: Eradicating Treatment Barriers.

Dr. Allison highlighted the following oral presentations and posters about antiobesity drugs:

• “Once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg in adolescents with overweight or obesity,” with an extended Q&A session, Nov. 2.
• “Clinical outcomes with medication use in tertiary pediatric weight management program,” by Enayet and colleagues. Poster 030.
• “The metabolically healthy obese paradigm and liver fat content in the Fels longitudinal study,” by Garza and colleagues Oral 055, Nov. 2.
• “Phase 3 clinical trial of metformin for treatment of COVID-19 in adults with overweight and obesity,” by Bramante and colleagues. Oral 067, Nov. 3. This trial was published in the  (N Engl J Med. 2022;387:599-610). 
• “Glucagon/GLP-1 receptor dual agonist BI 456906 reduces bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes,” by Rosenstock and colleagues. Oral-063, Nov. 3. 
• “A randomized controlled trial of naltrexone and bupropion and behavior therapy for binge-eating disorder,” by Grilo and colleagues. Oral 066, Nov. 3.

And on Nov. 4, researchers will present four oral abstracts about the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which is approved for type 2 diabetes and now has fast track designation for weight loss from the Food and Drug Administration. Oral abstracts 109, 110, 111, and 112 cover weight loss with tirzepatide across different age groups, body mass indexes, and comorbidities, as well as quality of life.

Dr. Allison also highlighted the following presentations that cover other diverse topics:

• Family-based treatment: “Pilot study to inform a randomized controlled trial of HeLP: Obesity prevention & treatment for the entire Hispanic family,” by Haemer and colleagues. Oral 029. November 2.
• Bariatric surgery: “Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy from 2010-2016: A nationwide cohort study,” Oral 014. Nov. 2.
• Prevention/public health: “Impact of positive and negative front-of-package food labels in a randomized experiment,” by Grummon and colleagues. Oral 068. Nov. 3.
• Time-restricted eating: “Effects of 8-hour time restricted eating for weight loss over 12 months,” by Gabel and colleagues. Oral 102. Nov. 4.
• Patient management: “Identifying interprofessional drivers of practice gaps in the management of patients with obesity,” by Robinson and colleagues. Poster 055.

On Nov. 4, researchers will present five winning papers that will be published in the December issue of the Obesity journal about GLP-1 agonists versus bariatric surgery; monoacylglycerol O-acyltransferase 1 in mice; a behavioral weight-loss intervention; the Canberra Obesity Management Service; and macronutrient (im)balance in an obesogenic environment.

“I’m always excited to hear some talks that are outside of my comfort area to understand the mechanisms of obesity better,” concluded Dr. Allison.

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

Agents proven to reduce major kidney issues in type 2 diabetes include renin-angiotensin system blockers, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid inhibitors, but there are few data on the renal effects of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1)/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist tirzepatide. In a post-hoc analysis of the SURPASS-4 trial, Heerspink and colleagues reported that tirzepatide slowed the rate of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and reduced urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) compared with insulin glargine U100. There was also a reduction (≥ 40% decline) in the composite kidney outcome of eGFR, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), death due to kidney failure, and new-onset macroalbuminuria, and this was driven by the reduction in new-onset macroalbuminuria. Although this was a post-hoc, exploratory analysis, the benefit of tirzepatide on kidney effects suggests that this agent should be studied in type 2 diabetes patients at high risk for kidney disease progression to determine whether indeed there will be a kidney protective effect.

Diabetes is the leading cause of ESKD, and recognizing patients at high risk for progression to ESKD is paramount. Abnormal glycolipid metabolism contributes to the development and progression of diabetic kidney disease (DKD). Bile acids, by regulating glycolipid metabolism, may indirectly provide renoprotective effects. Xiao and colleagues have published a retrospective cohort study of 184 Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes and biopsy-proven DKD. They found that low levels of bile acids (≤2.8 mmol/L) were associated with an over fivefold risk for ESKD after adjusting for known factors associated with ESKD. This is the first study suggesting a link between low bile acid levels and adverse kidney outcomes in DKD, and it provides a rationale for studying bile acid analogs as therapeutic agents for the treatment of DKD.

SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists have proven cardiorenal benefits in type 2 diabetes, and each is recommended in guidelines for patients at higher risk for cardiorenal complications. There are no head-to-head randomized trials of SGLT2 inhibitors vs GLP-1 receptor agonists, and studies suggesting an increased risk for lower-extremity amputation with SGLT2 inhibitors have shown inconsistent results. Lee and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study in Taiwan, and, after propensity score-matching patients with type 2 diabetes treated with SGLT inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists, they found no significant difference in major adverse limb events between the two groups. Although limited by retrospective design, short follow-up, and a low number of events, this study suggests that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists should continue to be used as indicated and according to diabetes guidelines, with no difference in amputation rates between these two classes of antihyperglycemic agents.

Gastrointestinal adverse events are the most common side effects related to metformin use. Many clinicians choose an extended-release metformin preparation over immediate-release, believing that there may be better tolerability, but studies have shown inconsistent results. In a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials, Nabrdalik and colleagues demonstrated an increased risk for abdominal pain, nausea, and diarrhea with metformin compared with other antidiabetic drugs or placebo, as well as a reduced risk for bloating and diarrhea with extended-release metformin compared with immediate-release formulations. These findings reinforce the practice for considering metformin extended-release over immediate-release formulations to reduce the chance of gastrointestinal side effects.

Agents proven to reduce major kidney issues in type 2 diabetes include renin-angiotensin system blockers, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid inhibitors, but there are few data on the renal effects of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1)/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist tirzepatide. In a post-hoc analysis of the SURPASS-4 trial, Heerspink and colleagues reported that tirzepatide slowed the rate of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and reduced urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) compared with insulin glargine U100. There was also a reduction (≥ 40% decline) in the composite kidney outcome of eGFR, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), death due to kidney failure, and new-onset macroalbuminuria, and this was driven by the reduction in new-onset macroalbuminuria. Although this was a post-hoc, exploratory analysis, the benefit of tirzepatide on kidney effects suggests that this agent should be studied in type 2 diabetes patients at high risk for kidney disease progression to determine whether indeed there will be a kidney protective effect.

Diabetes is the leading cause of ESKD, and recognizing patients at high risk for progression to ESKD is paramount. Abnormal glycolipid metabolism contributes to the development and progression of diabetic kidney disease (DKD). Bile acids, by regulating glycolipid metabolism, may indirectly provide renoprotective effects. Xiao and colleagues have published a retrospective cohort study of 184 Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes and biopsy-proven DKD. They found that low levels of bile acids (≤2.8 mmol/L) were associated with an over fivefold risk for ESKD after adjusting for known factors associated with ESKD. This is the first study suggesting a link between low bile acid levels and adverse kidney outcomes in DKD, and it provides a rationale for studying bile acid analogs as therapeutic agents for the treatment of DKD.

SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists have proven cardiorenal benefits in type 2 diabetes, and each is recommended in guidelines for patients at higher risk for cardiorenal complications. There are no head-to-head randomized trials of SGLT2 inhibitors vs GLP-1 receptor agonists, and studies suggesting an increased risk for lower-extremity amputation with SGLT2 inhibitors have shown inconsistent results. Lee and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study in Taiwan, and, after propensity score-matching patients with type 2 diabetes treated with SGLT inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists, they found no significant difference in major adverse limb events between the two groups. Although limited by retrospective design, short follow-up, and a low number of events, this study suggests that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists should continue to be used as indicated and according to diabetes guidelines, with no difference in amputation rates between these two classes of antihyperglycemic agents.

Gastrointestinal adverse events are the most common side effects related to metformin use. Many clinicians choose an extended-release metformin preparation over immediate-release, believing that there may be better tolerability, but studies have shown inconsistent results. In a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials, Nabrdalik and colleagues demonstrated an increased risk for abdominal pain, nausea, and diarrhea with metformin compared with other antidiabetic drugs or placebo, as well as a reduced risk for bloating and diarrhea with extended-release metformin compared with immediate-release formulations. These findings reinforce the practice for considering metformin extended-release over immediate-release formulations to reduce the chance of gastrointestinal side effects.

Agents proven to reduce major kidney issues in type 2 diabetes include renin-angiotensin system blockers, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid inhibitors, but there are few data on the renal effects of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1)/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist tirzepatide. In a post-hoc analysis of the SURPASS-4 trial, Heerspink and colleagues reported that tirzepatide slowed the rate of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and reduced urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) compared with insulin glargine U100. There was also a reduction (≥ 40% decline) in the composite kidney outcome of eGFR, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), death due to kidney failure, and new-onset macroalbuminuria, and this was driven by the reduction in new-onset macroalbuminuria. Although this was a post-hoc, exploratory analysis, the benefit of tirzepatide on kidney effects suggests that this agent should be studied in type 2 diabetes patients at high risk for kidney disease progression to determine whether indeed there will be a kidney protective effect.

Diabetes is the leading cause of ESKD, and recognizing patients at high risk for progression to ESKD is paramount. Abnormal glycolipid metabolism contributes to the development and progression of diabetic kidney disease (DKD). Bile acids, by regulating glycolipid metabolism, may indirectly provide renoprotective effects. Xiao and colleagues have published a retrospective cohort study of 184 Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes and biopsy-proven DKD. They found that low levels of bile acids (≤2.8 mmol/L) were associated with an over fivefold risk for ESKD after adjusting for known factors associated with ESKD. This is the first study suggesting a link between low bile acid levels and adverse kidney outcomes in DKD, and it provides a rationale for studying bile acid analogs as therapeutic agents for the treatment of DKD.

SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists have proven cardiorenal benefits in type 2 diabetes, and each is recommended in guidelines for patients at higher risk for cardiorenal complications. There are no head-to-head randomized trials of SGLT2 inhibitors vs GLP-1 receptor agonists, and studies suggesting an increased risk for lower-extremity amputation with SGLT2 inhibitors have shown inconsistent results. Lee and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study in Taiwan, and, after propensity score-matching patients with type 2 diabetes treated with SGLT inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists, they found no significant difference in major adverse limb events between the two groups. Although limited by retrospective design, short follow-up, and a low number of events, this study suggests that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists should continue to be used as indicated and according to diabetes guidelines, with no difference in amputation rates between these two classes of antihyperglycemic agents.

Gastrointestinal adverse events are the most common side effects related to metformin use. Many clinicians choose an extended-release metformin preparation over immediate-release, believing that there may be better tolerability, but studies have shown inconsistent results. In a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials, Nabrdalik and colleagues demonstrated an increased risk for abdominal pain, nausea, and diarrhea with metformin compared with other antidiabetic drugs or placebo, as well as a reduced risk for bloating and diarrhea with extended-release metformin compared with immediate-release formulations. These findings reinforce the practice for considering metformin extended-release over immediate-release formulations to reduce the chance of gastrointestinal side effects.

The nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) unexpectedly showed that it might protect against incident infective pneumonia and COVID-19. The finding was based on secondary analyses run on more than 13,000 people enrolled in the two pivotal trials for finerenone.

Finerenone was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for slowing progressive renal dysfunction and preventing cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD).
 

‘Striking reduction in the risk of pneumonia’

The “striking reduction in risk of pneumonia” in a new analysis suggests that “the propagation of pulmonary infection into lobar or bronchial consolidation may be reduced by finerenone,” write Bertram Pitt, MD, and coauthors in a report published on October 26 in JAMA Network Open.

They also suggest that if further studies confirm that finerenone treatment reduces complications from pneumonia and COVID-19, it would have “significant medical implications,” especially because of the limited treatment options now available for complications from COVID-19.

The new analyses used the FIDELITY dataset, a prespecified merging of results from the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials, which together enrolled 13,026 people with type 2 diabetes and CKD, as determined on the basis of the patients’ having a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 30 mg/g.

The primary outcomes of these trials showed that treatment with finerenone led to significant slowing of the progression of CKD and a significant reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular events, compared with placebo during median follow-up of 3 years.

The new, secondary analyses focused on the 6.0% of participants in whom there was evidence of pneumonia and the 1.6% in whom there was evidence of having COVID-19. Pneumonia was the most common serious adverse event in the two trials, a finding consistent with the documented risk for pneumonia faced by people with CKD.
 

Finerenone linked with a 29% relative reduction in pneumonia

When analyzed by treatment, the incidence of pneumonia was 4.7% among those who received finerenone and 6.7% among those who received placebo. This translated into a significant relative risk reduction of 29% associated with finerenone treatment.

Analysis of COVID-19 adverse events showed a 1.3% incidence among those who received finerenone and a 1.8% incidence among those in the placebo group, which translated into a significant 27% relative risk reduction linked with finerenone treatment.

In contrast, the data showed no reduced incidence of several other respiratory infections among the finerenone recipients, including nasopharyngitis, bronchitis, and influenza. The data also showed no signal that pneumonia or COVID-19 was more severe among the people who did not receive finerenone, nor did finerenone treatment appear to affect pneumonia recovery.
 

Analysis based on adverse events reports

These secondary analyses are far from definitive. The authors relied on pneumonia and COVID-19 being reported as adverse events. Each investigator diagnosed pneumonia at their discretion, and the trials did not specify diagnostic criteria. The authors also acknowledge that testing for COVID-19 was “not widespread” and that one of the two pivotal trials largely ran prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic so that only 6 participants developed COVID-19 symptoms out of more than 5,700 enrolled.

The authors hypothesize that several actions of finerenone might potentially help mediate an effect on pneumonia and COVID-19: improvements in pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis, upregulation of expression of angiotensin converting enzyme 2, and amelioration of right heart pressure and pulmonary congestion. Also, antagonizing the mineralocorticoid receptor on monocytes and macrophages may block macrophage infiltration and accumulation of active macrophages, which can mediate the pulmonary tissue damage caused by COVID-19.

The FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials and the FIDELITY combined database were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Pitt has received personal fees from Bayer and personal fees and stock options from numerous other companies. Several coauthors reported having a financial relationship with Bayer, as well as with other companies.

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

The nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) unexpectedly showed that it might protect against incident infective pneumonia and COVID-19. The finding was based on secondary analyses run on more than 13,000 people enrolled in the two pivotal trials for finerenone.

Finerenone was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for slowing progressive renal dysfunction and preventing cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD).
 

‘Striking reduction in the risk of pneumonia’

The “striking reduction in risk of pneumonia” in a new analysis suggests that “the propagation of pulmonary infection into lobar or bronchial consolidation may be reduced by finerenone,” write Bertram Pitt, MD, and coauthors in a report published on October 26 in JAMA Network Open.

They also suggest that if further studies confirm that finerenone treatment reduces complications from pneumonia and COVID-19, it would have “significant medical implications,” especially because of the limited treatment options now available for complications from COVID-19.

The new analyses used the FIDELITY dataset, a prespecified merging of results from the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials, which together enrolled 13,026 people with type 2 diabetes and CKD, as determined on the basis of the patients’ having a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 30 mg/g.

The primary outcomes of these trials showed that treatment with finerenone led to significant slowing of the progression of CKD and a significant reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular events, compared with placebo during median follow-up of 3 years.

The new, secondary analyses focused on the 6.0% of participants in whom there was evidence of pneumonia and the 1.6% in whom there was evidence of having COVID-19. Pneumonia was the most common serious adverse event in the two trials, a finding consistent with the documented risk for pneumonia faced by people with CKD.
 

Finerenone linked with a 29% relative reduction in pneumonia

When analyzed by treatment, the incidence of pneumonia was 4.7% among those who received finerenone and 6.7% among those who received placebo. This translated into a significant relative risk reduction of 29% associated with finerenone treatment.

Analysis of COVID-19 adverse events showed a 1.3% incidence among those who received finerenone and a 1.8% incidence among those in the placebo group, which translated into a significant 27% relative risk reduction linked with finerenone treatment.

In contrast, the data showed no reduced incidence of several other respiratory infections among the finerenone recipients, including nasopharyngitis, bronchitis, and influenza. The data also showed no signal that pneumonia or COVID-19 was more severe among the people who did not receive finerenone, nor did finerenone treatment appear to affect pneumonia recovery.
 

Analysis based on adverse events reports

These secondary analyses are far from definitive. The authors relied on pneumonia and COVID-19 being reported as adverse events. Each investigator diagnosed pneumonia at their discretion, and the trials did not specify diagnostic criteria. The authors also acknowledge that testing for COVID-19 was “not widespread” and that one of the two pivotal trials largely ran prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic so that only 6 participants developed COVID-19 symptoms out of more than 5,700 enrolled.

The authors hypothesize that several actions of finerenone might potentially help mediate an effect on pneumonia and COVID-19: improvements in pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis, upregulation of expression of angiotensin converting enzyme 2, and amelioration of right heart pressure and pulmonary congestion. Also, antagonizing the mineralocorticoid receptor on monocytes and macrophages may block macrophage infiltration and accumulation of active macrophages, which can mediate the pulmonary tissue damage caused by COVID-19.

The FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials and the FIDELITY combined database were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Pitt has received personal fees from Bayer and personal fees and stock options from numerous other companies. Several coauthors reported having a financial relationship with Bayer, as well as with other companies.

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

The nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) unexpectedly showed that it might protect against incident infective pneumonia and COVID-19. The finding was based on secondary analyses run on more than 13,000 people enrolled in the two pivotal trials for finerenone.

Finerenone was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for slowing progressive renal dysfunction and preventing cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD).
 

‘Striking reduction in the risk of pneumonia’

The “striking reduction in risk of pneumonia” in a new analysis suggests that “the propagation of pulmonary infection into lobar or bronchial consolidation may be reduced by finerenone,” write Bertram Pitt, MD, and coauthors in a report published on October 26 in JAMA Network Open.

They also suggest that if further studies confirm that finerenone treatment reduces complications from pneumonia and COVID-19, it would have “significant medical implications,” especially because of the limited treatment options now available for complications from COVID-19.

The new analyses used the FIDELITY dataset, a prespecified merging of results from the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials, which together enrolled 13,026 people with type 2 diabetes and CKD, as determined on the basis of the patients’ having a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 30 mg/g.

The primary outcomes of these trials showed that treatment with finerenone led to significant slowing of the progression of CKD and a significant reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular events, compared with placebo during median follow-up of 3 years.

The new, secondary analyses focused on the 6.0% of participants in whom there was evidence of pneumonia and the 1.6% in whom there was evidence of having COVID-19. Pneumonia was the most common serious adverse event in the two trials, a finding consistent with the documented risk for pneumonia faced by people with CKD.
 

Finerenone linked with a 29% relative reduction in pneumonia

When analyzed by treatment, the incidence of pneumonia was 4.7% among those who received finerenone and 6.7% among those who received placebo. This translated into a significant relative risk reduction of 29% associated with finerenone treatment.

Analysis of COVID-19 adverse events showed a 1.3% incidence among those who received finerenone and a 1.8% incidence among those in the placebo group, which translated into a significant 27% relative risk reduction linked with finerenone treatment.

In contrast, the data showed no reduced incidence of several other respiratory infections among the finerenone recipients, including nasopharyngitis, bronchitis, and influenza. The data also showed no signal that pneumonia or COVID-19 was more severe among the people who did not receive finerenone, nor did finerenone treatment appear to affect pneumonia recovery.
 

Analysis based on adverse events reports

These secondary analyses are far from definitive. The authors relied on pneumonia and COVID-19 being reported as adverse events. Each investigator diagnosed pneumonia at their discretion, and the trials did not specify diagnostic criteria. The authors also acknowledge that testing for COVID-19 was “not widespread” and that one of the two pivotal trials largely ran prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic so that only 6 participants developed COVID-19 symptoms out of more than 5,700 enrolled.

The authors hypothesize that several actions of finerenone might potentially help mediate an effect on pneumonia and COVID-19: improvements in pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis, upregulation of expression of angiotensin converting enzyme 2, and amelioration of right heart pressure and pulmonary congestion. Also, antagonizing the mineralocorticoid receptor on monocytes and macrophages may block macrophage infiltration and accumulation of active macrophages, which can mediate the pulmonary tissue damage caused by COVID-19.

The FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials and the FIDELITY combined database were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Pitt has received personal fees from Bayer and personal fees and stock options from numerous other companies. Several coauthors reported having a financial relationship with Bayer, as well as with other companies.

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

An international group representing leading endocrinology associations has recommended that the name “diabetes insipidus” – which in some cases has led to harm – be changed to eliminate confusion with “diabetes mellitus” and to reflect the former condition’s pathophysiology.

The new proposed names are arginine vasopressin deficiency (AVP-D) for central (also called “cranial”) etiologies and arginine vasopressin resistance (AVP-R) for nephrogenic (kidney) etiologies.

“What we’re proposing is to rename the disease according to the pathophysiology that defines it,” statement co-author Joseph G. Verbalis, MD, professor of medicine and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization.

The statement advises that henceforth the new names be used in manuscripts and the medical literature while keeping the old names in parentheses during a transition period, as in “AVP-deficiency (cranial diabetes insipidus)” and “AVP-resistance (nephrogenic diabetes insipidus).”

The condition formerly known as diabetes insipidus is relatively rare, occurring in about 1 person per 10-15,000 population. It is caused by either deficient production or resistance in the kidney to the hormone AVP, normally produced by the hypothalamus and stored in the pituitary gland. AVP, also called antidiuretic hormone, regulates the body’s water level and urine production by the kidney.

Both etiologies lead to extreme thirst and excessive production of urine. Common causes of the deficiency include head trauma or brain tumor, while resistance in the kidney is often congenital. It is currently treated with a synthetic form of AVP called desmopressin and fluid replacement.
 

What’s in a name?

The proposal to change the name by the Working Group for Renaming Diabetes Insipidus is endorsed by The Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, Pituitary Society, Society for Endocrinology, European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, Endocrine Society of Australia, Brazilian Endocrine Society, and Japanese Endocrine Society and is under review by several other societies. It was published as a position statement in several of those society’s journals, with more to follow.

Historically, the word “diabetes,” a Greek word meaning “siphon,” was used in the 1st and 2nd century BC to describe excess flow of urine. The Latin word “mellitus” or “honey” was added in the late 17th century to describe the sweetness of the urine in the dysglycemic condition.

A century later, the Latin word “insipidus,” meaning insipid or tasteless, was coined to distinguish between the two types of polyuria, the position statement details.

In the late 19th to early 20th century, the vasopressor and antidiuretic actions of posterior pituitary extracts were discovered and used to treat people with both the central and nephrogenic etiologies, which were also recognized around that time, yet the name “diabetes insipidus” has persisted.

“From a historical perspective, the name is perfectly appropriate. At the time it was identified, and it was realized that it was different from diabetes mellitus, that was a perfectly appropriate terminology based on what was known in the late 19th century – but not now. It has persisted through the years simply because in medicine there’s a lot of inertia for change ... It’s just always been called that. If there’s not a compelling reason to change a name, generally there’s no move to change it,” Dr. Verbalis observed.  
 

‘Dramatic cases of patient mismanagement’ due to name confusion

Unfortunately, the urgency for the change arose from tragedy. In 2009, a 22-year-old man was admitted to the orthopedics department of a London teaching hospital for a hip replacement. Despite his known panhypopituitarism and diabetes insipidus, the nurses continually checked his blood glucose but didn’t give him desmopressin or sufficient fluids. Laboratory testing showed normal glucose, but his serum sodium was 149 mmol/L. The morning after his operation, he had a fatal cardiac arrest with a serum sodium of 169 mmol/L. 

“The nurses thought he had diabetes mellitus ... So that was death due to failure to recognize that diabetes insipidus is not diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Verbalis said. “If he had been admitted to endocrinology, this wouldn’t have happened. But he was admitted to orthopedics. Non-endocrinologists are not so aware of diabetes insipidus, because it is a rare disease.”

In 2016, National Health Service England issued a patient safety alert about the “risk of severe harm or death when desmopressin is omitted or delayed in patients with cranial diabetes insipidus,” citing at least four incidents within the prior 7 years where omission of desmopressin had resulted in severe dehydration and death, with another 76 cases of omission or delay that were acted on before the patients became critically ill.

Further impetus for the name change came from the results of an anonymous web-based survey of 1,034 adult and pediatric patients with central diabetes insipidus conducted between August 2021 and February 2022. Overall, 80% reported encountering situations in which their condition had been confused with diabetes mellitus by health care professionals, and 85% supported renaming the disease.

There was some divergence in opinion as to what the new name(s) should be, but clear agreement that the term “diabetes” should not be part of it.  

“We’ve only become recently aware that there are dramatic cases of patient mismanagement due to the confusion caused by the word ‘diabetes.’ We think patients should have a voice. If a legitimate patient survey says over 80% think this name should be changed, then I think we as endocrinologists need to pay attention to that,” Dr. Verbalis said.

But while endocrinologists are the ones who see these patients the most often, Dr. Verbalis said a main aim of the position statement “is really to change the mindset of non-endocrinologist doctors and nurses and other health care professionals that this is not diabetes mellitus. It’s a totally different disease. And if we give it a totally different name, then I think they will better recognize that.”

As to how long Dr. Verbalis thinks it will take for the new names to catch on, he pointed out that it’s taken about a decade for the rheumatology field to fully adopt the name “granulomatosis with polyangiitis” as a replacement for “Wegener’s granulomatosis” after the eponymous physician’s Nazi ties were revealed.

“So we’re not anticipating that this is going to change terminology tomorrow. It’s a long process. We just wanted to get the process started,” he said.

Dr. Verbalis has reported consulting for Otsuka.

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

An international group representing leading endocrinology associations has recommended that the name “diabetes insipidus” – which in some cases has led to harm – be changed to eliminate confusion with “diabetes mellitus” and to reflect the former condition’s pathophysiology.

The new proposed names are arginine vasopressin deficiency (AVP-D) for central (also called “cranial”) etiologies and arginine vasopressin resistance (AVP-R) for nephrogenic (kidney) etiologies.

“What we’re proposing is to rename the disease according to the pathophysiology that defines it,” statement co-author Joseph G. Verbalis, MD, professor of medicine and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization.

The statement advises that henceforth the new names be used in manuscripts and the medical literature while keeping the old names in parentheses during a transition period, as in “AVP-deficiency (cranial diabetes insipidus)” and “AVP-resistance (nephrogenic diabetes insipidus).”

The condition formerly known as diabetes insipidus is relatively rare, occurring in about 1 person per 10-15,000 population. It is caused by either deficient production or resistance in the kidney to the hormone AVP, normally produced by the hypothalamus and stored in the pituitary gland. AVP, also called antidiuretic hormone, regulates the body’s water level and urine production by the kidney.

Both etiologies lead to extreme thirst and excessive production of urine. Common causes of the deficiency include head trauma or brain tumor, while resistance in the kidney is often congenital. It is currently treated with a synthetic form of AVP called desmopressin and fluid replacement.
 

What’s in a name?

The proposal to change the name by the Working Group for Renaming Diabetes Insipidus is endorsed by The Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, Pituitary Society, Society for Endocrinology, European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, Endocrine Society of Australia, Brazilian Endocrine Society, and Japanese Endocrine Society and is under review by several other societies. It was published as a position statement in several of those society’s journals, with more to follow.

Historically, the word “diabetes,” a Greek word meaning “siphon,” was used in the 1st and 2nd century BC to describe excess flow of urine. The Latin word “mellitus” or “honey” was added in the late 17th century to describe the sweetness of the urine in the dysglycemic condition.

A century later, the Latin word “insipidus,” meaning insipid or tasteless, was coined to distinguish between the two types of polyuria, the position statement details.

In the late 19th to early 20th century, the vasopressor and antidiuretic actions of posterior pituitary extracts were discovered and used to treat people with both the central and nephrogenic etiologies, which were also recognized around that time, yet the name “diabetes insipidus” has persisted.

“From a historical perspective, the name is perfectly appropriate. At the time it was identified, and it was realized that it was different from diabetes mellitus, that was a perfectly appropriate terminology based on what was known in the late 19th century – but not now. It has persisted through the years simply because in medicine there’s a lot of inertia for change ... It’s just always been called that. If there’s not a compelling reason to change a name, generally there’s no move to change it,” Dr. Verbalis observed.  
 

‘Dramatic cases of patient mismanagement’ due to name confusion

Unfortunately, the urgency for the change arose from tragedy. In 2009, a 22-year-old man was admitted to the orthopedics department of a London teaching hospital for a hip replacement. Despite his known panhypopituitarism and diabetes insipidus, the nurses continually checked his blood glucose but didn’t give him desmopressin or sufficient fluids. Laboratory testing showed normal glucose, but his serum sodium was 149 mmol/L. The morning after his operation, he had a fatal cardiac arrest with a serum sodium of 169 mmol/L. 

“The nurses thought he had diabetes mellitus ... So that was death due to failure to recognize that diabetes insipidus is not diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Verbalis said. “If he had been admitted to endocrinology, this wouldn’t have happened. But he was admitted to orthopedics. Non-endocrinologists are not so aware of diabetes insipidus, because it is a rare disease.”

In 2016, National Health Service England issued a patient safety alert about the “risk of severe harm or death when desmopressin is omitted or delayed in patients with cranial diabetes insipidus,” citing at least four incidents within the prior 7 years where omission of desmopressin had resulted in severe dehydration and death, with another 76 cases of omission or delay that were acted on before the patients became critically ill.

Further impetus for the name change came from the results of an anonymous web-based survey of 1,034 adult and pediatric patients with central diabetes insipidus conducted between August 2021 and February 2022. Overall, 80% reported encountering situations in which their condition had been confused with diabetes mellitus by health care professionals, and 85% supported renaming the disease.

There was some divergence in opinion as to what the new name(s) should be, but clear agreement that the term “diabetes” should not be part of it.  

“We’ve only become recently aware that there are dramatic cases of patient mismanagement due to the confusion caused by the word ‘diabetes.’ We think patients should have a voice. If a legitimate patient survey says over 80% think this name should be changed, then I think we as endocrinologists need to pay attention to that,” Dr. Verbalis said.

But while endocrinologists are the ones who see these patients the most often, Dr. Verbalis said a main aim of the position statement “is really to change the mindset of non-endocrinologist doctors and nurses and other health care professionals that this is not diabetes mellitus. It’s a totally different disease. And if we give it a totally different name, then I think they will better recognize that.”

As to how long Dr. Verbalis thinks it will take for the new names to catch on, he pointed out that it’s taken about a decade for the rheumatology field to fully adopt the name “granulomatosis with polyangiitis” as a replacement for “Wegener’s granulomatosis” after the eponymous physician’s Nazi ties were revealed.

“So we’re not anticipating that this is going to change terminology tomorrow. It’s a long process. We just wanted to get the process started,” he said.

Dr. Verbalis has reported consulting for Otsuka.

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

An international group representing leading endocrinology associations has recommended that the name “diabetes insipidus” – which in some cases has led to harm – be changed to eliminate confusion with “diabetes mellitus” and to reflect the former condition’s pathophysiology.

The new proposed names are arginine vasopressin deficiency (AVP-D) for central (also called “cranial”) etiologies and arginine vasopressin resistance (AVP-R) for nephrogenic (kidney) etiologies.

“What we’re proposing is to rename the disease according to the pathophysiology that defines it,” statement co-author Joseph G. Verbalis, MD, professor of medicine and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization.

The statement advises that henceforth the new names be used in manuscripts and the medical literature while keeping the old names in parentheses during a transition period, as in “AVP-deficiency (cranial diabetes insipidus)” and “AVP-resistance (nephrogenic diabetes insipidus).”

The condition formerly known as diabetes insipidus is relatively rare, occurring in about 1 person per 10-15,000 population. It is caused by either deficient production or resistance in the kidney to the hormone AVP, normally produced by the hypothalamus and stored in the pituitary gland. AVP, also called antidiuretic hormone, regulates the body’s water level and urine production by the kidney.

Both etiologies lead to extreme thirst and excessive production of urine. Common causes of the deficiency include head trauma or brain tumor, while resistance in the kidney is often congenital. It is currently treated with a synthetic form of AVP called desmopressin and fluid replacement.
 

What’s in a name?

The proposal to change the name by the Working Group for Renaming Diabetes Insipidus is endorsed by The Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, Pituitary Society, Society for Endocrinology, European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, Endocrine Society of Australia, Brazilian Endocrine Society, and Japanese Endocrine Society and is under review by several other societies. It was published as a position statement in several of those society’s journals, with more to follow.

Historically, the word “diabetes,” a Greek word meaning “siphon,” was used in the 1st and 2nd century BC to describe excess flow of urine. The Latin word “mellitus” or “honey” was added in the late 17th century to describe the sweetness of the urine in the dysglycemic condition.

A century later, the Latin word “insipidus,” meaning insipid or tasteless, was coined to distinguish between the two types of polyuria, the position statement details.

In the late 19th to early 20th century, the vasopressor and antidiuretic actions of posterior pituitary extracts were discovered and used to treat people with both the central and nephrogenic etiologies, which were also recognized around that time, yet the name “diabetes insipidus” has persisted.

“From a historical perspective, the name is perfectly appropriate. At the time it was identified, and it was realized that it was different from diabetes mellitus, that was a perfectly appropriate terminology based on what was known in the late 19th century – but not now. It has persisted through the years simply because in medicine there’s a lot of inertia for change ... It’s just always been called that. If there’s not a compelling reason to change a name, generally there’s no move to change it,” Dr. Verbalis observed.  
 

‘Dramatic cases of patient mismanagement’ due to name confusion

Unfortunately, the urgency for the change arose from tragedy. In 2009, a 22-year-old man was admitted to the orthopedics department of a London teaching hospital for a hip replacement. Despite his known panhypopituitarism and diabetes insipidus, the nurses continually checked his blood glucose but didn’t give him desmopressin or sufficient fluids. Laboratory testing showed normal glucose, but his serum sodium was 149 mmol/L. The morning after his operation, he had a fatal cardiac arrest with a serum sodium of 169 mmol/L. 

“The nurses thought he had diabetes mellitus ... So that was death due to failure to recognize that diabetes insipidus is not diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Verbalis said. “If he had been admitted to endocrinology, this wouldn’t have happened. But he was admitted to orthopedics. Non-endocrinologists are not so aware of diabetes insipidus, because it is a rare disease.”

In 2016, National Health Service England issued a patient safety alert about the “risk of severe harm or death when desmopressin is omitted or delayed in patients with cranial diabetes insipidus,” citing at least four incidents within the prior 7 years where omission of desmopressin had resulted in severe dehydration and death, with another 76 cases of omission or delay that were acted on before the patients became critically ill.

Further impetus for the name change came from the results of an anonymous web-based survey of 1,034 adult and pediatric patients with central diabetes insipidus conducted between August 2021 and February 2022. Overall, 80% reported encountering situations in which their condition had been confused with diabetes mellitus by health care professionals, and 85% supported renaming the disease.

There was some divergence in opinion as to what the new name(s) should be, but clear agreement that the term “diabetes” should not be part of it.  

“We’ve only become recently aware that there are dramatic cases of patient mismanagement due to the confusion caused by the word ‘diabetes.’ We think patients should have a voice. If a legitimate patient survey says over 80% think this name should be changed, then I think we as endocrinologists need to pay attention to that,” Dr. Verbalis said.

But while endocrinologists are the ones who see these patients the most often, Dr. Verbalis said a main aim of the position statement “is really to change the mindset of non-endocrinologist doctors and nurses and other health care professionals that this is not diabetes mellitus. It’s a totally different disease. And if we give it a totally different name, then I think they will better recognize that.”

As to how long Dr. Verbalis thinks it will take for the new names to catch on, he pointed out that it’s taken about a decade for the rheumatology field to fully adopt the name “granulomatosis with polyangiitis” as a replacement for “Wegener’s granulomatosis” after the eponymous physician’s Nazi ties were revealed.

“So we’re not anticipating that this is going to change terminology tomorrow. It’s a long process. We just wanted to get the process started,” he said.

Dr. Verbalis has reported consulting for Otsuka.

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

Key clinical point: Lower serum bile acid levels (≤2.8 mmol/L) were an independent predictor of progression of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and biopsy-proven DKD.

Major finding: Overall, 34.78% of patients progressed to ESRD during a median follow-up of 19.02 months, with lower levels of serum bile acids being independently associated with a higher risk for progression to ESRD (adjusted hazard ratio, 5.319; P = .027).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 184 patients with T2DM and biopsy-proven DKD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Health Commission of Sichuan Province Program. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Xiao X et al. Lower bile acids as an independent risk factor for renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and biopsy-proven diabetic kidney disease. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:1026995  (Oct 7). Doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1026995.

Key clinical point: Lower serum bile acid levels (≤2.8 mmol/L) were an independent predictor of progression of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and biopsy-proven DKD.

Major finding: Overall, 34.78% of patients progressed to ESRD during a median follow-up of 19.02 months, with lower levels of serum bile acids being independently associated with a higher risk for progression to ESRD (adjusted hazard ratio, 5.319; P = .027).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 184 patients with T2DM and biopsy-proven DKD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Health Commission of Sichuan Province Program. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Xiao X et al. Lower bile acids as an independent risk factor for renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and biopsy-proven diabetic kidney disease. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:1026995  (Oct 7). Doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1026995.

Key clinical point: Lower serum bile acid levels (≤2.8 mmol/L) were an independent predictor of progression of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and biopsy-proven DKD.

Major finding: Overall, 34.78% of patients progressed to ESRD during a median follow-up of 19.02 months, with lower levels of serum bile acids being independently associated with a higher risk for progression to ESRD (adjusted hazard ratio, 5.319; P = .027).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 184 patients with T2DM and biopsy-proven DKD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Health Commission of Sichuan Province Program. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Xiao X et al. Lower bile acids as an independent risk factor for renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and biopsy-proven diabetic kidney disease. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:1026995  (Oct 7). Doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1026995.

Key clinical point: Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) did not increase the risk for hospitalization for critical limb ischemia (CLI) and lower extremity amputation (LEA) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i).

Major finding: SGLT2i was not associated with a higher risk for hospitalization for CLI and LEA compared with either GLP-1RA (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13; 95% CI 0.77-1.65 and HR 1.27; 95% CI 0.63-2.55, respectively) or DPP4i (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.75-1.50 and HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.42-1.53, respectively).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based retrospective cohort study that propensity score-matched patients with T2D who initiated SGLT2i (n = 13,378) and those who initiated GLP-1RA (n = 13,378).

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by the research grant from National Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin Branch and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lee YC et al. Risk of major adverse limb events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: A population-based retrospective cohort study. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:869804  (Sep 13). Doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.869804

Key clinical point: Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) did not increase the risk for hospitalization for critical limb ischemia (CLI) and lower extremity amputation (LEA) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i).

Major finding: SGLT2i was not associated with a higher risk for hospitalization for CLI and LEA compared with either GLP-1RA (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13; 95% CI 0.77-1.65 and HR 1.27; 95% CI 0.63-2.55, respectively) or DPP4i (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.75-1.50 and HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.42-1.53, respectively).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based retrospective cohort study that propensity score-matched patients with T2D who initiated SGLT2i (n = 13,378) and those who initiated GLP-1RA (n = 13,378).

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by the research grant from National Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin Branch and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lee YC et al. Risk of major adverse limb events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: A population-based retrospective cohort study. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:869804  (Sep 13). Doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.869804

Key clinical point: Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) did not increase the risk for hospitalization for critical limb ischemia (CLI) and lower extremity amputation (LEA) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i).

Major finding: SGLT2i was not associated with a higher risk for hospitalization for CLI and LEA compared with either GLP-1RA (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13; 95% CI 0.77-1.65 and HR 1.27; 95% CI 0.63-2.55, respectively) or DPP4i (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.75-1.50 and HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.42-1.53, respectively).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based retrospective cohort study that propensity score-matched patients with T2D who initiated SGLT2i (n = 13,378) and those who initiated GLP-1RA (n = 13,378).

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by the research grant from National Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin Branch and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lee YC et al. Risk of major adverse limb events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: A population-based retrospective cohort study. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:869804  (Sep 13). Doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.869804

Key clinical point: Stringent management of blood pressure (BP) with amlodipine in addition to standard diabetes therapy significantly improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes  (T2D) compared with standard diabetes therapy alone.

Major finding: After 24 weeks, amlodipine plus standard diabetes therapy vs. standard diabetes therapy alone led to a significant reduction in the mean glycated hemoglobin level (6.62% vs 7.01%; P = .01), fasting plasma glucose level (122 vs 129 mg/dL; P < .001), systolic blood pressure (132 vs 143 mm Hg; P < .001), and diastolic blood pressure (78.9 vs 86.0 mm Hg; P < .001), with neural effects on the lipid profile and urinary albumin excretion.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective cohort study including 168 patients with newly diagnosed T2D who received amlodipine plus standard diabetes therapy (n = 87) or standard diabetes therapy alone (n = 81).

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Li JC et al. Antihypertensive treatment improves glycemic control in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus: A prospective cohort study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:935561  (Sep 9). Doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.935561.

Key clinical point: Stringent management of blood pressure (BP) with amlodipine in addition to standard diabetes therapy significantly improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes  (T2D) compared with standard diabetes therapy alone.

Major finding: After 24 weeks, amlodipine plus standard diabetes therapy vs. standard diabetes therapy alone led to a significant reduction in the mean glycated hemoglobin level (6.62% vs 7.01%; P = .01), fasting plasma glucose level (122 vs 129 mg/dL; P < .001), systolic blood pressure (132 vs 143 mm Hg; P < .001), and diastolic blood pressure (78.9 vs 86.0 mm Hg; P < .001), with neural effects on the lipid profile and urinary albumin excretion.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective cohort study including 168 patients with newly diagnosed T2D who received amlodipine plus standard diabetes therapy (n = 87) or standard diabetes therapy alone (n = 81).

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Li JC et al. Antihypertensive treatment improves glycemic control in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus: A prospective cohort study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:935561  (Sep 9). Doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.935561.

Key clinical point: Stringent management of blood pressure (BP) with amlodipine in addition to standard diabetes therapy significantly improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes  (T2D) compared with standard diabetes therapy alone.

Major finding: After 24 weeks, amlodipine plus standard diabetes therapy vs. standard diabetes therapy alone led to a significant reduction in the mean glycated hemoglobin level (6.62% vs 7.01%; P = .01), fasting plasma glucose level (122 vs 129 mg/dL; P < .001), systolic blood pressure (132 vs 143 mm Hg; P < .001), and diastolic blood pressure (78.9 vs 86.0 mm Hg; P < .001), with neural effects on the lipid profile and urinary albumin excretion.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective cohort study including 168 patients with newly diagnosed T2D who received amlodipine plus standard diabetes therapy (n = 87) or standard diabetes therapy alone (n = 81).

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Li JC et al. Antihypertensive treatment improves glycemic control in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus: A prospective cohort study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:935561  (Sep 9). Doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.935561.