Obesity

The American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) has issued a statement declaring that obesity surgery is not elective and should be resumed as soon as it›s safe to do so during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ASMBS statement, “Safer Through Surgery,” was published online in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases by the ASMBS executive committee.

It is a reaction to the fact that some U.S. states have placed metabolic and bariatric surgery in the same low-priority category as cosmetic surgery as examples of “elective” procedures that should be among the last to be restarted when pandemic restrictions are eased.

Rather, ASMBS argues, although obesity surgery must be postponed along with other nonemergency procedures when surges in the novel coronavirus make them unsafe, such operations should be resumed as soon as possible along with other medically necessary procedures.

“Metabolic and bariatric surgery is NOT elective. Metabolic and bariatric surgery is medically necessary and the best treatment for those with the life-threatening and life-limiting disease of severe obesity,” the statement says.

And obesity itself is a major risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, ASMBS President Matt Hutter, MD, told Medscape Medical News, noting that individuals with obesity are “more likely to be in [intensive care units].”

“Mortality rates are higher, even in young patients. And [obesity] ... is associated with other comorbidities including diabetes and heart disease...We know the clock is ticking for some folks. For those with early diabetes, the sooner the [bariatric] surgery the more likely it is [for diabetes] to go into remission.”

Because the pandemic may be around for a while, “If we can make people [with obesity] safer ... because they’ve had surgery ... they may be better off,” should they get COVID-19 later, he pointed out.

Hutter noted that the ASMBS recorded a series of webinars, archived on the society’s website, with panels discussing in-depth issues to consider in prioritizing patients when restarting metabolic and bariatric surgery.

There are some differences of opinion, such as whether the sickest patients should be the first to have the surgeries upon reopening, or whether those individuals might be worse off if they contract COVID-19 in the perioperative setting.

“I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer, but I think we have to figure out what’s right for the individual patient, considering their specific risks of having versus not having surgery, of waiting 1 month, 2 months, or 6 months. One thing we do know is that obesity is a significant disease.”
 

‘Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic’

Asked to comment on the ASMBS stance, Obesity Society president Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, sent Medscape Medical News a statement.

“We do not fully understand which aspects of obesity pathophysiology ... are most responsible for the adverse COVID-19 outcomes, nor do we know the degree to which reduced access to care, social isolation, and other social and environmental determinants of health disproportionately affect COVID-19 patients with obesity,” he noted.

“At this early stage, we have not yet determined the impact of weight loss and various types of antiobesity therapies on these risks.”

Nonetheless, Kaplan said, “the extended COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance of increasing, not diminishing, our commitment to understanding and treating obesity, using all available, evidence-based therapies, including lifestyle modification, antiobesity medications, bariatric surgery, and combinations thereof.”

As all health care delivery is being reorganized around the pandemic, Kaplan added: “Rethinking and changing our approach to obesity needs to be a central feature of this process.

“Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic. Its high global prevalence, increasing severity, and profound impact on all aspects of health and disease require that it be addressed more universally within the health care system, with the same commitment afforded to other chronic diseases.”

Obesity treatment isn’t generally considered an emergency, he noted, “because obesity is a chronic disease, whose adverse health effects often accumulate slowly and insidiously. Its generally slow progression allows for careful and coordinated care planning, and advanced scheduling of therapeutic interventions, including surgery. These characteristics, however, should not lead us to infer that treating obesity itself is optional.”

Hutter has reported receiving honoraria from Ethicon and Medtronic, and is a consultant for Vicarious Surgical and Sigilon Therapeutics. Kaplan has reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Fractyl, Gelesis, GI Dynamics, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of State.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) has issued a statement declaring that obesity surgery is not elective and should be resumed as soon as it›s safe to do so during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ASMBS statement, “Safer Through Surgery,” was published online in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases by the ASMBS executive committee.

It is a reaction to the fact that some U.S. states have placed metabolic and bariatric surgery in the same low-priority category as cosmetic surgery as examples of “elective” procedures that should be among the last to be restarted when pandemic restrictions are eased.

Rather, ASMBS argues, although obesity surgery must be postponed along with other nonemergency procedures when surges in the novel coronavirus make them unsafe, such operations should be resumed as soon as possible along with other medically necessary procedures.

“Metabolic and bariatric surgery is NOT elective. Metabolic and bariatric surgery is medically necessary and the best treatment for those with the life-threatening and life-limiting disease of severe obesity,” the statement says.

And obesity itself is a major risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, ASMBS President Matt Hutter, MD, told Medscape Medical News, noting that individuals with obesity are “more likely to be in [intensive care units].”

“Mortality rates are higher, even in young patients. And [obesity] ... is associated with other comorbidities including diabetes and heart disease...We know the clock is ticking for some folks. For those with early diabetes, the sooner the [bariatric] surgery the more likely it is [for diabetes] to go into remission.”

Because the pandemic may be around for a while, “If we can make people [with obesity] safer ... because they’ve had surgery ... they may be better off,” should they get COVID-19 later, he pointed out.

Hutter noted that the ASMBS recorded a series of webinars, archived on the society’s website, with panels discussing in-depth issues to consider in prioritizing patients when restarting metabolic and bariatric surgery.

There are some differences of opinion, such as whether the sickest patients should be the first to have the surgeries upon reopening, or whether those individuals might be worse off if they contract COVID-19 in the perioperative setting.

“I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer, but I think we have to figure out what’s right for the individual patient, considering their specific risks of having versus not having surgery, of waiting 1 month, 2 months, or 6 months. One thing we do know is that obesity is a significant disease.”
 

‘Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic’

Asked to comment on the ASMBS stance, Obesity Society president Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, sent Medscape Medical News a statement.

“We do not fully understand which aspects of obesity pathophysiology ... are most responsible for the adverse COVID-19 outcomes, nor do we know the degree to which reduced access to care, social isolation, and other social and environmental determinants of health disproportionately affect COVID-19 patients with obesity,” he noted.

“At this early stage, we have not yet determined the impact of weight loss and various types of antiobesity therapies on these risks.”

Nonetheless, Kaplan said, “the extended COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance of increasing, not diminishing, our commitment to understanding and treating obesity, using all available, evidence-based therapies, including lifestyle modification, antiobesity medications, bariatric surgery, and combinations thereof.”

As all health care delivery is being reorganized around the pandemic, Kaplan added: “Rethinking and changing our approach to obesity needs to be a central feature of this process.

“Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic. Its high global prevalence, increasing severity, and profound impact on all aspects of health and disease require that it be addressed more universally within the health care system, with the same commitment afforded to other chronic diseases.”

Obesity treatment isn’t generally considered an emergency, he noted, “because obesity is a chronic disease, whose adverse health effects often accumulate slowly and insidiously. Its generally slow progression allows for careful and coordinated care planning, and advanced scheduling of therapeutic interventions, including surgery. These characteristics, however, should not lead us to infer that treating obesity itself is optional.”

Hutter has reported receiving honoraria from Ethicon and Medtronic, and is a consultant for Vicarious Surgical and Sigilon Therapeutics. Kaplan has reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Fractyl, Gelesis, GI Dynamics, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of State.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) has issued a statement declaring that obesity surgery is not elective and should be resumed as soon as it›s safe to do so during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ASMBS statement, “Safer Through Surgery,” was published online in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases by the ASMBS executive committee.

It is a reaction to the fact that some U.S. states have placed metabolic and bariatric surgery in the same low-priority category as cosmetic surgery as examples of “elective” procedures that should be among the last to be restarted when pandemic restrictions are eased.

Rather, ASMBS argues, although obesity surgery must be postponed along with other nonemergency procedures when surges in the novel coronavirus make them unsafe, such operations should be resumed as soon as possible along with other medically necessary procedures.

“Metabolic and bariatric surgery is NOT elective. Metabolic and bariatric surgery is medically necessary and the best treatment for those with the life-threatening and life-limiting disease of severe obesity,” the statement says.

And obesity itself is a major risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, ASMBS President Matt Hutter, MD, told Medscape Medical News, noting that individuals with obesity are “more likely to be in [intensive care units].”

“Mortality rates are higher, even in young patients. And [obesity] ... is associated with other comorbidities including diabetes and heart disease...We know the clock is ticking for some folks. For those with early diabetes, the sooner the [bariatric] surgery the more likely it is [for diabetes] to go into remission.”

Because the pandemic may be around for a while, “If we can make people [with obesity] safer ... because they’ve had surgery ... they may be better off,” should they get COVID-19 later, he pointed out.

Hutter noted that the ASMBS recorded a series of webinars, archived on the society’s website, with panels discussing in-depth issues to consider in prioritizing patients when restarting metabolic and bariatric surgery.

There are some differences of opinion, such as whether the sickest patients should be the first to have the surgeries upon reopening, or whether those individuals might be worse off if they contract COVID-19 in the perioperative setting.

“I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer, but I think we have to figure out what’s right for the individual patient, considering their specific risks of having versus not having surgery, of waiting 1 month, 2 months, or 6 months. One thing we do know is that obesity is a significant disease.”
 

‘Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic’

Asked to comment on the ASMBS stance, Obesity Society president Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, sent Medscape Medical News a statement.

“We do not fully understand which aspects of obesity pathophysiology ... are most responsible for the adverse COVID-19 outcomes, nor do we know the degree to which reduced access to care, social isolation, and other social and environmental determinants of health disproportionately affect COVID-19 patients with obesity,” he noted.

“At this early stage, we have not yet determined the impact of weight loss and various types of antiobesity therapies on these risks.”

Nonetheless, Kaplan said, “the extended COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance of increasing, not diminishing, our commitment to understanding and treating obesity, using all available, evidence-based therapies, including lifestyle modification, antiobesity medications, bariatric surgery, and combinations thereof.”

As all health care delivery is being reorganized around the pandemic, Kaplan added: “Rethinking and changing our approach to obesity needs to be a central feature of this process.

“Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic. Its high global prevalence, increasing severity, and profound impact on all aspects of health and disease require that it be addressed more universally within the health care system, with the same commitment afforded to other chronic diseases.”

Obesity treatment isn’t generally considered an emergency, he noted, “because obesity is a chronic disease, whose adverse health effects often accumulate slowly and insidiously. Its generally slow progression allows for careful and coordinated care planning, and advanced scheduling of therapeutic interventions, including surgery. These characteristics, however, should not lead us to infer that treating obesity itself is optional.”

Hutter has reported receiving honoraria from Ethicon and Medtronic, and is a consultant for Vicarious Surgical and Sigilon Therapeutics. Kaplan has reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Fractyl, Gelesis, GI Dynamics, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of State.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or above are at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19, while a BMI of 35 and higher dramatically increases the risk for death, new research suggests.

The data, from nearly 500 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April 2020, were published in the European Journal of Endocrinology by Matteo Rottoli, MD, of the Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues.

The data support the recent change by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lower the cutoff for categorizing a person at increased risk from COVID-19 from a BMI of 40 down to 30. However, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service still lists only a BMI of 40 or above as placing a person at “moderate risk (clinically vulnerable).”

“This finding calls for prevention and treatment strategies to reduce the risk of infection and hospitalization in patients with relevant degrees of obesity, supporting a revision of the BMI cutoff of 40 kg/m², which was proposed as an independent risk factor for an adverse outcome of COVID-19 in the ... guidelines for social distancing in the United Kingdom: It may be appropriate to include patients with BMI >30 among those at higher risk for COVID-19 severe progression,” the authors wrote.

The study included 482 adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 to a single Italian hospital between March 1 and April 20, 2020. Of those, 41.9% had a BMI of less than 25 (normal weight), 36.5% had a BMI of 25-29.9 (overweight), and 21.6% had BMI of at least 30 (obese). Of the obese group, 20 (4.1%) had BMIs of at least 35, while 18 patients (3.7%) had BMIs of less than 20 (underweight).

Among those with obesity, 51.9% experienced respiratory failure, 36.4% were admitted to the ICU, 25% required mechanical ventilation, and 29.8% died within 30 days of symptom onset.

Patients with BMIs of at least 30 had significantly increased risks for respiratory failure (odds ratio, 2.48; P = .001), ICU admission (OR, 5.28; P < .001), and death (2.35, P = .017), compared with those with lower BMIs. Within the group classified as obese, the risks of respiratory failure and ICU admission were higher, with BMIs of 30-34.9 (OR, 2.32; P = .004 and OR, 4.96; P < .001, respectively) and for BMIs of at least 35 (OR, 3.24; P = .019 and OR, 6.58; P < .001, respectively).

The risk of death was significantly higher among patients with a BMI of at least 35 (OR, 12.1; P < .001).

Every 1-unit increase in BMI was significantly associated with all outcomes, but there was no significant difference in any outcome between the 25-29.9 BMI category and normal weight. In all models, the BMI cutoff for increased risk was 30.

The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rottoli M et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-054.

People with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or above are at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19, while a BMI of 35 and higher dramatically increases the risk for death, new research suggests.

The data, from nearly 500 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April 2020, were published in the European Journal of Endocrinology by Matteo Rottoli, MD, of the Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues.

The data support the recent change by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lower the cutoff for categorizing a person at increased risk from COVID-19 from a BMI of 40 down to 30. However, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service still lists only a BMI of 40 or above as placing a person at “moderate risk (clinically vulnerable).”

“This finding calls for prevention and treatment strategies to reduce the risk of infection and hospitalization in patients with relevant degrees of obesity, supporting a revision of the BMI cutoff of 40 kg/m², which was proposed as an independent risk factor for an adverse outcome of COVID-19 in the ... guidelines for social distancing in the United Kingdom: It may be appropriate to include patients with BMI >30 among those at higher risk for COVID-19 severe progression,” the authors wrote.

The study included 482 adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 to a single Italian hospital between March 1 and April 20, 2020. Of those, 41.9% had a BMI of less than 25 (normal weight), 36.5% had a BMI of 25-29.9 (overweight), and 21.6% had BMI of at least 30 (obese). Of the obese group, 20 (4.1%) had BMIs of at least 35, while 18 patients (3.7%) had BMIs of less than 20 (underweight).

Among those with obesity, 51.9% experienced respiratory failure, 36.4% were admitted to the ICU, 25% required mechanical ventilation, and 29.8% died within 30 days of symptom onset.

Patients with BMIs of at least 30 had significantly increased risks for respiratory failure (odds ratio, 2.48; P = .001), ICU admission (OR, 5.28; P < .001), and death (2.35, P = .017), compared with those with lower BMIs. Within the group classified as obese, the risks of respiratory failure and ICU admission were higher, with BMIs of 30-34.9 (OR, 2.32; P = .004 and OR, 4.96; P < .001, respectively) and for BMIs of at least 35 (OR, 3.24; P = .019 and OR, 6.58; P < .001, respectively).

The risk of death was significantly higher among patients with a BMI of at least 35 (OR, 12.1; P < .001).

Every 1-unit increase in BMI was significantly associated with all outcomes, but there was no significant difference in any outcome between the 25-29.9 BMI category and normal weight. In all models, the BMI cutoff for increased risk was 30.

The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rottoli M et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-054.

People with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or above are at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19, while a BMI of 35 and higher dramatically increases the risk for death, new research suggests.

The data, from nearly 500 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April 2020, were published in the European Journal of Endocrinology by Matteo Rottoli, MD, of the Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues.

The data support the recent change by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lower the cutoff for categorizing a person at increased risk from COVID-19 from a BMI of 40 down to 30. However, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service still lists only a BMI of 40 or above as placing a person at “moderate risk (clinically vulnerable).”

“This finding calls for prevention and treatment strategies to reduce the risk of infection and hospitalization in patients with relevant degrees of obesity, supporting a revision of the BMI cutoff of 40 kg/m², which was proposed as an independent risk factor for an adverse outcome of COVID-19 in the ... guidelines for social distancing in the United Kingdom: It may be appropriate to include patients with BMI >30 among those at higher risk for COVID-19 severe progression,” the authors wrote.

The study included 482 adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 to a single Italian hospital between March 1 and April 20, 2020. Of those, 41.9% had a BMI of less than 25 (normal weight), 36.5% had a BMI of 25-29.9 (overweight), and 21.6% had BMI of at least 30 (obese). Of the obese group, 20 (4.1%) had BMIs of at least 35, while 18 patients (3.7%) had BMIs of less than 20 (underweight).

Among those with obesity, 51.9% experienced respiratory failure, 36.4% were admitted to the ICU, 25% required mechanical ventilation, and 29.8% died within 30 days of symptom onset.

Patients with BMIs of at least 30 had significantly increased risks for respiratory failure (odds ratio, 2.48; P = .001), ICU admission (OR, 5.28; P < .001), and death (2.35, P = .017), compared with those with lower BMIs. Within the group classified as obese, the risks of respiratory failure and ICU admission were higher, with BMIs of 30-34.9 (OR, 2.32; P = .004 and OR, 4.96; P < .001, respectively) and for BMIs of at least 35 (OR, 3.24; P = .019 and OR, 6.58; P < .001, respectively).

The risk of death was significantly higher among patients with a BMI of at least 35 (OR, 12.1; P < .001).

Every 1-unit increase in BMI was significantly associated with all outcomes, but there was no significant difference in any outcome between the 25-29.9 BMI category and normal weight. In all models, the BMI cutoff for increased risk was 30.

The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rottoli M et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-054.

A trio of international expert recommendations mainly agree on essentials for the diagnosis and treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome in adolescents, but some confusion persists, according to Robert L. Rosenfield, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

In a commentary published in the Journal of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, Dr. Rosenfield, who convened one of the three conferences at which guidance was developed, noted that the three recommendations – published by the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the International Consortium of Paediatric Endocrinology, and the International PCOS Network in 2015, 2017, and 2018, respectively – “are fairly dense” and reviews have suggested a lack of agreement. His comments offer perspective and practice suggestions that follow the consensus of the recommendations.

“All the documents agree on the core diagnostic criteria for adolescent PCOS: otherwise unexplained evidence of ovulatory dysfunction, as indicated by menstrual abnormalities based on stage-appropriate standards, and evidence of an androgen excess disorder,” Dr. Rosenfield said.

The main differences among the recommendations from the three groups reflect tension between the value of an early diagnosis and the liabilities of a mistaken diagnosis in the context of attitudes about adolescent contraception. “These are issues not likely to be resolved easily, yet they are matters for every physician to consider in management of each case,” he said.

Dr. Rosenfield emphasized that clinicians must consider PCOS “in the general context of all causes of adolescent menstrual disturbances,” when evaluating a girl within 1-2 years of menarche who presents with a menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, and/or acne that has been resistant to topical treatment.

A key point on which the recommendations differ is whether further assessment is needed if the menstrual abnormality has persisted for 1 year (the 2018 recommendations) or 2 years (the 2015 and 2017 recommendations), Dr. Rosenfield explained. “What the conferees struggled with is differentiating how long after menarche a menstrual abnormality should persist to avoid confusing PCOS with normal immaturity of the menstrual cycle,” known as physiologic adolescent anovulation (PAA). “The degree of certainty is improved only modestly by waiting 2 years rather than 1 year to make a diagnosis.”

However, the three documents agree that girls suspected of having PCOS within the first 1-2 years after menarche should be evaluated at that time, and followed with a diagnosis of “at risk for PCOS” if the early test results are consistent with a PCOS diagnosis, he said.

Another point of difference among the groups is the extent to which hirsutism and acne represent clinical evidence of hyperandrogenism that justifies testing for biochemical hyperandrogenism, Dr. Rosenfield said.

“All three sets of adolescent PCOS recommendations agree that investigation for biochemical hyperandrogenism be initiated by measuring serum total and/or free testosterone by specialty assays with well-defined reference ranges,” he said.

However, “documentation of biochemical hyperandrogenism has been problematic because standard platform assays of testosterone give grossly inaccurate results.”

As for the management of PCOS in teens, “different perspectives about pharmacologic treatment [reflect] the multicultural views about adolescent contraception,” said Dr. Rosenfield. Guidelines in the United States favor estrogen-progestin combined oral contraceptives as first-line therapy, while the international guidelines support contraceptives if contraception also is desired; otherwise the 2017 guidelines recommend metformin as a first-line treatment.

“Agreement is uniform that healthy lifestyle management is first-line therapy for management of the associated obesity and metabolic disturbances, i.e., prior to and/or in conjunction with metformin therapy,” he noted.

In general, Dr. Rosenfield acknowledged that front-line clinicians cannot easily evaluate all early postmenarcheal girls for abnormal menstrual cycles. Instead, he advocated a “middle ground” approach between early diagnosis and potentially labeling a girl with a false positive diagnosis.

Postmenarcheal girls who are amenorrheic for 2 months could be assessed for signs of PCOS or pregnancy, and whether she is generally in good health, he said. “However, for example, if she remains amenorrheic for more than 90 days or if two successive periods are more than 2 months apart, laboratory screening would be reasonable.”

PCOS is “a diagnosis of exclusion for which referral to a specialist is advisable” to rule out other conditions such as non-classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia, hyperprolactinemia, endogenous Cushing syndrome, thyroid dysfunction, and virilizing tumors, said Dr. Rosenfield.

However, PCOS accounts for most cases of adolescent hyperandrogenism. The symptomatic treatment of early postmenarcheal girls at risk of PCOS is recommended to manage menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, acne, or obesity, and these girls should be reassessed by the time they finish high school after a 3-month treatment withdrawal period, he emphasized.

Dr. Rosenfield had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Rosenfield RL. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2020 June 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2020.06.017.

A trio of international expert recommendations mainly agree on essentials for the diagnosis and treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome in adolescents, but some confusion persists, according to Robert L. Rosenfield, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

In a commentary published in the Journal of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, Dr. Rosenfield, who convened one of the three conferences at which guidance was developed, noted that the three recommendations – published by the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the International Consortium of Paediatric Endocrinology, and the International PCOS Network in 2015, 2017, and 2018, respectively – “are fairly dense” and reviews have suggested a lack of agreement. His comments offer perspective and practice suggestions that follow the consensus of the recommendations.

“All the documents agree on the core diagnostic criteria for adolescent PCOS: otherwise unexplained evidence of ovulatory dysfunction, as indicated by menstrual abnormalities based on stage-appropriate standards, and evidence of an androgen excess disorder,” Dr. Rosenfield said.

The main differences among the recommendations from the three groups reflect tension between the value of an early diagnosis and the liabilities of a mistaken diagnosis in the context of attitudes about adolescent contraception. “These are issues not likely to be resolved easily, yet they are matters for every physician to consider in management of each case,” he said.

Dr. Rosenfield emphasized that clinicians must consider PCOS “in the general context of all causes of adolescent menstrual disturbances,” when evaluating a girl within 1-2 years of menarche who presents with a menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, and/or acne that has been resistant to topical treatment.

A key point on which the recommendations differ is whether further assessment is needed if the menstrual abnormality has persisted for 1 year (the 2018 recommendations) or 2 years (the 2015 and 2017 recommendations), Dr. Rosenfield explained. “What the conferees struggled with is differentiating how long after menarche a menstrual abnormality should persist to avoid confusing PCOS with normal immaturity of the menstrual cycle,” known as physiologic adolescent anovulation (PAA). “The degree of certainty is improved only modestly by waiting 2 years rather than 1 year to make a diagnosis.”

However, the three documents agree that girls suspected of having PCOS within the first 1-2 years after menarche should be evaluated at that time, and followed with a diagnosis of “at risk for PCOS” if the early test results are consistent with a PCOS diagnosis, he said.

Another point of difference among the groups is the extent to which hirsutism and acne represent clinical evidence of hyperandrogenism that justifies testing for biochemical hyperandrogenism, Dr. Rosenfield said.

“All three sets of adolescent PCOS recommendations agree that investigation for biochemical hyperandrogenism be initiated by measuring serum total and/or free testosterone by specialty assays with well-defined reference ranges,” he said.

However, “documentation of biochemical hyperandrogenism has been problematic because standard platform assays of testosterone give grossly inaccurate results.”

As for the management of PCOS in teens, “different perspectives about pharmacologic treatment [reflect] the multicultural views about adolescent contraception,” said Dr. Rosenfield. Guidelines in the United States favor estrogen-progestin combined oral contraceptives as first-line therapy, while the international guidelines support contraceptives if contraception also is desired; otherwise the 2017 guidelines recommend metformin as a first-line treatment.

“Agreement is uniform that healthy lifestyle management is first-line therapy for management of the associated obesity and metabolic disturbances, i.e., prior to and/or in conjunction with metformin therapy,” he noted.

In general, Dr. Rosenfield acknowledged that front-line clinicians cannot easily evaluate all early postmenarcheal girls for abnormal menstrual cycles. Instead, he advocated a “middle ground” approach between early diagnosis and potentially labeling a girl with a false positive diagnosis.

Postmenarcheal girls who are amenorrheic for 2 months could be assessed for signs of PCOS or pregnancy, and whether she is generally in good health, he said. “However, for example, if she remains amenorrheic for more than 90 days or if two successive periods are more than 2 months apart, laboratory screening would be reasonable.”

PCOS is “a diagnosis of exclusion for which referral to a specialist is advisable” to rule out other conditions such as non-classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia, hyperprolactinemia, endogenous Cushing syndrome, thyroid dysfunction, and virilizing tumors, said Dr. Rosenfield.

However, PCOS accounts for most cases of adolescent hyperandrogenism. The symptomatic treatment of early postmenarcheal girls at risk of PCOS is recommended to manage menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, acne, or obesity, and these girls should be reassessed by the time they finish high school after a 3-month treatment withdrawal period, he emphasized.

Dr. Rosenfield had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Rosenfield RL. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2020 June 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2020.06.017.

A trio of international expert recommendations mainly agree on essentials for the diagnosis and treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome in adolescents, but some confusion persists, according to Robert L. Rosenfield, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

In a commentary published in the Journal of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, Dr. Rosenfield, who convened one of the three conferences at which guidance was developed, noted that the three recommendations – published by the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the International Consortium of Paediatric Endocrinology, and the International PCOS Network in 2015, 2017, and 2018, respectively – “are fairly dense” and reviews have suggested a lack of agreement. His comments offer perspective and practice suggestions that follow the consensus of the recommendations.

“All the documents agree on the core diagnostic criteria for adolescent PCOS: otherwise unexplained evidence of ovulatory dysfunction, as indicated by menstrual abnormalities based on stage-appropriate standards, and evidence of an androgen excess disorder,” Dr. Rosenfield said.

The main differences among the recommendations from the three groups reflect tension between the value of an early diagnosis and the liabilities of a mistaken diagnosis in the context of attitudes about adolescent contraception. “These are issues not likely to be resolved easily, yet they are matters for every physician to consider in management of each case,” he said.

Dr. Rosenfield emphasized that clinicians must consider PCOS “in the general context of all causes of adolescent menstrual disturbances,” when evaluating a girl within 1-2 years of menarche who presents with a menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, and/or acne that has been resistant to topical treatment.

A key point on which the recommendations differ is whether further assessment is needed if the menstrual abnormality has persisted for 1 year (the 2018 recommendations) or 2 years (the 2015 and 2017 recommendations), Dr. Rosenfield explained. “What the conferees struggled with is differentiating how long after menarche a menstrual abnormality should persist to avoid confusing PCOS with normal immaturity of the menstrual cycle,” known as physiologic adolescent anovulation (PAA). “The degree of certainty is improved only modestly by waiting 2 years rather than 1 year to make a diagnosis.”

However, the three documents agree that girls suspected of having PCOS within the first 1-2 years after menarche should be evaluated at that time, and followed with a diagnosis of “at risk for PCOS” if the early test results are consistent with a PCOS diagnosis, he said.

Another point of difference among the groups is the extent to which hirsutism and acne represent clinical evidence of hyperandrogenism that justifies testing for biochemical hyperandrogenism, Dr. Rosenfield said.

“All three sets of adolescent PCOS recommendations agree that investigation for biochemical hyperandrogenism be initiated by measuring serum total and/or free testosterone by specialty assays with well-defined reference ranges,” he said.

However, “documentation of biochemical hyperandrogenism has been problematic because standard platform assays of testosterone give grossly inaccurate results.”

As for the management of PCOS in teens, “different perspectives about pharmacologic treatment [reflect] the multicultural views about adolescent contraception,” said Dr. Rosenfield. Guidelines in the United States favor estrogen-progestin combined oral contraceptives as first-line therapy, while the international guidelines support contraceptives if contraception also is desired; otherwise the 2017 guidelines recommend metformin as a first-line treatment.

“Agreement is uniform that healthy lifestyle management is first-line therapy for management of the associated obesity and metabolic disturbances, i.e., prior to and/or in conjunction with metformin therapy,” he noted.

In general, Dr. Rosenfield acknowledged that front-line clinicians cannot easily evaluate all early postmenarcheal girls for abnormal menstrual cycles. Instead, he advocated a “middle ground” approach between early diagnosis and potentially labeling a girl with a false positive diagnosis.

Postmenarcheal girls who are amenorrheic for 2 months could be assessed for signs of PCOS or pregnancy, and whether she is generally in good health, he said. “However, for example, if she remains amenorrheic for more than 90 days or if two successive periods are more than 2 months apart, laboratory screening would be reasonable.”

PCOS is “a diagnosis of exclusion for which referral to a specialist is advisable” to rule out other conditions such as non-classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia, hyperprolactinemia, endogenous Cushing syndrome, thyroid dysfunction, and virilizing tumors, said Dr. Rosenfield.

However, PCOS accounts for most cases of adolescent hyperandrogenism. The symptomatic treatment of early postmenarcheal girls at risk of PCOS is recommended to manage menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, acne, or obesity, and these girls should be reassessed by the time they finish high school after a 3-month treatment withdrawal period, he emphasized.

Dr. Rosenfield had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Rosenfield RL. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2020 June 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2020.06.017.

Children who were overweight or obese at ages 2-3 years and at 6-7 years were significantly more likely than were healthy-weight children to show cardiometabolic risk factors at 11-12 years in a population-based study of more than 5,000 children.

SolStock/iStock

Previous studies of the impact of childhood body mass index on cardiovascular disease have used a single BMI measurement, wrote Kate Lycett, PhD, of Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, and colleagues. “This overlooks the considerable physiologic changes in BMI throughout childhood as part of typical growth.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers examined overweight and obesity at five time points in a cohort of 5,107 infants by measuring BMI every 2 years between the ages of 2-3 years and 10-11 years.

Overall, children with consistently high BMI trajectories from age 3 years had the highest risk of metabolic syndrome. At age 6-7 years, overweight and obese children had, respectively, higher metabolic syndrome risk scores by 0.23 and 0.76 mean standard deviation (SD) units, compared with healthy-weight children; these associations approximately doubled by age 11-12 years.

In addition, obese children had higher pulse wave velocity (PWV) from age 6-7 years (0.64-0.73 standard deviation units) and slightly higher carotid artery intima-media thickness (cIMT) at all measured ages, compared with healthy-weight children (0.20-0.30 SD units).

The findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to evaluate the effects of BMI on actual cardiovascular disease because of the young age of the study population, the researchers noted.

However, the “results are in keeping with previous studies but provide additional important insights that suggest BMI from as early as 2 to 3 years of age is predictive of preclinical cardiometabolic phenotypes by ages 11 to 12 years,” Dr. Lycett and associates said. The results have implications for public health by highlighting the subclinical effects of obesity in childhood and the importance of early intervention, they concluded.

“This important and comprehensive study has two important implications: first, high BMI by age 2 to 3 tends to stay high, and second, normal BMI occasionally increases to high BMI, but the reverse is rarely true,” Sarah Armstrong, MD, Jennifer S. Li, MD, and Asheley C. Skinner, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1353).

The finding that children who were obese at age 3 years showed significant markers of silent atherosclerotic disease by age 11 years was “striking,” noted the editorialists, who are affiliated with Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“An important caveat is that although the relationships were significant, the amount of variance attributable directly to child BMI was small,” which highlights the complex relationship between obesity and health, they noted.

“Early-onset obesity is unlikely to change and, if it persists, will lead to detectable precursors of atherosclerosis by the time a child enters middle school,” and parents and primary care providers have an opportunity to “flatten the curve” by addressing BMI increases early in life to delay or prevent obesity, the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, The Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, The University of Melbourne, National Heart Foundation of Australia, Financial Markets Foundation for Children, and Victorian Deaf Education Institute. A number of the researchers were supported by grants from these and other universities and organizations. The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lycett K et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3666.

Children who were overweight or obese at ages 2-3 years and at 6-7 years were significantly more likely than were healthy-weight children to show cardiometabolic risk factors at 11-12 years in a population-based study of more than 5,000 children.

SolStock/iStock

Previous studies of the impact of childhood body mass index on cardiovascular disease have used a single BMI measurement, wrote Kate Lycett, PhD, of Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, and colleagues. “This overlooks the considerable physiologic changes in BMI throughout childhood as part of typical growth.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers examined overweight and obesity at five time points in a cohort of 5,107 infants by measuring BMI every 2 years between the ages of 2-3 years and 10-11 years.

Overall, children with consistently high BMI trajectories from age 3 years had the highest risk of metabolic syndrome. At age 6-7 years, overweight and obese children had, respectively, higher metabolic syndrome risk scores by 0.23 and 0.76 mean standard deviation (SD) units, compared with healthy-weight children; these associations approximately doubled by age 11-12 years.

In addition, obese children had higher pulse wave velocity (PWV) from age 6-7 years (0.64-0.73 standard deviation units) and slightly higher carotid artery intima-media thickness (cIMT) at all measured ages, compared with healthy-weight children (0.20-0.30 SD units).

The findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to evaluate the effects of BMI on actual cardiovascular disease because of the young age of the study population, the researchers noted.

However, the “results are in keeping with previous studies but provide additional important insights that suggest BMI from as early as 2 to 3 years of age is predictive of preclinical cardiometabolic phenotypes by ages 11 to 12 years,” Dr. Lycett and associates said. The results have implications for public health by highlighting the subclinical effects of obesity in childhood and the importance of early intervention, they concluded.

“This important and comprehensive study has two important implications: first, high BMI by age 2 to 3 tends to stay high, and second, normal BMI occasionally increases to high BMI, but the reverse is rarely true,” Sarah Armstrong, MD, Jennifer S. Li, MD, and Asheley C. Skinner, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1353).

The finding that children who were obese at age 3 years showed significant markers of silent atherosclerotic disease by age 11 years was “striking,” noted the editorialists, who are affiliated with Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“An important caveat is that although the relationships were significant, the amount of variance attributable directly to child BMI was small,” which highlights the complex relationship between obesity and health, they noted.

“Early-onset obesity is unlikely to change and, if it persists, will lead to detectable precursors of atherosclerosis by the time a child enters middle school,” and parents and primary care providers have an opportunity to “flatten the curve” by addressing BMI increases early in life to delay or prevent obesity, the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, The Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, The University of Melbourne, National Heart Foundation of Australia, Financial Markets Foundation for Children, and Victorian Deaf Education Institute. A number of the researchers were supported by grants from these and other universities and organizations. The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lycett K et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3666.

Children who were overweight or obese at ages 2-3 years and at 6-7 years were significantly more likely than were healthy-weight children to show cardiometabolic risk factors at 11-12 years in a population-based study of more than 5,000 children.

SolStock/iStock

Previous studies of the impact of childhood body mass index on cardiovascular disease have used a single BMI measurement, wrote Kate Lycett, PhD, of Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, and colleagues. “This overlooks the considerable physiologic changes in BMI throughout childhood as part of typical growth.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers examined overweight and obesity at five time points in a cohort of 5,107 infants by measuring BMI every 2 years between the ages of 2-3 years and 10-11 years.

Overall, children with consistently high BMI trajectories from age 3 years had the highest risk of metabolic syndrome. At age 6-7 years, overweight and obese children had, respectively, higher metabolic syndrome risk scores by 0.23 and 0.76 mean standard deviation (SD) units, compared with healthy-weight children; these associations approximately doubled by age 11-12 years.

In addition, obese children had higher pulse wave velocity (PWV) from age 6-7 years (0.64-0.73 standard deviation units) and slightly higher carotid artery intima-media thickness (cIMT) at all measured ages, compared with healthy-weight children (0.20-0.30 SD units).

The findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to evaluate the effects of BMI on actual cardiovascular disease because of the young age of the study population, the researchers noted.

However, the “results are in keeping with previous studies but provide additional important insights that suggest BMI from as early as 2 to 3 years of age is predictive of preclinical cardiometabolic phenotypes by ages 11 to 12 years,” Dr. Lycett and associates said. The results have implications for public health by highlighting the subclinical effects of obesity in childhood and the importance of early intervention, they concluded.

“This important and comprehensive study has two important implications: first, high BMI by age 2 to 3 tends to stay high, and second, normal BMI occasionally increases to high BMI, but the reverse is rarely true,” Sarah Armstrong, MD, Jennifer S. Li, MD, and Asheley C. Skinner, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1353).

The finding that children who were obese at age 3 years showed significant markers of silent atherosclerotic disease by age 11 years was “striking,” noted the editorialists, who are affiliated with Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“An important caveat is that although the relationships were significant, the amount of variance attributable directly to child BMI was small,” which highlights the complex relationship between obesity and health, they noted.

“Early-onset obesity is unlikely to change and, if it persists, will lead to detectable precursors of atherosclerosis by the time a child enters middle school,” and parents and primary care providers have an opportunity to “flatten the curve” by addressing BMI increases early in life to delay or prevent obesity, the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, The Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, The University of Melbourne, National Heart Foundation of Australia, Financial Markets Foundation for Children, and Victorian Deaf Education Institute. A number of the researchers were supported by grants from these and other universities and organizations. The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lycett K et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3666.

“Patients with type 2 diabetes should consider intermittent fasting carefully” and “not undertake it without the involvement of their physician,” stress the authors of a new viewpoint published online July 2 in JAMA.

This is because intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes has only been studied in seven small, short published trials of very different regimens, with limited evidence of benefit. In addition, some concerns arose from these studies.

Weight loss with intermittent fasting appears to be similar to that attained with caloric restriction, but in the case of those with diabetes, the best way to adjust glucose-lowering medicines to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia while practicing intermittent fasting has not been established, and there is potential for such fasting to cause glycemic variability.

The viewpoint’s lead author Benjamin D. Horne, PhD, MStat, MPH, from Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, and Stanford (Calif.) University, expanded on the issues in a podcast interview with JAMA editor in chief Howard C. Bauchner, MD.

Asked if he would advise intermittent fasting for patients with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Horne replied that he would recommend it, with caveats, “because of the safety issues – some of which are fairly benign for people who are apparently healthy but may be not quite as benign for people with type 2 diabetes.

“Things such as low blood pressure, weakness, headaches, [and] dizziness are considerations,” he continued, but “the big issue” is hypoglycemia, so caloric restriction may be a better choice for some patients with diabetes.

Dr. Horne said he likes to give patients options. “I’ve met quite a number of people who are very behind time-restricted feeding – eating during a 6- to 8-hour window,” he said. “If they are able to stay on it, they tend to really love it.”

The most popular regimen that results in some weight loss is fasting for 24 hours – with or without a 500-calorie meal – on 2 nonconsecutive days a week, the so-called 5:2 diet. And “as someone who’s in cardiovascular research,” Dr. Horne added, “the one that I’m thinking for long term is once-a-week fasting for a 24-hour period.”
 

Intermittent fasting: Less safe than calorie restriction in diabetes?

Patients who already have diabetes and lose weight benefit from improved glucose, blood pressure, and lipid levels, Dr. Horne and colleagues wrote.

Currently, intermittent fasting is popular in the lay press and on social media with claims of potential benefits for diabetes “that are as yet untested or unproven,” they added. In fact, “whether a patient with type 2 diabetes should engage in intermittent fasting involves a variety of concerns over safety and efficacy.”

Thus, they examined the existing evidence for the health effects and safety of intermittent fasting – defined as time-restricted feeding, or fasting on alternate days or during 1-4 days a week, with only water or also juice and bone broth, or no more than 700 calories allowed on fasting days – in patients with type 2 diabetes.

They found seven published studies of intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes, including five randomized clinical trials, of which only one study had more than 63 patients.

Intermittent fasting regimens in the studies included five fasting frequencies and most follow-up durations were 4 months or less, including 18-20 hours a day for 2 weeks; 2 days a week for 12 weeks (two studies) or for 12 months (one study); 3-4 days a week for 7-11 months; 4 days a week for 12 weeks; and 17 days in 4 months.

They all reported that intermittent fasting was tied to weight loss, and most (but not all) of the studies also found that it was associated with decreases in A1c and improved glucose levels, quality of life, and blood pressure, but not insulin resistance.

But this “heterogeneity of designs and regimens and the variance in results make it difficult to draw clinically meaningful direction,” Dr. Horne and colleagues observed.

Moreover, only one study addressed the relative safety of two intermittent fasting regimens, and it found that both regimens increased hypoglycemic events despite the use of a medication dose-change protocol.

Only one study explicitly compared intermittent fasting with caloric restriction, which found “that a twice-weekly intermittent fasting regimen improved [A1c] levels is promising,” the authors wrote.

However, that study showed only noninferiority for change in A1c level (–0.3% for intermittent fasting vs. –0.5% for caloric restriction).

The major implication, according to the viewpoint authors, is that “intermittent fasting may be less safe than caloric restriction although approximately equivalently effective.”

“Therefore,” they summarized, “until intermittent fasting is shown to be more effective than caloric restriction for reducing [A1c] or otherwise controlling diabetes, that study – and the limited other high-quality data – suggest that intermittent fasting regimens for patients with type 2 diabetes recommended by health professionals or promoted to the public should be limited to individuals for whom the risk of hypoglycemia is closely monitored and medications are carefully adjusted to ensure safety.”

Should continuous glucose monitoring to detect glycemic variability be considered?

Intermittent fasting may also bring wider fluctuations of glycemic control than simple calorie restriction, with hypoglycemia during fasting times and hyperglycemia during feeding times, which would not be reflected in A1c levels, Dr. Horne and colleagues pointed out.

“Studies have raised concern that glycemic variability leads to both microvascular (e.g., retinopathy) and macrovascular (e.g., coronary disease) complications in patients with type 2 diabetes,” they cautioned.

Therefore, “continuous glucose monitoring should be considered for studies of ... clinical interventions using intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes,” they concluded.

Dr. Horne has reported serving as principal investigator of grants for studies on intermittent fasting from the Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation. Disclosures of the other two authors are listed with the viewpoint.

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

“Patients with type 2 diabetes should consider intermittent fasting carefully” and “not undertake it without the involvement of their physician,” stress the authors of a new viewpoint published online July 2 in JAMA.

This is because intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes has only been studied in seven small, short published trials of very different regimens, with limited evidence of benefit. In addition, some concerns arose from these studies.

Weight loss with intermittent fasting appears to be similar to that attained with caloric restriction, but in the case of those with diabetes, the best way to adjust glucose-lowering medicines to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia while practicing intermittent fasting has not been established, and there is potential for such fasting to cause glycemic variability.

The viewpoint’s lead author Benjamin D. Horne, PhD, MStat, MPH, from Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, and Stanford (Calif.) University, expanded on the issues in a podcast interview with JAMA editor in chief Howard C. Bauchner, MD.

Asked if he would advise intermittent fasting for patients with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Horne replied that he would recommend it, with caveats, “because of the safety issues – some of which are fairly benign for people who are apparently healthy but may be not quite as benign for people with type 2 diabetes.

“Things such as low blood pressure, weakness, headaches, [and] dizziness are considerations,” he continued, but “the big issue” is hypoglycemia, so caloric restriction may be a better choice for some patients with diabetes.

Dr. Horne said he likes to give patients options. “I’ve met quite a number of people who are very behind time-restricted feeding – eating during a 6- to 8-hour window,” he said. “If they are able to stay on it, they tend to really love it.”

The most popular regimen that results in some weight loss is fasting for 24 hours – with or without a 500-calorie meal – on 2 nonconsecutive days a week, the so-called 5:2 diet. And “as someone who’s in cardiovascular research,” Dr. Horne added, “the one that I’m thinking for long term is once-a-week fasting for a 24-hour period.”
 

Intermittent fasting: Less safe than calorie restriction in diabetes?

Patients who already have diabetes and lose weight benefit from improved glucose, blood pressure, and lipid levels, Dr. Horne and colleagues wrote.

Currently, intermittent fasting is popular in the lay press and on social media with claims of potential benefits for diabetes “that are as yet untested or unproven,” they added. In fact, “whether a patient with type 2 diabetes should engage in intermittent fasting involves a variety of concerns over safety and efficacy.”

Thus, they examined the existing evidence for the health effects and safety of intermittent fasting – defined as time-restricted feeding, or fasting on alternate days or during 1-4 days a week, with only water or also juice and bone broth, or no more than 700 calories allowed on fasting days – in patients with type 2 diabetes.

They found seven published studies of intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes, including five randomized clinical trials, of which only one study had more than 63 patients.

Intermittent fasting regimens in the studies included five fasting frequencies and most follow-up durations were 4 months or less, including 18-20 hours a day for 2 weeks; 2 days a week for 12 weeks (two studies) or for 12 months (one study); 3-4 days a week for 7-11 months; 4 days a week for 12 weeks; and 17 days in 4 months.

They all reported that intermittent fasting was tied to weight loss, and most (but not all) of the studies also found that it was associated with decreases in A1c and improved glucose levels, quality of life, and blood pressure, but not insulin resistance.

But this “heterogeneity of designs and regimens and the variance in results make it difficult to draw clinically meaningful direction,” Dr. Horne and colleagues observed.

Moreover, only one study addressed the relative safety of two intermittent fasting regimens, and it found that both regimens increased hypoglycemic events despite the use of a medication dose-change protocol.

Only one study explicitly compared intermittent fasting with caloric restriction, which found “that a twice-weekly intermittent fasting regimen improved [A1c] levels is promising,” the authors wrote.

However, that study showed only noninferiority for change in A1c level (–0.3% for intermittent fasting vs. –0.5% for caloric restriction).

The major implication, according to the viewpoint authors, is that “intermittent fasting may be less safe than caloric restriction although approximately equivalently effective.”

“Therefore,” they summarized, “until intermittent fasting is shown to be more effective than caloric restriction for reducing [A1c] or otherwise controlling diabetes, that study – and the limited other high-quality data – suggest that intermittent fasting regimens for patients with type 2 diabetes recommended by health professionals or promoted to the public should be limited to individuals for whom the risk of hypoglycemia is closely monitored and medications are carefully adjusted to ensure safety.”

Should continuous glucose monitoring to detect glycemic variability be considered?

Intermittent fasting may also bring wider fluctuations of glycemic control than simple calorie restriction, with hypoglycemia during fasting times and hyperglycemia during feeding times, which would not be reflected in A1c levels, Dr. Horne and colleagues pointed out.

“Studies have raised concern that glycemic variability leads to both microvascular (e.g., retinopathy) and macrovascular (e.g., coronary disease) complications in patients with type 2 diabetes,” they cautioned.

Therefore, “continuous glucose monitoring should be considered for studies of ... clinical interventions using intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes,” they concluded.

Dr. Horne has reported serving as principal investigator of grants for studies on intermittent fasting from the Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation. Disclosures of the other two authors are listed with the viewpoint.

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

“Patients with type 2 diabetes should consider intermittent fasting carefully” and “not undertake it without the involvement of their physician,” stress the authors of a new viewpoint published online July 2 in JAMA.

This is because intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes has only been studied in seven small, short published trials of very different regimens, with limited evidence of benefit. In addition, some concerns arose from these studies.

Weight loss with intermittent fasting appears to be similar to that attained with caloric restriction, but in the case of those with diabetes, the best way to adjust glucose-lowering medicines to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia while practicing intermittent fasting has not been established, and there is potential for such fasting to cause glycemic variability.

The viewpoint’s lead author Benjamin D. Horne, PhD, MStat, MPH, from Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, and Stanford (Calif.) University, expanded on the issues in a podcast interview with JAMA editor in chief Howard C. Bauchner, MD.

Asked if he would advise intermittent fasting for patients with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Horne replied that he would recommend it, with caveats, “because of the safety issues – some of which are fairly benign for people who are apparently healthy but may be not quite as benign for people with type 2 diabetes.

“Things such as low blood pressure, weakness, headaches, [and] dizziness are considerations,” he continued, but “the big issue” is hypoglycemia, so caloric restriction may be a better choice for some patients with diabetes.

Dr. Horne said he likes to give patients options. “I’ve met quite a number of people who are very behind time-restricted feeding – eating during a 6- to 8-hour window,” he said. “If they are able to stay on it, they tend to really love it.”

The most popular regimen that results in some weight loss is fasting for 24 hours – with or without a 500-calorie meal – on 2 nonconsecutive days a week, the so-called 5:2 diet. And “as someone who’s in cardiovascular research,” Dr. Horne added, “the one that I’m thinking for long term is once-a-week fasting for a 24-hour period.”
 

Intermittent fasting: Less safe than calorie restriction in diabetes?

Patients who already have diabetes and lose weight benefit from improved glucose, blood pressure, and lipid levels, Dr. Horne and colleagues wrote.

Currently, intermittent fasting is popular in the lay press and on social media with claims of potential benefits for diabetes “that are as yet untested or unproven,” they added. In fact, “whether a patient with type 2 diabetes should engage in intermittent fasting involves a variety of concerns over safety and efficacy.”

Thus, they examined the existing evidence for the health effects and safety of intermittent fasting – defined as time-restricted feeding, or fasting on alternate days or during 1-4 days a week, with only water or also juice and bone broth, or no more than 700 calories allowed on fasting days – in patients with type 2 diabetes.

They found seven published studies of intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes, including five randomized clinical trials, of which only one study had more than 63 patients.

Intermittent fasting regimens in the studies included five fasting frequencies and most follow-up durations were 4 months or less, including 18-20 hours a day for 2 weeks; 2 days a week for 12 weeks (two studies) or for 12 months (one study); 3-4 days a week for 7-11 months; 4 days a week for 12 weeks; and 17 days in 4 months.

They all reported that intermittent fasting was tied to weight loss, and most (but not all) of the studies also found that it was associated with decreases in A1c and improved glucose levels, quality of life, and blood pressure, but not insulin resistance.

But this “heterogeneity of designs and regimens and the variance in results make it difficult to draw clinically meaningful direction,” Dr. Horne and colleagues observed.

Moreover, only one study addressed the relative safety of two intermittent fasting regimens, and it found that both regimens increased hypoglycemic events despite the use of a medication dose-change protocol.

Only one study explicitly compared intermittent fasting with caloric restriction, which found “that a twice-weekly intermittent fasting regimen improved [A1c] levels is promising,” the authors wrote.

However, that study showed only noninferiority for change in A1c level (–0.3% for intermittent fasting vs. –0.5% for caloric restriction).

The major implication, according to the viewpoint authors, is that “intermittent fasting may be less safe than caloric restriction although approximately equivalently effective.”

“Therefore,” they summarized, “until intermittent fasting is shown to be more effective than caloric restriction for reducing [A1c] or otherwise controlling diabetes, that study – and the limited other high-quality data – suggest that intermittent fasting regimens for patients with type 2 diabetes recommended by health professionals or promoted to the public should be limited to individuals for whom the risk of hypoglycemia is closely monitored and medications are carefully adjusted to ensure safety.”

Should continuous glucose monitoring to detect glycemic variability be considered?

Intermittent fasting may also bring wider fluctuations of glycemic control than simple calorie restriction, with hypoglycemia during fasting times and hyperglycemia during feeding times, which would not be reflected in A1c levels, Dr. Horne and colleagues pointed out.

“Studies have raised concern that glycemic variability leads to both microvascular (e.g., retinopathy) and macrovascular (e.g., coronary disease) complications in patients with type 2 diabetes,” they cautioned.

Therefore, “continuous glucose monitoring should be considered for studies of ... clinical interventions using intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes,” they concluded.

Dr. Horne has reported serving as principal investigator of grants for studies on intermittent fasting from the Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation. Disclosures of the other two authors are listed with the viewpoint.

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

Transcatheter bariatric embolotherapy (TBE) provides sustained weight loss without serious adverse effects among obese patients, results of a pilot sham-controlled study suggest.

At 6-month follow-up, the patients receiving the intervention had lost 7.4 kg (16.3 lbs), compared with 3.0 kg (6.6 lbs) in those randomized to a sham procedure in an intention-to-treat analysis (P = .034).

Results were similar in a per-protocol analysis (9.4 kg/20.7 lbs vs. 1.9 kg/4.1 lbs; P = .0002).

Weight loss after embolotherapy was sustained over 12 months, falling 7.8 kg (17.1 lbs) from baseline in the intention-to-treat population (P = .0011) and 9.3 kg (20.5 lbs) in the per-protocol population (P = .0005).

Safety events after TBE were mild nausea or vomiting, reported Vivek Reddy, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City. Five participants had minor, asymptomatic ulcers that required no additional treatment.

“In this randomized pilot trial, we established the proof of principle that transcatheter bariatric embolotherapy of the left gastric artery is safe and it promotes clinically significant weight loss,” he concluded at PCR e-Course, the virtual meeting of the Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions 2020.

Although bariatric surgery is highly effective, he noted that the associated morbidity and mortality limit its use to the severely obese with a body mass index (BMI) typically over 40 kg/m².

TBE is a minimally invasive approach that uses a custom occlusion balloon microcatheter and robotic manifold to inject 300- to 500-mcm beads to the left gastric artery. Preclinical and case studies suggest it promotes weight loss by reducing ghrelin, an appetite-stimulating hormone secreted from the gastric fundus, Dr. Reddy said.

The study enrolled 44 patients (aged 21-60 years) with a BMI of 35-55, excluding those with prior bariatric surgery and a history of ulcers, type 2 diabetes, chronic aspirin or nonsteroidal inflammatory use, and active Helicobacter pylori infection.

A total of 40 patients were randomly assigned to TBE or a sham procedure, in which lidocaine was applied to the femoral area and propofol infused for 1 hour. The two groups were well matched, with a mean age of 45 vs. 46 years, weight of 110 kg vs. 119 kg, and BMI of 39 vs. 40, Dr. Reddy noted.

Embolotherapy was performed at a single center in Prague, and, on average, took 82.3 minutes and used 127 mL of contrast, 163 Gy/cm² radiation, and 4.2 mL of microspheres. A single vessel was injected in 80% of cases.

The intention-to-treat population comprised 19 TBE and 18 control subjects, and the per-protocol population comprised 15 TBE and 16 control subjects, after the exclusion of patients in whom embolotherapy was unsuccessful or incomplete or who withdrew consent.

All patients received endoscopy at baseline and 1 week, as well as an intensive 19-session lifestyle and dietary education intervention out to 6 months.

Patients who underwent TBE had significant improvement in hunger scores at 6 and 12 months, compared with baseline. Similarly, quality of life improved across all six domains, including significant gains in physical function, self-esteem, and overall quality of life at both time points, Dr. Reddy reported.

Dr. Reddy disclosed receiving research support from Endobar Solutions.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Transcatheter bariatric embolotherapy (TBE) provides sustained weight loss without serious adverse effects among obese patients, results of a pilot sham-controlled study suggest.

At 6-month follow-up, the patients receiving the intervention had lost 7.4 kg (16.3 lbs), compared with 3.0 kg (6.6 lbs) in those randomized to a sham procedure in an intention-to-treat analysis (P = .034).

Results were similar in a per-protocol analysis (9.4 kg/20.7 lbs vs. 1.9 kg/4.1 lbs; P = .0002).

Weight loss after embolotherapy was sustained over 12 months, falling 7.8 kg (17.1 lbs) from baseline in the intention-to-treat population (P = .0011) and 9.3 kg (20.5 lbs) in the per-protocol population (P = .0005).

Safety events after TBE were mild nausea or vomiting, reported Vivek Reddy, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City. Five participants had minor, asymptomatic ulcers that required no additional treatment.

“In this randomized pilot trial, we established the proof of principle that transcatheter bariatric embolotherapy of the left gastric artery is safe and it promotes clinically significant weight loss,” he concluded at PCR e-Course, the virtual meeting of the Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions 2020.

Although bariatric surgery is highly effective, he noted that the associated morbidity and mortality limit its use to the severely obese with a body mass index (BMI) typically over 40 kg/m².

TBE is a minimally invasive approach that uses a custom occlusion balloon microcatheter and robotic manifold to inject 300- to 500-mcm beads to the left gastric artery. Preclinical and case studies suggest it promotes weight loss by reducing ghrelin, an appetite-stimulating hormone secreted from the gastric fundus, Dr. Reddy said.

The study enrolled 44 patients (aged 21-60 years) with a BMI of 35-55, excluding those with prior bariatric surgery and a history of ulcers, type 2 diabetes, chronic aspirin or nonsteroidal inflammatory use, and active Helicobacter pylori infection.

A total of 40 patients were randomly assigned to TBE or a sham procedure, in which lidocaine was applied to the femoral area and propofol infused for 1 hour. The two groups were well matched, with a mean age of 45 vs. 46 years, weight of 110 kg vs. 119 kg, and BMI of 39 vs. 40, Dr. Reddy noted.

Embolotherapy was performed at a single center in Prague, and, on average, took 82.3 minutes and used 127 mL of contrast, 163 Gy/cm² radiation, and 4.2 mL of microspheres. A single vessel was injected in 80% of cases.

The intention-to-treat population comprised 19 TBE and 18 control subjects, and the per-protocol population comprised 15 TBE and 16 control subjects, after the exclusion of patients in whom embolotherapy was unsuccessful or incomplete or who withdrew consent.

All patients received endoscopy at baseline and 1 week, as well as an intensive 19-session lifestyle and dietary education intervention out to 6 months.

Patients who underwent TBE had significant improvement in hunger scores at 6 and 12 months, compared with baseline. Similarly, quality of life improved across all six domains, including significant gains in physical function, self-esteem, and overall quality of life at both time points, Dr. Reddy reported.

Dr. Reddy disclosed receiving research support from Endobar Solutions.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Transcatheter bariatric embolotherapy (TBE) provides sustained weight loss without serious adverse effects among obese patients, results of a pilot sham-controlled study suggest.

At 6-month follow-up, the patients receiving the intervention had lost 7.4 kg (16.3 lbs), compared with 3.0 kg (6.6 lbs) in those randomized to a sham procedure in an intention-to-treat analysis (P = .034).

Results were similar in a per-protocol analysis (9.4 kg/20.7 lbs vs. 1.9 kg/4.1 lbs; P = .0002).

Weight loss after embolotherapy was sustained over 12 months, falling 7.8 kg (17.1 lbs) from baseline in the intention-to-treat population (P = .0011) and 9.3 kg (20.5 lbs) in the per-protocol population (P = .0005).

Safety events after TBE were mild nausea or vomiting, reported Vivek Reddy, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City. Five participants had minor, asymptomatic ulcers that required no additional treatment.

“In this randomized pilot trial, we established the proof of principle that transcatheter bariatric embolotherapy of the left gastric artery is safe and it promotes clinically significant weight loss,” he concluded at PCR e-Course, the virtual meeting of the Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions 2020.

Although bariatric surgery is highly effective, he noted that the associated morbidity and mortality limit its use to the severely obese with a body mass index (BMI) typically over 40 kg/m².

TBE is a minimally invasive approach that uses a custom occlusion balloon microcatheter and robotic manifold to inject 300- to 500-mcm beads to the left gastric artery. Preclinical and case studies suggest it promotes weight loss by reducing ghrelin, an appetite-stimulating hormone secreted from the gastric fundus, Dr. Reddy said.

The study enrolled 44 patients (aged 21-60 years) with a BMI of 35-55, excluding those with prior bariatric surgery and a history of ulcers, type 2 diabetes, chronic aspirin or nonsteroidal inflammatory use, and active Helicobacter pylori infection.

A total of 40 patients were randomly assigned to TBE or a sham procedure, in which lidocaine was applied to the femoral area and propofol infused for 1 hour. The two groups were well matched, with a mean age of 45 vs. 46 years, weight of 110 kg vs. 119 kg, and BMI of 39 vs. 40, Dr. Reddy noted.

Embolotherapy was performed at a single center in Prague, and, on average, took 82.3 minutes and used 127 mL of contrast, 163 Gy/cm² radiation, and 4.2 mL of microspheres. A single vessel was injected in 80% of cases.

The intention-to-treat population comprised 19 TBE and 18 control subjects, and the per-protocol population comprised 15 TBE and 16 control subjects, after the exclusion of patients in whom embolotherapy was unsuccessful or incomplete or who withdrew consent.

All patients received endoscopy at baseline and 1 week, as well as an intensive 19-session lifestyle and dietary education intervention out to 6 months.

Patients who underwent TBE had significant improvement in hunger scores at 6 and 12 months, compared with baseline. Similarly, quality of life improved across all six domains, including significant gains in physical function, self-esteem, and overall quality of life at both time points, Dr. Reddy reported.

Dr. Reddy disclosed receiving research support from Endobar Solutions.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Not all weight loss surgery patients “live happily ever after,” according to Daniel B. Jones, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

A 2014 study of 22 women who underwent weight loss surgery reported lower energy, worse quality of life, and persistent eating disorders, Dr. Jones said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium by Global Academy for Medical Education.

However, postprocedure problems don’t always equal regrets, he said. “Although many women [in the 2014 study] reported negative thoughts and health issues after weight loss surgery, none of them said they regret undergoing the procedure,” he noted.

To further examine decision regret in patients who underwent gastric bypass and gastric banding, Dr. Jones participated in a study of patients’ attitudes 4 years after gastric bypass and gastric banding (Obes Surg. 2019;29:1624-31).

“Weight loss surgery is neither risk free nor universally effective, yet few studies have examined what proportion of patients regret having undergone weight loss surgery,” he noted.

Dr. Jones and colleagues interviewed patients at two weight loss surgery centers and used specific metrics and a multivariate analysis to examine associations among weight loss, quality of life, and decision regret.

A total of 205 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) patients responded at 1 year after surgery: 181, 156, and 134 patients responded at 2, 3, and 4 years, respectively.

At 1 year, 2% reported regret and that they would not choose the surgery again, and by 4 years, 5% reported regret, based on overall regret scores greater than 50. In addition, 13% of patients at 1 year and 4 years reported that weight loss surgery caused “some” or “a lot” of negative effects.

The researchers also interviewed gastric band patients: 170, 157, 146, and 123 responded at years 1,2,3, and 4.

Overall, 8% of these patients expressed regret at 1 year, and 20% expressed regret at 4 years, said Dr. Jones.

“Almost 20% did not think they made the right decision,” he said.

Weight loss was a key driver in regret among gastric banding patients, Dr. Jones noted. An average weight loss of 7.4% of excess body weight was associated with regret scores greater than 50, while an average weight loss of 21.1% was associated with regret scores less than 50, he said.

In addition, poor sexual function, but not weight loss or other quality-of-life factors was significantly associated with regret among RYGB patients.

Many surgeons are performing sleeve gastrectomies, which appear to yield greater weight loss than gastric banding and fewer complications than gastric bypass, said Dr. Jones. His study did not include sleeve gastrectomies, but “I expect a sleeve gastrectomy to do pretty well in this analysis,” and to be associated with less patient regret, he said.

Overall, better patient education is key to improving patients’ experiences and reducing feelings of regret, said Dr. Jones.

“The better patients understand the difference between band, bypass, and sleeve preoperatively, the better we can set expectations,” he said. Dr. Jones’ institution has developed an app for laparoscopic sleeve that guides patients through the process from preop through postoperative stay, he noted.

Given the association between amount of weight lost and regret, “setting expectations is very important,” and could include not only written consent but also webinars, information sessions, and apps for patients in advance to help mitigate regrets after the procedure, Dr. Jones concluded.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Jones disclosed serving on the medical advisory board for Allurion.

Not all weight loss surgery patients “live happily ever after,” according to Daniel B. Jones, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

A 2014 study of 22 women who underwent weight loss surgery reported lower energy, worse quality of life, and persistent eating disorders, Dr. Jones said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium by Global Academy for Medical Education.

However, postprocedure problems don’t always equal regrets, he said. “Although many women [in the 2014 study] reported negative thoughts and health issues after weight loss surgery, none of them said they regret undergoing the procedure,” he noted.

To further examine decision regret in patients who underwent gastric bypass and gastric banding, Dr. Jones participated in a study of patients’ attitudes 4 years after gastric bypass and gastric banding (Obes Surg. 2019;29:1624-31).

“Weight loss surgery is neither risk free nor universally effective, yet few studies have examined what proportion of patients regret having undergone weight loss surgery,” he noted.

Dr. Jones and colleagues interviewed patients at two weight loss surgery centers and used specific metrics and a multivariate analysis to examine associations among weight loss, quality of life, and decision regret.

A total of 205 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) patients responded at 1 year after surgery: 181, 156, and 134 patients responded at 2, 3, and 4 years, respectively.

At 1 year, 2% reported regret and that they would not choose the surgery again, and by 4 years, 5% reported regret, based on overall regret scores greater than 50. In addition, 13% of patients at 1 year and 4 years reported that weight loss surgery caused “some” or “a lot” of negative effects.

The researchers also interviewed gastric band patients: 170, 157, 146, and 123 responded at years 1,2,3, and 4.

Overall, 8% of these patients expressed regret at 1 year, and 20% expressed regret at 4 years, said Dr. Jones.

“Almost 20% did not think they made the right decision,” he said.

Weight loss was a key driver in regret among gastric banding patients, Dr. Jones noted. An average weight loss of 7.4% of excess body weight was associated with regret scores greater than 50, while an average weight loss of 21.1% was associated with regret scores less than 50, he said.

In addition, poor sexual function, but not weight loss or other quality-of-life factors was significantly associated with regret among RYGB patients.

Many surgeons are performing sleeve gastrectomies, which appear to yield greater weight loss than gastric banding and fewer complications than gastric bypass, said Dr. Jones. His study did not include sleeve gastrectomies, but “I expect a sleeve gastrectomy to do pretty well in this analysis,” and to be associated with less patient regret, he said.

Overall, better patient education is key to improving patients’ experiences and reducing feelings of regret, said Dr. Jones.

“The better patients understand the difference between band, bypass, and sleeve preoperatively, the better we can set expectations,” he said. Dr. Jones’ institution has developed an app for laparoscopic sleeve that guides patients through the process from preop through postoperative stay, he noted.

Given the association between amount of weight lost and regret, “setting expectations is very important,” and could include not only written consent but also webinars, information sessions, and apps for patients in advance to help mitigate regrets after the procedure, Dr. Jones concluded.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Jones disclosed serving on the medical advisory board for Allurion.

Not all weight loss surgery patients “live happily ever after,” according to Daniel B. Jones, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

A 2014 study of 22 women who underwent weight loss surgery reported lower energy, worse quality of life, and persistent eating disorders, Dr. Jones said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium by Global Academy for Medical Education.

However, postprocedure problems don’t always equal regrets, he said. “Although many women [in the 2014 study] reported negative thoughts and health issues after weight loss surgery, none of them said they regret undergoing the procedure,” he noted.

To further examine decision regret in patients who underwent gastric bypass and gastric banding, Dr. Jones participated in a study of patients’ attitudes 4 years after gastric bypass and gastric banding (Obes Surg. 2019;29:1624-31).

“Weight loss surgery is neither risk free nor universally effective, yet few studies have examined what proportion of patients regret having undergone weight loss surgery,” he noted.

Dr. Jones and colleagues interviewed patients at two weight loss surgery centers and used specific metrics and a multivariate analysis to examine associations among weight loss, quality of life, and decision regret.

A total of 205 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) patients responded at 1 year after surgery: 181, 156, and 134 patients responded at 2, 3, and 4 years, respectively.

At 1 year, 2% reported regret and that they would not choose the surgery again, and by 4 years, 5% reported regret, based on overall regret scores greater than 50. In addition, 13% of patients at 1 year and 4 years reported that weight loss surgery caused “some” or “a lot” of negative effects.

The researchers also interviewed gastric band patients: 170, 157, 146, and 123 responded at years 1,2,3, and 4.

Overall, 8% of these patients expressed regret at 1 year, and 20% expressed regret at 4 years, said Dr. Jones.

“Almost 20% did not think they made the right decision,” he said.

Weight loss was a key driver in regret among gastric banding patients, Dr. Jones noted. An average weight loss of 7.4% of excess body weight was associated with regret scores greater than 50, while an average weight loss of 21.1% was associated with regret scores less than 50, he said.

In addition, poor sexual function, but not weight loss or other quality-of-life factors was significantly associated with regret among RYGB patients.

Many surgeons are performing sleeve gastrectomies, which appear to yield greater weight loss than gastric banding and fewer complications than gastric bypass, said Dr. Jones. His study did not include sleeve gastrectomies, but “I expect a sleeve gastrectomy to do pretty well in this analysis,” and to be associated with less patient regret, he said.

Overall, better patient education is key to improving patients’ experiences and reducing feelings of regret, said Dr. Jones.

“The better patients understand the difference between band, bypass, and sleeve preoperatively, the better we can set expectations,” he said. Dr. Jones’ institution has developed an app for laparoscopic sleeve that guides patients through the process from preop through postoperative stay, he noted.

Given the association between amount of weight lost and regret, “setting expectations is very important,” and could include not only written consent but also webinars, information sessions, and apps for patients in advance to help mitigate regrets after the procedure, Dr. Jones concluded.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Jones disclosed serving on the medical advisory board for Allurion.

Bariatric surgery may yield increases in muscle mass from baseline among older adults, findings from a small study suggest.

Although bariatric surgery can be used to treat obesity and related comorbidities in older adults, “here are concerns of excess loss of muscle mass after bariatric surgery, especially in elderly patients whose muscle tends to be less, compared to younger patients, at baseline,” wrote Moiz Dawood, MD, of Banner Gateway Medical Center, Gilbert, Ariz., and colleagues.

In a study presented in a poster at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education, the researchers reviewed data from 89 adults older than 65 years (74% women) who underwent either laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (87 patients) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (2 patients) between May 2015 and March 2017.

At baseline, the average total body weight was 251 pounds and the average muscle mass percent was 50%. At 12 months after surgery, the average weight of the patients decreased to 197 pounds and the percentage of muscle mass increased to 55% (P < .001 for both).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and retrospective design. However, the results support the benefits of bariatric surgery for older adults, not only with reductions in total body weight loss, but also increasing the total percentage of muscle mass, the researchers said.

The study is important in light of the ongoing discussion regarding the age limit for bariatric surgery, Dr. Dawood said in an interview. “Currently there is no upper age cutoff for patients who undergo bariatric surgery, and understanding the relationship between muscle mass and bariatric surgery would help in determining if there was a negative relationship,” he said.

“The results definitely point toward evidence that suggests that elderly patients do not lose muscle mass to a significant degree,” Dr. Dawood noted. “Muscle mass definitions and calculations also include variables such as weight and fat content. With the additional loss in weight after surgery, it was expected that the muscle mass composition would be affected,” he explained. “However, the results clearly show that even up to 1 year after surgery, older patients who lose weight do not lose significant weight from their muscle mass,” he noted.

The take-home message for clinicians, said Dr. Dawood, is “to understand that metabolic and bariatric surgery, when performed cohesively in a unified program that focuses on lifestyle and dietary changes, is the best way to achieve sustained weight loss.” He added, “this study indicates that physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery are not detrimental in the elderly population.”

Next steps for research include further studies in the elderly population to examine the physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery, said Dr. Dawood. “Being able to characterize the metabolic changes will help in answering the question of whether there is an upper age cut-off for patients undergoing bariatric surgery.”

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Bariatric surgery may yield increases in muscle mass from baseline among older adults, findings from a small study suggest.

Although bariatric surgery can be used to treat obesity and related comorbidities in older adults, “here are concerns of excess loss of muscle mass after bariatric surgery, especially in elderly patients whose muscle tends to be less, compared to younger patients, at baseline,” wrote Moiz Dawood, MD, of Banner Gateway Medical Center, Gilbert, Ariz., and colleagues.

In a study presented in a poster at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education, the researchers reviewed data from 89 adults older than 65 years (74% women) who underwent either laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (87 patients) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (2 patients) between May 2015 and March 2017.

At baseline, the average total body weight was 251 pounds and the average muscle mass percent was 50%. At 12 months after surgery, the average weight of the patients decreased to 197 pounds and the percentage of muscle mass increased to 55% (P < .001 for both).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and retrospective design. However, the results support the benefits of bariatric surgery for older adults, not only with reductions in total body weight loss, but also increasing the total percentage of muscle mass, the researchers said.

The study is important in light of the ongoing discussion regarding the age limit for bariatric surgery, Dr. Dawood said in an interview. “Currently there is no upper age cutoff for patients who undergo bariatric surgery, and understanding the relationship between muscle mass and bariatric surgery would help in determining if there was a negative relationship,” he said.

“The results definitely point toward evidence that suggests that elderly patients do not lose muscle mass to a significant degree,” Dr. Dawood noted. “Muscle mass definitions and calculations also include variables such as weight and fat content. With the additional loss in weight after surgery, it was expected that the muscle mass composition would be affected,” he explained. “However, the results clearly show that even up to 1 year after surgery, older patients who lose weight do not lose significant weight from their muscle mass,” he noted.

The take-home message for clinicians, said Dr. Dawood, is “to understand that metabolic and bariatric surgery, when performed cohesively in a unified program that focuses on lifestyle and dietary changes, is the best way to achieve sustained weight loss.” He added, “this study indicates that physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery are not detrimental in the elderly population.”

Next steps for research include further studies in the elderly population to examine the physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery, said Dr. Dawood. “Being able to characterize the metabolic changes will help in answering the question of whether there is an upper age cut-off for patients undergoing bariatric surgery.”

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Bariatric surgery may yield increases in muscle mass from baseline among older adults, findings from a small study suggest.

Although bariatric surgery can be used to treat obesity and related comorbidities in older adults, “here are concerns of excess loss of muscle mass after bariatric surgery, especially in elderly patients whose muscle tends to be less, compared to younger patients, at baseline,” wrote Moiz Dawood, MD, of Banner Gateway Medical Center, Gilbert, Ariz., and colleagues.

In a study presented in a poster at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education, the researchers reviewed data from 89 adults older than 65 years (74% women) who underwent either laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (87 patients) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (2 patients) between May 2015 and March 2017.

At baseline, the average total body weight was 251 pounds and the average muscle mass percent was 50%. At 12 months after surgery, the average weight of the patients decreased to 197 pounds and the percentage of muscle mass increased to 55% (P < .001 for both).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and retrospective design. However, the results support the benefits of bariatric surgery for older adults, not only with reductions in total body weight loss, but also increasing the total percentage of muscle mass, the researchers said.

The study is important in light of the ongoing discussion regarding the age limit for bariatric surgery, Dr. Dawood said in an interview. “Currently there is no upper age cutoff for patients who undergo bariatric surgery, and understanding the relationship between muscle mass and bariatric surgery would help in determining if there was a negative relationship,” he said.

“The results definitely point toward evidence that suggests that elderly patients do not lose muscle mass to a significant degree,” Dr. Dawood noted. “Muscle mass definitions and calculations also include variables such as weight and fat content. With the additional loss in weight after surgery, it was expected that the muscle mass composition would be affected,” he explained. “However, the results clearly show that even up to 1 year after surgery, older patients who lose weight do not lose significant weight from their muscle mass,” he noted.

The take-home message for clinicians, said Dr. Dawood, is “to understand that metabolic and bariatric surgery, when performed cohesively in a unified program that focuses on lifestyle and dietary changes, is the best way to achieve sustained weight loss.” He added, “this study indicates that physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery are not detrimental in the elderly population.”

Next steps for research include further studies in the elderly population to examine the physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery, said Dr. Dawood. “Being able to characterize the metabolic changes will help in answering the question of whether there is an upper age cut-off for patients undergoing bariatric surgery.”

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with COVID-19 develop a distinct subset of pancreatitis hallmarked by duodenal and periduodenal inflammation, according to a recent case series.

Although all five patients presented with multiple predictive markers of severe pancreatitis, the subsequent clinical pathway “was much more benign than anticipated,” reported lead author Peter Szatmary, MB, BChir, PhD, of the University of Liverpool (England) and colleagues. Still, they noted prolonged hospital stays because of persistent inflammation and poor diabetic control.

“As the global pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 continues, nuances of the disease it precipitates in humans continue to emerge,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “[A] group from Wuhan reported a series of 9 patients with purported pancreatic injury in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but did not provide robust evidence for pancreatitis relying on mild hyperamylasemia alone.”

For the present series, Dr. Szatmary and colleagues restricted diagnosis of pancreatitis to international consensus guidelines, which require “abdominal pain consistent with pancreatitis, serum amylase/lipase greater than three times the upper limit of normal, and characteristic findings on cross-sectional imaging.”

From middle of March to late April, the investigators identified 35 patients with acute pancreatitis at Royal Liverpool (England) University Hospital, 25 of whom tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, which resulted in study exclusion. An additional five patients were excluded from the series as another etiology for pancreatitis was clearly present, such as gallstones.

“The remaining 5 patients, all with SARS-CoV-2, presented atypically yet homogenously with a distinct metabolic-pancreatitis phenotype,” the investigators wrote.

All five patients were obese or overweight young men with a median body mass index of 30 kg/m² and age of 42 years. On presentation, all patients had elevated, but nondiagnostic, levels of amylase (median, 149 U/L). Contrast-enhanced abdominal CT revealed moderate to severe hepatic steatosis (less than 104 HU), which rapidly regressed within a week among patients who underwent repeat imaging.

“The pattern of pancreatic inflammation was similarly unusual in these patients,” the investigators wrote, going on to describe “mild pancreatic edema without significant pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis, with distinct duodenal/periduodenal inflammation involving the second and third part of the duodenum.”

According to Dr. Szatmary and colleagues, these findings were “accompanied by a profound systemic inflammatory response,” including 1-2 criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome that increased to 2-4 criteria within 48 hours. During hospitalization, patients also exhibited a “dramatic elevation” of C-reactive protein, from a median of 31 mg/L upon admission to 485 mg/L within 48 hours.

Although these markers predicted severe disease, all cases followed a clinical course similar to “a typical attack of moderate pancreatitis,” the investigators wrote.

All patients were treated with IV fluids, four out of five received broad-spectrum IV antibiotics for pneumonitis, three out of five received fibrate and/or insulin therapy, and two out of five received pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. No patients required corticosteroids, organ support, or respiratory support beyond low-flow oxygen. Median hospital stay was 14 days.

“We ... propose the combination of male sex, abdominal pain, metabolic stress, and CT-findings of predominantly pancreatico-duodenal inflammation with steatosis represent a distinct subset of pancreatitis in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2,” the investigators wrote.

They suggested that the endocrine pancreas may be “particularly vulnerable to this infection,” citing prolonged hospital stays because of poor diabetic control.

“[T]ransient dyslipidemias and impaired glucose tolerance may be common in SARS-CoV-2 patients and warrant further investigation,” they concluded.

Oscar J. Hines, MD, chief of the division of general surgery at UCLA Medical Center and leader in the field of pancreatitis management, said that the case series has a limited impact.

“The findings are unlikely to change practice and only call attention for physicians to the possibility of pancreatitis in COVID-positive patients,” Dr. Hines said.

The investigators reported grants from NIHR, Wellcome Trust, Mylan, and others.

SOURCE: Szatmary P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jun 1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.069.

Patients with COVID-19 develop a distinct subset of pancreatitis hallmarked by duodenal and periduodenal inflammation, according to a recent case series.

Although all five patients presented with multiple predictive markers of severe pancreatitis, the subsequent clinical pathway “was much more benign than anticipated,” reported lead author Peter Szatmary, MB, BChir, PhD, of the University of Liverpool (England) and colleagues. Still, they noted prolonged hospital stays because of persistent inflammation and poor diabetic control.

“As the global pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 continues, nuances of the disease it precipitates in humans continue to emerge,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “[A] group from Wuhan reported a series of 9 patients with purported pancreatic injury in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but did not provide robust evidence for pancreatitis relying on mild hyperamylasemia alone.”

For the present series, Dr. Szatmary and colleagues restricted diagnosis of pancreatitis to international consensus guidelines, which require “abdominal pain consistent with pancreatitis, serum amylase/lipase greater than three times the upper limit of normal, and characteristic findings on cross-sectional imaging.”

From middle of March to late April, the investigators identified 35 patients with acute pancreatitis at Royal Liverpool (England) University Hospital, 25 of whom tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, which resulted in study exclusion. An additional five patients were excluded from the series as another etiology for pancreatitis was clearly present, such as gallstones.

“The remaining 5 patients, all with SARS-CoV-2, presented atypically yet homogenously with a distinct metabolic-pancreatitis phenotype,” the investigators wrote.

All five patients were obese or overweight young men with a median body mass index of 30 kg/m² and age of 42 years. On presentation, all patients had elevated, but nondiagnostic, levels of amylase (median, 149 U/L). Contrast-enhanced abdominal CT revealed moderate to severe hepatic steatosis (less than 104 HU), which rapidly regressed within a week among patients who underwent repeat imaging.

“The pattern of pancreatic inflammation was similarly unusual in these patients,” the investigators wrote, going on to describe “mild pancreatic edema without significant pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis, with distinct duodenal/periduodenal inflammation involving the second and third part of the duodenum.”

According to Dr. Szatmary and colleagues, these findings were “accompanied by a profound systemic inflammatory response,” including 1-2 criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome that increased to 2-4 criteria within 48 hours. During hospitalization, patients also exhibited a “dramatic elevation” of C-reactive protein, from a median of 31 mg/L upon admission to 485 mg/L within 48 hours.

Although these markers predicted severe disease, all cases followed a clinical course similar to “a typical attack of moderate pancreatitis,” the investigators wrote.

All patients were treated with IV fluids, four out of five received broad-spectrum IV antibiotics for pneumonitis, three out of five received fibrate and/or insulin therapy, and two out of five received pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. No patients required corticosteroids, organ support, or respiratory support beyond low-flow oxygen. Median hospital stay was 14 days.

“We ... propose the combination of male sex, abdominal pain, metabolic stress, and CT-findings of predominantly pancreatico-duodenal inflammation with steatosis represent a distinct subset of pancreatitis in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2,” the investigators wrote.

They suggested that the endocrine pancreas may be “particularly vulnerable to this infection,” citing prolonged hospital stays because of poor diabetic control.

“[T]ransient dyslipidemias and impaired glucose tolerance may be common in SARS-CoV-2 patients and warrant further investigation,” they concluded.

Oscar J. Hines, MD, chief of the division of general surgery at UCLA Medical Center and leader in the field of pancreatitis management, said that the case series has a limited impact.

“The findings are unlikely to change practice and only call attention for physicians to the possibility of pancreatitis in COVID-positive patients,” Dr. Hines said.

The investigators reported grants from NIHR, Wellcome Trust, Mylan, and others.

SOURCE: Szatmary P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jun 1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.069.

Patients with COVID-19 develop a distinct subset of pancreatitis hallmarked by duodenal and periduodenal inflammation, according to a recent case series.

Although all five patients presented with multiple predictive markers of severe pancreatitis, the subsequent clinical pathway “was much more benign than anticipated,” reported lead author Peter Szatmary, MB, BChir, PhD, of the University of Liverpool (England) and colleagues. Still, they noted prolonged hospital stays because of persistent inflammation and poor diabetic control.

“As the global pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 continues, nuances of the disease it precipitates in humans continue to emerge,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “[A] group from Wuhan reported a series of 9 patients with purported pancreatic injury in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but did not provide robust evidence for pancreatitis relying on mild hyperamylasemia alone.”

For the present series, Dr. Szatmary and colleagues restricted diagnosis of pancreatitis to international consensus guidelines, which require “abdominal pain consistent with pancreatitis, serum amylase/lipase greater than three times the upper limit of normal, and characteristic findings on cross-sectional imaging.”

From middle of March to late April, the investigators identified 35 patients with acute pancreatitis at Royal Liverpool (England) University Hospital, 25 of whom tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, which resulted in study exclusion. An additional five patients were excluded from the series as another etiology for pancreatitis was clearly present, such as gallstones.

“The remaining 5 patients, all with SARS-CoV-2, presented atypically yet homogenously with a distinct metabolic-pancreatitis phenotype,” the investigators wrote.

All five patients were obese or overweight young men with a median body mass index of 30 kg/m² and age of 42 years. On presentation, all patients had elevated, but nondiagnostic, levels of amylase (median, 149 U/L). Contrast-enhanced abdominal CT revealed moderate to severe hepatic steatosis (less than 104 HU), which rapidly regressed within a week among patients who underwent repeat imaging.

“The pattern of pancreatic inflammation was similarly unusual in these patients,” the investigators wrote, going on to describe “mild pancreatic edema without significant pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis, with distinct duodenal/periduodenal inflammation involving the second and third part of the duodenum.”

According to Dr. Szatmary and colleagues, these findings were “accompanied by a profound systemic inflammatory response,” including 1-2 criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome that increased to 2-4 criteria within 48 hours. During hospitalization, patients also exhibited a “dramatic elevation” of C-reactive protein, from a median of 31 mg/L upon admission to 485 mg/L within 48 hours.

Although these markers predicted severe disease, all cases followed a clinical course similar to “a typical attack of moderate pancreatitis,” the investigators wrote.

All patients were treated with IV fluids, four out of five received broad-spectrum IV antibiotics for pneumonitis, three out of five received fibrate and/or insulin therapy, and two out of five received pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. No patients required corticosteroids, organ support, or respiratory support beyond low-flow oxygen. Median hospital stay was 14 days.

“We ... propose the combination of male sex, abdominal pain, metabolic stress, and CT-findings of predominantly pancreatico-duodenal inflammation with steatosis represent a distinct subset of pancreatitis in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2,” the investigators wrote.

They suggested that the endocrine pancreas may be “particularly vulnerable to this infection,” citing prolonged hospital stays because of poor diabetic control.

“[T]ransient dyslipidemias and impaired glucose tolerance may be common in SARS-CoV-2 patients and warrant further investigation,” they concluded.

Oscar J. Hines, MD, chief of the division of general surgery at UCLA Medical Center and leader in the field of pancreatitis management, said that the case series has a limited impact.

“The findings are unlikely to change practice and only call attention for physicians to the possibility of pancreatitis in COVID-positive patients,” Dr. Hines said.

The investigators reported grants from NIHR, Wellcome Trust, Mylan, and others.

SOURCE: Szatmary P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jun 1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.069.

Adults with prediabetes of normal weight may derive at least as much benefit from lifestyle health coaching programs as adults who are overweight or obese, results of a recent nonrandomized, real-world study show.

Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) normalized in about 63% of prediabetic adults with normal body mass index (BMI) participating in a personalized coaching program that emphasized exercise, nutrition, and weight management, according to researcher Mandy Salmon, MS.

By contrast, FPG normalized in about 52% of overweight and 44% of obese prediabetic individuals participating in the program, according to Ms. Salmon, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The normal-weight individuals didn’t lose any weight after participating in the coaching program, but they did significantly increase exercise, as did their overweight and obese counterparts, Ms. Salmon said in a presentation of her findings at virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

That means not only that normal-weight individuals shouldn’t be excluded from coaching interventions for diabetes prevention, but also that the success of such programs shouldn’t be judged solely on the magnitude of weight loss, according to the researcher.

“It is interesting to note that, although the normal weight group lost the least amount of weight, they still benefited from the lifestyle health coaching program, but having a resultant greatest decrease in fasting plasma glucose and normalization to a range of someone without prediabetes,” Ms. Salmon said.

The fact that most of those patients experienced normalization of FPG despite no weight loss emphasizes the importance of physical activity as a lifestyle intervention, according to Mark Schutta, MD, medical director of Penn Rodebaugh Diabetes Center in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

“You hear these axioms that say things like, ‘you can never outexercise a bad diet,’ and that’s probably true. But all the studies will tell us that a fit, overweight diabetic has much lower risk of cardiovascular disease than an unfit overweight diabetic,” Dr. Schutta said in an interview.
 

Benefits in normal-weight individuals

One in three Americans has prediabetes, and of those individuals, one in five have a normal BMI, Ms. Salmon said in her virtual ADA presentation.

It’s thought that diabetes may develop in those normal-weight individuals through different pathological mechanisms than in overweight or obese individuals. In turn, that could mean that standard methods for staving off diabetes prevention may not be as effective for them, she said.

Those mechanisms are not well understood; even so, normal BMI is currently an exclusion criterion for many diabetes prevention programs, she added, including the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Diabetes Prevention Program, which specifically requires that individuals have an elevated BMI to be eligible for referral.

To evaluate the potential benefits of coaching in normal-weight individuals, the investigators studied a cohort of 1,897 adults with prediabetes, defined as a baseline FPG of 100-125 mg/dL, who were participating in a lifestyle health coaching program. Of those participants, 188, or about 10% had a normal BMI of 18.5-24.9 mg/m². Another 495 participants were overweight, with BMIs between 25 and 29.9, while 1,214 were obese, with a BMI of at least 30.

The intervention included an initial assessment to generate goals and a personalized action plan based on the individual’s risk factors, according to Ms. Salmon, along with an action plan that included one-on-one, behaviorally oriented, technology-enabled lifestyle health coaching focused on exercise and physical activity, weight management, and nutrition.
 

Key findings

With a mean follow-up of 145 days, weight loss in the obese group was greater than that of the overweight group, with mean BMI changes of –1.3 and –0.6, respectively, while there was no significant change in weight for the normal-weight individuals, according to Ms. Salmon.

By contrast, weekly aerobic activity increased significantly in all three groups, she added, with average increases of 95 minutes in the obese group, 98 minutes in the overweight group, and 77 minutes in the normal-weight group.

Likewise, significant decreases in FPG were seen in all 3 groups, with average changes of –6 mg/dL for the obese participants, –7 mg/dL for overweight participants, and –9 mg/dL for normal-weight participants, Ms. Salmon said.

The proportion of individuals whose FPG normalized was highest in the normal-weight group, at 62%, compared with 51.7% for overweight and 44% for obese individuals, she added.

Most previous studies of lifestyle interventions for prediabetes have excluded normal-weight individuals, according to Ms. Salmon, who said one strength of her study was that the subjects were already participating in the established lifestyle health coaching program and didn’t interact with the team of researchers.

“It was an effectiveness study in which we could see the real-world benefits of the program, rather than a theoretical efficacy study,” she said.

Ms. Salmon said she had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. The coinvestigators of the study were members or employees of a privately held population health management company called INTERVENT International.

SOURCE: Salmon MK et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 273-OR.

Adults with prediabetes of normal weight may derive at least as much benefit from lifestyle health coaching programs as adults who are overweight or obese, results of a recent nonrandomized, real-world study show.

Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) normalized in about 63% of prediabetic adults with normal body mass index (BMI) participating in a personalized coaching program that emphasized exercise, nutrition, and weight management, according to researcher Mandy Salmon, MS.

By contrast, FPG normalized in about 52% of overweight and 44% of obese prediabetic individuals participating in the program, according to Ms. Salmon, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The normal-weight individuals didn’t lose any weight after participating in the coaching program, but they did significantly increase exercise, as did their overweight and obese counterparts, Ms. Salmon said in a presentation of her findings at virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

That means not only that normal-weight individuals shouldn’t be excluded from coaching interventions for diabetes prevention, but also that the success of such programs shouldn’t be judged solely on the magnitude of weight loss, according to the researcher.

“It is interesting to note that, although the normal weight group lost the least amount of weight, they still benefited from the lifestyle health coaching program, but having a resultant greatest decrease in fasting plasma glucose and normalization to a range of someone without prediabetes,” Ms. Salmon said.

The fact that most of those patients experienced normalization of FPG despite no weight loss emphasizes the importance of physical activity as a lifestyle intervention, according to Mark Schutta, MD, medical director of Penn Rodebaugh Diabetes Center in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

“You hear these axioms that say things like, ‘you can never outexercise a bad diet,’ and that’s probably true. But all the studies will tell us that a fit, overweight diabetic has much lower risk of cardiovascular disease than an unfit overweight diabetic,” Dr. Schutta said in an interview.
 

Benefits in normal-weight individuals

One in three Americans has prediabetes, and of those individuals, one in five have a normal BMI, Ms. Salmon said in her virtual ADA presentation.

It’s thought that diabetes may develop in those normal-weight individuals through different pathological mechanisms than in overweight or obese individuals. In turn, that could mean that standard methods for staving off diabetes prevention may not be as effective for them, she said.

Those mechanisms are not well understood; even so, normal BMI is currently an exclusion criterion for many diabetes prevention programs, she added, including the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Diabetes Prevention Program, which specifically requires that individuals have an elevated BMI to be eligible for referral.

To evaluate the potential benefits of coaching in normal-weight individuals, the investigators studied a cohort of 1,897 adults with prediabetes, defined as a baseline FPG of 100-125 mg/dL, who were participating in a lifestyle health coaching program. Of those participants, 188, or about 10% had a normal BMI of 18.5-24.9 mg/m². Another 495 participants were overweight, with BMIs between 25 and 29.9, while 1,214 were obese, with a BMI of at least 30.

The intervention included an initial assessment to generate goals and a personalized action plan based on the individual’s risk factors, according to Ms. Salmon, along with an action plan that included one-on-one, behaviorally oriented, technology-enabled lifestyle health coaching focused on exercise and physical activity, weight management, and nutrition.
 

Key findings

With a mean follow-up of 145 days, weight loss in the obese group was greater than that of the overweight group, with mean BMI changes of –1.3 and –0.6, respectively, while there was no significant change in weight for the normal-weight individuals, according to Ms. Salmon.

By contrast, weekly aerobic activity increased significantly in all three groups, she added, with average increases of 95 minutes in the obese group, 98 minutes in the overweight group, and 77 minutes in the normal-weight group.

Likewise, significant decreases in FPG were seen in all 3 groups, with average changes of –6 mg/dL for the obese participants, –7 mg/dL for overweight participants, and –9 mg/dL for normal-weight participants, Ms. Salmon said.

The proportion of individuals whose FPG normalized was highest in the normal-weight group, at 62%, compared with 51.7% for overweight and 44% for obese individuals, she added.

Most previous studies of lifestyle interventions for prediabetes have excluded normal-weight individuals, according to Ms. Salmon, who said one strength of her study was that the subjects were already participating in the established lifestyle health coaching program and didn’t interact with the team of researchers.

“It was an effectiveness study in which we could see the real-world benefits of the program, rather than a theoretical efficacy study,” she said.

Ms. Salmon said she had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. The coinvestigators of the study were members or employees of a privately held population health management company called INTERVENT International.

SOURCE: Salmon MK et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 273-OR.

Adults with prediabetes of normal weight may derive at least as much benefit from lifestyle health coaching programs as adults who are overweight or obese, results of a recent nonrandomized, real-world study show.

Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) normalized in about 63% of prediabetic adults with normal body mass index (BMI) participating in a personalized coaching program that emphasized exercise, nutrition, and weight management, according to researcher Mandy Salmon, MS.

By contrast, FPG normalized in about 52% of overweight and 44% of obese prediabetic individuals participating in the program, according to Ms. Salmon, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The normal-weight individuals didn’t lose any weight after participating in the coaching program, but they did significantly increase exercise, as did their overweight and obese counterparts, Ms. Salmon said in a presentation of her findings at virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

That means not only that normal-weight individuals shouldn’t be excluded from coaching interventions for diabetes prevention, but also that the success of such programs shouldn’t be judged solely on the magnitude of weight loss, according to the researcher.

“It is interesting to note that, although the normal weight group lost the least amount of weight, they still benefited from the lifestyle health coaching program, but having a resultant greatest decrease in fasting plasma glucose and normalization to a range of someone without prediabetes,” Ms. Salmon said.

The fact that most of those patients experienced normalization of FPG despite no weight loss emphasizes the importance of physical activity as a lifestyle intervention, according to Mark Schutta, MD, medical director of Penn Rodebaugh Diabetes Center in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

“You hear these axioms that say things like, ‘you can never outexercise a bad diet,’ and that’s probably true. But all the studies will tell us that a fit, overweight diabetic has much lower risk of cardiovascular disease than an unfit overweight diabetic,” Dr. Schutta said in an interview.
 

Benefits in normal-weight individuals

One in three Americans has prediabetes, and of those individuals, one in five have a normal BMI, Ms. Salmon said in her virtual ADA presentation.

It’s thought that diabetes may develop in those normal-weight individuals through different pathological mechanisms than in overweight or obese individuals. In turn, that could mean that standard methods for staving off diabetes prevention may not be as effective for them, she said.

Those mechanisms are not well understood; even so, normal BMI is currently an exclusion criterion for many diabetes prevention programs, she added, including the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Diabetes Prevention Program, which specifically requires that individuals have an elevated BMI to be eligible for referral.

To evaluate the potential benefits of coaching in normal-weight individuals, the investigators studied a cohort of 1,897 adults with prediabetes, defined as a baseline FPG of 100-125 mg/dL, who were participating in a lifestyle health coaching program. Of those participants, 188, or about 10% had a normal BMI of 18.5-24.9 mg/m². Another 495 participants were overweight, with BMIs between 25 and 29.9, while 1,214 were obese, with a BMI of at least 30.

The intervention included an initial assessment to generate goals and a personalized action plan based on the individual’s risk factors, according to Ms. Salmon, along with an action plan that included one-on-one, behaviorally oriented, technology-enabled lifestyle health coaching focused on exercise and physical activity, weight management, and nutrition.
 

Key findings

With a mean follow-up of 145 days, weight loss in the obese group was greater than that of the overweight group, with mean BMI changes of –1.3 and –0.6, respectively, while there was no significant change in weight for the normal-weight individuals, according to Ms. Salmon.

By contrast, weekly aerobic activity increased significantly in all three groups, she added, with average increases of 95 minutes in the obese group, 98 minutes in the overweight group, and 77 minutes in the normal-weight group.

Likewise, significant decreases in FPG were seen in all 3 groups, with average changes of –6 mg/dL for the obese participants, –7 mg/dL for overweight participants, and –9 mg/dL for normal-weight participants, Ms. Salmon said.

The proportion of individuals whose FPG normalized was highest in the normal-weight group, at 62%, compared with 51.7% for overweight and 44% for obese individuals, she added.

Most previous studies of lifestyle interventions for prediabetes have excluded normal-weight individuals, according to Ms. Salmon, who said one strength of her study was that the subjects were already participating in the established lifestyle health coaching program and didn’t interact with the team of researchers.

“It was an effectiveness study in which we could see the real-world benefits of the program, rather than a theoretical efficacy study,” she said.

Ms. Salmon said she had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. The coinvestigators of the study were members or employees of a privately held population health management company called INTERVENT International.

SOURCE: Salmon MK et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 273-OR.