User login
The new word in liver disease: The story behind NAFLD’s rebranding as MASLD
A noteworthy shift recently occurred in the field of hepatology, but it didn’t stem from a clinical trial or medical finding. Instead, the change arose from a matter of semantics.
In a special article published online in the journal Hepatology, a diverse international consensus group introduced new terminology for one of the world’s most rapidly growing diseases.
The term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was to be officially retired, replaced with a more precise and descriptive term – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).
In addition, steatotic liver disease (SLD) would be used as an umbrella term encompassing both MASLD and a new subcategory, MetALD, for individuals with MASLD whose alcohol consumption ranges from 140 to 350 g/wk for women and from 210 to 420 g/wk for men. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) would be known as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH).
said the NAFLD nomenclature consensus group’s co-lead, Mary E. Rinella, MD, professor of medicine at University of Chicago and director of the metabolic and fatty liver program at University of Chicago Hospitals.
“The only really new thing we did is identify a group of people who meet criteria for MASLD and also drink more than the allowable limit,” she said. “There are tons of these patients who were not being considered before. Now they’re in a category by themselves, where they are going to be able to be studied and better understood.”
Why make a change?
The unveiling of the new nomenclature marked the culmination of 3 years of dedicated work that was built upon decades of growing understanding about the pathophysiologic underpinnings of these disease states.
The terms NAFLD and NASH emerged in 1980 to describe patients with chronic liver disease who denied excessive alcohol consumption. However, in the past 2 decades, it became increasingly evident that the existing terminology was inadequate, the consensus group’s co-lead, Philip Newsome, PhD, said in an interview.
“There was a strong desire for a name that describes what the condition is, rather than what it isn’t; avoiding use of stigmatizing terms, such as fatty and alcoholic; and finally, a nomenclature that could recognize the coexistence of conditions,” said Dr. Newsome, former secretary general of the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), and director of the Centre for Liver and Gastrointestinal Research at the University of Birmingham, England.
These forces, combined with the recognition that NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease shared biological processes, created momentum for change.
The idea gained traction with a 2020 article that proposed “MAFLD” as a more suitable term because it would link the disease with its known cardiometabolic risks, Dr. Rinella explained.
“We thought that paper was going to be the beginning of a conversation, but what happened instead is it became a full-court press,” Dr. Rinella said.
Dr. Rinella and Dr. Newsome then spearheaded a study to determine whether content experts and patients supported change. The process was led by three prominent international liver societies: EASL, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), and the Asociación Latinoamericana para el Estudio del Hígado. The organizations received input from 236 panelists from 56 countries, reflecting the diverse voices essential for addressing a disease with an expanding global prevalence rate.
In this globalized world, you cannot make a decision from on high and then expect everybody to just adopt it, Dr. Rinella noted.
The panel utilized a modified Delphi consensus approach, necessitating a supermajority of respondents (67%) to vote in favor of the changes. Seventy-four percent felt that the current nomenclature was sufficiently flawed to consider a name change, and 89% preferred terminology that describes the underlying cause of the disease. A supermajority felt that having “metabolic disease or dysfunction” in the name would help patients better understand their disease (72%) and help health care professionals better explain or understand the disease (80%).
The participants settled on the new terminology, and the study resulted in a conclusion: “The new nomenclature and diagnostic criteria are widely supported, nonstigmatizing, and can improve awareness and patient identification.”
It was by no means a simple or straightforward task, according to Dr. Rinella. “Anytime you have a contentious issue and you engage a broad range of stakeholders, many of which you know are in disagreement, you’re going to have a difficult time reaching consensus,” she said.
Reassuring reluctant adopters
The backing of international liver societies will be crucial to ensuring the smooth and relatively swift adoption of the new nomenclature. The AASLD announced in July that it would begin this process by holding conversations with key stakeholders, including the Food and Drug Administration, patient organizations, and pharmaceutical industry representatives.
“By engaging external groups, we have gained valuable insights into potential roadblocks or barriers that may impede the full implementation of the new MASLD nomenclature,” AASLD President Norah Terrault, MD, MPH, FAASLD, told this news organization. “Knowing the types of issues they face will allow us to build an implementation plan that will help guide the field through adoption.”
Even with buy-in from key stakeholders, implementing the changes will be no small feat. It’s a “vast undertaking” that may result in short-term frustrations for some groups, Dr. Terrault said.
“For instance, researchers whose work commenced under the old nomenclature may not be able to alter their research papers and will need to publish under the old nomenclature, which may impact which journals their research could be published in,” she said. “Some patient advocacy groups may have the old nomenclature in their names, resulting in a need to rebrand and revise their educational resources. Patient materials need to be updated. Primary care professionals need to be educated. The list goes on.”
These changes demand both patience and time, Dr. Terrault said. This applies to those tasked with persuading colleagues and patients, as well as clinicians, many of whom have already expressed some resistance to the updated terminology.
The panel anticipated pushback from clinicians who still advocate for NAFLD. However, Dr. Rinella countered that a diagnosis of MASLD requires only one cardiometabolic risk factor and has 99% overlap in most populations. In contrast, the MAFLD diagnostic criteria put forward in 2020 proposed even more restrictive cardiometabolic criteria and greater tolerance for alcohol consumption and would alter the disease natural history, she said.
Concerns have also been raised that replacing NAFLD with MASLD might complicate the value of prior research efforts. However, this should not be a cause for concern, as extensive examination across multiple populations has demonstrated near complete overlap between the two definitions, Dr. Rinella said. Biomarker development, natural history studies, and drug development research will remain unaffected, she said.
Some detractors argue that the term “fatty” is sufficiently descriptive and not stigmatizing. However, Dr. Newsome contends that the panel’s research unequivocally disproves this notion.
“Our Delphi process demonstrated very clearly that over 50% felt it was stigmatizing, and in particular, there were clear supportive views for this change from many patient groups,” he noted. “The new nomenclature empowers patients to explain what the condition means without the use of emotional language.”
An opportunity to improve care
One compelling way to persuade reluctant adopters of the new nomenclature’s value is to highlight the opportunities it presents.
The updated terminology opens avenues for research and clinical improvements for patients who meet MASLD criteria and consume alcohol at higher levels (MetALD), Dr. Newsome said.
“There are questions about the relative contribution of these two factors to liver injury, and I see this as an opportunity to explore this area further,” he said.
Hepatologists should embrace this change as a means of increasing awareness regarding the metabolic origins of the disease, Dr. Rinella said. This, in turn, will help identify more patients who require treatment but who are currently overlooked by the existing system, she noted.
“Right now, only around 1% of people with advanced disease are being identified by primary care physicians,” she said. “Hopefully, by elevating the role of metabolic disease, primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and gastroenterologists will be able to identify more patients and bring them to care before they develop cirrhosis.”
Such an outcome would signify much more than a mere semantic shift; it would represent a major advancement in the diagnosis and management of the disease.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A noteworthy shift recently occurred in the field of hepatology, but it didn’t stem from a clinical trial or medical finding. Instead, the change arose from a matter of semantics.
In a special article published online in the journal Hepatology, a diverse international consensus group introduced new terminology for one of the world’s most rapidly growing diseases.
The term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was to be officially retired, replaced with a more precise and descriptive term – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).
In addition, steatotic liver disease (SLD) would be used as an umbrella term encompassing both MASLD and a new subcategory, MetALD, for individuals with MASLD whose alcohol consumption ranges from 140 to 350 g/wk for women and from 210 to 420 g/wk for men. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) would be known as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH).
said the NAFLD nomenclature consensus group’s co-lead, Mary E. Rinella, MD, professor of medicine at University of Chicago and director of the metabolic and fatty liver program at University of Chicago Hospitals.
“The only really new thing we did is identify a group of people who meet criteria for MASLD and also drink more than the allowable limit,” she said. “There are tons of these patients who were not being considered before. Now they’re in a category by themselves, where they are going to be able to be studied and better understood.”
Why make a change?
The unveiling of the new nomenclature marked the culmination of 3 years of dedicated work that was built upon decades of growing understanding about the pathophysiologic underpinnings of these disease states.
The terms NAFLD and NASH emerged in 1980 to describe patients with chronic liver disease who denied excessive alcohol consumption. However, in the past 2 decades, it became increasingly evident that the existing terminology was inadequate, the consensus group’s co-lead, Philip Newsome, PhD, said in an interview.
“There was a strong desire for a name that describes what the condition is, rather than what it isn’t; avoiding use of stigmatizing terms, such as fatty and alcoholic; and finally, a nomenclature that could recognize the coexistence of conditions,” said Dr. Newsome, former secretary general of the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), and director of the Centre for Liver and Gastrointestinal Research at the University of Birmingham, England.
These forces, combined with the recognition that NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease shared biological processes, created momentum for change.
The idea gained traction with a 2020 article that proposed “MAFLD” as a more suitable term because it would link the disease with its known cardiometabolic risks, Dr. Rinella explained.
“We thought that paper was going to be the beginning of a conversation, but what happened instead is it became a full-court press,” Dr. Rinella said.
Dr. Rinella and Dr. Newsome then spearheaded a study to determine whether content experts and patients supported change. The process was led by three prominent international liver societies: EASL, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), and the Asociación Latinoamericana para el Estudio del Hígado. The organizations received input from 236 panelists from 56 countries, reflecting the diverse voices essential for addressing a disease with an expanding global prevalence rate.
In this globalized world, you cannot make a decision from on high and then expect everybody to just adopt it, Dr. Rinella noted.
The panel utilized a modified Delphi consensus approach, necessitating a supermajority of respondents (67%) to vote in favor of the changes. Seventy-four percent felt that the current nomenclature was sufficiently flawed to consider a name change, and 89% preferred terminology that describes the underlying cause of the disease. A supermajority felt that having “metabolic disease or dysfunction” in the name would help patients better understand their disease (72%) and help health care professionals better explain or understand the disease (80%).
The participants settled on the new terminology, and the study resulted in a conclusion: “The new nomenclature and diagnostic criteria are widely supported, nonstigmatizing, and can improve awareness and patient identification.”
It was by no means a simple or straightforward task, according to Dr. Rinella. “Anytime you have a contentious issue and you engage a broad range of stakeholders, many of which you know are in disagreement, you’re going to have a difficult time reaching consensus,” she said.
Reassuring reluctant adopters
The backing of international liver societies will be crucial to ensuring the smooth and relatively swift adoption of the new nomenclature. The AASLD announced in July that it would begin this process by holding conversations with key stakeholders, including the Food and Drug Administration, patient organizations, and pharmaceutical industry representatives.
“By engaging external groups, we have gained valuable insights into potential roadblocks or barriers that may impede the full implementation of the new MASLD nomenclature,” AASLD President Norah Terrault, MD, MPH, FAASLD, told this news organization. “Knowing the types of issues they face will allow us to build an implementation plan that will help guide the field through adoption.”
Even with buy-in from key stakeholders, implementing the changes will be no small feat. It’s a “vast undertaking” that may result in short-term frustrations for some groups, Dr. Terrault said.
“For instance, researchers whose work commenced under the old nomenclature may not be able to alter their research papers and will need to publish under the old nomenclature, which may impact which journals their research could be published in,” she said. “Some patient advocacy groups may have the old nomenclature in their names, resulting in a need to rebrand and revise their educational resources. Patient materials need to be updated. Primary care professionals need to be educated. The list goes on.”
These changes demand both patience and time, Dr. Terrault said. This applies to those tasked with persuading colleagues and patients, as well as clinicians, many of whom have already expressed some resistance to the updated terminology.
The panel anticipated pushback from clinicians who still advocate for NAFLD. However, Dr. Rinella countered that a diagnosis of MASLD requires only one cardiometabolic risk factor and has 99% overlap in most populations. In contrast, the MAFLD diagnostic criteria put forward in 2020 proposed even more restrictive cardiometabolic criteria and greater tolerance for alcohol consumption and would alter the disease natural history, she said.
Concerns have also been raised that replacing NAFLD with MASLD might complicate the value of prior research efforts. However, this should not be a cause for concern, as extensive examination across multiple populations has demonstrated near complete overlap between the two definitions, Dr. Rinella said. Biomarker development, natural history studies, and drug development research will remain unaffected, she said.
Some detractors argue that the term “fatty” is sufficiently descriptive and not stigmatizing. However, Dr. Newsome contends that the panel’s research unequivocally disproves this notion.
“Our Delphi process demonstrated very clearly that over 50% felt it was stigmatizing, and in particular, there were clear supportive views for this change from many patient groups,” he noted. “The new nomenclature empowers patients to explain what the condition means without the use of emotional language.”
An opportunity to improve care
One compelling way to persuade reluctant adopters of the new nomenclature’s value is to highlight the opportunities it presents.
The updated terminology opens avenues for research and clinical improvements for patients who meet MASLD criteria and consume alcohol at higher levels (MetALD), Dr. Newsome said.
“There are questions about the relative contribution of these two factors to liver injury, and I see this as an opportunity to explore this area further,” he said.
Hepatologists should embrace this change as a means of increasing awareness regarding the metabolic origins of the disease, Dr. Rinella said. This, in turn, will help identify more patients who require treatment but who are currently overlooked by the existing system, she noted.
“Right now, only around 1% of people with advanced disease are being identified by primary care physicians,” she said. “Hopefully, by elevating the role of metabolic disease, primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and gastroenterologists will be able to identify more patients and bring them to care before they develop cirrhosis.”
Such an outcome would signify much more than a mere semantic shift; it would represent a major advancement in the diagnosis and management of the disease.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A noteworthy shift recently occurred in the field of hepatology, but it didn’t stem from a clinical trial or medical finding. Instead, the change arose from a matter of semantics.
In a special article published online in the journal Hepatology, a diverse international consensus group introduced new terminology for one of the world’s most rapidly growing diseases.
The term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was to be officially retired, replaced with a more precise and descriptive term – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).
In addition, steatotic liver disease (SLD) would be used as an umbrella term encompassing both MASLD and a new subcategory, MetALD, for individuals with MASLD whose alcohol consumption ranges from 140 to 350 g/wk for women and from 210 to 420 g/wk for men. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) would be known as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH).
said the NAFLD nomenclature consensus group’s co-lead, Mary E. Rinella, MD, professor of medicine at University of Chicago and director of the metabolic and fatty liver program at University of Chicago Hospitals.
“The only really new thing we did is identify a group of people who meet criteria for MASLD and also drink more than the allowable limit,” she said. “There are tons of these patients who were not being considered before. Now they’re in a category by themselves, where they are going to be able to be studied and better understood.”
Why make a change?
The unveiling of the new nomenclature marked the culmination of 3 years of dedicated work that was built upon decades of growing understanding about the pathophysiologic underpinnings of these disease states.
The terms NAFLD and NASH emerged in 1980 to describe patients with chronic liver disease who denied excessive alcohol consumption. However, in the past 2 decades, it became increasingly evident that the existing terminology was inadequate, the consensus group’s co-lead, Philip Newsome, PhD, said in an interview.
“There was a strong desire for a name that describes what the condition is, rather than what it isn’t; avoiding use of stigmatizing terms, such as fatty and alcoholic; and finally, a nomenclature that could recognize the coexistence of conditions,” said Dr. Newsome, former secretary general of the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), and director of the Centre for Liver and Gastrointestinal Research at the University of Birmingham, England.
These forces, combined with the recognition that NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease shared biological processes, created momentum for change.
The idea gained traction with a 2020 article that proposed “MAFLD” as a more suitable term because it would link the disease with its known cardiometabolic risks, Dr. Rinella explained.
“We thought that paper was going to be the beginning of a conversation, but what happened instead is it became a full-court press,” Dr. Rinella said.
Dr. Rinella and Dr. Newsome then spearheaded a study to determine whether content experts and patients supported change. The process was led by three prominent international liver societies: EASL, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), and the Asociación Latinoamericana para el Estudio del Hígado. The organizations received input from 236 panelists from 56 countries, reflecting the diverse voices essential for addressing a disease with an expanding global prevalence rate.
In this globalized world, you cannot make a decision from on high and then expect everybody to just adopt it, Dr. Rinella noted.
The panel utilized a modified Delphi consensus approach, necessitating a supermajority of respondents (67%) to vote in favor of the changes. Seventy-four percent felt that the current nomenclature was sufficiently flawed to consider a name change, and 89% preferred terminology that describes the underlying cause of the disease. A supermajority felt that having “metabolic disease or dysfunction” in the name would help patients better understand their disease (72%) and help health care professionals better explain or understand the disease (80%).
The participants settled on the new terminology, and the study resulted in a conclusion: “The new nomenclature and diagnostic criteria are widely supported, nonstigmatizing, and can improve awareness and patient identification.”
It was by no means a simple or straightforward task, according to Dr. Rinella. “Anytime you have a contentious issue and you engage a broad range of stakeholders, many of which you know are in disagreement, you’re going to have a difficult time reaching consensus,” she said.
Reassuring reluctant adopters
The backing of international liver societies will be crucial to ensuring the smooth and relatively swift adoption of the new nomenclature. The AASLD announced in July that it would begin this process by holding conversations with key stakeholders, including the Food and Drug Administration, patient organizations, and pharmaceutical industry representatives.
“By engaging external groups, we have gained valuable insights into potential roadblocks or barriers that may impede the full implementation of the new MASLD nomenclature,” AASLD President Norah Terrault, MD, MPH, FAASLD, told this news organization. “Knowing the types of issues they face will allow us to build an implementation plan that will help guide the field through adoption.”
Even with buy-in from key stakeholders, implementing the changes will be no small feat. It’s a “vast undertaking” that may result in short-term frustrations for some groups, Dr. Terrault said.
“For instance, researchers whose work commenced under the old nomenclature may not be able to alter their research papers and will need to publish under the old nomenclature, which may impact which journals their research could be published in,” she said. “Some patient advocacy groups may have the old nomenclature in their names, resulting in a need to rebrand and revise their educational resources. Patient materials need to be updated. Primary care professionals need to be educated. The list goes on.”
These changes demand both patience and time, Dr. Terrault said. This applies to those tasked with persuading colleagues and patients, as well as clinicians, many of whom have already expressed some resistance to the updated terminology.
The panel anticipated pushback from clinicians who still advocate for NAFLD. However, Dr. Rinella countered that a diagnosis of MASLD requires only one cardiometabolic risk factor and has 99% overlap in most populations. In contrast, the MAFLD diagnostic criteria put forward in 2020 proposed even more restrictive cardiometabolic criteria and greater tolerance for alcohol consumption and would alter the disease natural history, she said.
Concerns have also been raised that replacing NAFLD with MASLD might complicate the value of prior research efforts. However, this should not be a cause for concern, as extensive examination across multiple populations has demonstrated near complete overlap between the two definitions, Dr. Rinella said. Biomarker development, natural history studies, and drug development research will remain unaffected, she said.
Some detractors argue that the term “fatty” is sufficiently descriptive and not stigmatizing. However, Dr. Newsome contends that the panel’s research unequivocally disproves this notion.
“Our Delphi process demonstrated very clearly that over 50% felt it was stigmatizing, and in particular, there were clear supportive views for this change from many patient groups,” he noted. “The new nomenclature empowers patients to explain what the condition means without the use of emotional language.”
An opportunity to improve care
One compelling way to persuade reluctant adopters of the new nomenclature’s value is to highlight the opportunities it presents.
The updated terminology opens avenues for research and clinical improvements for patients who meet MASLD criteria and consume alcohol at higher levels (MetALD), Dr. Newsome said.
“There are questions about the relative contribution of these two factors to liver injury, and I see this as an opportunity to explore this area further,” he said.
Hepatologists should embrace this change as a means of increasing awareness regarding the metabolic origins of the disease, Dr. Rinella said. This, in turn, will help identify more patients who require treatment but who are currently overlooked by the existing system, she noted.
“Right now, only around 1% of people with advanced disease are being identified by primary care physicians,” she said. “Hopefully, by elevating the role of metabolic disease, primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and gastroenterologists will be able to identify more patients and bring them to care before they develop cirrhosis.”
Such an outcome would signify much more than a mere semantic shift; it would represent a major advancement in the diagnosis and management of the disease.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Weight loss with semaglutide maintained for up to 3 years
Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.
and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.
Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”
Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
Large scale, long term, and real world
Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.
Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”
“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”
A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m2; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.
For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.
The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.
Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
Three-year sustained effect
Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.
A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.
Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).
As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).
Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”
He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”
Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.
and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.
Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”
Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
Large scale, long term, and real world
Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.
Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”
“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”
A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m2; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.
For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.
The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.
Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
Three-year sustained effect
Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.
A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.
Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).
As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).
Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”
He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”
Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.
and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.
Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”
Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
Large scale, long term, and real world
Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.
Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”
“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”
A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m2; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.
For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.
The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.
Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
Three-year sustained effect
Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.
A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.
Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).
As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).
Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”
He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”
Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EASD 2023
When to prescribe semaglutide?
A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but
More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.
This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:
- BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
- Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.
Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:
- orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
- phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
- naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
- liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
- semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).
When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.
In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
Efficacy
In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.
In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
Side effects
Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.
Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:
- Eat slowly.
- Eat a bland diet.
- Avoid fatty or fried foods.
- Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
- Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
- Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).
Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.
Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
Contraindications
We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.
Access
In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.
Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.
Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.
Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.
In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.
We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.
Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but
More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.
This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:
- BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
- Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.
Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:
- orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
- phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
- naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
- liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
- semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).
When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.
In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
Efficacy
In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.
In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
Side effects
Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.
Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:
- Eat slowly.
- Eat a bland diet.
- Avoid fatty or fried foods.
- Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
- Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
- Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).
Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.
Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
Contraindications
We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.
Access
In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.
Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.
Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.
Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.
In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.
We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.
Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but
More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.
This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:
- BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
- Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.
Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:
- orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
- phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
- naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
- liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
- semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).
When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.
In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
Efficacy
In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.
In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
Side effects
Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.
Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:
- Eat slowly.
- Eat a bland diet.
- Avoid fatty or fried foods.
- Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
- Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
- Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).
Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.
Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
Contraindications
We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.
Access
In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.
Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.
Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.
Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.
In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.
We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.
Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Obesity in GI care
While AGA’s advocacy efforts related to access to colorectal cancer screening are frequently highlighted, this is one aspect of a larger advocacy agenda.
This month, I wish to highlight AGA’s extensive advocacy efforts focused on expanding access to obesity treatment. More than 2 in 5 adults in the U.S. have obesity, and weight management has been shown to be beneficial in patients with comorbid gastrointestinal diseases, such as metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, and GI malignancy.
In 2022, Inside Scope, a podcast by AGA, featured a 6-part seriescalled “Obesity in GI.” In July, Drs. Octavia Pickett-Blakely and Naresh Gunaratnam moderated a Gastro Bites lunch-and-learn session on “Obesity in GI Care – Embracing and Putting It into Practice” in which they discussed models of care delivery supporting obesity management in GI practice.
In November 2022, AGA released “AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Pharmacological Interventions for Adults With Obesity,” (https://shorturl.at/bDNOV) to aid clinicians in appropriately prescribing obesity pharmacotherapy on the front lines of care.
On the policy front, in June, AGA held a Capitol Hill briefing in support of H.R.1577 - Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2021 (TROA), a bipartisan bill that would improve access to obesity treatment and care by expanding coverage under Medicare Part D for FDA-approved obesity pharmacotherapy, as well as related services such as behavioral, nutrition, and other counseling. Please check out our new obesity advocacy toolkit for more information.
This month we update you on important multi-society guidance regarding peri-endoscopic management of GLP-1 receptor agonists. We highlight new AGA Clinical Practice Updates on ostomy management and use of gastric POEM for treatment of gastroparesis, as well as a randomized controlled trial from Gastroenterology showing the effectiveness of hemostatic powder in the management of malignant GI bleeding as compared with standard care.
In our Member Spotlight, we feature gastroenterologist Sameer Berry, MD, MBA, who discusses his role as a physician-entrepreneur seeking to transform GI care delivery through his AGA GI Opportunity Fund–supported company, Oshi Health.
This issue includes our annual supplement, “Gastroenterology Data Trends.” It features a collection of contributions on GI and climate change, long COVID and the GI tract, and the evolution of targeted therapies for C. difficile, among others.
We hope you enjoy this, and all the exciting content included in our October issue.
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
While AGA’s advocacy efforts related to access to colorectal cancer screening are frequently highlighted, this is one aspect of a larger advocacy agenda.
This month, I wish to highlight AGA’s extensive advocacy efforts focused on expanding access to obesity treatment. More than 2 in 5 adults in the U.S. have obesity, and weight management has been shown to be beneficial in patients with comorbid gastrointestinal diseases, such as metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, and GI malignancy.
In 2022, Inside Scope, a podcast by AGA, featured a 6-part seriescalled “Obesity in GI.” In July, Drs. Octavia Pickett-Blakely and Naresh Gunaratnam moderated a Gastro Bites lunch-and-learn session on “Obesity in GI Care – Embracing and Putting It into Practice” in which they discussed models of care delivery supporting obesity management in GI practice.
In November 2022, AGA released “AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Pharmacological Interventions for Adults With Obesity,” (https://shorturl.at/bDNOV) to aid clinicians in appropriately prescribing obesity pharmacotherapy on the front lines of care.
On the policy front, in June, AGA held a Capitol Hill briefing in support of H.R.1577 - Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2021 (TROA), a bipartisan bill that would improve access to obesity treatment and care by expanding coverage under Medicare Part D for FDA-approved obesity pharmacotherapy, as well as related services such as behavioral, nutrition, and other counseling. Please check out our new obesity advocacy toolkit for more information.
This month we update you on important multi-society guidance regarding peri-endoscopic management of GLP-1 receptor agonists. We highlight new AGA Clinical Practice Updates on ostomy management and use of gastric POEM for treatment of gastroparesis, as well as a randomized controlled trial from Gastroenterology showing the effectiveness of hemostatic powder in the management of malignant GI bleeding as compared with standard care.
In our Member Spotlight, we feature gastroenterologist Sameer Berry, MD, MBA, who discusses his role as a physician-entrepreneur seeking to transform GI care delivery through his AGA GI Opportunity Fund–supported company, Oshi Health.
This issue includes our annual supplement, “Gastroenterology Data Trends.” It features a collection of contributions on GI and climate change, long COVID and the GI tract, and the evolution of targeted therapies for C. difficile, among others.
We hope you enjoy this, and all the exciting content included in our October issue.
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
While AGA’s advocacy efforts related to access to colorectal cancer screening are frequently highlighted, this is one aspect of a larger advocacy agenda.
This month, I wish to highlight AGA’s extensive advocacy efforts focused on expanding access to obesity treatment. More than 2 in 5 adults in the U.S. have obesity, and weight management has been shown to be beneficial in patients with comorbid gastrointestinal diseases, such as metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, and GI malignancy.
In 2022, Inside Scope, a podcast by AGA, featured a 6-part seriescalled “Obesity in GI.” In July, Drs. Octavia Pickett-Blakely and Naresh Gunaratnam moderated a Gastro Bites lunch-and-learn session on “Obesity in GI Care – Embracing and Putting It into Practice” in which they discussed models of care delivery supporting obesity management in GI practice.
In November 2022, AGA released “AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Pharmacological Interventions for Adults With Obesity,” (https://shorturl.at/bDNOV) to aid clinicians in appropriately prescribing obesity pharmacotherapy on the front lines of care.
On the policy front, in June, AGA held a Capitol Hill briefing in support of H.R.1577 - Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2021 (TROA), a bipartisan bill that would improve access to obesity treatment and care by expanding coverage under Medicare Part D for FDA-approved obesity pharmacotherapy, as well as related services such as behavioral, nutrition, and other counseling. Please check out our new obesity advocacy toolkit for more information.
This month we update you on important multi-society guidance regarding peri-endoscopic management of GLP-1 receptor agonists. We highlight new AGA Clinical Practice Updates on ostomy management and use of gastric POEM for treatment of gastroparesis, as well as a randomized controlled trial from Gastroenterology showing the effectiveness of hemostatic powder in the management of malignant GI bleeding as compared with standard care.
In our Member Spotlight, we feature gastroenterologist Sameer Berry, MD, MBA, who discusses his role as a physician-entrepreneur seeking to transform GI care delivery through his AGA GI Opportunity Fund–supported company, Oshi Health.
This issue includes our annual supplement, “Gastroenterology Data Trends.” It features a collection of contributions on GI and climate change, long COVID and the GI tract, and the evolution of targeted therapies for C. difficile, among others.
We hope you enjoy this, and all the exciting content included in our October issue.
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
FDA gives semaglutide two drug safety–related label changes
The FDA added a warning to the drug-interaction section of the Ozempiclabel that reiterates a warning that is already in place in other label sections, reinforcing the message that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist Ozempiccan potentially interact with the action of certain other agents to increase a person’s risk for hypoglycemia.
The added text says: “Ozempic stimulates insulin release in the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations. Patients receiving Ozempic in combination with an insulin secretagogue (for instance, sulfonylurea) or insulin may have an increased risk of hypoglycemia, including severe hypoglycemia.”
This text was already included in both the “Warning and Precautions” and the “Adverse Reactions” sections of the label. The warning also advises, “The risk of hypoglycemia may be lowered by a reduction in the dose of sulfonylurea (or other concomitantly administered insulin secretagogue) or insulin. Inform patients using these concomitant medications of the risk of hypoglycemia and educate them on the signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia.”
Reports of ileus episodes after approval
The second addition concerns a new adverse reaction that was identified during the postmarketing experience.
The FDA has received more than 8,500 reports of gastrointestinal issues among patients prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Ileus is mentioned in 33 cases, including two deaths, associated with semaglutide. The FDA stopped short of saying there is a direct link between the drug and intestinal blockages.
“Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the FDA stated in its approval of the label update.
The same warning for the risk of intestinal blockages is already listed on the labels for tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) and semaglutide injection 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk).
The label change comes after a Louisiana woman filed a lawsuit in August that claims she was “severely injured” after using Mounjaro and Ozempic. She claimed the drug makers failed to disclose risks of vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.
*Correction, 10/3/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the semaglutide formulation that received the updates.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The FDA added a warning to the drug-interaction section of the Ozempiclabel that reiterates a warning that is already in place in other label sections, reinforcing the message that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist Ozempiccan potentially interact with the action of certain other agents to increase a person’s risk for hypoglycemia.
The added text says: “Ozempic stimulates insulin release in the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations. Patients receiving Ozempic in combination with an insulin secretagogue (for instance, sulfonylurea) or insulin may have an increased risk of hypoglycemia, including severe hypoglycemia.”
This text was already included in both the “Warning and Precautions” and the “Adverse Reactions” sections of the label. The warning also advises, “The risk of hypoglycemia may be lowered by a reduction in the dose of sulfonylurea (or other concomitantly administered insulin secretagogue) or insulin. Inform patients using these concomitant medications of the risk of hypoglycemia and educate them on the signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia.”
Reports of ileus episodes after approval
The second addition concerns a new adverse reaction that was identified during the postmarketing experience.
The FDA has received more than 8,500 reports of gastrointestinal issues among patients prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Ileus is mentioned in 33 cases, including two deaths, associated with semaglutide. The FDA stopped short of saying there is a direct link between the drug and intestinal blockages.
“Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the FDA stated in its approval of the label update.
The same warning for the risk of intestinal blockages is already listed on the labels for tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) and semaglutide injection 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk).
The label change comes after a Louisiana woman filed a lawsuit in August that claims she was “severely injured” after using Mounjaro and Ozempic. She claimed the drug makers failed to disclose risks of vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.
*Correction, 10/3/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the semaglutide formulation that received the updates.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The FDA added a warning to the drug-interaction section of the Ozempiclabel that reiterates a warning that is already in place in other label sections, reinforcing the message that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist Ozempiccan potentially interact with the action of certain other agents to increase a person’s risk for hypoglycemia.
The added text says: “Ozempic stimulates insulin release in the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations. Patients receiving Ozempic in combination with an insulin secretagogue (for instance, sulfonylurea) or insulin may have an increased risk of hypoglycemia, including severe hypoglycemia.”
This text was already included in both the “Warning and Precautions” and the “Adverse Reactions” sections of the label. The warning also advises, “The risk of hypoglycemia may be lowered by a reduction in the dose of sulfonylurea (or other concomitantly administered insulin secretagogue) or insulin. Inform patients using these concomitant medications of the risk of hypoglycemia and educate them on the signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia.”
Reports of ileus episodes after approval
The second addition concerns a new adverse reaction that was identified during the postmarketing experience.
The FDA has received more than 8,500 reports of gastrointestinal issues among patients prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Ileus is mentioned in 33 cases, including two deaths, associated with semaglutide. The FDA stopped short of saying there is a direct link between the drug and intestinal blockages.
“Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the FDA stated in its approval of the label update.
The same warning for the risk of intestinal blockages is already listed on the labels for tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) and semaglutide injection 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk).
The label change comes after a Louisiana woman filed a lawsuit in August that claims she was “severely injured” after using Mounjaro and Ozempic. She claimed the drug makers failed to disclose risks of vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.
*Correction, 10/3/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the semaglutide formulation that received the updates.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Gastroenterology Data Trends 2023
GI&Hepatology News and the American Gastroenterological Association present the 2023 issue of Gastroenterology Data Trends, a special report on hot topics in gastroenterology told through original infographics and visual storytelling.
In this issue:
- Gastroenterology and Climate Change: Assessing and Mitigating Impacts
Swapna Gayam, MD, FACG - MASLD/MASH and Weight Loss
Arpan Mohanty, MD, MSc - Digital Tools in the Management of IBS/Functional GI Disorders
Eric D. Shah, MD, MBA, FACG - Long COVID and the Gastrointestinal System: Emerging Evidence
Daniel E. Freedberg, MD, MS, and Lin Chang, MD, AGAF - Germline Genetic Testing in CRC: Implications for Familial and Population-Based Testing
Fay Kastrinos, MD, MPH - Evolution of Targeted Therapies for C difficile
Sahil Khanna, MBBS, MS, FACG, AGAF - Harnessing the Power of AI to Enhance Endoscopy: Promises and Pitfalls
Eugenia Uche-Anya, MD, MPH - The Evolving Role of Surgery for IBD
Julie K.M. Thacker, MD, FACS, FASCRS
GI&Hepatology News and the American Gastroenterological Association present the 2023 issue of Gastroenterology Data Trends, a special report on hot topics in gastroenterology told through original infographics and visual storytelling.
In this issue:
- Gastroenterology and Climate Change: Assessing and Mitigating Impacts
Swapna Gayam, MD, FACG - MASLD/MASH and Weight Loss
Arpan Mohanty, MD, MSc - Digital Tools in the Management of IBS/Functional GI Disorders
Eric D. Shah, MD, MBA, FACG - Long COVID and the Gastrointestinal System: Emerging Evidence
Daniel E. Freedberg, MD, MS, and Lin Chang, MD, AGAF - Germline Genetic Testing in CRC: Implications for Familial and Population-Based Testing
Fay Kastrinos, MD, MPH - Evolution of Targeted Therapies for C difficile
Sahil Khanna, MBBS, MS, FACG, AGAF - Harnessing the Power of AI to Enhance Endoscopy: Promises and Pitfalls
Eugenia Uche-Anya, MD, MPH - The Evolving Role of Surgery for IBD
Julie K.M. Thacker, MD, FACS, FASCRS
GI&Hepatology News and the American Gastroenterological Association present the 2023 issue of Gastroenterology Data Trends, a special report on hot topics in gastroenterology told through original infographics and visual storytelling.
In this issue:
- Gastroenterology and Climate Change: Assessing and Mitigating Impacts
Swapna Gayam, MD, FACG - MASLD/MASH and Weight Loss
Arpan Mohanty, MD, MSc - Digital Tools in the Management of IBS/Functional GI Disorders
Eric D. Shah, MD, MBA, FACG - Long COVID and the Gastrointestinal System: Emerging Evidence
Daniel E. Freedberg, MD, MS, and Lin Chang, MD, AGAF - Germline Genetic Testing in CRC: Implications for Familial and Population-Based Testing
Fay Kastrinos, MD, MPH - Evolution of Targeted Therapies for C difficile
Sahil Khanna, MBBS, MS, FACG, AGAF - Harnessing the Power of AI to Enhance Endoscopy: Promises and Pitfalls
Eugenia Uche-Anya, MD, MPH - The Evolving Role of Surgery for IBD
Julie K.M. Thacker, MD, FACS, FASCRS
The ‘triple-G’ agonist for obesity management: Five things to know
The complex pathophysiology of obesity requires a multidisciplinary approach that includes lifestyle and medical interventions for successful management. Antiobesity medications (AOMs) have emerged as a powerful and life-changing tool for many individuals with obesity who are unable to sustain long-term weight loss through lifestyle changes alone. As with other chronic diseases such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia, the goal of decades of research has been to develop antiobesity medications with long-term efficacy and safety. Recent groundbreaking findings from a phase 2 trial show immense potential for a new AOM.
1. Gut hormone physiology informs the development of AOMs.
The three hormones associated with obesity or diabetes are glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP), and glucagon. GLP-1, a peptide released from the intestines in response to food ingestion, increases insulin production, reduces gut motility, and suppresses appetite. GIP is also an intestinal hormone that increases meal-stimulated insulin production and additionally facilitates lipolysis. Glucagon is known to increase hepatic glucose output but will also increase insulin secretion in the setting of hyperglycemia. Glucagon also promotes lipolysis.
Though these hormones are more commonly thought of as incretins, gut hormones that stimulate postprandial insulin secretion, their role in energy physiology is more diverse. Because of multiple mechanisms of action, incretins are increasingly referred to as nutrient-stimulated hormones (NuSH), a term which encompasses other peptides with therapeutic potential (e.g., amylin, oxyntomodulin, peptide tyrosine–tyrosine).
2. Studies have shown that NuSH therapies are highly effective AOMs.
In 2021 the Food and Drug Administration approved subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, for the treatment of obesity. Clinical trials demonstrating an average weight loss of 15% in patients taking semaglutide ushered in a new era of AOMs associated with significant weight loss that not only improve disease activity but also have the potential to achieve diabetes remission. Recent findings from the OASIS I trial demonstrated an average weight loss of 15.1% from baseline in patients treated with oral semaglutide for 68 weeks. Medical societies, including the American Diabetes Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, recommend 10%-15% weight loss to fully treat weight-related comorbidities like type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. In 2022, tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP receptor agonist, demonstrated an average weight loss of 22.5% in phase 3 of the SURMOUNT-1 trial for obesity – a weight loss approaching that of some bariatric surgeries.
3. Clinical trial data show that the novel triple agonist retatrutide induces significant weight loss.
Preclinical studies on the newest NuSH therapy, triple GLP-1–GIP–glucagon receptor agonist retatrutide, showed predominant activity at the GIP receptor, with less GLP-1– and glucagon-receptor agonism than that of endogenous GLP-1 and GIP. Results from a phase 2 trial published in June 2023 showed a weight loss of 24% at 48 weeks in adults with obesity treated with retatrutide, which is the greatest weight loss reported in an obesity trial so far. Moreover, for the first time in obesity pharmacotherapy research, 100% of participants achieved clinically significant weight loss (defined as ≥ 5% of baseline weight).
4. Retatrutide may improve lipid metabolism.
In the phase 2 trial, retatrutide reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels by approximately 20%. This degree of reduced plasma LDL-C is dramatic in weight loss studies. Typically, weight loss significantly reduces triglyceride levels, increases high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and has a modest effect on LDL-C reduction of about 5%.
A 20% reduction in LDL-C with retatrutide is hypothesis generating. Preclinical studies have shown glucagon to be an important regulator of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 degradation, with the lack of glucagon resulting in increased PCSK9 levels, decreased LDL receptors, and increased plasma LDL; conversely, treatment with glucagon decreased plasma LDL.
5. The long-term safety of retatrutide still needs to be determined.
In the 48-week phase 2 trial, retatrutide was observed to have a side-effect profile largely similar to other NuSH therapies (e.g., semaglutide 2.4 mg, tirzepatide), with a predominance of gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation. However, side effects potentially unique to retatrutide also emerged. Cutaneous hyperesthesia and skin sensitivity were reported in 7% of participants in the retatrutide group vs. 1% in the placebo group; none of these effects were associated with physical skin findings. Of note, 17 out of 198 (9%) participants in the retatrutide group developed cardiac arrhythmia vs. two out of 70 (3%) in the placebo group. There was no consistent pattern of arrhythmia type (e.g., supraventricular, ventricular) observed, and some of these events were reported as “palpitations” or “increased heart rate” without further detail. Phase 3 clinical trial data will provide further insight into the long-term safety of retatrutide.
Dr. Tchang is assistant professor of clinical medicine, division of endocrinology, Weill Cornell Medicine and physician, department of medicine, New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, both in New York. She has disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The complex pathophysiology of obesity requires a multidisciplinary approach that includes lifestyle and medical interventions for successful management. Antiobesity medications (AOMs) have emerged as a powerful and life-changing tool for many individuals with obesity who are unable to sustain long-term weight loss through lifestyle changes alone. As with other chronic diseases such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia, the goal of decades of research has been to develop antiobesity medications with long-term efficacy and safety. Recent groundbreaking findings from a phase 2 trial show immense potential for a new AOM.
1. Gut hormone physiology informs the development of AOMs.
The three hormones associated with obesity or diabetes are glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP), and glucagon. GLP-1, a peptide released from the intestines in response to food ingestion, increases insulin production, reduces gut motility, and suppresses appetite. GIP is also an intestinal hormone that increases meal-stimulated insulin production and additionally facilitates lipolysis. Glucagon is known to increase hepatic glucose output but will also increase insulin secretion in the setting of hyperglycemia. Glucagon also promotes lipolysis.
Though these hormones are more commonly thought of as incretins, gut hormones that stimulate postprandial insulin secretion, their role in energy physiology is more diverse. Because of multiple mechanisms of action, incretins are increasingly referred to as nutrient-stimulated hormones (NuSH), a term which encompasses other peptides with therapeutic potential (e.g., amylin, oxyntomodulin, peptide tyrosine–tyrosine).
2. Studies have shown that NuSH therapies are highly effective AOMs.
In 2021 the Food and Drug Administration approved subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, for the treatment of obesity. Clinical trials demonstrating an average weight loss of 15% in patients taking semaglutide ushered in a new era of AOMs associated with significant weight loss that not only improve disease activity but also have the potential to achieve diabetes remission. Recent findings from the OASIS I trial demonstrated an average weight loss of 15.1% from baseline in patients treated with oral semaglutide for 68 weeks. Medical societies, including the American Diabetes Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, recommend 10%-15% weight loss to fully treat weight-related comorbidities like type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. In 2022, tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP receptor agonist, demonstrated an average weight loss of 22.5% in phase 3 of the SURMOUNT-1 trial for obesity – a weight loss approaching that of some bariatric surgeries.
3. Clinical trial data show that the novel triple agonist retatrutide induces significant weight loss.
Preclinical studies on the newest NuSH therapy, triple GLP-1–GIP–glucagon receptor agonist retatrutide, showed predominant activity at the GIP receptor, with less GLP-1– and glucagon-receptor agonism than that of endogenous GLP-1 and GIP. Results from a phase 2 trial published in June 2023 showed a weight loss of 24% at 48 weeks in adults with obesity treated with retatrutide, which is the greatest weight loss reported in an obesity trial so far. Moreover, for the first time in obesity pharmacotherapy research, 100% of participants achieved clinically significant weight loss (defined as ≥ 5% of baseline weight).
4. Retatrutide may improve lipid metabolism.
In the phase 2 trial, retatrutide reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels by approximately 20%. This degree of reduced plasma LDL-C is dramatic in weight loss studies. Typically, weight loss significantly reduces triglyceride levels, increases high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and has a modest effect on LDL-C reduction of about 5%.
A 20% reduction in LDL-C with retatrutide is hypothesis generating. Preclinical studies have shown glucagon to be an important regulator of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 degradation, with the lack of glucagon resulting in increased PCSK9 levels, decreased LDL receptors, and increased plasma LDL; conversely, treatment with glucagon decreased plasma LDL.
5. The long-term safety of retatrutide still needs to be determined.
In the 48-week phase 2 trial, retatrutide was observed to have a side-effect profile largely similar to other NuSH therapies (e.g., semaglutide 2.4 mg, tirzepatide), with a predominance of gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation. However, side effects potentially unique to retatrutide also emerged. Cutaneous hyperesthesia and skin sensitivity were reported in 7% of participants in the retatrutide group vs. 1% in the placebo group; none of these effects were associated with physical skin findings. Of note, 17 out of 198 (9%) participants in the retatrutide group developed cardiac arrhythmia vs. two out of 70 (3%) in the placebo group. There was no consistent pattern of arrhythmia type (e.g., supraventricular, ventricular) observed, and some of these events were reported as “palpitations” or “increased heart rate” without further detail. Phase 3 clinical trial data will provide further insight into the long-term safety of retatrutide.
Dr. Tchang is assistant professor of clinical medicine, division of endocrinology, Weill Cornell Medicine and physician, department of medicine, New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, both in New York. She has disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The complex pathophysiology of obesity requires a multidisciplinary approach that includes lifestyle and medical interventions for successful management. Antiobesity medications (AOMs) have emerged as a powerful and life-changing tool for many individuals with obesity who are unable to sustain long-term weight loss through lifestyle changes alone. As with other chronic diseases such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia, the goal of decades of research has been to develop antiobesity medications with long-term efficacy and safety. Recent groundbreaking findings from a phase 2 trial show immense potential for a new AOM.
1. Gut hormone physiology informs the development of AOMs.
The three hormones associated with obesity or diabetes are glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP), and glucagon. GLP-1, a peptide released from the intestines in response to food ingestion, increases insulin production, reduces gut motility, and suppresses appetite. GIP is also an intestinal hormone that increases meal-stimulated insulin production and additionally facilitates lipolysis. Glucagon is known to increase hepatic glucose output but will also increase insulin secretion in the setting of hyperglycemia. Glucagon also promotes lipolysis.
Though these hormones are more commonly thought of as incretins, gut hormones that stimulate postprandial insulin secretion, their role in energy physiology is more diverse. Because of multiple mechanisms of action, incretins are increasingly referred to as nutrient-stimulated hormones (NuSH), a term which encompasses other peptides with therapeutic potential (e.g., amylin, oxyntomodulin, peptide tyrosine–tyrosine).
2. Studies have shown that NuSH therapies are highly effective AOMs.
In 2021 the Food and Drug Administration approved subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, for the treatment of obesity. Clinical trials demonstrating an average weight loss of 15% in patients taking semaglutide ushered in a new era of AOMs associated with significant weight loss that not only improve disease activity but also have the potential to achieve diabetes remission. Recent findings from the OASIS I trial demonstrated an average weight loss of 15.1% from baseline in patients treated with oral semaglutide for 68 weeks. Medical societies, including the American Diabetes Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, recommend 10%-15% weight loss to fully treat weight-related comorbidities like type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. In 2022, tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP receptor agonist, demonstrated an average weight loss of 22.5% in phase 3 of the SURMOUNT-1 trial for obesity – a weight loss approaching that of some bariatric surgeries.
3. Clinical trial data show that the novel triple agonist retatrutide induces significant weight loss.
Preclinical studies on the newest NuSH therapy, triple GLP-1–GIP–glucagon receptor agonist retatrutide, showed predominant activity at the GIP receptor, with less GLP-1– and glucagon-receptor agonism than that of endogenous GLP-1 and GIP. Results from a phase 2 trial published in June 2023 showed a weight loss of 24% at 48 weeks in adults with obesity treated with retatrutide, which is the greatest weight loss reported in an obesity trial so far. Moreover, for the first time in obesity pharmacotherapy research, 100% of participants achieved clinically significant weight loss (defined as ≥ 5% of baseline weight).
4. Retatrutide may improve lipid metabolism.
In the phase 2 trial, retatrutide reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels by approximately 20%. This degree of reduced plasma LDL-C is dramatic in weight loss studies. Typically, weight loss significantly reduces triglyceride levels, increases high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and has a modest effect on LDL-C reduction of about 5%.
A 20% reduction in LDL-C with retatrutide is hypothesis generating. Preclinical studies have shown glucagon to be an important regulator of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 degradation, with the lack of glucagon resulting in increased PCSK9 levels, decreased LDL receptors, and increased plasma LDL; conversely, treatment with glucagon decreased plasma LDL.
5. The long-term safety of retatrutide still needs to be determined.
In the 48-week phase 2 trial, retatrutide was observed to have a side-effect profile largely similar to other NuSH therapies (e.g., semaglutide 2.4 mg, tirzepatide), with a predominance of gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation. However, side effects potentially unique to retatrutide also emerged. Cutaneous hyperesthesia and skin sensitivity were reported in 7% of participants in the retatrutide group vs. 1% in the placebo group; none of these effects were associated with physical skin findings. Of note, 17 out of 198 (9%) participants in the retatrutide group developed cardiac arrhythmia vs. two out of 70 (3%) in the placebo group. There was no consistent pattern of arrhythmia type (e.g., supraventricular, ventricular) observed, and some of these events were reported as “palpitations” or “increased heart rate” without further detail. Phase 3 clinical trial data will provide further insight into the long-term safety of retatrutide.
Dr. Tchang is assistant professor of clinical medicine, division of endocrinology, Weill Cornell Medicine and physician, department of medicine, New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, both in New York. She has disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Tirzepatide superior to semaglutide for A1c control, weight loss
, results from a meta-analysis of 22 randomized controlled trials show.
“The results indicate tirzepatide’s superior performance over subcutaneous semaglutide in managing blood sugar and achieving weight loss, making it a promising option in the pharmaceutical management of type 2 diabetes,” first author Thomas Karagiannis, MD, PhD, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, said in an interview.
“In clinical context, the most potent doses of each drug revealed a clear difference regarding weight loss, with tirzepatide resulting in an average weight reduction that exceeded that of semaglutide by 5.7 kg (12.6 pounds),” he said.
The study is scheduled to be presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in early October.
While a multitude of studies have been conducted for tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and semaglutide, a selective GLP-1 agonist, studies comparing the two drugs directly are lacking.
For a more comprehensive understanding of how the drugs compare, Dr. Karagiannis and colleagues conducted the meta-analysis of 22 trials, including two direct comparisons, the SURPASS-2 trial and a smaller trial, and 20 other studies comparing either semaglutide or tirzepatide with a common comparator, such as placebo, basal insulin, or other GLP-RA-1 drugs.
Overall, 18,472 participants were included in the studies.
All included studies had assessed a maintenance dose of tirzepatide of either 5, 10, or 15 mg once weekly or semaglutide at doses of 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg once weekly for at least 12 weeks. All comparisons were for subcutaneous injection formulations (semaglutide can also be taken orally).
Blood glucose reduction
Tirzepatide at 15 mg was found to have the highest efficacy in the reduction of A1c compared with placebo, with a mean difference of –2.00%, followed by tirzepatide 10 mg (–1.86%) and semaglutide 2.0 mg (–1.62%).
All three of the tirzepatide doses had greater reductions in A1c compared with the respective low, medium, and high doses of semaglutide.
Dr. Karagiannis noted that the differences are significant: “An A1c reduction even by 0.5% is often deemed clinically important,” he said.
Body weight reduction comparisons
The reductions in body weight across the three drug doses were greater with tirzepatide (–10.96 kg [24.2 pounds], –8.75 kg [19.3 pounds], and –6.16 kg [13.6 pounds] for 15, 10, and 5 mg, respectively) compared with semaglutide (–5.24 kg [11.6 pounds], –4.44 kg [9.8 pounds], and –2.72 kg [6 pounds] for semaglutide 2.0, 1.0, and 0.5 mg, respectively).
In terms of drug-to-drug comparisons, tirzepatide 15 mg had a mean of 5.72 kg (12.6 pounds) greater reduction in body weight vs. semaglutide 2.0 mg; tirzepatide 10 mg had a mean of 3.52 kg (7.8 pounds) reduction vs. semaglutide 2.0 mg; and tirzepatide 5 mg had a mean of a 1.72 kg (3.8 pounds) greater reduction vs. semaglutide 1.0 mg.
Adverse events: Increased GI events with highest tirzepatide dose
Regarding the gastrointestinal adverse events associated with the drugs, tirzepatide 15 mg had the highest rate of the two drugs at their various doses, with a risk ratio (RR) of 3.57 compared with placebo for nausea, an RR of 4.35 for vomiting, and 2.04 for diarrhea.
There were no significant differences between the two drugs for the gastrointestinal events, with the exception of the highest dose of tirzepatide, 15 mg, which had a higher risk of vomiting vs. semaglutide 1.0 (RR 1.39) and semaglutide 0.5 mg (RR 1.85).
In addition, tirzepatide 15 mg had a higher risk vs. semaglutide 0.5 mg for nausea (RR 1.45).
There were no significant differences between the two drugs and placebo in the risk of serious adverse events.
Real-world applications, comparisons
Dr. Karagiannis noted that the results indicate that benefits of the efficacy of the higher tirzepatide dose need to be balanced with those potential side effects.
“Although the efficacy of the high tirzepatide dose might make it a favorable choice, its real-world application can be affected on an individual’s ability to tolerate these side effects in case they occur,” he explained.
Ultimately, “some patients may prioritize tolerability over enhanced efficacy,” he added.
Furthermore, while all three maintenance doses of tirzepatide analyzed have received marketing authorization, “to get a clearer picture of the real-world tolerance to these doses outside the context of randomized controlled trials, well-designed observational studies would be necessary,” Dr. Karagiannis said.
Among other issues of comparison with the two drugs is cost.
In a recent analysis, the cost per 1% of body weight reduction was reported to be $1,197 for high-dose tirzepatide (15 mg) vs. $1,511 for semaglutide 2.4 mg, with an overall cost of 72 weeks of therapy with tirzepatide at $17,527 compared with $22,878 for semaglutide.
Overall, patients and clinicians should consider the full range of differences and similarities between the medications, “from [their] efficacy and side effects to cost-effectiveness, long-term safety, and cardiovascular profile,” Dr. Karagiannis said.
Semaglutide is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity/weight loss management.
Tirzepatide has also received approval for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and its manufacturers have submitted applications for its approval for obesity/weight loss management.
Dr. Karagiannis reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, results from a meta-analysis of 22 randomized controlled trials show.
“The results indicate tirzepatide’s superior performance over subcutaneous semaglutide in managing blood sugar and achieving weight loss, making it a promising option in the pharmaceutical management of type 2 diabetes,” first author Thomas Karagiannis, MD, PhD, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, said in an interview.
“In clinical context, the most potent doses of each drug revealed a clear difference regarding weight loss, with tirzepatide resulting in an average weight reduction that exceeded that of semaglutide by 5.7 kg (12.6 pounds),” he said.
The study is scheduled to be presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in early October.
While a multitude of studies have been conducted for tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and semaglutide, a selective GLP-1 agonist, studies comparing the two drugs directly are lacking.
For a more comprehensive understanding of how the drugs compare, Dr. Karagiannis and colleagues conducted the meta-analysis of 22 trials, including two direct comparisons, the SURPASS-2 trial and a smaller trial, and 20 other studies comparing either semaglutide or tirzepatide with a common comparator, such as placebo, basal insulin, or other GLP-RA-1 drugs.
Overall, 18,472 participants were included in the studies.
All included studies had assessed a maintenance dose of tirzepatide of either 5, 10, or 15 mg once weekly or semaglutide at doses of 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg once weekly for at least 12 weeks. All comparisons were for subcutaneous injection formulations (semaglutide can also be taken orally).
Blood glucose reduction
Tirzepatide at 15 mg was found to have the highest efficacy in the reduction of A1c compared with placebo, with a mean difference of –2.00%, followed by tirzepatide 10 mg (–1.86%) and semaglutide 2.0 mg (–1.62%).
All three of the tirzepatide doses had greater reductions in A1c compared with the respective low, medium, and high doses of semaglutide.
Dr. Karagiannis noted that the differences are significant: “An A1c reduction even by 0.5% is often deemed clinically important,” he said.
Body weight reduction comparisons
The reductions in body weight across the three drug doses were greater with tirzepatide (–10.96 kg [24.2 pounds], –8.75 kg [19.3 pounds], and –6.16 kg [13.6 pounds] for 15, 10, and 5 mg, respectively) compared with semaglutide (–5.24 kg [11.6 pounds], –4.44 kg [9.8 pounds], and –2.72 kg [6 pounds] for semaglutide 2.0, 1.0, and 0.5 mg, respectively).
In terms of drug-to-drug comparisons, tirzepatide 15 mg had a mean of 5.72 kg (12.6 pounds) greater reduction in body weight vs. semaglutide 2.0 mg; tirzepatide 10 mg had a mean of 3.52 kg (7.8 pounds) reduction vs. semaglutide 2.0 mg; and tirzepatide 5 mg had a mean of a 1.72 kg (3.8 pounds) greater reduction vs. semaglutide 1.0 mg.
Adverse events: Increased GI events with highest tirzepatide dose
Regarding the gastrointestinal adverse events associated with the drugs, tirzepatide 15 mg had the highest rate of the two drugs at their various doses, with a risk ratio (RR) of 3.57 compared with placebo for nausea, an RR of 4.35 for vomiting, and 2.04 for diarrhea.
There were no significant differences between the two drugs for the gastrointestinal events, with the exception of the highest dose of tirzepatide, 15 mg, which had a higher risk of vomiting vs. semaglutide 1.0 (RR 1.39) and semaglutide 0.5 mg (RR 1.85).
In addition, tirzepatide 15 mg had a higher risk vs. semaglutide 0.5 mg for nausea (RR 1.45).
There were no significant differences between the two drugs and placebo in the risk of serious adverse events.
Real-world applications, comparisons
Dr. Karagiannis noted that the results indicate that benefits of the efficacy of the higher tirzepatide dose need to be balanced with those potential side effects.
“Although the efficacy of the high tirzepatide dose might make it a favorable choice, its real-world application can be affected on an individual’s ability to tolerate these side effects in case they occur,” he explained.
Ultimately, “some patients may prioritize tolerability over enhanced efficacy,” he added.
Furthermore, while all three maintenance doses of tirzepatide analyzed have received marketing authorization, “to get a clearer picture of the real-world tolerance to these doses outside the context of randomized controlled trials, well-designed observational studies would be necessary,” Dr. Karagiannis said.
Among other issues of comparison with the two drugs is cost.
In a recent analysis, the cost per 1% of body weight reduction was reported to be $1,197 for high-dose tirzepatide (15 mg) vs. $1,511 for semaglutide 2.4 mg, with an overall cost of 72 weeks of therapy with tirzepatide at $17,527 compared with $22,878 for semaglutide.
Overall, patients and clinicians should consider the full range of differences and similarities between the medications, “from [their] efficacy and side effects to cost-effectiveness, long-term safety, and cardiovascular profile,” Dr. Karagiannis said.
Semaglutide is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity/weight loss management.
Tirzepatide has also received approval for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and its manufacturers have submitted applications for its approval for obesity/weight loss management.
Dr. Karagiannis reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, results from a meta-analysis of 22 randomized controlled trials show.
“The results indicate tirzepatide’s superior performance over subcutaneous semaglutide in managing blood sugar and achieving weight loss, making it a promising option in the pharmaceutical management of type 2 diabetes,” first author Thomas Karagiannis, MD, PhD, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, said in an interview.
“In clinical context, the most potent doses of each drug revealed a clear difference regarding weight loss, with tirzepatide resulting in an average weight reduction that exceeded that of semaglutide by 5.7 kg (12.6 pounds),” he said.
The study is scheduled to be presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in early October.
While a multitude of studies have been conducted for tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and semaglutide, a selective GLP-1 agonist, studies comparing the two drugs directly are lacking.
For a more comprehensive understanding of how the drugs compare, Dr. Karagiannis and colleagues conducted the meta-analysis of 22 trials, including two direct comparisons, the SURPASS-2 trial and a smaller trial, and 20 other studies comparing either semaglutide or tirzepatide with a common comparator, such as placebo, basal insulin, or other GLP-RA-1 drugs.
Overall, 18,472 participants were included in the studies.
All included studies had assessed a maintenance dose of tirzepatide of either 5, 10, or 15 mg once weekly or semaglutide at doses of 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg once weekly for at least 12 weeks. All comparisons were for subcutaneous injection formulations (semaglutide can also be taken orally).
Blood glucose reduction
Tirzepatide at 15 mg was found to have the highest efficacy in the reduction of A1c compared with placebo, with a mean difference of –2.00%, followed by tirzepatide 10 mg (–1.86%) and semaglutide 2.0 mg (–1.62%).
All three of the tirzepatide doses had greater reductions in A1c compared with the respective low, medium, and high doses of semaglutide.
Dr. Karagiannis noted that the differences are significant: “An A1c reduction even by 0.5% is often deemed clinically important,” he said.
Body weight reduction comparisons
The reductions in body weight across the three drug doses were greater with tirzepatide (–10.96 kg [24.2 pounds], –8.75 kg [19.3 pounds], and –6.16 kg [13.6 pounds] for 15, 10, and 5 mg, respectively) compared with semaglutide (–5.24 kg [11.6 pounds], –4.44 kg [9.8 pounds], and –2.72 kg [6 pounds] for semaglutide 2.0, 1.0, and 0.5 mg, respectively).
In terms of drug-to-drug comparisons, tirzepatide 15 mg had a mean of 5.72 kg (12.6 pounds) greater reduction in body weight vs. semaglutide 2.0 mg; tirzepatide 10 mg had a mean of 3.52 kg (7.8 pounds) reduction vs. semaglutide 2.0 mg; and tirzepatide 5 mg had a mean of a 1.72 kg (3.8 pounds) greater reduction vs. semaglutide 1.0 mg.
Adverse events: Increased GI events with highest tirzepatide dose
Regarding the gastrointestinal adverse events associated with the drugs, tirzepatide 15 mg had the highest rate of the two drugs at their various doses, with a risk ratio (RR) of 3.57 compared with placebo for nausea, an RR of 4.35 for vomiting, and 2.04 for diarrhea.
There were no significant differences between the two drugs for the gastrointestinal events, with the exception of the highest dose of tirzepatide, 15 mg, which had a higher risk of vomiting vs. semaglutide 1.0 (RR 1.39) and semaglutide 0.5 mg (RR 1.85).
In addition, tirzepatide 15 mg had a higher risk vs. semaglutide 0.5 mg for nausea (RR 1.45).
There were no significant differences between the two drugs and placebo in the risk of serious adverse events.
Real-world applications, comparisons
Dr. Karagiannis noted that the results indicate that benefits of the efficacy of the higher tirzepatide dose need to be balanced with those potential side effects.
“Although the efficacy of the high tirzepatide dose might make it a favorable choice, its real-world application can be affected on an individual’s ability to tolerate these side effects in case they occur,” he explained.
Ultimately, “some patients may prioritize tolerability over enhanced efficacy,” he added.
Furthermore, while all three maintenance doses of tirzepatide analyzed have received marketing authorization, “to get a clearer picture of the real-world tolerance to these doses outside the context of randomized controlled trials, well-designed observational studies would be necessary,” Dr. Karagiannis said.
Among other issues of comparison with the two drugs is cost.
In a recent analysis, the cost per 1% of body weight reduction was reported to be $1,197 for high-dose tirzepatide (15 mg) vs. $1,511 for semaglutide 2.4 mg, with an overall cost of 72 weeks of therapy with tirzepatide at $17,527 compared with $22,878 for semaglutide.
Overall, patients and clinicians should consider the full range of differences and similarities between the medications, “from [their] efficacy and side effects to cost-effectiveness, long-term safety, and cardiovascular profile,” Dr. Karagiannis said.
Semaglutide is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity/weight loss management.
Tirzepatide has also received approval for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and its manufacturers have submitted applications for its approval for obesity/weight loss management.
Dr. Karagiannis reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EASD 2023
Waist-hip ratio a stronger mortality predictor than BMI
TOPLINE:
Compared with body mass index, waist-hip ratio (WHR) had the strongest and most consistent association with all-cause mortality and was the only measurement unaffected by BMI.
METHODOLOGY:
- Cohort study of incident deaths from the U.K. Biobank (2006-2022), including data from 22 centers across the United Kingdom.
- A total of 387,672 participants were divided into a discovery cohort (n = 337,078) and validation cohort (n = 50,594), with the latter consisting of 25,297 deaths and 2,297 controls.
- The discovery cohort was used to derive genetically determined adiposity measures while the validation cohort was used for analyses.
- Exposure-outcome associations were analyzed through observational and mendelian randomization analyses.
TAKEAWAY:
- In adjusted analysis, a J-shaped association was found for both measured BMI and fat mass index (FMI), whereas the association with WHR was linear (hazard ratio 1.41 per standard deviation increase).
- There was a significant association between all three adiposity measures and all-cause mortality, with odds ratio 1.29 per SD change in genetically determined BMI (P = 1.44×10-13), 1.45 per SD change in genetically determined FMI, 1.45 (P = 6.27×10-30), and 1.51 per SD change in genetically determined WHR (P = 2.11×10-9).
- Compared with BMI, WHR had the stronger association with all-cause mortality, although it was not significantly stronger than FMI.
- The association of genetically determined BMI and FMI with all-cause mortality varied across quantiles of observed BMI, but WHR did not (P = .04, P = .02, and P = .58, for BMI, FMI, and WHR, respectively).
IN PRACTICE:
“Current World Health Organization recommendations for optimal BMI range are inaccurate across individuals with various body compositions and therefore suboptimal for clinical guidelines.”
SOURCE:
Study by Irfan Khan, MSc, of the Population Health Research Institute, David Braley Cardiac, Vascular, and Stroke Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. Published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Study population was genetically homogeneous, White, and British, so results may not be representative of other racial or ethnic groups.
DISCLOSURES:
Study was funded by, and Irfan Khan received support from, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship–Masters Scholarship, awarded by the government of Ontario.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Compared with body mass index, waist-hip ratio (WHR) had the strongest and most consistent association with all-cause mortality and was the only measurement unaffected by BMI.
METHODOLOGY:
- Cohort study of incident deaths from the U.K. Biobank (2006-2022), including data from 22 centers across the United Kingdom.
- A total of 387,672 participants were divided into a discovery cohort (n = 337,078) and validation cohort (n = 50,594), with the latter consisting of 25,297 deaths and 2,297 controls.
- The discovery cohort was used to derive genetically determined adiposity measures while the validation cohort was used for analyses.
- Exposure-outcome associations were analyzed through observational and mendelian randomization analyses.
TAKEAWAY:
- In adjusted analysis, a J-shaped association was found for both measured BMI and fat mass index (FMI), whereas the association with WHR was linear (hazard ratio 1.41 per standard deviation increase).
- There was a significant association between all three adiposity measures and all-cause mortality, with odds ratio 1.29 per SD change in genetically determined BMI (P = 1.44×10-13), 1.45 per SD change in genetically determined FMI, 1.45 (P = 6.27×10-30), and 1.51 per SD change in genetically determined WHR (P = 2.11×10-9).
- Compared with BMI, WHR had the stronger association with all-cause mortality, although it was not significantly stronger than FMI.
- The association of genetically determined BMI and FMI with all-cause mortality varied across quantiles of observed BMI, but WHR did not (P = .04, P = .02, and P = .58, for BMI, FMI, and WHR, respectively).
IN PRACTICE:
“Current World Health Organization recommendations for optimal BMI range are inaccurate across individuals with various body compositions and therefore suboptimal for clinical guidelines.”
SOURCE:
Study by Irfan Khan, MSc, of the Population Health Research Institute, David Braley Cardiac, Vascular, and Stroke Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. Published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Study population was genetically homogeneous, White, and British, so results may not be representative of other racial or ethnic groups.
DISCLOSURES:
Study was funded by, and Irfan Khan received support from, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship–Masters Scholarship, awarded by the government of Ontario.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Compared with body mass index, waist-hip ratio (WHR) had the strongest and most consistent association with all-cause mortality and was the only measurement unaffected by BMI.
METHODOLOGY:
- Cohort study of incident deaths from the U.K. Biobank (2006-2022), including data from 22 centers across the United Kingdom.
- A total of 387,672 participants were divided into a discovery cohort (n = 337,078) and validation cohort (n = 50,594), with the latter consisting of 25,297 deaths and 2,297 controls.
- The discovery cohort was used to derive genetically determined adiposity measures while the validation cohort was used for analyses.
- Exposure-outcome associations were analyzed through observational and mendelian randomization analyses.
TAKEAWAY:
- In adjusted analysis, a J-shaped association was found for both measured BMI and fat mass index (FMI), whereas the association with WHR was linear (hazard ratio 1.41 per standard deviation increase).
- There was a significant association between all three adiposity measures and all-cause mortality, with odds ratio 1.29 per SD change in genetically determined BMI (P = 1.44×10-13), 1.45 per SD change in genetically determined FMI, 1.45 (P = 6.27×10-30), and 1.51 per SD change in genetically determined WHR (P = 2.11×10-9).
- Compared with BMI, WHR had the stronger association with all-cause mortality, although it was not significantly stronger than FMI.
- The association of genetically determined BMI and FMI with all-cause mortality varied across quantiles of observed BMI, but WHR did not (P = .04, P = .02, and P = .58, for BMI, FMI, and WHR, respectively).
IN PRACTICE:
“Current World Health Organization recommendations for optimal BMI range are inaccurate across individuals with various body compositions and therefore suboptimal for clinical guidelines.”
SOURCE:
Study by Irfan Khan, MSc, of the Population Health Research Institute, David Braley Cardiac, Vascular, and Stroke Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. Published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Study population was genetically homogeneous, White, and British, so results may not be representative of other racial or ethnic groups.
DISCLOSURES:
Study was funded by, and Irfan Khan received support from, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship–Masters Scholarship, awarded by the government of Ontario.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Landmark obesity legislation reintroduced in Congress
(TROA) (H.R. 4818/S. 2407). This legislation is a vital first step in expanding access to obesity treatment as it would expand Medicare coverage to include screening and treatment of obesity by a diverse range of health care providers who provide obesity care. The bill also includes coverage of behavioral counseling, prescription drugs for long-term weight management, and other prevention and treatment options.
The passage of TROA could lead to improved obesity care options because many private insurance companies model their covered health benefits to reflect Medicare.
You can help lawmakers understand the urgent need for expanded access to affordable, effective obesity treatments and how greater access to these tools will equip you to better care for your patients.
Use the new obesity advocacy toolkit to find the tools and resources you need, including an email template, sample phone script, op-ed template, and more, to assist you in reaching out to your elected officials and urging them to support the passage of TROA.
(TROA) (H.R. 4818/S. 2407). This legislation is a vital first step in expanding access to obesity treatment as it would expand Medicare coverage to include screening and treatment of obesity by a diverse range of health care providers who provide obesity care. The bill also includes coverage of behavioral counseling, prescription drugs for long-term weight management, and other prevention and treatment options.
The passage of TROA could lead to improved obesity care options because many private insurance companies model their covered health benefits to reflect Medicare.
You can help lawmakers understand the urgent need for expanded access to affordable, effective obesity treatments and how greater access to these tools will equip you to better care for your patients.
Use the new obesity advocacy toolkit to find the tools and resources you need, including an email template, sample phone script, op-ed template, and more, to assist you in reaching out to your elected officials and urging them to support the passage of TROA.
(TROA) (H.R. 4818/S. 2407). This legislation is a vital first step in expanding access to obesity treatment as it would expand Medicare coverage to include screening and treatment of obesity by a diverse range of health care providers who provide obesity care. The bill also includes coverage of behavioral counseling, prescription drugs for long-term weight management, and other prevention and treatment options.
The passage of TROA could lead to improved obesity care options because many private insurance companies model their covered health benefits to reflect Medicare.
You can help lawmakers understand the urgent need for expanded access to affordable, effective obesity treatments and how greater access to these tools will equip you to better care for your patients.
Use the new obesity advocacy toolkit to find the tools and resources you need, including an email template, sample phone script, op-ed template, and more, to assist you in reaching out to your elected officials and urging them to support the passage of TROA.