Miriam E. Tucker

A1c level strongly predicts the risk of developing type 2 diabetes among adolescents with overweight or obesity, new data suggested.

In a large California healthcare database over a 10-year period, the incidence of type 2 diabetes was relatively low overall among adolescents with overweight and obesity. However, the risk increased with baseline A1c levels above 6.0% as well as in those with more severe obesity, women, and Asian or Pacific Islanders.

The new findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by pediatric endocrinologist Francis M. Hoe, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center, Roseville, California, and colleagues.

Previous studies have examined the incidence of type 2 diabetes among all youth, regardless of weight class. This is one of the first large population studies to examine the incidence and risk for type 2 diabetes by incremental level of A1c in a racially and ethnically diverse group of youth with overweight and obesity, Dr. Hoe told this news organization in an interview.

“This study was only possible to do because Kaiser Permanente Northern California has nearly 1 million pediatric members. The biggest thing we learned is that risk for type 2 diabetes is low in overweight and obese youth, especially those with an HbA1c less than 5.9%,” he said.
 

Zeroing in on Those at Greatest Risk for Type 2 Diabetes

Currently, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for type 2 diabetes in adolescents with overweight (body mass index [BMI], 85th percentile or greater) or obesity (≥ 95th) who have at least one additional risk factor, including family history of type 2 diabetes and Native American, Black, or Hispanic ethnicity. About one in four US adolescents qualify by those criteria, the authors noted in the paper.

And, as for adults, ADA recommends subsequent annual diabetes screening in youth identified as having “prediabetes,” that is, a A1c level between 5.7% and 6.5%.

The new study confirmed that adolescents with A1c in the upper end of the prediabetes range were at a greater risk for type 2 diabetes. But those individuals were the minority. Adolescents with overweight/obesity who had baseline A1c levels in the lower end of the prediabetes range, 5.7%-5.8%, accounted for two thirds of those with prediabetes in the study population and had a very low incidence of type 2 diabetes compared with those with higher A1c levels.

“Specifically, we found an annual type 2 diabetes incidence of 0.2% for HbA1c of 5.7%-5.8%, which is much lower than adults. These adolescents will likely benefit from lifestyle intervention. But because their risk of developing type 2 diabetes is lower, they probably don’t need to be screened annually, as currently recommended by the ADA,” Dr. Hoe said.

Similarly, he added, “since obesity severity was associated with a higher risk for type 2 diabetes, increases in BMI percentile should also prompt consideration of repeat diabetes screening.”
 

Large Database Allows for Detailed Findings

The study population was 74,552 adolescents aged 10-17 years with overweight or obesity, of whom 49.4% were male, 64.6% were younger than 15 years, and 73.1% had obesity. Only 21.6% were White, while 43.6% were Hispanic, 11.1% Black, and 17.6% Asian or Pacific Islander.

Nearly a quarter, 22.9%, had baseline A1c in the prediabetes range of 5.7%-6.4%. Mean A1c rose with BMI category from overweight to moderate to severe obesity (P < .001 for each comparison). Baseline A1c was highest (5.53%) in Black adolescents and lowest in White teens (5.38%), also significant differences by group (P < .001).

Of the total 698 who developed diabetes during the follow-up, 89.7% were classified as having type 2 diabetes, with a median 3.8 years from baseline to diagnosis.

The overall incidence rate of type 2 diabetes during the follow-up was 2.1 per 1000 person-years. As the baseline A1c rose from less than 5.5% to 6.0%, from 6.1% to 6.2%, and from 6.3% to 6.4%, those incidence rates were 0.8, 8.1, 21.8, and 68.9 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, compared to baseline A1c below 5.5%, increased risk was ninefold for A1c 5.9%-6.0%, 23-fold for 6.1%-6.2%, and 72-fold for 6.3%-6.4%.

The incidence rates were higher in female than in male adolescents (2.4 vs 1.8 per 1000 person-years) and increased by BMI category from 0.6 to 1.3 to 4.3 for those with overweight, moderate obesity, and severe obesity, respectively.

Type 2 diabetes incidence per 1000 person-years also varied by race and ethnicity, ranging from 1.3 for White adolescents to 3.0 for Asian or Pacific Islanders.

“We plan on further exploring the effect of the weight and BMI change over time and how that may affect type 2 diabetes risk,” Dr. Hoe told this news organization.

This study was supported by a grant from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health program. Dr. Hoe and his coauthors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A1c level strongly predicts the risk of developing type 2 diabetes among adolescents with overweight or obesity, new data suggested.

In a large California healthcare database over a 10-year period, the incidence of type 2 diabetes was relatively low overall among adolescents with overweight and obesity. However, the risk increased with baseline A1c levels above 6.0% as well as in those with more severe obesity, women, and Asian or Pacific Islanders.

The new findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by pediatric endocrinologist Francis M. Hoe, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center, Roseville, California, and colleagues.

Previous studies have examined the incidence of type 2 diabetes among all youth, regardless of weight class. This is one of the first large population studies to examine the incidence and risk for type 2 diabetes by incremental level of A1c in a racially and ethnically diverse group of youth with overweight and obesity, Dr. Hoe told this news organization in an interview.

“This study was only possible to do because Kaiser Permanente Northern California has nearly 1 million pediatric members. The biggest thing we learned is that risk for type 2 diabetes is low in overweight and obese youth, especially those with an HbA1c less than 5.9%,” he said.
 

Zeroing in on Those at Greatest Risk for Type 2 Diabetes

Currently, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for type 2 diabetes in adolescents with overweight (body mass index [BMI], 85th percentile or greater) or obesity (≥ 95th) who have at least one additional risk factor, including family history of type 2 diabetes and Native American, Black, or Hispanic ethnicity. About one in four US adolescents qualify by those criteria, the authors noted in the paper.

And, as for adults, ADA recommends subsequent annual diabetes screening in youth identified as having “prediabetes,” that is, a A1c level between 5.7% and 6.5%.

The new study confirmed that adolescents with A1c in the upper end of the prediabetes range were at a greater risk for type 2 diabetes. But those individuals were the minority. Adolescents with overweight/obesity who had baseline A1c levels in the lower end of the prediabetes range, 5.7%-5.8%, accounted for two thirds of those with prediabetes in the study population and had a very low incidence of type 2 diabetes compared with those with higher A1c levels.

“Specifically, we found an annual type 2 diabetes incidence of 0.2% for HbA1c of 5.7%-5.8%, which is much lower than adults. These adolescents will likely benefit from lifestyle intervention. But because their risk of developing type 2 diabetes is lower, they probably don’t need to be screened annually, as currently recommended by the ADA,” Dr. Hoe said.

Similarly, he added, “since obesity severity was associated with a higher risk for type 2 diabetes, increases in BMI percentile should also prompt consideration of repeat diabetes screening.”
 

Large Database Allows for Detailed Findings

The study population was 74,552 adolescents aged 10-17 years with overweight or obesity, of whom 49.4% were male, 64.6% were younger than 15 years, and 73.1% had obesity. Only 21.6% were White, while 43.6% were Hispanic, 11.1% Black, and 17.6% Asian or Pacific Islander.

Nearly a quarter, 22.9%, had baseline A1c in the prediabetes range of 5.7%-6.4%. Mean A1c rose with BMI category from overweight to moderate to severe obesity (P < .001 for each comparison). Baseline A1c was highest (5.53%) in Black adolescents and lowest in White teens (5.38%), also significant differences by group (P < .001).

Of the total 698 who developed diabetes during the follow-up, 89.7% were classified as having type 2 diabetes, with a median 3.8 years from baseline to diagnosis.

The overall incidence rate of type 2 diabetes during the follow-up was 2.1 per 1000 person-years. As the baseline A1c rose from less than 5.5% to 6.0%, from 6.1% to 6.2%, and from 6.3% to 6.4%, those incidence rates were 0.8, 8.1, 21.8, and 68.9 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, compared to baseline A1c below 5.5%, increased risk was ninefold for A1c 5.9%-6.0%, 23-fold for 6.1%-6.2%, and 72-fold for 6.3%-6.4%.

The incidence rates were higher in female than in male adolescents (2.4 vs 1.8 per 1000 person-years) and increased by BMI category from 0.6 to 1.3 to 4.3 for those with overweight, moderate obesity, and severe obesity, respectively.

Type 2 diabetes incidence per 1000 person-years also varied by race and ethnicity, ranging from 1.3 for White adolescents to 3.0 for Asian or Pacific Islanders.

“We plan on further exploring the effect of the weight and BMI change over time and how that may affect type 2 diabetes risk,” Dr. Hoe told this news organization.

This study was supported by a grant from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health program. Dr. Hoe and his coauthors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A1c level strongly predicts the risk of developing type 2 diabetes among adolescents with overweight or obesity, new data suggested.

In a large California healthcare database over a 10-year period, the incidence of type 2 diabetes was relatively low overall among adolescents with overweight and obesity. However, the risk increased with baseline A1c levels above 6.0% as well as in those with more severe obesity, women, and Asian or Pacific Islanders.

The new findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by pediatric endocrinologist Francis M. Hoe, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center, Roseville, California, and colleagues.

Previous studies have examined the incidence of type 2 diabetes among all youth, regardless of weight class. This is one of the first large population studies to examine the incidence and risk for type 2 diabetes by incremental level of A1c in a racially and ethnically diverse group of youth with overweight and obesity, Dr. Hoe told this news organization in an interview.

“This study was only possible to do because Kaiser Permanente Northern California has nearly 1 million pediatric members. The biggest thing we learned is that risk for type 2 diabetes is low in overweight and obese youth, especially those with an HbA1c less than 5.9%,” he said.
 

Zeroing in on Those at Greatest Risk for Type 2 Diabetes

Currently, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for type 2 diabetes in adolescents with overweight (body mass index [BMI], 85th percentile or greater) or obesity (≥ 95th) who have at least one additional risk factor, including family history of type 2 diabetes and Native American, Black, or Hispanic ethnicity. About one in four US adolescents qualify by those criteria, the authors noted in the paper.

And, as for adults, ADA recommends subsequent annual diabetes screening in youth identified as having “prediabetes,” that is, a A1c level between 5.7% and 6.5%.

The new study confirmed that adolescents with A1c in the upper end of the prediabetes range were at a greater risk for type 2 diabetes. But those individuals were the minority. Adolescents with overweight/obesity who had baseline A1c levels in the lower end of the prediabetes range, 5.7%-5.8%, accounted for two thirds of those with prediabetes in the study population and had a very low incidence of type 2 diabetes compared with those with higher A1c levels.

“Specifically, we found an annual type 2 diabetes incidence of 0.2% for HbA1c of 5.7%-5.8%, which is much lower than adults. These adolescents will likely benefit from lifestyle intervention. But because their risk of developing type 2 diabetes is lower, they probably don’t need to be screened annually, as currently recommended by the ADA,” Dr. Hoe said.

Similarly, he added, “since obesity severity was associated with a higher risk for type 2 diabetes, increases in BMI percentile should also prompt consideration of repeat diabetes screening.”
 

Large Database Allows for Detailed Findings

The study population was 74,552 adolescents aged 10-17 years with overweight or obesity, of whom 49.4% were male, 64.6% were younger than 15 years, and 73.1% had obesity. Only 21.6% were White, while 43.6% were Hispanic, 11.1% Black, and 17.6% Asian or Pacific Islander.

Nearly a quarter, 22.9%, had baseline A1c in the prediabetes range of 5.7%-6.4%. Mean A1c rose with BMI category from overweight to moderate to severe obesity (P < .001 for each comparison). Baseline A1c was highest (5.53%) in Black adolescents and lowest in White teens (5.38%), also significant differences by group (P < .001).

Of the total 698 who developed diabetes during the follow-up, 89.7% were classified as having type 2 diabetes, with a median 3.8 years from baseline to diagnosis.

The overall incidence rate of type 2 diabetes during the follow-up was 2.1 per 1000 person-years. As the baseline A1c rose from less than 5.5% to 6.0%, from 6.1% to 6.2%, and from 6.3% to 6.4%, those incidence rates were 0.8, 8.1, 21.8, and 68.9 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, compared to baseline A1c below 5.5%, increased risk was ninefold for A1c 5.9%-6.0%, 23-fold for 6.1%-6.2%, and 72-fold for 6.3%-6.4%.

The incidence rates were higher in female than in male adolescents (2.4 vs 1.8 per 1000 person-years) and increased by BMI category from 0.6 to 1.3 to 4.3 for those with overweight, moderate obesity, and severe obesity, respectively.

Type 2 diabetes incidence per 1000 person-years also varied by race and ethnicity, ranging from 1.3 for White adolescents to 3.0 for Asian or Pacific Islanders.

“We plan on further exploring the effect of the weight and BMI change over time and how that may affect type 2 diabetes risk,” Dr. Hoe told this news organization.

This study was supported by a grant from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health program. Dr. Hoe and his coauthors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuroinflammation expert Jarred Younger, PhD, disputes a recent study commentary calling for clinicians to stop prescribing low-dose naltrexone for people with fibromyalgia.

Naltrexone is a nonselective µ-opioid receptor antagonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at doses of 50-100 mg/day to treat opioid and alcohol dependence. Lower doses, typically 1-5 mg, can produce an analgesic effect via antagonism of receptors on microglial cells that lead to neuroinflammation. The low-dose version, available at compounding pharmacies, is not FDA-approved, but for many years it has been used off-label to treat fibromyalgia and related conditions.

Results from earlier small clinical trials have conflicted, but two conducted by Dr. Younger using doses of 4.5 mg/day showed benefit in reducing pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms. However, a new study from Denmark on 6 mg low-dose naltrexone versus placebo among 99 women with fibromyalgia demonstrated no significant difference in the primary outcome of change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks.

On the other hand, there was a significant improvement in memory, and there were no differences in adverse events or safety, the authors reported in The Lancet Rheumatology.

Nonetheless, an accompanying commentary called the study a “resoundingly negative trial” and advised that while off-label use of low-dose naltrexone could continue for patients already taking it, clinicians should not initiate it for patients who have not previously used it, pending additional data.

Dr. Younger, director of the Neuroinflammation, Pain and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, was speaking on December 13, 2023, at a National Institutes of Health meeting about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome about the potential use of low-dose naltrexone for that patient population. He had checked the literature in preparation for his talk and saw the new study, which had just been published December 5, 2023. 

During his talk, Dr. Younger said, “It looks like the study was very well done, and all the decisions made sense to me, so I don’t doubt the quality of their data or the statistics.”

But as for the commentary, he said, “I strongly disagree, and I believe the physicians at this conference strongly disagree with that as well. I know plenty of physicians who would say that is not good advice because this drug is so helpful for so many people.”

Indeed, Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, who heard Dr. Younger’s talk but hadn’t seen the new study, told this news organization that he is a “fan” of low-dose naltrexone based on his own experience with one patient who had a “clearly beneficial response” and that of other clinicians he’s spoken with about it. “My colleagues say it doesn’t work for everyone because the disease is so heterogeneous ... but it definitely works for some patients.”

Dr. Younger noted that the proportion of people in the Danish study who reported a clinically significant, that is 30% reduction, in pain scores was 45% versus 28% with placebo, not far from the 50% he found in his studies. “If they’d had 40 to 60 more people, they would have had statistically significant difference,” Dr. Younger said.

Indeed, the authors themselves pointed this out in their discussion, noting, “Our study was not powered to detect a significant difference regarding responder indices ... Subgroups of patients with fibromyalgia might respond differently to low-dose naltrexone treatment, and we intend to conduct a responder analysis based on levels of inflammatory biomarkers and specific biomarkers of glial activation, hypothesising that an inflammatory subgroup might benefit from the treatment. Results will be published in subsequent papers.”

The commentary authors responded to that, saying that they “appreciate” the intention to conduct that subgroup analysis, but that it is “probable that the current sample size will preclude robust statistical comparisons but could be a step to generate hypotheses.”

Those authors noted that a systematic review has described both pro-inflammatory (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin [IL]-6, and IL-8) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10) cytokines as peripheral inflammatory biomarkers in patients with fibromyalgia. “The specific peripheral biomarkers of glial activation are yet to be identified. The neuroinflammation hypothesis of fibromyalgia could be supported if a reduction of central nervous system inflammation would predict improvement of fibromyalgia symptoms. Subsequent work in this area is eagerly awaited.”

In the meantime, Dr. Younger said, “I do not think this should stop us from looking at low-dose naltrexone [or that] we shouldn’t try it. I’ve talked to over a thousand people over the last 10 years. It would be a very bad thing to give up on low-dose naltrexone now.”

Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Komaroff has no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuroinflammation expert Jarred Younger, PhD, disputes a recent study commentary calling for clinicians to stop prescribing low-dose naltrexone for people with fibromyalgia.

Naltrexone is a nonselective µ-opioid receptor antagonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at doses of 50-100 mg/day to treat opioid and alcohol dependence. Lower doses, typically 1-5 mg, can produce an analgesic effect via antagonism of receptors on microglial cells that lead to neuroinflammation. The low-dose version, available at compounding pharmacies, is not FDA-approved, but for many years it has been used off-label to treat fibromyalgia and related conditions.

Results from earlier small clinical trials have conflicted, but two conducted by Dr. Younger using doses of 4.5 mg/day showed benefit in reducing pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms. However, a new study from Denmark on 6 mg low-dose naltrexone versus placebo among 99 women with fibromyalgia demonstrated no significant difference in the primary outcome of change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks.

On the other hand, there was a significant improvement in memory, and there were no differences in adverse events or safety, the authors reported in The Lancet Rheumatology.

Nonetheless, an accompanying commentary called the study a “resoundingly negative trial” and advised that while off-label use of low-dose naltrexone could continue for patients already taking it, clinicians should not initiate it for patients who have not previously used it, pending additional data.

Dr. Younger, director of the Neuroinflammation, Pain and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, was speaking on December 13, 2023, at a National Institutes of Health meeting about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome about the potential use of low-dose naltrexone for that patient population. He had checked the literature in preparation for his talk and saw the new study, which had just been published December 5, 2023. 

During his talk, Dr. Younger said, “It looks like the study was very well done, and all the decisions made sense to me, so I don’t doubt the quality of their data or the statistics.”

But as for the commentary, he said, “I strongly disagree, and I believe the physicians at this conference strongly disagree with that as well. I know plenty of physicians who would say that is not good advice because this drug is so helpful for so many people.”

Indeed, Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, who heard Dr. Younger’s talk but hadn’t seen the new study, told this news organization that he is a “fan” of low-dose naltrexone based on his own experience with one patient who had a “clearly beneficial response” and that of other clinicians he’s spoken with about it. “My colleagues say it doesn’t work for everyone because the disease is so heterogeneous ... but it definitely works for some patients.”

Dr. Younger noted that the proportion of people in the Danish study who reported a clinically significant, that is 30% reduction, in pain scores was 45% versus 28% with placebo, not far from the 50% he found in his studies. “If they’d had 40 to 60 more people, they would have had statistically significant difference,” Dr. Younger said.

Indeed, the authors themselves pointed this out in their discussion, noting, “Our study was not powered to detect a significant difference regarding responder indices ... Subgroups of patients with fibromyalgia might respond differently to low-dose naltrexone treatment, and we intend to conduct a responder analysis based on levels of inflammatory biomarkers and specific biomarkers of glial activation, hypothesising that an inflammatory subgroup might benefit from the treatment. Results will be published in subsequent papers.”

The commentary authors responded to that, saying that they “appreciate” the intention to conduct that subgroup analysis, but that it is “probable that the current sample size will preclude robust statistical comparisons but could be a step to generate hypotheses.”

Those authors noted that a systematic review has described both pro-inflammatory (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin [IL]-6, and IL-8) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10) cytokines as peripheral inflammatory biomarkers in patients with fibromyalgia. “The specific peripheral biomarkers of glial activation are yet to be identified. The neuroinflammation hypothesis of fibromyalgia could be supported if a reduction of central nervous system inflammation would predict improvement of fibromyalgia symptoms. Subsequent work in this area is eagerly awaited.”

In the meantime, Dr. Younger said, “I do not think this should stop us from looking at low-dose naltrexone [or that] we shouldn’t try it. I’ve talked to over a thousand people over the last 10 years. It would be a very bad thing to give up on low-dose naltrexone now.”

Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Komaroff has no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuroinflammation expert Jarred Younger, PhD, disputes a recent study commentary calling for clinicians to stop prescribing low-dose naltrexone for people with fibromyalgia.

Naltrexone is a nonselective µ-opioid receptor antagonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at doses of 50-100 mg/day to treat opioid and alcohol dependence. Lower doses, typically 1-5 mg, can produce an analgesic effect via antagonism of receptors on microglial cells that lead to neuroinflammation. The low-dose version, available at compounding pharmacies, is not FDA-approved, but for many years it has been used off-label to treat fibromyalgia and related conditions.

Results from earlier small clinical trials have conflicted, but two conducted by Dr. Younger using doses of 4.5 mg/day showed benefit in reducing pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms. However, a new study from Denmark on 6 mg low-dose naltrexone versus placebo among 99 women with fibromyalgia demonstrated no significant difference in the primary outcome of change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks.

On the other hand, there was a significant improvement in memory, and there were no differences in adverse events or safety, the authors reported in The Lancet Rheumatology.

Nonetheless, an accompanying commentary called the study a “resoundingly negative trial” and advised that while off-label use of low-dose naltrexone could continue for patients already taking it, clinicians should not initiate it for patients who have not previously used it, pending additional data.

Dr. Younger, director of the Neuroinflammation, Pain and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, was speaking on December 13, 2023, at a National Institutes of Health meeting about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome about the potential use of low-dose naltrexone for that patient population. He had checked the literature in preparation for his talk and saw the new study, which had just been published December 5, 2023. 

During his talk, Dr. Younger said, “It looks like the study was very well done, and all the decisions made sense to me, so I don’t doubt the quality of their data or the statistics.”

But as for the commentary, he said, “I strongly disagree, and I believe the physicians at this conference strongly disagree with that as well. I know plenty of physicians who would say that is not good advice because this drug is so helpful for so many people.”

Indeed, Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, who heard Dr. Younger’s talk but hadn’t seen the new study, told this news organization that he is a “fan” of low-dose naltrexone based on his own experience with one patient who had a “clearly beneficial response” and that of other clinicians he’s spoken with about it. “My colleagues say it doesn’t work for everyone because the disease is so heterogeneous ... but it definitely works for some patients.”

Dr. Younger noted that the proportion of people in the Danish study who reported a clinically significant, that is 30% reduction, in pain scores was 45% versus 28% with placebo, not far from the 50% he found in his studies. “If they’d had 40 to 60 more people, they would have had statistically significant difference,” Dr. Younger said.

Indeed, the authors themselves pointed this out in their discussion, noting, “Our study was not powered to detect a significant difference regarding responder indices ... Subgroups of patients with fibromyalgia might respond differently to low-dose naltrexone treatment, and we intend to conduct a responder analysis based on levels of inflammatory biomarkers and specific biomarkers of glial activation, hypothesising that an inflammatory subgroup might benefit from the treatment. Results will be published in subsequent papers.”

The commentary authors responded to that, saying that they “appreciate” the intention to conduct that subgroup analysis, but that it is “probable that the current sample size will preclude robust statistical comparisons but could be a step to generate hypotheses.”

Those authors noted that a systematic review has described both pro-inflammatory (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin [IL]-6, and IL-8) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10) cytokines as peripheral inflammatory biomarkers in patients with fibromyalgia. “The specific peripheral biomarkers of glial activation are yet to be identified. The neuroinflammation hypothesis of fibromyalgia could be supported if a reduction of central nervous system inflammation would predict improvement of fibromyalgia symptoms. Subsequent work in this area is eagerly awaited.”

In the meantime, Dr. Younger said, “I do not think this should stop us from looking at low-dose naltrexone [or that] we shouldn’t try it. I’ve talked to over a thousand people over the last 10 years. It would be a very bad thing to give up on low-dose naltrexone now.”

Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Komaroff has no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BETHESDA, MD — New research into the mechanisms underlying myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID is aimed at identifying potential approaches to treatment of the two overlapping illnesses.

According to a new data brief from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2021-2022, 1.3% of US adults had ME/CFS, a complex, multisystem illness characterized by activity-limiting fatigue, worsening of symptoms after exertion, unrefreshing sleep, and other symptoms.

A 2-day conference, Advancing ME/CFS Research: Identifying Targets for Potential Intervention and Learning from Long COVID, was held in December 12-13 on the main campus of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and was livestreamed. The last such meeting, also featuring results from NIH-funded research, was held in April 2019.

“Things have changed since 2019 ... The idea of this meeting is to try and identify pathways that will be treatable and druggable and really make an impact for patients based on the things that we’ve learned over the last number of years and including, fortunately or unfortunately, the huge number of people who are suffering from long COVID, where the symptoms overlap so much with those who have been suffering for a long time with ME/CFS,” said Conference Chair Joe Breen, PhD, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

As in 2019, the meeting was preceded by a day of research presentations from young investigators, some of whom also presented their findings at the main meeting. New this year were four “lived experience” speakers who described their physical, emotional, and financial struggles with ME/CFS or long COVID. Two of them presented virtually because they were too ill to travel.

Social worker and patient advocate Terri Wilder of Minneapolis, Minnesota, reported some feedback she received on social media after she asked people with ME/CFS about their priorities for the research and clinical communities.

Among the top responses were the need to recognize and study the phenomenon of “post-exertional malaise” and to stop recommending exercise for people with these illnesses, to accelerate research to find effective treatments, and to put an end to stigma around the condition. “People don’t believe us when we tell them we’re sick, people make fun of us, misperceptions persist,” Wilder said.

One person commented, “[Clinicians] shouldn’t be afraid to try off-label meds with us if needed. There may be some secondary effects, but they are better options than us taking our own lives because we can’t stand the suffering.”

Research areas covered at the conference included immunology, virology, metabolism, gene regulation, and neurology of both ME/CFS and long COVID, as well as the latest findings regarding the overlap between the two conditions.
 

Oxidative Stress in Both ME/CFS and Long COVID: A Role for Metformin?

Mark M. Davis, PhD, professor and director of the Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, summarized published data suggesting that oxidative stress is a shared characteristic of both ME/CFS and long COVID. Most cellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) are produced in the cell’s mitochondria, and T-cell activation is ROS-dependent.

Women in particular with ME/CFS show high ROS levels with consistent T-cell hyperproliferation, “which can be suppressed with specific drugs such as metformin. This raises the prospect of optimizing drug treatment and drug discovery with a simple in vitro assay of the effects on a patient’s lymphocytes,” Dr. Davis said. He also cited a study suggesting that metformin may help prevent long COVID.

Asked to comment on that, longtime ME/CFS researcher Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, cautioned that although metformin is used safely by millions of people with type 2 diabetes worldwide, it’s possible that some people with ME/CFS may be more likely to experience its known adverse effects such as lactic acidosis.

To repurpose metformin or any other already-marketed drugs for ME/CFS and/or long COVID, Dr. Komaroff said, “We should entertain treatment trials.” However, as he and many others lamented at the conference, funding for off-patent drugs often isn’t forthcoming.
 

Addressing the Microbiome, Innate Immunity

W. Ian Lipkin, MD, of Columbia University, New York, NY, was one of two speakers who discussed the role of disruptions in the microbiome and innate immunity in ME/CFS. He presented data suggesting that “dysregulation of the gut microbiome in ME/CFS may interfere with butyrate production, resulting in inflammation and porosity to bacteria and bacterial products that trigger innate immunity.”

Dr. Lipkin highlighted a “really intriguing” paper in which exogenous administration of interleukin 37 (IL-37), a naturally occurring inhibitor of inflammation, reversed the decrease in exercise performance observed during inflammation-induced fatigue and increased exercise performance, both in mice.

“Although we do not fully understand the pathophysiology of ME/CFS, it is not premature to consider randomized clinical trials of pro- and pre-biotics that address dysbiosis as well as drugs that modify innate immune responses such as poly (I:C) and IL-37,” Dr. Lipkin said.
 

Alleviating Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) Stress: A Strategy to Increase Energy?

Paul M. Hwang, MD, PhD, from the Cardiovascular Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, described work that he and his colleagues recently published around a case of a 38-year-old woman with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, a genetic early-onset cancer, who also had extensive fatigue, exercise intolerance, and post-exertional malaise that began after she contracted mononucleosis as a teenager.

Testing revealed that her cells had increased expression of Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome Protein Family Member 3 (WASF3), a “top candidate” gene found to be associated with ME/CFS in a bioinformatics study published more than a decade ago. Moreover, immunoblotting of deidentified skeletal muscle biopsy samples obtained from patients with postinfectious ME/CFS also revealed significantly increased WASF3 levels.

Hwang and colleagues showed in mice that ER stress–induced WASF3 protein localizes to mitochondria and disrupts respiratory supercomplex assembly, leading to decreased oxygen consumption and exercise endurance.

However, use of the investigational protein phosphatase 1 inhibitor salubrinal in the female patient’s cells inhibited the ER stress, which in turn decreased WASF3 expression and improved mitochondrial supercomplex formation and respiration, “suggesting a treatment strategy in ME/CFS,” Dr. Hwang said.
 

Neurovascular Dysregulation During Exercise: A Role for Pyridostigmine?

David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, gave an update of his work investigating neurovascular dysregulation during exercise in both ME/CFS and long COVID using invasive cardiopulmonary testing.

In a 2021 publication, Dr. Systrom and his colleagues identified the mechanism of “preload failure,” or lower filling pressures of blood in the heart chambers because of insufficient vein constriction and reduced return of blood to the right side of the heart in people with ME/CFS, compared with healthy controls.

Subsequently, in a randomized trial of 45 patients with ME/CFS, Systrom and his colleagues published in November 2022, use of the cholinesterase inhibitor pyridostigmine, currently approved for treating myasthenia gravis and related conditions, improved peak Vo2 by increasing cardiac output and filling pressures.

Now, Dr. Systrom’s team is conducting a randomized trial comparing 60 mg pyridostigmine with or without low-dose naltrexone (LDN) vs placebo in 160 patients with ME/CFS for 3 months. Metabolomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and other assessments will be conducted on urine and blood samples. Participants will also wear devices that measure steps, sleep, heart rate, and other metrics.

Komaroff cautioned that pyridostigmine, too, has potential adverse effects. “I’m not sure pyridostigmine is ready for prime time ... It’s a drug developed for a very different purpose ... Now will it hold up in a larger trial, and will there be any side effects that turn up in larger studies? It’s not unreasonable to study.”
 

Brain Inflammation: Measuring and Treating It

Hannah F. Bues, clinical research coordinator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, presented data now in preprint (ie, not yet peer-reviewed) in which researchers used [11C]PBR28 PET neuroimaging, a marker of neuroinflammation, to compare 12 individuals with long COVID vs 43 healthy controls. They found significantly increased neuroinflammation in several different brain regions in the long COVID group compared with controls.

Samples of peripheral blood plasma also showed significant correlations between neuroinflammation and circulating analytes related to vascular dysfunction. This work is ongoing in both long COVID and pre-COVID ME/CFS populations, Bues said.

Jarred Younger, PhD, of the Neuroinflammation, Pain, and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, also gave an update of his ongoing work demonstrating significant brain inflammation seen in neuroimaging of people with ME/CFS compared with healthy controls.

Dr. Younger has been investigating the use of LDN for pain in fibromyalgia. Anecdotally, there have been reports of fatigue reduction with LDN in ME/CFS.

Dr. Younger conducted a post hoc analysis of his previous trial of LDN for 12 weeks in 30 patients with fibromyalgia. Of those, 16 met older CFS criteria. There was a significant reduction in their fatigue severity, with P <.0001 from baseline and P < .009 compared with placebo. The P values were high because the data included daily symptom reports. The average fatigue reduction was 25%.

“It wasn’t a study designed for ME/CFS, but I think it’s compelling evidence and enough with the other types of data we have to say we need to do a proper clinical trial of low-dose naltrexone in ME/CFS now,” Dr. Younger said.
 

‘We Need to Do Something’ About the Underfunding

Another NIH-funded ME/CFS researcher, Maureen Hanson, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, noted that the NIH currently funds ME/CFS research at about $13 million compared with $1.15 billion for the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery Initiative granted to NIH by Congress for “post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC)” in 2021 “because of the urgency of studying this. Most of us here are well aware of the underfunding of ME/CFS relative to the burden of illness,” she said.

Current 2024 funding for AIDS research is $3294 million. “There are 1.2 million individuals living with HIV in the United States, and there are over 3 million who are barely living with ME/CFS in the United States. We need to do something about this ... It’s certainly possible that future funding for PASC is now going to disappear,” Dr. Hanson cautioned.

Wilder, the patient advocate, reminded the audience that “There is a cohort of people with ME who got sick in the 1980s and 1990s in the prime of their life ... They have dreamed of a day when there would be a major announcement that a treatment has been discovered to take away the suffering of this disease ... They keep waiting and waiting, year after year, missing more and more of their lives with each passing day ... We’re all depending on you.”

Dr. Systrom has received funding from the Solve ME/CFS Initiative, Department of Defense, and Open Medicine Foundation. Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the NIH, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Dr. Lipkin and Dr. Hanson receive NIH funding. Dr. Komaroff has no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BETHESDA, MD — New research into the mechanisms underlying myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID is aimed at identifying potential approaches to treatment of the two overlapping illnesses.

According to a new data brief from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2021-2022, 1.3% of US adults had ME/CFS, a complex, multisystem illness characterized by activity-limiting fatigue, worsening of symptoms after exertion, unrefreshing sleep, and other symptoms.

A 2-day conference, Advancing ME/CFS Research: Identifying Targets for Potential Intervention and Learning from Long COVID, was held in December 12-13 on the main campus of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and was livestreamed. The last such meeting, also featuring results from NIH-funded research, was held in April 2019.

“Things have changed since 2019 ... The idea of this meeting is to try and identify pathways that will be treatable and druggable and really make an impact for patients based on the things that we’ve learned over the last number of years and including, fortunately or unfortunately, the huge number of people who are suffering from long COVID, where the symptoms overlap so much with those who have been suffering for a long time with ME/CFS,” said Conference Chair Joe Breen, PhD, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

As in 2019, the meeting was preceded by a day of research presentations from young investigators, some of whom also presented their findings at the main meeting. New this year were four “lived experience” speakers who described their physical, emotional, and financial struggles with ME/CFS or long COVID. Two of them presented virtually because they were too ill to travel.

Social worker and patient advocate Terri Wilder of Minneapolis, Minnesota, reported some feedback she received on social media after she asked people with ME/CFS about their priorities for the research and clinical communities.

Among the top responses were the need to recognize and study the phenomenon of “post-exertional malaise” and to stop recommending exercise for people with these illnesses, to accelerate research to find effective treatments, and to put an end to stigma around the condition. “People don’t believe us when we tell them we’re sick, people make fun of us, misperceptions persist,” Wilder said.

One person commented, “[Clinicians] shouldn’t be afraid to try off-label meds with us if needed. There may be some secondary effects, but they are better options than us taking our own lives because we can’t stand the suffering.”

Research areas covered at the conference included immunology, virology, metabolism, gene regulation, and neurology of both ME/CFS and long COVID, as well as the latest findings regarding the overlap between the two conditions.
 

Oxidative Stress in Both ME/CFS and Long COVID: A Role for Metformin?

Mark M. Davis, PhD, professor and director of the Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, summarized published data suggesting that oxidative stress is a shared characteristic of both ME/CFS and long COVID. Most cellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) are produced in the cell’s mitochondria, and T-cell activation is ROS-dependent.

Women in particular with ME/CFS show high ROS levels with consistent T-cell hyperproliferation, “which can be suppressed with specific drugs such as metformin. This raises the prospect of optimizing drug treatment and drug discovery with a simple in vitro assay of the effects on a patient’s lymphocytes,” Dr. Davis said. He also cited a study suggesting that metformin may help prevent long COVID.

Asked to comment on that, longtime ME/CFS researcher Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, cautioned that although metformin is used safely by millions of people with type 2 diabetes worldwide, it’s possible that some people with ME/CFS may be more likely to experience its known adverse effects such as lactic acidosis.

To repurpose metformin or any other already-marketed drugs for ME/CFS and/or long COVID, Dr. Komaroff said, “We should entertain treatment trials.” However, as he and many others lamented at the conference, funding for off-patent drugs often isn’t forthcoming.
 

Addressing the Microbiome, Innate Immunity

W. Ian Lipkin, MD, of Columbia University, New York, NY, was one of two speakers who discussed the role of disruptions in the microbiome and innate immunity in ME/CFS. He presented data suggesting that “dysregulation of the gut microbiome in ME/CFS may interfere with butyrate production, resulting in inflammation and porosity to bacteria and bacterial products that trigger innate immunity.”

Dr. Lipkin highlighted a “really intriguing” paper in which exogenous administration of interleukin 37 (IL-37), a naturally occurring inhibitor of inflammation, reversed the decrease in exercise performance observed during inflammation-induced fatigue and increased exercise performance, both in mice.

“Although we do not fully understand the pathophysiology of ME/CFS, it is not premature to consider randomized clinical trials of pro- and pre-biotics that address dysbiosis as well as drugs that modify innate immune responses such as poly (I:C) and IL-37,” Dr. Lipkin said.
 

Alleviating Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) Stress: A Strategy to Increase Energy?

Paul M. Hwang, MD, PhD, from the Cardiovascular Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, described work that he and his colleagues recently published around a case of a 38-year-old woman with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, a genetic early-onset cancer, who also had extensive fatigue, exercise intolerance, and post-exertional malaise that began after she contracted mononucleosis as a teenager.

Testing revealed that her cells had increased expression of Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome Protein Family Member 3 (WASF3), a “top candidate” gene found to be associated with ME/CFS in a bioinformatics study published more than a decade ago. Moreover, immunoblotting of deidentified skeletal muscle biopsy samples obtained from patients with postinfectious ME/CFS also revealed significantly increased WASF3 levels.

Hwang and colleagues showed in mice that ER stress–induced WASF3 protein localizes to mitochondria and disrupts respiratory supercomplex assembly, leading to decreased oxygen consumption and exercise endurance.

However, use of the investigational protein phosphatase 1 inhibitor salubrinal in the female patient’s cells inhibited the ER stress, which in turn decreased WASF3 expression and improved mitochondrial supercomplex formation and respiration, “suggesting a treatment strategy in ME/CFS,” Dr. Hwang said.
 

Neurovascular Dysregulation During Exercise: A Role for Pyridostigmine?

David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, gave an update of his work investigating neurovascular dysregulation during exercise in both ME/CFS and long COVID using invasive cardiopulmonary testing.

In a 2021 publication, Dr. Systrom and his colleagues identified the mechanism of “preload failure,” or lower filling pressures of blood in the heart chambers because of insufficient vein constriction and reduced return of blood to the right side of the heart in people with ME/CFS, compared with healthy controls.

Subsequently, in a randomized trial of 45 patients with ME/CFS, Systrom and his colleagues published in November 2022, use of the cholinesterase inhibitor pyridostigmine, currently approved for treating myasthenia gravis and related conditions, improved peak Vo2 by increasing cardiac output and filling pressures.

Now, Dr. Systrom’s team is conducting a randomized trial comparing 60 mg pyridostigmine with or without low-dose naltrexone (LDN) vs placebo in 160 patients with ME/CFS for 3 months. Metabolomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and other assessments will be conducted on urine and blood samples. Participants will also wear devices that measure steps, sleep, heart rate, and other metrics.

Komaroff cautioned that pyridostigmine, too, has potential adverse effects. “I’m not sure pyridostigmine is ready for prime time ... It’s a drug developed for a very different purpose ... Now will it hold up in a larger trial, and will there be any side effects that turn up in larger studies? It’s not unreasonable to study.”
 

Brain Inflammation: Measuring and Treating It

Hannah F. Bues, clinical research coordinator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, presented data now in preprint (ie, not yet peer-reviewed) in which researchers used [11C]PBR28 PET neuroimaging, a marker of neuroinflammation, to compare 12 individuals with long COVID vs 43 healthy controls. They found significantly increased neuroinflammation in several different brain regions in the long COVID group compared with controls.

Samples of peripheral blood plasma also showed significant correlations between neuroinflammation and circulating analytes related to vascular dysfunction. This work is ongoing in both long COVID and pre-COVID ME/CFS populations, Bues said.

Jarred Younger, PhD, of the Neuroinflammation, Pain, and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, also gave an update of his ongoing work demonstrating significant brain inflammation seen in neuroimaging of people with ME/CFS compared with healthy controls.

Dr. Younger has been investigating the use of LDN for pain in fibromyalgia. Anecdotally, there have been reports of fatigue reduction with LDN in ME/CFS.

Dr. Younger conducted a post hoc analysis of his previous trial of LDN for 12 weeks in 30 patients with fibromyalgia. Of those, 16 met older CFS criteria. There was a significant reduction in their fatigue severity, with P <.0001 from baseline and P < .009 compared with placebo. The P values were high because the data included daily symptom reports. The average fatigue reduction was 25%.

“It wasn’t a study designed for ME/CFS, but I think it’s compelling evidence and enough with the other types of data we have to say we need to do a proper clinical trial of low-dose naltrexone in ME/CFS now,” Dr. Younger said.
 

‘We Need to Do Something’ About the Underfunding

Another NIH-funded ME/CFS researcher, Maureen Hanson, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, noted that the NIH currently funds ME/CFS research at about $13 million compared with $1.15 billion for the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery Initiative granted to NIH by Congress for “post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC)” in 2021 “because of the urgency of studying this. Most of us here are well aware of the underfunding of ME/CFS relative to the burden of illness,” she said.

Current 2024 funding for AIDS research is $3294 million. “There are 1.2 million individuals living with HIV in the United States, and there are over 3 million who are barely living with ME/CFS in the United States. We need to do something about this ... It’s certainly possible that future funding for PASC is now going to disappear,” Dr. Hanson cautioned.

Wilder, the patient advocate, reminded the audience that “There is a cohort of people with ME who got sick in the 1980s and 1990s in the prime of their life ... They have dreamed of a day when there would be a major announcement that a treatment has been discovered to take away the suffering of this disease ... They keep waiting and waiting, year after year, missing more and more of their lives with each passing day ... We’re all depending on you.”

Dr. Systrom has received funding from the Solve ME/CFS Initiative, Department of Defense, and Open Medicine Foundation. Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the NIH, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Dr. Lipkin and Dr. Hanson receive NIH funding. Dr. Komaroff has no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BETHESDA, MD — New research into the mechanisms underlying myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID is aimed at identifying potential approaches to treatment of the two overlapping illnesses.

According to a new data brief from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2021-2022, 1.3% of US adults had ME/CFS, a complex, multisystem illness characterized by activity-limiting fatigue, worsening of symptoms after exertion, unrefreshing sleep, and other symptoms.

A 2-day conference, Advancing ME/CFS Research: Identifying Targets for Potential Intervention and Learning from Long COVID, was held in December 12-13 on the main campus of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and was livestreamed. The last such meeting, also featuring results from NIH-funded research, was held in April 2019.

“Things have changed since 2019 ... The idea of this meeting is to try and identify pathways that will be treatable and druggable and really make an impact for patients based on the things that we’ve learned over the last number of years and including, fortunately or unfortunately, the huge number of people who are suffering from long COVID, where the symptoms overlap so much with those who have been suffering for a long time with ME/CFS,” said Conference Chair Joe Breen, PhD, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

As in 2019, the meeting was preceded by a day of research presentations from young investigators, some of whom also presented their findings at the main meeting. New this year were four “lived experience” speakers who described their physical, emotional, and financial struggles with ME/CFS or long COVID. Two of them presented virtually because they were too ill to travel.

Social worker and patient advocate Terri Wilder of Minneapolis, Minnesota, reported some feedback she received on social media after she asked people with ME/CFS about their priorities for the research and clinical communities.

Among the top responses were the need to recognize and study the phenomenon of “post-exertional malaise” and to stop recommending exercise for people with these illnesses, to accelerate research to find effective treatments, and to put an end to stigma around the condition. “People don’t believe us when we tell them we’re sick, people make fun of us, misperceptions persist,” Wilder said.

One person commented, “[Clinicians] shouldn’t be afraid to try off-label meds with us if needed. There may be some secondary effects, but they are better options than us taking our own lives because we can’t stand the suffering.”

Research areas covered at the conference included immunology, virology, metabolism, gene regulation, and neurology of both ME/CFS and long COVID, as well as the latest findings regarding the overlap between the two conditions.
 

Oxidative Stress in Both ME/CFS and Long COVID: A Role for Metformin?

Mark M. Davis, PhD, professor and director of the Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, summarized published data suggesting that oxidative stress is a shared characteristic of both ME/CFS and long COVID. Most cellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) are produced in the cell’s mitochondria, and T-cell activation is ROS-dependent.

Women in particular with ME/CFS show high ROS levels with consistent T-cell hyperproliferation, “which can be suppressed with specific drugs such as metformin. This raises the prospect of optimizing drug treatment and drug discovery with a simple in vitro assay of the effects on a patient’s lymphocytes,” Dr. Davis said. He also cited a study suggesting that metformin may help prevent long COVID.

Asked to comment on that, longtime ME/CFS researcher Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, cautioned that although metformin is used safely by millions of people with type 2 diabetes worldwide, it’s possible that some people with ME/CFS may be more likely to experience its known adverse effects such as lactic acidosis.

To repurpose metformin or any other already-marketed drugs for ME/CFS and/or long COVID, Dr. Komaroff said, “We should entertain treatment trials.” However, as he and many others lamented at the conference, funding for off-patent drugs often isn’t forthcoming.
 

Addressing the Microbiome, Innate Immunity

W. Ian Lipkin, MD, of Columbia University, New York, NY, was one of two speakers who discussed the role of disruptions in the microbiome and innate immunity in ME/CFS. He presented data suggesting that “dysregulation of the gut microbiome in ME/CFS may interfere with butyrate production, resulting in inflammation and porosity to bacteria and bacterial products that trigger innate immunity.”

Dr. Lipkin highlighted a “really intriguing” paper in which exogenous administration of interleukin 37 (IL-37), a naturally occurring inhibitor of inflammation, reversed the decrease in exercise performance observed during inflammation-induced fatigue and increased exercise performance, both in mice.

“Although we do not fully understand the pathophysiology of ME/CFS, it is not premature to consider randomized clinical trials of pro- and pre-biotics that address dysbiosis as well as drugs that modify innate immune responses such as poly (I:C) and IL-37,” Dr. Lipkin said.
 

Alleviating Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) Stress: A Strategy to Increase Energy?

Paul M. Hwang, MD, PhD, from the Cardiovascular Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, described work that he and his colleagues recently published around a case of a 38-year-old woman with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, a genetic early-onset cancer, who also had extensive fatigue, exercise intolerance, and post-exertional malaise that began after she contracted mononucleosis as a teenager.

Testing revealed that her cells had increased expression of Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome Protein Family Member 3 (WASF3), a “top candidate” gene found to be associated with ME/CFS in a bioinformatics study published more than a decade ago. Moreover, immunoblotting of deidentified skeletal muscle biopsy samples obtained from patients with postinfectious ME/CFS also revealed significantly increased WASF3 levels.

Hwang and colleagues showed in mice that ER stress–induced WASF3 protein localizes to mitochondria and disrupts respiratory supercomplex assembly, leading to decreased oxygen consumption and exercise endurance.

However, use of the investigational protein phosphatase 1 inhibitor salubrinal in the female patient’s cells inhibited the ER stress, which in turn decreased WASF3 expression and improved mitochondrial supercomplex formation and respiration, “suggesting a treatment strategy in ME/CFS,” Dr. Hwang said.
 

Neurovascular Dysregulation During Exercise: A Role for Pyridostigmine?

David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, gave an update of his work investigating neurovascular dysregulation during exercise in both ME/CFS and long COVID using invasive cardiopulmonary testing.

In a 2021 publication, Dr. Systrom and his colleagues identified the mechanism of “preload failure,” or lower filling pressures of blood in the heart chambers because of insufficient vein constriction and reduced return of blood to the right side of the heart in people with ME/CFS, compared with healthy controls.

Subsequently, in a randomized trial of 45 patients with ME/CFS, Systrom and his colleagues published in November 2022, use of the cholinesterase inhibitor pyridostigmine, currently approved for treating myasthenia gravis and related conditions, improved peak Vo2 by increasing cardiac output and filling pressures.

Now, Dr. Systrom’s team is conducting a randomized trial comparing 60 mg pyridostigmine with or without low-dose naltrexone (LDN) vs placebo in 160 patients with ME/CFS for 3 months. Metabolomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and other assessments will be conducted on urine and blood samples. Participants will also wear devices that measure steps, sleep, heart rate, and other metrics.

Komaroff cautioned that pyridostigmine, too, has potential adverse effects. “I’m not sure pyridostigmine is ready for prime time ... It’s a drug developed for a very different purpose ... Now will it hold up in a larger trial, and will there be any side effects that turn up in larger studies? It’s not unreasonable to study.”
 

Brain Inflammation: Measuring and Treating It

Hannah F. Bues, clinical research coordinator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, presented data now in preprint (ie, not yet peer-reviewed) in which researchers used [11C]PBR28 PET neuroimaging, a marker of neuroinflammation, to compare 12 individuals with long COVID vs 43 healthy controls. They found significantly increased neuroinflammation in several different brain regions in the long COVID group compared with controls.

Samples of peripheral blood plasma also showed significant correlations between neuroinflammation and circulating analytes related to vascular dysfunction. This work is ongoing in both long COVID and pre-COVID ME/CFS populations, Bues said.

Jarred Younger, PhD, of the Neuroinflammation, Pain, and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, also gave an update of his ongoing work demonstrating significant brain inflammation seen in neuroimaging of people with ME/CFS compared with healthy controls.

Dr. Younger has been investigating the use of LDN for pain in fibromyalgia. Anecdotally, there have been reports of fatigue reduction with LDN in ME/CFS.

Dr. Younger conducted a post hoc analysis of his previous trial of LDN for 12 weeks in 30 patients with fibromyalgia. Of those, 16 met older CFS criteria. There was a significant reduction in their fatigue severity, with P <.0001 from baseline and P < .009 compared with placebo. The P values were high because the data included daily symptom reports. The average fatigue reduction was 25%.

“It wasn’t a study designed for ME/CFS, but I think it’s compelling evidence and enough with the other types of data we have to say we need to do a proper clinical trial of low-dose naltrexone in ME/CFS now,” Dr. Younger said.
 

‘We Need to Do Something’ About the Underfunding

Another NIH-funded ME/CFS researcher, Maureen Hanson, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, noted that the NIH currently funds ME/CFS research at about $13 million compared with $1.15 billion for the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery Initiative granted to NIH by Congress for “post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC)” in 2021 “because of the urgency of studying this. Most of us here are well aware of the underfunding of ME/CFS relative to the burden of illness,” she said.

Current 2024 funding for AIDS research is $3294 million. “There are 1.2 million individuals living with HIV in the United States, and there are over 3 million who are barely living with ME/CFS in the United States. We need to do something about this ... It’s certainly possible that future funding for PASC is now going to disappear,” Dr. Hanson cautioned.

Wilder, the patient advocate, reminded the audience that “There is a cohort of people with ME who got sick in the 1980s and 1990s in the prime of their life ... They have dreamed of a day when there would be a major announcement that a treatment has been discovered to take away the suffering of this disease ... They keep waiting and waiting, year after year, missing more and more of their lives with each passing day ... We’re all depending on you.”

Dr. Systrom has received funding from the Solve ME/CFS Initiative, Department of Defense, and Open Medicine Foundation. Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the NIH, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Dr. Lipkin and Dr. Hanson receive NIH funding. Dr. Komaroff has no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A high-quality, low-carbohydrate diet (LCD), rich in plant-based proteins and healthy fats, was associated with slower weight gain, while a lower-quality LCD was associated with the reverse.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prospective cohort study included 123,332 participants from the Nurses’ Health Studies (NHS, 1986-2010 and 1991-2015) and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS, 1986-2018).
• Diets assessed by questionnaires were categorized as: (1) total LCD (TLCD), emphasizing overall lower carbohydrate intake; (2) animal-based LCD (ALCD), emphasizing animal-sourced protein and fat; (3) vegetable-based LCD (VLCD), emphasizing plant-sourced protein and fat; (4) a healthy LCD (HLCD), emphasizing less refined carbohydrates, more plant protein, and healthy fat; and (5) unhealthy LCD (ULCD), emphasizing less healthful carbohydrates, more animal protein, and unhealthy fat.
• The primary outcome was 4-year reported changes in body weight, divided into quintiles, with Q3 = no change, Q1 = largest decrease, and Q5 = largest increase.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants gained a mean of 1.3 kg over each 4-year interval, with gains of 0.8, 1.8, and 0.5 kg for NHS, NHSII, and HPFS, respectively.
• After adjustment for baseline and concomitant changes in lifestyle and demographic factors, compared with participants with no change in the TLCD score over 4-year intervals, those with the largest increase (Q5) in the TLCD score did not have significant weight change (0.03 kg), while those with the largest decrease (Q1) in the TLCD score had significantly less weight gain (−0.20 kg).
• Similarly, those following a VLCD with Q5 change, compared with those with stable Q3 adherence, experienced 0.21 kg less weight gain, and those with Q1 change experienced 0.17 kg less weight gain, both significant.
• Adhering to an ALCD was associated with more weight gain over time, with each 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in ALCD associated with a significant 0.13 kg more weight gain over 4-year intervals.
• Opposite results were seen for ULCD and HLCD scores, where a 1-SD increase in HLCD and ULCD was associated with a significant 0.36 kg weight loss and 0.39 kg weight gain, respectively, over 4-year intervals.
• The associations were stronger among individuals with baseline body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m².

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings of this cohort study underscore the importance of diet quality within LCD patterns for weight management… Overall, the study findings argue against the sole focus of macronutrient quantity for weight management and suggest the crucial role of nutrient quality in maintaining a healthy body weight.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Binkai Liu, MS, of the department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues. 

The findings were published online in  JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

• Self-reported data.
• Observational study, potential for residual confounding.
• No body composition measurement.
• Study population was mainly White health professionals.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by research grants from the National Institutes of Health, and one coauthor is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A high-quality, low-carbohydrate diet (LCD), rich in plant-based proteins and healthy fats, was associated with slower weight gain, while a lower-quality LCD was associated with the reverse.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prospective cohort study included 123,332 participants from the Nurses’ Health Studies (NHS, 1986-2010 and 1991-2015) and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS, 1986-2018).
• Diets assessed by questionnaires were categorized as: (1) total LCD (TLCD), emphasizing overall lower carbohydrate intake; (2) animal-based LCD (ALCD), emphasizing animal-sourced protein and fat; (3) vegetable-based LCD (VLCD), emphasizing plant-sourced protein and fat; (4) a healthy LCD (HLCD), emphasizing less refined carbohydrates, more plant protein, and healthy fat; and (5) unhealthy LCD (ULCD), emphasizing less healthful carbohydrates, more animal protein, and unhealthy fat.
• The primary outcome was 4-year reported changes in body weight, divided into quintiles, with Q3 = no change, Q1 = largest decrease, and Q5 = largest increase.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants gained a mean of 1.3 kg over each 4-year interval, with gains of 0.8, 1.8, and 0.5 kg for NHS, NHSII, and HPFS, respectively.
• After adjustment for baseline and concomitant changes in lifestyle and demographic factors, compared with participants with no change in the TLCD score over 4-year intervals, those with the largest increase (Q5) in the TLCD score did not have significant weight change (0.03 kg), while those with the largest decrease (Q1) in the TLCD score had significantly less weight gain (−0.20 kg).
• Similarly, those following a VLCD with Q5 change, compared with those with stable Q3 adherence, experienced 0.21 kg less weight gain, and those with Q1 change experienced 0.17 kg less weight gain, both significant.
• Adhering to an ALCD was associated with more weight gain over time, with each 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in ALCD associated with a significant 0.13 kg more weight gain over 4-year intervals.
• Opposite results were seen for ULCD and HLCD scores, where a 1-SD increase in HLCD and ULCD was associated with a significant 0.36 kg weight loss and 0.39 kg weight gain, respectively, over 4-year intervals.
• The associations were stronger among individuals with baseline body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m².

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings of this cohort study underscore the importance of diet quality within LCD patterns for weight management… Overall, the study findings argue against the sole focus of macronutrient quantity for weight management and suggest the crucial role of nutrient quality in maintaining a healthy body weight.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Binkai Liu, MS, of the department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues. 

The findings were published online in  JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

• Self-reported data.
• Observational study, potential for residual confounding.
• No body composition measurement.
• Study population was mainly White health professionals.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by research grants from the National Institutes of Health, and one coauthor is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A high-quality, low-carbohydrate diet (LCD), rich in plant-based proteins and healthy fats, was associated with slower weight gain, while a lower-quality LCD was associated with the reverse.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prospective cohort study included 123,332 participants from the Nurses’ Health Studies (NHS, 1986-2010 and 1991-2015) and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS, 1986-2018).
• Diets assessed by questionnaires were categorized as: (1) total LCD (TLCD), emphasizing overall lower carbohydrate intake; (2) animal-based LCD (ALCD), emphasizing animal-sourced protein and fat; (3) vegetable-based LCD (VLCD), emphasizing plant-sourced protein and fat; (4) a healthy LCD (HLCD), emphasizing less refined carbohydrates, more plant protein, and healthy fat; and (5) unhealthy LCD (ULCD), emphasizing less healthful carbohydrates, more animal protein, and unhealthy fat.
• The primary outcome was 4-year reported changes in body weight, divided into quintiles, with Q3 = no change, Q1 = largest decrease, and Q5 = largest increase.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants gained a mean of 1.3 kg over each 4-year interval, with gains of 0.8, 1.8, and 0.5 kg for NHS, NHSII, and HPFS, respectively.
• After adjustment for baseline and concomitant changes in lifestyle and demographic factors, compared with participants with no change in the TLCD score over 4-year intervals, those with the largest increase (Q5) in the TLCD score did not have significant weight change (0.03 kg), while those with the largest decrease (Q1) in the TLCD score had significantly less weight gain (−0.20 kg).
• Similarly, those following a VLCD with Q5 change, compared with those with stable Q3 adherence, experienced 0.21 kg less weight gain, and those with Q1 change experienced 0.17 kg less weight gain, both significant.
• Adhering to an ALCD was associated with more weight gain over time, with each 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in ALCD associated with a significant 0.13 kg more weight gain over 4-year intervals.
• Opposite results were seen for ULCD and HLCD scores, where a 1-SD increase in HLCD and ULCD was associated with a significant 0.36 kg weight loss and 0.39 kg weight gain, respectively, over 4-year intervals.
• The associations were stronger among individuals with baseline body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m².

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings of this cohort study underscore the importance of diet quality within LCD patterns for weight management… Overall, the study findings argue against the sole focus of macronutrient quantity for weight management and suggest the crucial role of nutrient quality in maintaining a healthy body weight.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Binkai Liu, MS, of the department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues. 

The findings were published online in  JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

• Self-reported data.
• Observational study, potential for residual confounding.
• No body composition measurement.
• Study population was mainly White health professionals.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by research grants from the National Institutes of Health, and one coauthor is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning to the public about counterfeit semaglutide (Ozempic) products that have entered the US drug supply. 

Clinicians and patients are advised to check the product packages they have received and not to use those labeled with lot number NAR0074 and serial number 430834149057. Some of these counterfeit products may still be available for purchase, the FDA said in a statement. 

Together with Ozempic manufacturer Novo Nordisk, the FDA is investigating “thousands of units” of the 1-mg injection product. Information is not yet available regarding the drugs’ identity, quality, or safety. However, the pen needles have been confirmed as fake — thereby raising the potential risk for infection — as have the pen labels, accompanying health care professional and patient label information, and carton. 

“FDA takes reports of possible counterfeit products seriously and works closely with other federal agencies and the private sector to help protect the nation’s drug supply. FDA’s investigation is ongoing, and the agency is working with Novo Nordisk to identify, investigate, and remove further suspected counterfeit semaglutide injectable products found in the US,” the statement says. 

Patients are advised to only obtain Ozempic with a valid prescription through state-licensed pharmacies and to check the product before using for any signs of counterfeiting. There are several differences between the genuine and counterfeit products in the way the pen needle is packaged. The most obvious is that the paper tab covering the fake needle says “Novofine®” whereas the genuine one says “Novofine® Plus.” 

There have been at least five adverse events reported from this lot; none were serious and all were consistent with gastrointestinal issues known to occur with the genuine product. 

Counterfeit products should be reported to the FDA ‘s consumer complaint coordinator or to the criminal activity division.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning to the public about counterfeit semaglutide (Ozempic) products that have entered the US drug supply. 

Clinicians and patients are advised to check the product packages they have received and not to use those labeled with lot number NAR0074 and serial number 430834149057. Some of these counterfeit products may still be available for purchase, the FDA said in a statement. 

Together with Ozempic manufacturer Novo Nordisk, the FDA is investigating “thousands of units” of the 1-mg injection product. Information is not yet available regarding the drugs’ identity, quality, or safety. However, the pen needles have been confirmed as fake — thereby raising the potential risk for infection — as have the pen labels, accompanying health care professional and patient label information, and carton. 

“FDA takes reports of possible counterfeit products seriously and works closely with other federal agencies and the private sector to help protect the nation’s drug supply. FDA’s investigation is ongoing, and the agency is working with Novo Nordisk to identify, investigate, and remove further suspected counterfeit semaglutide injectable products found in the US,” the statement says. 

Patients are advised to only obtain Ozempic with a valid prescription through state-licensed pharmacies and to check the product before using for any signs of counterfeiting. There are several differences between the genuine and counterfeit products in the way the pen needle is packaged. The most obvious is that the paper tab covering the fake needle says “Novofine®” whereas the genuine one says “Novofine® Plus.” 

There have been at least five adverse events reported from this lot; none were serious and all were consistent with gastrointestinal issues known to occur with the genuine product. 

Counterfeit products should be reported to the FDA ‘s consumer complaint coordinator or to the criminal activity division.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning to the public about counterfeit semaglutide (Ozempic) products that have entered the US drug supply. 

Clinicians and patients are advised to check the product packages they have received and not to use those labeled with lot number NAR0074 and serial number 430834149057. Some of these counterfeit products may still be available for purchase, the FDA said in a statement. 

Together with Ozempic manufacturer Novo Nordisk, the FDA is investigating “thousands of units” of the 1-mg injection product. Information is not yet available regarding the drugs’ identity, quality, or safety. However, the pen needles have been confirmed as fake — thereby raising the potential risk for infection — as have the pen labels, accompanying health care professional and patient label information, and carton. 

“FDA takes reports of possible counterfeit products seriously and works closely with other federal agencies and the private sector to help protect the nation’s drug supply. FDA’s investigation is ongoing, and the agency is working with Novo Nordisk to identify, investigate, and remove further suspected counterfeit semaglutide injectable products found in the US,” the statement says. 

Patients are advised to only obtain Ozempic with a valid prescription through state-licensed pharmacies and to check the product before using for any signs of counterfeiting. There are several differences between the genuine and counterfeit products in the way the pen needle is packaged. The most obvious is that the paper tab covering the fake needle says “Novofine®” whereas the genuine one says “Novofine® Plus.” 

There have been at least five adverse events reported from this lot; none were serious and all were consistent with gastrointestinal issues known to occur with the genuine product. 

Counterfeit products should be reported to the FDA ‘s consumer complaint coordinator or to the criminal activity division.

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

TOPLINE:

In patients with Hashimoto disease and persistent symptoms despite adequate medical treatment, total thyroidectomy had a beneficial effect up to 5 years but with a substantially higher risk for complications than initially anticipated.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 5-year follow-up of 65 participants in a randomized, open-label trial of thyroidectomy plus medical management vs medical management alone aimed at testing the hypothesis that persistent symptoms despite adequate thyroxine replacement may be related to extrathyroidal autoimmune reactions and that complete removal of thyroid tissues may attenuate autoimmune responses and relieve symptoms.
• Patients in the control group were given the option of having surgery 18 months after enrollment, depending on trial results.
• The primary outcome was patient-reported health-related quality of life measured by the dimensional general health score in the generic Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire.

TAKEAWAY:

• The positive treatment effect seen after 18 months was maintained throughout the 3-year follow-up.
• In the intervention group, the improved general health score remained at the same level during the 5-year follow-up.
• Results were similar for the other Short Form-36 Health Survey domains and for total fatigue and chronic fatigue.
• Short-term (<12 months) or longer-lasting complications occurred in 23 patients, including 6 with recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (4 were long-term) and 12 with hypoparathyroidism (6 long-term, including 3 permanent).
• Five patients had postoperative hematoma and/or infection requiring intervention.

IN PRACTICE:

“The improvements in patient-reported outcome measures reported at 18 months after surgery were maintained at 5 years after surgery in the intervention group. In contrast, no spontaneous improvement was seen during 3 years in the control group.”

“Long-term complications in 10 of 73 (14%) patients despite use of meticulous dissection to achieve total thyroidectomy is unacceptably high. Medication and compensatory mechanisms for hypoparathyroidism and unilateral recurrent nerve injury, respectively, did alleviate symptoms.”

SOURCE:

This study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, by Geir Hoff, MD, PhD, of the Department of Research, Telemark Hospital, Skien, and the Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and colleagues.

LIMITATIONS:

None listed.

DISCLOSURES:

None.

TOPLINE:

In patients with Hashimoto disease and persistent symptoms despite adequate medical treatment, total thyroidectomy had a beneficial effect up to 5 years but with a substantially higher risk for complications than initially anticipated.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 5-year follow-up of 65 participants in a randomized, open-label trial of thyroidectomy plus medical management vs medical management alone aimed at testing the hypothesis that persistent symptoms despite adequate thyroxine replacement may be related to extrathyroidal autoimmune reactions and that complete removal of thyroid tissues may attenuate autoimmune responses and relieve symptoms.
• Patients in the control group were given the option of having surgery 18 months after enrollment, depending on trial results.
• The primary outcome was patient-reported health-related quality of life measured by the dimensional general health score in the generic Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire.

TAKEAWAY:

• The positive treatment effect seen after 18 months was maintained throughout the 3-year follow-up.
• In the intervention group, the improved general health score remained at the same level during the 5-year follow-up.
• Results were similar for the other Short Form-36 Health Survey domains and for total fatigue and chronic fatigue.
• Short-term (<12 months) or longer-lasting complications occurred in 23 patients, including 6 with recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (4 were long-term) and 12 with hypoparathyroidism (6 long-term, including 3 permanent).
• Five patients had postoperative hematoma and/or infection requiring intervention.

IN PRACTICE:

“The improvements in patient-reported outcome measures reported at 18 months after surgery were maintained at 5 years after surgery in the intervention group. In contrast, no spontaneous improvement was seen during 3 years in the control group.”

“Long-term complications in 10 of 73 (14%) patients despite use of meticulous dissection to achieve total thyroidectomy is unacceptably high. Medication and compensatory mechanisms for hypoparathyroidism and unilateral recurrent nerve injury, respectively, did alleviate symptoms.”

SOURCE:

This study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, by Geir Hoff, MD, PhD, of the Department of Research, Telemark Hospital, Skien, and the Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and colleagues.

LIMITATIONS:

None listed.

DISCLOSURES:

None.

TOPLINE:

In patients with Hashimoto disease and persistent symptoms despite adequate medical treatment, total thyroidectomy had a beneficial effect up to 5 years but with a substantially higher risk for complications than initially anticipated.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 5-year follow-up of 65 participants in a randomized, open-label trial of thyroidectomy plus medical management vs medical management alone aimed at testing the hypothesis that persistent symptoms despite adequate thyroxine replacement may be related to extrathyroidal autoimmune reactions and that complete removal of thyroid tissues may attenuate autoimmune responses and relieve symptoms.
• Patients in the control group were given the option of having surgery 18 months after enrollment, depending on trial results.
• The primary outcome was patient-reported health-related quality of life measured by the dimensional general health score in the generic Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire.

TAKEAWAY:

• The positive treatment effect seen after 18 months was maintained throughout the 3-year follow-up.
• In the intervention group, the improved general health score remained at the same level during the 5-year follow-up.
• Results were similar for the other Short Form-36 Health Survey domains and for total fatigue and chronic fatigue.
• Short-term (<12 months) or longer-lasting complications occurred in 23 patients, including 6 with recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (4 were long-term) and 12 with hypoparathyroidism (6 long-term, including 3 permanent).
• Five patients had postoperative hematoma and/or infection requiring intervention.

IN PRACTICE:

“The improvements in patient-reported outcome measures reported at 18 months after surgery were maintained at 5 years after surgery in the intervention group. In contrast, no spontaneous improvement was seen during 3 years in the control group.”

“Long-term complications in 10 of 73 (14%) patients despite use of meticulous dissection to achieve total thyroidectomy is unacceptably high. Medication and compensatory mechanisms for hypoparathyroidism and unilateral recurrent nerve injury, respectively, did alleviate symptoms.”

SOURCE:

This study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, by Geir Hoff, MD, PhD, of the Department of Research, Telemark Hospital, Skien, and the Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and colleagues.

LIMITATIONS:

None listed.

DISCLOSURES:

None.

Nearly three quarters of dedicated thyroid ultrasounds don’t identify biopsy-recommended nodules, and over a third don’t identify any nodules, new research finds.

“The number of thyroid ultrasounds performed in the United States has increased fivefold since 2002. This substantial increase produces a significant strain on healthcare resources and leads to over-detection and overtreatment of benign thyroid nodules and small, indolent cancers with questionable clinical relevance,” wrote Elena Kennedy, MD, then a medical student in the department of surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, and colleagues.

The data, published online in Thyroid, come from a retrospective chart analysis of more than 1700 people who underwent dedicated (ie, specifically to look for a nodule) thyroid ultrasounds at a tertiary academic center. The rates of detecting both nodules and biopsy-recommended nodules were highest when the indication was a nodule seen incidentally on other imaging (aka “incidentaloma”) and lowest when the ultrasound was ordered because the patient had either metabolic or compressive symptoms.

And for the most commonly listed indication, a suspected palpable nodule, nearly half of the ultrasounds found no nodule, and only one in five detected a nodule that warranted a biopsy.

The principal investigator of the study David O. Francis, MD, an otolaryngologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview, “Thyroid cancer has grown in incidence three to four times over the last 30 years without a good explanation for why…It seems to be that we’re detecting smaller and smaller nodules…Why are people being referred for all these ultrasounds? We looked for the upstream factors.”

One clear clinical implication of the new data, Dr. Francis noted, is that “if someone has compressive symptoms including dysphagia, swallowing problems, voice change, or globus sensation, ultrasound should not be the first way to work them up…It would be smarter to have someone evaluate their voice or their swallowing to see if there’s another reason besides the thyroid. The thyroid would have to get pretty big to cause dysphagia or swallowing problems.”
 

No Current Guidelines Advise When not to Order a Thyroid Ultrasound

Problematically, while there are professional society guidelines for what to do when a thyroid “incidentaloma” is found and other specific situations, there are no overall guidelines addressing when it’s appropriate to order a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Kennedy, now an otolaryngology resident at the Indiana University of Indianapolis, and colleagues, point out.

According to Dr. Francis, “Ultrasounds are low cost and low risk. Those two factors result in people ordering more tests…The problem with that is we find things, and then we have to figure out what to do with them. That leads to incidentalomas, the surveillance, worry and anxiety, and costs…It’s tricky. We don’t want to discourage people from ever ordering ultrasounds, but there need to be some guidelines around when it’s appropriate to order.”

Asked to comment, Trevor E. Angell, MD, associate medical director of Thyroid Center at Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that the study is “clinically very important.”

Dr. Angell pointed out that the current American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines on thyroid nodule management, of which he is an author, recommend ultrasound for a known or suspected nodule. But he added, “there certainly should be a message that obtaining ultrasound for these other reasons are less likely to identify a nodule or anything causative. Whether it’s gastroesophageal reflux or allergic rhinitis or vocal cord dysfunction, an ultrasound isn’t a good test for those either.”

Dr. Angell said that the next ATA thyroid nodule guidelines, expected out in 2024, will address this topic more fully, but he couldn’t provide more specific information because the document is still in development. He did say, however, “Addressing when not to do an ultrasound will be an important consideration in the next guidelines.”
 

Low Detection Rates for Most Indications

The retrospective observational cohort study included 1739 adults (76% women; mean age, 53 years) who underwent dedicated thyroid ultrasounds between 2017 and 2019. In most cases, the recommendation for biopsy was determined using the American College of Radiology TI-RADS system, based on nodule size and TI-RADS category.

The most common indication for thyroid ultrasound, suspected palpable nodule, accounted for 40% of those performed. Follow-up for an “incidentaloma” was the indication in 28% of patients, and referral for compressive and metabolic symptoms accounted for 13% and 6% of ultrasounds, respectively.

Among all ultrasounds performed, 62% identified a thyroid nodule. Patients referred for incidental findings had the highest percentage of ultrasounds with thyroid nodules present at 94%. By contrast, in those referred for suspected palpable nodule on exam and for compressive symptoms, nodules were identified on 55% and 39% of ultrasounds, respectively. Patients with metabolic symptoms had a nodule identified on ultrasound 43% of the time. Among those referred for high risk factors, 57% had a nodule present.

Overall, only 27% of ultrasounds identified a thyroid nodule that was recommended for a biopsy. Again, those referred because of an incidental imaging finding had the highest percentage (55%), followed by those referred for a suspected palpable nodule (21%), high risk factors (20%), combined indications (16%), metabolic symptoms (10%), and compressive symptoms (6%).

Mean nodule size was largest among the patients referred for incidentalomas (2.4 cm), whereas all the other groups had mean nodule sizes between 1.2 cm and 1.8 cm, a significant difference (P < .05). The median size of nodules among those referred to ultrasound for a suspected palpable nodule was 1.4 cm.

“That’s pretty small. It would have had to be in the front of the thyroid where they could actually touch it. I would argue that the number of clinicians who actually palpated something was smaller. We’ve done several projects looking at how small a nodule a clinician can actually feel in the thyroid gland from the neck. It turns out we’re pretty bad at physical examination of the thyroid. This paper kind of reinforces that,” Dr. Francis said in an interview.

Patients with incidental nodules were over 10 times more likely to have a nodule found on an ultrasound than those referred for a suspected palpable nodule on exam (odds ratio [OR], 10.6). Conversely, those referred for compressive symptoms were half as likely to have an identifiable nodule compared with those referred for physical exam findings (OR, 0.5).

The odds of finding a nodule increased with age, especially for those aged ≥ 65 years compared with those younger than 45 years (OR, 3.6). Women were twice as likely to have a nodule found on thyroid ultrasound (OR, 2.0). Results were similar for the biopsy-recommended nodules, except that there was no difference between sexes (female vs male OR, 1.2).

Dr. Angell called the study “a very robust comprehensive evaluation,” but also noted that the single center source is a limitation. “It would be nice to have those big databases of national healthcare settings, but getting that granular level of information about why something was done is nearly impossible in that context.”

Dr. Kennedy, Dr. Francis, and Dr. Angell have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly three quarters of dedicated thyroid ultrasounds don’t identify biopsy-recommended nodules, and over a third don’t identify any nodules, new research finds.

“The number of thyroid ultrasounds performed in the United States has increased fivefold since 2002. This substantial increase produces a significant strain on healthcare resources and leads to over-detection and overtreatment of benign thyroid nodules and small, indolent cancers with questionable clinical relevance,” wrote Elena Kennedy, MD, then a medical student in the department of surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, and colleagues.

The data, published online in Thyroid, come from a retrospective chart analysis of more than 1700 people who underwent dedicated (ie, specifically to look for a nodule) thyroid ultrasounds at a tertiary academic center. The rates of detecting both nodules and biopsy-recommended nodules were highest when the indication was a nodule seen incidentally on other imaging (aka “incidentaloma”) and lowest when the ultrasound was ordered because the patient had either metabolic or compressive symptoms.

And for the most commonly listed indication, a suspected palpable nodule, nearly half of the ultrasounds found no nodule, and only one in five detected a nodule that warranted a biopsy.

The principal investigator of the study David O. Francis, MD, an otolaryngologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview, “Thyroid cancer has grown in incidence three to four times over the last 30 years without a good explanation for why…It seems to be that we’re detecting smaller and smaller nodules…Why are people being referred for all these ultrasounds? We looked for the upstream factors.”

One clear clinical implication of the new data, Dr. Francis noted, is that “if someone has compressive symptoms including dysphagia, swallowing problems, voice change, or globus sensation, ultrasound should not be the first way to work them up…It would be smarter to have someone evaluate their voice or their swallowing to see if there’s another reason besides the thyroid. The thyroid would have to get pretty big to cause dysphagia or swallowing problems.”
 

No Current Guidelines Advise When not to Order a Thyroid Ultrasound

Problematically, while there are professional society guidelines for what to do when a thyroid “incidentaloma” is found and other specific situations, there are no overall guidelines addressing when it’s appropriate to order a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Kennedy, now an otolaryngology resident at the Indiana University of Indianapolis, and colleagues, point out.

According to Dr. Francis, “Ultrasounds are low cost and low risk. Those two factors result in people ordering more tests…The problem with that is we find things, and then we have to figure out what to do with them. That leads to incidentalomas, the surveillance, worry and anxiety, and costs…It’s tricky. We don’t want to discourage people from ever ordering ultrasounds, but there need to be some guidelines around when it’s appropriate to order.”

Asked to comment, Trevor E. Angell, MD, associate medical director of Thyroid Center at Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that the study is “clinically very important.”

Dr. Angell pointed out that the current American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines on thyroid nodule management, of which he is an author, recommend ultrasound for a known or suspected nodule. But he added, “there certainly should be a message that obtaining ultrasound for these other reasons are less likely to identify a nodule or anything causative. Whether it’s gastroesophageal reflux or allergic rhinitis or vocal cord dysfunction, an ultrasound isn’t a good test for those either.”

Dr. Angell said that the next ATA thyroid nodule guidelines, expected out in 2024, will address this topic more fully, but he couldn’t provide more specific information because the document is still in development. He did say, however, “Addressing when not to do an ultrasound will be an important consideration in the next guidelines.”
 

Low Detection Rates for Most Indications

The retrospective observational cohort study included 1739 adults (76% women; mean age, 53 years) who underwent dedicated thyroid ultrasounds between 2017 and 2019. In most cases, the recommendation for biopsy was determined using the American College of Radiology TI-RADS system, based on nodule size and TI-RADS category.

The most common indication for thyroid ultrasound, suspected palpable nodule, accounted for 40% of those performed. Follow-up for an “incidentaloma” was the indication in 28% of patients, and referral for compressive and metabolic symptoms accounted for 13% and 6% of ultrasounds, respectively.

Among all ultrasounds performed, 62% identified a thyroid nodule. Patients referred for incidental findings had the highest percentage of ultrasounds with thyroid nodules present at 94%. By contrast, in those referred for suspected palpable nodule on exam and for compressive symptoms, nodules were identified on 55% and 39% of ultrasounds, respectively. Patients with metabolic symptoms had a nodule identified on ultrasound 43% of the time. Among those referred for high risk factors, 57% had a nodule present.

Overall, only 27% of ultrasounds identified a thyroid nodule that was recommended for a biopsy. Again, those referred because of an incidental imaging finding had the highest percentage (55%), followed by those referred for a suspected palpable nodule (21%), high risk factors (20%), combined indications (16%), metabolic symptoms (10%), and compressive symptoms (6%).

Mean nodule size was largest among the patients referred for incidentalomas (2.4 cm), whereas all the other groups had mean nodule sizes between 1.2 cm and 1.8 cm, a significant difference (P < .05). The median size of nodules among those referred to ultrasound for a suspected palpable nodule was 1.4 cm.

“That’s pretty small. It would have had to be in the front of the thyroid where they could actually touch it. I would argue that the number of clinicians who actually palpated something was smaller. We’ve done several projects looking at how small a nodule a clinician can actually feel in the thyroid gland from the neck. It turns out we’re pretty bad at physical examination of the thyroid. This paper kind of reinforces that,” Dr. Francis said in an interview.

Patients with incidental nodules were over 10 times more likely to have a nodule found on an ultrasound than those referred for a suspected palpable nodule on exam (odds ratio [OR], 10.6). Conversely, those referred for compressive symptoms were half as likely to have an identifiable nodule compared with those referred for physical exam findings (OR, 0.5).

The odds of finding a nodule increased with age, especially for those aged ≥ 65 years compared with those younger than 45 years (OR, 3.6). Women were twice as likely to have a nodule found on thyroid ultrasound (OR, 2.0). Results were similar for the biopsy-recommended nodules, except that there was no difference between sexes (female vs male OR, 1.2).

Dr. Angell called the study “a very robust comprehensive evaluation,” but also noted that the single center source is a limitation. “It would be nice to have those big databases of national healthcare settings, but getting that granular level of information about why something was done is nearly impossible in that context.”

Dr. Kennedy, Dr. Francis, and Dr. Angell have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly three quarters of dedicated thyroid ultrasounds don’t identify biopsy-recommended nodules, and over a third don’t identify any nodules, new research finds.

“The number of thyroid ultrasounds performed in the United States has increased fivefold since 2002. This substantial increase produces a significant strain on healthcare resources and leads to over-detection and overtreatment of benign thyroid nodules and small, indolent cancers with questionable clinical relevance,” wrote Elena Kennedy, MD, then a medical student in the department of surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, and colleagues.

The data, published online in Thyroid, come from a retrospective chart analysis of more than 1700 people who underwent dedicated (ie, specifically to look for a nodule) thyroid ultrasounds at a tertiary academic center. The rates of detecting both nodules and biopsy-recommended nodules were highest when the indication was a nodule seen incidentally on other imaging (aka “incidentaloma”) and lowest when the ultrasound was ordered because the patient had either metabolic or compressive symptoms.

And for the most commonly listed indication, a suspected palpable nodule, nearly half of the ultrasounds found no nodule, and only one in five detected a nodule that warranted a biopsy.

The principal investigator of the study David O. Francis, MD, an otolaryngologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview, “Thyroid cancer has grown in incidence three to four times over the last 30 years without a good explanation for why…It seems to be that we’re detecting smaller and smaller nodules…Why are people being referred for all these ultrasounds? We looked for the upstream factors.”

One clear clinical implication of the new data, Dr. Francis noted, is that “if someone has compressive symptoms including dysphagia, swallowing problems, voice change, or globus sensation, ultrasound should not be the first way to work them up…It would be smarter to have someone evaluate their voice or their swallowing to see if there’s another reason besides the thyroid. The thyroid would have to get pretty big to cause dysphagia or swallowing problems.”
 

No Current Guidelines Advise When not to Order a Thyroid Ultrasound

Problematically, while there are professional society guidelines for what to do when a thyroid “incidentaloma” is found and other specific situations, there are no overall guidelines addressing when it’s appropriate to order a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Kennedy, now an otolaryngology resident at the Indiana University of Indianapolis, and colleagues, point out.

According to Dr. Francis, “Ultrasounds are low cost and low risk. Those two factors result in people ordering more tests…The problem with that is we find things, and then we have to figure out what to do with them. That leads to incidentalomas, the surveillance, worry and anxiety, and costs…It’s tricky. We don’t want to discourage people from ever ordering ultrasounds, but there need to be some guidelines around when it’s appropriate to order.”

Asked to comment, Trevor E. Angell, MD, associate medical director of Thyroid Center at Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that the study is “clinically very important.”

Dr. Angell pointed out that the current American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines on thyroid nodule management, of which he is an author, recommend ultrasound for a known or suspected nodule. But he added, “there certainly should be a message that obtaining ultrasound for these other reasons are less likely to identify a nodule or anything causative. Whether it’s gastroesophageal reflux or allergic rhinitis or vocal cord dysfunction, an ultrasound isn’t a good test for those either.”

Dr. Angell said that the next ATA thyroid nodule guidelines, expected out in 2024, will address this topic more fully, but he couldn’t provide more specific information because the document is still in development. He did say, however, “Addressing when not to do an ultrasound will be an important consideration in the next guidelines.”
 

Low Detection Rates for Most Indications

The retrospective observational cohort study included 1739 adults (76% women; mean age, 53 years) who underwent dedicated thyroid ultrasounds between 2017 and 2019. In most cases, the recommendation for biopsy was determined using the American College of Radiology TI-RADS system, based on nodule size and TI-RADS category.

The most common indication for thyroid ultrasound, suspected palpable nodule, accounted for 40% of those performed. Follow-up for an “incidentaloma” was the indication in 28% of patients, and referral for compressive and metabolic symptoms accounted for 13% and 6% of ultrasounds, respectively.

Among all ultrasounds performed, 62% identified a thyroid nodule. Patients referred for incidental findings had the highest percentage of ultrasounds with thyroid nodules present at 94%. By contrast, in those referred for suspected palpable nodule on exam and for compressive symptoms, nodules were identified on 55% and 39% of ultrasounds, respectively. Patients with metabolic symptoms had a nodule identified on ultrasound 43% of the time. Among those referred for high risk factors, 57% had a nodule present.

Overall, only 27% of ultrasounds identified a thyroid nodule that was recommended for a biopsy. Again, those referred because of an incidental imaging finding had the highest percentage (55%), followed by those referred for a suspected palpable nodule (21%), high risk factors (20%), combined indications (16%), metabolic symptoms (10%), and compressive symptoms (6%).

Mean nodule size was largest among the patients referred for incidentalomas (2.4 cm), whereas all the other groups had mean nodule sizes between 1.2 cm and 1.8 cm, a significant difference (P < .05). The median size of nodules among those referred to ultrasound for a suspected palpable nodule was 1.4 cm.

“That’s pretty small. It would have had to be in the front of the thyroid where they could actually touch it. I would argue that the number of clinicians who actually palpated something was smaller. We’ve done several projects looking at how small a nodule a clinician can actually feel in the thyroid gland from the neck. It turns out we’re pretty bad at physical examination of the thyroid. This paper kind of reinforces that,” Dr. Francis said in an interview.

Patients with incidental nodules were over 10 times more likely to have a nodule found on an ultrasound than those referred for a suspected palpable nodule on exam (odds ratio [OR], 10.6). Conversely, those referred for compressive symptoms were half as likely to have an identifiable nodule compared with those referred for physical exam findings (OR, 0.5).

The odds of finding a nodule increased with age, especially for those aged ≥ 65 years compared with those younger than 45 years (OR, 3.6). Women were twice as likely to have a nodule found on thyroid ultrasound (OR, 2.0). Results were similar for the biopsy-recommended nodules, except that there was no difference between sexes (female vs male OR, 1.2).

Dr. Angell called the study “a very robust comprehensive evaluation,” but also noted that the single center source is a limitation. “It would be nice to have those big databases of national healthcare settings, but getting that granular level of information about why something was done is nearly impossible in that context.”

Dr. Kennedy, Dr. Francis, and Dr. Angell have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations to screen for heart failure, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and type 1 diabetes risk, along with new obesity management guidance, are among many updates to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Care for 2024.

“The Standards of Care are essentially the global guidelines for the care of individuals with diabetes and those at risk,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, said during a briefing announcing the new Standards.

The document was developed via a scientific literature review by the ADA’s Professional Practice Committee. The panel comprises 21 professionals, including physicians from many specialties, nurse practitioners, certified diabetes care and education specialists, dietitians, and pharmacists. The chair is Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, ADA’s senior vice president of healthcare improvement.

Specific sections of the 2024 document have been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, and the Obesity Society. It was published on December 11, 2023, as a supplement in Diabetes Care.

An introductory section summarizing the changes for 2024 spans six pages. Those addressed during the briefing included the following:

Heart Failure Screening: Two new recommendations have been added to include screening of adults with diabetes for asymptomatic heart failure by measuring natriuretic peptide levels to facilitate the prevention or progression to symptomatic stages of heart failure.

“This is a really important and exciting area. We know that people with type 2 diabetes in particular are at high risk for heart failure,” Dr. Gabbay said, adding that these recommendations “are to really more aggressively screen those at high risk for heart failure with a simple blood test and, based on those values, then be able to move on to further evaluation and echocardiography, for example. The recommendations are really to screen a broad number of individuals with type 2 diabetes because many are at risk, [particularly] those without symptoms.”

PAD Screening: A new strong recommendation is to screen for PAD with ankle-brachial index testing in asymptomatic people with diabetes who are aged ≥ 50 years and have microvascular disease in any location, foot complications, or any end-organ damage from diabetes. The document also advises consideration of PAD screening for all individuals who have had diabetes for ≥ 10 years.

Dr. Gabbay commented, “We know that amputation rates are rising, unlike many other complications. We know that there are incredible health disparities. Blacks are two to four times more likely than Whites to have an amputation.”

Dr. El Sayed added, “Many patients don’t show the common symptoms of peripheral arterial disease. Screening is the most important way to find out if they have it or not because it can be a very devastating disease.”

Type 1 Diabetes Screening: This involves several new recommendations, including a framework for investigating suspected type 1 diabetes in newly diagnosed adults using islet autoantibody tests and diagnostic criteria for preclinical stages based on the recent approval of teplizumab for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes.

“Screening and capturing disease earlier so that we can intervene is really an important consideration here. That includes screening for type 1 diabetes and thinking about therapeutic options to delay the development of frank type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Screening first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes is a high priority because they’re at an elevated risk, he added.

Obesity Management: New recommendations here include the use of anthropomorphic measurements beyond body mass index to include waist circumference and waist:hip ratio and individual assessment of body fat mass and distribution.

Individualization of obesity management including behavioral, pharmacologic, and surgical approaches is encouraged. The use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist with greater weight loss efficacy is preferred for obesity management in people with diabetes.

“Obesity management is one of the biggest changes over this last year,” Dr. Gabbay commented.

Other New Recommendations: Among the many other revisions in the 2024 document are new recommendations about regular evaluation and treatment for bone health, assessment of disability and guidance for referral, and alignment of guidance for liver disease screening and management with those of other professional societies. Regarding the last item, Dr. Gabbay noted, “I don’t think it’s gotten the attention it deserves. Diabetes and obesity are becoming the leading causes of liver disease.”

Clinicians can also download the Standards of Care app on their smartphones. “That can be really helpful when questions come up since you can’t remember everything in there. Here you can look it up in a matter of seconds,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. El Sayed added that asking patients about their priorities is also important. “If they aren’t brought up during the visit, it’s unlikely to be as fruitful as it should be.”

Dr. El Sayed has no disclosures. Dr. Gabbay serves as a consultant and/or advisor for HealthReveal, Lark Technologies, Onduo, StartUp Health, Sweetech, and Vida Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations to screen for heart failure, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and type 1 diabetes risk, along with new obesity management guidance, are among many updates to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Care for 2024.

“The Standards of Care are essentially the global guidelines for the care of individuals with diabetes and those at risk,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, said during a briefing announcing the new Standards.

The document was developed via a scientific literature review by the ADA’s Professional Practice Committee. The panel comprises 21 professionals, including physicians from many specialties, nurse practitioners, certified diabetes care and education specialists, dietitians, and pharmacists. The chair is Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, ADA’s senior vice president of healthcare improvement.

Specific sections of the 2024 document have been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, and the Obesity Society. It was published on December 11, 2023, as a supplement in Diabetes Care.

An introductory section summarizing the changes for 2024 spans six pages. Those addressed during the briefing included the following:

Heart Failure Screening: Two new recommendations have been added to include screening of adults with diabetes for asymptomatic heart failure by measuring natriuretic peptide levels to facilitate the prevention or progression to symptomatic stages of heart failure.

“This is a really important and exciting area. We know that people with type 2 diabetes in particular are at high risk for heart failure,” Dr. Gabbay said, adding that these recommendations “are to really more aggressively screen those at high risk for heart failure with a simple blood test and, based on those values, then be able to move on to further evaluation and echocardiography, for example. The recommendations are really to screen a broad number of individuals with type 2 diabetes because many are at risk, [particularly] those without symptoms.”

PAD Screening: A new strong recommendation is to screen for PAD with ankle-brachial index testing in asymptomatic people with diabetes who are aged ≥ 50 years and have microvascular disease in any location, foot complications, or any end-organ damage from diabetes. The document also advises consideration of PAD screening for all individuals who have had diabetes for ≥ 10 years.

Dr. Gabbay commented, “We know that amputation rates are rising, unlike many other complications. We know that there are incredible health disparities. Blacks are two to four times more likely than Whites to have an amputation.”

Dr. El Sayed added, “Many patients don’t show the common symptoms of peripheral arterial disease. Screening is the most important way to find out if they have it or not because it can be a very devastating disease.”

Type 1 Diabetes Screening: This involves several new recommendations, including a framework for investigating suspected type 1 diabetes in newly diagnosed adults using islet autoantibody tests and diagnostic criteria for preclinical stages based on the recent approval of teplizumab for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes.

“Screening and capturing disease earlier so that we can intervene is really an important consideration here. That includes screening for type 1 diabetes and thinking about therapeutic options to delay the development of frank type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Screening first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes is a high priority because they’re at an elevated risk, he added.

Obesity Management: New recommendations here include the use of anthropomorphic measurements beyond body mass index to include waist circumference and waist:hip ratio and individual assessment of body fat mass and distribution.

Individualization of obesity management including behavioral, pharmacologic, and surgical approaches is encouraged. The use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist with greater weight loss efficacy is preferred for obesity management in people with diabetes.

“Obesity management is one of the biggest changes over this last year,” Dr. Gabbay commented.

Other New Recommendations: Among the many other revisions in the 2024 document are new recommendations about regular evaluation and treatment for bone health, assessment of disability and guidance for referral, and alignment of guidance for liver disease screening and management with those of other professional societies. Regarding the last item, Dr. Gabbay noted, “I don’t think it’s gotten the attention it deserves. Diabetes and obesity are becoming the leading causes of liver disease.”

Clinicians can also download the Standards of Care app on their smartphones. “That can be really helpful when questions come up since you can’t remember everything in there. Here you can look it up in a matter of seconds,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. El Sayed added that asking patients about their priorities is also important. “If they aren’t brought up during the visit, it’s unlikely to be as fruitful as it should be.”

Dr. El Sayed has no disclosures. Dr. Gabbay serves as a consultant and/or advisor for HealthReveal, Lark Technologies, Onduo, StartUp Health, Sweetech, and Vida Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations to screen for heart failure, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and type 1 diabetes risk, along with new obesity management guidance, are among many updates to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Care for 2024.

“The Standards of Care are essentially the global guidelines for the care of individuals with diabetes and those at risk,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, said during a briefing announcing the new Standards.

The document was developed via a scientific literature review by the ADA’s Professional Practice Committee. The panel comprises 21 professionals, including physicians from many specialties, nurse practitioners, certified diabetes care and education specialists, dietitians, and pharmacists. The chair is Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, ADA’s senior vice president of healthcare improvement.

Specific sections of the 2024 document have been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, and the Obesity Society. It was published on December 11, 2023, as a supplement in Diabetes Care.

An introductory section summarizing the changes for 2024 spans six pages. Those addressed during the briefing included the following:

Heart Failure Screening: Two new recommendations have been added to include screening of adults with diabetes for asymptomatic heart failure by measuring natriuretic peptide levels to facilitate the prevention or progression to symptomatic stages of heart failure.

“This is a really important and exciting area. We know that people with type 2 diabetes in particular are at high risk for heart failure,” Dr. Gabbay said, adding that these recommendations “are to really more aggressively screen those at high risk for heart failure with a simple blood test and, based on those values, then be able to move on to further evaluation and echocardiography, for example. The recommendations are really to screen a broad number of individuals with type 2 diabetes because many are at risk, [particularly] those without symptoms.”

PAD Screening: A new strong recommendation is to screen for PAD with ankle-brachial index testing in asymptomatic people with diabetes who are aged ≥ 50 years and have microvascular disease in any location, foot complications, or any end-organ damage from diabetes. The document also advises consideration of PAD screening for all individuals who have had diabetes for ≥ 10 years.

Dr. Gabbay commented, “We know that amputation rates are rising, unlike many other complications. We know that there are incredible health disparities. Blacks are two to four times more likely than Whites to have an amputation.”

Dr. El Sayed added, “Many patients don’t show the common symptoms of peripheral arterial disease. Screening is the most important way to find out if they have it or not because it can be a very devastating disease.”

Type 1 Diabetes Screening: This involves several new recommendations, including a framework for investigating suspected type 1 diabetes in newly diagnosed adults using islet autoantibody tests and diagnostic criteria for preclinical stages based on the recent approval of teplizumab for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes.

“Screening and capturing disease earlier so that we can intervene is really an important consideration here. That includes screening for type 1 diabetes and thinking about therapeutic options to delay the development of frank type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Screening first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes is a high priority because they’re at an elevated risk, he added.

Obesity Management: New recommendations here include the use of anthropomorphic measurements beyond body mass index to include waist circumference and waist:hip ratio and individual assessment of body fat mass and distribution.

Individualization of obesity management including behavioral, pharmacologic, and surgical approaches is encouraged. The use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist with greater weight loss efficacy is preferred for obesity management in people with diabetes.

“Obesity management is one of the biggest changes over this last year,” Dr. Gabbay commented.

Other New Recommendations: Among the many other revisions in the 2024 document are new recommendations about regular evaluation and treatment for bone health, assessment of disability and guidance for referral, and alignment of guidance for liver disease screening and management with those of other professional societies. Regarding the last item, Dr. Gabbay noted, “I don’t think it’s gotten the attention it deserves. Diabetes and obesity are becoming the leading causes of liver disease.”

Clinicians can also download the Standards of Care app on their smartphones. “That can be really helpful when questions come up since you can’t remember everything in there. Here you can look it up in a matter of seconds,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. El Sayed added that asking patients about their priorities is also important. “If they aren’t brought up during the visit, it’s unlikely to be as fruitful as it should be.”

Dr. El Sayed has no disclosures. Dr. Gabbay serves as a consultant and/or advisor for HealthReveal, Lark Technologies, Onduo, StartUp Health, Sweetech, and Vida Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.

“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”

Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.

Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m² or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and severe comorbidities.

Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”

During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.

“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.

Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.

Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m² and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.

Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.

Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.

One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.

Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.

The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.

A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.

Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.

And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.

However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”

Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.

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

Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.

“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”

Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.

Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m² or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and severe comorbidities.

Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”

During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.

“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.

Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.

Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m² and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.

Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.

Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.

One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.

Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.

The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.

A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.

Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.

And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.

However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”

Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.

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

Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.

“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”

Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.

Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m² or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and severe comorbidities.

Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”

During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.

“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.

Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.

Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m² and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.

Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.

Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.

One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.

Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.

The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.

A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.

Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.

And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.

However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”

Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.

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

The drug alpha-difluoromethylornithine (DFMO) may help preserve beta-cell function in people with new-onset type 1 diabetes, new preliminary data suggest.

“I think we have lots of potential to improve people’s quality of life who are living with type 1 diabetes if we can increase their endogenous insulin secretion. ... I think long-term combination therapy is going to be the answer,” study author Emily K. Sims, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said in an interview.

DFMO inhibits the polyamine biosynthesis pathway, which plays a role in the inflammatory responses in autoimmune diseases, including type 1 diabetes. It’s sold under the name eflornithine as an intravenous treatment for African sleeping sickness (trypanosomiasis) and as a cream for unwanted hair growth in women. It also has orphan designations for treating various cancers, including neuroblastoma.

In type 1 diabetes, the immune system destroys insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells. Insulin treatment is required. Recently, the monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Sanofi) was approved as a treatment for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes in people with autoantibodies that signify a preclinical stage of the condition. As yet, no agent has been approved for preserving beta-cell function after the onset of type 1 diabetes, but many are under investigation.

The new safety study by Dr. Sims and colleagues, which was published in Cell Medicine Reports, enrolled 41 people with type 1 diabetes who had been diagnosed within the previous 8 months, including 31 children. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo oral treatment with DFMO at one of five doses or placebo for 3 months, with 3 additional months of follow-up.

Following a mixed-meal tolerance test at 6 months, the C-peptide area under the curve – a measure of beta-cell function – was significantly higher with the three highest DFMO doses compared to placebo (P = .02, .03, and .02 for 125 mg/m², 750 mg/m², and 1,000 mg/m², respectively).

Two individuals dropped out, one because of anaphylaxis. There were no dose-limiting toxicities or serious adverse events, while mild gastrointestinal events, anemia, and headache were common. “Although there’s no [Food and Drug Administration] approval for the oral form right now, there’s a lot of safety data, including in kids from the neuroblastoma studies,” Dr. Sims explained.

There were no differences in C-peptide at 3 months or in hemoglobin A1c at any time point. Glucose areas under the curve were significantly lower for DFMO, compared with placebo in the 125-mg/m² and 750-mg/m² treatment groups at the 6-month time point (P = .03 and .04, respectively).

In their article, Dr. Sims and colleagues also reported confirmatory analyses in mice, as well as testing in the humans showing that there didn’t appear to be significant immune system modulation. “So, we can envision giving DFMO in addition to something that targets the immune system, as a combination therapy,” said Dr. Sims, who also worked on the pivotal study of teplizumab.

“I’m excited. The sample size is small, so I was kind of expecting no efficacy signals. ... It’s definitely worth following up,” she said.

However, she noted, “it wasn’t a slam-dunk huge effect. It was subtle. It seemed that things were kind of more stable compared to placebo over time versus ... a big increase in C-peptide over time.”

But, she added, “I believe that even teplizumab will need to be used in combination. It delays the onset of type 1 diabetes and improves C-peptide, but it didn’t get everyone off insulin. I don’t think we’ve seen any drug that won’t need to be used in combination.”

Dr. Sims pointed to other investigational agents, such as verapamil and various Janus kinase inhibitors, that may also serve in combination to forestall or reduce insulin dependency for people with either new-onset type 1 diabetes or those who have been identified via screening as having type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies. “I think there are a lot of potential different interventions.”

Dr. Sims and colleagues are now conducting a larger six-center JDRF-funded study of DFMO in early-onset type 1 diabetes that will be fully powered and that will use the highest tolerated doses from the preliminary study.

She believes there will likely be benefit even if the agent doesn’t completely reverse the disease. “The people who are making more insulin are just easier to manage, with more time in range and less hypoglycemia.” Even if the drugs only delay but don’t prevent type 1 diabetes entirely in those at risk, “the improvement in quality of life of being able to delay insulin for a few years is really palpable. ... I’m really optimistic.”

Dr. Sims disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Three other authors are coauthors on a patent application for the use of DFMO for the treatment of beta-cell dysfunction in type 1 diabetes; one of those three authors is an employee of Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals.

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

The drug alpha-difluoromethylornithine (DFMO) may help preserve beta-cell function in people with new-onset type 1 diabetes, new preliminary data suggest.

“I think we have lots of potential to improve people’s quality of life who are living with type 1 diabetes if we can increase their endogenous insulin secretion. ... I think long-term combination therapy is going to be the answer,” study author Emily K. Sims, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said in an interview.

DFMO inhibits the polyamine biosynthesis pathway, which plays a role in the inflammatory responses in autoimmune diseases, including type 1 diabetes. It’s sold under the name eflornithine as an intravenous treatment for African sleeping sickness (trypanosomiasis) and as a cream for unwanted hair growth in women. It also has orphan designations for treating various cancers, including neuroblastoma.

In type 1 diabetes, the immune system destroys insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells. Insulin treatment is required. Recently, the monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Sanofi) was approved as a treatment for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes in people with autoantibodies that signify a preclinical stage of the condition. As yet, no agent has been approved for preserving beta-cell function after the onset of type 1 diabetes, but many are under investigation.

The new safety study by Dr. Sims and colleagues, which was published in Cell Medicine Reports, enrolled 41 people with type 1 diabetes who had been diagnosed within the previous 8 months, including 31 children. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo oral treatment with DFMO at one of five doses or placebo for 3 months, with 3 additional months of follow-up.

Following a mixed-meal tolerance test at 6 months, the C-peptide area under the curve – a measure of beta-cell function – was significantly higher with the three highest DFMO doses compared to placebo (P = .02, .03, and .02 for 125 mg/m², 750 mg/m², and 1,000 mg/m², respectively).

Two individuals dropped out, one because of anaphylaxis. There were no dose-limiting toxicities or serious adverse events, while mild gastrointestinal events, anemia, and headache were common. “Although there’s no [Food and Drug Administration] approval for the oral form right now, there’s a lot of safety data, including in kids from the neuroblastoma studies,” Dr. Sims explained.

There were no differences in C-peptide at 3 months or in hemoglobin A1c at any time point. Glucose areas under the curve were significantly lower for DFMO, compared with placebo in the 125-mg/m² and 750-mg/m² treatment groups at the 6-month time point (P = .03 and .04, respectively).

In their article, Dr. Sims and colleagues also reported confirmatory analyses in mice, as well as testing in the humans showing that there didn’t appear to be significant immune system modulation. “So, we can envision giving DFMO in addition to something that targets the immune system, as a combination therapy,” said Dr. Sims, who also worked on the pivotal study of teplizumab.

“I’m excited. The sample size is small, so I was kind of expecting no efficacy signals. ... It’s definitely worth following up,” she said.

However, she noted, “it wasn’t a slam-dunk huge effect. It was subtle. It seemed that things were kind of more stable compared to placebo over time versus ... a big increase in C-peptide over time.”

But, she added, “I believe that even teplizumab will need to be used in combination. It delays the onset of type 1 diabetes and improves C-peptide, but it didn’t get everyone off insulin. I don’t think we’ve seen any drug that won’t need to be used in combination.”

Dr. Sims pointed to other investigational agents, such as verapamil and various Janus kinase inhibitors, that may also serve in combination to forestall or reduce insulin dependency for people with either new-onset type 1 diabetes or those who have been identified via screening as having type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies. “I think there are a lot of potential different interventions.”

Dr. Sims and colleagues are now conducting a larger six-center JDRF-funded study of DFMO in early-onset type 1 diabetes that will be fully powered and that will use the highest tolerated doses from the preliminary study.

She believes there will likely be benefit even if the agent doesn’t completely reverse the disease. “The people who are making more insulin are just easier to manage, with more time in range and less hypoglycemia.” Even if the drugs only delay but don’t prevent type 1 diabetes entirely in those at risk, “the improvement in quality of life of being able to delay insulin for a few years is really palpable. ... I’m really optimistic.”

Dr. Sims disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Three other authors are coauthors on a patent application for the use of DFMO for the treatment of beta-cell dysfunction in type 1 diabetes; one of those three authors is an employee of Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals.

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

The drug alpha-difluoromethylornithine (DFMO) may help preserve beta-cell function in people with new-onset type 1 diabetes, new preliminary data suggest.

“I think we have lots of potential to improve people’s quality of life who are living with type 1 diabetes if we can increase their endogenous insulin secretion. ... I think long-term combination therapy is going to be the answer,” study author Emily K. Sims, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said in an interview.

DFMO inhibits the polyamine biosynthesis pathway, which plays a role in the inflammatory responses in autoimmune diseases, including type 1 diabetes. It’s sold under the name eflornithine as an intravenous treatment for African sleeping sickness (trypanosomiasis) and as a cream for unwanted hair growth in women. It also has orphan designations for treating various cancers, including neuroblastoma.

In type 1 diabetes, the immune system destroys insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells. Insulin treatment is required. Recently, the monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Sanofi) was approved as a treatment for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes in people with autoantibodies that signify a preclinical stage of the condition. As yet, no agent has been approved for preserving beta-cell function after the onset of type 1 diabetes, but many are under investigation.

The new safety study by Dr. Sims and colleagues, which was published in Cell Medicine Reports, enrolled 41 people with type 1 diabetes who had been diagnosed within the previous 8 months, including 31 children. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo oral treatment with DFMO at one of five doses or placebo for 3 months, with 3 additional months of follow-up.

Following a mixed-meal tolerance test at 6 months, the C-peptide area under the curve – a measure of beta-cell function – was significantly higher with the three highest DFMO doses compared to placebo (P = .02, .03, and .02 for 125 mg/m², 750 mg/m², and 1,000 mg/m², respectively).

Two individuals dropped out, one because of anaphylaxis. There were no dose-limiting toxicities or serious adverse events, while mild gastrointestinal events, anemia, and headache were common. “Although there’s no [Food and Drug Administration] approval for the oral form right now, there’s a lot of safety data, including in kids from the neuroblastoma studies,” Dr. Sims explained.

There were no differences in C-peptide at 3 months or in hemoglobin A1c at any time point. Glucose areas under the curve were significantly lower for DFMO, compared with placebo in the 125-mg/m² and 750-mg/m² treatment groups at the 6-month time point (P = .03 and .04, respectively).

In their article, Dr. Sims and colleagues also reported confirmatory analyses in mice, as well as testing in the humans showing that there didn’t appear to be significant immune system modulation. “So, we can envision giving DFMO in addition to something that targets the immune system, as a combination therapy,” said Dr. Sims, who also worked on the pivotal study of teplizumab.

“I’m excited. The sample size is small, so I was kind of expecting no efficacy signals. ... It’s definitely worth following up,” she said.

However, she noted, “it wasn’t a slam-dunk huge effect. It was subtle. It seemed that things were kind of more stable compared to placebo over time versus ... a big increase in C-peptide over time.”

But, she added, “I believe that even teplizumab will need to be used in combination. It delays the onset of type 1 diabetes and improves C-peptide, but it didn’t get everyone off insulin. I don’t think we’ve seen any drug that won’t need to be used in combination.”

Dr. Sims pointed to other investigational agents, such as verapamil and various Janus kinase inhibitors, that may also serve in combination to forestall or reduce insulin dependency for people with either new-onset type 1 diabetes or those who have been identified via screening as having type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies. “I think there are a lot of potential different interventions.”

Dr. Sims and colleagues are now conducting a larger six-center JDRF-funded study of DFMO in early-onset type 1 diabetes that will be fully powered and that will use the highest tolerated doses from the preliminary study.

She believes there will likely be benefit even if the agent doesn’t completely reverse the disease. “The people who are making more insulin are just easier to manage, with more time in range and less hypoglycemia.” Even if the drugs only delay but don’t prevent type 1 diabetes entirely in those at risk, “the improvement in quality of life of being able to delay insulin for a few years is really palpable. ... I’m really optimistic.”

Dr. Sims disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Three other authors are coauthors on a patent application for the use of DFMO for the treatment of beta-cell dysfunction in type 1 diabetes; one of those three authors is an employee of Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals.

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