Clinical Endocrinology News

The principle of parsimony, often referred to as “Occam’s razor,” favors a unifying explanation over multiple ones, as long as both explain the data equally well. This heuristic, widely used in medical practice, advocates for simpler explanations rather than complex theories. However, its application in modern medicine has sparked debate.

“Hickam’s dictum,” a counterargument to Occam’s razor, asserts that patients — especially as populations grow older and more fragile — can simultaneously have multiple, unrelated diagnoses. These contrasting perspectives on clinical reasoning, balancing diagnostic simplicity and complexity, are both used in daily medical practice.

But are these two axioms truly in conflict, or is this a false dichotomy?

 

Occam’s Razor and Simple Diagnoses

Interpersonal variability in diagnostic approaches, shaped by the subjective nature of many judgments, complicates the formal evaluation of diagnostic parsimony (Occam’s razor). Indirect evidence suggests that prioritizing simplicity in diagnosis can result in under-detection of secondary conditions, particularly in patients with chronic illnesses.

For example, older patients with a known chronic illness were found to have a 30%-60% lower likelihood of being treated for an unrelated secondary diagnosis than matched peers without the chronic condition. Other studies indicate that a readily available, simple diagnosis can lead clinicians to prematurely close their diagnostic reasoning, overlooking other significant illnesses.

 

Beyond Hickam’s Dictum and Occam’s Razor

A recent study explored the phenomenon of multiple diagnoses by examining the supposed conflict between Hickam’s dictum and Occam’s razor, as well as the ambiguities in how they are interpreted and used by physicians in clinical reasoning.

Part 1: Researchers identified articles on PubMed related to Hickam’s dictum or conflicting with Occam’s razor, categorizing instances into four models of Hickam’s dictum:

1. Incidentaloma: An asymptomatic condition discovered accidentally.

2. Preexisting diagnosis: A known condition in the patient’s medical history.

3. Causally related disease: A complication, association, epiphenomenon, or underlying cause connected to the primary diagnosis.

4. Coincidental and independent disease: A symptomatic condition unrelated to the primary diagnosis.

Part 2: Researchers analyzed 220 case records from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and clinical problem-solving reports published in The New England Journal of Medicine between 2017 and 2023. They found no cases where the final diagnosis was not a unifying one.

Part 3: In an online survey of 265 physicians, 79% identified coincidental symptomatic conditions (category 4) as the least likely type of multiple diagnoses. Preexisting conditions (category 2) emerged as the most common, reflecting the tendency to add new diagnoses to a patient’s existing health profile. Almost one third of instances referencing Hickam’s dictum or violations of Occam’s razor fell into category 2.

Causally related diseases (category 3) were probabilistically dependent, meaning that the presence of one condition increased the likelihood of the other, based on the strength (often unknown) of the causal relationship.

 

Practical Insights

The significant finding of this work was that multiple diagnoses occur in predictable patterns, informed by causal connections between conditions, symptom onset timing, and likelihood. The principle of common causation supports the search for a unifying diagnosis for coincidental symptoms. It is not surprising that causally related phenomena often co-occur, as reflected by the fact that 40% of multiple diagnoses in the study’s first part were causally linked.

Thus, understanding multiple diagnoses goes beyond Hickam’s dictum and Occam’s razor. It requires not only identifying diseases but also examining their causal relationships and the timing of symptom onset. A unifying diagnosis is not equivalent to a single diagnosis; rather, it represents a causal pathway linking underlying pathologic changes to acute presentations.

 

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

The principle of parsimony, often referred to as “Occam’s razor,” favors a unifying explanation over multiple ones, as long as both explain the data equally well. This heuristic, widely used in medical practice, advocates for simpler explanations rather than complex theories. However, its application in modern medicine has sparked debate.

“Hickam’s dictum,” a counterargument to Occam’s razor, asserts that patients — especially as populations grow older and more fragile — can simultaneously have multiple, unrelated diagnoses. These contrasting perspectives on clinical reasoning, balancing diagnostic simplicity and complexity, are both used in daily medical practice.

But are these two axioms truly in conflict, or is this a false dichotomy?

 

Occam’s Razor and Simple Diagnoses

Interpersonal variability in diagnostic approaches, shaped by the subjective nature of many judgments, complicates the formal evaluation of diagnostic parsimony (Occam’s razor). Indirect evidence suggests that prioritizing simplicity in diagnosis can result in under-detection of secondary conditions, particularly in patients with chronic illnesses.

For example, older patients with a known chronic illness were found to have a 30%-60% lower likelihood of being treated for an unrelated secondary diagnosis than matched peers without the chronic condition. Other studies indicate that a readily available, simple diagnosis can lead clinicians to prematurely close their diagnostic reasoning, overlooking other significant illnesses.

 

Beyond Hickam’s Dictum and Occam’s Razor

A recent study explored the phenomenon of multiple diagnoses by examining the supposed conflict between Hickam’s dictum and Occam’s razor, as well as the ambiguities in how they are interpreted and used by physicians in clinical reasoning.

Part 1: Researchers identified articles on PubMed related to Hickam’s dictum or conflicting with Occam’s razor, categorizing instances into four models of Hickam’s dictum:

1. Incidentaloma: An asymptomatic condition discovered accidentally.

2. Preexisting diagnosis: A known condition in the patient’s medical history.

3. Causally related disease: A complication, association, epiphenomenon, or underlying cause connected to the primary diagnosis.

4. Coincidental and independent disease: A symptomatic condition unrelated to the primary diagnosis.

Part 2: Researchers analyzed 220 case records from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and clinical problem-solving reports published in The New England Journal of Medicine between 2017 and 2023. They found no cases where the final diagnosis was not a unifying one.

Part 3: In an online survey of 265 physicians, 79% identified coincidental symptomatic conditions (category 4) as the least likely type of multiple diagnoses. Preexisting conditions (category 2) emerged as the most common, reflecting the tendency to add new diagnoses to a patient’s existing health profile. Almost one third of instances referencing Hickam’s dictum or violations of Occam’s razor fell into category 2.

Causally related diseases (category 3) were probabilistically dependent, meaning that the presence of one condition increased the likelihood of the other, based on the strength (often unknown) of the causal relationship.

 

Practical Insights

The significant finding of this work was that multiple diagnoses occur in predictable patterns, informed by causal connections between conditions, symptom onset timing, and likelihood. The principle of common causation supports the search for a unifying diagnosis for coincidental symptoms. It is not surprising that causally related phenomena often co-occur, as reflected by the fact that 40% of multiple diagnoses in the study’s first part were causally linked.

Thus, understanding multiple diagnoses goes beyond Hickam’s dictum and Occam’s razor. It requires not only identifying diseases but also examining their causal relationships and the timing of symptom onset. A unifying diagnosis is not equivalent to a single diagnosis; rather, it represents a causal pathway linking underlying pathologic changes to acute presentations.

 

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

The principle of parsimony, often referred to as “Occam’s razor,” favors a unifying explanation over multiple ones, as long as both explain the data equally well. This heuristic, widely used in medical practice, advocates for simpler explanations rather than complex theories. However, its application in modern medicine has sparked debate.

“Hickam’s dictum,” a counterargument to Occam’s razor, asserts that patients — especially as populations grow older and more fragile — can simultaneously have multiple, unrelated diagnoses. These contrasting perspectives on clinical reasoning, balancing diagnostic simplicity and complexity, are both used in daily medical practice.

But are these two axioms truly in conflict, or is this a false dichotomy?

 

Occam’s Razor and Simple Diagnoses

Interpersonal variability in diagnostic approaches, shaped by the subjective nature of many judgments, complicates the formal evaluation of diagnostic parsimony (Occam’s razor). Indirect evidence suggests that prioritizing simplicity in diagnosis can result in under-detection of secondary conditions, particularly in patients with chronic illnesses.

For example, older patients with a known chronic illness were found to have a 30%-60% lower likelihood of being treated for an unrelated secondary diagnosis than matched peers without the chronic condition. Other studies indicate that a readily available, simple diagnosis can lead clinicians to prematurely close their diagnostic reasoning, overlooking other significant illnesses.

 

Beyond Hickam’s Dictum and Occam’s Razor

A recent study explored the phenomenon of multiple diagnoses by examining the supposed conflict between Hickam’s dictum and Occam’s razor, as well as the ambiguities in how they are interpreted and used by physicians in clinical reasoning.

Part 1: Researchers identified articles on PubMed related to Hickam’s dictum or conflicting with Occam’s razor, categorizing instances into four models of Hickam’s dictum:

1. Incidentaloma: An asymptomatic condition discovered accidentally.

2. Preexisting diagnosis: A known condition in the patient’s medical history.

3. Causally related disease: A complication, association, epiphenomenon, or underlying cause connected to the primary diagnosis.

4. Coincidental and independent disease: A symptomatic condition unrelated to the primary diagnosis.

Part 2: Researchers analyzed 220 case records from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and clinical problem-solving reports published in The New England Journal of Medicine between 2017 and 2023. They found no cases where the final diagnosis was not a unifying one.

Part 3: In an online survey of 265 physicians, 79% identified coincidental symptomatic conditions (category 4) as the least likely type of multiple diagnoses. Preexisting conditions (category 2) emerged as the most common, reflecting the tendency to add new diagnoses to a patient’s existing health profile. Almost one third of instances referencing Hickam’s dictum or violations of Occam’s razor fell into category 2.

Causally related diseases (category 3) were probabilistically dependent, meaning that the presence of one condition increased the likelihood of the other, based on the strength (often unknown) of the causal relationship.

 

Practical Insights

The significant finding of this work was that multiple diagnoses occur in predictable patterns, informed by causal connections between conditions, symptom onset timing, and likelihood. The principle of common causation supports the search for a unifying diagnosis for coincidental symptoms. It is not surprising that causally related phenomena often co-occur, as reflected by the fact that 40% of multiple diagnoses in the study’s first part were causally linked.

Thus, understanding multiple diagnoses goes beyond Hickam’s dictum and Occam’s razor. It requires not only identifying diseases but also examining their causal relationships and the timing of symptom onset. A unifying diagnosis is not equivalent to a single diagnosis; rather, it represents a causal pathway linking underlying pathologic changes to acute presentations.

 

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

TOPLINE:

Levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (IUDs) are associated with significantly more reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism compared with copper IUDs, with some differences between the available levonorgestrel IUDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) through December 2023 for adverse events associated with levonorgestrel IUDs where IUDs were the only suspected cause, focusing on acne, alopecia, and hirsutism.
• They included 139,348 reports for the levonorgestrel IUDs (Mirena, Liletta, Kyleena, Skyla) and 50,450 reports for the copper IUD (Paragard).

TAKEAWAY:

• Levonorgestrel IUD users showed higher odds of reporting acne (odds ratio [OR], 3.21), alopecia (OR, 5.96), and hirsutism (OR, 15.48; all P < .0001) than copper IUD users.
• The Kyleena 19.5 mg levonorgestrel IUD was associated with the highest odds of acne reports (OR, 3.42), followed by the Mirena 52 mg (OR, 3.40) and Skyla 13.5 mg (OR, 2.30) levonorgestrel IUDs (all P < .0001).
• The Mirena IUD was associated with the highest odds of alopecia and hirsutism reports (OR, 6.62 and 17.43, respectively), followed by the Kyleena (ORs, 2.90 and 8.17, respectively) and Skyla (ORs, 2.69 and 1.48, respectively) IUDs (all P < .0001).
• Reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism were not significantly different between the Liletta 52 mg levonorgestrel IUD and the copper IUD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, we identified significant associations between levonorgestrel IUDs and androgenic cutaneous adverse events,” the authors wrote. “Counseling prior to initiation of levonorgestrel IUDs should include information on possible cutaneous AEs including acne, alopecia, and hirsutism to guide contraceptive shared decision making,” they added.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lydia Cassard, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, and was published online November 3 in Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

FAERS database reports could not be verified, and differences in FDA approval dates for IUDs could have influenced reporting rates. Moreover, a lack of data on prior medication use limits the ability to determine if these AEs are a result of changes in androgenic or antiandrogenic medication use. Cutaneous adverse events associated with copper IUDs may have been underreported because of assumptions that a nonhormonal device would not cause these adverse events.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any funding source or conflict of interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (IUDs) are associated with significantly more reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism compared with copper IUDs, with some differences between the available levonorgestrel IUDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) through December 2023 for adverse events associated with levonorgestrel IUDs where IUDs were the only suspected cause, focusing on acne, alopecia, and hirsutism.
• They included 139,348 reports for the levonorgestrel IUDs (Mirena, Liletta, Kyleena, Skyla) and 50,450 reports for the copper IUD (Paragard).

TAKEAWAY:

• Levonorgestrel IUD users showed higher odds of reporting acne (odds ratio [OR], 3.21), alopecia (OR, 5.96), and hirsutism (OR, 15.48; all P < .0001) than copper IUD users.
• The Kyleena 19.5 mg levonorgestrel IUD was associated with the highest odds of acne reports (OR, 3.42), followed by the Mirena 52 mg (OR, 3.40) and Skyla 13.5 mg (OR, 2.30) levonorgestrel IUDs (all P < .0001).
• The Mirena IUD was associated with the highest odds of alopecia and hirsutism reports (OR, 6.62 and 17.43, respectively), followed by the Kyleena (ORs, 2.90 and 8.17, respectively) and Skyla (ORs, 2.69 and 1.48, respectively) IUDs (all P < .0001).
• Reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism were not significantly different between the Liletta 52 mg levonorgestrel IUD and the copper IUD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, we identified significant associations between levonorgestrel IUDs and androgenic cutaneous adverse events,” the authors wrote. “Counseling prior to initiation of levonorgestrel IUDs should include information on possible cutaneous AEs including acne, alopecia, and hirsutism to guide contraceptive shared decision making,” they added.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lydia Cassard, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, and was published online November 3 in Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

FAERS database reports could not be verified, and differences in FDA approval dates for IUDs could have influenced reporting rates. Moreover, a lack of data on prior medication use limits the ability to determine if these AEs are a result of changes in androgenic or antiandrogenic medication use. Cutaneous adverse events associated with copper IUDs may have been underreported because of assumptions that a nonhormonal device would not cause these adverse events.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any funding source or conflict of interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (IUDs) are associated with significantly more reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism compared with copper IUDs, with some differences between the available levonorgestrel IUDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) through December 2023 for adverse events associated with levonorgestrel IUDs where IUDs were the only suspected cause, focusing on acne, alopecia, and hirsutism.
• They included 139,348 reports for the levonorgestrel IUDs (Mirena, Liletta, Kyleena, Skyla) and 50,450 reports for the copper IUD (Paragard).

TAKEAWAY:

• Levonorgestrel IUD users showed higher odds of reporting acne (odds ratio [OR], 3.21), alopecia (OR, 5.96), and hirsutism (OR, 15.48; all P < .0001) than copper IUD users.
• The Kyleena 19.5 mg levonorgestrel IUD was associated with the highest odds of acne reports (OR, 3.42), followed by the Mirena 52 mg (OR, 3.40) and Skyla 13.5 mg (OR, 2.30) levonorgestrel IUDs (all P < .0001).
• The Mirena IUD was associated with the highest odds of alopecia and hirsutism reports (OR, 6.62 and 17.43, respectively), followed by the Kyleena (ORs, 2.90 and 8.17, respectively) and Skyla (ORs, 2.69 and 1.48, respectively) IUDs (all P < .0001).
• Reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism were not significantly different between the Liletta 52 mg levonorgestrel IUD and the copper IUD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, we identified significant associations between levonorgestrel IUDs and androgenic cutaneous adverse events,” the authors wrote. “Counseling prior to initiation of levonorgestrel IUDs should include information on possible cutaneous AEs including acne, alopecia, and hirsutism to guide contraceptive shared decision making,” they added.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lydia Cassard, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, and was published online November 3 in Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

FAERS database reports could not be verified, and differences in FDA approval dates for IUDs could have influenced reporting rates. Moreover, a lack of data on prior medication use limits the ability to determine if these AEs are a result of changes in androgenic or antiandrogenic medication use. Cutaneous adverse events associated with copper IUDs may have been underreported because of assumptions that a nonhormonal device would not cause these adverse events.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any funding source or conflict of interests.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), is not associated with an increased risk for nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) in patients with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Analytics Network to investigate the potential risk for NAION associated with semaglutide use in a broader population worldwide.
• They included Caucasians aged ≥ 18 years with only type 2 diabetes (n = 37,245) , only obesity (n = 138,391), or both (n = 64,989) who visited healthcare facilities three or more times.
• The participants were further grouped into those prescribed semaglutide and those using non–GLP-1 RA medications.
• Propensity score matching was performed to balance age, sex, body mass index, A1C levels, medications, and underlying comorbidities between the participants using semaglutide or non–GLP-1 RAs.
• The main outcome measure was the occurrence of NAION, evaluated at 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of semaglutide vs non–GLP-1 RAs was not associated with an increased risk for NAION in people with only type 2 diabetes during the 1-year (hazard ratio [HR], 2.32; 95% CI, 0.60-8.97), 2-year (HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86-6.17), and 3-year (HR, 1.51; 0.71-3.25) follow-up periods.
• Similarly, in the obesity-only cohort, use of semaglutide was not linked to the development of NAION across 1-year (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.08-2.09), 2-year (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.20-2.24), and 3-year (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.24-2.17) follow-up periods.
• The patients with both diabetes and obesity also showed no significant association between use of semaglutide and the risk for NAION across each follow-up period.
• Sensitivity analysis confirmed the prescription of semaglutide was not associated with an increased risk for NAION compared with non–GLP-1 RA medications.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our large, multinational, population-based, real-world study found that semaglutide is not associated with an increased risk of NAION in the general population,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chien-Chih Chou, MD, PhD, of National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, in Taipei City, Taiwan, and was published online on November 02, 2024, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study may have limited the ability to establish causality between the use of semaglutide and the risk for NAION. The reliance on diagnosis coding for NAION may have introduced a potential misclassification of cases. Moreover, approximately half of the healthcare organizations in the TriNetX network are based in the United States, potentially limiting the diversity of the data.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a grant from Taichung Veterans General Hospital. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.

 

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

TOPLINE:

The use of semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), is not associated with an increased risk for nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) in patients with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Analytics Network to investigate the potential risk for NAION associated with semaglutide use in a broader population worldwide.
• They included Caucasians aged ≥ 18 years with only type 2 diabetes (n = 37,245) , only obesity (n = 138,391), or both (n = 64,989) who visited healthcare facilities three or more times.
• The participants were further grouped into those prescribed semaglutide and those using non–GLP-1 RA medications.
• Propensity score matching was performed to balance age, sex, body mass index, A1C levels, medications, and underlying comorbidities between the participants using semaglutide or non–GLP-1 RAs.
• The main outcome measure was the occurrence of NAION, evaluated at 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of semaglutide vs non–GLP-1 RAs was not associated with an increased risk for NAION in people with only type 2 diabetes during the 1-year (hazard ratio [HR], 2.32; 95% CI, 0.60-8.97), 2-year (HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86-6.17), and 3-year (HR, 1.51; 0.71-3.25) follow-up periods.
• Similarly, in the obesity-only cohort, use of semaglutide was not linked to the development of NAION across 1-year (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.08-2.09), 2-year (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.20-2.24), and 3-year (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.24-2.17) follow-up periods.
• The patients with both diabetes and obesity also showed no significant association between use of semaglutide and the risk for NAION across each follow-up period.
• Sensitivity analysis confirmed the prescription of semaglutide was not associated with an increased risk for NAION compared with non–GLP-1 RA medications.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our large, multinational, population-based, real-world study found that semaglutide is not associated with an increased risk of NAION in the general population,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chien-Chih Chou, MD, PhD, of National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, in Taipei City, Taiwan, and was published online on November 02, 2024, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study may have limited the ability to establish causality between the use of semaglutide and the risk for NAION. The reliance on diagnosis coding for NAION may have introduced a potential misclassification of cases. Moreover, approximately half of the healthcare organizations in the TriNetX network are based in the United States, potentially limiting the diversity of the data.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a grant from Taichung Veterans General Hospital. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.

 

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

TOPLINE:

The use of semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), is not associated with an increased risk for nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) in patients with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Analytics Network to investigate the potential risk for NAION associated with semaglutide use in a broader population worldwide.
• They included Caucasians aged ≥ 18 years with only type 2 diabetes (n = 37,245) , only obesity (n = 138,391), or both (n = 64,989) who visited healthcare facilities three or more times.
• The participants were further grouped into those prescribed semaglutide and those using non–GLP-1 RA medications.
• Propensity score matching was performed to balance age, sex, body mass index, A1C levels, medications, and underlying comorbidities between the participants using semaglutide or non–GLP-1 RAs.
• The main outcome measure was the occurrence of NAION, evaluated at 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of semaglutide vs non–GLP-1 RAs was not associated with an increased risk for NAION in people with only type 2 diabetes during the 1-year (hazard ratio [HR], 2.32; 95% CI, 0.60-8.97), 2-year (HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86-6.17), and 3-year (HR, 1.51; 0.71-3.25) follow-up periods.
• Similarly, in the obesity-only cohort, use of semaglutide was not linked to the development of NAION across 1-year (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.08-2.09), 2-year (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.20-2.24), and 3-year (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.24-2.17) follow-up periods.
• The patients with both diabetes and obesity also showed no significant association between use of semaglutide and the risk for NAION across each follow-up period.
• Sensitivity analysis confirmed the prescription of semaglutide was not associated with an increased risk for NAION compared with non–GLP-1 RA medications.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our large, multinational, population-based, real-world study found that semaglutide is not associated with an increased risk of NAION in the general population,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chien-Chih Chou, MD, PhD, of National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, in Taipei City, Taiwan, and was published online on November 02, 2024, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study may have limited the ability to establish causality between the use of semaglutide and the risk for NAION. The reliance on diagnosis coding for NAION may have introduced a potential misclassification of cases. Moreover, approximately half of the healthcare organizations in the TriNetX network are based in the United States, potentially limiting the diversity of the data.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a grant from Taichung Veterans General Hospital. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.

 

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

TOPLINE:

Consumption of ultraprocessed foods (UPFs), such as carbonated drinks, processed meats, and sweet or savory packaged snacks, is associated with accelerated biological aging, as measured by 36 blood-based biomarkers, and factors other than poor nutritional content may be to blame.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have reported an association between high consumption of UPFs and some measures of early biological aging, such as shorter telomere length, cognitive decline, and frailty, but the relationship is largely unexplored so far, including exactly how UPFs may harm health.
• To examine the association between UPF consumption and biological aging, researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 22,495 participants (mean chronological age, 55.6 years; 52% women) from the Moli-sani Study in Italy, who were recruited between 2005 and 2010.
• Food intake was assessed with a food frequency questionnaire that covered 188 different food items, each of which was categorized into one of four groups based on the extent of processing, ranging from minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat and fish, to UPFs.
• UPF intake was determined by weight, using the ratio of UPFs to the total weight of food and beverages (g/d), and participants were categorized into sex-specific fifths according to the proportion of UPFs in their total food intake. Diet quality was also evaluated using the Mediterranean Diet Score.
• Biological age was computed using a deep neural network approach based on 36 circulating blood biomarkers, and the mean difference between the mean biological and chronological ages was analyzed.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean difference between biological and chronological ages of the participants was –0.70 years.
• Higher intake of UPFs was associated with accelerated biological aging compared with the lowest intake (regression coefficient, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.08-0.61), with a mean difference between the biological and chronological ages of −4.1 years and 1.6 years in those with the lowest and highest intakes, respectively.
• The association between UPF consumption and biological aging was nonlinear (P = .049 for nonlinearity). The association tended to be stronger in men than in women, but this was not statistically significant.
• Including the Mediterranean Diet Score in the model slightly attenuated the association by 9.1%, indicating that poor nutritional content was likely to explain a small part of the underlying mechanism.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results showed that the UPFs–biological aging association was weakly explained by the poor nutritional composition of these highly processed foods, suggesting that biological aging could be mainly influenced by non-nutrient food characteristics, which include altered food matrix, contact materials and neo-formed compounds,” the authors wrote.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simona Esposito, Research Unit of Epidemiology and Prevention, IRCCS Neuromed, Isernia, Italy. It was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to determine the temporal directionality of the association, and the observational nature of the study limited the ability to establish the causality between UPF consumption and biological aging. The use of self-reported dietary data may have introduced recall bias. The study population was limited to adults from Central-Southern Italy, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was developed within the project funded by the Next Generation European Union “Age-It — Ageing well in an ageing society” project, National Recovery and Resilience Plan. The analyses were partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Consumption of ultraprocessed foods (UPFs), such as carbonated drinks, processed meats, and sweet or savory packaged snacks, is associated with accelerated biological aging, as measured by 36 blood-based biomarkers, and factors other than poor nutritional content may be to blame.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have reported an association between high consumption of UPFs and some measures of early biological aging, such as shorter telomere length, cognitive decline, and frailty, but the relationship is largely unexplored so far, including exactly how UPFs may harm health.
• To examine the association between UPF consumption and biological aging, researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 22,495 participants (mean chronological age, 55.6 years; 52% women) from the Moli-sani Study in Italy, who were recruited between 2005 and 2010.
• Food intake was assessed with a food frequency questionnaire that covered 188 different food items, each of which was categorized into one of four groups based on the extent of processing, ranging from minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat and fish, to UPFs.
• UPF intake was determined by weight, using the ratio of UPFs to the total weight of food and beverages (g/d), and participants were categorized into sex-specific fifths according to the proportion of UPFs in their total food intake. Diet quality was also evaluated using the Mediterranean Diet Score.
• Biological age was computed using a deep neural network approach based on 36 circulating blood biomarkers, and the mean difference between the mean biological and chronological ages was analyzed.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean difference between biological and chronological ages of the participants was –0.70 years.
• Higher intake of UPFs was associated with accelerated biological aging compared with the lowest intake (regression coefficient, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.08-0.61), with a mean difference between the biological and chronological ages of −4.1 years and 1.6 years in those with the lowest and highest intakes, respectively.
• The association between UPF consumption and biological aging was nonlinear (P = .049 for nonlinearity). The association tended to be stronger in men than in women, but this was not statistically significant.
• Including the Mediterranean Diet Score in the model slightly attenuated the association by 9.1%, indicating that poor nutritional content was likely to explain a small part of the underlying mechanism.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results showed that the UPFs–biological aging association was weakly explained by the poor nutritional composition of these highly processed foods, suggesting that biological aging could be mainly influenced by non-nutrient food characteristics, which include altered food matrix, contact materials and neo-formed compounds,” the authors wrote.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simona Esposito, Research Unit of Epidemiology and Prevention, IRCCS Neuromed, Isernia, Italy. It was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to determine the temporal directionality of the association, and the observational nature of the study limited the ability to establish the causality between UPF consumption and biological aging. The use of self-reported dietary data may have introduced recall bias. The study population was limited to adults from Central-Southern Italy, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was developed within the project funded by the Next Generation European Union “Age-It — Ageing well in an ageing society” project, National Recovery and Resilience Plan. The analyses were partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Consumption of ultraprocessed foods (UPFs), such as carbonated drinks, processed meats, and sweet or savory packaged snacks, is associated with accelerated biological aging, as measured by 36 blood-based biomarkers, and factors other than poor nutritional content may be to blame.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have reported an association between high consumption of UPFs and some measures of early biological aging, such as shorter telomere length, cognitive decline, and frailty, but the relationship is largely unexplored so far, including exactly how UPFs may harm health.
• To examine the association between UPF consumption and biological aging, researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 22,495 participants (mean chronological age, 55.6 years; 52% women) from the Moli-sani Study in Italy, who were recruited between 2005 and 2010.
• Food intake was assessed with a food frequency questionnaire that covered 188 different food items, each of which was categorized into one of four groups based on the extent of processing, ranging from minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat and fish, to UPFs.
• UPF intake was determined by weight, using the ratio of UPFs to the total weight of food and beverages (g/d), and participants were categorized into sex-specific fifths according to the proportion of UPFs in their total food intake. Diet quality was also evaluated using the Mediterranean Diet Score.
• Biological age was computed using a deep neural network approach based on 36 circulating blood biomarkers, and the mean difference between the mean biological and chronological ages was analyzed.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean difference between biological and chronological ages of the participants was –0.70 years.
• Higher intake of UPFs was associated with accelerated biological aging compared with the lowest intake (regression coefficient, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.08-0.61), with a mean difference between the biological and chronological ages of −4.1 years and 1.6 years in those with the lowest and highest intakes, respectively.
• The association between UPF consumption and biological aging was nonlinear (P = .049 for nonlinearity). The association tended to be stronger in men than in women, but this was not statistically significant.
• Including the Mediterranean Diet Score in the model slightly attenuated the association by 9.1%, indicating that poor nutritional content was likely to explain a small part of the underlying mechanism.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results showed that the UPFs–biological aging association was weakly explained by the poor nutritional composition of these highly processed foods, suggesting that biological aging could be mainly influenced by non-nutrient food characteristics, which include altered food matrix, contact materials and neo-formed compounds,” the authors wrote.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simona Esposito, Research Unit of Epidemiology and Prevention, IRCCS Neuromed, Isernia, Italy. It was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to determine the temporal directionality of the association, and the observational nature of the study limited the ability to establish the causality between UPF consumption and biological aging. The use of self-reported dietary data may have introduced recall bias. The study population was limited to adults from Central-Southern Italy, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was developed within the project funded by the Next Generation European Union “Age-It — Ageing well in an ageing society” project, National Recovery and Resilience Plan. The analyses were partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

WASHINGTON — Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase mortality in people with preexisting autoimmune diseases, new research has found. 

Results from a large database analysis of patients with and without autoimmune diseases suggest it is safe to treat them with ICI if they develop a cancer for which it is indicated, Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the American College of Rheumatology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“One message is that, when rheumatologists are asked by oncologists about patients with rheumatoid arthritis or vasculitis or other autoimmune diseases and whether it’s safe to treat them with immune checkpoint inhibitors, this result provides some evidence that it probably is safe…. Checkpoint inhibitors are really incredible drugs, and they’ve improved mortality for a lot of cancers, particularly melanoma, and so I think there should be a pretty high threshold for us to say a patient shouldn’t receive them because of an autoimmune condition,” he told this news organization.

Another implication, Challener said, is that people with autoimmune diseases shouldn’t routinely be excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. Currently they are excluded because of concerns about exacerbation of underlying autoimmunity, possible interference between the ICI and the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat the autoimmune condition, and a theoretical risk for serious adverse events. 

“Clinical trials are continuing to exclude these patients, and they paint with a very broad brush anyone with underlying autoimmunity ... I’m hoping that that changes. I don’t think there’s a great evidence base to support that practice, and it’s unfortunate that patients with underlying autoimmune diseases are excluded from important studies,” Challener said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, told this news organization that he agrees the data are generally reassuring. “If one of our patients gets cancer and their oncologist wants to use a checkpoint inhibitor, we’d obviously still monitor them for complications, but we wouldn’t automatically assume the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and autoimmune disease would increase their mortality.” 

 

No Difference in Mortality for Those With and Without Autoimmune Disease

Challener and colleagues used administrative health data from the TriNetX Diamond network of 92 US healthcare sites with 212 million patients. All patients included in the study were receiving anti-programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 to treat malignancies involving the skin, lung/bronchus, digestive organs, or urinary tract. The study population also had at least one rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, dermatologic, or endocrine autoimmune disease.

Propensity score matching between those with and without autoimmune disease was performed for about 100 covariates. Prior to the matching, the autoimmune disease group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular and other comorbidities. The matching yielded 23,714 individuals with autoimmune disease and the same number without who had similar demographics and comorbidity rates, as well as malignancy type, alcohol/tobacco use, and medication use. 

At a median follow-up of 250 days, the risk for mortality prior to propensity matching was 40.0% in the autoimmune disease group and 38.1% for those without, a significant difference with hazard ratio 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10). But after the matching, the difference was no longer significant: 39.8% vs 40.2%, respectively (0.97, 0.94-1.00). 

The Kaplan-Meier curves for survival probability for those with or without autoimmune disease were nearly superimposed, showing no difference up to 1600 days. An analysis of just the patients with rheumatic diseases yielded similar results, Challener said. 

 

Some Caveats About the Data

Jeffries, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and the Oklahoma VA, said he would like to see additional data on outcomes, both for the autoimmune conditions and the cancers. Challener said there are plans to look at other hard endpoints such as myocardial infarction and end-stage renal disease, but that the database is limited. 

Both Challener and Jeffries also cautioned that the reassurance may not apply to patients with active disease. 

“One thing this research doesn’t address is whether active autoimmune disease might have a different outcome compared to more kind of quiet disease…. If you have a patient who has extremely active rheumatoid arthritis or extremely active giant cell arthritis, for instance, I think that could be more challenging. I would be frightened to put a patient with really active GCA on pembrolizumab or say that it’s safe without their disease being controlled. But for someone who has well-controlled disease or minimally active disease, this is very reassuring,” Challener told this news organization.

“I think this may also be important in that it’s a good argument to tell the drug companies to include autoimmune patients in these trials so we can get better data,” Jeffries said.

Challener and Jeffries had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase mortality in people with preexisting autoimmune diseases, new research has found. 

Results from a large database analysis of patients with and without autoimmune diseases suggest it is safe to treat them with ICI if they develop a cancer for which it is indicated, Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the American College of Rheumatology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“One message is that, when rheumatologists are asked by oncologists about patients with rheumatoid arthritis or vasculitis or other autoimmune diseases and whether it’s safe to treat them with immune checkpoint inhibitors, this result provides some evidence that it probably is safe…. Checkpoint inhibitors are really incredible drugs, and they’ve improved mortality for a lot of cancers, particularly melanoma, and so I think there should be a pretty high threshold for us to say a patient shouldn’t receive them because of an autoimmune condition,” he told this news organization.

Another implication, Challener said, is that people with autoimmune diseases shouldn’t routinely be excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. Currently they are excluded because of concerns about exacerbation of underlying autoimmunity, possible interference between the ICI and the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat the autoimmune condition, and a theoretical risk for serious adverse events. 

“Clinical trials are continuing to exclude these patients, and they paint with a very broad brush anyone with underlying autoimmunity ... I’m hoping that that changes. I don’t think there’s a great evidence base to support that practice, and it’s unfortunate that patients with underlying autoimmune diseases are excluded from important studies,” Challener said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, told this news organization that he agrees the data are generally reassuring. “If one of our patients gets cancer and their oncologist wants to use a checkpoint inhibitor, we’d obviously still monitor them for complications, but we wouldn’t automatically assume the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and autoimmune disease would increase their mortality.” 

 

No Difference in Mortality for Those With and Without Autoimmune Disease

Challener and colleagues used administrative health data from the TriNetX Diamond network of 92 US healthcare sites with 212 million patients. All patients included in the study were receiving anti-programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 to treat malignancies involving the skin, lung/bronchus, digestive organs, or urinary tract. The study population also had at least one rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, dermatologic, or endocrine autoimmune disease.

Propensity score matching between those with and without autoimmune disease was performed for about 100 covariates. Prior to the matching, the autoimmune disease group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular and other comorbidities. The matching yielded 23,714 individuals with autoimmune disease and the same number without who had similar demographics and comorbidity rates, as well as malignancy type, alcohol/tobacco use, and medication use. 

At a median follow-up of 250 days, the risk for mortality prior to propensity matching was 40.0% in the autoimmune disease group and 38.1% for those without, a significant difference with hazard ratio 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10). But after the matching, the difference was no longer significant: 39.8% vs 40.2%, respectively (0.97, 0.94-1.00). 

The Kaplan-Meier curves for survival probability for those with or without autoimmune disease were nearly superimposed, showing no difference up to 1600 days. An analysis of just the patients with rheumatic diseases yielded similar results, Challener said. 

 

Some Caveats About the Data

Jeffries, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and the Oklahoma VA, said he would like to see additional data on outcomes, both for the autoimmune conditions and the cancers. Challener said there are plans to look at other hard endpoints such as myocardial infarction and end-stage renal disease, but that the database is limited. 

Both Challener and Jeffries also cautioned that the reassurance may not apply to patients with active disease. 

“One thing this research doesn’t address is whether active autoimmune disease might have a different outcome compared to more kind of quiet disease…. If you have a patient who has extremely active rheumatoid arthritis or extremely active giant cell arthritis, for instance, I think that could be more challenging. I would be frightened to put a patient with really active GCA on pembrolizumab or say that it’s safe without their disease being controlled. But for someone who has well-controlled disease or minimally active disease, this is very reassuring,” Challener told this news organization.

“I think this may also be important in that it’s a good argument to tell the drug companies to include autoimmune patients in these trials so we can get better data,” Jeffries said.

Challener and Jeffries had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase mortality in people with preexisting autoimmune diseases, new research has found. 

Results from a large database analysis of patients with and without autoimmune diseases suggest it is safe to treat them with ICI if they develop a cancer for which it is indicated, Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the American College of Rheumatology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“One message is that, when rheumatologists are asked by oncologists about patients with rheumatoid arthritis or vasculitis or other autoimmune diseases and whether it’s safe to treat them with immune checkpoint inhibitors, this result provides some evidence that it probably is safe…. Checkpoint inhibitors are really incredible drugs, and they’ve improved mortality for a lot of cancers, particularly melanoma, and so I think there should be a pretty high threshold for us to say a patient shouldn’t receive them because of an autoimmune condition,” he told this news organization.

Another implication, Challener said, is that people with autoimmune diseases shouldn’t routinely be excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. Currently they are excluded because of concerns about exacerbation of underlying autoimmunity, possible interference between the ICI and the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat the autoimmune condition, and a theoretical risk for serious adverse events. 

“Clinical trials are continuing to exclude these patients, and they paint with a very broad brush anyone with underlying autoimmunity ... I’m hoping that that changes. I don’t think there’s a great evidence base to support that practice, and it’s unfortunate that patients with underlying autoimmune diseases are excluded from important studies,” Challener said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, told this news organization that he agrees the data are generally reassuring. “If one of our patients gets cancer and their oncologist wants to use a checkpoint inhibitor, we’d obviously still monitor them for complications, but we wouldn’t automatically assume the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and autoimmune disease would increase their mortality.” 

 

No Difference in Mortality for Those With and Without Autoimmune Disease

Challener and colleagues used administrative health data from the TriNetX Diamond network of 92 US healthcare sites with 212 million patients. All patients included in the study were receiving anti-programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 to treat malignancies involving the skin, lung/bronchus, digestive organs, or urinary tract. The study population also had at least one rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, dermatologic, or endocrine autoimmune disease.

Propensity score matching between those with and without autoimmune disease was performed for about 100 covariates. Prior to the matching, the autoimmune disease group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular and other comorbidities. The matching yielded 23,714 individuals with autoimmune disease and the same number without who had similar demographics and comorbidity rates, as well as malignancy type, alcohol/tobacco use, and medication use. 

At a median follow-up of 250 days, the risk for mortality prior to propensity matching was 40.0% in the autoimmune disease group and 38.1% for those without, a significant difference with hazard ratio 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10). But after the matching, the difference was no longer significant: 39.8% vs 40.2%, respectively (0.97, 0.94-1.00). 

The Kaplan-Meier curves for survival probability for those with or without autoimmune disease were nearly superimposed, showing no difference up to 1600 days. An analysis of just the patients with rheumatic diseases yielded similar results, Challener said. 

 

Some Caveats About the Data

Jeffries, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and the Oklahoma VA, said he would like to see additional data on outcomes, both for the autoimmune conditions and the cancers. Challener said there are plans to look at other hard endpoints such as myocardial infarction and end-stage renal disease, but that the database is limited. 

Both Challener and Jeffries also cautioned that the reassurance may not apply to patients with active disease. 

“One thing this research doesn’t address is whether active autoimmune disease might have a different outcome compared to more kind of quiet disease…. If you have a patient who has extremely active rheumatoid arthritis or extremely active giant cell arthritis, for instance, I think that could be more challenging. I would be frightened to put a patient with really active GCA on pembrolizumab or say that it’s safe without their disease being controlled. But for someone who has well-controlled disease or minimally active disease, this is very reassuring,” Challener told this news organization.

“I think this may also be important in that it’s a good argument to tell the drug companies to include autoimmune patients in these trials so we can get better data,” Jeffries said.

Challener and Jeffries had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who discontinue treatment with the osteoporosis drug denosumab, despite transitioning to zoledronate, show significant losses in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) within a year, according to the latest findings to show that the rapid rebound of bone loss after denosumab discontinuation is not easily prevented with other therapies — even bisphosphonates.

“When initiating denosumab for osteoporosis treatment, it is recommended to engage in thorough shared decision-making with the patient to ensure they understand the potential risks associated with discontinuing the medication,” senior author Shau-Huai Fu, MD, PhD, Department of Orthopedics, National Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin Branch, Douliu, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “integrating a case manager system is crucial to support long-term adherence and compliance,” he added.

The results are from the Denosumab Sequential Therapy prospective, open-label, parallel-group randomized clinical trial, published online in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, 101 patients were recruited between April 2019 and May 2021 at a referral center and two hospitals in Taiwan. The patients, including postmenopausal women and men over the age of 50, had been treated with regular denosumab for at least 2 years and had no previous exposure to other anti-osteoporosis medication.

They were randomized to treatment either with continuous denosumab at the standard dose of 60 mg twice yearly or to discontinue denosumab and receive the standard intravenous dose of the bisphosphonate zoledronate at 5 mg at the time when the next dose of denosumab would have been administered.

There were no differences between the two groups in serum bone turnover markers at baseline.

The current results, reflecting the first year of the 2-year study, show that, overall, those receiving zoledronate (n = 76), had a significant decrease in lumbar spine BMD, compared with a slight increase in the denosumab continuation group (–0.68% vs 1.30%, respectively; P = .03).

No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of the study’s other measures of total hip BMD (median, 0% vs 1.12%; P = .24), and femoral neck BMD (median, 0.18% vs 0.17%; P = .71).

Additional findings from multivariable analyses in the study also supported results from previous studies showing that a longer duration of denosumab use is associated with a more substantial rebound effect: Among 15 of the denosumab users in the study who had ≥ 3 prior years of the drug, the reduction in lumbar spine BMD was even greater with zoledronate compared with denosumab continuation (–3.20% vs 1.30%; P = .003).

Though the lack of losses in the other measures of total hip and femoral neck BMD may seem encouraging, evidence from the bulk of other studies suggests cautious interpretation of those findings, Fu said.

“Although our study did not observe a noticeable decline in total hip or femoral neck BMD, other randomized controlled trials with longer durations of denosumab use have reported significant reductions in these areas,” Fu said. “Therefore, it cannot be assumed that non-lumbar spine regions are entirely safe.”

 

Fracture Risk Is the Overriding Concern

Meanwhile, the loss of lumbar spine BMD is of particular concern because of its role in what amounts to the broader, overriding concern of denosumab discontinuation — the risk for fracture, Fu noted.

“Real-world observations indicate that fractures caused by or associated with discontinuation of denosumab primarily occur in the spine,” he explained.

Previous research underscores the risk for fracture with denosumab discontinuation — and the greater risk with longer-term denosumab use, showing an 11.8% annual incidence of vertebral fracture after discontinuation of denosumab used for less than 2 years, increasing to 16.0% upon discontinuation after more than 2 years of treatment.

Randomized trials have shown sequential zoledronate to have some benefit in offsetting that risk, reducing first-year fracture risk by 3%-4% in some studies.

In the current study, 3 of 76 participants experienced a vertebral fracture in the first year of discontinuation, all involving women, including 2 who had been receiving denosumab for ≥ 4 years before medication transition.

If a transition to a bisphosphonate is anticipated, the collective findings suggest doing it as early on in denosumab treatment as possible, Fu and his colleagues noted in the study.

“When medication transition from denosumab is expected or when long-term denosumab treatment may not be suitable, earlier medication transition with potent sequential therapy should be considered,” they wrote.

 

Dosing Adjustments?

The findings add to the evidence that “patients who gain the most with denosumab are likely to lose the most with zoledronate,” Nelson Watts, MD, who authored an editorial accompanying the study, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “denosumab and other medications seem to do more [and faster] for BMD in the spine, so we expect more loss in the spine than in the hip,” said Watts, who is director of Mercy Health Osteoporosis and Bone Health Services, Bon Secours Mercy Health in Cincinnati, Ohio.

“Studies are needed but not yet done to see if a higher dose or more frequent zoledronate would be better for BMD than the ‘usual’ yearly dose,” Watts added.

The only published clinical recommendations on the matter are discussed in a position paper from the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS).

“Pending additional robust data, a pragmatic approach is to begin treatment with zoledronate 6 months after the last denosumab injection and monitor the effect with bone turnover markers, for example, 3 and 6 months after the zoledronate infusion,” they recommended.

In cases of increased bone turnover markers, including above the mean found in age- and sex-matched cohorts, “repeated infusion of zoledronate should be considered,” the society added.

If bone turnover markers are not available for monitoring the patients, “a pragmatic approach could be administrating a second infusion of zoledronate 6 months after the first infusion,” they wrote.

 

Clinicians Need to Be Proactive From the Start

Bente Langdahl, MD, of the Medical Department of Endocrinology, Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark, who was a coauthor on the ECTS position statement, told this news organization that clinicians should also be proactive on the other side of treatment — before it begins — to prevent problems with discontinuation.

“I think denosumab is a very good treatment for some patients with high fracture risk and very low BMD, but both patients and clinicians should know that this treatment is either lifelong or there needs to be a plan for discontinuation,” Langdahl said.

Langdahl noted that denosumab is coming off patent soon; hence, issues with cost could become more manageable.

But until then, “I think [cost] should be considered before starting treatment because if patients cannot afford denosumab, they should have been started on zoledronate from the beginning.”

 

Discontinuation Reasons Vary

Research indicates that, broadly, adherence to denosumab ranges from about 45% to 72% at 2 years, with some reasons for discontinuation including the need for dental treatment or cost, Fu and colleagues reported.

Fu added, however, that other reasons for discontinuing denosumab “are not due to ‘need’ but rather factors such as relocating, missing follow-up appointments, or poor adherence.”

Lorenz Hofbauer, MD, who is head of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine III at the Technical University Medical Center in Dresden, Germany, noted that another issue contributing to some hesitation by patients about remaining on, or even initiating denosumab, is the known risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ).

Though reported as being rare, research continuing to stir concern for ONJ with denosumab use includes one recent study of patients with breast cancer showing those treated with denosumab had a fivefold higher risk for ONJ vs those on bisphosphonates.

“About 20% of my patients have ONJ concerns or other questions, which may delay treatment with denosumab or other therapies,” Hofbauer told this news organization.

“There is a high need to discuss risk versus benefits toward a shared decision-making,” he said.

Conversely, however, Hofbauer noted that adherence to denosumab at his center is fairly high — at 90%, which he says is largely credited to an electronically supported recall system in place at the center.

Denosumab maker Amgen also offers patient reminders via email, text, or phone through its Bone Matters patient support system, which also provides access to a call center for questions or to update treatment appointment information.

In terms of the ongoing question of how to best prevent fracture risk when patients do wind up discontinuing denosumab, Watts concluded in his editorial that more robust studies are needed.

“The dilemma is what to do with longer-term users who stop, and the real question is not what happens to BMD, but what happens to fracture risk,” he wrote.

“It is unlikely that the fracture risk question can be answered due to ethical limitations, but finding the best option, [whether it is] oral or intravenous bisphosphonate, timing, dose, and frequency, to minimize bone loss and the rebound increase in bone resorption after stopping long-term denosumab requires larger and longer studies of better design.”

The authors had no disclosures to report. Watts has been an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Amgen outside of the published editorial. Hofbauer is on advisory boards for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amolyt Pharma, Amgen, and UCB. Langdahl has been a primary investigator on previous and ongoing clinical trials involving denosumab.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who discontinue treatment with the osteoporosis drug denosumab, despite transitioning to zoledronate, show significant losses in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) within a year, according to the latest findings to show that the rapid rebound of bone loss after denosumab discontinuation is not easily prevented with other therapies — even bisphosphonates.

“When initiating denosumab for osteoporosis treatment, it is recommended to engage in thorough shared decision-making with the patient to ensure they understand the potential risks associated with discontinuing the medication,” senior author Shau-Huai Fu, MD, PhD, Department of Orthopedics, National Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin Branch, Douliu, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “integrating a case manager system is crucial to support long-term adherence and compliance,” he added.

The results are from the Denosumab Sequential Therapy prospective, open-label, parallel-group randomized clinical trial, published online in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, 101 patients were recruited between April 2019 and May 2021 at a referral center and two hospitals in Taiwan. The patients, including postmenopausal women and men over the age of 50, had been treated with regular denosumab for at least 2 years and had no previous exposure to other anti-osteoporosis medication.

They were randomized to treatment either with continuous denosumab at the standard dose of 60 mg twice yearly or to discontinue denosumab and receive the standard intravenous dose of the bisphosphonate zoledronate at 5 mg at the time when the next dose of denosumab would have been administered.

There were no differences between the two groups in serum bone turnover markers at baseline.

The current results, reflecting the first year of the 2-year study, show that, overall, those receiving zoledronate (n = 76), had a significant decrease in lumbar spine BMD, compared with a slight increase in the denosumab continuation group (–0.68% vs 1.30%, respectively; P = .03).

No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of the study’s other measures of total hip BMD (median, 0% vs 1.12%; P = .24), and femoral neck BMD (median, 0.18% vs 0.17%; P = .71).

Additional findings from multivariable analyses in the study also supported results from previous studies showing that a longer duration of denosumab use is associated with a more substantial rebound effect: Among 15 of the denosumab users in the study who had ≥ 3 prior years of the drug, the reduction in lumbar spine BMD was even greater with zoledronate compared with denosumab continuation (–3.20% vs 1.30%; P = .003).

Though the lack of losses in the other measures of total hip and femoral neck BMD may seem encouraging, evidence from the bulk of other studies suggests cautious interpretation of those findings, Fu said.

“Although our study did not observe a noticeable decline in total hip or femoral neck BMD, other randomized controlled trials with longer durations of denosumab use have reported significant reductions in these areas,” Fu said. “Therefore, it cannot be assumed that non-lumbar spine regions are entirely safe.”

 

Fracture Risk Is the Overriding Concern

Meanwhile, the loss of lumbar spine BMD is of particular concern because of its role in what amounts to the broader, overriding concern of denosumab discontinuation — the risk for fracture, Fu noted.

“Real-world observations indicate that fractures caused by or associated with discontinuation of denosumab primarily occur in the spine,” he explained.

Previous research underscores the risk for fracture with denosumab discontinuation — and the greater risk with longer-term denosumab use, showing an 11.8% annual incidence of vertebral fracture after discontinuation of denosumab used for less than 2 years, increasing to 16.0% upon discontinuation after more than 2 years of treatment.

Randomized trials have shown sequential zoledronate to have some benefit in offsetting that risk, reducing first-year fracture risk by 3%-4% in some studies.

In the current study, 3 of 76 participants experienced a vertebral fracture in the first year of discontinuation, all involving women, including 2 who had been receiving denosumab for ≥ 4 years before medication transition.

If a transition to a bisphosphonate is anticipated, the collective findings suggest doing it as early on in denosumab treatment as possible, Fu and his colleagues noted in the study.

“When medication transition from denosumab is expected or when long-term denosumab treatment may not be suitable, earlier medication transition with potent sequential therapy should be considered,” they wrote.

 

Dosing Adjustments?

The findings add to the evidence that “patients who gain the most with denosumab are likely to lose the most with zoledronate,” Nelson Watts, MD, who authored an editorial accompanying the study, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “denosumab and other medications seem to do more [and faster] for BMD in the spine, so we expect more loss in the spine than in the hip,” said Watts, who is director of Mercy Health Osteoporosis and Bone Health Services, Bon Secours Mercy Health in Cincinnati, Ohio.

“Studies are needed but not yet done to see if a higher dose or more frequent zoledronate would be better for BMD than the ‘usual’ yearly dose,” Watts added.

The only published clinical recommendations on the matter are discussed in a position paper from the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS).

“Pending additional robust data, a pragmatic approach is to begin treatment with zoledronate 6 months after the last denosumab injection and monitor the effect with bone turnover markers, for example, 3 and 6 months after the zoledronate infusion,” they recommended.

In cases of increased bone turnover markers, including above the mean found in age- and sex-matched cohorts, “repeated infusion of zoledronate should be considered,” the society added.

If bone turnover markers are not available for monitoring the patients, “a pragmatic approach could be administrating a second infusion of zoledronate 6 months after the first infusion,” they wrote.

 

Clinicians Need to Be Proactive From the Start

Bente Langdahl, MD, of the Medical Department of Endocrinology, Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark, who was a coauthor on the ECTS position statement, told this news organization that clinicians should also be proactive on the other side of treatment — before it begins — to prevent problems with discontinuation.

“I think denosumab is a very good treatment for some patients with high fracture risk and very low BMD, but both patients and clinicians should know that this treatment is either lifelong or there needs to be a plan for discontinuation,” Langdahl said.

Langdahl noted that denosumab is coming off patent soon; hence, issues with cost could become more manageable.

But until then, “I think [cost] should be considered before starting treatment because if patients cannot afford denosumab, they should have been started on zoledronate from the beginning.”

 

Discontinuation Reasons Vary

Research indicates that, broadly, adherence to denosumab ranges from about 45% to 72% at 2 years, with some reasons for discontinuation including the need for dental treatment or cost, Fu and colleagues reported.

Fu added, however, that other reasons for discontinuing denosumab “are not due to ‘need’ but rather factors such as relocating, missing follow-up appointments, or poor adherence.”

Lorenz Hofbauer, MD, who is head of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine III at the Technical University Medical Center in Dresden, Germany, noted that another issue contributing to some hesitation by patients about remaining on, or even initiating denosumab, is the known risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ).

Though reported as being rare, research continuing to stir concern for ONJ with denosumab use includes one recent study of patients with breast cancer showing those treated with denosumab had a fivefold higher risk for ONJ vs those on bisphosphonates.

“About 20% of my patients have ONJ concerns or other questions, which may delay treatment with denosumab or other therapies,” Hofbauer told this news organization.

“There is a high need to discuss risk versus benefits toward a shared decision-making,” he said.

Conversely, however, Hofbauer noted that adherence to denosumab at his center is fairly high — at 90%, which he says is largely credited to an electronically supported recall system in place at the center.

Denosumab maker Amgen also offers patient reminders via email, text, or phone through its Bone Matters patient support system, which also provides access to a call center for questions or to update treatment appointment information.

In terms of the ongoing question of how to best prevent fracture risk when patients do wind up discontinuing denosumab, Watts concluded in his editorial that more robust studies are needed.

“The dilemma is what to do with longer-term users who stop, and the real question is not what happens to BMD, but what happens to fracture risk,” he wrote.

“It is unlikely that the fracture risk question can be answered due to ethical limitations, but finding the best option, [whether it is] oral or intravenous bisphosphonate, timing, dose, and frequency, to minimize bone loss and the rebound increase in bone resorption after stopping long-term denosumab requires larger and longer studies of better design.”

The authors had no disclosures to report. Watts has been an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Amgen outside of the published editorial. Hofbauer is on advisory boards for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amolyt Pharma, Amgen, and UCB. Langdahl has been a primary investigator on previous and ongoing clinical trials involving denosumab.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who discontinue treatment with the osteoporosis drug denosumab, despite transitioning to zoledronate, show significant losses in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) within a year, according to the latest findings to show that the rapid rebound of bone loss after denosumab discontinuation is not easily prevented with other therapies — even bisphosphonates.

“When initiating denosumab for osteoporosis treatment, it is recommended to engage in thorough shared decision-making with the patient to ensure they understand the potential risks associated with discontinuing the medication,” senior author Shau-Huai Fu, MD, PhD, Department of Orthopedics, National Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin Branch, Douliu, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “integrating a case manager system is crucial to support long-term adherence and compliance,” he added.

The results are from the Denosumab Sequential Therapy prospective, open-label, parallel-group randomized clinical trial, published online in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, 101 patients were recruited between April 2019 and May 2021 at a referral center and two hospitals in Taiwan. The patients, including postmenopausal women and men over the age of 50, had been treated with regular denosumab for at least 2 years and had no previous exposure to other anti-osteoporosis medication.

They were randomized to treatment either with continuous denosumab at the standard dose of 60 mg twice yearly or to discontinue denosumab and receive the standard intravenous dose of the bisphosphonate zoledronate at 5 mg at the time when the next dose of denosumab would have been administered.

There were no differences between the two groups in serum bone turnover markers at baseline.

The current results, reflecting the first year of the 2-year study, show that, overall, those receiving zoledronate (n = 76), had a significant decrease in lumbar spine BMD, compared with a slight increase in the denosumab continuation group (–0.68% vs 1.30%, respectively; P = .03).

No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of the study’s other measures of total hip BMD (median, 0% vs 1.12%; P = .24), and femoral neck BMD (median, 0.18% vs 0.17%; P = .71).

Additional findings from multivariable analyses in the study also supported results from previous studies showing that a longer duration of denosumab use is associated with a more substantial rebound effect: Among 15 of the denosumab users in the study who had ≥ 3 prior years of the drug, the reduction in lumbar spine BMD was even greater with zoledronate compared with denosumab continuation (–3.20% vs 1.30%; P = .003).

Though the lack of losses in the other measures of total hip and femoral neck BMD may seem encouraging, evidence from the bulk of other studies suggests cautious interpretation of those findings, Fu said.

“Although our study did not observe a noticeable decline in total hip or femoral neck BMD, other randomized controlled trials with longer durations of denosumab use have reported significant reductions in these areas,” Fu said. “Therefore, it cannot be assumed that non-lumbar spine regions are entirely safe.”

 

Fracture Risk Is the Overriding Concern

Meanwhile, the loss of lumbar spine BMD is of particular concern because of its role in what amounts to the broader, overriding concern of denosumab discontinuation — the risk for fracture, Fu noted.

“Real-world observations indicate that fractures caused by or associated with discontinuation of denosumab primarily occur in the spine,” he explained.

Previous research underscores the risk for fracture with denosumab discontinuation — and the greater risk with longer-term denosumab use, showing an 11.8% annual incidence of vertebral fracture after discontinuation of denosumab used for less than 2 years, increasing to 16.0% upon discontinuation after more than 2 years of treatment.

Randomized trials have shown sequential zoledronate to have some benefit in offsetting that risk, reducing first-year fracture risk by 3%-4% in some studies.

In the current study, 3 of 76 participants experienced a vertebral fracture in the first year of discontinuation, all involving women, including 2 who had been receiving denosumab for ≥ 4 years before medication transition.

If a transition to a bisphosphonate is anticipated, the collective findings suggest doing it as early on in denosumab treatment as possible, Fu and his colleagues noted in the study.

“When medication transition from denosumab is expected or when long-term denosumab treatment may not be suitable, earlier medication transition with potent sequential therapy should be considered,” they wrote.

 

Dosing Adjustments?

The findings add to the evidence that “patients who gain the most with denosumab are likely to lose the most with zoledronate,” Nelson Watts, MD, who authored an editorial accompanying the study, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “denosumab and other medications seem to do more [and faster] for BMD in the spine, so we expect more loss in the spine than in the hip,” said Watts, who is director of Mercy Health Osteoporosis and Bone Health Services, Bon Secours Mercy Health in Cincinnati, Ohio.

“Studies are needed but not yet done to see if a higher dose or more frequent zoledronate would be better for BMD than the ‘usual’ yearly dose,” Watts added.

The only published clinical recommendations on the matter are discussed in a position paper from the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS).

“Pending additional robust data, a pragmatic approach is to begin treatment with zoledronate 6 months after the last denosumab injection and monitor the effect with bone turnover markers, for example, 3 and 6 months after the zoledronate infusion,” they recommended.

In cases of increased bone turnover markers, including above the mean found in age- and sex-matched cohorts, “repeated infusion of zoledronate should be considered,” the society added.

If bone turnover markers are not available for monitoring the patients, “a pragmatic approach could be administrating a second infusion of zoledronate 6 months after the first infusion,” they wrote.

 

Clinicians Need to Be Proactive From the Start

Bente Langdahl, MD, of the Medical Department of Endocrinology, Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark, who was a coauthor on the ECTS position statement, told this news organization that clinicians should also be proactive on the other side of treatment — before it begins — to prevent problems with discontinuation.

“I think denosumab is a very good treatment for some patients with high fracture risk and very low BMD, but both patients and clinicians should know that this treatment is either lifelong or there needs to be a plan for discontinuation,” Langdahl said.

Langdahl noted that denosumab is coming off patent soon; hence, issues with cost could become more manageable.

But until then, “I think [cost] should be considered before starting treatment because if patients cannot afford denosumab, they should have been started on zoledronate from the beginning.”

 

Discontinuation Reasons Vary

Research indicates that, broadly, adherence to denosumab ranges from about 45% to 72% at 2 years, with some reasons for discontinuation including the need for dental treatment or cost, Fu and colleagues reported.

Fu added, however, that other reasons for discontinuing denosumab “are not due to ‘need’ but rather factors such as relocating, missing follow-up appointments, or poor adherence.”

Lorenz Hofbauer, MD, who is head of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine III at the Technical University Medical Center in Dresden, Germany, noted that another issue contributing to some hesitation by patients about remaining on, or even initiating denosumab, is the known risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ).

Though reported as being rare, research continuing to stir concern for ONJ with denosumab use includes one recent study of patients with breast cancer showing those treated with denosumab had a fivefold higher risk for ONJ vs those on bisphosphonates.

“About 20% of my patients have ONJ concerns or other questions, which may delay treatment with denosumab or other therapies,” Hofbauer told this news organization.

“There is a high need to discuss risk versus benefits toward a shared decision-making,” he said.

Conversely, however, Hofbauer noted that adherence to denosumab at his center is fairly high — at 90%, which he says is largely credited to an electronically supported recall system in place at the center.

Denosumab maker Amgen also offers patient reminders via email, text, or phone through its Bone Matters patient support system, which also provides access to a call center for questions or to update treatment appointment information.

In terms of the ongoing question of how to best prevent fracture risk when patients do wind up discontinuing denosumab, Watts concluded in his editorial that more robust studies are needed.

“The dilemma is what to do with longer-term users who stop, and the real question is not what happens to BMD, but what happens to fracture risk,” he wrote.

“It is unlikely that the fracture risk question can be answered due to ethical limitations, but finding the best option, [whether it is] oral or intravenous bisphosphonate, timing, dose, and frequency, to minimize bone loss and the rebound increase in bone resorption after stopping long-term denosumab requires larger and longer studies of better design.”

The authors had no disclosures to report. Watts has been an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Amgen outside of the published editorial. Hofbauer is on advisory boards for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amolyt Pharma, Amgen, and UCB. Langdahl has been a primary investigator on previous and ongoing clinical trials involving denosumab.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most of my writing starts on paper. I’ve stacks of Docket Gold legal pads, yellow and college ruled, filled with Sharpie S-Gel black ink. There are many scratch-outs and arrows, but no doodles. I’m genetically not a doodler. The draft of this essay however was interrupted by a graphic. It is a round figure with stick arms and legs. Somewhat centered are two intense scribbles, which represent eyes. A few loopy curls rest on top. It looks like a Mr. Potato Head, with owl eyes. 

“Ah, art!” I say when I flip up the page and discover this spontaneous self-portrait of my 4-year-old. Using the media she had on hand, she let free her stored creative energy, an energy we all seem to have. “Tell me about what you’ve drawn here,” I say. She’s eager to share. Art is a natural way to connect. 

My patients have shown me many similar self-portraits. Last week, the artist was a 71-year-old woman. She came with her friend, a 73-year-old woman, who is also my patient. They accompany each other on all their visits. She chose a small realtor pad with a color photo of a blonde with her arms folded and back against a graphic of a house. My patient managed to fit her sketch on the small, lined space, noting with tiny scribbles the lesions she wanted me to check. Although unnecessary, she added eyes, nose, and mouth. 

Another drawing was from a middle-aged white man. He has a look that suggests he rises early. His was on white printer paper, which he withdrew from a folder. He drew both a front and back view indicating with precision where I might find the spots he had mapped on his portrait. A retired teacher brought hers  with a notably proportional anatomy and uniform tick marks on her face, arms, and legs. It reminded me of a self-portrait by the artist Frida Kahlo’s “The Broken Column.” 

Kahlo was born with polio and suffered a severe bus accident as a young woman. She is one of many artists who shared their suffering through their art. “The Broken Column” depicts her with nails running from her face down her right short, weak leg. They look like the ticks my patient had added to her own self-portrait.  

I’ve viewed countless other patient self-portraits through my years of practice. Some stick figures, others with individually drawn fingers and toes. I remember in my neurology rotation asking patients to draw a clock. Stroke patients leave a whole half missing. Patients with dementia often crunch all the numbers into a little corner of the circle or forget to add the hands. Some of my dermatology patient self-portraits looked like that. I sometimes wonder if they also need a neurologist.

These pieces of patient art are utilitarian, drawn to narrate the story of what brought them to see me. Yet patients often add superfluous detail, demonstrating that utility and aesthetics are inseparable. I hold their drawings in the best light and notice the features and attributes. It helps me see their concerns from their point of view and primes me to notice other details during the physical exam. Viewing patients’ drawings can help build something called narrative competence the “ability to acknowledge, absorb, interpret, and act on the stories and plights of others.” Like Kahlo, patients are trying to share something with us, universal and recognizable. Art is how we connect to each other. 

 

A few months ago, I walked in  a room to see a consult. A white man in his 30s, he had prematurely graying hair and 80s-hip frames for glasses. He explained he was there for a skin screening and stood without warning, taking a step toward me. Like Michelangelo on wet plaster, he had grabbed a purple surgical marker to draw a self-portrait on the exam paper, the table set to just the right height and pitch to be an easel. It was the ginger-bread-man-type portrait with thick arms and legs and frosting-like dots marking the spots of concern. He marked L and R on the sheet, which were opposite what they would be if he was sitting facing me. But this was a self-portrait and he was drawing as it was with him facing the canvas, of course. “Ah, art!” I thought, and said, “Delightful! Tell me about what you’ve drawn here.” And so he did. A faint shadow of his portrait remains on that exam table to this day for every patient to see.

Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Most of my writing starts on paper. I’ve stacks of Docket Gold legal pads, yellow and college ruled, filled with Sharpie S-Gel black ink. There are many scratch-outs and arrows, but no doodles. I’m genetically not a doodler. The draft of this essay however was interrupted by a graphic. It is a round figure with stick arms and legs. Somewhat centered are two intense scribbles, which represent eyes. A few loopy curls rest on top. It looks like a Mr. Potato Head, with owl eyes. 

“Ah, art!” I say when I flip up the page and discover this spontaneous self-portrait of my 4-year-old. Using the media she had on hand, she let free her stored creative energy, an energy we all seem to have. “Tell me about what you’ve drawn here,” I say. She’s eager to share. Art is a natural way to connect. 

My patients have shown me many similar self-portraits. Last week, the artist was a 71-year-old woman. She came with her friend, a 73-year-old woman, who is also my patient. They accompany each other on all their visits. She chose a small realtor pad with a color photo of a blonde with her arms folded and back against a graphic of a house. My patient managed to fit her sketch on the small, lined space, noting with tiny scribbles the lesions she wanted me to check. Although unnecessary, she added eyes, nose, and mouth. 

Another drawing was from a middle-aged white man. He has a look that suggests he rises early. His was on white printer paper, which he withdrew from a folder. He drew both a front and back view indicating with precision where I might find the spots he had mapped on his portrait. A retired teacher brought hers  with a notably proportional anatomy and uniform tick marks on her face, arms, and legs. It reminded me of a self-portrait by the artist Frida Kahlo’s “The Broken Column.” 

Kahlo was born with polio and suffered a severe bus accident as a young woman. She is one of many artists who shared their suffering through their art. “The Broken Column” depicts her with nails running from her face down her right short, weak leg. They look like the ticks my patient had added to her own self-portrait.  

I’ve viewed countless other patient self-portraits through my years of practice. Some stick figures, others with individually drawn fingers and toes. I remember in my neurology rotation asking patients to draw a clock. Stroke patients leave a whole half missing. Patients with dementia often crunch all the numbers into a little corner of the circle or forget to add the hands. Some of my dermatology patient self-portraits looked like that. I sometimes wonder if they also need a neurologist.

These pieces of patient art are utilitarian, drawn to narrate the story of what brought them to see me. Yet patients often add superfluous detail, demonstrating that utility and aesthetics are inseparable. I hold their drawings in the best light and notice the features and attributes. It helps me see their concerns from their point of view and primes me to notice other details during the physical exam. Viewing patients’ drawings can help build something called narrative competence the “ability to acknowledge, absorb, interpret, and act on the stories and plights of others.” Like Kahlo, patients are trying to share something with us, universal and recognizable. Art is how we connect to each other. 

 

A few months ago, I walked in  a room to see a consult. A white man in his 30s, he had prematurely graying hair and 80s-hip frames for glasses. He explained he was there for a skin screening and stood without warning, taking a step toward me. Like Michelangelo on wet plaster, he had grabbed a purple surgical marker to draw a self-portrait on the exam paper, the table set to just the right height and pitch to be an easel. It was the ginger-bread-man-type portrait with thick arms and legs and frosting-like dots marking the spots of concern. He marked L and R on the sheet, which were opposite what they would be if he was sitting facing me. But this was a self-portrait and he was drawing as it was with him facing the canvas, of course. “Ah, art!” I thought, and said, “Delightful! Tell me about what you’ve drawn here.” And so he did. A faint shadow of his portrait remains on that exam table to this day for every patient to see.

Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Most of my writing starts on paper. I’ve stacks of Docket Gold legal pads, yellow and college ruled, filled with Sharpie S-Gel black ink. There are many scratch-outs and arrows, but no doodles. I’m genetically not a doodler. The draft of this essay however was interrupted by a graphic. It is a round figure with stick arms and legs. Somewhat centered are two intense scribbles, which represent eyes. A few loopy curls rest on top. It looks like a Mr. Potato Head, with owl eyes. 

“Ah, art!” I say when I flip up the page and discover this spontaneous self-portrait of my 4-year-old. Using the media she had on hand, she let free her stored creative energy, an energy we all seem to have. “Tell me about what you’ve drawn here,” I say. She’s eager to share. Art is a natural way to connect. 

My patients have shown me many similar self-portraits. Last week, the artist was a 71-year-old woman. She came with her friend, a 73-year-old woman, who is also my patient. They accompany each other on all their visits. She chose a small realtor pad with a color photo of a blonde with her arms folded and back against a graphic of a house. My patient managed to fit her sketch on the small, lined space, noting with tiny scribbles the lesions she wanted me to check. Although unnecessary, she added eyes, nose, and mouth. 

Another drawing was from a middle-aged white man. He has a look that suggests he rises early. His was on white printer paper, which he withdrew from a folder. He drew both a front and back view indicating with precision where I might find the spots he had mapped on his portrait. A retired teacher brought hers  with a notably proportional anatomy and uniform tick marks on her face, arms, and legs. It reminded me of a self-portrait by the artist Frida Kahlo’s “The Broken Column.” 

Kahlo was born with polio and suffered a severe bus accident as a young woman. She is one of many artists who shared their suffering through their art. “The Broken Column” depicts her with nails running from her face down her right short, weak leg. They look like the ticks my patient had added to her own self-portrait.  

I’ve viewed countless other patient self-portraits through my years of practice. Some stick figures, others with individually drawn fingers and toes. I remember in my neurology rotation asking patients to draw a clock. Stroke patients leave a whole half missing. Patients with dementia often crunch all the numbers into a little corner of the circle or forget to add the hands. Some of my dermatology patient self-portraits looked like that. I sometimes wonder if they also need a neurologist.

These pieces of patient art are utilitarian, drawn to narrate the story of what brought them to see me. Yet patients often add superfluous detail, demonstrating that utility and aesthetics are inseparable. I hold their drawings in the best light and notice the features and attributes. It helps me see their concerns from their point of view and primes me to notice other details during the physical exam. Viewing patients’ drawings can help build something called narrative competence the “ability to acknowledge, absorb, interpret, and act on the stories and plights of others.” Like Kahlo, patients are trying to share something with us, universal and recognizable. Art is how we connect to each other. 

 

A few months ago, I walked in  a room to see a consult. A white man in his 30s, he had prematurely graying hair and 80s-hip frames for glasses. He explained he was there for a skin screening and stood without warning, taking a step toward me. Like Michelangelo on wet plaster, he had grabbed a purple surgical marker to draw a self-portrait on the exam paper, the table set to just the right height and pitch to be an easel. It was the ginger-bread-man-type portrait with thick arms and legs and frosting-like dots marking the spots of concern. He marked L and R on the sheet, which were opposite what they would be if he was sitting facing me. But this was a self-portrait and he was drawing as it was with him facing the canvas, of course. “Ah, art!” I thought, and said, “Delightful! Tell me about what you’ve drawn here.” And so he did. A faint shadow of his portrait remains on that exam table to this day for every patient to see.

Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Adults with diabetes who participated in telehealth visits reported similar levels of care, trust in the healthcare system, and patient-centered communication compared to those who had in-person visits, a cross-sectional study suggested. 

The authors urged continued integration of telehealth into diabetes care beyond December 31, 2024, when the pandemic public health emergency ends, potentially limiting such services.

The study “provides population-level evidence that telehealth can deliver care quality comparable to in-person visits in diabetes management,” lead author Young-Rock Hong, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor in the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

“Perhaps the most meaningful finding was the high utilization of telephone-only visits among older adults,” he said. “This has important policy implications, particularly as some insurers and healthcare systems have pushed to restrict telehealth coverage to video-only visits.”

“Maintaining telephone visit coverage is crucial for equitable access, especially for older adults who may be less comfortable with video technology; those with limited internet access; or patients facing other barriers to video visits,” he explained. 

The study was published online in BMJ Open.

 

Video-only, Voice-only, Both

The researchers did a secondary analysis of data from the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey, a nationally representative survey that includes information on health communication and knowledge and perceptions about all health conditions among US adults aged ≥ 18 years.

Participants had a self-reported diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The mean age was 59.4 years; 50% were women; and 53% were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Primary and secondary outcomes were use of telehealth in the last 12-months; telehealth modality; overall perception of quality of care; perceived trust in the healthcare system; and patient-centered communication score.

In the analysis of 1116 participants representing 33.6 million individuals, 48.1% reported telehealth use in the past 12 months.

Telehealth users were more likely to be younger and women with higher household incomes and health insurance coverage; live in metropolitan areas; and have multiple chronic conditions, poorer perceived health status, and more frequent physician visits than nonusers.

After adjustment, adults aged ≥ 65 years had a significantly lower likelihood of telehealth use than those ages 18-49 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.43).

Higher income and more frequent healthcare visits were predictors of telehealth usage, with no significant differences across race, education, or location. 

Those with a household income between $35,000 and $74,999 had more than double the likelihood of telehealth use (OR, 2.14) than those with incomes below $35,000.

Among telehealth users, 39.3% reported having video-only; 35%, phone (voice)-only; and 25.7%, both modalities. Among those aged ≥ 65 years, 55.5% used phone calls only and 25.5% used video only. In contrast, those aged 18-49 years had higher rates of video-only use (36.1%) and combined video/phone use (31.2%).

Healthcare provider recommendation (68.1%) was the most common reason for telehealth use, followed by convenience (57.7%), avoiding potential COVID-19 exposure (48.1%), and obtaining advice about the need for in-person care (23.6%).

Nonusers said they preferred in-person visits and also cited privacy concerns and technology challenges.

Patient-reported quality-of-care outcomes were comparable between telehealth users and nonusers, with no significant differences by telehealth modality or area of residence (urban or rural).

Around 70% of individuals with diabetes in both groups rated their quality of care as “excellent” and “very good;” fewer than 10% rated their care as “fair” and “poor.” 

Similarly, trust in the healthcare system was comparable between users and nonusers: 41.3% of telehealth users 41% of nonusers reported trusting the healthcare system “very much.” Patient-centered communication scores were also similar between users and nonusers.

Telehealth appears to be a good option from the providers’ perspective as well, according to the authors. A previous study by the team found more than 80% of US physicians intended to continue telehealth beyond the pandemic.

“The recent unanimous bipartisan passage of the Telehealth Modernization Act by the House Energy & Commerce Committee signals strong political support for extending telehealth flexibilities through 2026,” Hong said. “The bill addresses key access issues by permanently removing geographic restrictions, expanding eligible providers, and maintaining audio-only coverage — provisions that align with our study’s findings about the importance of telephone visits, particularly for older adults and underserved populations.”

There is concern that extending telehealth services might increase Medicare spending by over $2 billion, he added. “While this may be a valid concern, there is a need for more robust evidence regarding the overall value of telehealth services — ie, the ‘benefits’ they provide relative to their costs and outcomes.”

 

Reassuring, but More Research Needed

COVID prompted “dramatic shifts” in care delivery from in-person to telehealth, Kevin Peterson, MD, MPH, American Diabetes Association vice president of primary care told this news organization. “The authors’ findings provide reassurance that these changes provided for additional convenience in care delivery without being associated with compromises in patient-reported care quality.”

However, he said, “the study does not necessarily capture representative samples of rural and underserved populations, making the impact of telehealth on health equity difficult to determine.” In addition, although patient-perceived care quality did not change with telehealth delivery, the study “does not address impacts on safety, clinical outcomes, equity, costs, or other important measures.”

Furthermore, he noted, “this is an association study that occurred during the dramatic changes brought about by COVID. It may not represent provider or patient preferences that characterize the role of telehealth under more normal circumstances.”

For now, clinicians should be aware that “initial evidence suggests that telehealth can be integrated into care without significantly compromising the patient’s perception of the quality of care,” he concluded.

No funding was declared. Hong and Peterson reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Adults with diabetes who participated in telehealth visits reported similar levels of care, trust in the healthcare system, and patient-centered communication compared to those who had in-person visits, a cross-sectional study suggested. 

The authors urged continued integration of telehealth into diabetes care beyond December 31, 2024, when the pandemic public health emergency ends, potentially limiting such services.

The study “provides population-level evidence that telehealth can deliver care quality comparable to in-person visits in diabetes management,” lead author Young-Rock Hong, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor in the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

“Perhaps the most meaningful finding was the high utilization of telephone-only visits among older adults,” he said. “This has important policy implications, particularly as some insurers and healthcare systems have pushed to restrict telehealth coverage to video-only visits.”

“Maintaining telephone visit coverage is crucial for equitable access, especially for older adults who may be less comfortable with video technology; those with limited internet access; or patients facing other barriers to video visits,” he explained. 

The study was published online in BMJ Open.

 

Video-only, Voice-only, Both

The researchers did a secondary analysis of data from the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey, a nationally representative survey that includes information on health communication and knowledge and perceptions about all health conditions among US adults aged ≥ 18 years.

Participants had a self-reported diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The mean age was 59.4 years; 50% were women; and 53% were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Primary and secondary outcomes were use of telehealth in the last 12-months; telehealth modality; overall perception of quality of care; perceived trust in the healthcare system; and patient-centered communication score.

In the analysis of 1116 participants representing 33.6 million individuals, 48.1% reported telehealth use in the past 12 months.

Telehealth users were more likely to be younger and women with higher household incomes and health insurance coverage; live in metropolitan areas; and have multiple chronic conditions, poorer perceived health status, and more frequent physician visits than nonusers.

After adjustment, adults aged ≥ 65 years had a significantly lower likelihood of telehealth use than those ages 18-49 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.43).

Higher income and more frequent healthcare visits were predictors of telehealth usage, with no significant differences across race, education, or location. 

Those with a household income between $35,000 and $74,999 had more than double the likelihood of telehealth use (OR, 2.14) than those with incomes below $35,000.

Among telehealth users, 39.3% reported having video-only; 35%, phone (voice)-only; and 25.7%, both modalities. Among those aged ≥ 65 years, 55.5% used phone calls only and 25.5% used video only. In contrast, those aged 18-49 years had higher rates of video-only use (36.1%) and combined video/phone use (31.2%).

Healthcare provider recommendation (68.1%) was the most common reason for telehealth use, followed by convenience (57.7%), avoiding potential COVID-19 exposure (48.1%), and obtaining advice about the need for in-person care (23.6%).

Nonusers said they preferred in-person visits and also cited privacy concerns and technology challenges.

Patient-reported quality-of-care outcomes were comparable between telehealth users and nonusers, with no significant differences by telehealth modality or area of residence (urban or rural).

Around 70% of individuals with diabetes in both groups rated their quality of care as “excellent” and “very good;” fewer than 10% rated their care as “fair” and “poor.” 

Similarly, trust in the healthcare system was comparable between users and nonusers: 41.3% of telehealth users 41% of nonusers reported trusting the healthcare system “very much.” Patient-centered communication scores were also similar between users and nonusers.

Telehealth appears to be a good option from the providers’ perspective as well, according to the authors. A previous study by the team found more than 80% of US physicians intended to continue telehealth beyond the pandemic.

“The recent unanimous bipartisan passage of the Telehealth Modernization Act by the House Energy & Commerce Committee signals strong political support for extending telehealth flexibilities through 2026,” Hong said. “The bill addresses key access issues by permanently removing geographic restrictions, expanding eligible providers, and maintaining audio-only coverage — provisions that align with our study’s findings about the importance of telephone visits, particularly for older adults and underserved populations.”

There is concern that extending telehealth services might increase Medicare spending by over $2 billion, he added. “While this may be a valid concern, there is a need for more robust evidence regarding the overall value of telehealth services — ie, the ‘benefits’ they provide relative to their costs and outcomes.”

 

Reassuring, but More Research Needed

COVID prompted “dramatic shifts” in care delivery from in-person to telehealth, Kevin Peterson, MD, MPH, American Diabetes Association vice president of primary care told this news organization. “The authors’ findings provide reassurance that these changes provided for additional convenience in care delivery without being associated with compromises in patient-reported care quality.”

However, he said, “the study does not necessarily capture representative samples of rural and underserved populations, making the impact of telehealth on health equity difficult to determine.” In addition, although patient-perceived care quality did not change with telehealth delivery, the study “does not address impacts on safety, clinical outcomes, equity, costs, or other important measures.”

Furthermore, he noted, “this is an association study that occurred during the dramatic changes brought about by COVID. It may not represent provider or patient preferences that characterize the role of telehealth under more normal circumstances.”

For now, clinicians should be aware that “initial evidence suggests that telehealth can be integrated into care without significantly compromising the patient’s perception of the quality of care,” he concluded.

No funding was declared. Hong and Peterson reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Adults with diabetes who participated in telehealth visits reported similar levels of care, trust in the healthcare system, and patient-centered communication compared to those who had in-person visits, a cross-sectional study suggested. 

The authors urged continued integration of telehealth into diabetes care beyond December 31, 2024, when the pandemic public health emergency ends, potentially limiting such services.

The study “provides population-level evidence that telehealth can deliver care quality comparable to in-person visits in diabetes management,” lead author Young-Rock Hong, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor in the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

“Perhaps the most meaningful finding was the high utilization of telephone-only visits among older adults,” he said. “This has important policy implications, particularly as some insurers and healthcare systems have pushed to restrict telehealth coverage to video-only visits.”

“Maintaining telephone visit coverage is crucial for equitable access, especially for older adults who may be less comfortable with video technology; those with limited internet access; or patients facing other barriers to video visits,” he explained. 

The study was published online in BMJ Open.

 

Video-only, Voice-only, Both

The researchers did a secondary analysis of data from the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey, a nationally representative survey that includes information on health communication and knowledge and perceptions about all health conditions among US adults aged ≥ 18 years.

Participants had a self-reported diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The mean age was 59.4 years; 50% were women; and 53% were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Primary and secondary outcomes were use of telehealth in the last 12-months; telehealth modality; overall perception of quality of care; perceived trust in the healthcare system; and patient-centered communication score.

In the analysis of 1116 participants representing 33.6 million individuals, 48.1% reported telehealth use in the past 12 months.

Telehealth users were more likely to be younger and women with higher household incomes and health insurance coverage; live in metropolitan areas; and have multiple chronic conditions, poorer perceived health status, and more frequent physician visits than nonusers.

After adjustment, adults aged ≥ 65 years had a significantly lower likelihood of telehealth use than those ages 18-49 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.43).

Higher income and more frequent healthcare visits were predictors of telehealth usage, with no significant differences across race, education, or location. 

Those with a household income between $35,000 and $74,999 had more than double the likelihood of telehealth use (OR, 2.14) than those with incomes below $35,000.

Among telehealth users, 39.3% reported having video-only; 35%, phone (voice)-only; and 25.7%, both modalities. Among those aged ≥ 65 years, 55.5% used phone calls only and 25.5% used video only. In contrast, those aged 18-49 years had higher rates of video-only use (36.1%) and combined video/phone use (31.2%).

Healthcare provider recommendation (68.1%) was the most common reason for telehealth use, followed by convenience (57.7%), avoiding potential COVID-19 exposure (48.1%), and obtaining advice about the need for in-person care (23.6%).

Nonusers said they preferred in-person visits and also cited privacy concerns and technology challenges.

Patient-reported quality-of-care outcomes were comparable between telehealth users and nonusers, with no significant differences by telehealth modality or area of residence (urban or rural).

Around 70% of individuals with diabetes in both groups rated their quality of care as “excellent” and “very good;” fewer than 10% rated their care as “fair” and “poor.” 

Similarly, trust in the healthcare system was comparable between users and nonusers: 41.3% of telehealth users 41% of nonusers reported trusting the healthcare system “very much.” Patient-centered communication scores were also similar between users and nonusers.

Telehealth appears to be a good option from the providers’ perspective as well, according to the authors. A previous study by the team found more than 80% of US physicians intended to continue telehealth beyond the pandemic.

“The recent unanimous bipartisan passage of the Telehealth Modernization Act by the House Energy & Commerce Committee signals strong political support for extending telehealth flexibilities through 2026,” Hong said. “The bill addresses key access issues by permanently removing geographic restrictions, expanding eligible providers, and maintaining audio-only coverage — provisions that align with our study’s findings about the importance of telephone visits, particularly for older adults and underserved populations.”

There is concern that extending telehealth services might increase Medicare spending by over $2 billion, he added. “While this may be a valid concern, there is a need for more robust evidence regarding the overall value of telehealth services — ie, the ‘benefits’ they provide relative to their costs and outcomes.”

 

Reassuring, but More Research Needed

COVID prompted “dramatic shifts” in care delivery from in-person to telehealth, Kevin Peterson, MD, MPH, American Diabetes Association vice president of primary care told this news organization. “The authors’ findings provide reassurance that these changes provided for additional convenience in care delivery without being associated with compromises in patient-reported care quality.”

However, he said, “the study does not necessarily capture representative samples of rural and underserved populations, making the impact of telehealth on health equity difficult to determine.” In addition, although patient-perceived care quality did not change with telehealth delivery, the study “does not address impacts on safety, clinical outcomes, equity, costs, or other important measures.”

Furthermore, he noted, “this is an association study that occurred during the dramatic changes brought about by COVID. It may not represent provider or patient preferences that characterize the role of telehealth under more normal circumstances.”

For now, clinicians should be aware that “initial evidence suggests that telehealth can be integrated into care without significantly compromising the patient’s perception of the quality of care,” he concluded.

No funding was declared. Hong and Peterson reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Intermittent calorie restriction (CR) diet is more effective in reducing liver fat content than a standard-of-care diet in patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), especially in those with obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Intermittent CR, which involves alternating periods of energy restriction and regular energy intake, has been proposed as a dietary intervention for MASLD.
• Researchers conducted a 12-week randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of a 5:2 intermittent CR and standard-of-care diet in nondiabetic patients with MASLD with or without obesity at an outpatient clinic in Korea.
• Intermittent CR comprised a reduced calorie consumption (500 kcal/d for women and 600 kcal/d for men) on 2 nonconsecutive days a week and, on the remaining 5 days/wk, following the Korean Dietary Reference Intakes (2000 kcal/d for women and 2500 kcal/d for men).
• The standard diet involved the consumption of 80% of the recommended calories (1200-1500 kcal/d for women and 1500-1800 kcal/d for men, or reducing 500-1000 kcal/d).
• The primary outcome was a relative reduction of ≥ 30% in the liver fat content measured by MRI-proton density fat fraction after 12 weeks.
• The secondary outcomes included changes in liver fibrosis, body weight, and body composition from baseline to week 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers enrolled 72 participants (36 patients with obesity and 36 without), with 63 completing the trial; of these, 32 received an intermittent CR diet (median age, 47.0 years; 58.8% men) and 31 received a standard-of-care diet (median age, 53.0 years; 36.4% men).
• A higher proportion of patients in the intermittent CR group achieved a relative reduction of ≥ 30% in the liver fat content at 12 weeks than the standard-of-care group (72.2% vs 44.4%; P = .033).
• These findings were even more prominent among those with obesity (61.1% in the intermittent CR group vs 27.7% in the standard-of-care group; P = .030).
• Patients with obesity in the intermittent CR group also showed a greater relative reduction in body weight than those in the standard-of-care group (–5.5% vs –2.9%; P = .022).
• Intermittent CR had no apparent effects on body composition, liver enzymes, or the lipid and glucose profiles of those with or without obesity.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the recommendation of a 5:2 [intermittent CR] diet as a useful dietary strategy for patients with MASLD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Han Ah Lee, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The intervention period of 12 weeks was relatively short, limiting the ability to observe long-term effects. The study did not reveal the effects of intermittent CR on histologic metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis or significantly advanced fibrosis. The study was conducted at a single center located in an urban, metropolitan area in Korea, which may limit the applicability of the findings to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported in part by a grant from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Intermittent calorie restriction (CR) diet is more effective in reducing liver fat content than a standard-of-care diet in patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), especially in those with obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Intermittent CR, which involves alternating periods of energy restriction and regular energy intake, has been proposed as a dietary intervention for MASLD.
• Researchers conducted a 12-week randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of a 5:2 intermittent CR and standard-of-care diet in nondiabetic patients with MASLD with or without obesity at an outpatient clinic in Korea.
• Intermittent CR comprised a reduced calorie consumption (500 kcal/d for women and 600 kcal/d for men) on 2 nonconsecutive days a week and, on the remaining 5 days/wk, following the Korean Dietary Reference Intakes (2000 kcal/d for women and 2500 kcal/d for men).
• The standard diet involved the consumption of 80% of the recommended calories (1200-1500 kcal/d for women and 1500-1800 kcal/d for men, or reducing 500-1000 kcal/d).
• The primary outcome was a relative reduction of ≥ 30% in the liver fat content measured by MRI-proton density fat fraction after 12 weeks.
• The secondary outcomes included changes in liver fibrosis, body weight, and body composition from baseline to week 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers enrolled 72 participants (36 patients with obesity and 36 without), with 63 completing the trial; of these, 32 received an intermittent CR diet (median age, 47.0 years; 58.8% men) and 31 received a standard-of-care diet (median age, 53.0 years; 36.4% men).
• A higher proportion of patients in the intermittent CR group achieved a relative reduction of ≥ 30% in the liver fat content at 12 weeks than the standard-of-care group (72.2% vs 44.4%; P = .033).
• These findings were even more prominent among those with obesity (61.1% in the intermittent CR group vs 27.7% in the standard-of-care group; P = .030).
• Patients with obesity in the intermittent CR group also showed a greater relative reduction in body weight than those in the standard-of-care group (–5.5% vs –2.9%; P = .022).
• Intermittent CR had no apparent effects on body composition, liver enzymes, or the lipid and glucose profiles of those with or without obesity.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the recommendation of a 5:2 [intermittent CR] diet as a useful dietary strategy for patients with MASLD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Han Ah Lee, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The intervention period of 12 weeks was relatively short, limiting the ability to observe long-term effects. The study did not reveal the effects of intermittent CR on histologic metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis or significantly advanced fibrosis. The study was conducted at a single center located in an urban, metropolitan area in Korea, which may limit the applicability of the findings to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported in part by a grant from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Intermittent calorie restriction (CR) diet is more effective in reducing liver fat content than a standard-of-care diet in patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), especially in those with obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Intermittent CR, which involves alternating periods of energy restriction and regular energy intake, has been proposed as a dietary intervention for MASLD.
• Researchers conducted a 12-week randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of a 5:2 intermittent CR and standard-of-care diet in nondiabetic patients with MASLD with or without obesity at an outpatient clinic in Korea.
• Intermittent CR comprised a reduced calorie consumption (500 kcal/d for women and 600 kcal/d for men) on 2 nonconsecutive days a week and, on the remaining 5 days/wk, following the Korean Dietary Reference Intakes (2000 kcal/d for women and 2500 kcal/d for men).
• The standard diet involved the consumption of 80% of the recommended calories (1200-1500 kcal/d for women and 1500-1800 kcal/d for men, or reducing 500-1000 kcal/d).
• The primary outcome was a relative reduction of ≥ 30% in the liver fat content measured by MRI-proton density fat fraction after 12 weeks.
• The secondary outcomes included changes in liver fibrosis, body weight, and body composition from baseline to week 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers enrolled 72 participants (36 patients with obesity and 36 without), with 63 completing the trial; of these, 32 received an intermittent CR diet (median age, 47.0 years; 58.8% men) and 31 received a standard-of-care diet (median age, 53.0 years; 36.4% men).
• A higher proportion of patients in the intermittent CR group achieved a relative reduction of ≥ 30% in the liver fat content at 12 weeks than the standard-of-care group (72.2% vs 44.4%; P = .033).
• These findings were even more prominent among those with obesity (61.1% in the intermittent CR group vs 27.7% in the standard-of-care group; P = .030).
• Patients with obesity in the intermittent CR group also showed a greater relative reduction in body weight than those in the standard-of-care group (–5.5% vs –2.9%; P = .022).
• Intermittent CR had no apparent effects on body composition, liver enzymes, or the lipid and glucose profiles of those with or without obesity.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the recommendation of a 5:2 [intermittent CR] diet as a useful dietary strategy for patients with MASLD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Han Ah Lee, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The intervention period of 12 weeks was relatively short, limiting the ability to observe long-term effects. The study did not reveal the effects of intermittent CR on histologic metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis or significantly advanced fibrosis. The study was conducted at a single center located in an urban, metropolitan area in Korea, which may limit the applicability of the findings to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported in part by a grant from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Oral semaglutide 25 mg appears to be just as effective in promoting weight loss and other beneficial outcomes as are the investigational 50-mg oral dose and the injectable 2.4-mg dose (Wegovy), in new research.

Data from Novo Nordisk’s OASIS 4 trial suggest that “oral semaglutide 25 mg may represent an efficacious option for the treatment of overweight and obesity, particularly in patients who prefer oral administration,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the Department of Nutrition Sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2024 meeting.

In an interview, Garvey, who is also senior scientist at the UAB Nutrition Obesity Research Center, added: “There’s a principle in medicine that you always use the lowest dose that has highest efficacy, and for oral semaglutide for obesity, that appears to be the 25-mg dose. We need oral medicines to offer as an option for patients that could lead to a longer persistence in adherence to obesity medications, which is a big problem. Less than half the people maintain their adherence after a year.”

Asked to comment, session moderator and obesity researcher Joseph A. Skelton, MD, professor of pediatrics at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said that OASIS 4 was “extremely well done, especially given that we’re all concerned about the high prevalence of people stopping these medications at a year. ... I love the idea of trying to find these lower doses and increasing options for people.”

(The oral semaglutide approved for treating type 2 diabetes [Rybelsus] is sold in 7-mg and 14-mg doses.)

 

With Oral Semaglutide, Lower May Be Better

OASIS 4 was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 64-week multicenter trial involving a total of 307 participants with overweight/obesity randomized 2:1 to oral semaglutide 25 mg or placebo. Of those, 167 in the semaglutide 25 mg and 76 in the placebo groups completed the trial.

For the co–primary endpoint change in body weight at week 64 (including 52-week maintenance and 7-week follow-up periods), there was a drop of 13.6% with oral semaglutide vs just 2.2% with placebo (P < .0001), based on in-trial observation regardless of adherence. For the analysis including just the on-treatment period, those reductions were 16.6% and 2.7%, respectively (P < .0001).

For the other co–primary endpoint, 79.2% semaglutide vs 31.1% placebo lost at least 5% of their body weight, 63.0% vs 14.4% lost ≥ 10%, 50.0% vs 5.6% lost ≥ 15%, and 29.7% vs 3.3% lost ≥ 20%. All were statistically significant differences, at P < .0001.

On the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version, change from baseline scores were 16.2 with oral semaglutide vs 8.4 for placebo (P = .0006) and the proportion of participants achieving clinically meaningful increases in those scores (≥ 14.6 points) were 55.3% vs 34.8% (P = .0022).

Waist circumference was also significantly reduced from baseline with oral semaglutide, by 12.2 cm vs 2.8 cm (P < .0001). Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure dropped more with semaglutide than placebo, but not significantly. However, the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein dropped from baseline by 46.4% vs just 4.2% with placebo, a significant difference (P < .0001).

Hemoglobin A1c dropped by 0.29 percentage points vs just 0.06 with placebo (P = .0012) and fasting plasma glucose by 6.6 mg/dL, while rising by 0.4 mg/dL in the placebo group (P = .0012). Lipid levels also improved more with oral semaglutide.

Overall adverse events occurred in 93.1% on oral semaglutide and 85.3% with placebo, and gastrointestinal adverse events in 74% and 42.2%, respectively. Other types of adverse events didn’t differ between the groups. The proportions experiencing severe adverse events were less in the semaglutide group (3.9% vs 8.8%), although adverse events leading to permanent treatment discontinuation were slightly higher with oral semaglutide (6.9% vs 5.9%). There were no deaths.

The estimated treatment difference from placebo in body weight change of −11.4% in OASIS 4 (P < .0001) was similar to the –12.7% (P < .0001) seen with the 50-mg oral semaglutide dose studied in OASIS 1 and the –12.4% (P < .0001) difference with subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg in the STEP 1 trial. “All had pretty comparable efficacy,” Garvey noted.

The side-effect profiles, including frequency of gastrointestinal side effects, were also similar across the three trials. However, Garvey added, “the mean duration of nausea in those patients that experienced nausea was shorter in patients on a 25-mg dose, 13 days, whereas the mean duration of nausea was greater, 19 days, in those in OASIS 1 taking 50 mg a day.”

Garvey has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Fractyl Laboratories, Inogen, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharma; has ownership interest (stock, stock options in a publicly owned company) for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Isis, Lilly, and Novartis; serves as site principal investigator for Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Epitomee Medical, Lilly, Neurovalens, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals; and as a data monitoring committee member for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. Skelton is editor in chief of the journal Childhood Obesity.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Oral semaglutide 25 mg appears to be just as effective in promoting weight loss and other beneficial outcomes as are the investigational 50-mg oral dose and the injectable 2.4-mg dose (Wegovy), in new research.

Data from Novo Nordisk’s OASIS 4 trial suggest that “oral semaglutide 25 mg may represent an efficacious option for the treatment of overweight and obesity, particularly in patients who prefer oral administration,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the Department of Nutrition Sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2024 meeting.

In an interview, Garvey, who is also senior scientist at the UAB Nutrition Obesity Research Center, added: “There’s a principle in medicine that you always use the lowest dose that has highest efficacy, and for oral semaglutide for obesity, that appears to be the 25-mg dose. We need oral medicines to offer as an option for patients that could lead to a longer persistence in adherence to obesity medications, which is a big problem. Less than half the people maintain their adherence after a year.”

Asked to comment, session moderator and obesity researcher Joseph A. Skelton, MD, professor of pediatrics at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said that OASIS 4 was “extremely well done, especially given that we’re all concerned about the high prevalence of people stopping these medications at a year. ... I love the idea of trying to find these lower doses and increasing options for people.”

(The oral semaglutide approved for treating type 2 diabetes [Rybelsus] is sold in 7-mg and 14-mg doses.)

 

With Oral Semaglutide, Lower May Be Better

OASIS 4 was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 64-week multicenter trial involving a total of 307 participants with overweight/obesity randomized 2:1 to oral semaglutide 25 mg or placebo. Of those, 167 in the semaglutide 25 mg and 76 in the placebo groups completed the trial.

For the co–primary endpoint change in body weight at week 64 (including 52-week maintenance and 7-week follow-up periods), there was a drop of 13.6% with oral semaglutide vs just 2.2% with placebo (P < .0001), based on in-trial observation regardless of adherence. For the analysis including just the on-treatment period, those reductions were 16.6% and 2.7%, respectively (P < .0001).

For the other co–primary endpoint, 79.2% semaglutide vs 31.1% placebo lost at least 5% of their body weight, 63.0% vs 14.4% lost ≥ 10%, 50.0% vs 5.6% lost ≥ 15%, and 29.7% vs 3.3% lost ≥ 20%. All were statistically significant differences, at P < .0001.

On the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version, change from baseline scores were 16.2 with oral semaglutide vs 8.4 for placebo (P = .0006) and the proportion of participants achieving clinically meaningful increases in those scores (≥ 14.6 points) were 55.3% vs 34.8% (P = .0022).

Waist circumference was also significantly reduced from baseline with oral semaglutide, by 12.2 cm vs 2.8 cm (P < .0001). Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure dropped more with semaglutide than placebo, but not significantly. However, the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein dropped from baseline by 46.4% vs just 4.2% with placebo, a significant difference (P < .0001).

Hemoglobin A1c dropped by 0.29 percentage points vs just 0.06 with placebo (P = .0012) and fasting plasma glucose by 6.6 mg/dL, while rising by 0.4 mg/dL in the placebo group (P = .0012). Lipid levels also improved more with oral semaglutide.

Overall adverse events occurred in 93.1% on oral semaglutide and 85.3% with placebo, and gastrointestinal adverse events in 74% and 42.2%, respectively. Other types of adverse events didn’t differ between the groups. The proportions experiencing severe adverse events were less in the semaglutide group (3.9% vs 8.8%), although adverse events leading to permanent treatment discontinuation were slightly higher with oral semaglutide (6.9% vs 5.9%). There were no deaths.

The estimated treatment difference from placebo in body weight change of −11.4% in OASIS 4 (P < .0001) was similar to the –12.7% (P < .0001) seen with the 50-mg oral semaglutide dose studied in OASIS 1 and the –12.4% (P < .0001) difference with subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg in the STEP 1 trial. “All had pretty comparable efficacy,” Garvey noted.

The side-effect profiles, including frequency of gastrointestinal side effects, were also similar across the three trials. However, Garvey added, “the mean duration of nausea in those patients that experienced nausea was shorter in patients on a 25-mg dose, 13 days, whereas the mean duration of nausea was greater, 19 days, in those in OASIS 1 taking 50 mg a day.”

Garvey has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Fractyl Laboratories, Inogen, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharma; has ownership interest (stock, stock options in a publicly owned company) for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Isis, Lilly, and Novartis; serves as site principal investigator for Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Epitomee Medical, Lilly, Neurovalens, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals; and as a data monitoring committee member for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. Skelton is editor in chief of the journal Childhood Obesity.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Oral semaglutide 25 mg appears to be just as effective in promoting weight loss and other beneficial outcomes as are the investigational 50-mg oral dose and the injectable 2.4-mg dose (Wegovy), in new research.

Data from Novo Nordisk’s OASIS 4 trial suggest that “oral semaglutide 25 mg may represent an efficacious option for the treatment of overweight and obesity, particularly in patients who prefer oral administration,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the Department of Nutrition Sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2024 meeting.

In an interview, Garvey, who is also senior scientist at the UAB Nutrition Obesity Research Center, added: “There’s a principle in medicine that you always use the lowest dose that has highest efficacy, and for oral semaglutide for obesity, that appears to be the 25-mg dose. We need oral medicines to offer as an option for patients that could lead to a longer persistence in adherence to obesity medications, which is a big problem. Less than half the people maintain their adherence after a year.”

Asked to comment, session moderator and obesity researcher Joseph A. Skelton, MD, professor of pediatrics at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said that OASIS 4 was “extremely well done, especially given that we’re all concerned about the high prevalence of people stopping these medications at a year. ... I love the idea of trying to find these lower doses and increasing options for people.”

(The oral semaglutide approved for treating type 2 diabetes [Rybelsus] is sold in 7-mg and 14-mg doses.)

 

With Oral Semaglutide, Lower May Be Better

OASIS 4 was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 64-week multicenter trial involving a total of 307 participants with overweight/obesity randomized 2:1 to oral semaglutide 25 mg or placebo. Of those, 167 in the semaglutide 25 mg and 76 in the placebo groups completed the trial.

For the co–primary endpoint change in body weight at week 64 (including 52-week maintenance and 7-week follow-up periods), there was a drop of 13.6% with oral semaglutide vs just 2.2% with placebo (P < .0001), based on in-trial observation regardless of adherence. For the analysis including just the on-treatment period, those reductions were 16.6% and 2.7%, respectively (P < .0001).

For the other co–primary endpoint, 79.2% semaglutide vs 31.1% placebo lost at least 5% of their body weight, 63.0% vs 14.4% lost ≥ 10%, 50.0% vs 5.6% lost ≥ 15%, and 29.7% vs 3.3% lost ≥ 20%. All were statistically significant differences, at P < .0001.

On the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version, change from baseline scores were 16.2 with oral semaglutide vs 8.4 for placebo (P = .0006) and the proportion of participants achieving clinically meaningful increases in those scores (≥ 14.6 points) were 55.3% vs 34.8% (P = .0022).

Waist circumference was also significantly reduced from baseline with oral semaglutide, by 12.2 cm vs 2.8 cm (P < .0001). Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure dropped more with semaglutide than placebo, but not significantly. However, the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein dropped from baseline by 46.4% vs just 4.2% with placebo, a significant difference (P < .0001).

Hemoglobin A1c dropped by 0.29 percentage points vs just 0.06 with placebo (P = .0012) and fasting plasma glucose by 6.6 mg/dL, while rising by 0.4 mg/dL in the placebo group (P = .0012). Lipid levels also improved more with oral semaglutide.

Overall adverse events occurred in 93.1% on oral semaglutide and 85.3% with placebo, and gastrointestinal adverse events in 74% and 42.2%, respectively. Other types of adverse events didn’t differ between the groups. The proportions experiencing severe adverse events were less in the semaglutide group (3.9% vs 8.8%), although adverse events leading to permanent treatment discontinuation were slightly higher with oral semaglutide (6.9% vs 5.9%). There were no deaths.

The estimated treatment difference from placebo in body weight change of −11.4% in OASIS 4 (P < .0001) was similar to the –12.7% (P < .0001) seen with the 50-mg oral semaglutide dose studied in OASIS 1 and the –12.4% (P < .0001) difference with subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg in the STEP 1 trial. “All had pretty comparable efficacy,” Garvey noted.

The side-effect profiles, including frequency of gastrointestinal side effects, were also similar across the three trials. However, Garvey added, “the mean duration of nausea in those patients that experienced nausea was shorter in patients on a 25-mg dose, 13 days, whereas the mean duration of nausea was greater, 19 days, in those in OASIS 1 taking 50 mg a day.”

Garvey has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Fractyl Laboratories, Inogen, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharma; has ownership interest (stock, stock options in a publicly owned company) for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Isis, Lilly, and Novartis; serves as site principal investigator for Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Epitomee Medical, Lilly, Neurovalens, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals; and as a data monitoring committee member for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. Skelton is editor in chief of the journal Childhood Obesity.

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