User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Plant-based diet tied to healthier blood lipid levels
, in a new meta-analysis of 30 trials.
The findings suggest that “plant-based diets have the potential to lessen the atherosclerotic burden from atherogenic lipoproteins and thereby reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease,” write Caroline Amelie Koch, a medical student at the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues. Their findings were published online in the European Heart Journal (2023 May 24. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad211).
“Vegetarian and vegan diets were associated with a 14% reduction in all artery-clogging lipoproteins as indicated by apoB,” senior author Ruth Frikke-Schmidt, DMSc, PhD, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and professor, University of Copenhagen, said in a press release from her university.
“This corresponds to a third of the effect of taking cholesterol-lowering medications such as statins,” she added, “and would result in a 7% reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease in someone who maintained a plant-based diet for 5 years.”
“Importantly, we found similar results, across continents, ages, different ranges of body mass index, and among people in different states of health,” Dr. Frikke-Schmidt stressed.
And combining statins with plant-based diets would likely produce a synergistic effect, she speculated.
“If people start eating vegetarian or vegan diets from an early age,” she said, “the potential for reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease caused by blocked arteries is substantial.”
In addition, the researchers conclude: “Shifting to plant-based diets at a populational level will reduce emissions of greenhouse gases considerably – together making these diets efficient means [moving] towards a more sustainable development, while at the same time reducing the growing burden of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”
More support for vegan, vegetarian diets
These new findings “add to the body of evidence supporting favorable effects of healthy vegan and vegetarian dietary patterns on circulating levels of LDL-C and atherogenic lipoproteins, which would be expected to reduce ASCVD risk,” Kevin C. Maki, PhD, and Carol Kirkpatrick, PhD, MPH, write in an accompanying editorial.
“While it is not necessary to entirely omit foods such as meat, poultry, and fish/seafood to follow a recommended dietary pattern, reducing consumption of such foods is a reasonable option for those who prefer to do so,” note Dr. Maki, of Indiana University School of Public Health, Bloomington, and Kirkpatrick, of Idaho State University, Pocatello.
Plant-based diet needs to be ‘well-planned’
Several experts who were not involved in this meta-analysis shed light on the study and its implications in comments to the U.K. Science Media Center.
“Although a vegetarian and vegan diet can be very healthy and beneficial with respect to cardiovascular risk, it is important that it is well planned so that nutrients it can be low in are included, including iron, iodine, vitamin B12, and vitamin D,” said Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior lecturer, Aston Medical School, Aston University, Birmingham, England.
Some people “may find it easier to follow a Mediterranean-style diet that features plenty of fruit, vegetables, pulses, wholegrains, fish, eggs and low-fat dairy, with only small amounts of meat,” Tracy Parker, senior dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, London, suggested.
“There is considerable evidence that this type of diet can help lower your risk of developing heart and circulatory diseases by improving cholesterol and blood pressure levels, reducing inflammation, and controlling blood glucose levels,” she added.
And Aedin Cassidy, PhD, chair in nutrition & preventative medicine, Queen’s University Belfast (Ireland), noted that “not all plant-based diets are equal. Healthy plant-based diets, characterized by fruits, vegetables, and whole grains improve health, but other plant diets (for example, those including refined carbohydrates, processed foods high in fat/salt, etc.) do not.”
This new study shows that plant-based diets have the potential to improve health by improving blood lipids, “but this is one of many potential mechanisms, including impact on blood pressure, weight maintenance, and blood sugars,” she added.
“This work represents a well-conducted analysis of 30 clinical trials involving over two thousand participants and highlights the value of a vegetarian diet in reducing the risk of heart attack or stroke through reduction in blood cholesterol levels,” said Robert Storey, BM, DM, professor of cardiology, University of Sheffield, U.K.
However, it also demonstrates that the impact of diet on an individual’s cholesterol level is relatively limited, he added.
“This is because people inherit the tendency for their livers to produce too much cholesterol, meaning that high cholesterol is more strongly influenced by our genes than by our diet,” he explained.
This is “why statins are needed to block cholesterol production in people who are at higher risk of or have already suffered from a heart attack, stroke, or other illness related to cholesterol build-up in blood vessels.”
Beneficial effect on ApoB, LDL-C, and total cholesterol
ApoB is the main apolipoprotein in LDL-C (“bad” cholesterol), the researchers note. Previous studies have shown that LDL-C and apoB-containing particles are associated with increased risk of ASCVD.
They aimed to estimate the effect of vegetarian or vegan diets on blood levels of total cholesterol, LDL-C, triglycerides, and apoB in people randomized to a vegetarian or vegan diet versus an omnivorous diet (that is, including meat and dairy).
They identified 30 studies published between 1982 and 2022 and conducted in the United States (18 studies), Sweden (2), Finland (2), South Korea (2), Australia (1), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1), Italy (1), Iran (1), and New Zealand (1).
The diet interventions lasted from 10 days to 5 years with a mean of 29 weeks (15 studies ≤ 3 months; 12 studies 3-12 months; and three studies > 1 year). Nine studies used a crossover design, and the rest used a parallel design whereby participants followed only one diet.
The studies had 11 to 291 participants (mean, 79 participants) with a mean BMI of 21.5-35.1 kg/m2 and a mean age of 20-67 years. Thirteen studies included participants treated with lipid-lowering therapy at baseline.
The dietary intervention was vegetarian in 15 trials (three lacto-vegetarian and 12 lacto-ovo-vegetarian) and vegan in the other 15 trials.
On average, compared with people eating an omnivore diet, people eating a plant-based diet had a 7% reduction in total cholesterol from baseline (–0.34 mmol/L), a 10% reduction in LDL-C from baseline (–0.30 mmol/L), and a 14% reduction in apoB from baseline (–12.9 mg/dL) (all P < .01).
The effects were similar across age, continent, study duration, health status, intervention diet, intervention program, and study design subgroups.
There was no significant difference in triglyceride levels in patients in the omnivore versus plant-based diet groups.
Such diets could considerably reduce greenhouse gases
Senior author Dr. Frikke-Schmidt noted: “Recent systematic reviews have shown that if the populations of high-income countries shift to plant-based diets, this can reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases by between 35% to 49%.”
“Plant-based diets are key instruments for changing food production to more environmentally sustainable forms, while at the same time reducing the burden of cardiovascular disease” in an aging population, she said.
“We should be eating a varied, plant-rich diet, not too much, and quenching our thirst with water,” she concluded.
The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Leducq Foundation. The authors, editorialists, Ms. Parker, Dr. Cassidy, and Dr. Storey have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mellor has disclosed that he is a vegetarian.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, in a new meta-analysis of 30 trials.
The findings suggest that “plant-based diets have the potential to lessen the atherosclerotic burden from atherogenic lipoproteins and thereby reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease,” write Caroline Amelie Koch, a medical student at the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues. Their findings were published online in the European Heart Journal (2023 May 24. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad211).
“Vegetarian and vegan diets were associated with a 14% reduction in all artery-clogging lipoproteins as indicated by apoB,” senior author Ruth Frikke-Schmidt, DMSc, PhD, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and professor, University of Copenhagen, said in a press release from her university.
“This corresponds to a third of the effect of taking cholesterol-lowering medications such as statins,” she added, “and would result in a 7% reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease in someone who maintained a plant-based diet for 5 years.”
“Importantly, we found similar results, across continents, ages, different ranges of body mass index, and among people in different states of health,” Dr. Frikke-Schmidt stressed.
And combining statins with plant-based diets would likely produce a synergistic effect, she speculated.
“If people start eating vegetarian or vegan diets from an early age,” she said, “the potential for reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease caused by blocked arteries is substantial.”
In addition, the researchers conclude: “Shifting to plant-based diets at a populational level will reduce emissions of greenhouse gases considerably – together making these diets efficient means [moving] towards a more sustainable development, while at the same time reducing the growing burden of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”
More support for vegan, vegetarian diets
These new findings “add to the body of evidence supporting favorable effects of healthy vegan and vegetarian dietary patterns on circulating levels of LDL-C and atherogenic lipoproteins, which would be expected to reduce ASCVD risk,” Kevin C. Maki, PhD, and Carol Kirkpatrick, PhD, MPH, write in an accompanying editorial.
“While it is not necessary to entirely omit foods such as meat, poultry, and fish/seafood to follow a recommended dietary pattern, reducing consumption of such foods is a reasonable option for those who prefer to do so,” note Dr. Maki, of Indiana University School of Public Health, Bloomington, and Kirkpatrick, of Idaho State University, Pocatello.
Plant-based diet needs to be ‘well-planned’
Several experts who were not involved in this meta-analysis shed light on the study and its implications in comments to the U.K. Science Media Center.
“Although a vegetarian and vegan diet can be very healthy and beneficial with respect to cardiovascular risk, it is important that it is well planned so that nutrients it can be low in are included, including iron, iodine, vitamin B12, and vitamin D,” said Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior lecturer, Aston Medical School, Aston University, Birmingham, England.
Some people “may find it easier to follow a Mediterranean-style diet that features plenty of fruit, vegetables, pulses, wholegrains, fish, eggs and low-fat dairy, with only small amounts of meat,” Tracy Parker, senior dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, London, suggested.
“There is considerable evidence that this type of diet can help lower your risk of developing heart and circulatory diseases by improving cholesterol and blood pressure levels, reducing inflammation, and controlling blood glucose levels,” she added.
And Aedin Cassidy, PhD, chair in nutrition & preventative medicine, Queen’s University Belfast (Ireland), noted that “not all plant-based diets are equal. Healthy plant-based diets, characterized by fruits, vegetables, and whole grains improve health, but other plant diets (for example, those including refined carbohydrates, processed foods high in fat/salt, etc.) do not.”
This new study shows that plant-based diets have the potential to improve health by improving blood lipids, “but this is one of many potential mechanisms, including impact on blood pressure, weight maintenance, and blood sugars,” she added.
“This work represents a well-conducted analysis of 30 clinical trials involving over two thousand participants and highlights the value of a vegetarian diet in reducing the risk of heart attack or stroke through reduction in blood cholesterol levels,” said Robert Storey, BM, DM, professor of cardiology, University of Sheffield, U.K.
However, it also demonstrates that the impact of diet on an individual’s cholesterol level is relatively limited, he added.
“This is because people inherit the tendency for their livers to produce too much cholesterol, meaning that high cholesterol is more strongly influenced by our genes than by our diet,” he explained.
This is “why statins are needed to block cholesterol production in people who are at higher risk of or have already suffered from a heart attack, stroke, or other illness related to cholesterol build-up in blood vessels.”
Beneficial effect on ApoB, LDL-C, and total cholesterol
ApoB is the main apolipoprotein in LDL-C (“bad” cholesterol), the researchers note. Previous studies have shown that LDL-C and apoB-containing particles are associated with increased risk of ASCVD.
They aimed to estimate the effect of vegetarian or vegan diets on blood levels of total cholesterol, LDL-C, triglycerides, and apoB in people randomized to a vegetarian or vegan diet versus an omnivorous diet (that is, including meat and dairy).
They identified 30 studies published between 1982 and 2022 and conducted in the United States (18 studies), Sweden (2), Finland (2), South Korea (2), Australia (1), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1), Italy (1), Iran (1), and New Zealand (1).
The diet interventions lasted from 10 days to 5 years with a mean of 29 weeks (15 studies ≤ 3 months; 12 studies 3-12 months; and three studies > 1 year). Nine studies used a crossover design, and the rest used a parallel design whereby participants followed only one diet.
The studies had 11 to 291 participants (mean, 79 participants) with a mean BMI of 21.5-35.1 kg/m2 and a mean age of 20-67 years. Thirteen studies included participants treated with lipid-lowering therapy at baseline.
The dietary intervention was vegetarian in 15 trials (three lacto-vegetarian and 12 lacto-ovo-vegetarian) and vegan in the other 15 trials.
On average, compared with people eating an omnivore diet, people eating a plant-based diet had a 7% reduction in total cholesterol from baseline (–0.34 mmol/L), a 10% reduction in LDL-C from baseline (–0.30 mmol/L), and a 14% reduction in apoB from baseline (–12.9 mg/dL) (all P < .01).
The effects were similar across age, continent, study duration, health status, intervention diet, intervention program, and study design subgroups.
There was no significant difference in triglyceride levels in patients in the omnivore versus plant-based diet groups.
Such diets could considerably reduce greenhouse gases
Senior author Dr. Frikke-Schmidt noted: “Recent systematic reviews have shown that if the populations of high-income countries shift to plant-based diets, this can reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases by between 35% to 49%.”
“Plant-based diets are key instruments for changing food production to more environmentally sustainable forms, while at the same time reducing the burden of cardiovascular disease” in an aging population, she said.
“We should be eating a varied, plant-rich diet, not too much, and quenching our thirst with water,” she concluded.
The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Leducq Foundation. The authors, editorialists, Ms. Parker, Dr. Cassidy, and Dr. Storey have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mellor has disclosed that he is a vegetarian.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, in a new meta-analysis of 30 trials.
The findings suggest that “plant-based diets have the potential to lessen the atherosclerotic burden from atherogenic lipoproteins and thereby reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease,” write Caroline Amelie Koch, a medical student at the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues. Their findings were published online in the European Heart Journal (2023 May 24. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad211).
“Vegetarian and vegan diets were associated with a 14% reduction in all artery-clogging lipoproteins as indicated by apoB,” senior author Ruth Frikke-Schmidt, DMSc, PhD, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and professor, University of Copenhagen, said in a press release from her university.
“This corresponds to a third of the effect of taking cholesterol-lowering medications such as statins,” she added, “and would result in a 7% reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease in someone who maintained a plant-based diet for 5 years.”
“Importantly, we found similar results, across continents, ages, different ranges of body mass index, and among people in different states of health,” Dr. Frikke-Schmidt stressed.
And combining statins with plant-based diets would likely produce a synergistic effect, she speculated.
“If people start eating vegetarian or vegan diets from an early age,” she said, “the potential for reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease caused by blocked arteries is substantial.”
In addition, the researchers conclude: “Shifting to plant-based diets at a populational level will reduce emissions of greenhouse gases considerably – together making these diets efficient means [moving] towards a more sustainable development, while at the same time reducing the growing burden of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”
More support for vegan, vegetarian diets
These new findings “add to the body of evidence supporting favorable effects of healthy vegan and vegetarian dietary patterns on circulating levels of LDL-C and atherogenic lipoproteins, which would be expected to reduce ASCVD risk,” Kevin C. Maki, PhD, and Carol Kirkpatrick, PhD, MPH, write in an accompanying editorial.
“While it is not necessary to entirely omit foods such as meat, poultry, and fish/seafood to follow a recommended dietary pattern, reducing consumption of such foods is a reasonable option for those who prefer to do so,” note Dr. Maki, of Indiana University School of Public Health, Bloomington, and Kirkpatrick, of Idaho State University, Pocatello.
Plant-based diet needs to be ‘well-planned’
Several experts who were not involved in this meta-analysis shed light on the study and its implications in comments to the U.K. Science Media Center.
“Although a vegetarian and vegan diet can be very healthy and beneficial with respect to cardiovascular risk, it is important that it is well planned so that nutrients it can be low in are included, including iron, iodine, vitamin B12, and vitamin D,” said Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior lecturer, Aston Medical School, Aston University, Birmingham, England.
Some people “may find it easier to follow a Mediterranean-style diet that features plenty of fruit, vegetables, pulses, wholegrains, fish, eggs and low-fat dairy, with only small amounts of meat,” Tracy Parker, senior dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, London, suggested.
“There is considerable evidence that this type of diet can help lower your risk of developing heart and circulatory diseases by improving cholesterol and blood pressure levels, reducing inflammation, and controlling blood glucose levels,” she added.
And Aedin Cassidy, PhD, chair in nutrition & preventative medicine, Queen’s University Belfast (Ireland), noted that “not all plant-based diets are equal. Healthy plant-based diets, characterized by fruits, vegetables, and whole grains improve health, but other plant diets (for example, those including refined carbohydrates, processed foods high in fat/salt, etc.) do not.”
This new study shows that plant-based diets have the potential to improve health by improving blood lipids, “but this is one of many potential mechanisms, including impact on blood pressure, weight maintenance, and blood sugars,” she added.
“This work represents a well-conducted analysis of 30 clinical trials involving over two thousand participants and highlights the value of a vegetarian diet in reducing the risk of heart attack or stroke through reduction in blood cholesterol levels,” said Robert Storey, BM, DM, professor of cardiology, University of Sheffield, U.K.
However, it also demonstrates that the impact of diet on an individual’s cholesterol level is relatively limited, he added.
“This is because people inherit the tendency for their livers to produce too much cholesterol, meaning that high cholesterol is more strongly influenced by our genes than by our diet,” he explained.
This is “why statins are needed to block cholesterol production in people who are at higher risk of or have already suffered from a heart attack, stroke, or other illness related to cholesterol build-up in blood vessels.”
Beneficial effect on ApoB, LDL-C, and total cholesterol
ApoB is the main apolipoprotein in LDL-C (“bad” cholesterol), the researchers note. Previous studies have shown that LDL-C and apoB-containing particles are associated with increased risk of ASCVD.
They aimed to estimate the effect of vegetarian or vegan diets on blood levels of total cholesterol, LDL-C, triglycerides, and apoB in people randomized to a vegetarian or vegan diet versus an omnivorous diet (that is, including meat and dairy).
They identified 30 studies published between 1982 and 2022 and conducted in the United States (18 studies), Sweden (2), Finland (2), South Korea (2), Australia (1), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1), Italy (1), Iran (1), and New Zealand (1).
The diet interventions lasted from 10 days to 5 years with a mean of 29 weeks (15 studies ≤ 3 months; 12 studies 3-12 months; and three studies > 1 year). Nine studies used a crossover design, and the rest used a parallel design whereby participants followed only one diet.
The studies had 11 to 291 participants (mean, 79 participants) with a mean BMI of 21.5-35.1 kg/m2 and a mean age of 20-67 years. Thirteen studies included participants treated with lipid-lowering therapy at baseline.
The dietary intervention was vegetarian in 15 trials (three lacto-vegetarian and 12 lacto-ovo-vegetarian) and vegan in the other 15 trials.
On average, compared with people eating an omnivore diet, people eating a plant-based diet had a 7% reduction in total cholesterol from baseline (–0.34 mmol/L), a 10% reduction in LDL-C from baseline (–0.30 mmol/L), and a 14% reduction in apoB from baseline (–12.9 mg/dL) (all P < .01).
The effects were similar across age, continent, study duration, health status, intervention diet, intervention program, and study design subgroups.
There was no significant difference in triglyceride levels in patients in the omnivore versus plant-based diet groups.
Such diets could considerably reduce greenhouse gases
Senior author Dr. Frikke-Schmidt noted: “Recent systematic reviews have shown that if the populations of high-income countries shift to plant-based diets, this can reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases by between 35% to 49%.”
“Plant-based diets are key instruments for changing food production to more environmentally sustainable forms, while at the same time reducing the burden of cardiovascular disease” in an aging population, she said.
“We should be eating a varied, plant-rich diet, not too much, and quenching our thirst with water,” she concluded.
The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Leducq Foundation. The authors, editorialists, Ms. Parker, Dr. Cassidy, and Dr. Storey have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mellor has disclosed that he is a vegetarian.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
States move to curb insurers’ prior authorization requirements as federal reforms lag
Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.
“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.
The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.
Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.
Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.
The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.
America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.
But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.
United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.
However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.
Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.
An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.
Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.
Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
States aim to reduce prior authorization volume
The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”
The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.
Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.
Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.
“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.
The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.
The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.
The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.
California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
How do gold cards work?
Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.
The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.
Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.
California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.
“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.
However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.
The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.
He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.
In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.
Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.
He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.
Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.
“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.
“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.
The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.
Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.
Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.
The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.
America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.
But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.
United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.
However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.
Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.
An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.
Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.
Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
States aim to reduce prior authorization volume
The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”
The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.
Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.
Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.
“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.
The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.
The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.
The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.
California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
How do gold cards work?
Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.
The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.
Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.
California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.
“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.
However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.
The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.
He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.
In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.
Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.
He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.
Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.
“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.
“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.
The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.
Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.
Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.
The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.
America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.
But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.
United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.
However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.
Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.
An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.
Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.
Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
States aim to reduce prior authorization volume
The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”
The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.
Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.
Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.
“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.
The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.
The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.
The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.
California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
How do gold cards work?
Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.
The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.
Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.
California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.
“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.
However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.
The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.
He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.
In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.
Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.
He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.
Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.
“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Common fracture risk predictors often fail for women of any race
according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
One of the screenings, the U.S. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), proved relatively ineffective at identifying women who developed osteoporosis. The other screening, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), excelled at identifying osteoporosis for women in every racial and ethnic group, but also failed at identifying who was most likely to experience a fracture. Osteoporosis experts say that primary care physicians should test for the condition in anyone with any risk factor for it, even if a screening tool suggests doing so is unnecessary.
The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine testing of bone mineral density in women age 65 years and older to detect risk of developing osteoporosis, which in turn leads to an increased risk for fractures of the hip, spine, shoulder, or forearm. For women aged 50-64, whether bone mineral density accurately reflects who will develop osteoporosis is less clear. In this age range, the USPSTF recommends using either FRAX or OST rather than routine bone mineral density tests.
“I have the utmost respect for the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which lists both of these as valid screening tools for younger postmenopausal women. What I hope this study does is to inform the next iteration of the screening guidelines,” by maintaining the recommendation to use the OST while not keeping FRAX, said Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, who helped conduct the research.
The U.S. version of FRAX requires identifying someone’s race, height, and weight, then answering whether they have different risk factors for a fracture such as a previous fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, or smoking. The result was thought to indicate a cumulative risk for major fracture over the next 10 years. Patients at significant risk should then undergo a bone density test.
The tool can also incorporate information about bone mineral density, if available, but the FRAX analyses in Dr. Crandall’s study did not include those data because the study aimed to test the measure’s predictive ability in the absence of a bone scan.
The OST includes only two variables – weight and age – to calculate risk for osteoporosis, and generally takes seconds to complete. It does not include race. As with FRAX, anyone deemed at significant risk for developing osteoporosis should undergo a bone density test.
“OST is really simple; that makes it very appealing,” Dr. Crandall said. “OST could probably be automatically calculated in the electronic medical record.”
Using data from the Women’s Health Initiative, Dr. Crandall and colleagues tracked more than 67,000 women aged 50-64 years for 10 years following enrollment in the study to see who experienced a fracture or developed osteoporosis over that decade. The investigators found that neither FRAX nor OST was particularly good at predicting who went on to experience a fracture.
The accuracy of FRAX at fracture prediction peaked at 65% for Asian women (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), and was lowest for Black women (AUC 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.59). OST also was most accurate for Asian women, but only up to 62% (AUC 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), and was again lowest for Black women (AUC 0.53; 95% CI, 0.50 - 0.57)
“It is just very hard to predict fractures in this age group,” Dr. Crandall said, noting that more evidence exists about risk for fracture in people older than 65.
The story diverges with predicting risk of osteoporosis in the neck. The OST did this roughly 80% of the time, for all racial groups. That figure proved better than FRAX, without including race.
Treatment gap
“This evidence supports using OST instead of FRAX” for selecting younger postmenopausal women who should undergo a bone mineral density exam, said E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque.
Dr. Lewiecki, who was not involved in the new study, noted that the U.S. version of FRAX specifies race because of some clinical evidence that different races have different rates of fracture. But he and Dr. Crandall said the validity of race-based algorithms to guide clinical care is a controversial and evolving topic in medicine. Dr. Lewiecki said the Canadian version of FRAX, which is similarly applied to a diverse population as in the United States, omits race and works as well as the U.S. version. Future iterations of the instrument in the United States may not include race, Dr. Lewiecki said.
“The study is perfectly valid as far as it goes. But the big gorilla in the room is that most patients who need a bone density test are not getting it,” Dr. Lewiecki added. Sometimes a patient might break a bone in their wrist, for example, and tell their primary care provider that anyone would have broken that bone because the fall was so hard. Even if that’s true, Dr. Lewiecki said, any woman older than 45 who has broken a bone should undergo a bone density test to determine if they have osteoporosis, even if it seems like there are other possible reasons for why the break occurred.
“Most of the clinical practice guidelines that are used by physicians recommend getting a bone density test in postmenopausal women under the age of 65 who have a risk factor for fracture,” Dr. Lewiecki said, with a primary risk factor being a prior fracture. Dr. Lewiecki said he would rather that anyone who could benefit from a bone density test receive it, rather than someone foregoing a scan based on a screening tool that may be flawed.
“Most patients – men and women – who have osteoporosis are currently not being identified. Even when they are being identified, they are commonly not being treated. And when they are started on treatment, many patients discontinue treatment before they’ve taken it long enough to benefit,” Dr. Lewiecki said.
Dr. Crandall and Dr. Lewiecki report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
One of the screenings, the U.S. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), proved relatively ineffective at identifying women who developed osteoporosis. The other screening, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), excelled at identifying osteoporosis for women in every racial and ethnic group, but also failed at identifying who was most likely to experience a fracture. Osteoporosis experts say that primary care physicians should test for the condition in anyone with any risk factor for it, even if a screening tool suggests doing so is unnecessary.
The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine testing of bone mineral density in women age 65 years and older to detect risk of developing osteoporosis, which in turn leads to an increased risk for fractures of the hip, spine, shoulder, or forearm. For women aged 50-64, whether bone mineral density accurately reflects who will develop osteoporosis is less clear. In this age range, the USPSTF recommends using either FRAX or OST rather than routine bone mineral density tests.
“I have the utmost respect for the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which lists both of these as valid screening tools for younger postmenopausal women. What I hope this study does is to inform the next iteration of the screening guidelines,” by maintaining the recommendation to use the OST while not keeping FRAX, said Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, who helped conduct the research.
The U.S. version of FRAX requires identifying someone’s race, height, and weight, then answering whether they have different risk factors for a fracture such as a previous fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, or smoking. The result was thought to indicate a cumulative risk for major fracture over the next 10 years. Patients at significant risk should then undergo a bone density test.
The tool can also incorporate information about bone mineral density, if available, but the FRAX analyses in Dr. Crandall’s study did not include those data because the study aimed to test the measure’s predictive ability in the absence of a bone scan.
The OST includes only two variables – weight and age – to calculate risk for osteoporosis, and generally takes seconds to complete. It does not include race. As with FRAX, anyone deemed at significant risk for developing osteoporosis should undergo a bone density test.
“OST is really simple; that makes it very appealing,” Dr. Crandall said. “OST could probably be automatically calculated in the electronic medical record.”
Using data from the Women’s Health Initiative, Dr. Crandall and colleagues tracked more than 67,000 women aged 50-64 years for 10 years following enrollment in the study to see who experienced a fracture or developed osteoporosis over that decade. The investigators found that neither FRAX nor OST was particularly good at predicting who went on to experience a fracture.
The accuracy of FRAX at fracture prediction peaked at 65% for Asian women (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), and was lowest for Black women (AUC 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.59). OST also was most accurate for Asian women, but only up to 62% (AUC 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), and was again lowest for Black women (AUC 0.53; 95% CI, 0.50 - 0.57)
“It is just very hard to predict fractures in this age group,” Dr. Crandall said, noting that more evidence exists about risk for fracture in people older than 65.
The story diverges with predicting risk of osteoporosis in the neck. The OST did this roughly 80% of the time, for all racial groups. That figure proved better than FRAX, without including race.
Treatment gap
“This evidence supports using OST instead of FRAX” for selecting younger postmenopausal women who should undergo a bone mineral density exam, said E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque.
Dr. Lewiecki, who was not involved in the new study, noted that the U.S. version of FRAX specifies race because of some clinical evidence that different races have different rates of fracture. But he and Dr. Crandall said the validity of race-based algorithms to guide clinical care is a controversial and evolving topic in medicine. Dr. Lewiecki said the Canadian version of FRAX, which is similarly applied to a diverse population as in the United States, omits race and works as well as the U.S. version. Future iterations of the instrument in the United States may not include race, Dr. Lewiecki said.
“The study is perfectly valid as far as it goes. But the big gorilla in the room is that most patients who need a bone density test are not getting it,” Dr. Lewiecki added. Sometimes a patient might break a bone in their wrist, for example, and tell their primary care provider that anyone would have broken that bone because the fall was so hard. Even if that’s true, Dr. Lewiecki said, any woman older than 45 who has broken a bone should undergo a bone density test to determine if they have osteoporosis, even if it seems like there are other possible reasons for why the break occurred.
“Most of the clinical practice guidelines that are used by physicians recommend getting a bone density test in postmenopausal women under the age of 65 who have a risk factor for fracture,” Dr. Lewiecki said, with a primary risk factor being a prior fracture. Dr. Lewiecki said he would rather that anyone who could benefit from a bone density test receive it, rather than someone foregoing a scan based on a screening tool that may be flawed.
“Most patients – men and women – who have osteoporosis are currently not being identified. Even when they are being identified, they are commonly not being treated. And when they are started on treatment, many patients discontinue treatment before they’ve taken it long enough to benefit,” Dr. Lewiecki said.
Dr. Crandall and Dr. Lewiecki report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
One of the screenings, the U.S. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), proved relatively ineffective at identifying women who developed osteoporosis. The other screening, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), excelled at identifying osteoporosis for women in every racial and ethnic group, but also failed at identifying who was most likely to experience a fracture. Osteoporosis experts say that primary care physicians should test for the condition in anyone with any risk factor for it, even if a screening tool suggests doing so is unnecessary.
The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine testing of bone mineral density in women age 65 years and older to detect risk of developing osteoporosis, which in turn leads to an increased risk for fractures of the hip, spine, shoulder, or forearm. For women aged 50-64, whether bone mineral density accurately reflects who will develop osteoporosis is less clear. In this age range, the USPSTF recommends using either FRAX or OST rather than routine bone mineral density tests.
“I have the utmost respect for the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which lists both of these as valid screening tools for younger postmenopausal women. What I hope this study does is to inform the next iteration of the screening guidelines,” by maintaining the recommendation to use the OST while not keeping FRAX, said Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, who helped conduct the research.
The U.S. version of FRAX requires identifying someone’s race, height, and weight, then answering whether they have different risk factors for a fracture such as a previous fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, or smoking. The result was thought to indicate a cumulative risk for major fracture over the next 10 years. Patients at significant risk should then undergo a bone density test.
The tool can also incorporate information about bone mineral density, if available, but the FRAX analyses in Dr. Crandall’s study did not include those data because the study aimed to test the measure’s predictive ability in the absence of a bone scan.
The OST includes only two variables – weight and age – to calculate risk for osteoporosis, and generally takes seconds to complete. It does not include race. As with FRAX, anyone deemed at significant risk for developing osteoporosis should undergo a bone density test.
“OST is really simple; that makes it very appealing,” Dr. Crandall said. “OST could probably be automatically calculated in the electronic medical record.”
Using data from the Women’s Health Initiative, Dr. Crandall and colleagues tracked more than 67,000 women aged 50-64 years for 10 years following enrollment in the study to see who experienced a fracture or developed osteoporosis over that decade. The investigators found that neither FRAX nor OST was particularly good at predicting who went on to experience a fracture.
The accuracy of FRAX at fracture prediction peaked at 65% for Asian women (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), and was lowest for Black women (AUC 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.59). OST also was most accurate for Asian women, but only up to 62% (AUC 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), and was again lowest for Black women (AUC 0.53; 95% CI, 0.50 - 0.57)
“It is just very hard to predict fractures in this age group,” Dr. Crandall said, noting that more evidence exists about risk for fracture in people older than 65.
The story diverges with predicting risk of osteoporosis in the neck. The OST did this roughly 80% of the time, for all racial groups. That figure proved better than FRAX, without including race.
Treatment gap
“This evidence supports using OST instead of FRAX” for selecting younger postmenopausal women who should undergo a bone mineral density exam, said E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque.
Dr. Lewiecki, who was not involved in the new study, noted that the U.S. version of FRAX specifies race because of some clinical evidence that different races have different rates of fracture. But he and Dr. Crandall said the validity of race-based algorithms to guide clinical care is a controversial and evolving topic in medicine. Dr. Lewiecki said the Canadian version of FRAX, which is similarly applied to a diverse population as in the United States, omits race and works as well as the U.S. version. Future iterations of the instrument in the United States may not include race, Dr. Lewiecki said.
“The study is perfectly valid as far as it goes. But the big gorilla in the room is that most patients who need a bone density test are not getting it,” Dr. Lewiecki added. Sometimes a patient might break a bone in their wrist, for example, and tell their primary care provider that anyone would have broken that bone because the fall was so hard. Even if that’s true, Dr. Lewiecki said, any woman older than 45 who has broken a bone should undergo a bone density test to determine if they have osteoporosis, even if it seems like there are other possible reasons for why the break occurred.
“Most of the clinical practice guidelines that are used by physicians recommend getting a bone density test in postmenopausal women under the age of 65 who have a risk factor for fracture,” Dr. Lewiecki said, with a primary risk factor being a prior fracture. Dr. Lewiecki said he would rather that anyone who could benefit from a bone density test receive it, rather than someone foregoing a scan based on a screening tool that may be flawed.
“Most patients – men and women – who have osteoporosis are currently not being identified. Even when they are being identified, they are commonly not being treated. And when they are started on treatment, many patients discontinue treatment before they’ve taken it long enough to benefit,” Dr. Lewiecki said.
Dr. Crandall and Dr. Lewiecki report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
The weird world of hydrogels: How they’ll change health care
Imagine a day when a simple injection prompts a broken bone to heal. When tiny, ingestible devices linger in the body, unnoticed, tracking our health or delivering life-saving medications. When brain and heart implants mesh with flesh so seamlessly that the body thinks they’ve been there all along.
These are the dreams of materials scientists who have toiled for decades to mimic the complex architecture of the human body in hopes of replacing broken parts or treating disease.
The problem, say bioengineers, is that most replacement and corrective parts – from prosthetics to pacemakers – are made of hard, dry, lifeless materials, like metal or plastic, while biological tissue is soft, wet, and living.
The body knows the difference and tends to reject imitations.
Enter hydrogels, three-dimensional networks of molecules swollen with – by definition – water.
First described in 1960 by creators of soft contact lenses, these weird, shape-shifting substances are able to morph from liquid to solid to a squishy in-between. (Early, simple uses include hair gel or Jell-O.). Slow to gain attention, growing to just 1,000 studies published by 1982, they’ve become the subject of intense study recently, with 100,000 papers published by 2020, and 3,800 already this year alone.
As chemists, biologists, and engineers begin to work more with one another and with medical doctors,
“We are, essentially, hydrogels,” said Benjamin Wiley, PhD, a chemistry professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “As people develop new hydrogels that more closely match the tissues in our body, we’ll be able to treat a whole host of ailments we couldn’t treat before.”
From contact lenses to brain implants
Put simply, a hydrogel is like a mesh bag of water.
The mesh is made of polymers, or spaghetti-like strands of molecules, stitched together in a repeating pattern and swollen with H2O, much like the way 3D matrixes in our body surround, support, and give structure to our cells and tissues.
“Imagine a soccer net, with all of these long fibers woven together to create the net,” said Eric Appel, PhD, associate professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.
While the broader category of “gels” could be filled with anything, including chemical solvents, water is the key ingredient that sets hydrogels apart, making them ideal for, as some scientists put it, “merging humans and machines.”
Human bones are about 25% water, while muscles hover around 70% and the brain is 85%. The precious liquid plays a host of critical roles, from shuttling nutrients in and waste out to helping cells talk to each other.
Lab-made hydrogels can be loaded with cargo (like a ball in the net), including cells or drugs that help mimic some of those functions.
Hydrogels are soft and pliable like flesh. So, if used in implants, they may be less likely to damage surrounding tissue.
“Think about a metal spoon in your bowl of pudding. As you’re shaking the bowl, the spoon doesn’t stay in place, and you get scarring around the spoon,” said Christina Tringides, PhD, a materials scientist who studies neural engineering. That, she says, is exactly what happens to brain implants when patients breathe or move. “It’s a mechanical mismatch. But with hydrogels, you could get perfect mechanical matching.”
Hydrogels also tend to be nontoxic, so the immune system may be less likely to attack them as foreign bodies.
All this has made hydrogels the new darling of the bioengineering world.
“There has been an absolute explosion of interest in these materials,” Dr. Appel said.
Smarter drug delivery and ingestible electronics
Early versions of hydrogels were thick and gooey, making it hard to get them inside the body.
“Think of a block of Jell-O. You couldn’t inject something like that,” Dr. Appel said.
But Dr. Appel, whose lab develops new drug delivery systems, has been tinkering with gel formulas for years in hopes that these high-tech globs could someday ferry timed-release drugs to just the right spot in the body.
His new hydrogels start as fully formed gels (which help preserve the drug contents) inside a syringe. But once the plunger is pushed, they magically shape-shift to a liquid thin enough to flow easily through a standard needle. Upon exit, they immediately reform into gels, protecting the inherent cargo from degrading.
This could be a game changer at a time when many cutting-edge drugs – think Humira for arthritis or Ozempic for type 2 diabetes – are made of quickly degrading proteins too large and complex to simply jam into a pill. Instead, they must be injected, often frequently.
“Because the gel takes months to dissolve, it slowly delivers the drug over time,” Dr. Appel said. “You could conceivably go from a shot once a week to once every 4 months.”
Such slow-release hydrogels could make vaccines last longer, in turn teaching the body to better resist emerging virus variants, and deliver tumor-busting therapies more precisely, said Dr. Appel, who has formed a startup and hopes to fast-track the first hydrogel drug delivery system to clinical trials within a few years.
Meanwhile, another team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has taken a different approach, developing a standard-sized ingestible hydrogel pill that swells up like a puffer fish in the stomach, lasting a month and slowly releasing drugs all the while. To remove the pill, a patient simply drinks a salt-based solution that shrivels the ping-pong ball–sized device so it can be passed out of the body.
In a paper in Nature Communications, the scientists showed the puffer fish pill could also be loaded with tiny cameras or monitors to track conditions like ulcers or cancer.
“The dream is to have a Jell-O-like smart pill that, once swallowed, stays in the stomach and monitors the patient’s health,” said Xuanhe Zhao, PhD, a researcher on the project and associate professor of mechanical engineering at MIT.
Building joints and regrowing bones
Since the 1970s, researchers have mulled using hydrogels to replace human cartilage, a remarkably strong and flexible tissue made of about 90% water but able to withstand the weight of a car on an area about the size of a coin.
Until recently, those efforts have largely failed. Meaning when knee cartilage wears down, things like cartilage transplants, drilling holes to stimulate new growth, or total joint replacements – all of which require lengthy rehab – are the only options.
But that may be about to change.
Dr. Wiley and his colleagues at Duke recently reported that they’d developed the first gel-based cartilage substitute even stronger and more durable than the real thing.
By attaching their hydrogel to a titanium backing to help stick it in place, they hope to repair damaged cartilage “much like a dentist fills a cavity” long before surgery is necessary.
They too have partnered with industry to bring their hydrogel to market – starting with knees.
“Ultimately, the goal is to do any joint – hips, ankles, fingers, and toes,” Dr. Wiley said.
At the University of Toronto, chemist Karina Carneiro, PhD, and dentist Christopher McCulloch, DDS, are also thinking big.
In a recent paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they describe a hydrogel, designed by Dr. Carneiro and made of DNA, that can be injected, migrate to a defect in bone – an irreparable break, hole from surgery, or jawbone withered by age – and fill in the gap like putty. But not only does it patch the hole, it prompts the bone to regenerate.
In rats with holes in their skulls due to surgery, they found that the treatment did not work as well as the existing gold standard for repairing holes in bone – grafting bone from elsewhere in the body. But it did work.
“These are very early days for DNA hydrogels,” cautioned Dr. McCulloch, a study coauthor and professor in the Faculty of Dentistry, noting that it will likely be a decade or more before such technology could be available to patients. “But there is the potential that DNA hydrogel could someday grow bone without having to have highly invasive surgical procedures. That’s a significant advancement.”
A sci-fi future
Perhaps the wildest, and weirdest, potential applications of hydrogels come in the realm of human-machine interaction.
Numerous companies are already dabbling in neural prosthetic or brain computer interfaces that might someday, for instance, let someone who is paralyzed and can’t speak write on a laptop using their thoughts.
The spoon-in-the-Jell-O problem has been a major stumbling block.
But Dr. Tringides, who recently earned her PhD in biophysics from Harvard, is working on it.
She and her team have developed a seaweed-based hydrogel loaded with tiny flecks of nanomaterials that can not only meld nicely into squishy brain tissue but also conduct electricity.
Within a decade, she says, this could replace the clunky platinum metal discs used for electrocorticography – recording electrical activity in the brain to identify where seizures start or doing precise brain surgery.
In 30 to 50 years? Let your imagination run wild.
“I’m a skeptic. I like to take research step by step,” she said. “But things are definitely progressing in an interesting direction.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Imagine a day when a simple injection prompts a broken bone to heal. When tiny, ingestible devices linger in the body, unnoticed, tracking our health or delivering life-saving medications. When brain and heart implants mesh with flesh so seamlessly that the body thinks they’ve been there all along.
These are the dreams of materials scientists who have toiled for decades to mimic the complex architecture of the human body in hopes of replacing broken parts or treating disease.
The problem, say bioengineers, is that most replacement and corrective parts – from prosthetics to pacemakers – are made of hard, dry, lifeless materials, like metal or plastic, while biological tissue is soft, wet, and living.
The body knows the difference and tends to reject imitations.
Enter hydrogels, three-dimensional networks of molecules swollen with – by definition – water.
First described in 1960 by creators of soft contact lenses, these weird, shape-shifting substances are able to morph from liquid to solid to a squishy in-between. (Early, simple uses include hair gel or Jell-O.). Slow to gain attention, growing to just 1,000 studies published by 1982, they’ve become the subject of intense study recently, with 100,000 papers published by 2020, and 3,800 already this year alone.
As chemists, biologists, and engineers begin to work more with one another and with medical doctors,
“We are, essentially, hydrogels,” said Benjamin Wiley, PhD, a chemistry professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “As people develop new hydrogels that more closely match the tissues in our body, we’ll be able to treat a whole host of ailments we couldn’t treat before.”
From contact lenses to brain implants
Put simply, a hydrogel is like a mesh bag of water.
The mesh is made of polymers, or spaghetti-like strands of molecules, stitched together in a repeating pattern and swollen with H2O, much like the way 3D matrixes in our body surround, support, and give structure to our cells and tissues.
“Imagine a soccer net, with all of these long fibers woven together to create the net,” said Eric Appel, PhD, associate professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.
While the broader category of “gels” could be filled with anything, including chemical solvents, water is the key ingredient that sets hydrogels apart, making them ideal for, as some scientists put it, “merging humans and machines.”
Human bones are about 25% water, while muscles hover around 70% and the brain is 85%. The precious liquid plays a host of critical roles, from shuttling nutrients in and waste out to helping cells talk to each other.
Lab-made hydrogels can be loaded with cargo (like a ball in the net), including cells or drugs that help mimic some of those functions.
Hydrogels are soft and pliable like flesh. So, if used in implants, they may be less likely to damage surrounding tissue.
“Think about a metal spoon in your bowl of pudding. As you’re shaking the bowl, the spoon doesn’t stay in place, and you get scarring around the spoon,” said Christina Tringides, PhD, a materials scientist who studies neural engineering. That, she says, is exactly what happens to brain implants when patients breathe or move. “It’s a mechanical mismatch. But with hydrogels, you could get perfect mechanical matching.”
Hydrogels also tend to be nontoxic, so the immune system may be less likely to attack them as foreign bodies.
All this has made hydrogels the new darling of the bioengineering world.
“There has been an absolute explosion of interest in these materials,” Dr. Appel said.
Smarter drug delivery and ingestible electronics
Early versions of hydrogels were thick and gooey, making it hard to get them inside the body.
“Think of a block of Jell-O. You couldn’t inject something like that,” Dr. Appel said.
But Dr. Appel, whose lab develops new drug delivery systems, has been tinkering with gel formulas for years in hopes that these high-tech globs could someday ferry timed-release drugs to just the right spot in the body.
His new hydrogels start as fully formed gels (which help preserve the drug contents) inside a syringe. But once the plunger is pushed, they magically shape-shift to a liquid thin enough to flow easily through a standard needle. Upon exit, they immediately reform into gels, protecting the inherent cargo from degrading.
This could be a game changer at a time when many cutting-edge drugs – think Humira for arthritis or Ozempic for type 2 diabetes – are made of quickly degrading proteins too large and complex to simply jam into a pill. Instead, they must be injected, often frequently.
“Because the gel takes months to dissolve, it slowly delivers the drug over time,” Dr. Appel said. “You could conceivably go from a shot once a week to once every 4 months.”
Such slow-release hydrogels could make vaccines last longer, in turn teaching the body to better resist emerging virus variants, and deliver tumor-busting therapies more precisely, said Dr. Appel, who has formed a startup and hopes to fast-track the first hydrogel drug delivery system to clinical trials within a few years.
Meanwhile, another team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has taken a different approach, developing a standard-sized ingestible hydrogel pill that swells up like a puffer fish in the stomach, lasting a month and slowly releasing drugs all the while. To remove the pill, a patient simply drinks a salt-based solution that shrivels the ping-pong ball–sized device so it can be passed out of the body.
In a paper in Nature Communications, the scientists showed the puffer fish pill could also be loaded with tiny cameras or monitors to track conditions like ulcers or cancer.
“The dream is to have a Jell-O-like smart pill that, once swallowed, stays in the stomach and monitors the patient’s health,” said Xuanhe Zhao, PhD, a researcher on the project and associate professor of mechanical engineering at MIT.
Building joints and regrowing bones
Since the 1970s, researchers have mulled using hydrogels to replace human cartilage, a remarkably strong and flexible tissue made of about 90% water but able to withstand the weight of a car on an area about the size of a coin.
Until recently, those efforts have largely failed. Meaning when knee cartilage wears down, things like cartilage transplants, drilling holes to stimulate new growth, or total joint replacements – all of which require lengthy rehab – are the only options.
But that may be about to change.
Dr. Wiley and his colleagues at Duke recently reported that they’d developed the first gel-based cartilage substitute even stronger and more durable than the real thing.
By attaching their hydrogel to a titanium backing to help stick it in place, they hope to repair damaged cartilage “much like a dentist fills a cavity” long before surgery is necessary.
They too have partnered with industry to bring their hydrogel to market – starting with knees.
“Ultimately, the goal is to do any joint – hips, ankles, fingers, and toes,” Dr. Wiley said.
At the University of Toronto, chemist Karina Carneiro, PhD, and dentist Christopher McCulloch, DDS, are also thinking big.
In a recent paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they describe a hydrogel, designed by Dr. Carneiro and made of DNA, that can be injected, migrate to a defect in bone – an irreparable break, hole from surgery, or jawbone withered by age – and fill in the gap like putty. But not only does it patch the hole, it prompts the bone to regenerate.
In rats with holes in their skulls due to surgery, they found that the treatment did not work as well as the existing gold standard for repairing holes in bone – grafting bone from elsewhere in the body. But it did work.
“These are very early days for DNA hydrogels,” cautioned Dr. McCulloch, a study coauthor and professor in the Faculty of Dentistry, noting that it will likely be a decade or more before such technology could be available to patients. “But there is the potential that DNA hydrogel could someday grow bone without having to have highly invasive surgical procedures. That’s a significant advancement.”
A sci-fi future
Perhaps the wildest, and weirdest, potential applications of hydrogels come in the realm of human-machine interaction.
Numerous companies are already dabbling in neural prosthetic or brain computer interfaces that might someday, for instance, let someone who is paralyzed and can’t speak write on a laptop using their thoughts.
The spoon-in-the-Jell-O problem has been a major stumbling block.
But Dr. Tringides, who recently earned her PhD in biophysics from Harvard, is working on it.
She and her team have developed a seaweed-based hydrogel loaded with tiny flecks of nanomaterials that can not only meld nicely into squishy brain tissue but also conduct electricity.
Within a decade, she says, this could replace the clunky platinum metal discs used for electrocorticography – recording electrical activity in the brain to identify where seizures start or doing precise brain surgery.
In 30 to 50 years? Let your imagination run wild.
“I’m a skeptic. I like to take research step by step,” she said. “But things are definitely progressing in an interesting direction.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Imagine a day when a simple injection prompts a broken bone to heal. When tiny, ingestible devices linger in the body, unnoticed, tracking our health or delivering life-saving medications. When brain and heart implants mesh with flesh so seamlessly that the body thinks they’ve been there all along.
These are the dreams of materials scientists who have toiled for decades to mimic the complex architecture of the human body in hopes of replacing broken parts or treating disease.
The problem, say bioengineers, is that most replacement and corrective parts – from prosthetics to pacemakers – are made of hard, dry, lifeless materials, like metal or plastic, while biological tissue is soft, wet, and living.
The body knows the difference and tends to reject imitations.
Enter hydrogels, three-dimensional networks of molecules swollen with – by definition – water.
First described in 1960 by creators of soft contact lenses, these weird, shape-shifting substances are able to morph from liquid to solid to a squishy in-between. (Early, simple uses include hair gel or Jell-O.). Slow to gain attention, growing to just 1,000 studies published by 1982, they’ve become the subject of intense study recently, with 100,000 papers published by 2020, and 3,800 already this year alone.
As chemists, biologists, and engineers begin to work more with one another and with medical doctors,
“We are, essentially, hydrogels,” said Benjamin Wiley, PhD, a chemistry professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “As people develop new hydrogels that more closely match the tissues in our body, we’ll be able to treat a whole host of ailments we couldn’t treat before.”
From contact lenses to brain implants
Put simply, a hydrogel is like a mesh bag of water.
The mesh is made of polymers, or spaghetti-like strands of molecules, stitched together in a repeating pattern and swollen with H2O, much like the way 3D matrixes in our body surround, support, and give structure to our cells and tissues.
“Imagine a soccer net, with all of these long fibers woven together to create the net,” said Eric Appel, PhD, associate professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.
While the broader category of “gels” could be filled with anything, including chemical solvents, water is the key ingredient that sets hydrogels apart, making them ideal for, as some scientists put it, “merging humans and machines.”
Human bones are about 25% water, while muscles hover around 70% and the brain is 85%. The precious liquid plays a host of critical roles, from shuttling nutrients in and waste out to helping cells talk to each other.
Lab-made hydrogels can be loaded with cargo (like a ball in the net), including cells or drugs that help mimic some of those functions.
Hydrogels are soft and pliable like flesh. So, if used in implants, they may be less likely to damage surrounding tissue.
“Think about a metal spoon in your bowl of pudding. As you’re shaking the bowl, the spoon doesn’t stay in place, and you get scarring around the spoon,” said Christina Tringides, PhD, a materials scientist who studies neural engineering. That, she says, is exactly what happens to brain implants when patients breathe or move. “It’s a mechanical mismatch. But with hydrogels, you could get perfect mechanical matching.”
Hydrogels also tend to be nontoxic, so the immune system may be less likely to attack them as foreign bodies.
All this has made hydrogels the new darling of the bioengineering world.
“There has been an absolute explosion of interest in these materials,” Dr. Appel said.
Smarter drug delivery and ingestible electronics
Early versions of hydrogels were thick and gooey, making it hard to get them inside the body.
“Think of a block of Jell-O. You couldn’t inject something like that,” Dr. Appel said.
But Dr. Appel, whose lab develops new drug delivery systems, has been tinkering with gel formulas for years in hopes that these high-tech globs could someday ferry timed-release drugs to just the right spot in the body.
His new hydrogels start as fully formed gels (which help preserve the drug contents) inside a syringe. But once the plunger is pushed, they magically shape-shift to a liquid thin enough to flow easily through a standard needle. Upon exit, they immediately reform into gels, protecting the inherent cargo from degrading.
This could be a game changer at a time when many cutting-edge drugs – think Humira for arthritis or Ozempic for type 2 diabetes – are made of quickly degrading proteins too large and complex to simply jam into a pill. Instead, they must be injected, often frequently.
“Because the gel takes months to dissolve, it slowly delivers the drug over time,” Dr. Appel said. “You could conceivably go from a shot once a week to once every 4 months.”
Such slow-release hydrogels could make vaccines last longer, in turn teaching the body to better resist emerging virus variants, and deliver tumor-busting therapies more precisely, said Dr. Appel, who has formed a startup and hopes to fast-track the first hydrogel drug delivery system to clinical trials within a few years.
Meanwhile, another team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has taken a different approach, developing a standard-sized ingestible hydrogel pill that swells up like a puffer fish in the stomach, lasting a month and slowly releasing drugs all the while. To remove the pill, a patient simply drinks a salt-based solution that shrivels the ping-pong ball–sized device so it can be passed out of the body.
In a paper in Nature Communications, the scientists showed the puffer fish pill could also be loaded with tiny cameras or monitors to track conditions like ulcers or cancer.
“The dream is to have a Jell-O-like smart pill that, once swallowed, stays in the stomach and monitors the patient’s health,” said Xuanhe Zhao, PhD, a researcher on the project and associate professor of mechanical engineering at MIT.
Building joints and regrowing bones
Since the 1970s, researchers have mulled using hydrogels to replace human cartilage, a remarkably strong and flexible tissue made of about 90% water but able to withstand the weight of a car on an area about the size of a coin.
Until recently, those efforts have largely failed. Meaning when knee cartilage wears down, things like cartilage transplants, drilling holes to stimulate new growth, or total joint replacements – all of which require lengthy rehab – are the only options.
But that may be about to change.
Dr. Wiley and his colleagues at Duke recently reported that they’d developed the first gel-based cartilage substitute even stronger and more durable than the real thing.
By attaching their hydrogel to a titanium backing to help stick it in place, they hope to repair damaged cartilage “much like a dentist fills a cavity” long before surgery is necessary.
They too have partnered with industry to bring their hydrogel to market – starting with knees.
“Ultimately, the goal is to do any joint – hips, ankles, fingers, and toes,” Dr. Wiley said.
At the University of Toronto, chemist Karina Carneiro, PhD, and dentist Christopher McCulloch, DDS, are also thinking big.
In a recent paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they describe a hydrogel, designed by Dr. Carneiro and made of DNA, that can be injected, migrate to a defect in bone – an irreparable break, hole from surgery, or jawbone withered by age – and fill in the gap like putty. But not only does it patch the hole, it prompts the bone to regenerate.
In rats with holes in their skulls due to surgery, they found that the treatment did not work as well as the existing gold standard for repairing holes in bone – grafting bone from elsewhere in the body. But it did work.
“These are very early days for DNA hydrogels,” cautioned Dr. McCulloch, a study coauthor and professor in the Faculty of Dentistry, noting that it will likely be a decade or more before such technology could be available to patients. “But there is the potential that DNA hydrogel could someday grow bone without having to have highly invasive surgical procedures. That’s a significant advancement.”
A sci-fi future
Perhaps the wildest, and weirdest, potential applications of hydrogels come in the realm of human-machine interaction.
Numerous companies are already dabbling in neural prosthetic or brain computer interfaces that might someday, for instance, let someone who is paralyzed and can’t speak write on a laptop using their thoughts.
The spoon-in-the-Jell-O problem has been a major stumbling block.
But Dr. Tringides, who recently earned her PhD in biophysics from Harvard, is working on it.
She and her team have developed a seaweed-based hydrogel loaded with tiny flecks of nanomaterials that can not only meld nicely into squishy brain tissue but also conduct electricity.
Within a decade, she says, this could replace the clunky platinum metal discs used for electrocorticography – recording electrical activity in the brain to identify where seizures start or doing precise brain surgery.
In 30 to 50 years? Let your imagination run wild.
“I’m a skeptic. I like to take research step by step,” she said. “But things are definitely progressing in an interesting direction.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Diabetes, cholesterol meds use drops after bariatric surgery
compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.
“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.
“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.
The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.
However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed
When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.
Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.
However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.
To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.
Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.
They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.
In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.
Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.
Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
Causes?
As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”
“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.
The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.
“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.
“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.
In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.
Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.
“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.
“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.
“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.
The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.
However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed
When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.
Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.
However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.
To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.
Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.
They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.
In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.
Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.
Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
Causes?
As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”
“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.
The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.
“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.
“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.
In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.
Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.
“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.
“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.
“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.
The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.
However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed
When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.
Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.
However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.
To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.
Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.
They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.
In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.
Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.
Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
Causes?
As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”
“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.
The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.
“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.
“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.
In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.
Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.
“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA SURGERY
Younger age of type 2 diabetes onset linked to dementia risk
, new findings suggest.
Moreover, the new data from the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort also suggest that the previously identified increased risk for dementia among people with prediabetes appears to be entirely explained by the subset who go on to develop type 2 diabetes.
“Our findings suggest that preventing prediabetes progression, especially in younger individuals, may be an important way to reduce the dementia burden,” wrote PhD student Jiaqi Hu of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Their article was published online in Diabetologia.
The result builds on previous findings linking dysglycemia and cognitive decline, the study’s lead author, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.
“Our prior work in the ARIC study suggests that improving glucose control could help prevent dementia in later life,” she said.
Other studies have also linked higher A1c levels and diabetes in midlife to increased rates of cognitive decline. In addition, Dr. Selvin noted, “There is growing evidence that focusing on vascular health, especially focusing on diabetes and blood pressure, in midlife can stave off dementia in later life.”
This new study is the first to examine the effect of diabetes in the relationship between prediabetes and dementia, as well as the age of diabetes onset on subsequent dementia.
Prediabetes linked to dementia via diabetes development
Of the 11,656 ARIC participants without diabetes at baseline during 1990-1992 (age 46-70 years), 20.0% had prediabetes (defined as A1c 5.7%-6.4% or 39-46 mmol/mol). During a median follow-up of 15.9 years, 3,143 participants developed diabetes. The proportions of patients who developed diabetes were 44.6% among those with prediabetes at baseline versus 22.5% of those without.
Dementia developed in 2,247 participants over a median follow-up of 24.7 years. The cumulative incidence of dementia was 23.9% among those who developed diabetes versus 20.5% among those who did not.
After adjustment for demographics and for the Alzheimer’s disease–linked apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, prediabetes was significantly associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19). However, significance disappeared after adjustment for incident diabetes (HR, 1.09), the researchers reported.
Younger age at diabetes diagnosis raises dementia risk
Age at diabetes diagnosis made a difference in dementia risk. With adjustments for lifestyle, demographic, and clinical factors, those diagnosed with diabetes before age 60 years had a nearly threefold increased risk for dementia compared with those who never developed diabetes (HR, 2.92; P < .001).
The dementia risk was also significantly increased, although to a lesser degree, among those aged 60-69 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.73; P < .001) and age 70-79 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.23; P < .001). The relationship was not significant for those aged 80 years and older (HR, 1.13).
“Prevention efforts in people with diabetes diagnosed younger than 65 years should be a high priority,” the authors urged.
Taken together, the data suggest that prolonged exposure to hyperglycemia plays a major role in dementia development.
“Putative mechanisms include acute and chronic hyperglycemia, glucose toxicity, insulin resistance, and microvascular dysfunction of the central nervous system. ... Glucose toxicity and microvascular dysfunction are associated with increased inflammatory and oxidative stress, leading to increased blood–brain permeability,” the researchers wrote.
Dr. Selvin said that her group is pursuing further work in this area using continuous glucose monitoring. “We plan to look at ... how glycemic control and different patterns of glucose in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline and other neurocognitive outcomes.”
The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Selvin has reported being on the advisory board for Diabetologia; she had no role in peer review of the manuscript.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new findings suggest.
Moreover, the new data from the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort also suggest that the previously identified increased risk for dementia among people with prediabetes appears to be entirely explained by the subset who go on to develop type 2 diabetes.
“Our findings suggest that preventing prediabetes progression, especially in younger individuals, may be an important way to reduce the dementia burden,” wrote PhD student Jiaqi Hu of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Their article was published online in Diabetologia.
The result builds on previous findings linking dysglycemia and cognitive decline, the study’s lead author, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.
“Our prior work in the ARIC study suggests that improving glucose control could help prevent dementia in later life,” she said.
Other studies have also linked higher A1c levels and diabetes in midlife to increased rates of cognitive decline. In addition, Dr. Selvin noted, “There is growing evidence that focusing on vascular health, especially focusing on diabetes and blood pressure, in midlife can stave off dementia in later life.”
This new study is the first to examine the effect of diabetes in the relationship between prediabetes and dementia, as well as the age of diabetes onset on subsequent dementia.
Prediabetes linked to dementia via diabetes development
Of the 11,656 ARIC participants without diabetes at baseline during 1990-1992 (age 46-70 years), 20.0% had prediabetes (defined as A1c 5.7%-6.4% or 39-46 mmol/mol). During a median follow-up of 15.9 years, 3,143 participants developed diabetes. The proportions of patients who developed diabetes were 44.6% among those with prediabetes at baseline versus 22.5% of those without.
Dementia developed in 2,247 participants over a median follow-up of 24.7 years. The cumulative incidence of dementia was 23.9% among those who developed diabetes versus 20.5% among those who did not.
After adjustment for demographics and for the Alzheimer’s disease–linked apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, prediabetes was significantly associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19). However, significance disappeared after adjustment for incident diabetes (HR, 1.09), the researchers reported.
Younger age at diabetes diagnosis raises dementia risk
Age at diabetes diagnosis made a difference in dementia risk. With adjustments for lifestyle, demographic, and clinical factors, those diagnosed with diabetes before age 60 years had a nearly threefold increased risk for dementia compared with those who never developed diabetes (HR, 2.92; P < .001).
The dementia risk was also significantly increased, although to a lesser degree, among those aged 60-69 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.73; P < .001) and age 70-79 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.23; P < .001). The relationship was not significant for those aged 80 years and older (HR, 1.13).
“Prevention efforts in people with diabetes diagnosed younger than 65 years should be a high priority,” the authors urged.
Taken together, the data suggest that prolonged exposure to hyperglycemia plays a major role in dementia development.
“Putative mechanisms include acute and chronic hyperglycemia, glucose toxicity, insulin resistance, and microvascular dysfunction of the central nervous system. ... Glucose toxicity and microvascular dysfunction are associated with increased inflammatory and oxidative stress, leading to increased blood–brain permeability,” the researchers wrote.
Dr. Selvin said that her group is pursuing further work in this area using continuous glucose monitoring. “We plan to look at ... how glycemic control and different patterns of glucose in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline and other neurocognitive outcomes.”
The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Selvin has reported being on the advisory board for Diabetologia; she had no role in peer review of the manuscript.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new findings suggest.
Moreover, the new data from the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort also suggest that the previously identified increased risk for dementia among people with prediabetes appears to be entirely explained by the subset who go on to develop type 2 diabetes.
“Our findings suggest that preventing prediabetes progression, especially in younger individuals, may be an important way to reduce the dementia burden,” wrote PhD student Jiaqi Hu of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Their article was published online in Diabetologia.
The result builds on previous findings linking dysglycemia and cognitive decline, the study’s lead author, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.
“Our prior work in the ARIC study suggests that improving glucose control could help prevent dementia in later life,” she said.
Other studies have also linked higher A1c levels and diabetes in midlife to increased rates of cognitive decline. In addition, Dr. Selvin noted, “There is growing evidence that focusing on vascular health, especially focusing on diabetes and blood pressure, in midlife can stave off dementia in later life.”
This new study is the first to examine the effect of diabetes in the relationship between prediabetes and dementia, as well as the age of diabetes onset on subsequent dementia.
Prediabetes linked to dementia via diabetes development
Of the 11,656 ARIC participants without diabetes at baseline during 1990-1992 (age 46-70 years), 20.0% had prediabetes (defined as A1c 5.7%-6.4% or 39-46 mmol/mol). During a median follow-up of 15.9 years, 3,143 participants developed diabetes. The proportions of patients who developed diabetes were 44.6% among those with prediabetes at baseline versus 22.5% of those without.
Dementia developed in 2,247 participants over a median follow-up of 24.7 years. The cumulative incidence of dementia was 23.9% among those who developed diabetes versus 20.5% among those who did not.
After adjustment for demographics and for the Alzheimer’s disease–linked apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, prediabetes was significantly associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19). However, significance disappeared after adjustment for incident diabetes (HR, 1.09), the researchers reported.
Younger age at diabetes diagnosis raises dementia risk
Age at diabetes diagnosis made a difference in dementia risk. With adjustments for lifestyle, demographic, and clinical factors, those diagnosed with diabetes before age 60 years had a nearly threefold increased risk for dementia compared with those who never developed diabetes (HR, 2.92; P < .001).
The dementia risk was also significantly increased, although to a lesser degree, among those aged 60-69 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.73; P < .001) and age 70-79 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.23; P < .001). The relationship was not significant for those aged 80 years and older (HR, 1.13).
“Prevention efforts in people with diabetes diagnosed younger than 65 years should be a high priority,” the authors urged.
Taken together, the data suggest that prolonged exposure to hyperglycemia plays a major role in dementia development.
“Putative mechanisms include acute and chronic hyperglycemia, glucose toxicity, insulin resistance, and microvascular dysfunction of the central nervous system. ... Glucose toxicity and microvascular dysfunction are associated with increased inflammatory and oxidative stress, leading to increased blood–brain permeability,” the researchers wrote.
Dr. Selvin said that her group is pursuing further work in this area using continuous glucose monitoring. “We plan to look at ... how glycemic control and different patterns of glucose in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline and other neurocognitive outcomes.”
The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Selvin has reported being on the advisory board for Diabetologia; she had no role in peer review of the manuscript.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DIABETOLOGIA
Does Ozempic cause hair loss?
Should people be concerned about possible hair loss when taking Wegovy, Ozempic, or Mounjaro for weight loss (where the latter two drugs are being used off label) – as was recently claimed by some people on social media and reported in news stories?
The consensus among dermatologists and endocrinologists is no.
It’s up to the individual to weigh the benefits of treating obesity against the risks of the therapy, including the low risk of developing temporary hair loss, says one expert.
Wegovy, Ozempic, and Mounjaro
Of these three newer medications, only the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (since June 2021) for weight management – specifically for people with either obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) or overweight (BMI ≥ 27) plus at least one weight-related comorbidity such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and high cholesterol – with a dosage up to a 2.4-mg weekly injection.
When there was a short supply of Wegovy soon after it became available, some people turned to the same drug – semaglutide, but marketed as Ozempic for type 2 diabetes, which is titrated up to a 2-mg weekly injection. Still others opted for tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a dual GLP-1 agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist. Tirzepatide is approved for type 2 diabetes in the United States but is not yet approved for weight loss.
Wegovy shortages continue to be reported.
; of interest, it was more common after bariatric surgery.
In clinical trials, 3% of patients receiving Wegovy (a 2.4-mg/wk injection) versus 1% of patients receiving placebo reported alopecia. Hair loss was not reported as a side effect in clinical trials of Ozempic (a 2-mg/wk injection) for type 2 diabetes. In a clinical trial of tirzepatide for weight loss in obesity, 5.7% of patients taking the highest dose (a 15-mg once-weekly injection) reported alopecia vs 1% of those who got a placebo.
In contrast, a review of 18 mostly observational studies reported that 57% of patients had hair loss after bariatric surgery.
Is it the drug or the rapid weight loss?
None of the experts consulted for this article had seen patients who came to them about hair loss while taking these drugs for weight loss.
“I have not seen patients complaining of hair loss from these medications, but perhaps it is just a matter of time,” said Lynne J. Goldberg, MD, a professor of dermatology and pathology and laboratory medicine, at Boston University, and director of the hair clinic at Boston Medical Center.
“Some of my patients lose hair when they lose weight, generally as a result of the weight loss itself and not as a side effect of these medications,” said Katharine H. Saunders, MD, an obesity medicine physician, cofounder of Intellihealth, and an assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“Hair loss from rapid weight loss is very common [and] not necessarily a side effect of the medication itself but more as a result of how quickly the weight loss occurs,” echoed Susan Massick, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Ohio State University, and a dermatologist at Ohio State’s Wexner Medical Center, both in Columbus.
“Hair loss is tricky,” observed Anne Peters, MD, director of clinical diabetes programs at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Losing weight and/or changing your diet causes hair loss. Stress can cause hair loss. So, it is hard to separate weight loss from medication effect.”
Telogen effluvium (stress shedding) with rapid weight loss
The hair loss seems to be associated with rapid weight loss, the experts agreed.
“It is rare, but we can see patients who have a period of diffuse hair loss, called telogen effluvium, or ‘stress shedding’ with rapid weight loss,” said Michael A. Weintraub, MD, an endocrinologist at NYU Langone Health, New York.
This hair loss occurs in relation to either physical (surgery, pregnancy, illness) or emotional stress, added Dr. Weintraub, who is an assistant professor at NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
Hair loss caused by rapid weight loss could be caused by an antiobesity medication, but it could also occur with other obesity treatments, such as bariatric surgery or drastic dietary changes, he said. The hair shedding is typically short lived and reversible.
About 80%-85% of hair is in the anagen (growth) phase, about 5% is in a transitional (catagen) phase, and the rest is in telogen (resting, or shedding) phase, Dr. Massick explained. In telogen effluvium, hairs that are normally in the growth phase get suddenly shifted to telogen phase and are shed rapidly.
“Telogen effluvium can be caused by rapid weight loss, major surgery, severe COVID infection, high fever, or death in the family,” she noted. “You will not go bald with telogen effluvium, but you might find that you may lose a good volume of hair,” much more than the normal loss of up to 100 hairs a day.
“I counsel my patients about the possibility of losing hair before they undergo bariatric surgery,” Dr. Saunders said. “Generally, the health benefits of weight loss and weight maintenance outweigh the risk of temporary hair loss.”
Nutritional deficiencies and malnutrition can contribute to hair loss as well, and iron deficiency is sometimes a culprit, she added.
“If someone is worried” about hair loss associated with weight loss, “they should see their doctor,” Dr. Peters said. “If they are on thyroid hormone, in particular, the levels should be retested after weight loss.”
Hair loss appears more common after bariatric surgery than with antiobesity medications,” Dr. Weintraub observed, and it is unclear whether this is because the weight loss is more dramatic after surgery and thus a greater stressor, or whether it is caused by nutrient deficiency or a different mechanism entirely.
“Unlike certain forms of bariatric surgery, which can lead to malabsorption (e.g., Roux-en-Y gastric bypass), medications such as GLP-1 agonists and GLP-1/GIP dual agonists do not cause malabsorption,” Dr. Weintraub noted. “So nutritional deficiencies are less likely to be the cause of new hair loss in those taking antiobesity medications than [in] someone who underwent bariatric surgery.”
Iron and vitamin D deficiencies are the most common nutritional deficiencies that can cause hair loss, he noted.
Slow and steady weight loss rather than rapid
“I would suggest that patients try to keep the weight loss slow and steady, rather than rapid,” Dr. Goldberg said, “and follow any vitamin/mineral supplementation plan that they are given. Patients with bariatric surgery have nutritional guidance and a supplementation plan.”
“Follow a well-balanced dietary strategy with ample protein, vegetables, and some fruit,” Dr. Saunders said. Health care providers should monitor lab tests to check for and treat vitamin deficiencies, and registered dietitians can be crucial to ensure proper nutrition. She advises patients: “Find coping strategies to reduce stress and get enough sleep. If iron levels are low, start an iron supplement under your provider’s supervision.”
“Some of my patients swear by biotin supplements, prenatal vitamins or ‘hair, skin, and nails’ vitamins,” she added. If hair loss doesn’t stop, a dermatologist can look for other contributors and discuss strategies for hair restoration.
Individuals who undergo bariatric surgery require lifelong vitamin supplementation and yearly (or more frequent) lab testing, she noted.
“With, for example, bariatric surgery or any type of diet change you want to make sure you still maintain a balanced diet, whether its calories, protein, iron, zinc, vitamins (vitamin D for example),” Dr. Massick echoed.
Similarly, Dr. Peters advised: “I would say to maintain a normal healthy diet even if eating less. Exercise. Do all those healthy things. Taking a daily multivitamin isn’t a bad idea. Talk with a nutritionist. Use the appetite suppression of the medication to combine with healthy eating.”
“If someone is having new hair loss, they should see their clinician to evaluate for all possible causes,” Dr. Weintraub said. “Their provider can evaluate for underlying causes like thyroid dysfunction, iron deficiency, and vitamin D deficiency.”
However, if a patient’s pattern of hair loss is not diffuse but occurs in patches, this has an entirely different set of etiologies probably unrelated to antiobesity medication and should be evaluated.
Working with a nutritionist to ensure that patients have sufficient protein and micronutrient intake can lower the risk of developing hair loss and other complications, Dr. Weintraub said. “This is particularly important for certain forms of bariatric surgery such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, since that can lead to malabsorption of specific vitamins and minerals that need to be periodically measured and supplemented.”
In individuals starting an antiobesity medication, beginning a daily multivitamin has little harm, he added, and can ensure they are getting essential minerals and vitamins. However, no studies have specifically investigated this yet.
“Ultimately, it’s important to weigh the benefits of antiobesity medications against the potential risks, as we do with any medical intervention,” according to Dr. Weintraub.
“The purpose of treating obesity,” he stressed, “is to reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke, and multiple types of cancers. It’s up to the individual to weigh these benefits against the risks of the treatment, including the low risk of developing temporary hair loss.”
Dr. Peters writes a column for Medscape and disclosed that she served as a consultant for Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care; received a research grant from Abbott Diabetes Care; and received stock options from Teladoc and Omada Health. Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Saunders, Dr. Massick, and Dr. Weintraub declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Should people be concerned about possible hair loss when taking Wegovy, Ozempic, or Mounjaro for weight loss (where the latter two drugs are being used off label) – as was recently claimed by some people on social media and reported in news stories?
The consensus among dermatologists and endocrinologists is no.
It’s up to the individual to weigh the benefits of treating obesity against the risks of the therapy, including the low risk of developing temporary hair loss, says one expert.
Wegovy, Ozempic, and Mounjaro
Of these three newer medications, only the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (since June 2021) for weight management – specifically for people with either obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) or overweight (BMI ≥ 27) plus at least one weight-related comorbidity such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and high cholesterol – with a dosage up to a 2.4-mg weekly injection.
When there was a short supply of Wegovy soon after it became available, some people turned to the same drug – semaglutide, but marketed as Ozempic for type 2 diabetes, which is titrated up to a 2-mg weekly injection. Still others opted for tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a dual GLP-1 agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist. Tirzepatide is approved for type 2 diabetes in the United States but is not yet approved for weight loss.
Wegovy shortages continue to be reported.
; of interest, it was more common after bariatric surgery.
In clinical trials, 3% of patients receiving Wegovy (a 2.4-mg/wk injection) versus 1% of patients receiving placebo reported alopecia. Hair loss was not reported as a side effect in clinical trials of Ozempic (a 2-mg/wk injection) for type 2 diabetes. In a clinical trial of tirzepatide for weight loss in obesity, 5.7% of patients taking the highest dose (a 15-mg once-weekly injection) reported alopecia vs 1% of those who got a placebo.
In contrast, a review of 18 mostly observational studies reported that 57% of patients had hair loss after bariatric surgery.
Is it the drug or the rapid weight loss?
None of the experts consulted for this article had seen patients who came to them about hair loss while taking these drugs for weight loss.
“I have not seen patients complaining of hair loss from these medications, but perhaps it is just a matter of time,” said Lynne J. Goldberg, MD, a professor of dermatology and pathology and laboratory medicine, at Boston University, and director of the hair clinic at Boston Medical Center.
“Some of my patients lose hair when they lose weight, generally as a result of the weight loss itself and not as a side effect of these medications,” said Katharine H. Saunders, MD, an obesity medicine physician, cofounder of Intellihealth, and an assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“Hair loss from rapid weight loss is very common [and] not necessarily a side effect of the medication itself but more as a result of how quickly the weight loss occurs,” echoed Susan Massick, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Ohio State University, and a dermatologist at Ohio State’s Wexner Medical Center, both in Columbus.
“Hair loss is tricky,” observed Anne Peters, MD, director of clinical diabetes programs at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Losing weight and/or changing your diet causes hair loss. Stress can cause hair loss. So, it is hard to separate weight loss from medication effect.”
Telogen effluvium (stress shedding) with rapid weight loss
The hair loss seems to be associated with rapid weight loss, the experts agreed.
“It is rare, but we can see patients who have a period of diffuse hair loss, called telogen effluvium, or ‘stress shedding’ with rapid weight loss,” said Michael A. Weintraub, MD, an endocrinologist at NYU Langone Health, New York.
This hair loss occurs in relation to either physical (surgery, pregnancy, illness) or emotional stress, added Dr. Weintraub, who is an assistant professor at NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
Hair loss caused by rapid weight loss could be caused by an antiobesity medication, but it could also occur with other obesity treatments, such as bariatric surgery or drastic dietary changes, he said. The hair shedding is typically short lived and reversible.
About 80%-85% of hair is in the anagen (growth) phase, about 5% is in a transitional (catagen) phase, and the rest is in telogen (resting, or shedding) phase, Dr. Massick explained. In telogen effluvium, hairs that are normally in the growth phase get suddenly shifted to telogen phase and are shed rapidly.
“Telogen effluvium can be caused by rapid weight loss, major surgery, severe COVID infection, high fever, or death in the family,” she noted. “You will not go bald with telogen effluvium, but you might find that you may lose a good volume of hair,” much more than the normal loss of up to 100 hairs a day.
“I counsel my patients about the possibility of losing hair before they undergo bariatric surgery,” Dr. Saunders said. “Generally, the health benefits of weight loss and weight maintenance outweigh the risk of temporary hair loss.”
Nutritional deficiencies and malnutrition can contribute to hair loss as well, and iron deficiency is sometimes a culprit, she added.
“If someone is worried” about hair loss associated with weight loss, “they should see their doctor,” Dr. Peters said. “If they are on thyroid hormone, in particular, the levels should be retested after weight loss.”
Hair loss appears more common after bariatric surgery than with antiobesity medications,” Dr. Weintraub observed, and it is unclear whether this is because the weight loss is more dramatic after surgery and thus a greater stressor, or whether it is caused by nutrient deficiency or a different mechanism entirely.
“Unlike certain forms of bariatric surgery, which can lead to malabsorption (e.g., Roux-en-Y gastric bypass), medications such as GLP-1 agonists and GLP-1/GIP dual agonists do not cause malabsorption,” Dr. Weintraub noted. “So nutritional deficiencies are less likely to be the cause of new hair loss in those taking antiobesity medications than [in] someone who underwent bariatric surgery.”
Iron and vitamin D deficiencies are the most common nutritional deficiencies that can cause hair loss, he noted.
Slow and steady weight loss rather than rapid
“I would suggest that patients try to keep the weight loss slow and steady, rather than rapid,” Dr. Goldberg said, “and follow any vitamin/mineral supplementation plan that they are given. Patients with bariatric surgery have nutritional guidance and a supplementation plan.”
“Follow a well-balanced dietary strategy with ample protein, vegetables, and some fruit,” Dr. Saunders said. Health care providers should monitor lab tests to check for and treat vitamin deficiencies, and registered dietitians can be crucial to ensure proper nutrition. She advises patients: “Find coping strategies to reduce stress and get enough sleep. If iron levels are low, start an iron supplement under your provider’s supervision.”
“Some of my patients swear by biotin supplements, prenatal vitamins or ‘hair, skin, and nails’ vitamins,” she added. If hair loss doesn’t stop, a dermatologist can look for other contributors and discuss strategies for hair restoration.
Individuals who undergo bariatric surgery require lifelong vitamin supplementation and yearly (or more frequent) lab testing, she noted.
“With, for example, bariatric surgery or any type of diet change you want to make sure you still maintain a balanced diet, whether its calories, protein, iron, zinc, vitamins (vitamin D for example),” Dr. Massick echoed.
Similarly, Dr. Peters advised: “I would say to maintain a normal healthy diet even if eating less. Exercise. Do all those healthy things. Taking a daily multivitamin isn’t a bad idea. Talk with a nutritionist. Use the appetite suppression of the medication to combine with healthy eating.”
“If someone is having new hair loss, they should see their clinician to evaluate for all possible causes,” Dr. Weintraub said. “Their provider can evaluate for underlying causes like thyroid dysfunction, iron deficiency, and vitamin D deficiency.”
However, if a patient’s pattern of hair loss is not diffuse but occurs in patches, this has an entirely different set of etiologies probably unrelated to antiobesity medication and should be evaluated.
Working with a nutritionist to ensure that patients have sufficient protein and micronutrient intake can lower the risk of developing hair loss and other complications, Dr. Weintraub said. “This is particularly important for certain forms of bariatric surgery such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, since that can lead to malabsorption of specific vitamins and minerals that need to be periodically measured and supplemented.”
In individuals starting an antiobesity medication, beginning a daily multivitamin has little harm, he added, and can ensure they are getting essential minerals and vitamins. However, no studies have specifically investigated this yet.
“Ultimately, it’s important to weigh the benefits of antiobesity medications against the potential risks, as we do with any medical intervention,” according to Dr. Weintraub.
“The purpose of treating obesity,” he stressed, “is to reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke, and multiple types of cancers. It’s up to the individual to weigh these benefits against the risks of the treatment, including the low risk of developing temporary hair loss.”
Dr. Peters writes a column for Medscape and disclosed that she served as a consultant for Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care; received a research grant from Abbott Diabetes Care; and received stock options from Teladoc and Omada Health. Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Saunders, Dr. Massick, and Dr. Weintraub declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Should people be concerned about possible hair loss when taking Wegovy, Ozempic, or Mounjaro for weight loss (where the latter two drugs are being used off label) – as was recently claimed by some people on social media and reported in news stories?
The consensus among dermatologists and endocrinologists is no.
It’s up to the individual to weigh the benefits of treating obesity against the risks of the therapy, including the low risk of developing temporary hair loss, says one expert.
Wegovy, Ozempic, and Mounjaro
Of these three newer medications, only the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (since June 2021) for weight management – specifically for people with either obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) or overweight (BMI ≥ 27) plus at least one weight-related comorbidity such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and high cholesterol – with a dosage up to a 2.4-mg weekly injection.
When there was a short supply of Wegovy soon after it became available, some people turned to the same drug – semaglutide, but marketed as Ozempic for type 2 diabetes, which is titrated up to a 2-mg weekly injection. Still others opted for tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a dual GLP-1 agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist. Tirzepatide is approved for type 2 diabetes in the United States but is not yet approved for weight loss.
Wegovy shortages continue to be reported.
; of interest, it was more common after bariatric surgery.
In clinical trials, 3% of patients receiving Wegovy (a 2.4-mg/wk injection) versus 1% of patients receiving placebo reported alopecia. Hair loss was not reported as a side effect in clinical trials of Ozempic (a 2-mg/wk injection) for type 2 diabetes. In a clinical trial of tirzepatide for weight loss in obesity, 5.7% of patients taking the highest dose (a 15-mg once-weekly injection) reported alopecia vs 1% of those who got a placebo.
In contrast, a review of 18 mostly observational studies reported that 57% of patients had hair loss after bariatric surgery.
Is it the drug or the rapid weight loss?
None of the experts consulted for this article had seen patients who came to them about hair loss while taking these drugs for weight loss.
“I have not seen patients complaining of hair loss from these medications, but perhaps it is just a matter of time,” said Lynne J. Goldberg, MD, a professor of dermatology and pathology and laboratory medicine, at Boston University, and director of the hair clinic at Boston Medical Center.
“Some of my patients lose hair when they lose weight, generally as a result of the weight loss itself and not as a side effect of these medications,” said Katharine H. Saunders, MD, an obesity medicine physician, cofounder of Intellihealth, and an assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“Hair loss from rapid weight loss is very common [and] not necessarily a side effect of the medication itself but more as a result of how quickly the weight loss occurs,” echoed Susan Massick, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Ohio State University, and a dermatologist at Ohio State’s Wexner Medical Center, both in Columbus.
“Hair loss is tricky,” observed Anne Peters, MD, director of clinical diabetes programs at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Losing weight and/or changing your diet causes hair loss. Stress can cause hair loss. So, it is hard to separate weight loss from medication effect.”
Telogen effluvium (stress shedding) with rapid weight loss
The hair loss seems to be associated with rapid weight loss, the experts agreed.
“It is rare, but we can see patients who have a period of diffuse hair loss, called telogen effluvium, or ‘stress shedding’ with rapid weight loss,” said Michael A. Weintraub, MD, an endocrinologist at NYU Langone Health, New York.
This hair loss occurs in relation to either physical (surgery, pregnancy, illness) or emotional stress, added Dr. Weintraub, who is an assistant professor at NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
Hair loss caused by rapid weight loss could be caused by an antiobesity medication, but it could also occur with other obesity treatments, such as bariatric surgery or drastic dietary changes, he said. The hair shedding is typically short lived and reversible.
About 80%-85% of hair is in the anagen (growth) phase, about 5% is in a transitional (catagen) phase, and the rest is in telogen (resting, or shedding) phase, Dr. Massick explained. In telogen effluvium, hairs that are normally in the growth phase get suddenly shifted to telogen phase and are shed rapidly.
“Telogen effluvium can be caused by rapid weight loss, major surgery, severe COVID infection, high fever, or death in the family,” she noted. “You will not go bald with telogen effluvium, but you might find that you may lose a good volume of hair,” much more than the normal loss of up to 100 hairs a day.
“I counsel my patients about the possibility of losing hair before they undergo bariatric surgery,” Dr. Saunders said. “Generally, the health benefits of weight loss and weight maintenance outweigh the risk of temporary hair loss.”
Nutritional deficiencies and malnutrition can contribute to hair loss as well, and iron deficiency is sometimes a culprit, she added.
“If someone is worried” about hair loss associated with weight loss, “they should see their doctor,” Dr. Peters said. “If they are on thyroid hormone, in particular, the levels should be retested after weight loss.”
Hair loss appears more common after bariatric surgery than with antiobesity medications,” Dr. Weintraub observed, and it is unclear whether this is because the weight loss is more dramatic after surgery and thus a greater stressor, or whether it is caused by nutrient deficiency or a different mechanism entirely.
“Unlike certain forms of bariatric surgery, which can lead to malabsorption (e.g., Roux-en-Y gastric bypass), medications such as GLP-1 agonists and GLP-1/GIP dual agonists do not cause malabsorption,” Dr. Weintraub noted. “So nutritional deficiencies are less likely to be the cause of new hair loss in those taking antiobesity medications than [in] someone who underwent bariatric surgery.”
Iron and vitamin D deficiencies are the most common nutritional deficiencies that can cause hair loss, he noted.
Slow and steady weight loss rather than rapid
“I would suggest that patients try to keep the weight loss slow and steady, rather than rapid,” Dr. Goldberg said, “and follow any vitamin/mineral supplementation plan that they are given. Patients with bariatric surgery have nutritional guidance and a supplementation plan.”
“Follow a well-balanced dietary strategy with ample protein, vegetables, and some fruit,” Dr. Saunders said. Health care providers should monitor lab tests to check for and treat vitamin deficiencies, and registered dietitians can be crucial to ensure proper nutrition. She advises patients: “Find coping strategies to reduce stress and get enough sleep. If iron levels are low, start an iron supplement under your provider’s supervision.”
“Some of my patients swear by biotin supplements, prenatal vitamins or ‘hair, skin, and nails’ vitamins,” she added. If hair loss doesn’t stop, a dermatologist can look for other contributors and discuss strategies for hair restoration.
Individuals who undergo bariatric surgery require lifelong vitamin supplementation and yearly (or more frequent) lab testing, she noted.
“With, for example, bariatric surgery or any type of diet change you want to make sure you still maintain a balanced diet, whether its calories, protein, iron, zinc, vitamins (vitamin D for example),” Dr. Massick echoed.
Similarly, Dr. Peters advised: “I would say to maintain a normal healthy diet even if eating less. Exercise. Do all those healthy things. Taking a daily multivitamin isn’t a bad idea. Talk with a nutritionist. Use the appetite suppression of the medication to combine with healthy eating.”
“If someone is having new hair loss, they should see their clinician to evaluate for all possible causes,” Dr. Weintraub said. “Their provider can evaluate for underlying causes like thyroid dysfunction, iron deficiency, and vitamin D deficiency.”
However, if a patient’s pattern of hair loss is not diffuse but occurs in patches, this has an entirely different set of etiologies probably unrelated to antiobesity medication and should be evaluated.
Working with a nutritionist to ensure that patients have sufficient protein and micronutrient intake can lower the risk of developing hair loss and other complications, Dr. Weintraub said. “This is particularly important for certain forms of bariatric surgery such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, since that can lead to malabsorption of specific vitamins and minerals that need to be periodically measured and supplemented.”
In individuals starting an antiobesity medication, beginning a daily multivitamin has little harm, he added, and can ensure they are getting essential minerals and vitamins. However, no studies have specifically investigated this yet.
“Ultimately, it’s important to weigh the benefits of antiobesity medications against the potential risks, as we do with any medical intervention,” according to Dr. Weintraub.
“The purpose of treating obesity,” he stressed, “is to reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke, and multiple types of cancers. It’s up to the individual to weigh these benefits against the risks of the treatment, including the low risk of developing temporary hair loss.”
Dr. Peters writes a column for Medscape and disclosed that she served as a consultant for Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care; received a research grant from Abbott Diabetes Care; and received stock options from Teladoc and Omada Health. Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Saunders, Dr. Massick, and Dr. Weintraub declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Half of deaths from homozygous FH occur before age 32 years
MANNHEIM, GERMANY –
The researchers looked at almost 40 patients from the HoFH International Clinical Collaborators (HICC) registry who had died before data entry, finding that they had a mean age of diagnosis of 12 years.
Even those who received treatment had high LDL cholesterol levels, and 70% developed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) at a median age of 28 years.
Worryingly, the results showed that the median age at death was 32 years. Results were presented at the annual congress of the European Atherosclerosis Society.
Patients with HoFH “have severe atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk,” said study presenter Janneke Mulder, a PhD candidate at the department of internal medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
“Therefore, early diagnosis and initiation of treatments, and also a combination of treatments, is really crucial,” she added.
Call to action
Approached for comment, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, full professor of cardiology, Polish Mother’s Memorial Hospital Research Institute, Lodz, and Secretary of the EAS, described the results as “terrifying.”
He said in an interview that they are a “call to action,” especially given that so few patients in the study received intensive combination lipid-lowering therapy despite having a baseline LDL cholesterol level that was “very, very high.”
Banach underlined that patients who receive triple lipid-lowering therapy with a high-intensity statin, ezetimibe (Nustendi), and a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor, could expect, based on current evidence, to see their LDL cholesterol levels reduced by 85% and be on target.
“Obviously, this is kind of academic,” because in the real-world “this 85% is not observed very often,” but it offers a target for steep reductions in cholesterol levels.
“This is something that we should focus on for these patients from the beginning,” said Dr. Banach, either with a stepwise approach “or for experts in pediatric HoFH, “maybe immediately.”
He emphasized that clinicians have everything at hand to “be both effective in the early diagnosis of HoFH, the earlier the better, and obviously to be effective with its treatment.”
“We should do something to prolong the lives of those people,” because the current results are “terrifying,” Dr. Banach added.
Rare genetic condition
Presenting her findings, Ms. Mulder began by highlighting that HoFH is a “rare genetic condition that occurs due to mutations in cholesterol metabolism.”
This, she continued, leads to “severely increased LDL cholesterol levels, and consequently to very premature cardiovascular disease,” with patients potentially experiencing their first cardiovascular event before age 20 years.
Ms. Mulder pointed out that, although there have been case series in the literature on HoFH, they have had “limited numbers” and patients have typically spent decades being treated at the same lipid management clinic.
To broaden the understanding of the clinical characteristics and management of patients dying with HoFH, the team examined data from the HICC registry, which is “the largest contemporary database of homozygous FH patients,” Ms. Mulder said.
It includes 751 patients with HoFH from 88 centers in 38 countries who were alive in 2010 or later. Data entry was between 2016 and 2020. The current analysis focused on 37 patients who had already died by the time they were included on the registry.
Of those, 49% were women, 38% were of White ethnicity, and 43% were from high-income countries.
The median age at diagnosis was 12 years, Ms. Mulder said, explaining that this is similar to that seen in other studies. The majority (86%) underwent genetic testing, and 92% presented with xanthomas.
Ms. Mulder also noted that, at their final clinical evaluation, which was conducted a median age of 18 years after their initial diagnosis, 43% of patients were recorded as current or former smokers.
In terms of their lipid-lowering therapy, 94% were taking a statin, whereas 68% were on ezetimibe, and 23% were undergoing apheresis.
Ms. Mulder said that the median number of lipid-lowering therapies per patient was two, and that “sadly ... 26% of the deceased patients had only one or no treatment.”
Therefore, perhaps unsurprisingly even those patients who were receiving treatment had LDL cholesterol levels that were “too high,” at 9.4 mmol/L versus 15.6 mmol/L among those who were untreated.
There was a high prevalence of ASCVD, at 70% overall, or 41% for aortic stenosis, 30% for myocardial infarction, 30% for angina pectoris, and 22% each for aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting. In addition, 19% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention.
The median age of onset for ASCVD was 28 years. Ms. Mulder pointed out, however, that, as data were not available for all patients, “this might be an underestimation.” About 70% of patients experienced recurrent ASCVD.
There was a wide range in the age at which patients with HoFH died, although the median was, “strikingly,” 32 years, Ms. Mulder said. Death was confirmed as stemming from cardiovascular causes in 76% of cases.
During the postpresentation discussion, session chair Antonio J. Vallejo-Vaz, PhD, from the Research Group of Clinical Epidemiology and Vascular Risk, Institute of Biomedicine of Seville (Spain), highlighted that, if 38% of the patients were of White ethnicity, then the remainder must therefore be from other ethnic groups.
“There could be potential issues with accessibility to lipid centers” for these patients, which could affect the findings, noted Dr. Vallejo-Vaz, who is also chief scientist of the EAS Familial Hypercholesterolaemia Studies Collaboration.
Ms. Mulder agreed, replying that their results, though already striking, may be an underestimation because the patients were all from either high or middle-income countries, “so it would be good to have some data on low-income countries.”
She was also asked about two patients who died at a much older age than did the others, at ages 70 years and 86 years, respectively, and whether they had, for example, a protective genetic mutation.
Ms. Mulder said that they do not yet know, but they are planning an extended case series on these and other long-lived patients so that they can be investigated further.
No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MANNHEIM, GERMANY –
The researchers looked at almost 40 patients from the HoFH International Clinical Collaborators (HICC) registry who had died before data entry, finding that they had a mean age of diagnosis of 12 years.
Even those who received treatment had high LDL cholesterol levels, and 70% developed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) at a median age of 28 years.
Worryingly, the results showed that the median age at death was 32 years. Results were presented at the annual congress of the European Atherosclerosis Society.
Patients with HoFH “have severe atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk,” said study presenter Janneke Mulder, a PhD candidate at the department of internal medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
“Therefore, early diagnosis and initiation of treatments, and also a combination of treatments, is really crucial,” she added.
Call to action
Approached for comment, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, full professor of cardiology, Polish Mother’s Memorial Hospital Research Institute, Lodz, and Secretary of the EAS, described the results as “terrifying.”
He said in an interview that they are a “call to action,” especially given that so few patients in the study received intensive combination lipid-lowering therapy despite having a baseline LDL cholesterol level that was “very, very high.”
Banach underlined that patients who receive triple lipid-lowering therapy with a high-intensity statin, ezetimibe (Nustendi), and a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor, could expect, based on current evidence, to see their LDL cholesterol levels reduced by 85% and be on target.
“Obviously, this is kind of academic,” because in the real-world “this 85% is not observed very often,” but it offers a target for steep reductions in cholesterol levels.
“This is something that we should focus on for these patients from the beginning,” said Dr. Banach, either with a stepwise approach “or for experts in pediatric HoFH, “maybe immediately.”
He emphasized that clinicians have everything at hand to “be both effective in the early diagnosis of HoFH, the earlier the better, and obviously to be effective with its treatment.”
“We should do something to prolong the lives of those people,” because the current results are “terrifying,” Dr. Banach added.
Rare genetic condition
Presenting her findings, Ms. Mulder began by highlighting that HoFH is a “rare genetic condition that occurs due to mutations in cholesterol metabolism.”
This, she continued, leads to “severely increased LDL cholesterol levels, and consequently to very premature cardiovascular disease,” with patients potentially experiencing their first cardiovascular event before age 20 years.
Ms. Mulder pointed out that, although there have been case series in the literature on HoFH, they have had “limited numbers” and patients have typically spent decades being treated at the same lipid management clinic.
To broaden the understanding of the clinical characteristics and management of patients dying with HoFH, the team examined data from the HICC registry, which is “the largest contemporary database of homozygous FH patients,” Ms. Mulder said.
It includes 751 patients with HoFH from 88 centers in 38 countries who were alive in 2010 or later. Data entry was between 2016 and 2020. The current analysis focused on 37 patients who had already died by the time they were included on the registry.
Of those, 49% were women, 38% were of White ethnicity, and 43% were from high-income countries.
The median age at diagnosis was 12 years, Ms. Mulder said, explaining that this is similar to that seen in other studies. The majority (86%) underwent genetic testing, and 92% presented with xanthomas.
Ms. Mulder also noted that, at their final clinical evaluation, which was conducted a median age of 18 years after their initial diagnosis, 43% of patients were recorded as current or former smokers.
In terms of their lipid-lowering therapy, 94% were taking a statin, whereas 68% were on ezetimibe, and 23% were undergoing apheresis.
Ms. Mulder said that the median number of lipid-lowering therapies per patient was two, and that “sadly ... 26% of the deceased patients had only one or no treatment.”
Therefore, perhaps unsurprisingly even those patients who were receiving treatment had LDL cholesterol levels that were “too high,” at 9.4 mmol/L versus 15.6 mmol/L among those who were untreated.
There was a high prevalence of ASCVD, at 70% overall, or 41% for aortic stenosis, 30% for myocardial infarction, 30% for angina pectoris, and 22% each for aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting. In addition, 19% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention.
The median age of onset for ASCVD was 28 years. Ms. Mulder pointed out, however, that, as data were not available for all patients, “this might be an underestimation.” About 70% of patients experienced recurrent ASCVD.
There was a wide range in the age at which patients with HoFH died, although the median was, “strikingly,” 32 years, Ms. Mulder said. Death was confirmed as stemming from cardiovascular causes in 76% of cases.
During the postpresentation discussion, session chair Antonio J. Vallejo-Vaz, PhD, from the Research Group of Clinical Epidemiology and Vascular Risk, Institute of Biomedicine of Seville (Spain), highlighted that, if 38% of the patients were of White ethnicity, then the remainder must therefore be from other ethnic groups.
“There could be potential issues with accessibility to lipid centers” for these patients, which could affect the findings, noted Dr. Vallejo-Vaz, who is also chief scientist of the EAS Familial Hypercholesterolaemia Studies Collaboration.
Ms. Mulder agreed, replying that their results, though already striking, may be an underestimation because the patients were all from either high or middle-income countries, “so it would be good to have some data on low-income countries.”
She was also asked about two patients who died at a much older age than did the others, at ages 70 years and 86 years, respectively, and whether they had, for example, a protective genetic mutation.
Ms. Mulder said that they do not yet know, but they are planning an extended case series on these and other long-lived patients so that they can be investigated further.
No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MANNHEIM, GERMANY –
The researchers looked at almost 40 patients from the HoFH International Clinical Collaborators (HICC) registry who had died before data entry, finding that they had a mean age of diagnosis of 12 years.
Even those who received treatment had high LDL cholesterol levels, and 70% developed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) at a median age of 28 years.
Worryingly, the results showed that the median age at death was 32 years. Results were presented at the annual congress of the European Atherosclerosis Society.
Patients with HoFH “have severe atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk,” said study presenter Janneke Mulder, a PhD candidate at the department of internal medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
“Therefore, early diagnosis and initiation of treatments, and also a combination of treatments, is really crucial,” she added.
Call to action
Approached for comment, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, full professor of cardiology, Polish Mother’s Memorial Hospital Research Institute, Lodz, and Secretary of the EAS, described the results as “terrifying.”
He said in an interview that they are a “call to action,” especially given that so few patients in the study received intensive combination lipid-lowering therapy despite having a baseline LDL cholesterol level that was “very, very high.”
Banach underlined that patients who receive triple lipid-lowering therapy with a high-intensity statin, ezetimibe (Nustendi), and a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor, could expect, based on current evidence, to see their LDL cholesterol levels reduced by 85% and be on target.
“Obviously, this is kind of academic,” because in the real-world “this 85% is not observed very often,” but it offers a target for steep reductions in cholesterol levels.
“This is something that we should focus on for these patients from the beginning,” said Dr. Banach, either with a stepwise approach “or for experts in pediatric HoFH, “maybe immediately.”
He emphasized that clinicians have everything at hand to “be both effective in the early diagnosis of HoFH, the earlier the better, and obviously to be effective with its treatment.”
“We should do something to prolong the lives of those people,” because the current results are “terrifying,” Dr. Banach added.
Rare genetic condition
Presenting her findings, Ms. Mulder began by highlighting that HoFH is a “rare genetic condition that occurs due to mutations in cholesterol metabolism.”
This, she continued, leads to “severely increased LDL cholesterol levels, and consequently to very premature cardiovascular disease,” with patients potentially experiencing their first cardiovascular event before age 20 years.
Ms. Mulder pointed out that, although there have been case series in the literature on HoFH, they have had “limited numbers” and patients have typically spent decades being treated at the same lipid management clinic.
To broaden the understanding of the clinical characteristics and management of patients dying with HoFH, the team examined data from the HICC registry, which is “the largest contemporary database of homozygous FH patients,” Ms. Mulder said.
It includes 751 patients with HoFH from 88 centers in 38 countries who were alive in 2010 or later. Data entry was between 2016 and 2020. The current analysis focused on 37 patients who had already died by the time they were included on the registry.
Of those, 49% were women, 38% were of White ethnicity, and 43% were from high-income countries.
The median age at diagnosis was 12 years, Ms. Mulder said, explaining that this is similar to that seen in other studies. The majority (86%) underwent genetic testing, and 92% presented with xanthomas.
Ms. Mulder also noted that, at their final clinical evaluation, which was conducted a median age of 18 years after their initial diagnosis, 43% of patients were recorded as current or former smokers.
In terms of their lipid-lowering therapy, 94% were taking a statin, whereas 68% were on ezetimibe, and 23% were undergoing apheresis.
Ms. Mulder said that the median number of lipid-lowering therapies per patient was two, and that “sadly ... 26% of the deceased patients had only one or no treatment.”
Therefore, perhaps unsurprisingly even those patients who were receiving treatment had LDL cholesterol levels that were “too high,” at 9.4 mmol/L versus 15.6 mmol/L among those who were untreated.
There was a high prevalence of ASCVD, at 70% overall, or 41% for aortic stenosis, 30% for myocardial infarction, 30% for angina pectoris, and 22% each for aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting. In addition, 19% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention.
The median age of onset for ASCVD was 28 years. Ms. Mulder pointed out, however, that, as data were not available for all patients, “this might be an underestimation.” About 70% of patients experienced recurrent ASCVD.
There was a wide range in the age at which patients with HoFH died, although the median was, “strikingly,” 32 years, Ms. Mulder said. Death was confirmed as stemming from cardiovascular causes in 76% of cases.
During the postpresentation discussion, session chair Antonio J. Vallejo-Vaz, PhD, from the Research Group of Clinical Epidemiology and Vascular Risk, Institute of Biomedicine of Seville (Spain), highlighted that, if 38% of the patients were of White ethnicity, then the remainder must therefore be from other ethnic groups.
“There could be potential issues with accessibility to lipid centers” for these patients, which could affect the findings, noted Dr. Vallejo-Vaz, who is also chief scientist of the EAS Familial Hypercholesterolaemia Studies Collaboration.
Ms. Mulder agreed, replying that their results, though already striking, may be an underestimation because the patients were all from either high or middle-income countries, “so it would be good to have some data on low-income countries.”
She was also asked about two patients who died at a much older age than did the others, at ages 70 years and 86 years, respectively, and whether they had, for example, a protective genetic mutation.
Ms. Mulder said that they do not yet know, but they are planning an extended case series on these and other long-lived patients so that they can be investigated further.
No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People still want their medical intelligence in human form
Doctors or AI? Lukewarm vote of confidence goes to …
Well, we’ve got some good news for the physicians out there, and we’ve got some bad news. Which do you want first? Okay, we’re mostly hearing good news, so here goes: Most people would choose a human doctor over artificial intelligence for the diagnosis and treatment of their medical conditions.
And the bad news? In the survey we’re talking about, “most” was 53%, so not exactly a huge victory for the carbon-based life forms. Yup, about 47% of the 2,472 respondents said they would prefer an AI-based clinic over a human specialist, and that number went up if individuals were told that their primary care physicians were on board with AI, “or otherwise nudged to consider AI as good,” the research team said in a written statement released by the University of Arizona, Tucson.
They went on to add that “this signaled the significance of the human physician in guiding a patient’s decision.” So patients will still need their doctors in the future to … um … this is a bit awkward … tell them how good the AI is?
And yes, we know that ChatGPT is already doing the same thing to journalists, but could it write a medical-humor column? Not a chance. Probably can’t even tell a joke.
How do ghosts get rid of wrinkles? Boo-tox. There, let’s see ChatGPT do that.
Explaining the joke makes it funnier, right?
Here at LOTME headquarters, we live by one simple rule, passed down directly from the Buddha himself: “Never let a good presurgical assessment of refractory epilepsy go to waste. Also, don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.”
This human-created joke has been brought to you by the leading theory of humor, which states that comedy stems from our brain reacting to an incongruous part of reality in a positive way. These positive emotions light up our neurons in a specific fashion, and boom, comedy is achieved.
Previous studies into the science of comedy have typically used functional MRI to analyze the brain while it was gripped in the throes of a comedic reaction. Unfortunately, fMRI cannot detect the entirety of the electromagnetic spectrum generated by the brain during these moments, so observing scientists have been, quite literally, missing out on some of the joke. And that’s where a new study from France comes in.
In the study, the researchers showed a group of patients with epilepsy who were hooked up to deep brain electrodes and a high-tech neuroimaging machine – part of the aforementioned presurgical assessment – a 3-minute excerpt from a Charlie Chaplin movie and analyzed their brain activity. Why Charlie Chaplin? Simple. Slapstick is perhaps the most accessible form of comedy across cultures. We can all appreciate a man getting hit in the head with a coconut. The world’s oldest bar joke or whatever this is? Not so much.
During the funniest scenes, all study participants showed increased high-frequency gamma waves (indicating high cognitive engagement) and a decrease in low-frequency waves (indicating reduced inattention and introspection). During unfunny scenes, such as transition moments, the opposite occurred. Importantly, this inverse relationship occurred in the temporal lobe but not in other regions, supporting previous research that indicated humor was mainly processed in the temporal lobe.
The investigators suggested future research should focus on longer videos with more complex forms of comedy, such as jokes, irony, sarcasm, or reference humor. So, uh, a guy getting hit in the head with two coconuts? That’s high-brow stuff right there.
Hot take: Humans aren’t that special
We humans have always prided ourselves on being different from “the animals” in an exceptional way. News flash! We aren’t. We may be the apex predator, but new research shows that humans, as part of the animal kingdom, just aren’t special.
Not special? How can they say that? Are gorillas doing open-heart surgery? Do wolverines tell jokes? At a more basic level, though, the way we operate as mammals in societies is not unique or even new. Elephants are known to mourn their deceased and to have funeral-like practices, ants invented agriculture, and we’re certainly not the only species that has figured out how to use tools.
This new research just demonstrates another way we aren’t exceptional, and that’s in our mating practices and outcomes.
“Humans appear to resemble mammals that live in monogamous partnerships and to some extent, those classified as cooperative breeders, where breeding individuals have to rely on the help of others to raise their offspring,” Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, PhD, professor emerita of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, said in a written statement.
The research team, which consisted of over 100 investigators, looked at 90 human populations based on data from over 80,000 people globally and compared the human data with 49 different nonhuman mammal species. In polygynous societies in which men take several wives, they found, women have more access to resources like food, shelter, and parenting help. Monogamy, on the other hand, “can drive significant inequalities among women,” Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said, by promoting large differences in the number of children couples produce.
Human day-to-day behavior and child-rearing habits – one parent taking a daughter to ballet class and fixing dinner so the other parent can get to exercise class before picking up the son from soccer practice – may have us thinking that we are part of an evolved society, but really we are not much different than other mammals that hunt, forage for food, and rear and teach their children, the researchers suggested.
So, yes, humans can travel to the moon, create a vaccine for smallpox, and hit other humans with coconuts, but when it comes to simply having offspring or raising them, we’re not all that special. Get over it.
Doctors or AI? Lukewarm vote of confidence goes to …
Well, we’ve got some good news for the physicians out there, and we’ve got some bad news. Which do you want first? Okay, we’re mostly hearing good news, so here goes: Most people would choose a human doctor over artificial intelligence for the diagnosis and treatment of their medical conditions.
And the bad news? In the survey we’re talking about, “most” was 53%, so not exactly a huge victory for the carbon-based life forms. Yup, about 47% of the 2,472 respondents said they would prefer an AI-based clinic over a human specialist, and that number went up if individuals were told that their primary care physicians were on board with AI, “or otherwise nudged to consider AI as good,” the research team said in a written statement released by the University of Arizona, Tucson.
They went on to add that “this signaled the significance of the human physician in guiding a patient’s decision.” So patients will still need their doctors in the future to … um … this is a bit awkward … tell them how good the AI is?
And yes, we know that ChatGPT is already doing the same thing to journalists, but could it write a medical-humor column? Not a chance. Probably can’t even tell a joke.
How do ghosts get rid of wrinkles? Boo-tox. There, let’s see ChatGPT do that.
Explaining the joke makes it funnier, right?
Here at LOTME headquarters, we live by one simple rule, passed down directly from the Buddha himself: “Never let a good presurgical assessment of refractory epilepsy go to waste. Also, don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.”
This human-created joke has been brought to you by the leading theory of humor, which states that comedy stems from our brain reacting to an incongruous part of reality in a positive way. These positive emotions light up our neurons in a specific fashion, and boom, comedy is achieved.
Previous studies into the science of comedy have typically used functional MRI to analyze the brain while it was gripped in the throes of a comedic reaction. Unfortunately, fMRI cannot detect the entirety of the electromagnetic spectrum generated by the brain during these moments, so observing scientists have been, quite literally, missing out on some of the joke. And that’s where a new study from France comes in.
In the study, the researchers showed a group of patients with epilepsy who were hooked up to deep brain electrodes and a high-tech neuroimaging machine – part of the aforementioned presurgical assessment – a 3-minute excerpt from a Charlie Chaplin movie and analyzed their brain activity. Why Charlie Chaplin? Simple. Slapstick is perhaps the most accessible form of comedy across cultures. We can all appreciate a man getting hit in the head with a coconut. The world’s oldest bar joke or whatever this is? Not so much.
During the funniest scenes, all study participants showed increased high-frequency gamma waves (indicating high cognitive engagement) and a decrease in low-frequency waves (indicating reduced inattention and introspection). During unfunny scenes, such as transition moments, the opposite occurred. Importantly, this inverse relationship occurred in the temporal lobe but not in other regions, supporting previous research that indicated humor was mainly processed in the temporal lobe.
The investigators suggested future research should focus on longer videos with more complex forms of comedy, such as jokes, irony, sarcasm, or reference humor. So, uh, a guy getting hit in the head with two coconuts? That’s high-brow stuff right there.
Hot take: Humans aren’t that special
We humans have always prided ourselves on being different from “the animals” in an exceptional way. News flash! We aren’t. We may be the apex predator, but new research shows that humans, as part of the animal kingdom, just aren’t special.
Not special? How can they say that? Are gorillas doing open-heart surgery? Do wolverines tell jokes? At a more basic level, though, the way we operate as mammals in societies is not unique or even new. Elephants are known to mourn their deceased and to have funeral-like practices, ants invented agriculture, and we’re certainly not the only species that has figured out how to use tools.
This new research just demonstrates another way we aren’t exceptional, and that’s in our mating practices and outcomes.
“Humans appear to resemble mammals that live in monogamous partnerships and to some extent, those classified as cooperative breeders, where breeding individuals have to rely on the help of others to raise their offspring,” Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, PhD, professor emerita of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, said in a written statement.
The research team, which consisted of over 100 investigators, looked at 90 human populations based on data from over 80,000 people globally and compared the human data with 49 different nonhuman mammal species. In polygynous societies in which men take several wives, they found, women have more access to resources like food, shelter, and parenting help. Monogamy, on the other hand, “can drive significant inequalities among women,” Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said, by promoting large differences in the number of children couples produce.
Human day-to-day behavior and child-rearing habits – one parent taking a daughter to ballet class and fixing dinner so the other parent can get to exercise class before picking up the son from soccer practice – may have us thinking that we are part of an evolved society, but really we are not much different than other mammals that hunt, forage for food, and rear and teach their children, the researchers suggested.
So, yes, humans can travel to the moon, create a vaccine for smallpox, and hit other humans with coconuts, but when it comes to simply having offspring or raising them, we’re not all that special. Get over it.
Doctors or AI? Lukewarm vote of confidence goes to …
Well, we’ve got some good news for the physicians out there, and we’ve got some bad news. Which do you want first? Okay, we’re mostly hearing good news, so here goes: Most people would choose a human doctor over artificial intelligence for the diagnosis and treatment of their medical conditions.
And the bad news? In the survey we’re talking about, “most” was 53%, so not exactly a huge victory for the carbon-based life forms. Yup, about 47% of the 2,472 respondents said they would prefer an AI-based clinic over a human specialist, and that number went up if individuals were told that their primary care physicians were on board with AI, “or otherwise nudged to consider AI as good,” the research team said in a written statement released by the University of Arizona, Tucson.
They went on to add that “this signaled the significance of the human physician in guiding a patient’s decision.” So patients will still need their doctors in the future to … um … this is a bit awkward … tell them how good the AI is?
And yes, we know that ChatGPT is already doing the same thing to journalists, but could it write a medical-humor column? Not a chance. Probably can’t even tell a joke.
How do ghosts get rid of wrinkles? Boo-tox. There, let’s see ChatGPT do that.
Explaining the joke makes it funnier, right?
Here at LOTME headquarters, we live by one simple rule, passed down directly from the Buddha himself: “Never let a good presurgical assessment of refractory epilepsy go to waste. Also, don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.”
This human-created joke has been brought to you by the leading theory of humor, which states that comedy stems from our brain reacting to an incongruous part of reality in a positive way. These positive emotions light up our neurons in a specific fashion, and boom, comedy is achieved.
Previous studies into the science of comedy have typically used functional MRI to analyze the brain while it was gripped in the throes of a comedic reaction. Unfortunately, fMRI cannot detect the entirety of the electromagnetic spectrum generated by the brain during these moments, so observing scientists have been, quite literally, missing out on some of the joke. And that’s where a new study from France comes in.
In the study, the researchers showed a group of patients with epilepsy who were hooked up to deep brain electrodes and a high-tech neuroimaging machine – part of the aforementioned presurgical assessment – a 3-minute excerpt from a Charlie Chaplin movie and analyzed their brain activity. Why Charlie Chaplin? Simple. Slapstick is perhaps the most accessible form of comedy across cultures. We can all appreciate a man getting hit in the head with a coconut. The world’s oldest bar joke or whatever this is? Not so much.
During the funniest scenes, all study participants showed increased high-frequency gamma waves (indicating high cognitive engagement) and a decrease in low-frequency waves (indicating reduced inattention and introspection). During unfunny scenes, such as transition moments, the opposite occurred. Importantly, this inverse relationship occurred in the temporal lobe but not in other regions, supporting previous research that indicated humor was mainly processed in the temporal lobe.
The investigators suggested future research should focus on longer videos with more complex forms of comedy, such as jokes, irony, sarcasm, or reference humor. So, uh, a guy getting hit in the head with two coconuts? That’s high-brow stuff right there.
Hot take: Humans aren’t that special
We humans have always prided ourselves on being different from “the animals” in an exceptional way. News flash! We aren’t. We may be the apex predator, but new research shows that humans, as part of the animal kingdom, just aren’t special.
Not special? How can they say that? Are gorillas doing open-heart surgery? Do wolverines tell jokes? At a more basic level, though, the way we operate as mammals in societies is not unique or even new. Elephants are known to mourn their deceased and to have funeral-like practices, ants invented agriculture, and we’re certainly not the only species that has figured out how to use tools.
This new research just demonstrates another way we aren’t exceptional, and that’s in our mating practices and outcomes.
“Humans appear to resemble mammals that live in monogamous partnerships and to some extent, those classified as cooperative breeders, where breeding individuals have to rely on the help of others to raise their offspring,” Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, PhD, professor emerita of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, said in a written statement.
The research team, which consisted of over 100 investigators, looked at 90 human populations based on data from over 80,000 people globally and compared the human data with 49 different nonhuman mammal species. In polygynous societies in which men take several wives, they found, women have more access to resources like food, shelter, and parenting help. Monogamy, on the other hand, “can drive significant inequalities among women,” Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said, by promoting large differences in the number of children couples produce.
Human day-to-day behavior and child-rearing habits – one parent taking a daughter to ballet class and fixing dinner so the other parent can get to exercise class before picking up the son from soccer practice – may have us thinking that we are part of an evolved society, but really we are not much different than other mammals that hunt, forage for food, and rear and teach their children, the researchers suggested.
So, yes, humans can travel to the moon, create a vaccine for smallpox, and hit other humans with coconuts, but when it comes to simply having offspring or raising them, we’re not all that special. Get over it.
Tweaking food delivery apps can lower calories purchased
DUBLIN – , show three new randomized trials from the United Kingdom.
The prominent positioning of low-calorie menu items, and restaurants with low-calorie main meals, on a food app emerged as the most promising approach to promote healthier eating, followed by preselecting smaller portions by default, and finally calorie labels, Anna Keleher, MPA, a behavioral scientist at Nesta, London, reported at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) meeting.
“Many out-of-home meals have more calories than meals cooked in-home and using delivery apps is linked with a higher risk of becoming overweight or obese,” she remarked. “We’re interested in understanding more about delivery apps because they can be modified at scale easily and can reach millions of people with interventions to promote healthier and more nutritious options in these settings.”
Food delivery apps have surged in use in the United Kingdom with a 55% increase since 2015; examples include Uber Eats, Just Eat, and Deliveroo. “This trend is similar in the United States, with more and more consumers using delivery apps to buy food,” said Ms. Keleher, a senior adviser at the Behavioral Insights Team, New York.
Emma Boyland, PhD, an obesity psychologist from Liverpool (England) University, said: “Apps are an increasingly popular way for people to buy food and the virtual food environment is becoming as prominent as the physical food environment in how we go about obtaining meals.”
She highlighted the need to understand more about how food apps change the way we purchase and eat, but noted that “the work presented today” showed that “moving the position of food choices and information, as well as the brand name and imagery, influences what people end up buying and consuming.
“I think there’s a place for interventions that challenge these things and improve dietary health,” said Dr. Boyland, who chaired the session during which Ms. Keleher presented her results. “However, as we’ve seen with calorie labeling, they don’t always have the biggest effect on their own, so as is often the case, we need to take multiple actions, incorporating all the elements of the environment to make a meaningful difference.”
Three trials changing displays on simulated food delivery apps
“Delivery apps could reach millions of people and help us select healthier food options, and yet there is very little research looking at what works to promote healthier and more nutritious options in these settings,” Filippo Bianchi, MD, a colleague working with Ms. Keleher, said in a press release issued by ECO.
So the research team carried out a proof-of-concept testing of health-promoting interventions by developing a simulated food delivery app and asking 23,783 adults who typically use such services to choose a meal for themselves as if it were a real-life food delivery order.
“As a first step, we developed a simulated online food delivery platform to generate evidence on the effectiveness of our interventions,” Ms. Keleher explained, noting that the simulated platform included 21 restaurants and almost 600 food and drink items to choose from.
The research evaluated 14 interventions across three randomized controlled trials, displaying various food-ordering options that promoted lower-calorie options against a control. The trials investigated default choices (promoting the selection of small portion sizes through defaults, n = 6,000); positioning (promoting the selection of less calorie-dense options through positioning, n = 9,003); and labeling (promoting the selection of less calorific options through calorie labels, n = 8,780).
The primary outcome was the total number of calories in the basket at checkout. The results were adjusted for potentially confounding factors, such as body mass index, age, gender, and income.
For the trial that promoted smaller portions by default, “all of our interventions significantly reduced calorie purchases, with each additional intervention element increasing the effect sizes, which ranged from a 6% to 13% reduction in calories [–5.5% to –12.5% kcal/order; P < .05],” reported Ms. Keleher.
The second trial varied the position of both items on the menu and the order of restaurants – effectively, lower-calorie menu options were more prominent, and restaurant options with lower-calorie main meals were placed at the top of the restaurant selection page.
Ms. Keleher noted that there have been some concerns about whether this strategy would negatively affect restaurant business, so the research team counteracted this by also incorporating an option where low-calorie but high-price options were placed near the top of the display to promote healthier options but without loss of income for participating restaurants. This last intervention with low-calorie/high-price options placed near the top also led to reduced calorie intake.
“This showed that promoting low-calorie options does not necessarily mean damaging business revenue,” she said. “We hope that the industry can evolve to meet the widely recognized needs of society and consumers.”
Repositioning restaurants emerged as more effective than repositioning foods on the menu, while all interventions significantly reduced calorie purchases. “Effect sizes ranged from 6% to 15% reductions in calories purchased per order [P < .05],” reported Ms. Keleher.
The last trial tested seven calorie labels: four that changed the font size and location of the label, two that added a switch on/off filter for calorie label display, and one that was a calorie summary at checkout.
“All these standard calorie labels directionally reduced the number of excess calories with two [options] reaching statistical significance. Five out of seven labels significantly reduced calorie purchases with effect sizes ranging from 4.3% to –7.8% kcal/order (P < .05),” reported Ms. Keleher.
“This research is important for policymakers so they can understand the best way for companies to display calorie labels and what to include in regulations and guidelines,” she summarized.
Qualitative think-aloud study explored views around food delivery apps
Another piece of research, the think-aloud study, by the same authors, was presented at ECO, and explored how best to enhance the effectiveness and acceptability of calorie labels in food delivery apps in consultation with 20 adult delivery app users in the United Kingdom.
Researchers tried to document the range of views people have about calorie labels, including variation both between people and within an individual.
“For example, on a weekend, people might not want to engage with calories at all because they are more concerned to treat themselves, whereas at a mid-week lunch that same person might really want the ability to check the calorie content of their food,” Ms. Keleher reported.
She said that considerations varied significantly between people such that they described different ways in which calorie labeling impacted their food-ordering experience.
“Some people felt labels supported their existing intentions, whereas others felt labels built their knowledge. Still others felt calorie labels were insufficient to support their health and wanted more information, such as on macronutrients,” said Ms. Keleher, quoting one participant: “There’s no situation in which I would look at [calories]. I look at nutrients. I prefer the traffic light system [color-coding salt, fat, and sugar content],” she relayed.
The key recommendations based on the think-aloud study included providing a filter that allows users to switch calorie labels on and off; communicating recommended energy intake per meal (that is, 600 kcal) and not just per day (that is, 2,000 kcal); and avoiding framing calorie label messaging or formatting as judgmental (for example, red fonts).
“These studies provide encouraging proof-of-concept evidence that small tweaks in delivery apps could help many people to identify and select healthier foods. Testing similar initiatives with real restaurants and delivery apps will be important to assess the long-term impact of these interventions in the real world. Further research should also explore the best way to balance desired health impacts while minimizing effects on businesses and on cost-of-living concerns for consumers,” concluded Dr. Bianchi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
DUBLIN – , show three new randomized trials from the United Kingdom.
The prominent positioning of low-calorie menu items, and restaurants with low-calorie main meals, on a food app emerged as the most promising approach to promote healthier eating, followed by preselecting smaller portions by default, and finally calorie labels, Anna Keleher, MPA, a behavioral scientist at Nesta, London, reported at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) meeting.
“Many out-of-home meals have more calories than meals cooked in-home and using delivery apps is linked with a higher risk of becoming overweight or obese,” she remarked. “We’re interested in understanding more about delivery apps because they can be modified at scale easily and can reach millions of people with interventions to promote healthier and more nutritious options in these settings.”
Food delivery apps have surged in use in the United Kingdom with a 55% increase since 2015; examples include Uber Eats, Just Eat, and Deliveroo. “This trend is similar in the United States, with more and more consumers using delivery apps to buy food,” said Ms. Keleher, a senior adviser at the Behavioral Insights Team, New York.
Emma Boyland, PhD, an obesity psychologist from Liverpool (England) University, said: “Apps are an increasingly popular way for people to buy food and the virtual food environment is becoming as prominent as the physical food environment in how we go about obtaining meals.”
She highlighted the need to understand more about how food apps change the way we purchase and eat, but noted that “the work presented today” showed that “moving the position of food choices and information, as well as the brand name and imagery, influences what people end up buying and consuming.
“I think there’s a place for interventions that challenge these things and improve dietary health,” said Dr. Boyland, who chaired the session during which Ms. Keleher presented her results. “However, as we’ve seen with calorie labeling, they don’t always have the biggest effect on their own, so as is often the case, we need to take multiple actions, incorporating all the elements of the environment to make a meaningful difference.”
Three trials changing displays on simulated food delivery apps
“Delivery apps could reach millions of people and help us select healthier food options, and yet there is very little research looking at what works to promote healthier and more nutritious options in these settings,” Filippo Bianchi, MD, a colleague working with Ms. Keleher, said in a press release issued by ECO.
So the research team carried out a proof-of-concept testing of health-promoting interventions by developing a simulated food delivery app and asking 23,783 adults who typically use such services to choose a meal for themselves as if it were a real-life food delivery order.
“As a first step, we developed a simulated online food delivery platform to generate evidence on the effectiveness of our interventions,” Ms. Keleher explained, noting that the simulated platform included 21 restaurants and almost 600 food and drink items to choose from.
The research evaluated 14 interventions across three randomized controlled trials, displaying various food-ordering options that promoted lower-calorie options against a control. The trials investigated default choices (promoting the selection of small portion sizes through defaults, n = 6,000); positioning (promoting the selection of less calorie-dense options through positioning, n = 9,003); and labeling (promoting the selection of less calorific options through calorie labels, n = 8,780).
The primary outcome was the total number of calories in the basket at checkout. The results were adjusted for potentially confounding factors, such as body mass index, age, gender, and income.
For the trial that promoted smaller portions by default, “all of our interventions significantly reduced calorie purchases, with each additional intervention element increasing the effect sizes, which ranged from a 6% to 13% reduction in calories [–5.5% to –12.5% kcal/order; P < .05],” reported Ms. Keleher.
The second trial varied the position of both items on the menu and the order of restaurants – effectively, lower-calorie menu options were more prominent, and restaurant options with lower-calorie main meals were placed at the top of the restaurant selection page.
Ms. Keleher noted that there have been some concerns about whether this strategy would negatively affect restaurant business, so the research team counteracted this by also incorporating an option where low-calorie but high-price options were placed near the top of the display to promote healthier options but without loss of income for participating restaurants. This last intervention with low-calorie/high-price options placed near the top also led to reduced calorie intake.
“This showed that promoting low-calorie options does not necessarily mean damaging business revenue,” she said. “We hope that the industry can evolve to meet the widely recognized needs of society and consumers.”
Repositioning restaurants emerged as more effective than repositioning foods on the menu, while all interventions significantly reduced calorie purchases. “Effect sizes ranged from 6% to 15% reductions in calories purchased per order [P < .05],” reported Ms. Keleher.
The last trial tested seven calorie labels: four that changed the font size and location of the label, two that added a switch on/off filter for calorie label display, and one that was a calorie summary at checkout.
“All these standard calorie labels directionally reduced the number of excess calories with two [options] reaching statistical significance. Five out of seven labels significantly reduced calorie purchases with effect sizes ranging from 4.3% to –7.8% kcal/order (P < .05),” reported Ms. Keleher.
“This research is important for policymakers so they can understand the best way for companies to display calorie labels and what to include in regulations and guidelines,” she summarized.
Qualitative think-aloud study explored views around food delivery apps
Another piece of research, the think-aloud study, by the same authors, was presented at ECO, and explored how best to enhance the effectiveness and acceptability of calorie labels in food delivery apps in consultation with 20 adult delivery app users in the United Kingdom.
Researchers tried to document the range of views people have about calorie labels, including variation both between people and within an individual.
“For example, on a weekend, people might not want to engage with calories at all because they are more concerned to treat themselves, whereas at a mid-week lunch that same person might really want the ability to check the calorie content of their food,” Ms. Keleher reported.
She said that considerations varied significantly between people such that they described different ways in which calorie labeling impacted their food-ordering experience.
“Some people felt labels supported their existing intentions, whereas others felt labels built their knowledge. Still others felt calorie labels were insufficient to support their health and wanted more information, such as on macronutrients,” said Ms. Keleher, quoting one participant: “There’s no situation in which I would look at [calories]. I look at nutrients. I prefer the traffic light system [color-coding salt, fat, and sugar content],” she relayed.
The key recommendations based on the think-aloud study included providing a filter that allows users to switch calorie labels on and off; communicating recommended energy intake per meal (that is, 600 kcal) and not just per day (that is, 2,000 kcal); and avoiding framing calorie label messaging or formatting as judgmental (for example, red fonts).
“These studies provide encouraging proof-of-concept evidence that small tweaks in delivery apps could help many people to identify and select healthier foods. Testing similar initiatives with real restaurants and delivery apps will be important to assess the long-term impact of these interventions in the real world. Further research should also explore the best way to balance desired health impacts while minimizing effects on businesses and on cost-of-living concerns for consumers,” concluded Dr. Bianchi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
DUBLIN – , show three new randomized trials from the United Kingdom.
The prominent positioning of low-calorie menu items, and restaurants with low-calorie main meals, on a food app emerged as the most promising approach to promote healthier eating, followed by preselecting smaller portions by default, and finally calorie labels, Anna Keleher, MPA, a behavioral scientist at Nesta, London, reported at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) meeting.
“Many out-of-home meals have more calories than meals cooked in-home and using delivery apps is linked with a higher risk of becoming overweight or obese,” she remarked. “We’re interested in understanding more about delivery apps because they can be modified at scale easily and can reach millions of people with interventions to promote healthier and more nutritious options in these settings.”
Food delivery apps have surged in use in the United Kingdom with a 55% increase since 2015; examples include Uber Eats, Just Eat, and Deliveroo. “This trend is similar in the United States, with more and more consumers using delivery apps to buy food,” said Ms. Keleher, a senior adviser at the Behavioral Insights Team, New York.
Emma Boyland, PhD, an obesity psychologist from Liverpool (England) University, said: “Apps are an increasingly popular way for people to buy food and the virtual food environment is becoming as prominent as the physical food environment in how we go about obtaining meals.”
She highlighted the need to understand more about how food apps change the way we purchase and eat, but noted that “the work presented today” showed that “moving the position of food choices and information, as well as the brand name and imagery, influences what people end up buying and consuming.
“I think there’s a place for interventions that challenge these things and improve dietary health,” said Dr. Boyland, who chaired the session during which Ms. Keleher presented her results. “However, as we’ve seen with calorie labeling, they don’t always have the biggest effect on their own, so as is often the case, we need to take multiple actions, incorporating all the elements of the environment to make a meaningful difference.”
Three trials changing displays on simulated food delivery apps
“Delivery apps could reach millions of people and help us select healthier food options, and yet there is very little research looking at what works to promote healthier and more nutritious options in these settings,” Filippo Bianchi, MD, a colleague working with Ms. Keleher, said in a press release issued by ECO.
So the research team carried out a proof-of-concept testing of health-promoting interventions by developing a simulated food delivery app and asking 23,783 adults who typically use such services to choose a meal for themselves as if it were a real-life food delivery order.
“As a first step, we developed a simulated online food delivery platform to generate evidence on the effectiveness of our interventions,” Ms. Keleher explained, noting that the simulated platform included 21 restaurants and almost 600 food and drink items to choose from.
The research evaluated 14 interventions across three randomized controlled trials, displaying various food-ordering options that promoted lower-calorie options against a control. The trials investigated default choices (promoting the selection of small portion sizes through defaults, n = 6,000); positioning (promoting the selection of less calorie-dense options through positioning, n = 9,003); and labeling (promoting the selection of less calorific options through calorie labels, n = 8,780).
The primary outcome was the total number of calories in the basket at checkout. The results were adjusted for potentially confounding factors, such as body mass index, age, gender, and income.
For the trial that promoted smaller portions by default, “all of our interventions significantly reduced calorie purchases, with each additional intervention element increasing the effect sizes, which ranged from a 6% to 13% reduction in calories [–5.5% to –12.5% kcal/order; P < .05],” reported Ms. Keleher.
The second trial varied the position of both items on the menu and the order of restaurants – effectively, lower-calorie menu options were more prominent, and restaurant options with lower-calorie main meals were placed at the top of the restaurant selection page.
Ms. Keleher noted that there have been some concerns about whether this strategy would negatively affect restaurant business, so the research team counteracted this by also incorporating an option where low-calorie but high-price options were placed near the top of the display to promote healthier options but without loss of income for participating restaurants. This last intervention with low-calorie/high-price options placed near the top also led to reduced calorie intake.
“This showed that promoting low-calorie options does not necessarily mean damaging business revenue,” she said. “We hope that the industry can evolve to meet the widely recognized needs of society and consumers.”
Repositioning restaurants emerged as more effective than repositioning foods on the menu, while all interventions significantly reduced calorie purchases. “Effect sizes ranged from 6% to 15% reductions in calories purchased per order [P < .05],” reported Ms. Keleher.
The last trial tested seven calorie labels: four that changed the font size and location of the label, two that added a switch on/off filter for calorie label display, and one that was a calorie summary at checkout.
“All these standard calorie labels directionally reduced the number of excess calories with two [options] reaching statistical significance. Five out of seven labels significantly reduced calorie purchases with effect sizes ranging from 4.3% to –7.8% kcal/order (P < .05),” reported Ms. Keleher.
“This research is important for policymakers so they can understand the best way for companies to display calorie labels and what to include in regulations and guidelines,” she summarized.
Qualitative think-aloud study explored views around food delivery apps
Another piece of research, the think-aloud study, by the same authors, was presented at ECO, and explored how best to enhance the effectiveness and acceptability of calorie labels in food delivery apps in consultation with 20 adult delivery app users in the United Kingdom.
Researchers tried to document the range of views people have about calorie labels, including variation both between people and within an individual.
“For example, on a weekend, people might not want to engage with calories at all because they are more concerned to treat themselves, whereas at a mid-week lunch that same person might really want the ability to check the calorie content of their food,” Ms. Keleher reported.
She said that considerations varied significantly between people such that they described different ways in which calorie labeling impacted their food-ordering experience.
“Some people felt labels supported their existing intentions, whereas others felt labels built their knowledge. Still others felt calorie labels were insufficient to support their health and wanted more information, such as on macronutrients,” said Ms. Keleher, quoting one participant: “There’s no situation in which I would look at [calories]. I look at nutrients. I prefer the traffic light system [color-coding salt, fat, and sugar content],” she relayed.
The key recommendations based on the think-aloud study included providing a filter that allows users to switch calorie labels on and off; communicating recommended energy intake per meal (that is, 600 kcal) and not just per day (that is, 2,000 kcal); and avoiding framing calorie label messaging or formatting as judgmental (for example, red fonts).
“These studies provide encouraging proof-of-concept evidence that small tweaks in delivery apps could help many people to identify and select healthier foods. Testing similar initiatives with real restaurants and delivery apps will be important to assess the long-term impact of these interventions in the real world. Further research should also explore the best way to balance desired health impacts while minimizing effects on businesses and on cost-of-living concerns for consumers,” concluded Dr. Bianchi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ECO 2023