MDedge Endocrinology

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Diabetes Statistic Report, there are more than 37 million adults aged 18 years or older with diabetes in the United States, representing 14.7% of the adult population. Approximately 90%-95% of people diagnosed with diabetes have type 2 diabetes (T2D). An increasing aging population with T2D and a disparate incidence and burden of disease in African American and Hispanic populations raise important care considerations in effective disease assessment and management, especially in primary care, where the majority of diabetes management occurs.

This extends to the need for quality patient education in an effort to give persons with diabetes a better understanding of what it’s like to live with the disease.

Here are five things to know about nonpharmacologic therapies for effective T2D management.

1. Understand and treat the person before the disease.

Diabetes is a complex and unrelenting disease of self-management, requiring an individualized care approach to achieve optimal health outcomes and quality of life for persons living with this condition. Over 90% of care is provided by the person with diabetes, therefore understanding the lived world of the person with diabetes and its connected impact on self-care is critical to establishing effective treatment recommendations, especially for people from racial and ethnic minority groups and lower socioeconomic status where diabetes disparities are highest. Disease prevalence, cost of care, and disease burden are driven by social determinants of health (SDOH) factors that need to be assessed, and strategies addressing causative factors need to be implemented. SDOH factors, including the built environment, safety, financial status, education, food access, health care access, and social support, directly affect the ability of a person with diabetes to effectively implement treatment recommendations, including access to new medications. The adoption of a shared decision-making approach is key to person-centered care. Shared decision-making promotes a positive communication feedback loop, therapeutic patient-care team relationship, and collaborative plan of care between the person with diabetes and the care team. It also supports the establishment of mutual respect between the person with diabetes and the care team members. This cultivates the strong, open, and authentic partnership needed for effective chronic disease management.

2. Quality diabetes education is the foundation for effective self-care.

Diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) is a fundamental component of diabetes care and ensures patients have the knowledge, skills, motivation, and resources necessary for effectively managing this condition. Despite treatment advances and the evidence base for DSMES, less than 5% of Medicare beneficiaries and 6.8% of privately insured beneficiaries have utilized its services, and this is a likely contributor to the lack of improvement for achieving national diabetes clinical targets. The Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists (ADCES7) Self-Care Behaviors provides an evidence-based framework for an optimal DSMES curriculum, incorporating the self-care behaviors of healthy coping (e.g., having a positive attitude toward diabetes self-management), nutritious eating, being active, taking medication, monitoring, reducing risk, and problem-solving.

There are four core times to implement and adapt referral for DSMES: (1) at diagnosis, (2) annually or when not meeting targets, (3) when complications arise, and (4) with transitions in life and care. DSMES referrals should be made for programs accredited by the ADCES or American Diabetes Association (ADA) and led by expert Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialists (CDCES). The multidisciplinary composition and clinical skill level of CDCES make them a highly valued member of the diabetes care team. CDCES have demonstrated not only diabetes education expertise but are involved in broader health care roles to include population health management, technology integration, mitigation of therapeutic inertia, quality improvement activity, and delivery of cost-effective care.

3. Establish a strong foundation in lifestyle medicine.

Lifestyle medicine encompasses healthy eating, physical activity, restorative sleep, stress management, avoidance of risky behaviors, and positive social connections. It has also been strongly connected as a primary modality to prevent and treat chronic conditions like T2D. Lifestyle modifications have been noted in reducing the incidence of developing diabetes, reversing disease, improving clinical markers such as A1c and lipids, weight reduction, reducing use of medications, and improving quality of life. The multidisciplinary care team and CDCES can support the empowerment of individuals with T2D to develop the life skills and knowledge needed to establish positive self-care behaviors and successfully achieve health goals. Lifestyle medicine is not a replacement for pharmacologic interventions but rather serves as an adjunct when medication management is required.

4. Harness technology in diabetes treatment and care delivery.

Diabetes technology is advancing swiftly and includes glucose monitors, medication delivery devices, data-sharing platforms, and disease self-management applications. Combined with education and support, diabetes technology has been shown to have a positive clinical and personal impact on disease outcomes and quality of life. Regardless of its benefits, at times technology can seem overwhelming for the person with diabetes and the care team. Diabetes Care and Education Specialists (DCES) can support the care team and people living with diabetes to effectively identify, implement, and evaluate patient-centered diabetes technologies, as well as implement processes to drive clinical efficiencies and sustainability. Patient-generated health data reports can provide the care team with effective and proficient evaluation of diabetes care and needed treatment changes.

The expansion of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, including real-time and asynchronous approaches, coupled with in-person care team visits, has resulted in improved access to diabetes care and education. Moreover, there continues to be an expanding health system focus on improving access to care beyond traditional brick and mortar solutions. Telehealth poses one possible access solution for people living with diabetes for whom factors such as transportation, remote geographies, and physical limitations affect their ability to attend in-person care visits.

5. Assess and address diabetes-related distress.

The persistent nature of diabetes self-care expectations and the impact on lifestyle behaviors, medication adherence, and glycemic control demands the need for assessment and treatment of diabetes-related distress (DRD). DRD can be expressed as shame, guilt, anger, fear, and frustration in combination with the everyday context of life priorities and stressors. An assessment of diabetes distress, utilizing a simple scale, should be included as part of an annual therapeutic diabetes care plan. The ADA Standards of Care in Diabetes recommends assessing patients’ psychological and social situations as an ongoing part of medical management, including an annual screening for depression and other psychological problems. The prevalence of depression is nearly twice as high in people with T2D than in the general population and can significantly influence patients’ ability to self-manage their diabetes and achieve healthy outcomes. Assessment and treatment of psychosocial components of care can result in significant improvements in A1c and other positive outcomes, including quality of life.

Kellie M. Rodriguez, director of the global diabetes program at Parkland Health, Dallas, Tex., disclosed ties with the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists.

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

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Diabetes Statistic Report, there are more than 37 million adults aged 18 years or older with diabetes in the United States, representing 14.7% of the adult population. Approximately 90%-95% of people diagnosed with diabetes have type 2 diabetes (T2D). An increasing aging population with T2D and a disparate incidence and burden of disease in African American and Hispanic populations raise important care considerations in effective disease assessment and management, especially in primary care, where the majority of diabetes management occurs.

This extends to the need for quality patient education in an effort to give persons with diabetes a better understanding of what it’s like to live with the disease.

Here are five things to know about nonpharmacologic therapies for effective T2D management.

1. Understand and treat the person before the disease.

Diabetes is a complex and unrelenting disease of self-management, requiring an individualized care approach to achieve optimal health outcomes and quality of life for persons living with this condition. Over 90% of care is provided by the person with diabetes, therefore understanding the lived world of the person with diabetes and its connected impact on self-care is critical to establishing effective treatment recommendations, especially for people from racial and ethnic minority groups and lower socioeconomic status where diabetes disparities are highest. Disease prevalence, cost of care, and disease burden are driven by social determinants of health (SDOH) factors that need to be assessed, and strategies addressing causative factors need to be implemented. SDOH factors, including the built environment, safety, financial status, education, food access, health care access, and social support, directly affect the ability of a person with diabetes to effectively implement treatment recommendations, including access to new medications. The adoption of a shared decision-making approach is key to person-centered care. Shared decision-making promotes a positive communication feedback loop, therapeutic patient-care team relationship, and collaborative plan of care between the person with diabetes and the care team. It also supports the establishment of mutual respect between the person with diabetes and the care team members. This cultivates the strong, open, and authentic partnership needed for effective chronic disease management.

2. Quality diabetes education is the foundation for effective self-care.

Diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) is a fundamental component of diabetes care and ensures patients have the knowledge, skills, motivation, and resources necessary for effectively managing this condition. Despite treatment advances and the evidence base for DSMES, less than 5% of Medicare beneficiaries and 6.8% of privately insured beneficiaries have utilized its services, and this is a likely contributor to the lack of improvement for achieving national diabetes clinical targets. The Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists (ADCES7) Self-Care Behaviors provides an evidence-based framework for an optimal DSMES curriculum, incorporating the self-care behaviors of healthy coping (e.g., having a positive attitude toward diabetes self-management), nutritious eating, being active, taking medication, monitoring, reducing risk, and problem-solving.

There are four core times to implement and adapt referral for DSMES: (1) at diagnosis, (2) annually or when not meeting targets, (3) when complications arise, and (4) with transitions in life and care. DSMES referrals should be made for programs accredited by the ADCES or American Diabetes Association (ADA) and led by expert Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialists (CDCES). The multidisciplinary composition and clinical skill level of CDCES make them a highly valued member of the diabetes care team. CDCES have demonstrated not only diabetes education expertise but are involved in broader health care roles to include population health management, technology integration, mitigation of therapeutic inertia, quality improvement activity, and delivery of cost-effective care.

3. Establish a strong foundation in lifestyle medicine.

Lifestyle medicine encompasses healthy eating, physical activity, restorative sleep, stress management, avoidance of risky behaviors, and positive social connections. It has also been strongly connected as a primary modality to prevent and treat chronic conditions like T2D. Lifestyle modifications have been noted in reducing the incidence of developing diabetes, reversing disease, improving clinical markers such as A1c and lipids, weight reduction, reducing use of medications, and improving quality of life. The multidisciplinary care team and CDCES can support the empowerment of individuals with T2D to develop the life skills and knowledge needed to establish positive self-care behaviors and successfully achieve health goals. Lifestyle medicine is not a replacement for pharmacologic interventions but rather serves as an adjunct when medication management is required.

4. Harness technology in diabetes treatment and care delivery.

Diabetes technology is advancing swiftly and includes glucose monitors, medication delivery devices, data-sharing platforms, and disease self-management applications. Combined with education and support, diabetes technology has been shown to have a positive clinical and personal impact on disease outcomes and quality of life. Regardless of its benefits, at times technology can seem overwhelming for the person with diabetes and the care team. Diabetes Care and Education Specialists (DCES) can support the care team and people living with diabetes to effectively identify, implement, and evaluate patient-centered diabetes technologies, as well as implement processes to drive clinical efficiencies and sustainability. Patient-generated health data reports can provide the care team with effective and proficient evaluation of diabetes care and needed treatment changes.

The expansion of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, including real-time and asynchronous approaches, coupled with in-person care team visits, has resulted in improved access to diabetes care and education. Moreover, there continues to be an expanding health system focus on improving access to care beyond traditional brick and mortar solutions. Telehealth poses one possible access solution for people living with diabetes for whom factors such as transportation, remote geographies, and physical limitations affect their ability to attend in-person care visits.

5. Assess and address diabetes-related distress.

The persistent nature of diabetes self-care expectations and the impact on lifestyle behaviors, medication adherence, and glycemic control demands the need for assessment and treatment of diabetes-related distress (DRD). DRD can be expressed as shame, guilt, anger, fear, and frustration in combination with the everyday context of life priorities and stressors. An assessment of diabetes distress, utilizing a simple scale, should be included as part of an annual therapeutic diabetes care plan. The ADA Standards of Care in Diabetes recommends assessing patients’ psychological and social situations as an ongoing part of medical management, including an annual screening for depression and other psychological problems. The prevalence of depression is nearly twice as high in people with T2D than in the general population and can significantly influence patients’ ability to self-manage their diabetes and achieve healthy outcomes. Assessment and treatment of psychosocial components of care can result in significant improvements in A1c and other positive outcomes, including quality of life.

Kellie M. Rodriguez, director of the global diabetes program at Parkland Health, Dallas, Tex., disclosed ties with the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists.

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

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Diabetes Statistic Report, there are more than 37 million adults aged 18 years or older with diabetes in the United States, representing 14.7% of the adult population. Approximately 90%-95% of people diagnosed with diabetes have type 2 diabetes (T2D). An increasing aging population with T2D and a disparate incidence and burden of disease in African American and Hispanic populations raise important care considerations in effective disease assessment and management, especially in primary care, where the majority of diabetes management occurs.

This extends to the need for quality patient education in an effort to give persons with diabetes a better understanding of what it’s like to live with the disease.

Here are five things to know about nonpharmacologic therapies for effective T2D management.

1. Understand and treat the person before the disease.

Diabetes is a complex and unrelenting disease of self-management, requiring an individualized care approach to achieve optimal health outcomes and quality of life for persons living with this condition. Over 90% of care is provided by the person with diabetes, therefore understanding the lived world of the person with diabetes and its connected impact on self-care is critical to establishing effective treatment recommendations, especially for people from racial and ethnic minority groups and lower socioeconomic status where diabetes disparities are highest. Disease prevalence, cost of care, and disease burden are driven by social determinants of health (SDOH) factors that need to be assessed, and strategies addressing causative factors need to be implemented. SDOH factors, including the built environment, safety, financial status, education, food access, health care access, and social support, directly affect the ability of a person with diabetes to effectively implement treatment recommendations, including access to new medications. The adoption of a shared decision-making approach is key to person-centered care. Shared decision-making promotes a positive communication feedback loop, therapeutic patient-care team relationship, and collaborative plan of care between the person with diabetes and the care team. It also supports the establishment of mutual respect between the person with diabetes and the care team members. This cultivates the strong, open, and authentic partnership needed for effective chronic disease management.

2. Quality diabetes education is the foundation for effective self-care.

Diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) is a fundamental component of diabetes care and ensures patients have the knowledge, skills, motivation, and resources necessary for effectively managing this condition. Despite treatment advances and the evidence base for DSMES, less than 5% of Medicare beneficiaries and 6.8% of privately insured beneficiaries have utilized its services, and this is a likely contributor to the lack of improvement for achieving national diabetes clinical targets. The Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists (ADCES7) Self-Care Behaviors provides an evidence-based framework for an optimal DSMES curriculum, incorporating the self-care behaviors of healthy coping (e.g., having a positive attitude toward diabetes self-management), nutritious eating, being active, taking medication, monitoring, reducing risk, and problem-solving.

There are four core times to implement and adapt referral for DSMES: (1) at diagnosis, (2) annually or when not meeting targets, (3) when complications arise, and (4) with transitions in life and care. DSMES referrals should be made for programs accredited by the ADCES or American Diabetes Association (ADA) and led by expert Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialists (CDCES). The multidisciplinary composition and clinical skill level of CDCES make them a highly valued member of the diabetes care team. CDCES have demonstrated not only diabetes education expertise but are involved in broader health care roles to include population health management, technology integration, mitigation of therapeutic inertia, quality improvement activity, and delivery of cost-effective care.

3. Establish a strong foundation in lifestyle medicine.

Lifestyle medicine encompasses healthy eating, physical activity, restorative sleep, stress management, avoidance of risky behaviors, and positive social connections. It has also been strongly connected as a primary modality to prevent and treat chronic conditions like T2D. Lifestyle modifications have been noted in reducing the incidence of developing diabetes, reversing disease, improving clinical markers such as A1c and lipids, weight reduction, reducing use of medications, and improving quality of life. The multidisciplinary care team and CDCES can support the empowerment of individuals with T2D to develop the life skills and knowledge needed to establish positive self-care behaviors and successfully achieve health goals. Lifestyle medicine is not a replacement for pharmacologic interventions but rather serves as an adjunct when medication management is required.

4. Harness technology in diabetes treatment and care delivery.

Diabetes technology is advancing swiftly and includes glucose monitors, medication delivery devices, data-sharing platforms, and disease self-management applications. Combined with education and support, diabetes technology has been shown to have a positive clinical and personal impact on disease outcomes and quality of life. Regardless of its benefits, at times technology can seem overwhelming for the person with diabetes and the care team. Diabetes Care and Education Specialists (DCES) can support the care team and people living with diabetes to effectively identify, implement, and evaluate patient-centered diabetes technologies, as well as implement processes to drive clinical efficiencies and sustainability. Patient-generated health data reports can provide the care team with effective and proficient evaluation of diabetes care and needed treatment changes.

The expansion of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, including real-time and asynchronous approaches, coupled with in-person care team visits, has resulted in improved access to diabetes care and education. Moreover, there continues to be an expanding health system focus on improving access to care beyond traditional brick and mortar solutions. Telehealth poses one possible access solution for people living with diabetes for whom factors such as transportation, remote geographies, and physical limitations affect their ability to attend in-person care visits.

5. Assess and address diabetes-related distress.

The persistent nature of diabetes self-care expectations and the impact on lifestyle behaviors, medication adherence, and glycemic control demands the need for assessment and treatment of diabetes-related distress (DRD). DRD can be expressed as shame, guilt, anger, fear, and frustration in combination with the everyday context of life priorities and stressors. An assessment of diabetes distress, utilizing a simple scale, should be included as part of an annual therapeutic diabetes care plan. The ADA Standards of Care in Diabetes recommends assessing patients’ psychological and social situations as an ongoing part of medical management, including an annual screening for depression and other psychological problems. The prevalence of depression is nearly twice as high in people with T2D than in the general population and can significantly influence patients’ ability to self-manage their diabetes and achieve healthy outcomes. Assessment and treatment of psychosocial components of care can result in significant improvements in A1c and other positive outcomes, including quality of life.

Kellie M. Rodriguez, director of the global diabetes program at Parkland Health, Dallas, Tex., disclosed ties with the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists.

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

Sores on the feet can signal problems with the eyes in patients with diabetes.

Prior research and anecdotal experience show that diabetic foot ulcers and diabetic retinopathy frequently co-occur. New research further clarifies this link and shows that patients with foot ulcers may receive fewer treatments to protect their sight.

David J. Ramsey, MD, PhD, MPH, director of ophthalmic research at Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Mass., said when clinicians detect either condition, they should involve a team that can intervene to help protect a patient’s vision and mobility.

For example, they should ensure patients receive comprehensive eye and foot evaluations and help them optimize diabetes management.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, “adds an important dimension” to understanding the association between the conditions, said Dr. Ramsey, who recently reviewed correlations between diabetic foot ulcers and diabetic retinopathy and their underlying causes.

“Patients with diabetic foot ulcers appear to receive less attention to their diabetic retinopathy and may receive fewer treatments with eye injections targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), an important driver of progression of diabetic retinopathy,” said Dr. Ramsey, who is also an associate professor of ophthalmology at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston. He was not involved in the study presented at ARVO 2023.

In the new study, Christopher T. Zhu, a medical student at UT Health San Antonio, and colleagues analyzed data from 426 eyes of 213 patients with type 2 diabetes who had had at least two eye exams between 2012 and 2022; 72 of the patients had diabetic foot ulcers. Patients were followed for about 4 years on average.

Patients with diabetic foot ulcers had a higher percentage of eyes with macular edema on their initial exam (32.6% vs. 28%). By the final exam, the percentage of eyes with macular edema was significantly greater in the group with diabetic foot ulcers (64.6% vs. 37.6%; P < .0001), Mr. Zhu’s group reported.

Eyes with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy progressed to proliferative diabetic retinopathy, the worst grade, at a higher rate in the group with foot ulcers (50.6% vs. 35.6%; P = .03). In addition, patients with foot ulcers were more likely to experience vitreous hemorrhage (55.6% vs. 38.7%), the researchers found.

Despite patients with foot ulcers tending to have worse disease, they received fewer treatments for retinopathy. Those without ulcers received an average of 6.9 anti-VEGF injections per eye, while those with ulcers averaged 4.3.

Foot ulcers may hinder the ability of patients to get to appointments to receive the injections, Mr. Zhu and colleagues wrote. “For many patients in our part of the country [South Texas], a lack of transportation is a particular barrier to health care access,” Mr. Zhu told this news organization.

Mr. Zhu’s team conducted their study after noticing that patients with diabetes and foot ulcers who presented to their eye clinics “appeared to progress faster to worse grades of retinopathy” than patients with diabetes who did not have ulcers.

“Similar to how foot ulcers develop due to a severe disruption in blood flow [vascular] and a loss of sensation [neurologic], diabetic retinopathy may have a relation to microvascular disease, neurologic degeneration, and inflammation,” he said.

The findings confirm “that poor perfusion of the eye and foot are linked and can cause ischemic retinopathy leading to the development of proliferative diabetic retinopathy and vitreous hemorrhages, both serious, vision-threatening conditions,” Dr. Ramsey said.

To some extent, fewer treatments with anti-VEGF agents may account for why patients with foot ulcers have more eye complications, Dr. Ramsey added. “Additional research needs to be done to further dissect the cause and the effect, but it’s a very important finding that we need to increase awareness about,” he said.

Dr. Ramsey and Mr. Zhu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sores on the feet can signal problems with the eyes in patients with diabetes.

Prior research and anecdotal experience show that diabetic foot ulcers and diabetic retinopathy frequently co-occur. New research further clarifies this link and shows that patients with foot ulcers may receive fewer treatments to protect their sight.

David J. Ramsey, MD, PhD, MPH, director of ophthalmic research at Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Mass., said when clinicians detect either condition, they should involve a team that can intervene to help protect a patient’s vision and mobility.

For example, they should ensure patients receive comprehensive eye and foot evaluations and help them optimize diabetes management.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, “adds an important dimension” to understanding the association between the conditions, said Dr. Ramsey, who recently reviewed correlations between diabetic foot ulcers and diabetic retinopathy and their underlying causes.

“Patients with diabetic foot ulcers appear to receive less attention to their diabetic retinopathy and may receive fewer treatments with eye injections targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), an important driver of progression of diabetic retinopathy,” said Dr. Ramsey, who is also an associate professor of ophthalmology at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston. He was not involved in the study presented at ARVO 2023.

In the new study, Christopher T. Zhu, a medical student at UT Health San Antonio, and colleagues analyzed data from 426 eyes of 213 patients with type 2 diabetes who had had at least two eye exams between 2012 and 2022; 72 of the patients had diabetic foot ulcers. Patients were followed for about 4 years on average.

Patients with diabetic foot ulcers had a higher percentage of eyes with macular edema on their initial exam (32.6% vs. 28%). By the final exam, the percentage of eyes with macular edema was significantly greater in the group with diabetic foot ulcers (64.6% vs. 37.6%; P < .0001), Mr. Zhu’s group reported.

Eyes with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy progressed to proliferative diabetic retinopathy, the worst grade, at a higher rate in the group with foot ulcers (50.6% vs. 35.6%; P = .03). In addition, patients with foot ulcers were more likely to experience vitreous hemorrhage (55.6% vs. 38.7%), the researchers found.

Despite patients with foot ulcers tending to have worse disease, they received fewer treatments for retinopathy. Those without ulcers received an average of 6.9 anti-VEGF injections per eye, while those with ulcers averaged 4.3.

Foot ulcers may hinder the ability of patients to get to appointments to receive the injections, Mr. Zhu and colleagues wrote. “For many patients in our part of the country [South Texas], a lack of transportation is a particular barrier to health care access,” Mr. Zhu told this news organization.

Mr. Zhu’s team conducted their study after noticing that patients with diabetes and foot ulcers who presented to their eye clinics “appeared to progress faster to worse grades of retinopathy” than patients with diabetes who did not have ulcers.

“Similar to how foot ulcers develop due to a severe disruption in blood flow [vascular] and a loss of sensation [neurologic], diabetic retinopathy may have a relation to microvascular disease, neurologic degeneration, and inflammation,” he said.

The findings confirm “that poor perfusion of the eye and foot are linked and can cause ischemic retinopathy leading to the development of proliferative diabetic retinopathy and vitreous hemorrhages, both serious, vision-threatening conditions,” Dr. Ramsey said.

To some extent, fewer treatments with anti-VEGF agents may account for why patients with foot ulcers have more eye complications, Dr. Ramsey added. “Additional research needs to be done to further dissect the cause and the effect, but it’s a very important finding that we need to increase awareness about,” he said.

Dr. Ramsey and Mr. Zhu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sores on the feet can signal problems with the eyes in patients with diabetes.

Prior research and anecdotal experience show that diabetic foot ulcers and diabetic retinopathy frequently co-occur. New research further clarifies this link and shows that patients with foot ulcers may receive fewer treatments to protect their sight.

David J. Ramsey, MD, PhD, MPH, director of ophthalmic research at Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Mass., said when clinicians detect either condition, they should involve a team that can intervene to help protect a patient’s vision and mobility.

For example, they should ensure patients receive comprehensive eye and foot evaluations and help them optimize diabetes management.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, “adds an important dimension” to understanding the association between the conditions, said Dr. Ramsey, who recently reviewed correlations between diabetic foot ulcers and diabetic retinopathy and their underlying causes.

“Patients with diabetic foot ulcers appear to receive less attention to their diabetic retinopathy and may receive fewer treatments with eye injections targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), an important driver of progression of diabetic retinopathy,” said Dr. Ramsey, who is also an associate professor of ophthalmology at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston. He was not involved in the study presented at ARVO 2023.

In the new study, Christopher T. Zhu, a medical student at UT Health San Antonio, and colleagues analyzed data from 426 eyes of 213 patients with type 2 diabetes who had had at least two eye exams between 2012 and 2022; 72 of the patients had diabetic foot ulcers. Patients were followed for about 4 years on average.

Patients with diabetic foot ulcers had a higher percentage of eyes with macular edema on their initial exam (32.6% vs. 28%). By the final exam, the percentage of eyes with macular edema was significantly greater in the group with diabetic foot ulcers (64.6% vs. 37.6%; P < .0001), Mr. Zhu’s group reported.

Eyes with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy progressed to proliferative diabetic retinopathy, the worst grade, at a higher rate in the group with foot ulcers (50.6% vs. 35.6%; P = .03). In addition, patients with foot ulcers were more likely to experience vitreous hemorrhage (55.6% vs. 38.7%), the researchers found.

Despite patients with foot ulcers tending to have worse disease, they received fewer treatments for retinopathy. Those without ulcers received an average of 6.9 anti-VEGF injections per eye, while those with ulcers averaged 4.3.

Foot ulcers may hinder the ability of patients to get to appointments to receive the injections, Mr. Zhu and colleagues wrote. “For many patients in our part of the country [South Texas], a lack of transportation is a particular barrier to health care access,” Mr. Zhu told this news organization.

Mr. Zhu’s team conducted their study after noticing that patients with diabetes and foot ulcers who presented to their eye clinics “appeared to progress faster to worse grades of retinopathy” than patients with diabetes who did not have ulcers.

“Similar to how foot ulcers develop due to a severe disruption in blood flow [vascular] and a loss of sensation [neurologic], diabetic retinopathy may have a relation to microvascular disease, neurologic degeneration, and inflammation,” he said.

The findings confirm “that poor perfusion of the eye and foot are linked and can cause ischemic retinopathy leading to the development of proliferative diabetic retinopathy and vitreous hemorrhages, both serious, vision-threatening conditions,” Dr. Ramsey said.

To some extent, fewer treatments with anti-VEGF agents may account for why patients with foot ulcers have more eye complications, Dr. Ramsey added. “Additional research needs to be done to further dissect the cause and the effect, but it’s a very important finding that we need to increase awareness about,” he said.

Dr. Ramsey and Mr. Zhu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

LONG BEACH, CALIF. – Ms. S had recently arrived home after a stay at a skilled nursing facility to recover from a hip fracture resulting from osteoporosis. For many patients, follow-up care would have included a DEXA scan or a prescription for a bisphosphonate from a primary care clinician not trained in geriatrics.

But the 85-year-old received care that went further and that is considered best practice for the management of geriatric fractures: A physical therapist visited her after discharge and provided education on the importance of maintaining mobility. Ms. S also underwent assessment for fall risk and gait balance, and a team of multidisciplinary clinicians managed other factors, from postural hypotension to footwear and foot problems.

Sonja Rosen, MD, professor of medicine and chief of geriatric medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, talked about Ms. S as part of a panel discussion on applying the “Geriatric 5Ms” for patients with osteoporosis at the annual meeting of the American Geriatrics Society.

“You have to figure out why they are falling and help them not fall again,” Dr. Rosen said.

Approximately 10 million Americans have osteoporosis, and another 44 million have low bone density. One in two women and up to one in four men will experience a bone fracture as a result of osteoporosis, according to the Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation.

Geriatric health care providers view the 5Ms as core principles to be mindful of as their patients age – mobility, medications, mind, multicomplexity, and matters most, which involves considering the care preferences and goals for health care outcomes of individuals.

Ms. S eventually visited a geriatrician through the Cedars-Sinai Geriatric Fracture Program, which has been shown to lower costs and shorten hospital stays. In the program, she was advised to use a walker. Initially, she saw the aid as a hindrance – she felt she should be able to walk without it, like before. But with education, she learned that it is impossible to predict falls and that the walking aid could reduce her risk of a stumble.

Dr. Rosen said clinicians should address any vision problems, prescriptions for psychotropic drugs,which can affect balance, and heart rate and rhythm abnormalities, and they should suggest modifications to the home environment, such as installing grab bars in showers and removing rugs that can easily be tripped over.

The program at Cedars-Sinai, like similar initiatives, offers a team with resources that some clinicians may not have access to, such as a care coordinator and bone-health coach. But health care providers can utilize aspects, such as making referrals to community exercise classes.

Dr. Rosen and her colleagues studied the effects of such exercise programs and found that the programs lessen loneliness and social isolation. Fear of falling decreased in 75% of participants, “which is so key to these postfracture patients in getting back out into the world and engaging in their prior level of functional status,” Dr. Rosen said.
 

The second ‘M’: Medication management

The second “M,” medications, can help clinicians sequence osteoporosis drugs, depending on patient characteristics and scenarios.

Cathleen Colon-Emeric, MD, MHS, chief of geriatrics at Duke University, in Durham, N.C., dived into the case history of Ms. S, who had hypertension and insomnia in addition to osteoporosis.

First-line treatment for Ms. S – and for most patients – was an oral bisphosphonate, Dr. Colon-Emeric said. Compared with placebo, the drugs decrease the risk of overall osteoporotic fractures by nearly 40% (odds ratio, 0.62). But the medications are linked to injury of the esophageal mucosa. This risk is decreased when a patient stays upright for 30 minutes after taking oral bisphosphonates. Dr. Colon-Emeric displayed a slide of a woman receiving a pedicure at a nail salon.

“The picture of the pedicure is to share the wonderful idea I got from one skilled nursing facility I was working with, who makes sure they do safe administration to prevent esophagitis in their patients by having them all go to a spa day, where they all sit up and get their nails done while they wait their 30 minutes [after taking the pill] sitting up safely,” Dr. Colon-Emeric said.

This strategy drew applause from the audience.

Dr. Colon-Emeric advised that clinicians use judgment in the interpretation of results from the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). Incorporating race into estimates of fracture risk has pros and cons. While there are racial and ethnic differences in average bone density, the data for race calibrations to estimate risk are dated, she said. Clinicians should compare FRAX estimates with and without race input to help patients understand a range of risks.

Some patients may be reluctant to begin taking osteoporosis drugs because of misinformation originating from inaccurate news reports or anecdotes from friends. Dr. Colon-Emeric advised clinicians to remind patients that one in five who experience a fracture will have another injury in the following 2 years.

“A major osteoporotic fracture is akin to a heart attack; it has a very similar 1-year mortality rate and a very similar rate of a subsequent secondary event,” Dr. Colon-Emeric said. “We have a class of medications that decrease both those risks by nearly a third.”

Shared decision-making can help patients understand the risks and benefits of treatment, she said.

“People are really scared about the side effects,” Michelle Keller, PhD, MPH, a research scientist at Cedars-Sinai who attended the session, said. “The idea that a “bone attack” is like a heart attack gets the message across.”
 

Mind and multicomplexity

Medical complexity of a patient must be considered when making decisions on treatment, according to Joshua Niznik, PharmD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in the Center for Aging and Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Medical complexity is an acknowledgment of the entire person, the burden of their multiple chronic conditions, advanced illnesses, and also their biopsychosocial needs and how those together might augment treatment selection and decision-making,” Dr. Niznik said.

Studies by Dr. Niznik and others have shown that swallowing difficulties, severe dementia, and being older than 90 are linked with a lower likelihood of receiving treatment for osteoporosis.

But therapies for fracture prevention, especially bisphosphonates, appear to be at least as effective for adults with medical complexity as they are for people without such conditions, Dr. Niznik said. Physicians must consider the potential treatment burden and the likelihood of benefit, he said.

Dr. Niznik’s research has shown a lack of strong evidence on how clinicians can manage patients in nursing homes. In some cases, deprescribing is reasonable, such as for patients who have undergone treatment for several years and whose life expectancy is less than 2 years.

“In the absence of any of those, if they are not already treated for osteoporosis, it makes sense to initiate treatment at that time,” Dr. Niznik said.
 

Matters most: Patient input

Clinicians need to educate patients on how long they must undergo a treatment before they experience benefits, according to Sarah D. Berry, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston.

A meta-analysis of studies that included more than 20,000 women who were randomly assigned to receive bisphosphonate or placebo found that one nonvertebral fracture was avoided during a 12-month period for every 100 persons treated. One hip fracture was avoided during a 20-month period for every 200 patients treated.

“In general, in persons with a 2-year life expectancy, time to benefit favors bisphosphonate use,” Dr. Berry said. “Anabolics may have an even quicker time to benefit.”

Dr. Berry said a shared a decision-making model can help clinicians facilitate discussions that help patients prioritize goals and compare options while considering results, benefits, and harms. And she offered a final tip: Use tools with absolute risk reduction to convey risks and benefits, as the relative risk calculations overestimate how effective treatment will be.

Dr. Rosen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Colon-Emeric has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and VA Health Services Research and Development Funding; has served as endpoint adjudication chair for UCB Pharma; and has received royalties from Wolters Kluwer. Dr. Niznik has received funding from the National Institute of Aging and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Berry has received funding from the NIH and royalties from Wolters Kluwer.

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

LONG BEACH, CALIF. – Ms. S had recently arrived home after a stay at a skilled nursing facility to recover from a hip fracture resulting from osteoporosis. For many patients, follow-up care would have included a DEXA scan or a prescription for a bisphosphonate from a primary care clinician not trained in geriatrics.

But the 85-year-old received care that went further and that is considered best practice for the management of geriatric fractures: A physical therapist visited her after discharge and provided education on the importance of maintaining mobility. Ms. S also underwent assessment for fall risk and gait balance, and a team of multidisciplinary clinicians managed other factors, from postural hypotension to footwear and foot problems.

Sonja Rosen, MD, professor of medicine and chief of geriatric medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, talked about Ms. S as part of a panel discussion on applying the “Geriatric 5Ms” for patients with osteoporosis at the annual meeting of the American Geriatrics Society.

“You have to figure out why they are falling and help them not fall again,” Dr. Rosen said.

Approximately 10 million Americans have osteoporosis, and another 44 million have low bone density. One in two women and up to one in four men will experience a bone fracture as a result of osteoporosis, according to the Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation.

Geriatric health care providers view the 5Ms as core principles to be mindful of as their patients age – mobility, medications, mind, multicomplexity, and matters most, which involves considering the care preferences and goals for health care outcomes of individuals.

Ms. S eventually visited a geriatrician through the Cedars-Sinai Geriatric Fracture Program, which has been shown to lower costs and shorten hospital stays. In the program, she was advised to use a walker. Initially, she saw the aid as a hindrance – she felt she should be able to walk without it, like before. But with education, she learned that it is impossible to predict falls and that the walking aid could reduce her risk of a stumble.

Dr. Rosen said clinicians should address any vision problems, prescriptions for psychotropic drugs,which can affect balance, and heart rate and rhythm abnormalities, and they should suggest modifications to the home environment, such as installing grab bars in showers and removing rugs that can easily be tripped over.

The program at Cedars-Sinai, like similar initiatives, offers a team with resources that some clinicians may not have access to, such as a care coordinator and bone-health coach. But health care providers can utilize aspects, such as making referrals to community exercise classes.

Dr. Rosen and her colleagues studied the effects of such exercise programs and found that the programs lessen loneliness and social isolation. Fear of falling decreased in 75% of participants, “which is so key to these postfracture patients in getting back out into the world and engaging in their prior level of functional status,” Dr. Rosen said.
 

The second ‘M’: Medication management

The second “M,” medications, can help clinicians sequence osteoporosis drugs, depending on patient characteristics and scenarios.

Cathleen Colon-Emeric, MD, MHS, chief of geriatrics at Duke University, in Durham, N.C., dived into the case history of Ms. S, who had hypertension and insomnia in addition to osteoporosis.

First-line treatment for Ms. S – and for most patients – was an oral bisphosphonate, Dr. Colon-Emeric said. Compared with placebo, the drugs decrease the risk of overall osteoporotic fractures by nearly 40% (odds ratio, 0.62). But the medications are linked to injury of the esophageal mucosa. This risk is decreased when a patient stays upright for 30 minutes after taking oral bisphosphonates. Dr. Colon-Emeric displayed a slide of a woman receiving a pedicure at a nail salon.

“The picture of the pedicure is to share the wonderful idea I got from one skilled nursing facility I was working with, who makes sure they do safe administration to prevent esophagitis in their patients by having them all go to a spa day, where they all sit up and get their nails done while they wait their 30 minutes [after taking the pill] sitting up safely,” Dr. Colon-Emeric said.

This strategy drew applause from the audience.

Dr. Colon-Emeric advised that clinicians use judgment in the interpretation of results from the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). Incorporating race into estimates of fracture risk has pros and cons. While there are racial and ethnic differences in average bone density, the data for race calibrations to estimate risk are dated, she said. Clinicians should compare FRAX estimates with and without race input to help patients understand a range of risks.

Some patients may be reluctant to begin taking osteoporosis drugs because of misinformation originating from inaccurate news reports or anecdotes from friends. Dr. Colon-Emeric advised clinicians to remind patients that one in five who experience a fracture will have another injury in the following 2 years.

“A major osteoporotic fracture is akin to a heart attack; it has a very similar 1-year mortality rate and a very similar rate of a subsequent secondary event,” Dr. Colon-Emeric said. “We have a class of medications that decrease both those risks by nearly a third.”

Shared decision-making can help patients understand the risks and benefits of treatment, she said.

“People are really scared about the side effects,” Michelle Keller, PhD, MPH, a research scientist at Cedars-Sinai who attended the session, said. “The idea that a “bone attack” is like a heart attack gets the message across.”
 

Mind and multicomplexity

Medical complexity of a patient must be considered when making decisions on treatment, according to Joshua Niznik, PharmD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in the Center for Aging and Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Medical complexity is an acknowledgment of the entire person, the burden of their multiple chronic conditions, advanced illnesses, and also their biopsychosocial needs and how those together might augment treatment selection and decision-making,” Dr. Niznik said.

Studies by Dr. Niznik and others have shown that swallowing difficulties, severe dementia, and being older than 90 are linked with a lower likelihood of receiving treatment for osteoporosis.

But therapies for fracture prevention, especially bisphosphonates, appear to be at least as effective for adults with medical complexity as they are for people without such conditions, Dr. Niznik said. Physicians must consider the potential treatment burden and the likelihood of benefit, he said.

Dr. Niznik’s research has shown a lack of strong evidence on how clinicians can manage patients in nursing homes. In some cases, deprescribing is reasonable, such as for patients who have undergone treatment for several years and whose life expectancy is less than 2 years.

“In the absence of any of those, if they are not already treated for osteoporosis, it makes sense to initiate treatment at that time,” Dr. Niznik said.
 

Matters most: Patient input

Clinicians need to educate patients on how long they must undergo a treatment before they experience benefits, according to Sarah D. Berry, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston.

A meta-analysis of studies that included more than 20,000 women who were randomly assigned to receive bisphosphonate or placebo found that one nonvertebral fracture was avoided during a 12-month period for every 100 persons treated. One hip fracture was avoided during a 20-month period for every 200 patients treated.

“In general, in persons with a 2-year life expectancy, time to benefit favors bisphosphonate use,” Dr. Berry said. “Anabolics may have an even quicker time to benefit.”

Dr. Berry said a shared a decision-making model can help clinicians facilitate discussions that help patients prioritize goals and compare options while considering results, benefits, and harms. And she offered a final tip: Use tools with absolute risk reduction to convey risks and benefits, as the relative risk calculations overestimate how effective treatment will be.

Dr. Rosen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Colon-Emeric has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and VA Health Services Research and Development Funding; has served as endpoint adjudication chair for UCB Pharma; and has received royalties from Wolters Kluwer. Dr. Niznik has received funding from the National Institute of Aging and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Berry has received funding from the NIH and royalties from Wolters Kluwer.

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

LONG BEACH, CALIF. – Ms. S had recently arrived home after a stay at a skilled nursing facility to recover from a hip fracture resulting from osteoporosis. For many patients, follow-up care would have included a DEXA scan or a prescription for a bisphosphonate from a primary care clinician not trained in geriatrics.

But the 85-year-old received care that went further and that is considered best practice for the management of geriatric fractures: A physical therapist visited her after discharge and provided education on the importance of maintaining mobility. Ms. S also underwent assessment for fall risk and gait balance, and a team of multidisciplinary clinicians managed other factors, from postural hypotension to footwear and foot problems.

Sonja Rosen, MD, professor of medicine and chief of geriatric medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, talked about Ms. S as part of a panel discussion on applying the “Geriatric 5Ms” for patients with osteoporosis at the annual meeting of the American Geriatrics Society.

“You have to figure out why they are falling and help them not fall again,” Dr. Rosen said.

Approximately 10 million Americans have osteoporosis, and another 44 million have low bone density. One in two women and up to one in four men will experience a bone fracture as a result of osteoporosis, according to the Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation.

Geriatric health care providers view the 5Ms as core principles to be mindful of as their patients age – mobility, medications, mind, multicomplexity, and matters most, which involves considering the care preferences and goals for health care outcomes of individuals.

Ms. S eventually visited a geriatrician through the Cedars-Sinai Geriatric Fracture Program, which has been shown to lower costs and shorten hospital stays. In the program, she was advised to use a walker. Initially, she saw the aid as a hindrance – she felt she should be able to walk without it, like before. But with education, she learned that it is impossible to predict falls and that the walking aid could reduce her risk of a stumble.

Dr. Rosen said clinicians should address any vision problems, prescriptions for psychotropic drugs,which can affect balance, and heart rate and rhythm abnormalities, and they should suggest modifications to the home environment, such as installing grab bars in showers and removing rugs that can easily be tripped over.

The program at Cedars-Sinai, like similar initiatives, offers a team with resources that some clinicians may not have access to, such as a care coordinator and bone-health coach. But health care providers can utilize aspects, such as making referrals to community exercise classes.

Dr. Rosen and her colleagues studied the effects of such exercise programs and found that the programs lessen loneliness and social isolation. Fear of falling decreased in 75% of participants, “which is so key to these postfracture patients in getting back out into the world and engaging in their prior level of functional status,” Dr. Rosen said.
 

The second ‘M’: Medication management

The second “M,” medications, can help clinicians sequence osteoporosis drugs, depending on patient characteristics and scenarios.

Cathleen Colon-Emeric, MD, MHS, chief of geriatrics at Duke University, in Durham, N.C., dived into the case history of Ms. S, who had hypertension and insomnia in addition to osteoporosis.

First-line treatment for Ms. S – and for most patients – was an oral bisphosphonate, Dr. Colon-Emeric said. Compared with placebo, the drugs decrease the risk of overall osteoporotic fractures by nearly 40% (odds ratio, 0.62). But the medications are linked to injury of the esophageal mucosa. This risk is decreased when a patient stays upright for 30 minutes after taking oral bisphosphonates. Dr. Colon-Emeric displayed a slide of a woman receiving a pedicure at a nail salon.

“The picture of the pedicure is to share the wonderful idea I got from one skilled nursing facility I was working with, who makes sure they do safe administration to prevent esophagitis in their patients by having them all go to a spa day, where they all sit up and get their nails done while they wait their 30 minutes [after taking the pill] sitting up safely,” Dr. Colon-Emeric said.

This strategy drew applause from the audience.

Dr. Colon-Emeric advised that clinicians use judgment in the interpretation of results from the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). Incorporating race into estimates of fracture risk has pros and cons. While there are racial and ethnic differences in average bone density, the data for race calibrations to estimate risk are dated, she said. Clinicians should compare FRAX estimates with and without race input to help patients understand a range of risks.

Some patients may be reluctant to begin taking osteoporosis drugs because of misinformation originating from inaccurate news reports or anecdotes from friends. Dr. Colon-Emeric advised clinicians to remind patients that one in five who experience a fracture will have another injury in the following 2 years.

“A major osteoporotic fracture is akin to a heart attack; it has a very similar 1-year mortality rate and a very similar rate of a subsequent secondary event,” Dr. Colon-Emeric said. “We have a class of medications that decrease both those risks by nearly a third.”

Shared decision-making can help patients understand the risks and benefits of treatment, she said.

“People are really scared about the side effects,” Michelle Keller, PhD, MPH, a research scientist at Cedars-Sinai who attended the session, said. “The idea that a “bone attack” is like a heart attack gets the message across.”
 

Mind and multicomplexity

Medical complexity of a patient must be considered when making decisions on treatment, according to Joshua Niznik, PharmD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in the Center for Aging and Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Medical complexity is an acknowledgment of the entire person, the burden of their multiple chronic conditions, advanced illnesses, and also their biopsychosocial needs and how those together might augment treatment selection and decision-making,” Dr. Niznik said.

Studies by Dr. Niznik and others have shown that swallowing difficulties, severe dementia, and being older than 90 are linked with a lower likelihood of receiving treatment for osteoporosis.

But therapies for fracture prevention, especially bisphosphonates, appear to be at least as effective for adults with medical complexity as they are for people without such conditions, Dr. Niznik said. Physicians must consider the potential treatment burden and the likelihood of benefit, he said.

Dr. Niznik’s research has shown a lack of strong evidence on how clinicians can manage patients in nursing homes. In some cases, deprescribing is reasonable, such as for patients who have undergone treatment for several years and whose life expectancy is less than 2 years.

“In the absence of any of those, if they are not already treated for osteoporosis, it makes sense to initiate treatment at that time,” Dr. Niznik said.
 

Matters most: Patient input

Clinicians need to educate patients on how long they must undergo a treatment before they experience benefits, according to Sarah D. Berry, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston.

A meta-analysis of studies that included more than 20,000 women who were randomly assigned to receive bisphosphonate or placebo found that one nonvertebral fracture was avoided during a 12-month period for every 100 persons treated. One hip fracture was avoided during a 20-month period for every 200 patients treated.

“In general, in persons with a 2-year life expectancy, time to benefit favors bisphosphonate use,” Dr. Berry said. “Anabolics may have an even quicker time to benefit.”

Dr. Berry said a shared a decision-making model can help clinicians facilitate discussions that help patients prioritize goals and compare options while considering results, benefits, and harms. And she offered a final tip: Use tools with absolute risk reduction to convey risks and benefits, as the relative risk calculations overestimate how effective treatment will be.

Dr. Rosen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Colon-Emeric has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and VA Health Services Research and Development Funding; has served as endpoint adjudication chair for UCB Pharma; and has received royalties from Wolters Kluwer. Dr. Niznik has received funding from the National Institute of Aging and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Berry has received funding from the NIH and royalties from Wolters Kluwer.

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

In one of the first studies to examine this phenomenon, metabolically unhealthy obesity is associated with an increased risk, around 1.5-fold higher, of any obesity-related cancer, and an even higher risk, two- to threefold higher, for specific cancers, such as endometrial, liver, and renal cell cancers, compared with metabolically healthy normal weight.

Even in people with so-called “metabolically healthy” obesity, the risk for overall obesity-related cancer is increased, compared with normal-weight, metabolically healthy individuals; however, the associations here are weaker than in people with metabolically unhealthy obesity.

“The type of metabolic obesity phenotype is important when assessing obesity-related cancer risk,” lead researcher Ming Sun, PhD, from Lund University, Malmö, Sweden, said in an interview. “In general, metabolic aberrations further increased the obesity-induced cancer risk, suggesting that obesity and metabolic aberrations are useful targets for prevention.”

“This synergy means that when obesity and metabolic unhealth occur together, that’s particularly bad,” added Tanja Stocks, PhD, senior author, also of Lund University.

“But the data also highlight that even obesity and overweight alone comprise an increased risk of cancer,” Dr. Stocks noted.

Dr. Sun said the findings have important public health implications, suggesting that “a significant number of cancer cases could potentially be prevented by targeting the coexistence of metabolic problems and obesity, in particular for obesity-related cancers among men.”

The results will be presented as a poster by Dr. Sun at the European Congress on Obesity 2023, being held in Dublin, and have been published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

Metabolically unhealthy obesity worst for cancer risks

Andrew G. Renehan, PhD, FRCS, professor of cancer studies and surgery, University of Manchester, England, welcomed the new work, saying it addresses the issue with very large study numbers. “[It] nicely demonstrates that there are clear examples where metabolically unhealthy overweight and obese phenotypes have increased cancer risk relative to [metabolically] healthy overweight and obese phenotypes,” he said.

“There is a clear need for clinically based research addressing these hypotheses ... but these studies will additionally need to factor in other dimensions such as the selection of treatment for metabolic aberrations, both medical and surgical, and the consequent metabolic control resulting from these interventions,” Dr. Renehan observed.

Vibhu Chittajallu, MD, a gastroenterologist based at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said it was beneficial to see another study further validating the association of obesity with the development of obesity-associated cancers.

“This is an interesting study [because it focuses] on the role of metabolic syndrome in obesity and how it affects the risk of development of obesity-associated cancers,” he said in an interview.

“I believe that the results of this study further strengthen the need for improved management of obesity and metabolic syndrome to reduce the risk of obesity-associated cancer formation that plays a role in preventable and premature deaths in adult patients with obesity.”
 

Synergy between metabolic aberrations and obesity, and cancer risk

Dr. Sun and colleagues note that obesity is an established risk factor for several cancers. It is often accompanied by metabolic aberrations, which have been a commonly proposed mechanism to link obesity with cancer. During the last decade, obesity with or without metabolic aberrations – commonly termed “metabolically unhealthy” or “healthy obesity” – has been extensively investigated in the cardiovascular field; however, studies regarding cancer are limited.

According to Dr. Sun, this new study is the first to look at the synergistic effect of unhealthy metabolism and body mass index – the latter was further categorized as normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), overweight (BMI < 30) and obesity (BMI ≤ 30) – and the association with cancer risk, both overall and in relation to site-specific cancers.

Data were drawn from 797,193 European individuals (in Norway, Sweden, and Austria), of whom 23,630 developed an obesity-related cancer during the follow-up period. A metabolic score comprising mid-blood pressure, plasma glucose, and triglycerides was used to provide a measure of healthy or unhealthy metabolic status. Relative risks (hazard ratios) for overall and site-specific cancers were determined. Comparisons were made with metabolically healthy people of normal weight (effectively controls).

When different metabolic scores and BMIs were combined, participants fell into six categories: metabolically unhealthy obesity (6.8% of participants); metabolically healthy obesity (3.4%), metabolically unhealthy overweight (15.4%), metabolically healthy overweight (19.8%), metabolically unhealthy normal weight (12.5%), and metabolically healthy normal weight (42.0%).

Metabolically unhealthy women with obesity had a hazard ratio of 1.43 for overall obesity-related cancers, compared with metabolically healthy women of normal weight. Of particular note were risks of two cancer types in women with metabolically unhealthy obesity: renal cancer, with an HR of 2.43, and endometrial cancer, with an HR of 3.0, compared with controls.

Even in metabolically healthy women with obesity, compared with metabolically healthy women of normal weight, there was an increased risk of endometrial cancer, with an HR of 2.36.

“If you look at individual cancers, in particular endometrial cancer, this seems to be very much driven by obesity and not so much by the metabolic factor,” remarked Dr. Stocks.

In males, compared with metabolically healthy men of normal weight, metabolically unhealthy men with obesity had an overall obesity-related cancer risk HR of 1.91. Specifically, the risk of renal cell cancer was more than doubled, with an HR of 2.59. The HR for colon cancer was 1.85, and that for rectal cancer and pancreatic cancer was similar, both having HRs of 1.32.

Again, risk was lower in metabolically healthy men with obesity, although still higher than for metabolically healthy normal-weight men.

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

In one of the first studies to examine this phenomenon, metabolically unhealthy obesity is associated with an increased risk, around 1.5-fold higher, of any obesity-related cancer, and an even higher risk, two- to threefold higher, for specific cancers, such as endometrial, liver, and renal cell cancers, compared with metabolically healthy normal weight.

Even in people with so-called “metabolically healthy” obesity, the risk for overall obesity-related cancer is increased, compared with normal-weight, metabolically healthy individuals; however, the associations here are weaker than in people with metabolically unhealthy obesity.

“The type of metabolic obesity phenotype is important when assessing obesity-related cancer risk,” lead researcher Ming Sun, PhD, from Lund University, Malmö, Sweden, said in an interview. “In general, metabolic aberrations further increased the obesity-induced cancer risk, suggesting that obesity and metabolic aberrations are useful targets for prevention.”

“This synergy means that when obesity and metabolic unhealth occur together, that’s particularly bad,” added Tanja Stocks, PhD, senior author, also of Lund University.

“But the data also highlight that even obesity and overweight alone comprise an increased risk of cancer,” Dr. Stocks noted.

Dr. Sun said the findings have important public health implications, suggesting that “a significant number of cancer cases could potentially be prevented by targeting the coexistence of metabolic problems and obesity, in particular for obesity-related cancers among men.”

The results will be presented as a poster by Dr. Sun at the European Congress on Obesity 2023, being held in Dublin, and have been published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

Metabolically unhealthy obesity worst for cancer risks

Andrew G. Renehan, PhD, FRCS, professor of cancer studies and surgery, University of Manchester, England, welcomed the new work, saying it addresses the issue with very large study numbers. “[It] nicely demonstrates that there are clear examples where metabolically unhealthy overweight and obese phenotypes have increased cancer risk relative to [metabolically] healthy overweight and obese phenotypes,” he said.

“There is a clear need for clinically based research addressing these hypotheses ... but these studies will additionally need to factor in other dimensions such as the selection of treatment for metabolic aberrations, both medical and surgical, and the consequent metabolic control resulting from these interventions,” Dr. Renehan observed.

Vibhu Chittajallu, MD, a gastroenterologist based at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said it was beneficial to see another study further validating the association of obesity with the development of obesity-associated cancers.

“This is an interesting study [because it focuses] on the role of metabolic syndrome in obesity and how it affects the risk of development of obesity-associated cancers,” he said in an interview.

“I believe that the results of this study further strengthen the need for improved management of obesity and metabolic syndrome to reduce the risk of obesity-associated cancer formation that plays a role in preventable and premature deaths in adult patients with obesity.”
 

Synergy between metabolic aberrations and obesity, and cancer risk

Dr. Sun and colleagues note that obesity is an established risk factor for several cancers. It is often accompanied by metabolic aberrations, which have been a commonly proposed mechanism to link obesity with cancer. During the last decade, obesity with or without metabolic aberrations – commonly termed “metabolically unhealthy” or “healthy obesity” – has been extensively investigated in the cardiovascular field; however, studies regarding cancer are limited.

According to Dr. Sun, this new study is the first to look at the synergistic effect of unhealthy metabolism and body mass index – the latter was further categorized as normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), overweight (BMI < 30) and obesity (BMI ≤ 30) – and the association with cancer risk, both overall and in relation to site-specific cancers.

Data were drawn from 797,193 European individuals (in Norway, Sweden, and Austria), of whom 23,630 developed an obesity-related cancer during the follow-up period. A metabolic score comprising mid-blood pressure, plasma glucose, and triglycerides was used to provide a measure of healthy or unhealthy metabolic status. Relative risks (hazard ratios) for overall and site-specific cancers were determined. Comparisons were made with metabolically healthy people of normal weight (effectively controls).

When different metabolic scores and BMIs were combined, participants fell into six categories: metabolically unhealthy obesity (6.8% of participants); metabolically healthy obesity (3.4%), metabolically unhealthy overweight (15.4%), metabolically healthy overweight (19.8%), metabolically unhealthy normal weight (12.5%), and metabolically healthy normal weight (42.0%).

Metabolically unhealthy women with obesity had a hazard ratio of 1.43 for overall obesity-related cancers, compared with metabolically healthy women of normal weight. Of particular note were risks of two cancer types in women with metabolically unhealthy obesity: renal cancer, with an HR of 2.43, and endometrial cancer, with an HR of 3.0, compared with controls.

Even in metabolically healthy women with obesity, compared with metabolically healthy women of normal weight, there was an increased risk of endometrial cancer, with an HR of 2.36.

“If you look at individual cancers, in particular endometrial cancer, this seems to be very much driven by obesity and not so much by the metabolic factor,” remarked Dr. Stocks.

In males, compared with metabolically healthy men of normal weight, metabolically unhealthy men with obesity had an overall obesity-related cancer risk HR of 1.91. Specifically, the risk of renal cell cancer was more than doubled, with an HR of 2.59. The HR for colon cancer was 1.85, and that for rectal cancer and pancreatic cancer was similar, both having HRs of 1.32.

Again, risk was lower in metabolically healthy men with obesity, although still higher than for metabolically healthy normal-weight men.

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

In one of the first studies to examine this phenomenon, metabolically unhealthy obesity is associated with an increased risk, around 1.5-fold higher, of any obesity-related cancer, and an even higher risk, two- to threefold higher, for specific cancers, such as endometrial, liver, and renal cell cancers, compared with metabolically healthy normal weight.

Even in people with so-called “metabolically healthy” obesity, the risk for overall obesity-related cancer is increased, compared with normal-weight, metabolically healthy individuals; however, the associations here are weaker than in people with metabolically unhealthy obesity.

“The type of metabolic obesity phenotype is important when assessing obesity-related cancer risk,” lead researcher Ming Sun, PhD, from Lund University, Malmö, Sweden, said in an interview. “In general, metabolic aberrations further increased the obesity-induced cancer risk, suggesting that obesity and metabolic aberrations are useful targets for prevention.”

“This synergy means that when obesity and metabolic unhealth occur together, that’s particularly bad,” added Tanja Stocks, PhD, senior author, also of Lund University.

“But the data also highlight that even obesity and overweight alone comprise an increased risk of cancer,” Dr. Stocks noted.

Dr. Sun said the findings have important public health implications, suggesting that “a significant number of cancer cases could potentially be prevented by targeting the coexistence of metabolic problems and obesity, in particular for obesity-related cancers among men.”

The results will be presented as a poster by Dr. Sun at the European Congress on Obesity 2023, being held in Dublin, and have been published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

Metabolically unhealthy obesity worst for cancer risks

Andrew G. Renehan, PhD, FRCS, professor of cancer studies and surgery, University of Manchester, England, welcomed the new work, saying it addresses the issue with very large study numbers. “[It] nicely demonstrates that there are clear examples where metabolically unhealthy overweight and obese phenotypes have increased cancer risk relative to [metabolically] healthy overweight and obese phenotypes,” he said.

“There is a clear need for clinically based research addressing these hypotheses ... but these studies will additionally need to factor in other dimensions such as the selection of treatment for metabolic aberrations, both medical and surgical, and the consequent metabolic control resulting from these interventions,” Dr. Renehan observed.

Vibhu Chittajallu, MD, a gastroenterologist based at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said it was beneficial to see another study further validating the association of obesity with the development of obesity-associated cancers.

“This is an interesting study [because it focuses] on the role of metabolic syndrome in obesity and how it affects the risk of development of obesity-associated cancers,” he said in an interview.

“I believe that the results of this study further strengthen the need for improved management of obesity and metabolic syndrome to reduce the risk of obesity-associated cancer formation that plays a role in preventable and premature deaths in adult patients with obesity.”
 

Synergy between metabolic aberrations and obesity, and cancer risk

Dr. Sun and colleagues note that obesity is an established risk factor for several cancers. It is often accompanied by metabolic aberrations, which have been a commonly proposed mechanism to link obesity with cancer. During the last decade, obesity with or without metabolic aberrations – commonly termed “metabolically unhealthy” or “healthy obesity” – has been extensively investigated in the cardiovascular field; however, studies regarding cancer are limited.

According to Dr. Sun, this new study is the first to look at the synergistic effect of unhealthy metabolism and body mass index – the latter was further categorized as normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), overweight (BMI < 30) and obesity (BMI ≤ 30) – and the association with cancer risk, both overall and in relation to site-specific cancers.

Data were drawn from 797,193 European individuals (in Norway, Sweden, and Austria), of whom 23,630 developed an obesity-related cancer during the follow-up period. A metabolic score comprising mid-blood pressure, plasma glucose, and triglycerides was used to provide a measure of healthy or unhealthy metabolic status. Relative risks (hazard ratios) for overall and site-specific cancers were determined. Comparisons were made with metabolically healthy people of normal weight (effectively controls).

When different metabolic scores and BMIs were combined, participants fell into six categories: metabolically unhealthy obesity (6.8% of participants); metabolically healthy obesity (3.4%), metabolically unhealthy overweight (15.4%), metabolically healthy overweight (19.8%), metabolically unhealthy normal weight (12.5%), and metabolically healthy normal weight (42.0%).

Metabolically unhealthy women with obesity had a hazard ratio of 1.43 for overall obesity-related cancers, compared with metabolically healthy women of normal weight. Of particular note were risks of two cancer types in women with metabolically unhealthy obesity: renal cancer, with an HR of 2.43, and endometrial cancer, with an HR of 3.0, compared with controls.

Even in metabolically healthy women with obesity, compared with metabolically healthy women of normal weight, there was an increased risk of endometrial cancer, with an HR of 2.36.

“If you look at individual cancers, in particular endometrial cancer, this seems to be very much driven by obesity and not so much by the metabolic factor,” remarked Dr. Stocks.

In males, compared with metabolically healthy men of normal weight, metabolically unhealthy men with obesity had an overall obesity-related cancer risk HR of 1.91. Specifically, the risk of renal cell cancer was more than doubled, with an HR of 2.59. The HR for colon cancer was 1.85, and that for rectal cancer and pancreatic cancer was similar, both having HRs of 1.32.

Again, risk was lower in metabolically healthy men with obesity, although still higher than for metabolically healthy normal-weight men.

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

Bariatric surgery for obesity is associated with a reduced risk of developing breast cancer, new data suggest.

In a matched cohort study of more than 69,000 Canadian women, risk for incident breast cancer at 1 year was 40% higher among women who had not undergone bariatric surgery, compared with those who had. The risk remained elevated through 5 years of follow-up.

The findings were “definitely a bit surprising,” study author Aristithes G. Doumouras, MD, MPH, assistant professor of surgery at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The patients that underwent bariatric surgery had better cancer outcomes than patients who weighed less than they did, so it showed that there was more at play than just weight loss. This effect was durable [and] shows how powerful the surgery is, [as well as] the fact that we haven’t even explored all of its effects.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protective association

To determine whether there is a residual risk for breast cancer following bariatric surgery for obesity, the investigators analyzed clinical and administrative data collected between 2010 and 2016 in Ontario. They retrospectively matched women with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with women without a history of bariatric surgery. Participants were matched by age and breast cancer screening status. Covariates included diabetes status, neighborhood income quintile, and measures of health care use. The population included 69,260 women (mean age, 45 years).

Among participants who underwent bariatric surgery for obesity, baseline body mass index was greater than 35 for those with related comorbid conditions, and BMI was greater than 40 for those without comorbid conditions. The investigators categorized nonsurgical control patients in accordance with the following four BMI categories: less than 25, 25-29, 30-34, and greater than or equal to 35. Each control group, as well as the surgical group, included 13,852 women.

Participants in the surgical group were followed for 5 years after bariatric surgery. Those in the nonsurgical group were followed for 5 years after the index date (that is, the date of BMI measurement).

In the overall population, 659 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in the overall population (0.95%) during the study period. This total included 103 (0.74%) cancers in the surgical cohort; 128 (0.92%) in the group with BMI less than 25; 143 (1.03%) among those with BMI 25-29; 150 (1.08%) in the group with BMI 30-34; and 135 (0.97%) among those with BMI greater than or equal to 35.

Most cancers were stage I. There were 65 cases among those with BMI less than 25; 76 for those with BMI of 25-29; 65 for BMI of 30-34; 67 for BMI greater than or equal to 35, and 60 for the surgery group.

Most tumors were of medium grade and were estrogen receptor positive, progesterone receptor positive, and ERBB2 negative. No significant differences were observed across the groups for stage, grade, or hormone status.

There was an increased hazard for incident breast cancer in the nonsurgical group, compared with the postsurgical group after washout periods of 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.40), 2 years (HR, 1.31), and 5 years (HR, 1.38).

In a comparison of the postsurgical cohort with the nonsurgical cohort with BMI less than 25, the hazard of incident breast cancer was not significantly different for any of the washout periods, but there was a reduced hazard for incident breast cancer among postsurgical patients than among nonsurgical patients in all high BMI categories (BMI ≥ 25).

“Taken together, these results demonstrate that the protective association between substantial weight loss via bariatric surgery and breast cancer risk is sustained after 5 years following surgery and that it is associated with a baseline risk similar to that of women with BMI less than 25,” the investigators write.

Nevertheless, Dr. Doumouras said “the interaction between the surgery and individuals is poorly studied, and this level of personalized medicine is simply not there yet. We are working on developing a prospective cohort that has genetic, protein, and microbiome [data] to help answer these questions.”

There are not enough women in subpopulations such as BRCA carriers to study at this point, he added. “This is where more patients and time will really help the research process.”
 

A universal benefit?

“Although these findings are important overall for the general population at risk for breast cancer, we raise an important caveat: The benefit of surgical weight loss may not be universal,” write Justin B. Dimick, MD, MPH, surgical innovation editor for JAMA Surgery, and Melissa L. Pilewskie, MD, both of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying commentary.

“In addition to lifestyle factors, several nonmodifiable risk factors, such as a genetic predisposition, strong family history, personal history of a high-risk breast lesion, or history of chest wall radiation, impart significant elevation in risk, and the data remain mixed on the impact of weight loss for individuals in these high-risk cohorts,” they add.

“Further study to elucidate the underlying mechanism associated with obesity, weight loss, and breast cancer risk should help guide strategies for risk reduction that are specific to unique high-risk cohorts, because modifiable risk factors may not portend the same benefit among all groups.”

Commenting on the findings, Stephen Edge, MD, breast surgeon and vice president for system quality and outcomes at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., said, “The importance of this study is that it shows that weight loss in midlife can reduce breast cancer risk back to or even below the risk of similar people who were not obese. This has major implications for counseling women.”

The investigators did not have information on the extent of weight loss with surgery or on which participants maintained the lower weight, Dr. Edge noted; “However, overall, most people who have weight reduction surgery have major weight loss.”

At this point, he said, “we can now tell women with obesity that in addition to the many other advantages of weight loss, their risk of getting breast cancer will also be reduced.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Bariatric Registry and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Doumouras, Dr. Dimick, Dr. Pilewskie, and Dr. Edge reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bariatric surgery for obesity is associated with a reduced risk of developing breast cancer, new data suggest.

In a matched cohort study of more than 69,000 Canadian women, risk for incident breast cancer at 1 year was 40% higher among women who had not undergone bariatric surgery, compared with those who had. The risk remained elevated through 5 years of follow-up.

The findings were “definitely a bit surprising,” study author Aristithes G. Doumouras, MD, MPH, assistant professor of surgery at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The patients that underwent bariatric surgery had better cancer outcomes than patients who weighed less than they did, so it showed that there was more at play than just weight loss. This effect was durable [and] shows how powerful the surgery is, [as well as] the fact that we haven’t even explored all of its effects.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protective association

To determine whether there is a residual risk for breast cancer following bariatric surgery for obesity, the investigators analyzed clinical and administrative data collected between 2010 and 2016 in Ontario. They retrospectively matched women with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with women without a history of bariatric surgery. Participants were matched by age and breast cancer screening status. Covariates included diabetes status, neighborhood income quintile, and measures of health care use. The population included 69,260 women (mean age, 45 years).

Among participants who underwent bariatric surgery for obesity, baseline body mass index was greater than 35 for those with related comorbid conditions, and BMI was greater than 40 for those without comorbid conditions. The investigators categorized nonsurgical control patients in accordance with the following four BMI categories: less than 25, 25-29, 30-34, and greater than or equal to 35. Each control group, as well as the surgical group, included 13,852 women.

Participants in the surgical group were followed for 5 years after bariatric surgery. Those in the nonsurgical group were followed for 5 years after the index date (that is, the date of BMI measurement).

In the overall population, 659 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in the overall population (0.95%) during the study period. This total included 103 (0.74%) cancers in the surgical cohort; 128 (0.92%) in the group with BMI less than 25; 143 (1.03%) among those with BMI 25-29; 150 (1.08%) in the group with BMI 30-34; and 135 (0.97%) among those with BMI greater than or equal to 35.

Most cancers were stage I. There were 65 cases among those with BMI less than 25; 76 for those with BMI of 25-29; 65 for BMI of 30-34; 67 for BMI greater than or equal to 35, and 60 for the surgery group.

Most tumors were of medium grade and were estrogen receptor positive, progesterone receptor positive, and ERBB2 negative. No significant differences were observed across the groups for stage, grade, or hormone status.

There was an increased hazard for incident breast cancer in the nonsurgical group, compared with the postsurgical group after washout periods of 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.40), 2 years (HR, 1.31), and 5 years (HR, 1.38).

In a comparison of the postsurgical cohort with the nonsurgical cohort with BMI less than 25, the hazard of incident breast cancer was not significantly different for any of the washout periods, but there was a reduced hazard for incident breast cancer among postsurgical patients than among nonsurgical patients in all high BMI categories (BMI ≥ 25).

“Taken together, these results demonstrate that the protective association between substantial weight loss via bariatric surgery and breast cancer risk is sustained after 5 years following surgery and that it is associated with a baseline risk similar to that of women with BMI less than 25,” the investigators write.

Nevertheless, Dr. Doumouras said “the interaction between the surgery and individuals is poorly studied, and this level of personalized medicine is simply not there yet. We are working on developing a prospective cohort that has genetic, protein, and microbiome [data] to help answer these questions.”

There are not enough women in subpopulations such as BRCA carriers to study at this point, he added. “This is where more patients and time will really help the research process.”
 

A universal benefit?

“Although these findings are important overall for the general population at risk for breast cancer, we raise an important caveat: The benefit of surgical weight loss may not be universal,” write Justin B. Dimick, MD, MPH, surgical innovation editor for JAMA Surgery, and Melissa L. Pilewskie, MD, both of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying commentary.

“In addition to lifestyle factors, several nonmodifiable risk factors, such as a genetic predisposition, strong family history, personal history of a high-risk breast lesion, or history of chest wall radiation, impart significant elevation in risk, and the data remain mixed on the impact of weight loss for individuals in these high-risk cohorts,” they add.

“Further study to elucidate the underlying mechanism associated with obesity, weight loss, and breast cancer risk should help guide strategies for risk reduction that are specific to unique high-risk cohorts, because modifiable risk factors may not portend the same benefit among all groups.”

Commenting on the findings, Stephen Edge, MD, breast surgeon and vice president for system quality and outcomes at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., said, “The importance of this study is that it shows that weight loss in midlife can reduce breast cancer risk back to or even below the risk of similar people who were not obese. This has major implications for counseling women.”

The investigators did not have information on the extent of weight loss with surgery or on which participants maintained the lower weight, Dr. Edge noted; “However, overall, most people who have weight reduction surgery have major weight loss.”

At this point, he said, “we can now tell women with obesity that in addition to the many other advantages of weight loss, their risk of getting breast cancer will also be reduced.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Bariatric Registry and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Doumouras, Dr. Dimick, Dr. Pilewskie, and Dr. Edge reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bariatric surgery for obesity is associated with a reduced risk of developing breast cancer, new data suggest.

In a matched cohort study of more than 69,000 Canadian women, risk for incident breast cancer at 1 year was 40% higher among women who had not undergone bariatric surgery, compared with those who had. The risk remained elevated through 5 years of follow-up.

The findings were “definitely a bit surprising,” study author Aristithes G. Doumouras, MD, MPH, assistant professor of surgery at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The patients that underwent bariatric surgery had better cancer outcomes than patients who weighed less than they did, so it showed that there was more at play than just weight loss. This effect was durable [and] shows how powerful the surgery is, [as well as] the fact that we haven’t even explored all of its effects.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protective association

To determine whether there is a residual risk for breast cancer following bariatric surgery for obesity, the investigators analyzed clinical and administrative data collected between 2010 and 2016 in Ontario. They retrospectively matched women with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with women without a history of bariatric surgery. Participants were matched by age and breast cancer screening status. Covariates included diabetes status, neighborhood income quintile, and measures of health care use. The population included 69,260 women (mean age, 45 years).

Among participants who underwent bariatric surgery for obesity, baseline body mass index was greater than 35 for those with related comorbid conditions, and BMI was greater than 40 for those without comorbid conditions. The investigators categorized nonsurgical control patients in accordance with the following four BMI categories: less than 25, 25-29, 30-34, and greater than or equal to 35. Each control group, as well as the surgical group, included 13,852 women.

Participants in the surgical group were followed for 5 years after bariatric surgery. Those in the nonsurgical group were followed for 5 years after the index date (that is, the date of BMI measurement).

In the overall population, 659 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in the overall population (0.95%) during the study period. This total included 103 (0.74%) cancers in the surgical cohort; 128 (0.92%) in the group with BMI less than 25; 143 (1.03%) among those with BMI 25-29; 150 (1.08%) in the group with BMI 30-34; and 135 (0.97%) among those with BMI greater than or equal to 35.

Most cancers were stage I. There were 65 cases among those with BMI less than 25; 76 for those with BMI of 25-29; 65 for BMI of 30-34; 67 for BMI greater than or equal to 35, and 60 for the surgery group.

Most tumors were of medium grade and were estrogen receptor positive, progesterone receptor positive, and ERBB2 negative. No significant differences were observed across the groups for stage, grade, or hormone status.

There was an increased hazard for incident breast cancer in the nonsurgical group, compared with the postsurgical group after washout periods of 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.40), 2 years (HR, 1.31), and 5 years (HR, 1.38).

In a comparison of the postsurgical cohort with the nonsurgical cohort with BMI less than 25, the hazard of incident breast cancer was not significantly different for any of the washout periods, but there was a reduced hazard for incident breast cancer among postsurgical patients than among nonsurgical patients in all high BMI categories (BMI ≥ 25).

“Taken together, these results demonstrate that the protective association between substantial weight loss via bariatric surgery and breast cancer risk is sustained after 5 years following surgery and that it is associated with a baseline risk similar to that of women with BMI less than 25,” the investigators write.

Nevertheless, Dr. Doumouras said “the interaction between the surgery and individuals is poorly studied, and this level of personalized medicine is simply not there yet. We are working on developing a prospective cohort that has genetic, protein, and microbiome [data] to help answer these questions.”

There are not enough women in subpopulations such as BRCA carriers to study at this point, he added. “This is where more patients and time will really help the research process.”
 

A universal benefit?

“Although these findings are important overall for the general population at risk for breast cancer, we raise an important caveat: The benefit of surgical weight loss may not be universal,” write Justin B. Dimick, MD, MPH, surgical innovation editor for JAMA Surgery, and Melissa L. Pilewskie, MD, both of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying commentary.

“In addition to lifestyle factors, several nonmodifiable risk factors, such as a genetic predisposition, strong family history, personal history of a high-risk breast lesion, or history of chest wall radiation, impart significant elevation in risk, and the data remain mixed on the impact of weight loss for individuals in these high-risk cohorts,” they add.

“Further study to elucidate the underlying mechanism associated with obesity, weight loss, and breast cancer risk should help guide strategies for risk reduction that are specific to unique high-risk cohorts, because modifiable risk factors may not portend the same benefit among all groups.”

Commenting on the findings, Stephen Edge, MD, breast surgeon and vice president for system quality and outcomes at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., said, “The importance of this study is that it shows that weight loss in midlife can reduce breast cancer risk back to or even below the risk of similar people who were not obese. This has major implications for counseling women.”

The investigators did not have information on the extent of weight loss with surgery or on which participants maintained the lower weight, Dr. Edge noted; “However, overall, most people who have weight reduction surgery have major weight loss.”

At this point, he said, “we can now tell women with obesity that in addition to the many other advantages of weight loss, their risk of getting breast cancer will also be reduced.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Bariatric Registry and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Doumouras, Dr. Dimick, Dr. Pilewskie, and Dr. Edge reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The past few years have seen major transformations in the way health care websites operate and interact with patients. To stay competitive, it is important to ensure that your website is adapting to this changing environment, and that it continues adapting as future changes further impact its performance and ranking.

In mid-2018, a major Google algorithm change, known to the IT community as the “Medic Update,” significantly changed search criteria for most health and wellness websites. Another big update went live in late 2021. Websites that have not evolved with these changes have dropped in search rankings and provide a poorer user experience all around.

Many potential patients are searching for your services online, so your website cannot be an afterthought. Not only does it need to be designed with your target audience in mind, but it is also important to consider the metrics Google and other search engines now use when assessing the quality of your website so that patients will find it in the first place.

Here are some features that you (or your website company) need to prioritize to keep your site current and atop search results in 2023 and beyond.

Begin with an understandable URL. Search engines use URLs to determine how well your site, or a portion of it, matches search criteria. URLs also need to make sense to searchers, especially when they link specific areas of expertise (more on that in a minute). For example, a URL like “jonesdermatology.com/?p=89021” is meaningless to anyone except programmers; but “jonesdermatology.com/psoriasistreatments” obviously leads to a page about psoriasis treatments. Search engines look for not only the most relevant, but also the most helpful and user-friendly answers to a user’s query.

Incidentally, if the URL for your site is not your own name, you should register your name as a separate domain name – even if you never use it – to be sure that a trickster or troll, or someone with the same name but a bad reputation, doesn’t get it.

Continue with a good meta description. That’s the grayish text that follows the title and URL in search results. Searchers will read it to confirm that your site is what they seek, so make sure it describes exactly what you do, including any areas of special expertise.

Make your practice approachable with photos. New patients are more comfortable when they know what you look like, so real photos of you and your staff are always more effective than stock photos of models. Photos or a video tour of your office will reassure prospective patients that they will be visiting a clean, modern, professional facility.

Describe your principal services in detail. You never know which specific service a prospective patient is searching for, so describe everything you offer. Don’t try to summarize everything on a single page; relevance is determined by how deeply a topic is covered, so each principal service should have a detailed description on its own page. Not only will your skills become more visible to search engines, but you can also use the space to enumerate your qualifications and expertise in each area. Whenever possible, write your descriptions in question-and-answer form. Searchers tend to ask questions (“what is the best ... ?”), particularly in voice searches. Search engines increasingly value sites that ask and answer common questions.

Make your site interactive. “Interactivity” is a major buzzword in modern search engine parlance. Once searchers make an appointment, they stop searching. If they have to wait until the next day to call your office, they may keep looking – and might find a competitor with online scheduling. HIPAA-compliant chatbots, secure messaging, and online patient portals to access medical records, lab results, and other important information will also set your site apart.

Testimonials are essential. Amazon.com taught us that candid reviews from customers go a long way toward building the trust necessary to buy products and services, and nowhere is that truer than for medical services. According to one study, when it comes to finding a doctor, 88% of people trust online reviews as much as a personal recommendation. Loyal patients will be happy to write you glowing reviews; feature them prominently.

How does your site look on small screens? More than half of all searches are now made on smartphones, so the more mobile-friendly your site is, the higher it will be ranked. Prospective patients who are forced to scroll forever, or zoom in to tap a link, are likely to become frustrated and move on. Mobile searchers prefer sites that provide the best experience for the least amount of effort, and rankings tend to reflect that preference. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test..

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

The past few years have seen major transformations in the way health care websites operate and interact with patients. To stay competitive, it is important to ensure that your website is adapting to this changing environment, and that it continues adapting as future changes further impact its performance and ranking.

In mid-2018, a major Google algorithm change, known to the IT community as the “Medic Update,” significantly changed search criteria for most health and wellness websites. Another big update went live in late 2021. Websites that have not evolved with these changes have dropped in search rankings and provide a poorer user experience all around.

Many potential patients are searching for your services online, so your website cannot be an afterthought. Not only does it need to be designed with your target audience in mind, but it is also important to consider the metrics Google and other search engines now use when assessing the quality of your website so that patients will find it in the first place.

Here are some features that you (or your website company) need to prioritize to keep your site current and atop search results in 2023 and beyond.

Begin with an understandable URL. Search engines use URLs to determine how well your site, or a portion of it, matches search criteria. URLs also need to make sense to searchers, especially when they link specific areas of expertise (more on that in a minute). For example, a URL like “jonesdermatology.com/?p=89021” is meaningless to anyone except programmers; but “jonesdermatology.com/psoriasistreatments” obviously leads to a page about psoriasis treatments. Search engines look for not only the most relevant, but also the most helpful and user-friendly answers to a user’s query.

Incidentally, if the URL for your site is not your own name, you should register your name as a separate domain name – even if you never use it – to be sure that a trickster or troll, or someone with the same name but a bad reputation, doesn’t get it.

Continue with a good meta description. That’s the grayish text that follows the title and URL in search results. Searchers will read it to confirm that your site is what they seek, so make sure it describes exactly what you do, including any areas of special expertise.

Make your practice approachable with photos. New patients are more comfortable when they know what you look like, so real photos of you and your staff are always more effective than stock photos of models. Photos or a video tour of your office will reassure prospective patients that they will be visiting a clean, modern, professional facility.

Describe your principal services in detail. You never know which specific service a prospective patient is searching for, so describe everything you offer. Don’t try to summarize everything on a single page; relevance is determined by how deeply a topic is covered, so each principal service should have a detailed description on its own page. Not only will your skills become more visible to search engines, but you can also use the space to enumerate your qualifications and expertise in each area. Whenever possible, write your descriptions in question-and-answer form. Searchers tend to ask questions (“what is the best ... ?”), particularly in voice searches. Search engines increasingly value sites that ask and answer common questions.

Make your site interactive. “Interactivity” is a major buzzword in modern search engine parlance. Once searchers make an appointment, they stop searching. If they have to wait until the next day to call your office, they may keep looking – and might find a competitor with online scheduling. HIPAA-compliant chatbots, secure messaging, and online patient portals to access medical records, lab results, and other important information will also set your site apart.

Testimonials are essential. Amazon.com taught us that candid reviews from customers go a long way toward building the trust necessary to buy products and services, and nowhere is that truer than for medical services. According to one study, when it comes to finding a doctor, 88% of people trust online reviews as much as a personal recommendation. Loyal patients will be happy to write you glowing reviews; feature them prominently.

How does your site look on small screens? More than half of all searches are now made on smartphones, so the more mobile-friendly your site is, the higher it will be ranked. Prospective patients who are forced to scroll forever, or zoom in to tap a link, are likely to become frustrated and move on. Mobile searchers prefer sites that provide the best experience for the least amount of effort, and rankings tend to reflect that preference. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test..

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

The past few years have seen major transformations in the way health care websites operate and interact with patients. To stay competitive, it is important to ensure that your website is adapting to this changing environment, and that it continues adapting as future changes further impact its performance and ranking.

In mid-2018, a major Google algorithm change, known to the IT community as the “Medic Update,” significantly changed search criteria for most health and wellness websites. Another big update went live in late 2021. Websites that have not evolved with these changes have dropped in search rankings and provide a poorer user experience all around.

Many potential patients are searching for your services online, so your website cannot be an afterthought. Not only does it need to be designed with your target audience in mind, but it is also important to consider the metrics Google and other search engines now use when assessing the quality of your website so that patients will find it in the first place.

Here are some features that you (or your website company) need to prioritize to keep your site current and atop search results in 2023 and beyond.

Begin with an understandable URL. Search engines use URLs to determine how well your site, or a portion of it, matches search criteria. URLs also need to make sense to searchers, especially when they link specific areas of expertise (more on that in a minute). For example, a URL like “jonesdermatology.com/?p=89021” is meaningless to anyone except programmers; but “jonesdermatology.com/psoriasistreatments” obviously leads to a page about psoriasis treatments. Search engines look for not only the most relevant, but also the most helpful and user-friendly answers to a user’s query.

Incidentally, if the URL for your site is not your own name, you should register your name as a separate domain name – even if you never use it – to be sure that a trickster or troll, or someone with the same name but a bad reputation, doesn’t get it.

Continue with a good meta description. That’s the grayish text that follows the title and URL in search results. Searchers will read it to confirm that your site is what they seek, so make sure it describes exactly what you do, including any areas of special expertise.

Make your practice approachable with photos. New patients are more comfortable when they know what you look like, so real photos of you and your staff are always more effective than stock photos of models. Photos or a video tour of your office will reassure prospective patients that they will be visiting a clean, modern, professional facility.

Describe your principal services in detail. You never know which specific service a prospective patient is searching for, so describe everything you offer. Don’t try to summarize everything on a single page; relevance is determined by how deeply a topic is covered, so each principal service should have a detailed description on its own page. Not only will your skills become more visible to search engines, but you can also use the space to enumerate your qualifications and expertise in each area. Whenever possible, write your descriptions in question-and-answer form. Searchers tend to ask questions (“what is the best ... ?”), particularly in voice searches. Search engines increasingly value sites that ask and answer common questions.

Make your site interactive. “Interactivity” is a major buzzword in modern search engine parlance. Once searchers make an appointment, they stop searching. If they have to wait until the next day to call your office, they may keep looking – and might find a competitor with online scheduling. HIPAA-compliant chatbots, secure messaging, and online patient portals to access medical records, lab results, and other important information will also set your site apart.

Testimonials are essential. Amazon.com taught us that candid reviews from customers go a long way toward building the trust necessary to buy products and services, and nowhere is that truer than for medical services. According to one study, when it comes to finding a doctor, 88% of people trust online reviews as much as a personal recommendation. Loyal patients will be happy to write you glowing reviews; feature them prominently.

How does your site look on small screens? More than half of all searches are now made on smartphones, so the more mobile-friendly your site is, the higher it will be ranked. Prospective patients who are forced to scroll forever, or zoom in to tap a link, are likely to become frustrated and move on. Mobile searchers prefer sites that provide the best experience for the least amount of effort, and rankings tend to reflect that preference. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test..

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

SEATTLE – Tissue accumulation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) is associated with the presence of hypercortisolism, suggesting a potential future noninvasive method to assist in the diagnosis of Cushing syndrome, new research suggests.
 

Tissue accumulation of AGEs – harmful compounds formed by glycation of macromolecules – has been implicated in aging, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Now, in a new single-center prospective study, a group of 208 patients with endogenous hypercortisolism was found to have significantly higher median tissue AGE levels than 103 reference subjects without hypercortisolism.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology by Rashi Sandooja, MD, an endocrinology fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“Diagnosis of endogenous hypercortisolism can be quite challenging. Often patients can have nonspecific symptoms with biochemical testing being equivocal. In these situations, new biomarkers of hypercortisolism such as AGE measurement could potentially be useful,” Dr. Sandooja said in an interview.

“After proper validation, it could help clinicians in cases which may not be straightforward and could serve as an additional” instrument in the toolkit to reach a conclusive diagnosis, she added.

Asked to comment, session moderator Anupam Kotwal, MD, said in an interview: “I think it’s very exciting data. ... I envision its use in mild autonomous cortisol secretion, where there are not a lot of overt Cushing features but they may have a small adrenal mass. ... It might be used to guide care when there’s not a clear-cut answer.”

However, he cautioned that more validation is needed to determine the correlates of AGEs by different etiologies and magnitudes of cortisol excess.

Moreover, “skin can become thin in hypercortisolism, so is [the reader device] just detecting it more with skin testing? I think a blood test for validation would be a very good next step,” added Dr. Kotwal, who is an assistant professor in the division of diabetes, endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.
 

More work will be needed

Future directions for research should include adding a longitudinal arm and looking at the impact on AGE after patients undergo curative surgery and achieve remission, Dr. Sandooja explained.

“It will be interesting to see if AGE levels continue to be persistently high or decrease after patients achieve sustained remission of hypercortisolism. We are also interested in whether AGE measurement at baseline, prior to surgery may be associated with glucocorticoid withdrawal, myopathy, and metabolic outcomes following the surgery.”

Dr. Kotwal observed: “If the answer is clear for Cushing disease, I don’t know what extra information this would give. Maybe they would monitor people more closely afterward. It would be useful to see, but I think the first low-hanging fruit is use it in a way to guide the care of patients where we’re unclear as to whether initial treatment of this [mild autonomous cortisol secretion] is going to improve their outcomes.”

But, he added, “keeping in mind issues of skin ... we don’t want to distract clinicians and patients from using the tried and tested methods of characterizing Cushing syndrome. I’m always hesitant to bring something into practice before there is a little more information on how it can be used.”

Dr. Sandooja and Dr. Kotwal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SEATTLE – Tissue accumulation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) is associated with the presence of hypercortisolism, suggesting a potential future noninvasive method to assist in the diagnosis of Cushing syndrome, new research suggests.
 

Tissue accumulation of AGEs – harmful compounds formed by glycation of macromolecules – has been implicated in aging, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Now, in a new single-center prospective study, a group of 208 patients with endogenous hypercortisolism was found to have significantly higher median tissue AGE levels than 103 reference subjects without hypercortisolism.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology by Rashi Sandooja, MD, an endocrinology fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“Diagnosis of endogenous hypercortisolism can be quite challenging. Often patients can have nonspecific symptoms with biochemical testing being equivocal. In these situations, new biomarkers of hypercortisolism such as AGE measurement could potentially be useful,” Dr. Sandooja said in an interview.

“After proper validation, it could help clinicians in cases which may not be straightforward and could serve as an additional” instrument in the toolkit to reach a conclusive diagnosis, she added.

Asked to comment, session moderator Anupam Kotwal, MD, said in an interview: “I think it’s very exciting data. ... I envision its use in mild autonomous cortisol secretion, where there are not a lot of overt Cushing features but they may have a small adrenal mass. ... It might be used to guide care when there’s not a clear-cut answer.”

However, he cautioned that more validation is needed to determine the correlates of AGEs by different etiologies and magnitudes of cortisol excess.

Moreover, “skin can become thin in hypercortisolism, so is [the reader device] just detecting it more with skin testing? I think a blood test for validation would be a very good next step,” added Dr. Kotwal, who is an assistant professor in the division of diabetes, endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.
 

More work will be needed

Future directions for research should include adding a longitudinal arm and looking at the impact on AGE after patients undergo curative surgery and achieve remission, Dr. Sandooja explained.

“It will be interesting to see if AGE levels continue to be persistently high or decrease after patients achieve sustained remission of hypercortisolism. We are also interested in whether AGE measurement at baseline, prior to surgery may be associated with glucocorticoid withdrawal, myopathy, and metabolic outcomes following the surgery.”

Dr. Kotwal observed: “If the answer is clear for Cushing disease, I don’t know what extra information this would give. Maybe they would monitor people more closely afterward. It would be useful to see, but I think the first low-hanging fruit is use it in a way to guide the care of patients where we’re unclear as to whether initial treatment of this [mild autonomous cortisol secretion] is going to improve their outcomes.”

But, he added, “keeping in mind issues of skin ... we don’t want to distract clinicians and patients from using the tried and tested methods of characterizing Cushing syndrome. I’m always hesitant to bring something into practice before there is a little more information on how it can be used.”

Dr. Sandooja and Dr. Kotwal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SEATTLE – Tissue accumulation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) is associated with the presence of hypercortisolism, suggesting a potential future noninvasive method to assist in the diagnosis of Cushing syndrome, new research suggests.
 

Tissue accumulation of AGEs – harmful compounds formed by glycation of macromolecules – has been implicated in aging, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Now, in a new single-center prospective study, a group of 208 patients with endogenous hypercortisolism was found to have significantly higher median tissue AGE levels than 103 reference subjects without hypercortisolism.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology by Rashi Sandooja, MD, an endocrinology fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“Diagnosis of endogenous hypercortisolism can be quite challenging. Often patients can have nonspecific symptoms with biochemical testing being equivocal. In these situations, new biomarkers of hypercortisolism such as AGE measurement could potentially be useful,” Dr. Sandooja said in an interview.

“After proper validation, it could help clinicians in cases which may not be straightforward and could serve as an additional” instrument in the toolkit to reach a conclusive diagnosis, she added.

Asked to comment, session moderator Anupam Kotwal, MD, said in an interview: “I think it’s very exciting data. ... I envision its use in mild autonomous cortisol secretion, where there are not a lot of overt Cushing features but they may have a small adrenal mass. ... It might be used to guide care when there’s not a clear-cut answer.”

However, he cautioned that more validation is needed to determine the correlates of AGEs by different etiologies and magnitudes of cortisol excess.

Moreover, “skin can become thin in hypercortisolism, so is [the reader device] just detecting it more with skin testing? I think a blood test for validation would be a very good next step,” added Dr. Kotwal, who is an assistant professor in the division of diabetes, endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.
 

More work will be needed

Future directions for research should include adding a longitudinal arm and looking at the impact on AGE after patients undergo curative surgery and achieve remission, Dr. Sandooja explained.

“It will be interesting to see if AGE levels continue to be persistently high or decrease after patients achieve sustained remission of hypercortisolism. We are also interested in whether AGE measurement at baseline, prior to surgery may be associated with glucocorticoid withdrawal, myopathy, and metabolic outcomes following the surgery.”

Dr. Kotwal observed: “If the answer is clear for Cushing disease, I don’t know what extra information this would give. Maybe they would monitor people more closely afterward. It would be useful to see, but I think the first low-hanging fruit is use it in a way to guide the care of patients where we’re unclear as to whether initial treatment of this [mild autonomous cortisol secretion] is going to improve their outcomes.”

But, he added, “keeping in mind issues of skin ... we don’t want to distract clinicians and patients from using the tried and tested methods of characterizing Cushing syndrome. I’m always hesitant to bring something into practice before there is a little more information on how it can be used.”

Dr. Sandooja and Dr. Kotwal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Statins have disease-modifying potential in people with noncirrhotic chronic liver disease (CLD) by reducing the risk for progression to severe liver disease, new research shows.

The Swedish population-based study found that adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were on statin therapy had a statistically significant 40% lower risk of developing severe liver disease, compared with matched patients who were not on statin therapy.

©rogerashford/Thinkstock

The statin users were also less apt to progress to cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to die of liver disease, Rajani Sharma, MD, MSc, division of digestive and liver diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported.

Their study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

More than just cholesterol lowering

The study “continues the theme that cholesterol-lowering statins are good for a lot more things than just lowering cholesterol,” William Carey, MD, who wasn’t involved with the study, said in an interview.

The results are “very consistent with other trials that show that people with liver disease on statins do better in many respects than those who are not on statins,” said Dr. Carey, acting head of the hepatology section, department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, Cleveland Clinic.

“The effects are not trivial,” Dr. Carey added. “It’s a very significant advantage in terms of fibrosis progression and survival.”

Statins have been shown to inhibit inflammatory pathways, promote endothelial cell function, and reduce hepatic stellate cell activity, suggesting that statins could lessen the progression of liver fibrosis, Dr. Sharma and coauthors wrote.

A few prior studies have looked at the effects of statins in noncirrhotic CLD specifically, but most only included patients with viral hepatitis, and the identification of precirrhotic liver disease was largely based on fibrosis scores or ICD coding, leading to a risk for misclassification and heterogeneity in results, they wrote.

Using histopathology data in a nationwide Swedish cohort, Dr. Sharma and colleagues identified 3862 adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were statin users and a like number of propensity score–matched nonstatin users with noncirrhotic CLD. The adults with CLD included in the study were required to have a liver biopsy showing fibrosis or inflammation between the years 1969 and 2017 and at least one ICD code for CLD.

In both groups, 45% of patients had nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), 22% had alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), 18% had viral hepatitis, and 15% had autoimmune hepatitis (AIH).

The analysis found 234 (6.1%) statin users developed severe liver disease versus 276 (7.1%) nonusers, with incidence rates of 10.5 versus 18.1 per 1,000 person-years, respectively.

Statin use was associated with a statistically significant 40% lower rate of severe liver disease (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.74).

This was the case in ALD (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.49) and NAFLD (HR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.45-1.00), but the results were not statistically significant for individuals with viral hepatitis (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51-1.14) or AIH (HR, 0.88; 0.48-1.58).

Statin use had a protective association in both prefibrosis and fibrosis stages at diagnosis, the researchers reported.

Statin use was also associated with lower rates of progression to cirrhosis (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78), HCC (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.71) and liver-related death or liver transplant (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82).

The authors noted that their “study provides the most robust estimates available thus far.” However, they cautioned that “prospective randomized controlled trials are necessary in order to recommend statin use in clinical practice.”
 

‘Reassuring and pleasantly surprising’

The study is “very interesting, reassuring, and pleasantly surprising,” Scott L. Friedman, MD, chief of the division of liver diseases and dean for therapeutic discovery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. New York, said in an interview.

“Statins have been around for a long time, and in earlier days, there was fear of using them because they might induce liver injury. But ample and consistent data exclude the possibility that they are more toxic in patients with liver disease,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not associated with this research.

“What’s interesting and new about this paper is that those studies that have looked at the effects of statins on liver disease have primarily focused on patients who have cirrhosis because there’s some scientific evidence [that] statins can lead to vasodilation and reduce the elevated liver blood flow that occurs in cirrhosis,” he explained.

“Instead, this study, which is quite sizable, includes patients who do not have evidence of cirrhosis based on biopsies. The results suggest that statins have a significant protective effect in these patients,” Dr. Friedman said.

The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sharma is a consultant for Takeda and Volv. Other coauthors reported current or past relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Salix, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Carey and Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Statins have disease-modifying potential in people with noncirrhotic chronic liver disease (CLD) by reducing the risk for progression to severe liver disease, new research shows.

The Swedish population-based study found that adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were on statin therapy had a statistically significant 40% lower risk of developing severe liver disease, compared with matched patients who were not on statin therapy.

©rogerashford/Thinkstock

The statin users were also less apt to progress to cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to die of liver disease, Rajani Sharma, MD, MSc, division of digestive and liver diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported.

Their study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

More than just cholesterol lowering

The study “continues the theme that cholesterol-lowering statins are good for a lot more things than just lowering cholesterol,” William Carey, MD, who wasn’t involved with the study, said in an interview.

The results are “very consistent with other trials that show that people with liver disease on statins do better in many respects than those who are not on statins,” said Dr. Carey, acting head of the hepatology section, department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, Cleveland Clinic.

“The effects are not trivial,” Dr. Carey added. “It’s a very significant advantage in terms of fibrosis progression and survival.”

Statins have been shown to inhibit inflammatory pathways, promote endothelial cell function, and reduce hepatic stellate cell activity, suggesting that statins could lessen the progression of liver fibrosis, Dr. Sharma and coauthors wrote.

A few prior studies have looked at the effects of statins in noncirrhotic CLD specifically, but most only included patients with viral hepatitis, and the identification of precirrhotic liver disease was largely based on fibrosis scores or ICD coding, leading to a risk for misclassification and heterogeneity in results, they wrote.

Using histopathology data in a nationwide Swedish cohort, Dr. Sharma and colleagues identified 3862 adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were statin users and a like number of propensity score–matched nonstatin users with noncirrhotic CLD. The adults with CLD included in the study were required to have a liver biopsy showing fibrosis or inflammation between the years 1969 and 2017 and at least one ICD code for CLD.

In both groups, 45% of patients had nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), 22% had alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), 18% had viral hepatitis, and 15% had autoimmune hepatitis (AIH).

The analysis found 234 (6.1%) statin users developed severe liver disease versus 276 (7.1%) nonusers, with incidence rates of 10.5 versus 18.1 per 1,000 person-years, respectively.

Statin use was associated with a statistically significant 40% lower rate of severe liver disease (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.74).

This was the case in ALD (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.49) and NAFLD (HR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.45-1.00), but the results were not statistically significant for individuals with viral hepatitis (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51-1.14) or AIH (HR, 0.88; 0.48-1.58).

Statin use had a protective association in both prefibrosis and fibrosis stages at diagnosis, the researchers reported.

Statin use was also associated with lower rates of progression to cirrhosis (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78), HCC (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.71) and liver-related death or liver transplant (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82).

The authors noted that their “study provides the most robust estimates available thus far.” However, they cautioned that “prospective randomized controlled trials are necessary in order to recommend statin use in clinical practice.”
 

‘Reassuring and pleasantly surprising’

The study is “very interesting, reassuring, and pleasantly surprising,” Scott L. Friedman, MD, chief of the division of liver diseases and dean for therapeutic discovery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. New York, said in an interview.

“Statins have been around for a long time, and in earlier days, there was fear of using them because they might induce liver injury. But ample and consistent data exclude the possibility that they are more toxic in patients with liver disease,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not associated with this research.

“What’s interesting and new about this paper is that those studies that have looked at the effects of statins on liver disease have primarily focused on patients who have cirrhosis because there’s some scientific evidence [that] statins can lead to vasodilation and reduce the elevated liver blood flow that occurs in cirrhosis,” he explained.

“Instead, this study, which is quite sizable, includes patients who do not have evidence of cirrhosis based on biopsies. The results suggest that statins have a significant protective effect in these patients,” Dr. Friedman said.

The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sharma is a consultant for Takeda and Volv. Other coauthors reported current or past relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Salix, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Carey and Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Statins have disease-modifying potential in people with noncirrhotic chronic liver disease (CLD) by reducing the risk for progression to severe liver disease, new research shows.

The Swedish population-based study found that adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were on statin therapy had a statistically significant 40% lower risk of developing severe liver disease, compared with matched patients who were not on statin therapy.

©rogerashford/Thinkstock

The statin users were also less apt to progress to cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to die of liver disease, Rajani Sharma, MD, MSc, division of digestive and liver diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported.

Their study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

More than just cholesterol lowering

The study “continues the theme that cholesterol-lowering statins are good for a lot more things than just lowering cholesterol,” William Carey, MD, who wasn’t involved with the study, said in an interview.

The results are “very consistent with other trials that show that people with liver disease on statins do better in many respects than those who are not on statins,” said Dr. Carey, acting head of the hepatology section, department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, Cleveland Clinic.

“The effects are not trivial,” Dr. Carey added. “It’s a very significant advantage in terms of fibrosis progression and survival.”

Statins have been shown to inhibit inflammatory pathways, promote endothelial cell function, and reduce hepatic stellate cell activity, suggesting that statins could lessen the progression of liver fibrosis, Dr. Sharma and coauthors wrote.

A few prior studies have looked at the effects of statins in noncirrhotic CLD specifically, but most only included patients with viral hepatitis, and the identification of precirrhotic liver disease was largely based on fibrosis scores or ICD coding, leading to a risk for misclassification and heterogeneity in results, they wrote.

Using histopathology data in a nationwide Swedish cohort, Dr. Sharma and colleagues identified 3862 adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were statin users and a like number of propensity score–matched nonstatin users with noncirrhotic CLD. The adults with CLD included in the study were required to have a liver biopsy showing fibrosis or inflammation between the years 1969 and 2017 and at least one ICD code for CLD.

In both groups, 45% of patients had nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), 22% had alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), 18% had viral hepatitis, and 15% had autoimmune hepatitis (AIH).

The analysis found 234 (6.1%) statin users developed severe liver disease versus 276 (7.1%) nonusers, with incidence rates of 10.5 versus 18.1 per 1,000 person-years, respectively.

Statin use was associated with a statistically significant 40% lower rate of severe liver disease (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.74).

This was the case in ALD (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.49) and NAFLD (HR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.45-1.00), but the results were not statistically significant for individuals with viral hepatitis (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51-1.14) or AIH (HR, 0.88; 0.48-1.58).

Statin use had a protective association in both prefibrosis and fibrosis stages at diagnosis, the researchers reported.

Statin use was also associated with lower rates of progression to cirrhosis (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78), HCC (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.71) and liver-related death or liver transplant (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82).

The authors noted that their “study provides the most robust estimates available thus far.” However, they cautioned that “prospective randomized controlled trials are necessary in order to recommend statin use in clinical practice.”
 

‘Reassuring and pleasantly surprising’

The study is “very interesting, reassuring, and pleasantly surprising,” Scott L. Friedman, MD, chief of the division of liver diseases and dean for therapeutic discovery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. New York, said in an interview.

“Statins have been around for a long time, and in earlier days, there was fear of using them because they might induce liver injury. But ample and consistent data exclude the possibility that they are more toxic in patients with liver disease,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not associated with this research.

“What’s interesting and new about this paper is that those studies that have looked at the effects of statins on liver disease have primarily focused on patients who have cirrhosis because there’s some scientific evidence [that] statins can lead to vasodilation and reduce the elevated liver blood flow that occurs in cirrhosis,” he explained.

“Instead, this study, which is quite sizable, includes patients who do not have evidence of cirrhosis based on biopsies. The results suggest that statins have a significant protective effect in these patients,” Dr. Friedman said.

The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sharma is a consultant for Takeda and Volv. Other coauthors reported current or past relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Salix, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Carey and Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral medication fezolinetant (Veozah) for the treatment of moderate to severe hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement. The approved dose is 45 mg once daily.

Fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonist, is the first drug of its kind to earn FDA approval for the vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, according to the statement. The drug works by binding to the NK3 receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, and blocking its activity. Fezolinetant is not a hormone, and can be taken by women for whom hormones are contraindicated, such as those with a history of vaginal bleeding, stroke, heart attack, blood clots, or liver disease, the FDA stated.

The approval was based on data from the SKYLIGHT 2 trial, results of which were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, reported by this news organization, and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

In the two-phase trial, women were randomized to 30 mg or 45 mg of fezolinetant or a placebo. After 12 weeks, women in placebo groups were rerandomized to fezolinetant for a 40-week safety study.

The study population included women aged 40-65 years, with an average minimum of seven moderate-to-severe hot flashes per day. The study included 120 sites in North America and Europe.

At 12 weeks, both placebo and fezolinetant patients experienced reductions in moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of approximately 60%, as well as a significant decrease in vasomotor symptom severity.

The FDA statement noted that patients should undergo baseline blood work before starting fezolinetant to test for liver infection or damage, and the prescribing information includes a warning for liver injury; blood work should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months after starting the medication, according to the FDA and a press release from the manufacturer Astellas.

The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant include abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flashes, and elevated liver values, according to the FDA statement. The FDA granted Astellas Pharma’s application a Priority Review designation. Astellas has priced the drug at $550 for a 30-day supply, significantly higher than the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s previously recommended range of $2,000 to $2,500 per year.

Full prescribing information is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral medication fezolinetant (Veozah) for the treatment of moderate to severe hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement. The approved dose is 45 mg once daily.

Fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonist, is the first drug of its kind to earn FDA approval for the vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, according to the statement. The drug works by binding to the NK3 receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, and blocking its activity. Fezolinetant is not a hormone, and can be taken by women for whom hormones are contraindicated, such as those with a history of vaginal bleeding, stroke, heart attack, blood clots, or liver disease, the FDA stated.

The approval was based on data from the SKYLIGHT 2 trial, results of which were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, reported by this news organization, and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

In the two-phase trial, women were randomized to 30 mg or 45 mg of fezolinetant or a placebo. After 12 weeks, women in placebo groups were rerandomized to fezolinetant for a 40-week safety study.

The study population included women aged 40-65 years, with an average minimum of seven moderate-to-severe hot flashes per day. The study included 120 sites in North America and Europe.

At 12 weeks, both placebo and fezolinetant patients experienced reductions in moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of approximately 60%, as well as a significant decrease in vasomotor symptom severity.

The FDA statement noted that patients should undergo baseline blood work before starting fezolinetant to test for liver infection or damage, and the prescribing information includes a warning for liver injury; blood work should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months after starting the medication, according to the FDA and a press release from the manufacturer Astellas.

The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant include abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flashes, and elevated liver values, according to the FDA statement. The FDA granted Astellas Pharma’s application a Priority Review designation. Astellas has priced the drug at $550 for a 30-day supply, significantly higher than the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s previously recommended range of $2,000 to $2,500 per year.

Full prescribing information is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral medication fezolinetant (Veozah) for the treatment of moderate to severe hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement. The approved dose is 45 mg once daily.

Fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonist, is the first drug of its kind to earn FDA approval for the vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, according to the statement. The drug works by binding to the NK3 receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, and blocking its activity. Fezolinetant is not a hormone, and can be taken by women for whom hormones are contraindicated, such as those with a history of vaginal bleeding, stroke, heart attack, blood clots, or liver disease, the FDA stated.

The approval was based on data from the SKYLIGHT 2 trial, results of which were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, reported by this news organization, and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

In the two-phase trial, women were randomized to 30 mg or 45 mg of fezolinetant or a placebo. After 12 weeks, women in placebo groups were rerandomized to fezolinetant for a 40-week safety study.

The study population included women aged 40-65 years, with an average minimum of seven moderate-to-severe hot flashes per day. The study included 120 sites in North America and Europe.

At 12 weeks, both placebo and fezolinetant patients experienced reductions in moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of approximately 60%, as well as a significant decrease in vasomotor symptom severity.

The FDA statement noted that patients should undergo baseline blood work before starting fezolinetant to test for liver infection or damage, and the prescribing information includes a warning for liver injury; blood work should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months after starting the medication, according to the FDA and a press release from the manufacturer Astellas.

The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant include abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flashes, and elevated liver values, according to the FDA statement. The FDA granted Astellas Pharma’s application a Priority Review designation. Astellas has priced the drug at $550 for a 30-day supply, significantly higher than the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s previously recommended range of $2,000 to $2,500 per year.

Full prescribing information is available here.

Time-in-range (TIR) readings from a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) complemented hemoglobin A1c readings and provided a more complete picture of glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin, in a post hoc analysis of the SWITCH PRO clinical trial.

TIR was inversely related to A1c, with the strongest correlation following treatment intensification.

However, “there was a wide scatter of data, indicating that TIR (and other metrics) provides information about glycemic control that cannot be discerned from A1c alone, and which at least complements it,” Ronald M. Goldenberg, MD, from LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology in Thornhill, Ont., and colleagues write in their article published in Diabetes Therapy.

Other work has shown that more than a third of people with type 2 diabetes are not achieving the internationally recommended A1c target of < 7% to 8.5%, they note.

When used with A1c, CGM data – such as TIR, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR) – “provide a more complete picture of glucose levels throughout the day and night,” they write.

“This may help empower people with diabetes to better manage their condition, giving them practical insights into the factors driving daily fluctuations in glucose levels, such as diet, exercise, insulin dosage, and insulin timing,” they add. “These metrics may also be used to inform treatment decisions by health care professionals.”

“Ultimately,” the researchers conclude, “it is hoped that the use of these new metrics should lead to an improved quality of glycemic control and, in turn, to a reduction in the number of diabetes-related complications.”
 

‘Important study’

Invited to comment, Celeste C. Thomas, MD, who was not involved with the research, said: “This study is important because it is consistent with previous analyses that found a correlation between TIR and A1c.”

But, “I was surprised by the scatter plots which identified participants with TIR of 70% that also had A1c > 9%,” she added. “This highlights the importance of using multiple glycemic metrics to understand an individual’s risk for diabetes complications and to be aware of the limitations of the metrics.”

Dr. Thomas, from the University of Chicago, also noted that CGM is used in endocrinology clinics and increasingly in primary care clinics, “often to determine glycemic patterns to optimize therapeutic management but also to review TIR and, importantly, time below range to reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia.”

And people with type 2 diabetes are using CGM, Dr. Thomas noted, to understand their individual responses to medications, food choices, sleep quality and duration, exercise, and other day-to-day variables that affect glucose levels. “In my clinical practice, the information provided by personal CGM is empowering,” she said.

Effective April 4, 2023, Medicare “allows for the coverage of CGM in patients [with type 2 diabetes] treated with one injection of insulin daily and those not taking insulin but with a history of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Thomas noted, whereas “previously, patients needed to be prescribed at least three injections of insulin daily. Other insurers will hopefully soon follow.”

“I foresee CGM and TIR being widely used in clinical practice for people living with type 2 diabetes,” she said, “especially those who have ever had an A1c over 8%, those with a history of hypoglycemia, and those treated with medications that are known to cause hypoglycemia.”
 

How does TIR compare with A1c?

Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues set out to better understand how the emerging TIR metric compares with the traditional A1c value.

They performed a post-hoc analysis of data from the phase 4 SWITCH PRO study of basal insulin–treated patients with type 2 diabetes with at least one risk factor for hypoglycemia.

The patients were treated with insulin degludec or glargine 100 during a 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phase, and then crossed over to the other treatment for the same time periods.

Glycemic control was evaluated using a blinded professional CGM (Abbott Freestyle Libro Pro). The primary outcome was TIR, which was defined as the percentage of time spent in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.

There were 419 participants in the full analysis. Patients were a mean age of 63 and 48% were men. They had a mean body mass index of 32 kg/m² and had diabetes for a mean of 15 years.

There was a moderate inverse linear correlation between TIR and A1c at baseline, which became stronger following treatment intensification during the maintenance periods in the full cohort, and in a subgroup of patients with median A1c ≥ 7.5% (212 patients).

This correlation between TIR and A1c was poorer in the subgroup of patients with baseline median A1c < 7.5% (307 patients).

The data were widely scattered, “supporting the premise that A1c and TIR can be relatively crude surrogates of each other when it comes to individual patients,” Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues note.

Where individual patients have both low A1c and low TIR values, this might indicate frequent episodes of hypoglycemia.

A few individual patients had TIR > 70% but A1c approaching 9%. These patients may have different red blood cell physiology whereby A1c does not reflect average glycemic values, the researchers suggest.

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk and several authors are Novo Nordisk employees. The complete author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Thomas has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Time-in-range (TIR) readings from a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) complemented hemoglobin A1c readings and provided a more complete picture of glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin, in a post hoc analysis of the SWITCH PRO clinical trial.

TIR was inversely related to A1c, with the strongest correlation following treatment intensification.

However, “there was a wide scatter of data, indicating that TIR (and other metrics) provides information about glycemic control that cannot be discerned from A1c alone, and which at least complements it,” Ronald M. Goldenberg, MD, from LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology in Thornhill, Ont., and colleagues write in their article published in Diabetes Therapy.

Other work has shown that more than a third of people with type 2 diabetes are not achieving the internationally recommended A1c target of < 7% to 8.5%, they note.

When used with A1c, CGM data – such as TIR, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR) – “provide a more complete picture of glucose levels throughout the day and night,” they write.

“This may help empower people with diabetes to better manage their condition, giving them practical insights into the factors driving daily fluctuations in glucose levels, such as diet, exercise, insulin dosage, and insulin timing,” they add. “These metrics may also be used to inform treatment decisions by health care professionals.”

“Ultimately,” the researchers conclude, “it is hoped that the use of these new metrics should lead to an improved quality of glycemic control and, in turn, to a reduction in the number of diabetes-related complications.”
 

‘Important study’

Invited to comment, Celeste C. Thomas, MD, who was not involved with the research, said: “This study is important because it is consistent with previous analyses that found a correlation between TIR and A1c.”

But, “I was surprised by the scatter plots which identified participants with TIR of 70% that also had A1c > 9%,” she added. “This highlights the importance of using multiple glycemic metrics to understand an individual’s risk for diabetes complications and to be aware of the limitations of the metrics.”

Dr. Thomas, from the University of Chicago, also noted that CGM is used in endocrinology clinics and increasingly in primary care clinics, “often to determine glycemic patterns to optimize therapeutic management but also to review TIR and, importantly, time below range to reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia.”

And people with type 2 diabetes are using CGM, Dr. Thomas noted, to understand their individual responses to medications, food choices, sleep quality and duration, exercise, and other day-to-day variables that affect glucose levels. “In my clinical practice, the information provided by personal CGM is empowering,” she said.

Effective April 4, 2023, Medicare “allows for the coverage of CGM in patients [with type 2 diabetes] treated with one injection of insulin daily and those not taking insulin but with a history of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Thomas noted, whereas “previously, patients needed to be prescribed at least three injections of insulin daily. Other insurers will hopefully soon follow.”

“I foresee CGM and TIR being widely used in clinical practice for people living with type 2 diabetes,” she said, “especially those who have ever had an A1c over 8%, those with a history of hypoglycemia, and those treated with medications that are known to cause hypoglycemia.”
 

How does TIR compare with A1c?

Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues set out to better understand how the emerging TIR metric compares with the traditional A1c value.

They performed a post-hoc analysis of data from the phase 4 SWITCH PRO study of basal insulin–treated patients with type 2 diabetes with at least one risk factor for hypoglycemia.

The patients were treated with insulin degludec or glargine 100 during a 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phase, and then crossed over to the other treatment for the same time periods.

Glycemic control was evaluated using a blinded professional CGM (Abbott Freestyle Libro Pro). The primary outcome was TIR, which was defined as the percentage of time spent in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.

There were 419 participants in the full analysis. Patients were a mean age of 63 and 48% were men. They had a mean body mass index of 32 kg/m² and had diabetes for a mean of 15 years.

There was a moderate inverse linear correlation between TIR and A1c at baseline, which became stronger following treatment intensification during the maintenance periods in the full cohort, and in a subgroup of patients with median A1c ≥ 7.5% (212 patients).

This correlation between TIR and A1c was poorer in the subgroup of patients with baseline median A1c < 7.5% (307 patients).

The data were widely scattered, “supporting the premise that A1c and TIR can be relatively crude surrogates of each other when it comes to individual patients,” Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues note.

Where individual patients have both low A1c and low TIR values, this might indicate frequent episodes of hypoglycemia.

A few individual patients had TIR > 70% but A1c approaching 9%. These patients may have different red blood cell physiology whereby A1c does not reflect average glycemic values, the researchers suggest.

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk and several authors are Novo Nordisk employees. The complete author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Thomas has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Time-in-range (TIR) readings from a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) complemented hemoglobin A1c readings and provided a more complete picture of glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin, in a post hoc analysis of the SWITCH PRO clinical trial.

TIR was inversely related to A1c, with the strongest correlation following treatment intensification.

However, “there was a wide scatter of data, indicating that TIR (and other metrics) provides information about glycemic control that cannot be discerned from A1c alone, and which at least complements it,” Ronald M. Goldenberg, MD, from LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology in Thornhill, Ont., and colleagues write in their article published in Diabetes Therapy.

Other work has shown that more than a third of people with type 2 diabetes are not achieving the internationally recommended A1c target of < 7% to 8.5%, they note.

When used with A1c, CGM data – such as TIR, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR) – “provide a more complete picture of glucose levels throughout the day and night,” they write.

“This may help empower people with diabetes to better manage their condition, giving them practical insights into the factors driving daily fluctuations in glucose levels, such as diet, exercise, insulin dosage, and insulin timing,” they add. “These metrics may also be used to inform treatment decisions by health care professionals.”

“Ultimately,” the researchers conclude, “it is hoped that the use of these new metrics should lead to an improved quality of glycemic control and, in turn, to a reduction in the number of diabetes-related complications.”
 

‘Important study’

Invited to comment, Celeste C. Thomas, MD, who was not involved with the research, said: “This study is important because it is consistent with previous analyses that found a correlation between TIR and A1c.”

But, “I was surprised by the scatter plots which identified participants with TIR of 70% that also had A1c > 9%,” she added. “This highlights the importance of using multiple glycemic metrics to understand an individual’s risk for diabetes complications and to be aware of the limitations of the metrics.”

Dr. Thomas, from the University of Chicago, also noted that CGM is used in endocrinology clinics and increasingly in primary care clinics, “often to determine glycemic patterns to optimize therapeutic management but also to review TIR and, importantly, time below range to reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia.”

And people with type 2 diabetes are using CGM, Dr. Thomas noted, to understand their individual responses to medications, food choices, sleep quality and duration, exercise, and other day-to-day variables that affect glucose levels. “In my clinical practice, the information provided by personal CGM is empowering,” she said.

Effective April 4, 2023, Medicare “allows for the coverage of CGM in patients [with type 2 diabetes] treated with one injection of insulin daily and those not taking insulin but with a history of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Thomas noted, whereas “previously, patients needed to be prescribed at least three injections of insulin daily. Other insurers will hopefully soon follow.”

“I foresee CGM and TIR being widely used in clinical practice for people living with type 2 diabetes,” she said, “especially those who have ever had an A1c over 8%, those with a history of hypoglycemia, and those treated with medications that are known to cause hypoglycemia.”
 

How does TIR compare with A1c?

Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues set out to better understand how the emerging TIR metric compares with the traditional A1c value.

They performed a post-hoc analysis of data from the phase 4 SWITCH PRO study of basal insulin–treated patients with type 2 diabetes with at least one risk factor for hypoglycemia.

The patients were treated with insulin degludec or glargine 100 during a 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phase, and then crossed over to the other treatment for the same time periods.

Glycemic control was evaluated using a blinded professional CGM (Abbott Freestyle Libro Pro). The primary outcome was TIR, which was defined as the percentage of time spent in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.

There were 419 participants in the full analysis. Patients were a mean age of 63 and 48% were men. They had a mean body mass index of 32 kg/m² and had diabetes for a mean of 15 years.

There was a moderate inverse linear correlation between TIR and A1c at baseline, which became stronger following treatment intensification during the maintenance periods in the full cohort, and in a subgroup of patients with median A1c ≥ 7.5% (212 patients).

This correlation between TIR and A1c was poorer in the subgroup of patients with baseline median A1c < 7.5% (307 patients).

The data were widely scattered, “supporting the premise that A1c and TIR can be relatively crude surrogates of each other when it comes to individual patients,” Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues note.

Where individual patients have both low A1c and low TIR values, this might indicate frequent episodes of hypoglycemia.

A few individual patients had TIR > 70% but A1c approaching 9%. These patients may have different red blood cell physiology whereby A1c does not reflect average glycemic values, the researchers suggest.

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk and several authors are Novo Nordisk employees. The complete author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Thomas has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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