MDedge Endocrinology

Thyroxine and L-thyroxine are two of the 10 most frequently prescribed medicinal products. “One large health insurance company ranks thyroid hormone at fourth place in the list of most-sold medications in the United States. It is possibly the second most commonly prescribed preparation,” said Joachim Feldkamp, MD, PhD, director of the University Clinic for General Internal Medicine, Endocrinology, Diabetology, and Infectious Diseases at Central Hospital, Bielefeld, Germany, at the online press conference for the German Society of Endocrinology’s hormone week.

The preparation is prescribed when the thyroid gland produces too little thyroid hormone. The messenger substance thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) is used as a screening value to assess thyroid function. An increase in TSH can indicate that too little thyroid hormone is being produced.

“But this does not mean that an underactive thyroid gland is hiding behind every elevated TSH value,” said Dr. Feldkamp. Normally, the TSH value lies between 0.3 and 4.2 mU/L. “Hypothyroidism, as it’s known, is formally present if the TSH value lies above the upper limit of 4.2 mU/L,” said Dr. Feldkamp.
 

Check again

However, not every elevated TSH value needs to be treated immediately. “From large-scale investigations, we know that TSH values are subject to fluctuations,” said Dr. Feldkamp. Individual measurements must therefore be taken with a grain of salt and almost never justify a therapeutic decision. Therefore, a slightly elevated TSH value should be checked again 2-6 months later, and the patient should be asked if they are experiencing any symptoms. “In 50%-60% of cases, the TSH value normalized at the second checkup without requiring any treatment,” Dr. Feldkamp explained.

The TSH value could be elevated for several reasons:

• Fluctuations depending on the time of day. At night and early in the morning, the TSH value is much higher than in the afternoon. An acute lack of sleep can lead to higher TSH values in the morning.
• Fluctuations depending on the time of year. In winter, TSH values are slightly higher than in the summer owing to adaptation to cooler temperatures. Researchers in the Arctic, for example, have significantly higher TSH values than people who live in warmer regions.
• Age-dependent differences. Children and adolescents have higher TSH values than adults do. The TSH values of adolescents cannot be based on those of adults because this would lead to incorrect treatment. In addition, TSH values increase with age, and slightly elevated values are initially no cause for treatment in people aged 70-80 years. Caution is advised during treatment, because overtreatment can lead to cardiac arrhythmias and a decrease in bone density.
• Sex-specific differences. The TSH values of women are generally a little higher than those in men.
• Obesity. In obesity, TSH increases and often exceeds the normal values usually recorded in persons of normal weight. The elevated values do not reflect a state of hypofunction but rather the body’s adjustment mechanism. If these patients lose weight, the TSH values will drop spontaneously. Slightly elevated TSH values in obese people should not be treated with thyroid hormones.

The nutritional supplement biotin (vitamin H or vitamin B7), which is often taken for skin, hair, and nail growth disorders, can distort measured values. In many of the laboratory methods used, the biotin competes with the test substances used. As a result, it can lead to falsely high and falsely low TSH values. At high doses of biotin (for example, 10 mg), there should be at least a 3-day pause (and ideally a pause of 1 week) before measuring TSH.
 

Hasty prescriptions

“Sometimes, because of the assumption that every high TSH value is due to sickness-related hypothyroidism, thyroid hormones can be prescribed too quickly,” said Dr. Feldkamp. This is also true for patients with thyroid nodules due to iodine deficiency, who are often still treated with thyroid hormones.

“These days, because we are generally an iodine-deficient nation, iodine would potentially be given in combination with thyroid hormones but not with thyroid hormones alone. There are lots of patients who have been taking thyroid hormones for 30 or 40 years due to thyroid nodules. That should definitely be reviewed,” said Dr. Feldkamp.
 

When to treat?

Dr. Feldkamp does not believe that standard determination of the TSH value is sensible and advises that clinicians examine patients with newly occurring symptoms, such as excess weight, impaired weight regulation despite reduced appetite, depression, or a high need for sleep.

If there are symptoms, the thyroid function must be clarified further. “This includes determination of free thyroid hormones T3 and T4; detection of antibodies against autologous thyroid tissue such as TPO-Ab [antibody against thyroid peroxidase], TG-Ab [antibody against thyroglobulin], and TRAb [antibody against TSH receptor]; and ultrasound examination of the metabolic organ,” said Dr. Feldkamp. Autoimmune-related hypothyroidism (Hashimoto’s thyroiditis) is the most common cause of an overly high TSH level.

Treatment should take place in the following situations:

• In young patients with TSH values greater than 10 mU/L;
• In young (< 65 years) symptomatic patients with TSH values of 4 to less than 10 mU/L;
• With elevated TSH values that result from thyroid surgery or radioactive iodine therapy;
• In patients with a diffuse enlarged or severely nodular thyroid gland
• In pregnant women with elevated TSH values.

This article was translated from Medscape’s German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Thyroxine and L-thyroxine are two of the 10 most frequently prescribed medicinal products. “One large health insurance company ranks thyroid hormone at fourth place in the list of most-sold medications in the United States. It is possibly the second most commonly prescribed preparation,” said Joachim Feldkamp, MD, PhD, director of the University Clinic for General Internal Medicine, Endocrinology, Diabetology, and Infectious Diseases at Central Hospital, Bielefeld, Germany, at the online press conference for the German Society of Endocrinology’s hormone week.

The preparation is prescribed when the thyroid gland produces too little thyroid hormone. The messenger substance thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) is used as a screening value to assess thyroid function. An increase in TSH can indicate that too little thyroid hormone is being produced.

“But this does not mean that an underactive thyroid gland is hiding behind every elevated TSH value,” said Dr. Feldkamp. Normally, the TSH value lies between 0.3 and 4.2 mU/L. “Hypothyroidism, as it’s known, is formally present if the TSH value lies above the upper limit of 4.2 mU/L,” said Dr. Feldkamp.
 

Check again

However, not every elevated TSH value needs to be treated immediately. “From large-scale investigations, we know that TSH values are subject to fluctuations,” said Dr. Feldkamp. Individual measurements must therefore be taken with a grain of salt and almost never justify a therapeutic decision. Therefore, a slightly elevated TSH value should be checked again 2-6 months later, and the patient should be asked if they are experiencing any symptoms. “In 50%-60% of cases, the TSH value normalized at the second checkup without requiring any treatment,” Dr. Feldkamp explained.

The TSH value could be elevated for several reasons:

• Fluctuations depending on the time of day. At night and early in the morning, the TSH value is much higher than in the afternoon. An acute lack of sleep can lead to higher TSH values in the morning.
• Fluctuations depending on the time of year. In winter, TSH values are slightly higher than in the summer owing to adaptation to cooler temperatures. Researchers in the Arctic, for example, have significantly higher TSH values than people who live in warmer regions.
• Age-dependent differences. Children and adolescents have higher TSH values than adults do. The TSH values of adolescents cannot be based on those of adults because this would lead to incorrect treatment. In addition, TSH values increase with age, and slightly elevated values are initially no cause for treatment in people aged 70-80 years. Caution is advised during treatment, because overtreatment can lead to cardiac arrhythmias and a decrease in bone density.
• Sex-specific differences. The TSH values of women are generally a little higher than those in men.
• Obesity. In obesity, TSH increases and often exceeds the normal values usually recorded in persons of normal weight. The elevated values do not reflect a state of hypofunction but rather the body’s adjustment mechanism. If these patients lose weight, the TSH values will drop spontaneously. Slightly elevated TSH values in obese people should not be treated with thyroid hormones.

The nutritional supplement biotin (vitamin H or vitamin B7), which is often taken for skin, hair, and nail growth disorders, can distort measured values. In many of the laboratory methods used, the biotin competes with the test substances used. As a result, it can lead to falsely high and falsely low TSH values. At high doses of biotin (for example, 10 mg), there should be at least a 3-day pause (and ideally a pause of 1 week) before measuring TSH.
 

Hasty prescriptions

“Sometimes, because of the assumption that every high TSH value is due to sickness-related hypothyroidism, thyroid hormones can be prescribed too quickly,” said Dr. Feldkamp. This is also true for patients with thyroid nodules due to iodine deficiency, who are often still treated with thyroid hormones.

“These days, because we are generally an iodine-deficient nation, iodine would potentially be given in combination with thyroid hormones but not with thyroid hormones alone. There are lots of patients who have been taking thyroid hormones for 30 or 40 years due to thyroid nodules. That should definitely be reviewed,” said Dr. Feldkamp.
 

When to treat?

Dr. Feldkamp does not believe that standard determination of the TSH value is sensible and advises that clinicians examine patients with newly occurring symptoms, such as excess weight, impaired weight regulation despite reduced appetite, depression, or a high need for sleep.

If there are symptoms, the thyroid function must be clarified further. “This includes determination of free thyroid hormones T3 and T4; detection of antibodies against autologous thyroid tissue such as TPO-Ab [antibody against thyroid peroxidase], TG-Ab [antibody against thyroglobulin], and TRAb [antibody against TSH receptor]; and ultrasound examination of the metabolic organ,” said Dr. Feldkamp. Autoimmune-related hypothyroidism (Hashimoto’s thyroiditis) is the most common cause of an overly high TSH level.

Treatment should take place in the following situations:

• In young patients with TSH values greater than 10 mU/L;
• In young (< 65 years) symptomatic patients with TSH values of 4 to less than 10 mU/L;
• With elevated TSH values that result from thyroid surgery or radioactive iodine therapy;
• In patients with a diffuse enlarged or severely nodular thyroid gland
• In pregnant women with elevated TSH values.

This article was translated from Medscape’s German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Thyroxine and L-thyroxine are two of the 10 most frequently prescribed medicinal products. “One large health insurance company ranks thyroid hormone at fourth place in the list of most-sold medications in the United States. It is possibly the second most commonly prescribed preparation,” said Joachim Feldkamp, MD, PhD, director of the University Clinic for General Internal Medicine, Endocrinology, Diabetology, and Infectious Diseases at Central Hospital, Bielefeld, Germany, at the online press conference for the German Society of Endocrinology’s hormone week.

The preparation is prescribed when the thyroid gland produces too little thyroid hormone. The messenger substance thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) is used as a screening value to assess thyroid function. An increase in TSH can indicate that too little thyroid hormone is being produced.

“But this does not mean that an underactive thyroid gland is hiding behind every elevated TSH value,” said Dr. Feldkamp. Normally, the TSH value lies between 0.3 and 4.2 mU/L. “Hypothyroidism, as it’s known, is formally present if the TSH value lies above the upper limit of 4.2 mU/L,” said Dr. Feldkamp.
 

Check again

However, not every elevated TSH value needs to be treated immediately. “From large-scale investigations, we know that TSH values are subject to fluctuations,” said Dr. Feldkamp. Individual measurements must therefore be taken with a grain of salt and almost never justify a therapeutic decision. Therefore, a slightly elevated TSH value should be checked again 2-6 months later, and the patient should be asked if they are experiencing any symptoms. “In 50%-60% of cases, the TSH value normalized at the second checkup without requiring any treatment,” Dr. Feldkamp explained.

The TSH value could be elevated for several reasons:

• Fluctuations depending on the time of day. At night and early in the morning, the TSH value is much higher than in the afternoon. An acute lack of sleep can lead to higher TSH values in the morning.
• Fluctuations depending on the time of year. In winter, TSH values are slightly higher than in the summer owing to adaptation to cooler temperatures. Researchers in the Arctic, for example, have significantly higher TSH values than people who live in warmer regions.
• Age-dependent differences. Children and adolescents have higher TSH values than adults do. The TSH values of adolescents cannot be based on those of adults because this would lead to incorrect treatment. In addition, TSH values increase with age, and slightly elevated values are initially no cause for treatment in people aged 70-80 years. Caution is advised during treatment, because overtreatment can lead to cardiac arrhythmias and a decrease in bone density.
• Sex-specific differences. The TSH values of women are generally a little higher than those in men.
• Obesity. In obesity, TSH increases and often exceeds the normal values usually recorded in persons of normal weight. The elevated values do not reflect a state of hypofunction but rather the body’s adjustment mechanism. If these patients lose weight, the TSH values will drop spontaneously. Slightly elevated TSH values in obese people should not be treated with thyroid hormones.

The nutritional supplement biotin (vitamin H or vitamin B7), which is often taken for skin, hair, and nail growth disorders, can distort measured values. In many of the laboratory methods used, the biotin competes with the test substances used. As a result, it can lead to falsely high and falsely low TSH values. At high doses of biotin (for example, 10 mg), there should be at least a 3-day pause (and ideally a pause of 1 week) before measuring TSH.
 

Hasty prescriptions

“Sometimes, because of the assumption that every high TSH value is due to sickness-related hypothyroidism, thyroid hormones can be prescribed too quickly,” said Dr. Feldkamp. This is also true for patients with thyroid nodules due to iodine deficiency, who are often still treated with thyroid hormones.

“These days, because we are generally an iodine-deficient nation, iodine would potentially be given in combination with thyroid hormones but not with thyroid hormones alone. There are lots of patients who have been taking thyroid hormones for 30 or 40 years due to thyroid nodules. That should definitely be reviewed,” said Dr. Feldkamp.
 

When to treat?

Dr. Feldkamp does not believe that standard determination of the TSH value is sensible and advises that clinicians examine patients with newly occurring symptoms, such as excess weight, impaired weight regulation despite reduced appetite, depression, or a high need for sleep.

If there are symptoms, the thyroid function must be clarified further. “This includes determination of free thyroid hormones T3 and T4; detection of antibodies against autologous thyroid tissue such as TPO-Ab [antibody against thyroid peroxidase], TG-Ab [antibody against thyroglobulin], and TRAb [antibody against TSH receptor]; and ultrasound examination of the metabolic organ,” said Dr. Feldkamp. Autoimmune-related hypothyroidism (Hashimoto’s thyroiditis) is the most common cause of an overly high TSH level.

Treatment should take place in the following situations:

• In young patients with TSH values greater than 10 mU/L;
• In young (< 65 years) symptomatic patients with TSH values of 4 to less than 10 mU/L;
• With elevated TSH values that result from thyroid surgery or radioactive iodine therapy;
• In patients with a diffuse enlarged or severely nodular thyroid gland
• In pregnant women with elevated TSH values.

This article was translated from Medscape’s German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Respiratory tract infections and asthma are 10 times more prevalent at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with matched controls without a diagnosis, shows a longitudinal study looking at comorbidities both 25 years before and 25 years after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

About 40% of people had respiratory tract infections at the time of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes, compared with 4% who were not diagnosed. Likewise, ear, nose, and throat infections were present in 20% of people at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with around 2% who were not diagnosed. A similar pattern was seen with asthma.

Taken together, the data suggest that subacute inflammation manifesting in asthma as well as the onset of asthma or an acute infection may be a precursor to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

“We have also found that in the years prior to diagnosis, there are associations with infections and inflammatory disorders to a much greater degree than in those people who do not get a diabetes diagnosis but who have very similar demographics,” Adrian Heald, MD, study lead and diabetes consultant from Salford (England) Royal Hospital, said in an interview.

Five years prior to diagnosis, respiratory tract infections were documented in around 23% of patients who were later diagnosed with type 2 diabetes versus 2.5% in those not diagnosed, and a similar pattern was seen for ear, nose, and throat infections and asthma. The findings suggest that patients reporting infections, in addition to other known risk factors for type 2 diabetes, might benefit from diabetes tests and early interventions, if needed.

“These novel insights offer a fascinating and fresh perspective on the onset and natural progression to type 2 diabetes and beyond, suggesting an early phase of inflammation-related disease activity long before any clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made.”

Dr. Heald points out that clinicians may intervene to stave off progression to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis in at risk patients. “At this point, an intervention could relate to lifestyle changes and involve highlighting to the patient that the morbidity they have already accumulated is suggestive of diabetes risk,” he said, adding that, “they may have dyslipidemia, hypertension, and most often excess weight so annual checks of their HbA1c, weight management, and blood pressure would need checking,” he explained.

Moderator Coen Stehouwer, MD, professor of internal medicine at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, commented, “Before clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes there is often a lengthy period of undiagnosed disease and before that, prediabetes, because glucose can be abnormal up to 10 years prior to clinical diagnosis.”

But he added that, “It’s not entirely clear whether the rise seen before clinical diagnosis in this study correlates with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes or even if it precedes type 2 diabetes – it might be because inflammation is a common origin for type 2 diabetes and various comorbidities. This might explain how they go together.”
 

Longitudinal study 25 years before and 25 years after type 2 diagnosis

Dr. Heald presented the findings at a session on inflammation in diabetes at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The work was also published in Diabetes Therapy.

The researchers wanted to investigate the pattern of comorbidities in the years and decades prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes as well as after: “With the database we used, called DARE [Diabetes Alliance for Research in England], we are able to explore phenomena longitudinally going right back to the beginning of their digital health records, looking at phenotypes over time.”

By mapping significant health issues in people who went on to develop type 2 diabetes alongside those that did not, Dr. Heald managed to develop a continuum spanning 25 years prior and 25 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. The researchers also examined relationships between sociodemographic factors and longitudinal health outcomes of relevance to cardiac conditions and lower respiratory tract infections. His talk in Hamburg primarily addressed clinical phenotypes before the point of diagnosis.

Data were drawn from 1,932 people with (1,196) and without (736) type 2 diabetes. Participants in both groups were aged 66-67 years, 43%-46% were women, age at diagnosis was 50-52 years, and participants lived in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.

In the years leading up to type 2 diagnosis, individuals consistently exhibited a considerable increase in several clinical phenotypes, reported Dr. Heald. Of note, he added, “immediately prior to type 2 diagnosis, there was a significantly greater proportion of hypertension at 35%, respiratory tract infection at 34%, heart disease at 17%, ear, nose, and throat infection at 19%, and asthma at 12%. And by comparison, the corresponding disease trajectory in matched controls was much less dramatic.”

“There is a huge difference in people who went on to receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those who did not, and not just what we’d expect – so hypertension for example or manifestations of renal disease, but importantly inflammatory disorders are more common,” he emphasized.

In addition, a larger signal for ischemic heart disease was seen just before type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

These data suggest that longitudinal clinical histories prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes might offer new information, both genetic and nongenetic, about development of type 2 diabetes in relation to comorbidities.

After type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the proportion of people exhibiting coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and infections climbed rapidly before plateauing, reported Dr. Heald. “We also know that individuals with coronary artery disease are more highly represented in socially disadvantaged groups, and this is borne out in the data at 25 years prior and after type 2 diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald has received speaker fees or contributed to advisory boards from Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Besins, Bayer, Sanofi, and Recordati. Research grants from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Besins. Professor Stehouwer has declared no relevant conflicts.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Respiratory tract infections and asthma are 10 times more prevalent at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with matched controls without a diagnosis, shows a longitudinal study looking at comorbidities both 25 years before and 25 years after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

About 40% of people had respiratory tract infections at the time of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes, compared with 4% who were not diagnosed. Likewise, ear, nose, and throat infections were present in 20% of people at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with around 2% who were not diagnosed. A similar pattern was seen with asthma.

Taken together, the data suggest that subacute inflammation manifesting in asthma as well as the onset of asthma or an acute infection may be a precursor to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

“We have also found that in the years prior to diagnosis, there are associations with infections and inflammatory disorders to a much greater degree than in those people who do not get a diabetes diagnosis but who have very similar demographics,” Adrian Heald, MD, study lead and diabetes consultant from Salford (England) Royal Hospital, said in an interview.

Five years prior to diagnosis, respiratory tract infections were documented in around 23% of patients who were later diagnosed with type 2 diabetes versus 2.5% in those not diagnosed, and a similar pattern was seen for ear, nose, and throat infections and asthma. The findings suggest that patients reporting infections, in addition to other known risk factors for type 2 diabetes, might benefit from diabetes tests and early interventions, if needed.

“These novel insights offer a fascinating and fresh perspective on the onset and natural progression to type 2 diabetes and beyond, suggesting an early phase of inflammation-related disease activity long before any clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made.”

Dr. Heald points out that clinicians may intervene to stave off progression to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis in at risk patients. “At this point, an intervention could relate to lifestyle changes and involve highlighting to the patient that the morbidity they have already accumulated is suggestive of diabetes risk,” he said, adding that, “they may have dyslipidemia, hypertension, and most often excess weight so annual checks of their HbA1c, weight management, and blood pressure would need checking,” he explained.

Moderator Coen Stehouwer, MD, professor of internal medicine at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, commented, “Before clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes there is often a lengthy period of undiagnosed disease and before that, prediabetes, because glucose can be abnormal up to 10 years prior to clinical diagnosis.”

But he added that, “It’s not entirely clear whether the rise seen before clinical diagnosis in this study correlates with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes or even if it precedes type 2 diabetes – it might be because inflammation is a common origin for type 2 diabetes and various comorbidities. This might explain how they go together.”
 

Longitudinal study 25 years before and 25 years after type 2 diagnosis

Dr. Heald presented the findings at a session on inflammation in diabetes at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The work was also published in Diabetes Therapy.

The researchers wanted to investigate the pattern of comorbidities in the years and decades prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes as well as after: “With the database we used, called DARE [Diabetes Alliance for Research in England], we are able to explore phenomena longitudinally going right back to the beginning of their digital health records, looking at phenotypes over time.”

By mapping significant health issues in people who went on to develop type 2 diabetes alongside those that did not, Dr. Heald managed to develop a continuum spanning 25 years prior and 25 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. The researchers also examined relationships between sociodemographic factors and longitudinal health outcomes of relevance to cardiac conditions and lower respiratory tract infections. His talk in Hamburg primarily addressed clinical phenotypes before the point of diagnosis.

Data were drawn from 1,932 people with (1,196) and without (736) type 2 diabetes. Participants in both groups were aged 66-67 years, 43%-46% were women, age at diagnosis was 50-52 years, and participants lived in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.

In the years leading up to type 2 diagnosis, individuals consistently exhibited a considerable increase in several clinical phenotypes, reported Dr. Heald. Of note, he added, “immediately prior to type 2 diagnosis, there was a significantly greater proportion of hypertension at 35%, respiratory tract infection at 34%, heart disease at 17%, ear, nose, and throat infection at 19%, and asthma at 12%. And by comparison, the corresponding disease trajectory in matched controls was much less dramatic.”

“There is a huge difference in people who went on to receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those who did not, and not just what we’d expect – so hypertension for example or manifestations of renal disease, but importantly inflammatory disorders are more common,” he emphasized.

In addition, a larger signal for ischemic heart disease was seen just before type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

These data suggest that longitudinal clinical histories prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes might offer new information, both genetic and nongenetic, about development of type 2 diabetes in relation to comorbidities.

After type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the proportion of people exhibiting coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and infections climbed rapidly before plateauing, reported Dr. Heald. “We also know that individuals with coronary artery disease are more highly represented in socially disadvantaged groups, and this is borne out in the data at 25 years prior and after type 2 diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald has received speaker fees or contributed to advisory boards from Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Besins, Bayer, Sanofi, and Recordati. Research grants from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Besins. Professor Stehouwer has declared no relevant conflicts.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Respiratory tract infections and asthma are 10 times more prevalent at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with matched controls without a diagnosis, shows a longitudinal study looking at comorbidities both 25 years before and 25 years after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

About 40% of people had respiratory tract infections at the time of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes, compared with 4% who were not diagnosed. Likewise, ear, nose, and throat infections were present in 20% of people at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with around 2% who were not diagnosed. A similar pattern was seen with asthma.

Taken together, the data suggest that subacute inflammation manifesting in asthma as well as the onset of asthma or an acute infection may be a precursor to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

“We have also found that in the years prior to diagnosis, there are associations with infections and inflammatory disorders to a much greater degree than in those people who do not get a diabetes diagnosis but who have very similar demographics,” Adrian Heald, MD, study lead and diabetes consultant from Salford (England) Royal Hospital, said in an interview.

Five years prior to diagnosis, respiratory tract infections were documented in around 23% of patients who were later diagnosed with type 2 diabetes versus 2.5% in those not diagnosed, and a similar pattern was seen for ear, nose, and throat infections and asthma. The findings suggest that patients reporting infections, in addition to other known risk factors for type 2 diabetes, might benefit from diabetes tests and early interventions, if needed.

“These novel insights offer a fascinating and fresh perspective on the onset and natural progression to type 2 diabetes and beyond, suggesting an early phase of inflammation-related disease activity long before any clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made.”

Dr. Heald points out that clinicians may intervene to stave off progression to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis in at risk patients. “At this point, an intervention could relate to lifestyle changes and involve highlighting to the patient that the morbidity they have already accumulated is suggestive of diabetes risk,” he said, adding that, “they may have dyslipidemia, hypertension, and most often excess weight so annual checks of their HbA1c, weight management, and blood pressure would need checking,” he explained.

Moderator Coen Stehouwer, MD, professor of internal medicine at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, commented, “Before clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes there is often a lengthy period of undiagnosed disease and before that, prediabetes, because glucose can be abnormal up to 10 years prior to clinical diagnosis.”

But he added that, “It’s not entirely clear whether the rise seen before clinical diagnosis in this study correlates with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes or even if it precedes type 2 diabetes – it might be because inflammation is a common origin for type 2 diabetes and various comorbidities. This might explain how they go together.”
 

Longitudinal study 25 years before and 25 years after type 2 diagnosis

Dr. Heald presented the findings at a session on inflammation in diabetes at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The work was also published in Diabetes Therapy.

The researchers wanted to investigate the pattern of comorbidities in the years and decades prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes as well as after: “With the database we used, called DARE [Diabetes Alliance for Research in England], we are able to explore phenomena longitudinally going right back to the beginning of their digital health records, looking at phenotypes over time.”

By mapping significant health issues in people who went on to develop type 2 diabetes alongside those that did not, Dr. Heald managed to develop a continuum spanning 25 years prior and 25 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. The researchers also examined relationships between sociodemographic factors and longitudinal health outcomes of relevance to cardiac conditions and lower respiratory tract infections. His talk in Hamburg primarily addressed clinical phenotypes before the point of diagnosis.

Data were drawn from 1,932 people with (1,196) and without (736) type 2 diabetes. Participants in both groups were aged 66-67 years, 43%-46% were women, age at diagnosis was 50-52 years, and participants lived in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.

In the years leading up to type 2 diagnosis, individuals consistently exhibited a considerable increase in several clinical phenotypes, reported Dr. Heald. Of note, he added, “immediately prior to type 2 diagnosis, there was a significantly greater proportion of hypertension at 35%, respiratory tract infection at 34%, heart disease at 17%, ear, nose, and throat infection at 19%, and asthma at 12%. And by comparison, the corresponding disease trajectory in matched controls was much less dramatic.”

“There is a huge difference in people who went on to receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those who did not, and not just what we’d expect – so hypertension for example or manifestations of renal disease, but importantly inflammatory disorders are more common,” he emphasized.

In addition, a larger signal for ischemic heart disease was seen just before type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

These data suggest that longitudinal clinical histories prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes might offer new information, both genetic and nongenetic, about development of type 2 diabetes in relation to comorbidities.

After type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the proportion of people exhibiting coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and infections climbed rapidly before plateauing, reported Dr. Heald. “We also know that individuals with coronary artery disease are more highly represented in socially disadvantaged groups, and this is borne out in the data at 25 years prior and after type 2 diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald has received speaker fees or contributed to advisory boards from Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Besins, Bayer, Sanofi, and Recordati. Research grants from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Besins. Professor Stehouwer has declared no relevant conflicts.

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

WASHINGTON – Transgender female veterans are more likely to have thyroid cancer at rates comparable with cisgender women rather than cisgender men. Experts urge a cautious interpretation of these recent study results.

“In our clinic of about 50 transgender women, we noticed that we had two diagnosed cases of thyroid cancer in a year,” first author John Christensen, MD, of UC Davis Health, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, Sacramento, said in an interivew. He presented their findings at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.

Comparatively, the thyroid cancer prevalence among cisgender male veterans is estimated at about 0.19%; the rate among all those assigned male at birth in the general population is 0.13%, whereas the rate among those assigned female at birth, which has historically been higher for all thyroid cancer subtypes, is 0.44%, according to U.S. cancer statistics for 2020 from the National Cancer Institute.

“About one-third of our [veteran] patients had been receiving estrogen for an average of over 3 years before diagnosis, which could suggest estrogen gender‐affirming hormone therapy [GAHT] may be a potentially important risk factor,” Dr. Christensen said.

Sustained use of external estrogen, especially in cisgender women undergoing fertility treatments, has been linked to an increased risk for thyroid cancer. This is because it can lead to an increase in estrogen receptors in cancerous cells. But experts caution that many other factors also come into play.

“There is definitely an implication that if you give extra estrogen to someone assigned female at birth, you may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer,” Dr. Christensen said. “So, it would stand to reason that even in those who are not assigned female at birth, there may be a risk from exogenous estrogen that may lead to an increased risk of thyroid cancer down the line.”

To investigate the issue in a larger population, Dr. Christensen and colleagues evaluated data from the comprehensive, nationwide Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure database, including approximately 9 million veterans who had outpatient visits between December 2017 and January 2022.

Of the veterans, 9,988 were determined to likely be transgender women, based on either having an ICD-10 diagnosis code for gender dysphoria or being assigned male at birth and having received an estrogen or estradiol prescription.

Of those patients, 76 had an ICD-10 code indicating thyroid cancer and 34 had verification of the thyroid cancer on chart review, representing a prevalence of 0.34% among transgender female veterans.

The average age at thyroid cancer diagnosis among the veterans was 53.8 years, and 29.4% (10 of 34) of those patients had extrathyroidal disease at the time of their thyroid cancer diagnosis. The median body mass index, available for 26 patients, was 32, which is indicative of obesity.

In terms of the patients’ thyroid cancer subtypes, 22 were papillary cancer, 5 were a follicular variant of papillary cancer, 5 were both papillary and follicular cancer, 4 were follicular cancer, 3 were a Hürthle cell variant of follicular cancer, and one was unknown.

Among 11 (32.3%) of the 34 veterans receiving estrogen GAHT at diagnosis, treatment began an average of 3.38 years prior to diagnosis at variable doses and using various routes of administration.

About half of the patients had a history of smoking; however, Dr. Christensen noted that the role of smoking as being a risk factor in estrogenic cancers has been debated. Though most patients were obese, obesity is both very common and not well established in terms of its quantitative impact on the risk for cancer development.

With the small size of the thyroid cancer cohort and omissions in the medical record among the study’s important limitations, Dr. Christensen urged a cautious interpretation of the findings.

“We are certainly suspicious that GAHT may be associated with an increased risk of thyroid cancer, but I would characterize the trends in our data as being potentially suggestive or hypothesis generating – not conclusive,” he added. “I would hate for any transgender women reading this to stop taking GAHT without talking to their doctors first.”

Commenting on the issue, Maurice Garcia, MD, a clinical associate professor of urology and director of the transgender surgery and health program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said that any definitive evidence of an increase in cancer risk among transgender people is lacking.

“With an estimated 1.5 [million] to 1.6 million people in the U.S. who are transgender, with many of them receiving GAHT, we haven’t observed a bump or high incidence of any kind of cancer among these people so far,” he said.

“There’s certainly a high potential that hormone therapy, whether it’s feminizing or masculinizing hormone therapy, can affect an individual’s cancer risk,” he added. “But we don’t know of any [definitive evidence] yet of an increase, and, there’s also even the question of whether there could be an opposite effect.”

Regarding the thyroid cancer data, Dr. Garcia agreed that the preliminary nature of the study is a key limitation. “It’s hard to tell if these were comparable groups, or whether those in the transgender group came in with higher risk factors for thyroid cancer.

“Until more statistical analysis is done, I think all that can be said is that it’s speculative.”

Dr. Garcia, who coauthored a review on cancer screening for transgender individuals, underscored that, despite a lack of data suggesting that transgender patients need cancer screening any more than their matched cisgender counterparts, “the point is that we cannot forget to screen them at all.”

Dr. Christensen and Dr. Garcia had no disclosures to report.

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

WASHINGTON – Transgender female veterans are more likely to have thyroid cancer at rates comparable with cisgender women rather than cisgender men. Experts urge a cautious interpretation of these recent study results.

“In our clinic of about 50 transgender women, we noticed that we had two diagnosed cases of thyroid cancer in a year,” first author John Christensen, MD, of UC Davis Health, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, Sacramento, said in an interivew. He presented their findings at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.

Comparatively, the thyroid cancer prevalence among cisgender male veterans is estimated at about 0.19%; the rate among all those assigned male at birth in the general population is 0.13%, whereas the rate among those assigned female at birth, which has historically been higher for all thyroid cancer subtypes, is 0.44%, according to U.S. cancer statistics for 2020 from the National Cancer Institute.

“About one-third of our [veteran] patients had been receiving estrogen for an average of over 3 years before diagnosis, which could suggest estrogen gender‐affirming hormone therapy [GAHT] may be a potentially important risk factor,” Dr. Christensen said.

Sustained use of external estrogen, especially in cisgender women undergoing fertility treatments, has been linked to an increased risk for thyroid cancer. This is because it can lead to an increase in estrogen receptors in cancerous cells. But experts caution that many other factors also come into play.

“There is definitely an implication that if you give extra estrogen to someone assigned female at birth, you may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer,” Dr. Christensen said. “So, it would stand to reason that even in those who are not assigned female at birth, there may be a risk from exogenous estrogen that may lead to an increased risk of thyroid cancer down the line.”

To investigate the issue in a larger population, Dr. Christensen and colleagues evaluated data from the comprehensive, nationwide Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure database, including approximately 9 million veterans who had outpatient visits between December 2017 and January 2022.

Of the veterans, 9,988 were determined to likely be transgender women, based on either having an ICD-10 diagnosis code for gender dysphoria or being assigned male at birth and having received an estrogen or estradiol prescription.

Of those patients, 76 had an ICD-10 code indicating thyroid cancer and 34 had verification of the thyroid cancer on chart review, representing a prevalence of 0.34% among transgender female veterans.

The average age at thyroid cancer diagnosis among the veterans was 53.8 years, and 29.4% (10 of 34) of those patients had extrathyroidal disease at the time of their thyroid cancer diagnosis. The median body mass index, available for 26 patients, was 32, which is indicative of obesity.

In terms of the patients’ thyroid cancer subtypes, 22 were papillary cancer, 5 were a follicular variant of papillary cancer, 5 were both papillary and follicular cancer, 4 were follicular cancer, 3 were a Hürthle cell variant of follicular cancer, and one was unknown.

Among 11 (32.3%) of the 34 veterans receiving estrogen GAHT at diagnosis, treatment began an average of 3.38 years prior to diagnosis at variable doses and using various routes of administration.

About half of the patients had a history of smoking; however, Dr. Christensen noted that the role of smoking as being a risk factor in estrogenic cancers has been debated. Though most patients were obese, obesity is both very common and not well established in terms of its quantitative impact on the risk for cancer development.

With the small size of the thyroid cancer cohort and omissions in the medical record among the study’s important limitations, Dr. Christensen urged a cautious interpretation of the findings.

“We are certainly suspicious that GAHT may be associated with an increased risk of thyroid cancer, but I would characterize the trends in our data as being potentially suggestive or hypothesis generating – not conclusive,” he added. “I would hate for any transgender women reading this to stop taking GAHT without talking to their doctors first.”

Commenting on the issue, Maurice Garcia, MD, a clinical associate professor of urology and director of the transgender surgery and health program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said that any definitive evidence of an increase in cancer risk among transgender people is lacking.

“With an estimated 1.5 [million] to 1.6 million people in the U.S. who are transgender, with many of them receiving GAHT, we haven’t observed a bump or high incidence of any kind of cancer among these people so far,” he said.

“There’s certainly a high potential that hormone therapy, whether it’s feminizing or masculinizing hormone therapy, can affect an individual’s cancer risk,” he added. “But we don’t know of any [definitive evidence] yet of an increase, and, there’s also even the question of whether there could be an opposite effect.”

Regarding the thyroid cancer data, Dr. Garcia agreed that the preliminary nature of the study is a key limitation. “It’s hard to tell if these were comparable groups, or whether those in the transgender group came in with higher risk factors for thyroid cancer.

“Until more statistical analysis is done, I think all that can be said is that it’s speculative.”

Dr. Garcia, who coauthored a review on cancer screening for transgender individuals, underscored that, despite a lack of data suggesting that transgender patients need cancer screening any more than their matched cisgender counterparts, “the point is that we cannot forget to screen them at all.”

Dr. Christensen and Dr. Garcia had no disclosures to report.

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

WASHINGTON – Transgender female veterans are more likely to have thyroid cancer at rates comparable with cisgender women rather than cisgender men. Experts urge a cautious interpretation of these recent study results.

“In our clinic of about 50 transgender women, we noticed that we had two diagnosed cases of thyroid cancer in a year,” first author John Christensen, MD, of UC Davis Health, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, Sacramento, said in an interivew. He presented their findings at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.

Comparatively, the thyroid cancer prevalence among cisgender male veterans is estimated at about 0.19%; the rate among all those assigned male at birth in the general population is 0.13%, whereas the rate among those assigned female at birth, which has historically been higher for all thyroid cancer subtypes, is 0.44%, according to U.S. cancer statistics for 2020 from the National Cancer Institute.

“About one-third of our [veteran] patients had been receiving estrogen for an average of over 3 years before diagnosis, which could suggest estrogen gender‐affirming hormone therapy [GAHT] may be a potentially important risk factor,” Dr. Christensen said.

Sustained use of external estrogen, especially in cisgender women undergoing fertility treatments, has been linked to an increased risk for thyroid cancer. This is because it can lead to an increase in estrogen receptors in cancerous cells. But experts caution that many other factors also come into play.

“There is definitely an implication that if you give extra estrogen to someone assigned female at birth, you may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer,” Dr. Christensen said. “So, it would stand to reason that even in those who are not assigned female at birth, there may be a risk from exogenous estrogen that may lead to an increased risk of thyroid cancer down the line.”

To investigate the issue in a larger population, Dr. Christensen and colleagues evaluated data from the comprehensive, nationwide Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure database, including approximately 9 million veterans who had outpatient visits between December 2017 and January 2022.

Of the veterans, 9,988 were determined to likely be transgender women, based on either having an ICD-10 diagnosis code for gender dysphoria or being assigned male at birth and having received an estrogen or estradiol prescription.

Of those patients, 76 had an ICD-10 code indicating thyroid cancer and 34 had verification of the thyroid cancer on chart review, representing a prevalence of 0.34% among transgender female veterans.

The average age at thyroid cancer diagnosis among the veterans was 53.8 years, and 29.4% (10 of 34) of those patients had extrathyroidal disease at the time of their thyroid cancer diagnosis. The median body mass index, available for 26 patients, was 32, which is indicative of obesity.

In terms of the patients’ thyroid cancer subtypes, 22 were papillary cancer, 5 were a follicular variant of papillary cancer, 5 were both papillary and follicular cancer, 4 were follicular cancer, 3 were a Hürthle cell variant of follicular cancer, and one was unknown.

Among 11 (32.3%) of the 34 veterans receiving estrogen GAHT at diagnosis, treatment began an average of 3.38 years prior to diagnosis at variable doses and using various routes of administration.

About half of the patients had a history of smoking; however, Dr. Christensen noted that the role of smoking as being a risk factor in estrogenic cancers has been debated. Though most patients were obese, obesity is both very common and not well established in terms of its quantitative impact on the risk for cancer development.

With the small size of the thyroid cancer cohort and omissions in the medical record among the study’s important limitations, Dr. Christensen urged a cautious interpretation of the findings.

“We are certainly suspicious that GAHT may be associated with an increased risk of thyroid cancer, but I would characterize the trends in our data as being potentially suggestive or hypothesis generating – not conclusive,” he added. “I would hate for any transgender women reading this to stop taking GAHT without talking to their doctors first.”

Commenting on the issue, Maurice Garcia, MD, a clinical associate professor of urology and director of the transgender surgery and health program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said that any definitive evidence of an increase in cancer risk among transgender people is lacking.

“With an estimated 1.5 [million] to 1.6 million people in the U.S. who are transgender, with many of them receiving GAHT, we haven’t observed a bump or high incidence of any kind of cancer among these people so far,” he said.

“There’s certainly a high potential that hormone therapy, whether it’s feminizing or masculinizing hormone therapy, can affect an individual’s cancer risk,” he added. “But we don’t know of any [definitive evidence] yet of an increase, and, there’s also even the question of whether there could be an opposite effect.”

Regarding the thyroid cancer data, Dr. Garcia agreed that the preliminary nature of the study is a key limitation. “It’s hard to tell if these were comparable groups, or whether those in the transgender group came in with higher risk factors for thyroid cancer.

“Until more statistical analysis is done, I think all that can be said is that it’s speculative.”

Dr. Garcia, who coauthored a review on cancer screening for transgender individuals, underscored that, despite a lack of data suggesting that transgender patients need cancer screening any more than their matched cisgender counterparts, “the point is that we cannot forget to screen them at all.”

Dr. Christensen and Dr. Garcia had no disclosures to report.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine aims to further move the field from aspirational to actionable with a person-first focus.

“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.

The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”

Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.

Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”

A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”

However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”

Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
 

Currently, a dearth of data

Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”

Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”

In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.

This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
 

‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’

An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”

That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.

Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”

And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”

Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine aims to further move the field from aspirational to actionable with a person-first focus.

“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.

The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”

Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.

Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”

A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”

However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”

Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
 

Currently, a dearth of data

Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”

Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”

In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.

This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
 

‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’

An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”

That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.

Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”

And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”

Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine aims to further move the field from aspirational to actionable with a person-first focus.

“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.

The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”

Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.

Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”

A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”

However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”

Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
 

Currently, a dearth of data

Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”

Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”

In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.

This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
 

‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’

An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”

That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.

Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”

And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”

Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.

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

After being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 2021, British teenager Johnny Bailey felt isolated. That’s when he turned to social media, where he found others living with type 1 diabetes. He began to share his experience and now has more than 329,000 followers on his TikTok account, where he regularly posts videos.

These include short clips of him demonstrating how he changes his FreeStyle Libre sensor for his flash glucose monitor. In the videos, Johnny appropriately places his sensor on the back of his arm with background music, makes facial expressions, and transforms a dreaded diabetes-related task into an experience that appears fun and entertaining. In the limited videos I was able to review, he follows all the appropriate steps for sensor placement.

Many youths living with type 1 diabetes struggle with living with a chronic medical condition. Because type 1 diabetes is a rare condition, affecting about 1 in 500 children in the United States, many youth may not meet anyone else their age with type 1 diabetes through school, social events, or extracurricular activities.

For adolescents with intensively managed conditions like type 1 diabetes, this can present numerous psychosocial challenges – specifically, many youth experience shame or stigma associated with managing type 1 diabetes.

Diabetes-specific tasks may include wearing an insulin pump, monitoring blood glucose with finger pricks or a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), giving injections of insulin before meals and snacks, adjusting times for meals and snacks based on metabolic needs, waking up in the middle of the night to treat high or low blood glucose – the list goes on and on.

One study estimated that the average time it takes a child with type 1 diabetes to perform diabetes-specific tasks is over 5 hours per day.

Although much of this diabetes management time is spent by parents, as children get older and become teenagers, they are gradually transitioning to taking on more of this responsibility themselves. Wearing diabetes technology (insulin pumps and CGMs) can draw unwanted attention, leading to diabetes-specific body image concerns. Kids may also have to excuse themselves from an activity to treat a low or high blood glucose, creating uncomfortable situations when others inquire about why the activity was interrupted. As a result, many youths will avoid managing their diabetes properly to avoid drawing unwanted attention, consequently put their health at risk.

So, for many youths with type 1 diabetes, watching Johnny Bailey, or others on social media, may help them feel more comfortable. Those who are afraid of placing their glucose sensor owing to fear of pain may be reassured by seeing Johnny placing his sensor with a smile on his face. Some of his content also highlights other stigmatizing situations that teens may face, for example someone with a judgmental look questioning why he needed to give an insulin injection here.

This highlights an important concept – that people with type 1 diabetes may face criticism when dosing insulin in public, but it doesn’t mean they should feel forced to manage diabetes in private unless they choose to. Johnny is an inspirational individual who has bravely taken his type 1 diabetes experiences and used his creative skills to make these seemingly boring health-related tasks fun, interesting, and accessible.

Social media has become an outlet for people with type 1 diabetes to connect with others who can relate to their experiences.

However, there’s another side to consider. Although social media may provide a great source of support for youth, it may also adversely affect mental health. Just as quickly as social media outlets have grown, so has concern over excessive social media use and its impact on adolescents’ mental health. There’s a growing body of literature that describes the negative mental health aspects related to social media use.

Some adolescents struggling to manage type 1 diabetes may feel worse when seeing others thrive on social media, which has the potential to worsen stigma and shame. Youth may wonder how someone else is able to manage their type 1 diabetes so well when they are facing so many challenges.

Short videos on social media provide an incomplete picture of living with type 1 diabetes – just a glimpse into others’ lives, and only the parts that they want others to see. Managing a chronic condition can’t be fully represented in 10-second videos. And if youths choose to post their type 1 diabetes experiences on social media, they also risk receiving backlash or criticism, which can negatively their impact mental health in return.

Furthermore, the content being posted may not always be accurate or educational, leading to the potential for some youth to misunderstand type 1 diabetes.

Although I wouldn’t discourage youth with type 1 diabetes from engaging on social media and viewing diabetes-related content, they need to know that social media is flooded with misinformation. Creating an open space for youth to ask their clinicians questions about type 1 diabetes–related topics they view on social media is vital to ensuring they are viewing accurate information, so they are able to continue to manage their diabetes safely.

As a pediatric endocrinologist, I sometimes share resources on social media with patients if I believe it will help them cope with their type 1 diabetes diagnosis and management. I have had numerous patients – many of whom have struggled to accept their diagnosis – mention with joy and excitement that they were following an organization addressing type 1 diabetes on social media.

When making suggestions, I may refer them to The Diabetes Link, an organization with resources for young adults with type 1 diabetes that creates a space to connect with other young adults with type 1 diabetes. diaTribe is another organization created and led by people with diabetes that has a plethora of resources and provides evidence-based education for patients. I have also shared Project 50-in-50, which highlights two individuals with type 1 diabetes hiking the highest peak in each state in less than 50 days. Being able to see type 1 diabetes in a positive light is a huge step toward a more positive outlook on diabetes management.

Dr. Nally is an assistant professor, department of pediatrics, and a pediatric endocrinologist, division of pediatric endocrinology, at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. She reported conflicts of interest with Medtronic and the National Institutes of Health.

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

After being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 2021, British teenager Johnny Bailey felt isolated. That’s when he turned to social media, where he found others living with type 1 diabetes. He began to share his experience and now has more than 329,000 followers on his TikTok account, where he regularly posts videos.

These include short clips of him demonstrating how he changes his FreeStyle Libre sensor for his flash glucose monitor. In the videos, Johnny appropriately places his sensor on the back of his arm with background music, makes facial expressions, and transforms a dreaded diabetes-related task into an experience that appears fun and entertaining. In the limited videos I was able to review, he follows all the appropriate steps for sensor placement.

Many youths living with type 1 diabetes struggle with living with a chronic medical condition. Because type 1 diabetes is a rare condition, affecting about 1 in 500 children in the United States, many youth may not meet anyone else their age with type 1 diabetes through school, social events, or extracurricular activities.

For adolescents with intensively managed conditions like type 1 diabetes, this can present numerous psychosocial challenges – specifically, many youth experience shame or stigma associated with managing type 1 diabetes.

Diabetes-specific tasks may include wearing an insulin pump, monitoring blood glucose with finger pricks or a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), giving injections of insulin before meals and snacks, adjusting times for meals and snacks based on metabolic needs, waking up in the middle of the night to treat high or low blood glucose – the list goes on and on.

One study estimated that the average time it takes a child with type 1 diabetes to perform diabetes-specific tasks is over 5 hours per day.

Although much of this diabetes management time is spent by parents, as children get older and become teenagers, they are gradually transitioning to taking on more of this responsibility themselves. Wearing diabetes technology (insulin pumps and CGMs) can draw unwanted attention, leading to diabetes-specific body image concerns. Kids may also have to excuse themselves from an activity to treat a low or high blood glucose, creating uncomfortable situations when others inquire about why the activity was interrupted. As a result, many youths will avoid managing their diabetes properly to avoid drawing unwanted attention, consequently put their health at risk.

So, for many youths with type 1 diabetes, watching Johnny Bailey, or others on social media, may help them feel more comfortable. Those who are afraid of placing their glucose sensor owing to fear of pain may be reassured by seeing Johnny placing his sensor with a smile on his face. Some of his content also highlights other stigmatizing situations that teens may face, for example someone with a judgmental look questioning why he needed to give an insulin injection here.

This highlights an important concept – that people with type 1 diabetes may face criticism when dosing insulin in public, but it doesn’t mean they should feel forced to manage diabetes in private unless they choose to. Johnny is an inspirational individual who has bravely taken his type 1 diabetes experiences and used his creative skills to make these seemingly boring health-related tasks fun, interesting, and accessible.

Social media has become an outlet for people with type 1 diabetes to connect with others who can relate to their experiences.

However, there’s another side to consider. Although social media may provide a great source of support for youth, it may also adversely affect mental health. Just as quickly as social media outlets have grown, so has concern over excessive social media use and its impact on adolescents’ mental health. There’s a growing body of literature that describes the negative mental health aspects related to social media use.

Some adolescents struggling to manage type 1 diabetes may feel worse when seeing others thrive on social media, which has the potential to worsen stigma and shame. Youth may wonder how someone else is able to manage their type 1 diabetes so well when they are facing so many challenges.

Short videos on social media provide an incomplete picture of living with type 1 diabetes – just a glimpse into others’ lives, and only the parts that they want others to see. Managing a chronic condition can’t be fully represented in 10-second videos. And if youths choose to post their type 1 diabetes experiences on social media, they also risk receiving backlash or criticism, which can negatively their impact mental health in return.

Furthermore, the content being posted may not always be accurate or educational, leading to the potential for some youth to misunderstand type 1 diabetes.

Although I wouldn’t discourage youth with type 1 diabetes from engaging on social media and viewing diabetes-related content, they need to know that social media is flooded with misinformation. Creating an open space for youth to ask their clinicians questions about type 1 diabetes–related topics they view on social media is vital to ensuring they are viewing accurate information, so they are able to continue to manage their diabetes safely.

As a pediatric endocrinologist, I sometimes share resources on social media with patients if I believe it will help them cope with their type 1 diabetes diagnosis and management. I have had numerous patients – many of whom have struggled to accept their diagnosis – mention with joy and excitement that they were following an organization addressing type 1 diabetes on social media.

When making suggestions, I may refer them to The Diabetes Link, an organization with resources for young adults with type 1 diabetes that creates a space to connect with other young adults with type 1 diabetes. diaTribe is another organization created and led by people with diabetes that has a plethora of resources and provides evidence-based education for patients. I have also shared Project 50-in-50, which highlights two individuals with type 1 diabetes hiking the highest peak in each state in less than 50 days. Being able to see type 1 diabetes in a positive light is a huge step toward a more positive outlook on diabetes management.

Dr. Nally is an assistant professor, department of pediatrics, and a pediatric endocrinologist, division of pediatric endocrinology, at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. She reported conflicts of interest with Medtronic and the National Institutes of Health.

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

After being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 2021, British teenager Johnny Bailey felt isolated. That’s when he turned to social media, where he found others living with type 1 diabetes. He began to share his experience and now has more than 329,000 followers on his TikTok account, where he regularly posts videos.

These include short clips of him demonstrating how he changes his FreeStyle Libre sensor for his flash glucose monitor. In the videos, Johnny appropriately places his sensor on the back of his arm with background music, makes facial expressions, and transforms a dreaded diabetes-related task into an experience that appears fun and entertaining. In the limited videos I was able to review, he follows all the appropriate steps for sensor placement.

Many youths living with type 1 diabetes struggle with living with a chronic medical condition. Because type 1 diabetes is a rare condition, affecting about 1 in 500 children in the United States, many youth may not meet anyone else their age with type 1 diabetes through school, social events, or extracurricular activities.

For adolescents with intensively managed conditions like type 1 diabetes, this can present numerous psychosocial challenges – specifically, many youth experience shame or stigma associated with managing type 1 diabetes.

Diabetes-specific tasks may include wearing an insulin pump, monitoring blood glucose with finger pricks or a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), giving injections of insulin before meals and snacks, adjusting times for meals and snacks based on metabolic needs, waking up in the middle of the night to treat high or low blood glucose – the list goes on and on.

One study estimated that the average time it takes a child with type 1 diabetes to perform diabetes-specific tasks is over 5 hours per day.

Although much of this diabetes management time is spent by parents, as children get older and become teenagers, they are gradually transitioning to taking on more of this responsibility themselves. Wearing diabetes technology (insulin pumps and CGMs) can draw unwanted attention, leading to diabetes-specific body image concerns. Kids may also have to excuse themselves from an activity to treat a low or high blood glucose, creating uncomfortable situations when others inquire about why the activity was interrupted. As a result, many youths will avoid managing their diabetes properly to avoid drawing unwanted attention, consequently put their health at risk.

So, for many youths with type 1 diabetes, watching Johnny Bailey, or others on social media, may help them feel more comfortable. Those who are afraid of placing their glucose sensor owing to fear of pain may be reassured by seeing Johnny placing his sensor with a smile on his face. Some of his content also highlights other stigmatizing situations that teens may face, for example someone with a judgmental look questioning why he needed to give an insulin injection here.

This highlights an important concept – that people with type 1 diabetes may face criticism when dosing insulin in public, but it doesn’t mean they should feel forced to manage diabetes in private unless they choose to. Johnny is an inspirational individual who has bravely taken his type 1 diabetes experiences and used his creative skills to make these seemingly boring health-related tasks fun, interesting, and accessible.

Social media has become an outlet for people with type 1 diabetes to connect with others who can relate to their experiences.

However, there’s another side to consider. Although social media may provide a great source of support for youth, it may also adversely affect mental health. Just as quickly as social media outlets have grown, so has concern over excessive social media use and its impact on adolescents’ mental health. There’s a growing body of literature that describes the negative mental health aspects related to social media use.

Some adolescents struggling to manage type 1 diabetes may feel worse when seeing others thrive on social media, which has the potential to worsen stigma and shame. Youth may wonder how someone else is able to manage their type 1 diabetes so well when they are facing so many challenges.

Short videos on social media provide an incomplete picture of living with type 1 diabetes – just a glimpse into others’ lives, and only the parts that they want others to see. Managing a chronic condition can’t be fully represented in 10-second videos. And if youths choose to post their type 1 diabetes experiences on social media, they also risk receiving backlash or criticism, which can negatively their impact mental health in return.

Furthermore, the content being posted may not always be accurate or educational, leading to the potential for some youth to misunderstand type 1 diabetes.

Although I wouldn’t discourage youth with type 1 diabetes from engaging on social media and viewing diabetes-related content, they need to know that social media is flooded with misinformation. Creating an open space for youth to ask their clinicians questions about type 1 diabetes–related topics they view on social media is vital to ensuring they are viewing accurate information, so they are able to continue to manage their diabetes safely.

As a pediatric endocrinologist, I sometimes share resources on social media with patients if I believe it will help them cope with their type 1 diabetes diagnosis and management. I have had numerous patients – many of whom have struggled to accept their diagnosis – mention with joy and excitement that they were following an organization addressing type 1 diabetes on social media.

When making suggestions, I may refer them to The Diabetes Link, an organization with resources for young adults with type 1 diabetes that creates a space to connect with other young adults with type 1 diabetes. diaTribe is another organization created and led by people with diabetes that has a plethora of resources and provides evidence-based education for patients. I have also shared Project 50-in-50, which highlights two individuals with type 1 diabetes hiking the highest peak in each state in less than 50 days. Being able to see type 1 diabetes in a positive light is a huge step toward a more positive outlook on diabetes management.

Dr. Nally is an assistant professor, department of pediatrics, and a pediatric endocrinologist, division of pediatric endocrinology, at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. She reported conflicts of interest with Medtronic and the National Institutes of Health.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions to colleges, universities, medical schools, and nursing schools. This has led to an enormous amount of worry and concern, particularly in medical school admissions in the world I’m in, where people start to say that diversity matters. Diversity is important.

I know many deans of medical schools immediately sent out messages of reassurance to their students, saying New York University or Stanford or Harvard or Minnesota or Case Western is still deeply concerned about diversity, and we’re going to do what we can to preserve attention to diversity.

I’ve served on admissions at a number of schools over the years for med school. I understand – and have been told – that diversity is important, and according to the Supreme Court, not explicitly by race. There are obviously many variables to take into account when trying to keep diversity at the forefront of admissions.

At the schools I’ve been at, including Columbia, NYU, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and University of Pennsylvania, there are plenty of qualified students. Happily, we’ve always been engaged in some effort to try and whittle down the class to the size that we can manage and accept, and many qualified students don’t get admitted.

The first order of business for me is not to worry about how to maintain diversity. It’s to recognize that we need more doctors, nurses, and mental health care providers. I will, in a second, say a few words about diversity and where it fits into admissions, but I want to make the point clearly that what we should be doing is trying to expand the pool of students who are going to become doctors, nurses, mental health care providers, and social workers.

There are too many early retirements. We don’t have the person power we need to manage the health care challenges of an aging population. Let’s not get lost in arguing about what characteristics ought to get you into the finest medical schools. Let’s realize that we have to expand the number of schools we have.

We better be working pretty hard to expand our physician assistant programs, to make sure that we give full authority to qualified dentists and nurses who can help deliver some clinical care. We need more folks. That’s really where the battle ought to be: How do we get that done and how do we get it done quickly, not arguing about who’s in, who’s out, and why.

That said, diversity to me has never meant just race. I’m always interested in gender orientation, disability, and geographic input. Sometimes in decisions that you’re looking at, when I have students in front of me, they tell me they play a musical instrument or about the obstacles they had to overcome to get to medical school. Some of them will say they were involved in 4-H and did rodeo in high school or junior high school, which makes them a diverse potential student with characteristics that maybe some others don’t bring.

I’m not against diversity. I think having a rich set of experiences in any class – medicine, nursing, whatever it’s going to be – is beneficial to the students. They learn from each other. It is sometimes said that it’s also good for patients. I’m a little less excited about that, because I think our training goal should be to make every medical student and nursing student qualified to treat anybody.

I don’t think that, just because you’re Latinx or gay, that’s going to make a gay patient feel better. I think we should teach our students how to give care to everybody that they encounter. They shouldn’t have to match up characteristics to feel like they’re going to get quality care. That isn’t the right reason.

Diversity is important, I think, to teach our students, to broaden our research, and to make sure that bias doesn’t creep in to how we teach, learn, or behave. When you have a diverse set of providers, they can call that out and be on the alert for it, and that’s very important.

I also believe that we should think widely and broadly about diversity. Maybe race is out, but certainly other experiences related to income, background, struggle that got you to the point where you’re applying to medical school, motivation, the kinds of experiences you might have had caring for an elderly person, dealing with a disability or learning disability, and trying to overcome, let’s say, going to school in a poor area with not such a wonderful school, really help in terms of forming professionalism, empathy, and a caring point of view.

To me, the main goal is to expand our workforce. The secondary goal is to stay diverse, because we get better providers when we do so.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions to colleges, universities, medical schools, and nursing schools. This has led to an enormous amount of worry and concern, particularly in medical school admissions in the world I’m in, where people start to say that diversity matters. Diversity is important.

I know many deans of medical schools immediately sent out messages of reassurance to their students, saying New York University or Stanford or Harvard or Minnesota or Case Western is still deeply concerned about diversity, and we’re going to do what we can to preserve attention to diversity.

I’ve served on admissions at a number of schools over the years for med school. I understand – and have been told – that diversity is important, and according to the Supreme Court, not explicitly by race. There are obviously many variables to take into account when trying to keep diversity at the forefront of admissions.

At the schools I’ve been at, including Columbia, NYU, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and University of Pennsylvania, there are plenty of qualified students. Happily, we’ve always been engaged in some effort to try and whittle down the class to the size that we can manage and accept, and many qualified students don’t get admitted.

The first order of business for me is not to worry about how to maintain diversity. It’s to recognize that we need more doctors, nurses, and mental health care providers. I will, in a second, say a few words about diversity and where it fits into admissions, but I want to make the point clearly that what we should be doing is trying to expand the pool of students who are going to become doctors, nurses, mental health care providers, and social workers.

There are too many early retirements. We don’t have the person power we need to manage the health care challenges of an aging population. Let’s not get lost in arguing about what characteristics ought to get you into the finest medical schools. Let’s realize that we have to expand the number of schools we have.

We better be working pretty hard to expand our physician assistant programs, to make sure that we give full authority to qualified dentists and nurses who can help deliver some clinical care. We need more folks. That’s really where the battle ought to be: How do we get that done and how do we get it done quickly, not arguing about who’s in, who’s out, and why.

That said, diversity to me has never meant just race. I’m always interested in gender orientation, disability, and geographic input. Sometimes in decisions that you’re looking at, when I have students in front of me, they tell me they play a musical instrument or about the obstacles they had to overcome to get to medical school. Some of them will say they were involved in 4-H and did rodeo in high school or junior high school, which makes them a diverse potential student with characteristics that maybe some others don’t bring.

I’m not against diversity. I think having a rich set of experiences in any class – medicine, nursing, whatever it’s going to be – is beneficial to the students. They learn from each other. It is sometimes said that it’s also good for patients. I’m a little less excited about that, because I think our training goal should be to make every medical student and nursing student qualified to treat anybody.

I don’t think that, just because you’re Latinx or gay, that’s going to make a gay patient feel better. I think we should teach our students how to give care to everybody that they encounter. They shouldn’t have to match up characteristics to feel like they’re going to get quality care. That isn’t the right reason.

Diversity is important, I think, to teach our students, to broaden our research, and to make sure that bias doesn’t creep in to how we teach, learn, or behave. When you have a diverse set of providers, they can call that out and be on the alert for it, and that’s very important.

I also believe that we should think widely and broadly about diversity. Maybe race is out, but certainly other experiences related to income, background, struggle that got you to the point where you’re applying to medical school, motivation, the kinds of experiences you might have had caring for an elderly person, dealing with a disability or learning disability, and trying to overcome, let’s say, going to school in a poor area with not such a wonderful school, really help in terms of forming professionalism, empathy, and a caring point of view.

To me, the main goal is to expand our workforce. The secondary goal is to stay diverse, because we get better providers when we do so.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions to colleges, universities, medical schools, and nursing schools. This has led to an enormous amount of worry and concern, particularly in medical school admissions in the world I’m in, where people start to say that diversity matters. Diversity is important.

I know many deans of medical schools immediately sent out messages of reassurance to their students, saying New York University or Stanford or Harvard or Minnesota or Case Western is still deeply concerned about diversity, and we’re going to do what we can to preserve attention to diversity.

I’ve served on admissions at a number of schools over the years for med school. I understand – and have been told – that diversity is important, and according to the Supreme Court, not explicitly by race. There are obviously many variables to take into account when trying to keep diversity at the forefront of admissions.

At the schools I’ve been at, including Columbia, NYU, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and University of Pennsylvania, there are plenty of qualified students. Happily, we’ve always been engaged in some effort to try and whittle down the class to the size that we can manage and accept, and many qualified students don’t get admitted.

The first order of business for me is not to worry about how to maintain diversity. It’s to recognize that we need more doctors, nurses, and mental health care providers. I will, in a second, say a few words about diversity and where it fits into admissions, but I want to make the point clearly that what we should be doing is trying to expand the pool of students who are going to become doctors, nurses, mental health care providers, and social workers.

There are too many early retirements. We don’t have the person power we need to manage the health care challenges of an aging population. Let’s not get lost in arguing about what characteristics ought to get you into the finest medical schools. Let’s realize that we have to expand the number of schools we have.

We better be working pretty hard to expand our physician assistant programs, to make sure that we give full authority to qualified dentists and nurses who can help deliver some clinical care. We need more folks. That’s really where the battle ought to be: How do we get that done and how do we get it done quickly, not arguing about who’s in, who’s out, and why.

That said, diversity to me has never meant just race. I’m always interested in gender orientation, disability, and geographic input. Sometimes in decisions that you’re looking at, when I have students in front of me, they tell me they play a musical instrument or about the obstacles they had to overcome to get to medical school. Some of them will say they were involved in 4-H and did rodeo in high school or junior high school, which makes them a diverse potential student with characteristics that maybe some others don’t bring.

I’m not against diversity. I think having a rich set of experiences in any class – medicine, nursing, whatever it’s going to be – is beneficial to the students. They learn from each other. It is sometimes said that it’s also good for patients. I’m a little less excited about that, because I think our training goal should be to make every medical student and nursing student qualified to treat anybody.

I don’t think that, just because you’re Latinx or gay, that’s going to make a gay patient feel better. I think we should teach our students how to give care to everybody that they encounter. They shouldn’t have to match up characteristics to feel like they’re going to get quality care. That isn’t the right reason.

Diversity is important, I think, to teach our students, to broaden our research, and to make sure that bias doesn’t creep in to how we teach, learn, or behave. When you have a diverse set of providers, they can call that out and be on the alert for it, and that’s very important.

I also believe that we should think widely and broadly about diversity. Maybe race is out, but certainly other experiences related to income, background, struggle that got you to the point where you’re applying to medical school, motivation, the kinds of experiences you might have had caring for an elderly person, dealing with a disability or learning disability, and trying to overcome, let’s say, going to school in a poor area with not such a wonderful school, really help in terms of forming professionalism, empathy, and a caring point of view.

To me, the main goal is to expand our workforce. The secondary goal is to stay diverse, because we get better providers when we do so.

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

A noteworthy shift recently occurred in the field of hepatology, but it didn’t stem from a clinical trial or medical finding. Instead, the change arose from a matter of semantics.

In a special article published online in the journal Hepatology, a diverse international consensus group introduced new terminology for one of the world’s most rapidly growing diseases.

The term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was to be officially retired, replaced with a more precise and descriptive term – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).

In addition, steatotic liver disease (SLD) would be used as an umbrella term encompassing both MASLD and a new subcategory, MetALD, for individuals with MASLD whose alcohol consumption ranges from 140 to 350 g/wk for women and from 210 to 420 g/wk for men. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) would be known as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH).

The new terminology represents small changes with significant implications, especially for patients with MetALD, said the NAFLD nomenclature consensus group’s co-lead, Mary E. Rinella, MD, professor of medicine at University of Chicago and director of the metabolic and fatty liver program at University of Chicago Hospitals.

“The only really new thing we did is identify a group of people who meet criteria for MASLD and also drink more than the allowable limit,” she said. “There are tons of these patients who were not being considered before. Now they’re in a category by themselves, where they are going to be able to be studied and better understood.”
 

Why make a change?

The unveiling of the new nomenclature marked the culmination of 3 years of dedicated work that was built upon decades of growing understanding about the pathophysiologic underpinnings of these disease states.

The terms NAFLD and NASH emerged in 1980 to describe patients with chronic liver disease who denied excessive alcohol consumption. However, in the past 2 decades, it became increasingly evident that the existing terminology was inadequate, the consensus group’s co-lead, Philip Newsome, PhD, said in an interview.

“There was a strong desire for a name that describes what the condition is, rather than what it isn’t; avoiding use of stigmatizing terms, such as fatty and alcoholic; and finally, a nomenclature that could recognize the coexistence of conditions,” said Dr. Newsome, former secretary general of the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), and director of the Centre for Liver and Gastrointestinal Research at the University of Birmingham, England.

These forces, combined with the recognition that NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease shared biological processes, created momentum for change.

The idea gained traction with a 2020 article that proposed “MAFLD” as a more suitable term because it would link the disease with its known cardiometabolic risks, Dr. Rinella explained.

“We thought that paper was going to be the beginning of a conversation, but what happened instead is it became a full-court press,” Dr. Rinella said.

Dr. Rinella and Dr. Newsome then spearheaded a study to determine whether content experts and patients supported change. The process was led by three prominent international liver societies: EASL, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), and the Asociación Latinoamericana para el Estudio del Hígado. The organizations received input from 236 panelists from 56 countries, reflecting the diverse voices essential for addressing a disease with an expanding global prevalence rate.

In this globalized world, you cannot make a decision from on high and then expect everybody to just adopt it, Dr. Rinella noted.

The panel utilized a modified Delphi consensus approach, necessitating a supermajority of respondents (67%) to vote in favor of the changes. Seventy-four percent felt that the current nomenclature was sufficiently flawed to consider a name change, and 89% preferred terminology that describes the underlying cause of the disease. A supermajority felt that having “metabolic disease or dysfunction” in the name would help patients better understand their disease (72%) and help health care professionals better explain or understand the disease (80%).

The participants settled on the new terminology, and the study resulted in a conclusion: “The new nomenclature and diagnostic criteria are widely supported, nonstigmatizing, and can improve awareness and patient identification.”

It was by no means a simple or straightforward task, according to Dr. Rinella. “Anytime you have a contentious issue and you engage a broad range of stakeholders, many of which you know are in disagreement, you’re going to have a difficult time reaching consensus,” she said.
 

Reassuring reluctant adopters

The backing of international liver societies will be crucial to ensuring the smooth and relatively swift adoption of the new nomenclature. The AASLD announced in July that it would begin this process by holding conversations with key stakeholders, including the Food and Drug Administration, patient organizations, and pharmaceutical industry representatives.

“By engaging external groups, we have gained valuable insights into potential roadblocks or barriers that may impede the full implementation of the new MASLD nomenclature,” AASLD President Norah Terrault, MD, MPH, FAASLD, told this news organization. “Knowing the types of issues they face will allow us to build an implementation plan that will help guide the field through adoption.”

Even with buy-in from key stakeholders, implementing the changes will be no small feat. It’s a “vast undertaking” that may result in short-term frustrations for some groups, Dr. Terrault said.

“For instance, researchers whose work commenced under the old nomenclature may not be able to alter their research papers and will need to publish under the old nomenclature, which may impact which journals their research could be published in,” she said. “Some patient advocacy groups may have the old nomenclature in their names, resulting in a need to rebrand and revise their educational resources. Patient materials need to be updated. Primary care professionals need to be educated. The list goes on.”

These changes demand both patience and time, Dr. Terrault said. This applies to those tasked with persuading colleagues and patients, as well as clinicians, many of whom have already expressed some resistance to the updated terminology.

The panel anticipated pushback from clinicians who still advocate for NAFLD. However, Dr. Rinella countered that a diagnosis of MASLD requires only one cardiometabolic risk factor and has 99% overlap in most populations. In contrast, the MAFLD diagnostic criteria put forward in 2020 proposed even more restrictive cardiometabolic criteria and greater tolerance for alcohol consumption and would alter the disease natural history, she said.

Concerns have also been raised that replacing NAFLD with MASLD might complicate the value of prior research efforts. However, this should not be a cause for concern, as extensive examination across multiple populations has demonstrated near complete overlap between the two definitions, Dr. Rinella said. Biomarker development, natural history studies, and drug development research will remain unaffected, she said.

Some detractors argue that the term “fatty” is sufficiently descriptive and not stigmatizing. However, Dr. Newsome contends that the panel’s research unequivocally disproves this notion.

“Our Delphi process demonstrated very clearly that over 50% felt it was stigmatizing, and in particular, there were clear supportive views for this change from many patient groups,” he noted. “The new nomenclature empowers patients to explain what the condition means without the use of emotional language.”
 

An opportunity to improve care

One compelling way to persuade reluctant adopters of the new nomenclature’s value is to highlight the opportunities it presents.

The updated terminology opens avenues for research and clinical improvements for patients who meet MASLD criteria and consume alcohol at higher levels (MetALD), Dr. Newsome said.

“There are questions about the relative contribution of these two factors to liver injury, and I see this as an opportunity to explore this area further,” he said.

Hepatologists should embrace this change as a means of increasing awareness regarding the metabolic origins of the disease, Dr. Rinella said. This, in turn, will help identify more patients who require treatment but who are currently overlooked by the existing system, she noted.

“Right now, only around 1% of people with advanced disease are being identified by primary care physicians,” she said. “Hopefully, by elevating the role of metabolic disease, primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and gastroenterologists will be able to identify more patients and bring them to care before they develop cirrhosis.”

Such an outcome would signify much more than a mere semantic shift; it would represent a major advancement in the diagnosis and management of the disease.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A noteworthy shift recently occurred in the field of hepatology, but it didn’t stem from a clinical trial or medical finding. Instead, the change arose from a matter of semantics.

In a special article published online in the journal Hepatology, a diverse international consensus group introduced new terminology for one of the world’s most rapidly growing diseases.

The term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was to be officially retired, replaced with a more precise and descriptive term – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).

In addition, steatotic liver disease (SLD) would be used as an umbrella term encompassing both MASLD and a new subcategory, MetALD, for individuals with MASLD whose alcohol consumption ranges from 140 to 350 g/wk for women and from 210 to 420 g/wk for men. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) would be known as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH).

The new terminology represents small changes with significant implications, especially for patients with MetALD, said the NAFLD nomenclature consensus group’s co-lead, Mary E. Rinella, MD, professor of medicine at University of Chicago and director of the metabolic and fatty liver program at University of Chicago Hospitals.

“The only really new thing we did is identify a group of people who meet criteria for MASLD and also drink more than the allowable limit,” she said. “There are tons of these patients who were not being considered before. Now they’re in a category by themselves, where they are going to be able to be studied and better understood.”
 

Why make a change?

The unveiling of the new nomenclature marked the culmination of 3 years of dedicated work that was built upon decades of growing understanding about the pathophysiologic underpinnings of these disease states.

The terms NAFLD and NASH emerged in 1980 to describe patients with chronic liver disease who denied excessive alcohol consumption. However, in the past 2 decades, it became increasingly evident that the existing terminology was inadequate, the consensus group’s co-lead, Philip Newsome, PhD, said in an interview.

“There was a strong desire for a name that describes what the condition is, rather than what it isn’t; avoiding use of stigmatizing terms, such as fatty and alcoholic; and finally, a nomenclature that could recognize the coexistence of conditions,” said Dr. Newsome, former secretary general of the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), and director of the Centre for Liver and Gastrointestinal Research at the University of Birmingham, England.

These forces, combined with the recognition that NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease shared biological processes, created momentum for change.

The idea gained traction with a 2020 article that proposed “MAFLD” as a more suitable term because it would link the disease with its known cardiometabolic risks, Dr. Rinella explained.

“We thought that paper was going to be the beginning of a conversation, but what happened instead is it became a full-court press,” Dr. Rinella said.

Dr. Rinella and Dr. Newsome then spearheaded a study to determine whether content experts and patients supported change. The process was led by three prominent international liver societies: EASL, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), and the Asociación Latinoamericana para el Estudio del Hígado. The organizations received input from 236 panelists from 56 countries, reflecting the diverse voices essential for addressing a disease with an expanding global prevalence rate.

In this globalized world, you cannot make a decision from on high and then expect everybody to just adopt it, Dr. Rinella noted.

The panel utilized a modified Delphi consensus approach, necessitating a supermajority of respondents (67%) to vote in favor of the changes. Seventy-four percent felt that the current nomenclature was sufficiently flawed to consider a name change, and 89% preferred terminology that describes the underlying cause of the disease. A supermajority felt that having “metabolic disease or dysfunction” in the name would help patients better understand their disease (72%) and help health care professionals better explain or understand the disease (80%).

The participants settled on the new terminology, and the study resulted in a conclusion: “The new nomenclature and diagnostic criteria are widely supported, nonstigmatizing, and can improve awareness and patient identification.”

It was by no means a simple or straightforward task, according to Dr. Rinella. “Anytime you have a contentious issue and you engage a broad range of stakeholders, many of which you know are in disagreement, you’re going to have a difficult time reaching consensus,” she said.
 

Reassuring reluctant adopters

The backing of international liver societies will be crucial to ensuring the smooth and relatively swift adoption of the new nomenclature. The AASLD announced in July that it would begin this process by holding conversations with key stakeholders, including the Food and Drug Administration, patient organizations, and pharmaceutical industry representatives.

“By engaging external groups, we have gained valuable insights into potential roadblocks or barriers that may impede the full implementation of the new MASLD nomenclature,” AASLD President Norah Terrault, MD, MPH, FAASLD, told this news organization. “Knowing the types of issues they face will allow us to build an implementation plan that will help guide the field through adoption.”

Even with buy-in from key stakeholders, implementing the changes will be no small feat. It’s a “vast undertaking” that may result in short-term frustrations for some groups, Dr. Terrault said.

“For instance, researchers whose work commenced under the old nomenclature may not be able to alter their research papers and will need to publish under the old nomenclature, which may impact which journals their research could be published in,” she said. “Some patient advocacy groups may have the old nomenclature in their names, resulting in a need to rebrand and revise their educational resources. Patient materials need to be updated. Primary care professionals need to be educated. The list goes on.”

These changes demand both patience and time, Dr. Terrault said. This applies to those tasked with persuading colleagues and patients, as well as clinicians, many of whom have already expressed some resistance to the updated terminology.

The panel anticipated pushback from clinicians who still advocate for NAFLD. However, Dr. Rinella countered that a diagnosis of MASLD requires only one cardiometabolic risk factor and has 99% overlap in most populations. In contrast, the MAFLD diagnostic criteria put forward in 2020 proposed even more restrictive cardiometabolic criteria and greater tolerance for alcohol consumption and would alter the disease natural history, she said.

Concerns have also been raised that replacing NAFLD with MASLD might complicate the value of prior research efforts. However, this should not be a cause for concern, as extensive examination across multiple populations has demonstrated near complete overlap between the two definitions, Dr. Rinella said. Biomarker development, natural history studies, and drug development research will remain unaffected, she said.

Some detractors argue that the term “fatty” is sufficiently descriptive and not stigmatizing. However, Dr. Newsome contends that the panel’s research unequivocally disproves this notion.

“Our Delphi process demonstrated very clearly that over 50% felt it was stigmatizing, and in particular, there were clear supportive views for this change from many patient groups,” he noted. “The new nomenclature empowers patients to explain what the condition means without the use of emotional language.”
 

An opportunity to improve care

One compelling way to persuade reluctant adopters of the new nomenclature’s value is to highlight the opportunities it presents.

The updated terminology opens avenues for research and clinical improvements for patients who meet MASLD criteria and consume alcohol at higher levels (MetALD), Dr. Newsome said.

“There are questions about the relative contribution of these two factors to liver injury, and I see this as an opportunity to explore this area further,” he said.

Hepatologists should embrace this change as a means of increasing awareness regarding the metabolic origins of the disease, Dr. Rinella said. This, in turn, will help identify more patients who require treatment but who are currently overlooked by the existing system, she noted.

“Right now, only around 1% of people with advanced disease are being identified by primary care physicians,” she said. “Hopefully, by elevating the role of metabolic disease, primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and gastroenterologists will be able to identify more patients and bring them to care before they develop cirrhosis.”

Such an outcome would signify much more than a mere semantic shift; it would represent a major advancement in the diagnosis and management of the disease.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A noteworthy shift recently occurred in the field of hepatology, but it didn’t stem from a clinical trial or medical finding. Instead, the change arose from a matter of semantics.

In a special article published online in the journal Hepatology, a diverse international consensus group introduced new terminology for one of the world’s most rapidly growing diseases.

The term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was to be officially retired, replaced with a more precise and descriptive term – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).

In addition, steatotic liver disease (SLD) would be used as an umbrella term encompassing both MASLD and a new subcategory, MetALD, for individuals with MASLD whose alcohol consumption ranges from 140 to 350 g/wk for women and from 210 to 420 g/wk for men. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) would be known as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH).

The new terminology represents small changes with significant implications, especially for patients with MetALD, said the NAFLD nomenclature consensus group’s co-lead, Mary E. Rinella, MD, professor of medicine at University of Chicago and director of the metabolic and fatty liver program at University of Chicago Hospitals.

“The only really new thing we did is identify a group of people who meet criteria for MASLD and also drink more than the allowable limit,” she said. “There are tons of these patients who were not being considered before. Now they’re in a category by themselves, where they are going to be able to be studied and better understood.”
 

Why make a change?

The unveiling of the new nomenclature marked the culmination of 3 years of dedicated work that was built upon decades of growing understanding about the pathophysiologic underpinnings of these disease states.

The terms NAFLD and NASH emerged in 1980 to describe patients with chronic liver disease who denied excessive alcohol consumption. However, in the past 2 decades, it became increasingly evident that the existing terminology was inadequate, the consensus group’s co-lead, Philip Newsome, PhD, said in an interview.

“There was a strong desire for a name that describes what the condition is, rather than what it isn’t; avoiding use of stigmatizing terms, such as fatty and alcoholic; and finally, a nomenclature that could recognize the coexistence of conditions,” said Dr. Newsome, former secretary general of the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), and director of the Centre for Liver and Gastrointestinal Research at the University of Birmingham, England.

These forces, combined with the recognition that NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease shared biological processes, created momentum for change.

The idea gained traction with a 2020 article that proposed “MAFLD” as a more suitable term because it would link the disease with its known cardiometabolic risks, Dr. Rinella explained.

“We thought that paper was going to be the beginning of a conversation, but what happened instead is it became a full-court press,” Dr. Rinella said.

Dr. Rinella and Dr. Newsome then spearheaded a study to determine whether content experts and patients supported change. The process was led by three prominent international liver societies: EASL, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), and the Asociación Latinoamericana para el Estudio del Hígado. The organizations received input from 236 panelists from 56 countries, reflecting the diverse voices essential for addressing a disease with an expanding global prevalence rate.

In this globalized world, you cannot make a decision from on high and then expect everybody to just adopt it, Dr. Rinella noted.

The panel utilized a modified Delphi consensus approach, necessitating a supermajority of respondents (67%) to vote in favor of the changes. Seventy-four percent felt that the current nomenclature was sufficiently flawed to consider a name change, and 89% preferred terminology that describes the underlying cause of the disease. A supermajority felt that having “metabolic disease or dysfunction” in the name would help patients better understand their disease (72%) and help health care professionals better explain or understand the disease (80%).

The participants settled on the new terminology, and the study resulted in a conclusion: “The new nomenclature and diagnostic criteria are widely supported, nonstigmatizing, and can improve awareness and patient identification.”

It was by no means a simple or straightforward task, according to Dr. Rinella. “Anytime you have a contentious issue and you engage a broad range of stakeholders, many of which you know are in disagreement, you’re going to have a difficult time reaching consensus,” she said.
 

Reassuring reluctant adopters

The backing of international liver societies will be crucial to ensuring the smooth and relatively swift adoption of the new nomenclature. The AASLD announced in July that it would begin this process by holding conversations with key stakeholders, including the Food and Drug Administration, patient organizations, and pharmaceutical industry representatives.

“By engaging external groups, we have gained valuable insights into potential roadblocks or barriers that may impede the full implementation of the new MASLD nomenclature,” AASLD President Norah Terrault, MD, MPH, FAASLD, told this news organization. “Knowing the types of issues they face will allow us to build an implementation plan that will help guide the field through adoption.”

Even with buy-in from key stakeholders, implementing the changes will be no small feat. It’s a “vast undertaking” that may result in short-term frustrations for some groups, Dr. Terrault said.

“For instance, researchers whose work commenced under the old nomenclature may not be able to alter their research papers and will need to publish under the old nomenclature, which may impact which journals their research could be published in,” she said. “Some patient advocacy groups may have the old nomenclature in their names, resulting in a need to rebrand and revise their educational resources. Patient materials need to be updated. Primary care professionals need to be educated. The list goes on.”

These changes demand both patience and time, Dr. Terrault said. This applies to those tasked with persuading colleagues and patients, as well as clinicians, many of whom have already expressed some resistance to the updated terminology.

The panel anticipated pushback from clinicians who still advocate for NAFLD. However, Dr. Rinella countered that a diagnosis of MASLD requires only one cardiometabolic risk factor and has 99% overlap in most populations. In contrast, the MAFLD diagnostic criteria put forward in 2020 proposed even more restrictive cardiometabolic criteria and greater tolerance for alcohol consumption and would alter the disease natural history, she said.

Concerns have also been raised that replacing NAFLD with MASLD might complicate the value of prior research efforts. However, this should not be a cause for concern, as extensive examination across multiple populations has demonstrated near complete overlap between the two definitions, Dr. Rinella said. Biomarker development, natural history studies, and drug development research will remain unaffected, she said.

Some detractors argue that the term “fatty” is sufficiently descriptive and not stigmatizing. However, Dr. Newsome contends that the panel’s research unequivocally disproves this notion.

“Our Delphi process demonstrated very clearly that over 50% felt it was stigmatizing, and in particular, there were clear supportive views for this change from many patient groups,” he noted. “The new nomenclature empowers patients to explain what the condition means without the use of emotional language.”
 

An opportunity to improve care

One compelling way to persuade reluctant adopters of the new nomenclature’s value is to highlight the opportunities it presents.

The updated terminology opens avenues for research and clinical improvements for patients who meet MASLD criteria and consume alcohol at higher levels (MetALD), Dr. Newsome said.

“There are questions about the relative contribution of these two factors to liver injury, and I see this as an opportunity to explore this area further,” he said.

Hepatologists should embrace this change as a means of increasing awareness regarding the metabolic origins of the disease, Dr. Rinella said. This, in turn, will help identify more patients who require treatment but who are currently overlooked by the existing system, she noted.

“Right now, only around 1% of people with advanced disease are being identified by primary care physicians,” she said. “Hopefully, by elevating the role of metabolic disease, primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and gastroenterologists will be able to identify more patients and bring them to care before they develop cirrhosis.”

Such an outcome would signify much more than a mere semantic shift; it would represent a major advancement in the diagnosis and management of the disease.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – Women with obesity experience greater menopausal symptoms but substantially less relief from hormone therapy (HT) than women without obesity, according to a small, retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).

More than 40% of women over age 40 in the United States have obesity, presenter Anita Pershad, MD, an ob.gyn. medical resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, told attendees. Yet most of the large-scale studies investigating perimenopausal and postmenopausal hormone therapy included participants without major medical comorbidities, so little data exist on how effectively HT works in women with these comorbidities, she said

“The main takeaway of our study is that obesity may worsen a woman’s menopausal symptoms and limit the amount of relief she gets from hormone therapy,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “It remains unclear if hormone therapy is less effective in women with obesity overall, or if the expected efficacy can be achieved with alternative design and administration routes. A potential mechanism of action for the observed decreased effect could be due to adipose tissue acting as a heat insulator, promoting the effects of vasomotor symptoms.”

Dr. Pershad and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of 119 patients who presented to a menopause clinic at a Midsouth urban academic medical center between July 2018 and December 2022. Obesity was defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m² or greater.

The patients with and without obesity were similar in terms of age, duration of menopause, use of hormone therapy, and therapy acceptance, but patients with obesity were more likely to identify themselves as Black (71% vs. 40%). Women with obesity were also significantly more likely than women without obesity to report vasomotor symptoms (74% vs. 45%, P = .002), genitourinary/vulvovaginal symptoms (60% vs. 21%, P < .001), mood disturbances (11% vs. 0%, P = .18), and decreased libido (29% vs. 11%, P = .017).

There were no significant differences in comorbidities between women with and without obesity, and among women who received systemic or localized HT, the same standard dosing was used for both groups.

Women with obesity were much less likely to see a satisfying reduction in their menopausal symptoms than women without obesity (odds ratio 0.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.64; P = .006), though the subgroups for each category of HT were small. Among the 20 women receiving systemic hormone therapy, only 1 of the 12 with obesity (8.3%) reported improvement in symptoms, compared with 7 of the 8 women without obesity (88%; P = .0004). Among 33 women using localized hormone therapy, 46% of the 24 women with obesity vs. 89% of the 9 women without obesity experienced symptom improvement (P = .026).

The proportions of women reporting relief from only lifestyle modifications or from nonhormonal medications, such as SSRIs/SNRIs, trazodone, and clonidine, were not statistically different. There were 33 women who relied only on lifestyle modifications, with 31% of the 16 women with obesity and 59% of the 17 women without obesity reporting improvement in their symptoms (P = .112). Similarly, among the 33 women using nonhormonal medications, 75% of the 20 women with obesity and 77% of the 13 women without obesity experienced relief (P = .9).
 

Women with obesity are undertreated

Dr. Pershad emphasized the need to improve care and counseling for diverse patients seeking treatment for menopausal symptoms.

“More research is needed to examine how women with medical comorbidities are uniquely impacted by menopause and respond to therapies,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “This can be achieved by actively including more diverse patient populations in women’s health studies, burdened by the social determinants of health and medical comorbidities such as obesity.”

Mayo Clinic

Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, MBA, director for Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health, Rochester, Minn., and medical director for The Menopause Society, was not surprised by the findings, particularly given that women with obesity tend to have more hot flashes and night sweats as a result of their extra weight. However, dosage data was not adjusted for BMI in the study and data on hormone levels was unavailable, she said, so it’s difficult to determine from the data whether HT was less effective for women with obesity or whether they were underdosed.

“I think women with obesity are undertreated,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “My guess is people are afraid. Women with obesity also may have other comorbidities,” such as hypertension and diabetes, she said, and “the greater the number of cardiovascular risk factors, the higher risk hormone therapy is.” Providers may therefore be leery of prescribing HT or prescribing it at an appropriately high enough dose to treat menopausal symptoms.

Common practice is to start patients at the lowest dose and titrate up according to symptoms, but “if people are afraid of it, they’re going to start the lowest dose” and may not increase it, Dr. Faubion said. She noted that other nonhormonal options are available, though providers should be conscientious about selecting ones whose adverse events do not include weight gain.

Although the study focused on an understudied population within hormone therapy research, the study was limited by its small size, low overall use of hormone therapy, recall bias, and the researchers’ inability to control for other medications the participants may have been taking.

Dr. Pershad said she is continuing research to try to identify the mechanisms underlying the reduced efficacy in women with obesity.

The research did not use any external funding. Dr. Pershad had no industry disclosures, but her colleagues reported honoraria from or speaking for TherapeuticsMD, Astella Pharma, Scynexis, Pharmavite, and Pfizer. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – Women with obesity experience greater menopausal symptoms but substantially less relief from hormone therapy (HT) than women without obesity, according to a small, retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).

More than 40% of women over age 40 in the United States have obesity, presenter Anita Pershad, MD, an ob.gyn. medical resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, told attendees. Yet most of the large-scale studies investigating perimenopausal and postmenopausal hormone therapy included participants without major medical comorbidities, so little data exist on how effectively HT works in women with these comorbidities, she said

“The main takeaway of our study is that obesity may worsen a woman’s menopausal symptoms and limit the amount of relief she gets from hormone therapy,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “It remains unclear if hormone therapy is less effective in women with obesity overall, or if the expected efficacy can be achieved with alternative design and administration routes. A potential mechanism of action for the observed decreased effect could be due to adipose tissue acting as a heat insulator, promoting the effects of vasomotor symptoms.”

Dr. Pershad and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of 119 patients who presented to a menopause clinic at a Midsouth urban academic medical center between July 2018 and December 2022. Obesity was defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m² or greater.

The patients with and without obesity were similar in terms of age, duration of menopause, use of hormone therapy, and therapy acceptance, but patients with obesity were more likely to identify themselves as Black (71% vs. 40%). Women with obesity were also significantly more likely than women without obesity to report vasomotor symptoms (74% vs. 45%, P = .002), genitourinary/vulvovaginal symptoms (60% vs. 21%, P < .001), mood disturbances (11% vs. 0%, P = .18), and decreased libido (29% vs. 11%, P = .017).

There were no significant differences in comorbidities between women with and without obesity, and among women who received systemic or localized HT, the same standard dosing was used for both groups.

Women with obesity were much less likely to see a satisfying reduction in their menopausal symptoms than women without obesity (odds ratio 0.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.64; P = .006), though the subgroups for each category of HT were small. Among the 20 women receiving systemic hormone therapy, only 1 of the 12 with obesity (8.3%) reported improvement in symptoms, compared with 7 of the 8 women without obesity (88%; P = .0004). Among 33 women using localized hormone therapy, 46% of the 24 women with obesity vs. 89% of the 9 women without obesity experienced symptom improvement (P = .026).

The proportions of women reporting relief from only lifestyle modifications or from nonhormonal medications, such as SSRIs/SNRIs, trazodone, and clonidine, were not statistically different. There were 33 women who relied only on lifestyle modifications, with 31% of the 16 women with obesity and 59% of the 17 women without obesity reporting improvement in their symptoms (P = .112). Similarly, among the 33 women using nonhormonal medications, 75% of the 20 women with obesity and 77% of the 13 women without obesity experienced relief (P = .9).
 

Women with obesity are undertreated

Dr. Pershad emphasized the need to improve care and counseling for diverse patients seeking treatment for menopausal symptoms.

“More research is needed to examine how women with medical comorbidities are uniquely impacted by menopause and respond to therapies,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “This can be achieved by actively including more diverse patient populations in women’s health studies, burdened by the social determinants of health and medical comorbidities such as obesity.”

Mayo Clinic

Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, MBA, director for Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health, Rochester, Minn., and medical director for The Menopause Society, was not surprised by the findings, particularly given that women with obesity tend to have more hot flashes and night sweats as a result of their extra weight. However, dosage data was not adjusted for BMI in the study and data on hormone levels was unavailable, she said, so it’s difficult to determine from the data whether HT was less effective for women with obesity or whether they were underdosed.

“I think women with obesity are undertreated,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “My guess is people are afraid. Women with obesity also may have other comorbidities,” such as hypertension and diabetes, she said, and “the greater the number of cardiovascular risk factors, the higher risk hormone therapy is.” Providers may therefore be leery of prescribing HT or prescribing it at an appropriately high enough dose to treat menopausal symptoms.

Common practice is to start patients at the lowest dose and titrate up according to symptoms, but “if people are afraid of it, they’re going to start the lowest dose” and may not increase it, Dr. Faubion said. She noted that other nonhormonal options are available, though providers should be conscientious about selecting ones whose adverse events do not include weight gain.

Although the study focused on an understudied population within hormone therapy research, the study was limited by its small size, low overall use of hormone therapy, recall bias, and the researchers’ inability to control for other medications the participants may have been taking.

Dr. Pershad said she is continuing research to try to identify the mechanisms underlying the reduced efficacy in women with obesity.

The research did not use any external funding. Dr. Pershad had no industry disclosures, but her colleagues reported honoraria from or speaking for TherapeuticsMD, Astella Pharma, Scynexis, Pharmavite, and Pfizer. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – Women with obesity experience greater menopausal symptoms but substantially less relief from hormone therapy (HT) than women without obesity, according to a small, retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).

More than 40% of women over age 40 in the United States have obesity, presenter Anita Pershad, MD, an ob.gyn. medical resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, told attendees. Yet most of the large-scale studies investigating perimenopausal and postmenopausal hormone therapy included participants without major medical comorbidities, so little data exist on how effectively HT works in women with these comorbidities, she said

“The main takeaway of our study is that obesity may worsen a woman’s menopausal symptoms and limit the amount of relief she gets from hormone therapy,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “It remains unclear if hormone therapy is less effective in women with obesity overall, or if the expected efficacy can be achieved with alternative design and administration routes. A potential mechanism of action for the observed decreased effect could be due to adipose tissue acting as a heat insulator, promoting the effects of vasomotor symptoms.”

Dr. Pershad and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of 119 patients who presented to a menopause clinic at a Midsouth urban academic medical center between July 2018 and December 2022. Obesity was defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m² or greater.

The patients with and without obesity were similar in terms of age, duration of menopause, use of hormone therapy, and therapy acceptance, but patients with obesity were more likely to identify themselves as Black (71% vs. 40%). Women with obesity were also significantly more likely than women without obesity to report vasomotor symptoms (74% vs. 45%, P = .002), genitourinary/vulvovaginal symptoms (60% vs. 21%, P < .001), mood disturbances (11% vs. 0%, P = .18), and decreased libido (29% vs. 11%, P = .017).

There were no significant differences in comorbidities between women with and without obesity, and among women who received systemic or localized HT, the same standard dosing was used for both groups.

Women with obesity were much less likely to see a satisfying reduction in their menopausal symptoms than women without obesity (odds ratio 0.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.64; P = .006), though the subgroups for each category of HT were small. Among the 20 women receiving systemic hormone therapy, only 1 of the 12 with obesity (8.3%) reported improvement in symptoms, compared with 7 of the 8 women without obesity (88%; P = .0004). Among 33 women using localized hormone therapy, 46% of the 24 women with obesity vs. 89% of the 9 women without obesity experienced symptom improvement (P = .026).

The proportions of women reporting relief from only lifestyle modifications or from nonhormonal medications, such as SSRIs/SNRIs, trazodone, and clonidine, were not statistically different. There were 33 women who relied only on lifestyle modifications, with 31% of the 16 women with obesity and 59% of the 17 women without obesity reporting improvement in their symptoms (P = .112). Similarly, among the 33 women using nonhormonal medications, 75% of the 20 women with obesity and 77% of the 13 women without obesity experienced relief (P = .9).
 

Women with obesity are undertreated

Dr. Pershad emphasized the need to improve care and counseling for diverse patients seeking treatment for menopausal symptoms.

“More research is needed to examine how women with medical comorbidities are uniquely impacted by menopause and respond to therapies,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “This can be achieved by actively including more diverse patient populations in women’s health studies, burdened by the social determinants of health and medical comorbidities such as obesity.”

Mayo Clinic

Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, MBA, director for Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health, Rochester, Minn., and medical director for The Menopause Society, was not surprised by the findings, particularly given that women with obesity tend to have more hot flashes and night sweats as a result of their extra weight. However, dosage data was not adjusted for BMI in the study and data on hormone levels was unavailable, she said, so it’s difficult to determine from the data whether HT was less effective for women with obesity or whether they were underdosed.

“I think women with obesity are undertreated,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “My guess is people are afraid. Women with obesity also may have other comorbidities,” such as hypertension and diabetes, she said, and “the greater the number of cardiovascular risk factors, the higher risk hormone therapy is.” Providers may therefore be leery of prescribing HT or prescribing it at an appropriately high enough dose to treat menopausal symptoms.

Common practice is to start patients at the lowest dose and titrate up according to symptoms, but “if people are afraid of it, they’re going to start the lowest dose” and may not increase it, Dr. Faubion said. She noted that other nonhormonal options are available, though providers should be conscientious about selecting ones whose adverse events do not include weight gain.

Although the study focused on an understudied population within hormone therapy research, the study was limited by its small size, low overall use of hormone therapy, recall bias, and the researchers’ inability to control for other medications the participants may have been taking.

Dr. Pershad said she is continuing research to try to identify the mechanisms underlying the reduced efficacy in women with obesity.

The research did not use any external funding. Dr. Pershad had no industry disclosures, but her colleagues reported honoraria from or speaking for TherapeuticsMD, Astella Pharma, Scynexis, Pharmavite, and Pfizer. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.

With physicians under increasing pressure to see more patients in shorter office visits, developing a social media presence may offer valuable opportunities to connect with patients, explain procedures, combat misinformation, talk through a published article, and even share a joke or meme.

But there are caveats for doctors posting on social media platforms. This news organization spoke to four doctors who successfully use social media. Here is what they want you to know before you post – and how to make your posts personable and helpful to patients and your practice simultaneously.
 

Use social media for the right reasons

While you’re under no obligation to build a social media presence, if you’re going to do it, be sure your intentions are solid, said Don S. Dizon, MD, professor of medicine and professor of surgery at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Dizon, as @DoctorDon, has 44,700 TikTok followers and uses the platform to answer cancer-related questions.

“It should be your altruism that motivates you to post,” said Dr. Dizon, who is also associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Legorreta Cancer Center in Providence, R.I., and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital. “What we can do for society at large is to provide our input into issues, add informed opinions where there’s controversy, and address misinformation.”

If you don’t know where to start, consider seeking a digital mentor to talk through your options.

“You may never meet this person, but you should choose them if you like their style, their content, their delivery, and their perspective,” Dr. Dizon said. “Find another doctor out there on social media whom you feel you can emulate. Take your time, too. Soon enough, you’ll develop your own style and your own online persona.”
 

Post clear, accurate information

If you want to be lighthearted on social media, that’s your choice. But Jennifer Trachtenberg, a pediatrician with nearly 7,000 Instagram followers in New York who posts as @askdrjen, prefers to offer vaccine scheduling tips, alert parents about COVID-19 rates, and offer advice on cold and flu prevention.

“Right now, I’m mainly doing this to educate patients and make them aware of topics that I think are important and that I see my patients needing more information on,” she said. “We have to be clear: People take what we say seriously. So, while it’s important to be relatable, it’s even more important to share evidence-based information.”
 

Many patients get their information on social media

While patients once came to the doctor armed with information sourced via “Doctor Google,” today, just as many patients use social media to learn about their condition or the medications they’re taking.

Unfortunately, a recent Ohio State University, Columbus, study found that the majority of gynecologic cancer advice on TikTok, for example, was either misleading or inaccurate.

“This misinformation should be a motivator for physicians to explore the social media space,” Dr. Dizon said. “Our voices need to be on there.”
 

Break down barriers – and make connections

Mike Natter, MD, an endocrinologist in New York, has type 1 diabetes. This informs his work – and his life – and he’s passionate about sharing it with his 117,000 followers as @mike.natter on Instagram.

“A lot of type 1s follow me, so there’s an advocacy component to what I do,” he said. “I enjoy being able to raise awareness and keep people up to date on the newest research and treatment.”

But that’s not all: Dr. Natter is also an artist who went to art school before he went to medical school, and his account is rife with his cartoons and illustrations about everything from valvular disease to diabetic ketoacidosis.

“I found that I was drawing a lot of my notes in medical school,” he said. “When I drew my notes, I did quite well, and I think that using art and illustration is a great tool. It breaks down barriers and makes health information all the more accessible to everyone.”
 

Share your expertise as a doctor – and a person

As a mom and pediatrician, Krupa Playforth, MD, who practices in Vienna, Va., knows that what she posts carries weight. So, whether she’s writing about backpack safety tips, choking hazards, or separation anxiety, her followers can rest assured that she’s posting responsibly.

“Pediatricians often underestimate how smart parents are,” said Dr. Playforth, who has three kids, ages 8, 5, and 2, and has 137,000 followers on @thepediatricianmom, her Instagram account. “Their anxiety comes from an understandable place, which is why I see my role as that of a parent and pediatrician who can translate the knowledge pediatricians have into something parents can understand.”

Dr. Playforth, who jumped on social media during COVID-19 and experienced a positive response in her local community, said being on social media is imperative if you’re a pediatrician.

“This is the future of pediatric medicine in particular,” she said. “A lot of pediatricians don’t want to embrace social media, but I think that’s a mistake. After all, while parents think pediatricians have all the answers, when we think of our own children, most doctors are like other parents – we can’t think objectively about our kids. It’s helpful for me to share that and to help parents feel less alone.”

If you’re not yet using social media to the best of your physician abilities, you might take a shot at becoming widely recognizable. Pick a preferred platform, answer common patient questions, dispel medical myths, provide pertinent information, and let your personality shine.

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

With physicians under increasing pressure to see more patients in shorter office visits, developing a social media presence may offer valuable opportunities to connect with patients, explain procedures, combat misinformation, talk through a published article, and even share a joke or meme.

But there are caveats for doctors posting on social media platforms. This news organization spoke to four doctors who successfully use social media. Here is what they want you to know before you post – and how to make your posts personable and helpful to patients and your practice simultaneously.
 

Use social media for the right reasons

While you’re under no obligation to build a social media presence, if you’re going to do it, be sure your intentions are solid, said Don S. Dizon, MD, professor of medicine and professor of surgery at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Dizon, as @DoctorDon, has 44,700 TikTok followers and uses the platform to answer cancer-related questions.

“It should be your altruism that motivates you to post,” said Dr. Dizon, who is also associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Legorreta Cancer Center in Providence, R.I., and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital. “What we can do for society at large is to provide our input into issues, add informed opinions where there’s controversy, and address misinformation.”

If you don’t know where to start, consider seeking a digital mentor to talk through your options.

“You may never meet this person, but you should choose them if you like their style, their content, their delivery, and their perspective,” Dr. Dizon said. “Find another doctor out there on social media whom you feel you can emulate. Take your time, too. Soon enough, you’ll develop your own style and your own online persona.”
 

Post clear, accurate information

If you want to be lighthearted on social media, that’s your choice. But Jennifer Trachtenberg, a pediatrician with nearly 7,000 Instagram followers in New York who posts as @askdrjen, prefers to offer vaccine scheduling tips, alert parents about COVID-19 rates, and offer advice on cold and flu prevention.

“Right now, I’m mainly doing this to educate patients and make them aware of topics that I think are important and that I see my patients needing more information on,” she said. “We have to be clear: People take what we say seriously. So, while it’s important to be relatable, it’s even more important to share evidence-based information.”
 

Many patients get their information on social media

While patients once came to the doctor armed with information sourced via “Doctor Google,” today, just as many patients use social media to learn about their condition or the medications they’re taking.

Unfortunately, a recent Ohio State University, Columbus, study found that the majority of gynecologic cancer advice on TikTok, for example, was either misleading or inaccurate.

“This misinformation should be a motivator for physicians to explore the social media space,” Dr. Dizon said. “Our voices need to be on there.”
 

Break down barriers – and make connections

Mike Natter, MD, an endocrinologist in New York, has type 1 diabetes. This informs his work – and his life – and he’s passionate about sharing it with his 117,000 followers as @mike.natter on Instagram.

“A lot of type 1s follow me, so there’s an advocacy component to what I do,” he said. “I enjoy being able to raise awareness and keep people up to date on the newest research and treatment.”

But that’s not all: Dr. Natter is also an artist who went to art school before he went to medical school, and his account is rife with his cartoons and illustrations about everything from valvular disease to diabetic ketoacidosis.

“I found that I was drawing a lot of my notes in medical school,” he said. “When I drew my notes, I did quite well, and I think that using art and illustration is a great tool. It breaks down barriers and makes health information all the more accessible to everyone.”
 

Share your expertise as a doctor – and a person

As a mom and pediatrician, Krupa Playforth, MD, who practices in Vienna, Va., knows that what she posts carries weight. So, whether she’s writing about backpack safety tips, choking hazards, or separation anxiety, her followers can rest assured that she’s posting responsibly.

“Pediatricians often underestimate how smart parents are,” said Dr. Playforth, who has three kids, ages 8, 5, and 2, and has 137,000 followers on @thepediatricianmom, her Instagram account. “Their anxiety comes from an understandable place, which is why I see my role as that of a parent and pediatrician who can translate the knowledge pediatricians have into something parents can understand.”

Dr. Playforth, who jumped on social media during COVID-19 and experienced a positive response in her local community, said being on social media is imperative if you’re a pediatrician.

“This is the future of pediatric medicine in particular,” she said. “A lot of pediatricians don’t want to embrace social media, but I think that’s a mistake. After all, while parents think pediatricians have all the answers, when we think of our own children, most doctors are like other parents – we can’t think objectively about our kids. It’s helpful for me to share that and to help parents feel less alone.”

If you’re not yet using social media to the best of your physician abilities, you might take a shot at becoming widely recognizable. Pick a preferred platform, answer common patient questions, dispel medical myths, provide pertinent information, and let your personality shine.

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

With physicians under increasing pressure to see more patients in shorter office visits, developing a social media presence may offer valuable opportunities to connect with patients, explain procedures, combat misinformation, talk through a published article, and even share a joke or meme.

But there are caveats for doctors posting on social media platforms. This news organization spoke to four doctors who successfully use social media. Here is what they want you to know before you post – and how to make your posts personable and helpful to patients and your practice simultaneously.
 

Use social media for the right reasons

While you’re under no obligation to build a social media presence, if you’re going to do it, be sure your intentions are solid, said Don S. Dizon, MD, professor of medicine and professor of surgery at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Dizon, as @DoctorDon, has 44,700 TikTok followers and uses the platform to answer cancer-related questions.

“It should be your altruism that motivates you to post,” said Dr. Dizon, who is also associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Legorreta Cancer Center in Providence, R.I., and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital. “What we can do for society at large is to provide our input into issues, add informed opinions where there’s controversy, and address misinformation.”

If you don’t know where to start, consider seeking a digital mentor to talk through your options.

“You may never meet this person, but you should choose them if you like their style, their content, their delivery, and their perspective,” Dr. Dizon said. “Find another doctor out there on social media whom you feel you can emulate. Take your time, too. Soon enough, you’ll develop your own style and your own online persona.”
 

Post clear, accurate information

If you want to be lighthearted on social media, that’s your choice. But Jennifer Trachtenberg, a pediatrician with nearly 7,000 Instagram followers in New York who posts as @askdrjen, prefers to offer vaccine scheduling tips, alert parents about COVID-19 rates, and offer advice on cold and flu prevention.

“Right now, I’m mainly doing this to educate patients and make them aware of topics that I think are important and that I see my patients needing more information on,” she said. “We have to be clear: People take what we say seriously. So, while it’s important to be relatable, it’s even more important to share evidence-based information.”
 

Many patients get their information on social media

While patients once came to the doctor armed with information sourced via “Doctor Google,” today, just as many patients use social media to learn about their condition or the medications they’re taking.

Unfortunately, a recent Ohio State University, Columbus, study found that the majority of gynecologic cancer advice on TikTok, for example, was either misleading or inaccurate.

“This misinformation should be a motivator for physicians to explore the social media space,” Dr. Dizon said. “Our voices need to be on there.”
 

Break down barriers – and make connections

Mike Natter, MD, an endocrinologist in New York, has type 1 diabetes. This informs his work – and his life – and he’s passionate about sharing it with his 117,000 followers as @mike.natter on Instagram.

“A lot of type 1s follow me, so there’s an advocacy component to what I do,” he said. “I enjoy being able to raise awareness and keep people up to date on the newest research and treatment.”

But that’s not all: Dr. Natter is also an artist who went to art school before he went to medical school, and his account is rife with his cartoons and illustrations about everything from valvular disease to diabetic ketoacidosis.

“I found that I was drawing a lot of my notes in medical school,” he said. “When I drew my notes, I did quite well, and I think that using art and illustration is a great tool. It breaks down barriers and makes health information all the more accessible to everyone.”
 

Share your expertise as a doctor – and a person

As a mom and pediatrician, Krupa Playforth, MD, who practices in Vienna, Va., knows that what she posts carries weight. So, whether she’s writing about backpack safety tips, choking hazards, or separation anxiety, her followers can rest assured that she’s posting responsibly.

“Pediatricians often underestimate how smart parents are,” said Dr. Playforth, who has three kids, ages 8, 5, and 2, and has 137,000 followers on @thepediatricianmom, her Instagram account. “Their anxiety comes from an understandable place, which is why I see my role as that of a parent and pediatrician who can translate the knowledge pediatricians have into something parents can understand.”

Dr. Playforth, who jumped on social media during COVID-19 and experienced a positive response in her local community, said being on social media is imperative if you’re a pediatrician.

“This is the future of pediatric medicine in particular,” she said. “A lot of pediatricians don’t want to embrace social media, but I think that’s a mistake. After all, while parents think pediatricians have all the answers, when we think of our own children, most doctors are like other parents – we can’t think objectively about our kids. It’s helpful for me to share that and to help parents feel less alone.”

If you’re not yet using social media to the best of your physician abilities, you might take a shot at becoming widely recognizable. Pick a preferred platform, answer common patient questions, dispel medical myths, provide pertinent information, and let your personality shine.

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

Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.

Treatment with semaglutide was associated with reductions in both A1c (–0.77%; P < .001) and body weight (–4.7 kg; P < .001) at 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained for up to 3 years and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.

Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”

Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
 

Large scale, long term, and real world

Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.

Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”

“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”

A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m²; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.

For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.

The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.

Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
 

Three-year sustained effect

Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.

A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.

Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).

As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).

Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”

He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”

Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.

Treatment with semaglutide was associated with reductions in both A1c (–0.77%; P < .001) and body weight (–4.7 kg; P < .001) at 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained for up to 3 years and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.

Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”

Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
 

Large scale, long term, and real world

Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.

Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”

“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”

A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m²; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.

For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.

The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.

Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
 

Three-year sustained effect

Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.

A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.

Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).

As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).

Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”

He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”

Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.

Treatment with semaglutide was associated with reductions in both A1c (–0.77%; P < .001) and body weight (–4.7 kg; P < .001) at 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained for up to 3 years and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.

Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”

Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
 

Large scale, long term, and real world

Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.

Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”

“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”

A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m²; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.

For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.

The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.

Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
 

Three-year sustained effect

Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.

A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.

Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).

As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).

Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”

He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”

Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.