MDedge Endocrinology

The popular but expensive weight loss drug semaglutide (Wegovy, significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20% when given to patients, compared with those receiving placebo, in the pivotal SELECT trial, with more than 17,000 enrolled people with overweight or obesity and established cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes.

The finding should fuel improved patient access to this glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist weight-loss agent that has historically been hindered by skepticism among U.S. payers, many of whom have criticized the health benefits and cost effectiveness of this drug in people whose only indication for treatment is overweight or obesity.

According to top-line results from SELECT released by Novo Nordisk on Aug. 8, the people randomly assigned to receive weekly 2.4-mg subcutaneous injections of semaglutide showed a significant 20% reduction in their incidence of the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The announcement added that semaglutide treatment also significantly linked with a drop in the incidence of each of these individual three endpoints; the magnitude of these reductions, however, wasn’t specified, nor was the duration of treatment and follow-up.

The results also showed a level of safety and patient tolerance for weekly 2.4-mg injections of semaglutide that were consistent with prior reports on the agent. Semaglutide as Wegovy received marketing approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for weight loss, and in 2017 for glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes, at a weekly maximum dose of 2.0 mg (for which it’s marketed as Ozempic).

SELECT began in 2018 and randomly assigned 17,604 adults aged 45 years and older at more than 800 sites in 41 countries. The company’s announcement noted that the trial had accrued a total of 1,270 study participants with a first MACE event but did not break this total down based on treatment received.
 

‘A good result for patients’

“The topline results from SELECT are exciting, as preventing heart attacks and stroke with a drug that also lowers weight is very important for many patients, especially if the data also show – as I suspect they will – a meaningful improvement of quality of life for patients due to associated weight loss,” commented Naveed Sattar, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow who was not involved with the study.

Changing how obesity is regarded

“To date, there are no approved weight management medications proven to deliver effective weight management while also reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death,” said Martin Holst Lange, executive vice president for development at Novo Nordisk, in the company’s press release.

“SELECT is a landmark trial and has demonstrated that semaglutide 2.4 mg has the potential to change how obesity is regarded and treated.”

Several of the early medical options for aiding weight loss had substantial adverse effects, including increased MACE rates, a history that led to pervasive wariness among physicians over the safety of antiobesity agents and the wisdom of using medically aided weight loss to produce health benefits.

This attitude also helped dampen health insurance coverage of weight-loss treatments. For example, Medicare has a long-standing policy against reimbursing the cost for medications that are used for the indication of weight loss, and a 2003 U.S. law prohibited part D plans from providing this coverage.

Semaglutide belongs to the class of agents that mimic the action of the incretin GLP-1. The introduction of this class of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss began in 2014 with the FDA’s approval of liraglutide (Saxenda), a daily subcutaneous injection that marked the first step toward establishing the class as safe and effective for weight loss and launching a new era in weight-loss treatment.

According to the Novo Nordisk announcement, a full report on results from SELECT will occur “at a scientific meeting later in 2023.”

SELECT is sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Sattar is a consultant to several companies that market GLP-1 receptor agonists, including Novo Nordisk and Lilly, but has had no involvement in SELECT.

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

The popular but expensive weight loss drug semaglutide (Wegovy, significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20% when given to patients, compared with those receiving placebo, in the pivotal SELECT trial, with more than 17,000 enrolled people with overweight or obesity and established cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes.

The finding should fuel improved patient access to this glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist weight-loss agent that has historically been hindered by skepticism among U.S. payers, many of whom have criticized the health benefits and cost effectiveness of this drug in people whose only indication for treatment is overweight or obesity.

According to top-line results from SELECT released by Novo Nordisk on Aug. 8, the people randomly assigned to receive weekly 2.4-mg subcutaneous injections of semaglutide showed a significant 20% reduction in their incidence of the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The announcement added that semaglutide treatment also significantly linked with a drop in the incidence of each of these individual three endpoints; the magnitude of these reductions, however, wasn’t specified, nor was the duration of treatment and follow-up.

The results also showed a level of safety and patient tolerance for weekly 2.4-mg injections of semaglutide that were consistent with prior reports on the agent. Semaglutide as Wegovy received marketing approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for weight loss, and in 2017 for glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes, at a weekly maximum dose of 2.0 mg (for which it’s marketed as Ozempic).

SELECT began in 2018 and randomly assigned 17,604 adults aged 45 years and older at more than 800 sites in 41 countries. The company’s announcement noted that the trial had accrued a total of 1,270 study participants with a first MACE event but did not break this total down based on treatment received.
 

‘A good result for patients’

“The topline results from SELECT are exciting, as preventing heart attacks and stroke with a drug that also lowers weight is very important for many patients, especially if the data also show – as I suspect they will – a meaningful improvement of quality of life for patients due to associated weight loss,” commented Naveed Sattar, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow who was not involved with the study.

Changing how obesity is regarded

“To date, there are no approved weight management medications proven to deliver effective weight management while also reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death,” said Martin Holst Lange, executive vice president for development at Novo Nordisk, in the company’s press release.

“SELECT is a landmark trial and has demonstrated that semaglutide 2.4 mg has the potential to change how obesity is regarded and treated.”

Several of the early medical options for aiding weight loss had substantial adverse effects, including increased MACE rates, a history that led to pervasive wariness among physicians over the safety of antiobesity agents and the wisdom of using medically aided weight loss to produce health benefits.

This attitude also helped dampen health insurance coverage of weight-loss treatments. For example, Medicare has a long-standing policy against reimbursing the cost for medications that are used for the indication of weight loss, and a 2003 U.S. law prohibited part D plans from providing this coverage.

Semaglutide belongs to the class of agents that mimic the action of the incretin GLP-1. The introduction of this class of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss began in 2014 with the FDA’s approval of liraglutide (Saxenda), a daily subcutaneous injection that marked the first step toward establishing the class as safe and effective for weight loss and launching a new era in weight-loss treatment.

According to the Novo Nordisk announcement, a full report on results from SELECT will occur “at a scientific meeting later in 2023.”

SELECT is sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Sattar is a consultant to several companies that market GLP-1 receptor agonists, including Novo Nordisk and Lilly, but has had no involvement in SELECT.

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

The popular but expensive weight loss drug semaglutide (Wegovy, significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20% when given to patients, compared with those receiving placebo, in the pivotal SELECT trial, with more than 17,000 enrolled people with overweight or obesity and established cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes.

The finding should fuel improved patient access to this glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist weight-loss agent that has historically been hindered by skepticism among U.S. payers, many of whom have criticized the health benefits and cost effectiveness of this drug in people whose only indication for treatment is overweight or obesity.

According to top-line results from SELECT released by Novo Nordisk on Aug. 8, the people randomly assigned to receive weekly 2.4-mg subcutaneous injections of semaglutide showed a significant 20% reduction in their incidence of the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The announcement added that semaglutide treatment also significantly linked with a drop in the incidence of each of these individual three endpoints; the magnitude of these reductions, however, wasn’t specified, nor was the duration of treatment and follow-up.

The results also showed a level of safety and patient tolerance for weekly 2.4-mg injections of semaglutide that were consistent with prior reports on the agent. Semaglutide as Wegovy received marketing approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for weight loss, and in 2017 for glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes, at a weekly maximum dose of 2.0 mg (for which it’s marketed as Ozempic).

SELECT began in 2018 and randomly assigned 17,604 adults aged 45 years and older at more than 800 sites in 41 countries. The company’s announcement noted that the trial had accrued a total of 1,270 study participants with a first MACE event but did not break this total down based on treatment received.
 

‘A good result for patients’

“The topline results from SELECT are exciting, as preventing heart attacks and stroke with a drug that also lowers weight is very important for many patients, especially if the data also show – as I suspect they will – a meaningful improvement of quality of life for patients due to associated weight loss,” commented Naveed Sattar, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow who was not involved with the study.

Changing how obesity is regarded

“To date, there are no approved weight management medications proven to deliver effective weight management while also reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death,” said Martin Holst Lange, executive vice president for development at Novo Nordisk, in the company’s press release.

“SELECT is a landmark trial and has demonstrated that semaglutide 2.4 mg has the potential to change how obesity is regarded and treated.”

Several of the early medical options for aiding weight loss had substantial adverse effects, including increased MACE rates, a history that led to pervasive wariness among physicians over the safety of antiobesity agents and the wisdom of using medically aided weight loss to produce health benefits.

This attitude also helped dampen health insurance coverage of weight-loss treatments. For example, Medicare has a long-standing policy against reimbursing the cost for medications that are used for the indication of weight loss, and a 2003 U.S. law prohibited part D plans from providing this coverage.

Semaglutide belongs to the class of agents that mimic the action of the incretin GLP-1. The introduction of this class of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss began in 2014 with the FDA’s approval of liraglutide (Saxenda), a daily subcutaneous injection that marked the first step toward establishing the class as safe and effective for weight loss and launching a new era in weight-loss treatment.

According to the Novo Nordisk announcement, a full report on results from SELECT will occur “at a scientific meeting later in 2023.”

SELECT is sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Sattar is a consultant to several companies that market GLP-1 receptor agonists, including Novo Nordisk and Lilly, but has had no involvement in SELECT.

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

Zolpidem (Ambien) is a well-known sedative for sleep. Letairis (Ambrisentan) is a vasodilator for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Citalopram (Celexa) is an antidepressant; escitalopram (Lexapro) is prescribed for anxiety and depression.
 

Those are just 4 of the more than 80 pairs of drug names that the Institute for Safe Medication Practices recently added to its list of confusing drug names. The aim is to increase awareness about the potential for a serious medication mistake when the wrong drug is given because of drug names that look and sound similar.

Awareness of these drug names, however, is just the first step in preventing medication mistakes. Health care providers should take a number of other steps as well, experts said.

ISMP launched its confusing drug names list, previously called look-alike, sound-alike (LASA) drugs, in 2008. The new list is an update of the 2019 version, said Michael J. Gaunt, PharmD, senior manager of error reporting programs for the ISMP, which focuses on the prevention of medication mistakes. The new entries were chosen on the basis of a number of factors, including ISMP’s analysis of recent medication mishap reports that were submitted to it.

The ISMP list now includes about 528 drug pairs, Dr. Gaunt said. The list is long, he said, partly because each pair is listed twice, so readers can cross reference. For instance, hydralazine and hydroxyzine are listed in one entry in the list, and hydroxyzine and hydralazine are listed in another.

Brand Institute in Miami has named, among other drugs, Entresto, Rybelsus, and Lunesta. The regulatory arm of the company, the Drug Safety Institute, “considers drug names that have been confused as an important part of our comprehensive drug name assessments,” Todd Bridges, global president of the institute, said in an emailed statement. Information on the confusing drug names are incorporated into the company’s proprietary algorithm and is used when developing brand names for drugs. “We continually update this algorithm as new drug names that are often confused are identified,” Mr. Bridges said.
 

Confusing drug names: Ongoing issue

The length of the list, as well as the latest additions, are not surprising, said Mary Ann Kliethermes, PharmD, director of medication safety and quality for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, a membership organization of about 60,000 pharmacists who practice in inpatient and outpatient settings.

“I’ve been in practice over 45 years,” she said, “and this has been a problem ever since I have been in practice.” The sheer volume of new drugs is one reason, she said. From 2013 through 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an average of 43 novel drugs per year, according to a report from its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Since the 90s, this [confusion about similar drug names] has happened,” Dr. Kliethermes said.

According to a 2023 report, about 7,000-9,000 people die each year in the United States as the result of a medication error. However, it’s impossible to say for sure what percentage of those errors involve name confusion, Dr. Gaunt said.

Not all the mistakes are reported. Some that are reported are dramatic and deadly. In 2022, a Tennessee nurse was convicted of gross neglect and negligent homicide. She was sentenced to 3 years’ probation after she mistakenly gave vercuronium, an anesthetic agent, instead of the sedative Versed to a patient, and the woman died.
 

Updated list: A closer look

Many of the new drug pairs that are listed in the update are cephalosporins, said Dr. Kliethermes, who reviewed the new list for this news organization. In all, 20 of the latest 82 additions are cephalosporins. These include drugs such as cefazolin, which can be confused with cefotetan, and vice versa. These drugs have been around since the 1980s, she said, but “they needed to be on there.” Even in the 1980s, it was becoming difficult to differentiate them, and there were fewer drugs in that class then, she said.

Influenza vaccines made the new list, too. Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent can be confused with fluzone quadrivalent. Other new additions: hydrochlorothiazide and hydroxychloroquine, Lasik and Wakix, Pitressin and Pitocin, Remeron and Rozerem.
 

Beyond the list

While it’s not possible to pinpoint how big a problem name confusion is in causing medication mistakes, “it is certainly still an issue,” Dr. Gaunt said. A variety of practices can reduce that risk substantially, Dr. Gaunt and Dr. Kliethermes agreed.

Tall-man lettering. Both the FDA and the ISMP recommend the use of so-called tall-man lettering (TML), which involves the use of uppercase letters, sometimes in boldface, to distinguish similar names on product labels and elsewhere. Examples include vinBLAStine and vinCRIStine.

Electronic prescribing. “It eliminates the risk of handwriting confusion,” Dr. Gaunt said. However, electronic prescribing can have a downside, Dr. Kliethermes said. When ordering medication, a person may type in a few letters and may then be presented with a prompt that lists several drug names, and it can be easy to click the wrong one. For that reason, ISMP and other experts recommend typing at least five letters when searching for a medication in an electronic system.

Use both brand and generic names on labels and prescriptions.

Write the indication. That can serve as a double check. If a prescription for Ambien says “For sleep,” there’s probably less risk of filling a prescription for ambrisentan, the vasodilator.

Smart formulary additions. When hospitals add medications to their formularies, “part of that formulary assessment should include looking at the potential risk for errors,” Dr. Gaunt said. This involves keeping an eye out for confusing names and similar packaging. “Do that analysis up front and put in strategies to minimize that. Maybe you look for a different drug [for the same use] that has a different name.” Or choose a different manufacturer, so the medication would at least have a different container.

Use bar code scanning. Suppose a pharmacist goes to the shelf and pulls the wrong drug. “Bar code scanning provides the opportunity to catch the error,” Dr. Gaunt said. Many community pharmacies now have bar code scanning. ISMP just issued best practices for community pharmacies, Dr. Gaunt said, and these include the use of bar code scanning and other measures.

Educate consumers. Health care providers can educate consumers on how to minimize the risk of getting the wrong drug, Dr. Gaunt said. When patients are picking up a prescription, suggest they look at the container label; if it looks different from previous prescriptions of the same medicine, ask the pharmacist for an explanation. Some patients just pass it off, Dr. Gaunt said, figuring the pharmacist or health plan switched manufacturers of their medication.

Access the list. The entire list is on the ISMP site and is accessible after free registration.
 

Goal: Preventing confusion

The FDA has provided guidance for industry on naming drugs not yet approved so that the proposed names are not too similar in sound or appearance to those already on the market. Included in the lengthy document are checklists, such as, “Across a range of dialects, are the names consistently pronounced differently?” and “Are the lengths of the names dissimilar when scripted?” (Lengths are considered different if they differ by two or more letters.)

The FDA also offers the phonetic and orthographic computer analysis (POCA) program, a software tool that employs an advanced algorithm to evaluate similarities between two drug names. The data sources are updated regularly as new drugs are approved.
 

Liability update

The problem may be decreasing. In a 2020 report, researchers used pharmacists’ professional liability claim data from the Healthcare Providers Service Organization. They compared 2018 data on claims with 2013 data. The percentage of claims associated with wrong drug dispensing errors declined from 43.8% in 2013 to 36.8% in 2018. Wrong dose claims also declined, from 31.5% to 15.3%.

These researchers concluded that technology and automation have contributed to the prevention of medication errors caused by the use of the wrong drug and the wrong dose, but mistakes continue, owing to system and human errors.

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

Zolpidem (Ambien) is a well-known sedative for sleep. Letairis (Ambrisentan) is a vasodilator for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Citalopram (Celexa) is an antidepressant; escitalopram (Lexapro) is prescribed for anxiety and depression.
 

Those are just 4 of the more than 80 pairs of drug names that the Institute for Safe Medication Practices recently added to its list of confusing drug names. The aim is to increase awareness about the potential for a serious medication mistake when the wrong drug is given because of drug names that look and sound similar.

Awareness of these drug names, however, is just the first step in preventing medication mistakes. Health care providers should take a number of other steps as well, experts said.

ISMP launched its confusing drug names list, previously called look-alike, sound-alike (LASA) drugs, in 2008. The new list is an update of the 2019 version, said Michael J. Gaunt, PharmD, senior manager of error reporting programs for the ISMP, which focuses on the prevention of medication mistakes. The new entries were chosen on the basis of a number of factors, including ISMP’s analysis of recent medication mishap reports that were submitted to it.

The ISMP list now includes about 528 drug pairs, Dr. Gaunt said. The list is long, he said, partly because each pair is listed twice, so readers can cross reference. For instance, hydralazine and hydroxyzine are listed in one entry in the list, and hydroxyzine and hydralazine are listed in another.

Brand Institute in Miami has named, among other drugs, Entresto, Rybelsus, and Lunesta. The regulatory arm of the company, the Drug Safety Institute, “considers drug names that have been confused as an important part of our comprehensive drug name assessments,” Todd Bridges, global president of the institute, said in an emailed statement. Information on the confusing drug names are incorporated into the company’s proprietary algorithm and is used when developing brand names for drugs. “We continually update this algorithm as new drug names that are often confused are identified,” Mr. Bridges said.
 

Confusing drug names: Ongoing issue

The length of the list, as well as the latest additions, are not surprising, said Mary Ann Kliethermes, PharmD, director of medication safety and quality for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, a membership organization of about 60,000 pharmacists who practice in inpatient and outpatient settings.

“I’ve been in practice over 45 years,” she said, “and this has been a problem ever since I have been in practice.” The sheer volume of new drugs is one reason, she said. From 2013 through 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an average of 43 novel drugs per year, according to a report from its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Since the 90s, this [confusion about similar drug names] has happened,” Dr. Kliethermes said.

According to a 2023 report, about 7,000-9,000 people die each year in the United States as the result of a medication error. However, it’s impossible to say for sure what percentage of those errors involve name confusion, Dr. Gaunt said.

Not all the mistakes are reported. Some that are reported are dramatic and deadly. In 2022, a Tennessee nurse was convicted of gross neglect and negligent homicide. She was sentenced to 3 years’ probation after she mistakenly gave vercuronium, an anesthetic agent, instead of the sedative Versed to a patient, and the woman died.
 

Updated list: A closer look

Many of the new drug pairs that are listed in the update are cephalosporins, said Dr. Kliethermes, who reviewed the new list for this news organization. In all, 20 of the latest 82 additions are cephalosporins. These include drugs such as cefazolin, which can be confused with cefotetan, and vice versa. These drugs have been around since the 1980s, she said, but “they needed to be on there.” Even in the 1980s, it was becoming difficult to differentiate them, and there were fewer drugs in that class then, she said.

Influenza vaccines made the new list, too. Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent can be confused with fluzone quadrivalent. Other new additions: hydrochlorothiazide and hydroxychloroquine, Lasik and Wakix, Pitressin and Pitocin, Remeron and Rozerem.
 

Beyond the list

While it’s not possible to pinpoint how big a problem name confusion is in causing medication mistakes, “it is certainly still an issue,” Dr. Gaunt said. A variety of practices can reduce that risk substantially, Dr. Gaunt and Dr. Kliethermes agreed.

Tall-man lettering. Both the FDA and the ISMP recommend the use of so-called tall-man lettering (TML), which involves the use of uppercase letters, sometimes in boldface, to distinguish similar names on product labels and elsewhere. Examples include vinBLAStine and vinCRIStine.

Electronic prescribing. “It eliminates the risk of handwriting confusion,” Dr. Gaunt said. However, electronic prescribing can have a downside, Dr. Kliethermes said. When ordering medication, a person may type in a few letters and may then be presented with a prompt that lists several drug names, and it can be easy to click the wrong one. For that reason, ISMP and other experts recommend typing at least five letters when searching for a medication in an electronic system.

Use both brand and generic names on labels and prescriptions.

Write the indication. That can serve as a double check. If a prescription for Ambien says “For sleep,” there’s probably less risk of filling a prescription for ambrisentan, the vasodilator.

Smart formulary additions. When hospitals add medications to their formularies, “part of that formulary assessment should include looking at the potential risk for errors,” Dr. Gaunt said. This involves keeping an eye out for confusing names and similar packaging. “Do that analysis up front and put in strategies to minimize that. Maybe you look for a different drug [for the same use] that has a different name.” Or choose a different manufacturer, so the medication would at least have a different container.

Use bar code scanning. Suppose a pharmacist goes to the shelf and pulls the wrong drug. “Bar code scanning provides the opportunity to catch the error,” Dr. Gaunt said. Many community pharmacies now have bar code scanning. ISMP just issued best practices for community pharmacies, Dr. Gaunt said, and these include the use of bar code scanning and other measures.

Educate consumers. Health care providers can educate consumers on how to minimize the risk of getting the wrong drug, Dr. Gaunt said. When patients are picking up a prescription, suggest they look at the container label; if it looks different from previous prescriptions of the same medicine, ask the pharmacist for an explanation. Some patients just pass it off, Dr. Gaunt said, figuring the pharmacist or health plan switched manufacturers of their medication.

Access the list. The entire list is on the ISMP site and is accessible after free registration.
 

Goal: Preventing confusion

The FDA has provided guidance for industry on naming drugs not yet approved so that the proposed names are not too similar in sound or appearance to those already on the market. Included in the lengthy document are checklists, such as, “Across a range of dialects, are the names consistently pronounced differently?” and “Are the lengths of the names dissimilar when scripted?” (Lengths are considered different if they differ by two or more letters.)

The FDA also offers the phonetic and orthographic computer analysis (POCA) program, a software tool that employs an advanced algorithm to evaluate similarities between two drug names. The data sources are updated regularly as new drugs are approved.
 

Liability update

The problem may be decreasing. In a 2020 report, researchers used pharmacists’ professional liability claim data from the Healthcare Providers Service Organization. They compared 2018 data on claims with 2013 data. The percentage of claims associated with wrong drug dispensing errors declined from 43.8% in 2013 to 36.8% in 2018. Wrong dose claims also declined, from 31.5% to 15.3%.

These researchers concluded that technology and automation have contributed to the prevention of medication errors caused by the use of the wrong drug and the wrong dose, but mistakes continue, owing to system and human errors.

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

Zolpidem (Ambien) is a well-known sedative for sleep. Letairis (Ambrisentan) is a vasodilator for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Citalopram (Celexa) is an antidepressant; escitalopram (Lexapro) is prescribed for anxiety and depression.
 

Those are just 4 of the more than 80 pairs of drug names that the Institute for Safe Medication Practices recently added to its list of confusing drug names. The aim is to increase awareness about the potential for a serious medication mistake when the wrong drug is given because of drug names that look and sound similar.

Awareness of these drug names, however, is just the first step in preventing medication mistakes. Health care providers should take a number of other steps as well, experts said.

ISMP launched its confusing drug names list, previously called look-alike, sound-alike (LASA) drugs, in 2008. The new list is an update of the 2019 version, said Michael J. Gaunt, PharmD, senior manager of error reporting programs for the ISMP, which focuses on the prevention of medication mistakes. The new entries were chosen on the basis of a number of factors, including ISMP’s analysis of recent medication mishap reports that were submitted to it.

The ISMP list now includes about 528 drug pairs, Dr. Gaunt said. The list is long, he said, partly because each pair is listed twice, so readers can cross reference. For instance, hydralazine and hydroxyzine are listed in one entry in the list, and hydroxyzine and hydralazine are listed in another.

Brand Institute in Miami has named, among other drugs, Entresto, Rybelsus, and Lunesta. The regulatory arm of the company, the Drug Safety Institute, “considers drug names that have been confused as an important part of our comprehensive drug name assessments,” Todd Bridges, global president of the institute, said in an emailed statement. Information on the confusing drug names are incorporated into the company’s proprietary algorithm and is used when developing brand names for drugs. “We continually update this algorithm as new drug names that are often confused are identified,” Mr. Bridges said.
 

Confusing drug names: Ongoing issue

The length of the list, as well as the latest additions, are not surprising, said Mary Ann Kliethermes, PharmD, director of medication safety and quality for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, a membership organization of about 60,000 pharmacists who practice in inpatient and outpatient settings.

“I’ve been in practice over 45 years,” she said, “and this has been a problem ever since I have been in practice.” The sheer volume of new drugs is one reason, she said. From 2013 through 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an average of 43 novel drugs per year, according to a report from its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Since the 90s, this [confusion about similar drug names] has happened,” Dr. Kliethermes said.

According to a 2023 report, about 7,000-9,000 people die each year in the United States as the result of a medication error. However, it’s impossible to say for sure what percentage of those errors involve name confusion, Dr. Gaunt said.

Not all the mistakes are reported. Some that are reported are dramatic and deadly. In 2022, a Tennessee nurse was convicted of gross neglect and negligent homicide. She was sentenced to 3 years’ probation after she mistakenly gave vercuronium, an anesthetic agent, instead of the sedative Versed to a patient, and the woman died.
 

Updated list: A closer look

Many of the new drug pairs that are listed in the update are cephalosporins, said Dr. Kliethermes, who reviewed the new list for this news organization. In all, 20 of the latest 82 additions are cephalosporins. These include drugs such as cefazolin, which can be confused with cefotetan, and vice versa. These drugs have been around since the 1980s, she said, but “they needed to be on there.” Even in the 1980s, it was becoming difficult to differentiate them, and there were fewer drugs in that class then, she said.

Influenza vaccines made the new list, too. Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent can be confused with fluzone quadrivalent. Other new additions: hydrochlorothiazide and hydroxychloroquine, Lasik and Wakix, Pitressin and Pitocin, Remeron and Rozerem.
 

Beyond the list

While it’s not possible to pinpoint how big a problem name confusion is in causing medication mistakes, “it is certainly still an issue,” Dr. Gaunt said. A variety of practices can reduce that risk substantially, Dr. Gaunt and Dr. Kliethermes agreed.

Tall-man lettering. Both the FDA and the ISMP recommend the use of so-called tall-man lettering (TML), which involves the use of uppercase letters, sometimes in boldface, to distinguish similar names on product labels and elsewhere. Examples include vinBLAStine and vinCRIStine.

Electronic prescribing. “It eliminates the risk of handwriting confusion,” Dr. Gaunt said. However, electronic prescribing can have a downside, Dr. Kliethermes said. When ordering medication, a person may type in a few letters and may then be presented with a prompt that lists several drug names, and it can be easy to click the wrong one. For that reason, ISMP and other experts recommend typing at least five letters when searching for a medication in an electronic system.

Use both brand and generic names on labels and prescriptions.

Write the indication. That can serve as a double check. If a prescription for Ambien says “For sleep,” there’s probably less risk of filling a prescription for ambrisentan, the vasodilator.

Smart formulary additions. When hospitals add medications to their formularies, “part of that formulary assessment should include looking at the potential risk for errors,” Dr. Gaunt said. This involves keeping an eye out for confusing names and similar packaging. “Do that analysis up front and put in strategies to minimize that. Maybe you look for a different drug [for the same use] that has a different name.” Or choose a different manufacturer, so the medication would at least have a different container.

Use bar code scanning. Suppose a pharmacist goes to the shelf and pulls the wrong drug. “Bar code scanning provides the opportunity to catch the error,” Dr. Gaunt said. Many community pharmacies now have bar code scanning. ISMP just issued best practices for community pharmacies, Dr. Gaunt said, and these include the use of bar code scanning and other measures.

Educate consumers. Health care providers can educate consumers on how to minimize the risk of getting the wrong drug, Dr. Gaunt said. When patients are picking up a prescription, suggest they look at the container label; if it looks different from previous prescriptions of the same medicine, ask the pharmacist for an explanation. Some patients just pass it off, Dr. Gaunt said, figuring the pharmacist or health plan switched manufacturers of their medication.

Access the list. The entire list is on the ISMP site and is accessible after free registration.
 

Goal: Preventing confusion

The FDA has provided guidance for industry on naming drugs not yet approved so that the proposed names are not too similar in sound or appearance to those already on the market. Included in the lengthy document are checklists, such as, “Across a range of dialects, are the names consistently pronounced differently?” and “Are the lengths of the names dissimilar when scripted?” (Lengths are considered different if they differ by two or more letters.)

The FDA also offers the phonetic and orthographic computer analysis (POCA) program, a software tool that employs an advanced algorithm to evaluate similarities between two drug names. The data sources are updated regularly as new drugs are approved.
 

Liability update

The problem may be decreasing. In a 2020 report, researchers used pharmacists’ professional liability claim data from the Healthcare Providers Service Organization. They compared 2018 data on claims with 2013 data. The percentage of claims associated with wrong drug dispensing errors declined from 43.8% in 2013 to 36.8% in 2018. Wrong dose claims also declined, from 31.5% to 15.3%.

These researchers concluded that technology and automation have contributed to the prevention of medication errors caused by the use of the wrong drug and the wrong dose, but mistakes continue, owing to system and human errors.

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

As with porridge, so with blood pressure: Just right makes all the difference.

Ill-fitting blood pressure measurement cuffs produce erroneous readings that impair hypertension treatment, according to research published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

People whose mid-upper arm circumference exceeds 32 cm require larger cuffs than the standard size, but in many cases the regular-sized cuff is used on everyone. As a result, patients with larger arms may be falsely diagnosed with high blood pressure because of a too-small cuff, leading to overprescribing of medications that could make their health worse, according to the researchers.  

“A person whose blood pressure is 120/80, which is normal – if they’re using the wrong cuff, they could get a measurement that says 140/90, let’s say,” said study author Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, vice chair for clinical research in the department of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “They might think they not only have hypertension, but stage 2 hypertension. Providers might give one or even two medicines to lower this, which could lead to hypotension,” Dr. Brady said.

Conversely, someone with smaller arms whose cuff is too big may present with an artificially low blood pressure. The implications of using ill-fitting cuffs are well known. Dr. Brady, among others, has studied the topic extensively. Even so, she said the measurement errors in the latest study were larger than expected.
 

The Goldilocks test

People with an arm circumference of 20-25 cm should use a smaller cuff than the regular size, Dr. Brady and colleagues reported. Circumferences of 25.1-32 cm require a regular-sized cuff; large cuffs are for circumferences of 32.1-40 cm; and extra-large cuffs should be used at 40.1-55 cm.

The study included 195 residents of Baltimore (128 women, 67 men; 132 Black, 58 White, 5 Hispanic) with an average age of 54 years. The researchers measured every participant’s blood pressure using an automated device on four occasions, taking three measurements each time.

The first three sets of measurements used, respectively, an appropriate cuff size for each person’s arm circumference; a cuff that was too big; and a cuff that was too small. This study design ensured that a regular-sized cuff would be used during one of the three measurements – sometimes that cuff was too small, sometimes it was appropriate, and other times it was too big.

The final set of three measurements used the appropriate cuff size for a person’s arm every time. Dr. Brady and colleagues then compared people’s blood pressure measurements when using the right-sized cuff to measurements with a regular-sized cuff that was not suited for them.

They found that using a cuff that was too large for the patient’s arm (i.e., using a regular cuff when a small cuff was the right choice) led to understating systolic blood pressure by –3.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], –5.6 to –1.7). A cuff that was one size too small – using regular instead of a large – overestimated systolic blood pressure by 4.8 (3.0-6.6) mm Hg. And a cuff that was two sizes too small – someone who should have received an extra-large cuff but received the regular size – overestimated systolic blood pressure by 19.5 (16.1-22.9) mm Hg. All differences were statistically significant, the researchers reported.

“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized cross-over trial to examine the effect of miscuffing on automated blood pressure readings,” Mathias Lalika, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.; Stephen P. Juraschek, MD, PhD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston; and LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article.

“Interestingly, the degree of underestimation or overestimation increased as the appropriate cuff size progressed from the regular to extra-large BP cuff. More importantly, the effect of miscuffing did not vary with BP or obesity status,” they wrote.

“This was more of a pragmatic trial to see real world, all comers,” Dr. Brady said, when regular-sized cuffs are used whether or not that made sense.

“This study reaffirms findings of previous studies and highlights a major source of error in blood pressure measurement,” Raj Padwal, MD, director of the University of Alberta Hypertension Clinic, Edmonton, Alta., said in an interview. Dr. Padwal, who was not involved in the study, said the findings highlight the importance of ensuring that technicians who typically measure blood pressure understand the value of using the right-sized cuff.

Dr. Brady noted that measuring arm circumference takes about 15 seconds. He advised health organizations and clinics to carry multiple cuffs sizes to avoid a scramble to find a right-sized cuff. In the editorial, Dr. Lalika, Dr. Juraschek, and Dr. Brewer call for particular attention to providing the right-sized cuffs to facilities that work with underserved populations, such as federally qualified health centers.

Dr. Padwal added that even a perfectly measured blood pressure test at a clinic indicates pressure at a moment in time. Ten minutes later the story could be different. For this reason, he and other clinicians recommend frequent home blood pressure measurements rather than relying solely on the sparse number of readings collected in the clinic setting.

“A properly educated patient can give many readings that are separated in space and time and, when averaged, can give a much better picture of overall blood pressure and future risk,” Dr. Padwal said. 

Dr. Brady agreed with the value of home readings but said home-based readings also can be erroneous if the patient uses a cuff that is the wrong size. She cochairs a committee for the American Medical Association that recommends validated home blood pressure measurement devices on a periodically updated website called Validate BP. The details for each device listing show the cuff sizes available per device. Many devices provide only the standard cuff, Dr. Brady noted, but some offer multiple cuff sizes.

“One of the things that would be great if it came out of this paper is if patients were empowered to ask physicians to measure their arm” and then use that information to select the appropriate cuff for their home device, she said.

Dr. Brady and Dr. Padwal reported no relevant financial relationships. This study was supported by Resolve to Save Lives, which is funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Gates Philanthropy Partners, which is funded with support from the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As with porridge, so with blood pressure: Just right makes all the difference.

Ill-fitting blood pressure measurement cuffs produce erroneous readings that impair hypertension treatment, according to research published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

People whose mid-upper arm circumference exceeds 32 cm require larger cuffs than the standard size, but in many cases the regular-sized cuff is used on everyone. As a result, patients with larger arms may be falsely diagnosed with high blood pressure because of a too-small cuff, leading to overprescribing of medications that could make their health worse, according to the researchers.  

“A person whose blood pressure is 120/80, which is normal – if they’re using the wrong cuff, they could get a measurement that says 140/90, let’s say,” said study author Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, vice chair for clinical research in the department of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “They might think they not only have hypertension, but stage 2 hypertension. Providers might give one or even two medicines to lower this, which could lead to hypotension,” Dr. Brady said.

Conversely, someone with smaller arms whose cuff is too big may present with an artificially low blood pressure. The implications of using ill-fitting cuffs are well known. Dr. Brady, among others, has studied the topic extensively. Even so, she said the measurement errors in the latest study were larger than expected.
 

The Goldilocks test

People with an arm circumference of 20-25 cm should use a smaller cuff than the regular size, Dr. Brady and colleagues reported. Circumferences of 25.1-32 cm require a regular-sized cuff; large cuffs are for circumferences of 32.1-40 cm; and extra-large cuffs should be used at 40.1-55 cm.

The study included 195 residents of Baltimore (128 women, 67 men; 132 Black, 58 White, 5 Hispanic) with an average age of 54 years. The researchers measured every participant’s blood pressure using an automated device on four occasions, taking three measurements each time.

The first three sets of measurements used, respectively, an appropriate cuff size for each person’s arm circumference; a cuff that was too big; and a cuff that was too small. This study design ensured that a regular-sized cuff would be used during one of the three measurements – sometimes that cuff was too small, sometimes it was appropriate, and other times it was too big.

The final set of three measurements used the appropriate cuff size for a person’s arm every time. Dr. Brady and colleagues then compared people’s blood pressure measurements when using the right-sized cuff to measurements with a regular-sized cuff that was not suited for them.

They found that using a cuff that was too large for the patient’s arm (i.e., using a regular cuff when a small cuff was the right choice) led to understating systolic blood pressure by –3.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], –5.6 to –1.7). A cuff that was one size too small – using regular instead of a large – overestimated systolic blood pressure by 4.8 (3.0-6.6) mm Hg. And a cuff that was two sizes too small – someone who should have received an extra-large cuff but received the regular size – overestimated systolic blood pressure by 19.5 (16.1-22.9) mm Hg. All differences were statistically significant, the researchers reported.

“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized cross-over trial to examine the effect of miscuffing on automated blood pressure readings,” Mathias Lalika, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.; Stephen P. Juraschek, MD, PhD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston; and LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article.

“Interestingly, the degree of underestimation or overestimation increased as the appropriate cuff size progressed from the regular to extra-large BP cuff. More importantly, the effect of miscuffing did not vary with BP or obesity status,” they wrote.

“This was more of a pragmatic trial to see real world, all comers,” Dr. Brady said, when regular-sized cuffs are used whether or not that made sense.

“This study reaffirms findings of previous studies and highlights a major source of error in blood pressure measurement,” Raj Padwal, MD, director of the University of Alberta Hypertension Clinic, Edmonton, Alta., said in an interview. Dr. Padwal, who was not involved in the study, said the findings highlight the importance of ensuring that technicians who typically measure blood pressure understand the value of using the right-sized cuff.

Dr. Brady noted that measuring arm circumference takes about 15 seconds. He advised health organizations and clinics to carry multiple cuffs sizes to avoid a scramble to find a right-sized cuff. In the editorial, Dr. Lalika, Dr. Juraschek, and Dr. Brewer call for particular attention to providing the right-sized cuffs to facilities that work with underserved populations, such as federally qualified health centers.

Dr. Padwal added that even a perfectly measured blood pressure test at a clinic indicates pressure at a moment in time. Ten minutes later the story could be different. For this reason, he and other clinicians recommend frequent home blood pressure measurements rather than relying solely on the sparse number of readings collected in the clinic setting.

“A properly educated patient can give many readings that are separated in space and time and, when averaged, can give a much better picture of overall blood pressure and future risk,” Dr. Padwal said. 

Dr. Brady agreed with the value of home readings but said home-based readings also can be erroneous if the patient uses a cuff that is the wrong size. She cochairs a committee for the American Medical Association that recommends validated home blood pressure measurement devices on a periodically updated website called Validate BP. The details for each device listing show the cuff sizes available per device. Many devices provide only the standard cuff, Dr. Brady noted, but some offer multiple cuff sizes.

“One of the things that would be great if it came out of this paper is if patients were empowered to ask physicians to measure their arm” and then use that information to select the appropriate cuff for their home device, she said.

Dr. Brady and Dr. Padwal reported no relevant financial relationships. This study was supported by Resolve to Save Lives, which is funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Gates Philanthropy Partners, which is funded with support from the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As with porridge, so with blood pressure: Just right makes all the difference.

Ill-fitting blood pressure measurement cuffs produce erroneous readings that impair hypertension treatment, according to research published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

People whose mid-upper arm circumference exceeds 32 cm require larger cuffs than the standard size, but in many cases the regular-sized cuff is used on everyone. As a result, patients with larger arms may be falsely diagnosed with high blood pressure because of a too-small cuff, leading to overprescribing of medications that could make their health worse, according to the researchers.  

“A person whose blood pressure is 120/80, which is normal – if they’re using the wrong cuff, they could get a measurement that says 140/90, let’s say,” said study author Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, vice chair for clinical research in the department of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “They might think they not only have hypertension, but stage 2 hypertension. Providers might give one or even two medicines to lower this, which could lead to hypotension,” Dr. Brady said.

Conversely, someone with smaller arms whose cuff is too big may present with an artificially low blood pressure. The implications of using ill-fitting cuffs are well known. Dr. Brady, among others, has studied the topic extensively. Even so, she said the measurement errors in the latest study were larger than expected.
 

The Goldilocks test

People with an arm circumference of 20-25 cm should use a smaller cuff than the regular size, Dr. Brady and colleagues reported. Circumferences of 25.1-32 cm require a regular-sized cuff; large cuffs are for circumferences of 32.1-40 cm; and extra-large cuffs should be used at 40.1-55 cm.

The study included 195 residents of Baltimore (128 women, 67 men; 132 Black, 58 White, 5 Hispanic) with an average age of 54 years. The researchers measured every participant’s blood pressure using an automated device on four occasions, taking three measurements each time.

The first three sets of measurements used, respectively, an appropriate cuff size for each person’s arm circumference; a cuff that was too big; and a cuff that was too small. This study design ensured that a regular-sized cuff would be used during one of the three measurements – sometimes that cuff was too small, sometimes it was appropriate, and other times it was too big.

The final set of three measurements used the appropriate cuff size for a person’s arm every time. Dr. Brady and colleagues then compared people’s blood pressure measurements when using the right-sized cuff to measurements with a regular-sized cuff that was not suited for them.

They found that using a cuff that was too large for the patient’s arm (i.e., using a regular cuff when a small cuff was the right choice) led to understating systolic blood pressure by –3.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], –5.6 to –1.7). A cuff that was one size too small – using regular instead of a large – overestimated systolic blood pressure by 4.8 (3.0-6.6) mm Hg. And a cuff that was two sizes too small – someone who should have received an extra-large cuff but received the regular size – overestimated systolic blood pressure by 19.5 (16.1-22.9) mm Hg. All differences were statistically significant, the researchers reported.

“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized cross-over trial to examine the effect of miscuffing on automated blood pressure readings,” Mathias Lalika, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.; Stephen P. Juraschek, MD, PhD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston; and LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article.

“Interestingly, the degree of underestimation or overestimation increased as the appropriate cuff size progressed from the regular to extra-large BP cuff. More importantly, the effect of miscuffing did not vary with BP or obesity status,” they wrote.

“This was more of a pragmatic trial to see real world, all comers,” Dr. Brady said, when regular-sized cuffs are used whether or not that made sense.

“This study reaffirms findings of previous studies and highlights a major source of error in blood pressure measurement,” Raj Padwal, MD, director of the University of Alberta Hypertension Clinic, Edmonton, Alta., said in an interview. Dr. Padwal, who was not involved in the study, said the findings highlight the importance of ensuring that technicians who typically measure blood pressure understand the value of using the right-sized cuff.

Dr. Brady noted that measuring arm circumference takes about 15 seconds. He advised health organizations and clinics to carry multiple cuffs sizes to avoid a scramble to find a right-sized cuff. In the editorial, Dr. Lalika, Dr. Juraschek, and Dr. Brewer call for particular attention to providing the right-sized cuffs to facilities that work with underserved populations, such as federally qualified health centers.

Dr. Padwal added that even a perfectly measured blood pressure test at a clinic indicates pressure at a moment in time. Ten minutes later the story could be different. For this reason, he and other clinicians recommend frequent home blood pressure measurements rather than relying solely on the sparse number of readings collected in the clinic setting.

“A properly educated patient can give many readings that are separated in space and time and, when averaged, can give a much better picture of overall blood pressure and future risk,” Dr. Padwal said. 

Dr. Brady agreed with the value of home readings but said home-based readings also can be erroneous if the patient uses a cuff that is the wrong size. She cochairs a committee for the American Medical Association that recommends validated home blood pressure measurement devices on a periodically updated website called Validate BP. The details for each device listing show the cuff sizes available per device. Many devices provide only the standard cuff, Dr. Brady noted, but some offer multiple cuff sizes.

“One of the things that would be great if it came out of this paper is if patients were empowered to ask physicians to measure their arm” and then use that information to select the appropriate cuff for their home device, she said.

Dr. Brady and Dr. Padwal reported no relevant financial relationships. This study was supported by Resolve to Save Lives, which is funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Gates Philanthropy Partners, which is funded with support from the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Public perception of disease is everything. “Diabetics” are now referred to as “people living with diabetes,” and an “obese person” is now an “individual living with obesity.”

But what is the definition of obesity? Does it refer to a disease or a risk factor? And is the term so tainted in negativity, blame, and bias that the only solution is to scrap it and completely rename it? Society (and medicine) have changed significantly since the Latin word obesitas was adopted back in the 1600s.

Despite so much hinging on the word “obesity,” it’s remarkable that the label persists while the concepts underpinning it have evolved significantly. So perhaps it is more about finding the least-worst option rather than pursuing the impossibility of a solution that suits all?

This is precisely the challenge faced by a Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission on the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity, which is due to publish its initial findings this coming fall. The global task force has 60 leaders in the clinical management of obesity, including representatives with lived experiences of obesity. Leading the project is Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College London.

“Renaming ‘obesity’ is very important,” states Dr. Rubino. “The word is so stigmatized, with so much misunderstanding and misperception, some might say the only solution is to change the name.”

One possibility for a new name, introduced by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (now –Endocrinology) and the American College of Endocrinology back in 2016, was based on framing the disease on the central characteristic of adiposity and was termed ABCD, for adiposity-based chronic disease.

Dr. Rubino welcomes “ABCD” but has some reservations. “It is good from a physiological point of view, but the problem is it speaks to scientists and medical professionals. I don’t know how much it would appeal to the general public. ‘ABCD’ still falls short of telling us what the illness is.”

He adds that the Lancet Commission’s approach is rather to call it “clinical obesity.” “ ‘Obesity’ itself doesn’t necessarily convey the message that you have a disease or an illness,” he observes. “It is similar to the difference in meaning between depression and clinical depression, which communicate two different things.”

But underpinning any renaming is greater clarification of the definition and diagnosis of obesity. In 1997, the World Health Organization recognized obesity as a chronic disease; in 2013, the American Medical Association did likewise, adding that it warranted medical attention; while it took until 2021 for the European Commission to define obesity as a “chronic relapsing disease, which in turn acts as a gateway to a range of other non-communicable diseases.”

Yet, 25 years after the initial recognition of obesity as a disease, the concept is still riddled with negativity, whether openly or unconsciously. Such stigma denigrates overweight people and those with obesity as “lazy, sloppy, unintelligent, and unattractive.”

Dr. Rubino explains that first, it’s important to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. This is key to improving access to clinical care, reducing personal blame, and nurturing a more supportive research environment to help inform both clinical and policy decision-making.

“This is the question that is at the core of our commission. We have a problem with the current definition of obesity, and the way we measure it does not allow us to accurately define a state of illness with obesity,” he explains.
 

Labels shape public perceptions of disease; ‘obesity’ epitomizes this

Another expert championing the need for a name that better reflects the definition – whatever that turns out to be – is Margaret Steele, PhD, School of Public Health, University College Cork (Ireland), who, according to her university webpage, has a special interest in “ ‘fatness’ as a cultural, social and political phenomenon.”

She believes that labels, including “obesity,” have a pivotal role in shaping public perceptions. In our digital, information-rich age, the boundaries of medicine and society overlap, with public perception shaping decisions of a medical nature as never before. But with this comes controversy and division – obesity management being a case in point.

Specifically, the word “obesity” is too widely associated with negative connotations, she says, and therefore she welcomes the dialogue around redefining and renaming it. Despite wide general support for a name and definition that reflects adiposity, due to its central physiologic role in the complications of obesity, Dr. Steele believes that the “effects on adipose tissue are downstream of brain issues and the food environment,” and she wants to see more attention brought to this.

Referring to most Westernized societies, she describes how people who grew up in times of food scarcity, before processed foods became widely available, have a different taste profile from those who grew up afterwards. “Growing up in 1940s and ‘50s Ireland, people recall how they remember getting an orange as a treat at Christmas, because the idea that you could have food all year-round – any fruit and veg that you want, when you want it – just wasn’t there.”

By comparison, societal changes leading to more financial and time pressure in later decades meant that fast, high-fat, high-sugar, and processed foods became more desirable, she points out. “Most young children now recognize the company name, and even the specific fast-food brand [they like], before they know their alphabet.”

The current environment has cultivated “a very different physical reaction to foods, maybe a different kind of emotional response,” she believes, highlighting the tightly woven relationship between obesity, society, mental health, and food options.

Dr. Steele wants to stimulate a conversation about the term used to describe individuals, conventionally described as ‘”obese” or using the word “obesity.” “We’re thinking in terms of maybe chronic appetite, chronic food intake, or dietary intake dysregulation.”

Changing medical terminology when it has become useless or harmful is not new, she argues, with co-author, Francis Finucane, MD, consultant endocrinologist at Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, in a recent paper on the subject.

“In the 20th century, the terms ‘feeble-minded’ and ‘moron’ had become used in a pejorative way in the wider culture and were dropped from medical usage,” Dr. Steele points out. She adds that changing the term “obesity” can facilitate pursuit of the strategic goals of clinical medicine “without causing needless controversy with those who, given their own goals and contexts, understand body mass index or body weight in a radically different way.”
 

Obesity: Disease, risk factor, or both?

Dr. Rubino stresses that prior to any renaming, there is a need to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. “This question is at the core of our Commission, and it is not an easy conversation to have.” He further explains that the struggle with the current definition of obesity, and the way it is conceived, is largely centered on it still being considered a risk factor for something else.

Disease is characterized by three things, says Dr. Rubino. These comprise the phenomenon of having a pathogenic cause, leading to pathophysiologic alterations (of the organs), causing clinical manifestations.

He adds that obesity is currently described by what it can cause – for example, type 2 diabetes, cancer, or hypertension. “Each of these things have their own clinical manifestations but obesity doesn’t. [As a disease], we don’t have a definition of the clinical manifestations of obesity other than excess adiposity.”

“If we use BMI, this does not predict excess adiposity, nor does it determine a disease here and now. There is no disease without an illness, which is the clinical manifestation, and the perception by the patient of it being an illness,” explains Dr. Rubino, pointing out that the Lancet Commission is filling this gap in knowledge by asking, “If obesity is an illness, then what does it look like?”

He adds that waist circumference probably provides a better measure than BMI in directly indicating the abnormal distribution of adiposity, known to be associated with poor cardiometabolic outcomes, “but it doesn’t tell you if you have an illness here and now – only that someone is at risk of developing cardiovascular disease in the future. Most people with some excess fat around the waist are perfectly functional and don’t feel ill.”

He also explains that confusion persists around whether obesity – or excess adiposity – is a risk factor for or a symptom of another disease. “The picture is blurred, and we do not know how to discriminate between these. We only have one name, and it applies to all those things, and we have one criterion – BMI – to diagnose it!”

Dr. Rubino adds, “So, what defines it? Is it diabetes? No, because that is another disease. You don’t define a disease by another. It has to stand on its own.”

Recently, the American Medical Association advised that BMI now be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.

Aayush Visaria, MD, an internal medicine resident at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, agrees that a new name might help change public perception of obesity for the better. A study he presented at the 2023 Endocrine Society Meeting found that BMI “vastly underestimates” obesity.

He agrees with Dr. Rubino that the challenge lies in the lack of precise understanding of the mechanisms driving obesity: “It’s multifactorial, so not just appetite or food intake. Putting this into one phrase is difficult.”

However, if a new term can incorporate the many facets of the disease, “overall, it’ll reduce stigma because we’ll start to think about obesity as a disease process, not a personal thing with blame attached,” says Dr. Visaria.

But simultaneously, he expresses caution around possible negative connotations associated with the classification of obesity as a disease. Dr. Steele also reflects on this risk, highlighting that medicalizing body size can be counterproductive in feeding into weight stigma and fatphobia.

“Medicalizing obesity can be discouraging rather than empowering, but by specifying more clearly that we’re talking about a specific set of interrelated metabolic conditions, it would make it much clearer, and that ... this isn’t about making people skinny, it isn’t about an aesthetic thing,” Dr. Steele observes.
 

The word ‘obesity’ hinders disease explanations

Dr. Steele explains that her goal is to overcome the ambiguity around the word “obesity” that hinders explanations of the disease of obesity to the wider public.

“Much confusion and controversy might be avoided if we were to clarify that when doctors say that obesity is a disease, they do not mean that being ‘fat’ is a disease.”

Nevertheless, adipose tissue is an active endocrine organ, producing hormones that function less well in people with obesity, she notes. “This new knowledge has led to better treatments, including drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide. These drugs, like bariatric surgery, typically lead to significant weight loss and to improvements in overall metabolic health.”

Dr. Rubino also expresses concerns around medicalization, as determined by definition and diagnosis and the availability of drug treatment that could potentially lead to overtreatment. “Currently, when everyone with a BMI of greater than 30 gets access to every obesity treatment out there, we see drugs are running out of stock. We should prioritize that treatment.”

Ultimately, the diagnosis of obesity as a disease needs an anthropometric biomarker that provides, on an individual level, the confidence that a person has a disease today, or at least close to a 100% likelihood of developing this disease and illness, asserts Dr. Rubino.

“If we use BMI, or even waist circumference, these might diagnose the disease; but if the person lives to 90 years, what’s the point of labeling somebody as having an illness?” he points out.

“As doctors, we have to be cautious. We say this is a disease, but you must think about the implications for the person on the receiving end of that diagnosis of a chronic disease that is substantially incurable. When we say it, we need to be certain.”

Dr. Steele and Dr. Visaria have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rubino disclosed that he has received research grants from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson. He has undertaken paid consultancy work for GI Dynamics and received honoraria for lectures from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Johnson & Johnson. He is a member of the data safety monitoring board for GT Metabolic Solutions and has provided scientific advice to Keyron, Metadeq, GHP Scientific, and ViBo Health for no remuneration.

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

Public perception of disease is everything. “Diabetics” are now referred to as “people living with diabetes,” and an “obese person” is now an “individual living with obesity.”

But what is the definition of obesity? Does it refer to a disease or a risk factor? And is the term so tainted in negativity, blame, and bias that the only solution is to scrap it and completely rename it? Society (and medicine) have changed significantly since the Latin word obesitas was adopted back in the 1600s.

Despite so much hinging on the word “obesity,” it’s remarkable that the label persists while the concepts underpinning it have evolved significantly. So perhaps it is more about finding the least-worst option rather than pursuing the impossibility of a solution that suits all?

This is precisely the challenge faced by a Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission on the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity, which is due to publish its initial findings this coming fall. The global task force has 60 leaders in the clinical management of obesity, including representatives with lived experiences of obesity. Leading the project is Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College London.

“Renaming ‘obesity’ is very important,” states Dr. Rubino. “The word is so stigmatized, with so much misunderstanding and misperception, some might say the only solution is to change the name.”

One possibility for a new name, introduced by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (now –Endocrinology) and the American College of Endocrinology back in 2016, was based on framing the disease on the central characteristic of adiposity and was termed ABCD, for adiposity-based chronic disease.

Dr. Rubino welcomes “ABCD” but has some reservations. “It is good from a physiological point of view, but the problem is it speaks to scientists and medical professionals. I don’t know how much it would appeal to the general public. ‘ABCD’ still falls short of telling us what the illness is.”

He adds that the Lancet Commission’s approach is rather to call it “clinical obesity.” “ ‘Obesity’ itself doesn’t necessarily convey the message that you have a disease or an illness,” he observes. “It is similar to the difference in meaning between depression and clinical depression, which communicate two different things.”

But underpinning any renaming is greater clarification of the definition and diagnosis of obesity. In 1997, the World Health Organization recognized obesity as a chronic disease; in 2013, the American Medical Association did likewise, adding that it warranted medical attention; while it took until 2021 for the European Commission to define obesity as a “chronic relapsing disease, which in turn acts as a gateway to a range of other non-communicable diseases.”

Yet, 25 years after the initial recognition of obesity as a disease, the concept is still riddled with negativity, whether openly or unconsciously. Such stigma denigrates overweight people and those with obesity as “lazy, sloppy, unintelligent, and unattractive.”

Dr. Rubino explains that first, it’s important to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. This is key to improving access to clinical care, reducing personal blame, and nurturing a more supportive research environment to help inform both clinical and policy decision-making.

“This is the question that is at the core of our commission. We have a problem with the current definition of obesity, and the way we measure it does not allow us to accurately define a state of illness with obesity,” he explains.
 

Labels shape public perceptions of disease; ‘obesity’ epitomizes this

Another expert championing the need for a name that better reflects the definition – whatever that turns out to be – is Margaret Steele, PhD, School of Public Health, University College Cork (Ireland), who, according to her university webpage, has a special interest in “ ‘fatness’ as a cultural, social and political phenomenon.”

She believes that labels, including “obesity,” have a pivotal role in shaping public perceptions. In our digital, information-rich age, the boundaries of medicine and society overlap, with public perception shaping decisions of a medical nature as never before. But with this comes controversy and division – obesity management being a case in point.

Specifically, the word “obesity” is too widely associated with negative connotations, she says, and therefore she welcomes the dialogue around redefining and renaming it. Despite wide general support for a name and definition that reflects adiposity, due to its central physiologic role in the complications of obesity, Dr. Steele believes that the “effects on adipose tissue are downstream of brain issues and the food environment,” and she wants to see more attention brought to this.

Referring to most Westernized societies, she describes how people who grew up in times of food scarcity, before processed foods became widely available, have a different taste profile from those who grew up afterwards. “Growing up in 1940s and ‘50s Ireland, people recall how they remember getting an orange as a treat at Christmas, because the idea that you could have food all year-round – any fruit and veg that you want, when you want it – just wasn’t there.”

By comparison, societal changes leading to more financial and time pressure in later decades meant that fast, high-fat, high-sugar, and processed foods became more desirable, she points out. “Most young children now recognize the company name, and even the specific fast-food brand [they like], before they know their alphabet.”

The current environment has cultivated “a very different physical reaction to foods, maybe a different kind of emotional response,” she believes, highlighting the tightly woven relationship between obesity, society, mental health, and food options.

Dr. Steele wants to stimulate a conversation about the term used to describe individuals, conventionally described as ‘”obese” or using the word “obesity.” “We’re thinking in terms of maybe chronic appetite, chronic food intake, or dietary intake dysregulation.”

Changing medical terminology when it has become useless or harmful is not new, she argues, with co-author, Francis Finucane, MD, consultant endocrinologist at Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, in a recent paper on the subject.

“In the 20th century, the terms ‘feeble-minded’ and ‘moron’ had become used in a pejorative way in the wider culture and were dropped from medical usage,” Dr. Steele points out. She adds that changing the term “obesity” can facilitate pursuit of the strategic goals of clinical medicine “without causing needless controversy with those who, given their own goals and contexts, understand body mass index or body weight in a radically different way.”
 

Obesity: Disease, risk factor, or both?

Dr. Rubino stresses that prior to any renaming, there is a need to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. “This question is at the core of our Commission, and it is not an easy conversation to have.” He further explains that the struggle with the current definition of obesity, and the way it is conceived, is largely centered on it still being considered a risk factor for something else.

Disease is characterized by three things, says Dr. Rubino. These comprise the phenomenon of having a pathogenic cause, leading to pathophysiologic alterations (of the organs), causing clinical manifestations.

He adds that obesity is currently described by what it can cause – for example, type 2 diabetes, cancer, or hypertension. “Each of these things have their own clinical manifestations but obesity doesn’t. [As a disease], we don’t have a definition of the clinical manifestations of obesity other than excess adiposity.”

“If we use BMI, this does not predict excess adiposity, nor does it determine a disease here and now. There is no disease without an illness, which is the clinical manifestation, and the perception by the patient of it being an illness,” explains Dr. Rubino, pointing out that the Lancet Commission is filling this gap in knowledge by asking, “If obesity is an illness, then what does it look like?”

He adds that waist circumference probably provides a better measure than BMI in directly indicating the abnormal distribution of adiposity, known to be associated with poor cardiometabolic outcomes, “but it doesn’t tell you if you have an illness here and now – only that someone is at risk of developing cardiovascular disease in the future. Most people with some excess fat around the waist are perfectly functional and don’t feel ill.”

He also explains that confusion persists around whether obesity – or excess adiposity – is a risk factor for or a symptom of another disease. “The picture is blurred, and we do not know how to discriminate between these. We only have one name, and it applies to all those things, and we have one criterion – BMI – to diagnose it!”

Dr. Rubino adds, “So, what defines it? Is it diabetes? No, because that is another disease. You don’t define a disease by another. It has to stand on its own.”

Recently, the American Medical Association advised that BMI now be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.

Aayush Visaria, MD, an internal medicine resident at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, agrees that a new name might help change public perception of obesity for the better. A study he presented at the 2023 Endocrine Society Meeting found that BMI “vastly underestimates” obesity.

He agrees with Dr. Rubino that the challenge lies in the lack of precise understanding of the mechanisms driving obesity: “It’s multifactorial, so not just appetite or food intake. Putting this into one phrase is difficult.”

However, if a new term can incorporate the many facets of the disease, “overall, it’ll reduce stigma because we’ll start to think about obesity as a disease process, not a personal thing with blame attached,” says Dr. Visaria.

But simultaneously, he expresses caution around possible negative connotations associated with the classification of obesity as a disease. Dr. Steele also reflects on this risk, highlighting that medicalizing body size can be counterproductive in feeding into weight stigma and fatphobia.

“Medicalizing obesity can be discouraging rather than empowering, but by specifying more clearly that we’re talking about a specific set of interrelated metabolic conditions, it would make it much clearer, and that ... this isn’t about making people skinny, it isn’t about an aesthetic thing,” Dr. Steele observes.
 

The word ‘obesity’ hinders disease explanations

Dr. Steele explains that her goal is to overcome the ambiguity around the word “obesity” that hinders explanations of the disease of obesity to the wider public.

“Much confusion and controversy might be avoided if we were to clarify that when doctors say that obesity is a disease, they do not mean that being ‘fat’ is a disease.”

Nevertheless, adipose tissue is an active endocrine organ, producing hormones that function less well in people with obesity, she notes. “This new knowledge has led to better treatments, including drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide. These drugs, like bariatric surgery, typically lead to significant weight loss and to improvements in overall metabolic health.”

Dr. Rubino also expresses concerns around medicalization, as determined by definition and diagnosis and the availability of drug treatment that could potentially lead to overtreatment. “Currently, when everyone with a BMI of greater than 30 gets access to every obesity treatment out there, we see drugs are running out of stock. We should prioritize that treatment.”

Ultimately, the diagnosis of obesity as a disease needs an anthropometric biomarker that provides, on an individual level, the confidence that a person has a disease today, or at least close to a 100% likelihood of developing this disease and illness, asserts Dr. Rubino.

“If we use BMI, or even waist circumference, these might diagnose the disease; but if the person lives to 90 years, what’s the point of labeling somebody as having an illness?” he points out.

“As doctors, we have to be cautious. We say this is a disease, but you must think about the implications for the person on the receiving end of that diagnosis of a chronic disease that is substantially incurable. When we say it, we need to be certain.”

Dr. Steele and Dr. Visaria have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rubino disclosed that he has received research grants from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson. He has undertaken paid consultancy work for GI Dynamics and received honoraria for lectures from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Johnson & Johnson. He is a member of the data safety monitoring board for GT Metabolic Solutions and has provided scientific advice to Keyron, Metadeq, GHP Scientific, and ViBo Health for no remuneration.

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

Public perception of disease is everything. “Diabetics” are now referred to as “people living with diabetes,” and an “obese person” is now an “individual living with obesity.”

But what is the definition of obesity? Does it refer to a disease or a risk factor? And is the term so tainted in negativity, blame, and bias that the only solution is to scrap it and completely rename it? Society (and medicine) have changed significantly since the Latin word obesitas was adopted back in the 1600s.

Despite so much hinging on the word “obesity,” it’s remarkable that the label persists while the concepts underpinning it have evolved significantly. So perhaps it is more about finding the least-worst option rather than pursuing the impossibility of a solution that suits all?

This is precisely the challenge faced by a Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission on the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity, which is due to publish its initial findings this coming fall. The global task force has 60 leaders in the clinical management of obesity, including representatives with lived experiences of obesity. Leading the project is Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College London.

“Renaming ‘obesity’ is very important,” states Dr. Rubino. “The word is so stigmatized, with so much misunderstanding and misperception, some might say the only solution is to change the name.”

One possibility for a new name, introduced by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (now –Endocrinology) and the American College of Endocrinology back in 2016, was based on framing the disease on the central characteristic of adiposity and was termed ABCD, for adiposity-based chronic disease.

Dr. Rubino welcomes “ABCD” but has some reservations. “It is good from a physiological point of view, but the problem is it speaks to scientists and medical professionals. I don’t know how much it would appeal to the general public. ‘ABCD’ still falls short of telling us what the illness is.”

He adds that the Lancet Commission’s approach is rather to call it “clinical obesity.” “ ‘Obesity’ itself doesn’t necessarily convey the message that you have a disease or an illness,” he observes. “It is similar to the difference in meaning between depression and clinical depression, which communicate two different things.”

But underpinning any renaming is greater clarification of the definition and diagnosis of obesity. In 1997, the World Health Organization recognized obesity as a chronic disease; in 2013, the American Medical Association did likewise, adding that it warranted medical attention; while it took until 2021 for the European Commission to define obesity as a “chronic relapsing disease, which in turn acts as a gateway to a range of other non-communicable diseases.”

Yet, 25 years after the initial recognition of obesity as a disease, the concept is still riddled with negativity, whether openly or unconsciously. Such stigma denigrates overweight people and those with obesity as “lazy, sloppy, unintelligent, and unattractive.”

Dr. Rubino explains that first, it’s important to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. This is key to improving access to clinical care, reducing personal blame, and nurturing a more supportive research environment to help inform both clinical and policy decision-making.

“This is the question that is at the core of our commission. We have a problem with the current definition of obesity, and the way we measure it does not allow us to accurately define a state of illness with obesity,” he explains.
 

Labels shape public perceptions of disease; ‘obesity’ epitomizes this

Another expert championing the need for a name that better reflects the definition – whatever that turns out to be – is Margaret Steele, PhD, School of Public Health, University College Cork (Ireland), who, according to her university webpage, has a special interest in “ ‘fatness’ as a cultural, social and political phenomenon.”

She believes that labels, including “obesity,” have a pivotal role in shaping public perceptions. In our digital, information-rich age, the boundaries of medicine and society overlap, with public perception shaping decisions of a medical nature as never before. But with this comes controversy and division – obesity management being a case in point.

Specifically, the word “obesity” is too widely associated with negative connotations, she says, and therefore she welcomes the dialogue around redefining and renaming it. Despite wide general support for a name and definition that reflects adiposity, due to its central physiologic role in the complications of obesity, Dr. Steele believes that the “effects on adipose tissue are downstream of brain issues and the food environment,” and she wants to see more attention brought to this.

Referring to most Westernized societies, she describes how people who grew up in times of food scarcity, before processed foods became widely available, have a different taste profile from those who grew up afterwards. “Growing up in 1940s and ‘50s Ireland, people recall how they remember getting an orange as a treat at Christmas, because the idea that you could have food all year-round – any fruit and veg that you want, when you want it – just wasn’t there.”

By comparison, societal changes leading to more financial and time pressure in later decades meant that fast, high-fat, high-sugar, and processed foods became more desirable, she points out. “Most young children now recognize the company name, and even the specific fast-food brand [they like], before they know their alphabet.”

The current environment has cultivated “a very different physical reaction to foods, maybe a different kind of emotional response,” she believes, highlighting the tightly woven relationship between obesity, society, mental health, and food options.

Dr. Steele wants to stimulate a conversation about the term used to describe individuals, conventionally described as ‘”obese” or using the word “obesity.” “We’re thinking in terms of maybe chronic appetite, chronic food intake, or dietary intake dysregulation.”

Changing medical terminology when it has become useless or harmful is not new, she argues, with co-author, Francis Finucane, MD, consultant endocrinologist at Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, in a recent paper on the subject.

“In the 20th century, the terms ‘feeble-minded’ and ‘moron’ had become used in a pejorative way in the wider culture and were dropped from medical usage,” Dr. Steele points out. She adds that changing the term “obesity” can facilitate pursuit of the strategic goals of clinical medicine “without causing needless controversy with those who, given their own goals and contexts, understand body mass index or body weight in a radically different way.”
 

Obesity: Disease, risk factor, or both?

Dr. Rubino stresses that prior to any renaming, there is a need to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. “This question is at the core of our Commission, and it is not an easy conversation to have.” He further explains that the struggle with the current definition of obesity, and the way it is conceived, is largely centered on it still being considered a risk factor for something else.

Disease is characterized by three things, says Dr. Rubino. These comprise the phenomenon of having a pathogenic cause, leading to pathophysiologic alterations (of the organs), causing clinical manifestations.

He adds that obesity is currently described by what it can cause – for example, type 2 diabetes, cancer, or hypertension. “Each of these things have their own clinical manifestations but obesity doesn’t. [As a disease], we don’t have a definition of the clinical manifestations of obesity other than excess adiposity.”

“If we use BMI, this does not predict excess adiposity, nor does it determine a disease here and now. There is no disease without an illness, which is the clinical manifestation, and the perception by the patient of it being an illness,” explains Dr. Rubino, pointing out that the Lancet Commission is filling this gap in knowledge by asking, “If obesity is an illness, then what does it look like?”

He adds that waist circumference probably provides a better measure than BMI in directly indicating the abnormal distribution of adiposity, known to be associated with poor cardiometabolic outcomes, “but it doesn’t tell you if you have an illness here and now – only that someone is at risk of developing cardiovascular disease in the future. Most people with some excess fat around the waist are perfectly functional and don’t feel ill.”

He also explains that confusion persists around whether obesity – or excess adiposity – is a risk factor for or a symptom of another disease. “The picture is blurred, and we do not know how to discriminate between these. We only have one name, and it applies to all those things, and we have one criterion – BMI – to diagnose it!”

Dr. Rubino adds, “So, what defines it? Is it diabetes? No, because that is another disease. You don’t define a disease by another. It has to stand on its own.”

Recently, the American Medical Association advised that BMI now be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.

Aayush Visaria, MD, an internal medicine resident at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, agrees that a new name might help change public perception of obesity for the better. A study he presented at the 2023 Endocrine Society Meeting found that BMI “vastly underestimates” obesity.

He agrees with Dr. Rubino that the challenge lies in the lack of precise understanding of the mechanisms driving obesity: “It’s multifactorial, so not just appetite or food intake. Putting this into one phrase is difficult.”

However, if a new term can incorporate the many facets of the disease, “overall, it’ll reduce stigma because we’ll start to think about obesity as a disease process, not a personal thing with blame attached,” says Dr. Visaria.

But simultaneously, he expresses caution around possible negative connotations associated with the classification of obesity as a disease. Dr. Steele also reflects on this risk, highlighting that medicalizing body size can be counterproductive in feeding into weight stigma and fatphobia.

“Medicalizing obesity can be discouraging rather than empowering, but by specifying more clearly that we’re talking about a specific set of interrelated metabolic conditions, it would make it much clearer, and that ... this isn’t about making people skinny, it isn’t about an aesthetic thing,” Dr. Steele observes.
 

The word ‘obesity’ hinders disease explanations

Dr. Steele explains that her goal is to overcome the ambiguity around the word “obesity” that hinders explanations of the disease of obesity to the wider public.

“Much confusion and controversy might be avoided if we were to clarify that when doctors say that obesity is a disease, they do not mean that being ‘fat’ is a disease.”

Nevertheless, adipose tissue is an active endocrine organ, producing hormones that function less well in people with obesity, she notes. “This new knowledge has led to better treatments, including drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide. These drugs, like bariatric surgery, typically lead to significant weight loss and to improvements in overall metabolic health.”

Dr. Rubino also expresses concerns around medicalization, as determined by definition and diagnosis and the availability of drug treatment that could potentially lead to overtreatment. “Currently, when everyone with a BMI of greater than 30 gets access to every obesity treatment out there, we see drugs are running out of stock. We should prioritize that treatment.”

Ultimately, the diagnosis of obesity as a disease needs an anthropometric biomarker that provides, on an individual level, the confidence that a person has a disease today, or at least close to a 100% likelihood of developing this disease and illness, asserts Dr. Rubino.

“If we use BMI, or even waist circumference, these might diagnose the disease; but if the person lives to 90 years, what’s the point of labeling somebody as having an illness?” he points out.

“As doctors, we have to be cautious. We say this is a disease, but you must think about the implications for the person on the receiving end of that diagnosis of a chronic disease that is substantially incurable. When we say it, we need to be certain.”

Dr. Steele and Dr. Visaria have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rubino disclosed that he has received research grants from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson. He has undertaken paid consultancy work for GI Dynamics and received honoraria for lectures from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Johnson & Johnson. He is a member of the data safety monitoring board for GT Metabolic Solutions and has provided scientific advice to Keyron, Metadeq, GHP Scientific, and ViBo Health for no remuneration.

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

The annual probability of a person with overweight or obesity losing at least 5% of their body weight is about 1 in 10, while weight loss to a healthy category is even less common, new research finds.

On the brighter side, those with higher body mass index (BMI) had greater odds of losing at least 5% of body weight than those with lower BMI, and women were more likely to do so than men. The chances of achieving a healthy weight category – defined as BMI of 18.5-24.9 kg/m² – was less likely than losing 5% in all groups, however.

Even a modest 5% weight loss at any BMI has been associated with improved health measures, including lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure, lower fasting glucose level, lower hemoglobin A1c level, and higher HDL cholesterol level, write Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Atlanta, and colleagues.

The data from more than 18 million U.S. adults from a nationwide ambulatory electronic medical record database, called IQVIA, suggest that “clinicians and public health efforts can focus on messaging and referrals to interventions that support individuals with excess weight in achieving and sustaining meaningful weight loss, i.e., ≥ 5% for adults at any level of excess weight,” the authors say.

The study population was health care–seeking but not necessarily for weight loss, and their intent to lose weight was unknown. “Several studies suggest that persons who are trying to lose weight may experience greater reductions in weight,” the researchers point out in their article, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

At the initial visit, 72.5% of the participants were categorized as having either overweight (BMI, 25.0-29.9kg/m²) or obesity (BMI, ≥ 30.0 kg/m²). The median age of the patients was 54 years. A little over half (56.7%) were women, 72.3% were White, and 7.7% were Black.

During a maximum follow-up period of 14 years, the proportion with 5% or greater weight loss was 33.4% of those with initial overweight and 41.8% with initial obesity. The proportion achieving healthy weight (BMI, 18.5-24.9 kg/m²) was just 23.2% and 2.0%, respectively.

For the combined overweight/obesity groups, the adjusted annual probability of 5% or greater weight loss was 1 in 10, increasing with BMI category from 1 in 12 for those with initial overweight to 1 in 6 for those with initial BMI of 45 kg/m² or higher. The annual probability was slightly lower among Black than White women (1 in 9 vs. 1 in 8, respectively).

In contrast, the adjusted annual probability of reducing BMI to the healthy category ranged from 1 in 19 with initial overweight to 1 in 1,667 with initial BMI of 45 kg/m² or higher. This probability was higher among women than men and was highest among White women.

“These findings could, in part, be explained by barriers in availability of and access to obesity management options, including lifestyle interventions and pharmacotherapy. There is a continual need for policies and strategies that ensure community access to nutrition and physical activity opportunities,” Dr. Kompaniyets and colleague write.

Moreover, they say, “understanding patterns of weight loss could help support populations, including Hispanic or Latino and non-Hispanic Black individuals, who are disproportionately affected by obesity due to factors such as structural racism and race and ethnicity-based social and economic disadvantages.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The annual probability of a person with overweight or obesity losing at least 5% of their body weight is about 1 in 10, while weight loss to a healthy category is even less common, new research finds.

On the brighter side, those with higher body mass index (BMI) had greater odds of losing at least 5% of body weight than those with lower BMI, and women were more likely to do so than men. The chances of achieving a healthy weight category – defined as BMI of 18.5-24.9 kg/m² – was less likely than losing 5% in all groups, however.

Even a modest 5% weight loss at any BMI has been associated with improved health measures, including lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure, lower fasting glucose level, lower hemoglobin A1c level, and higher HDL cholesterol level, write Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Atlanta, and colleagues.

The data from more than 18 million U.S. adults from a nationwide ambulatory electronic medical record database, called IQVIA, suggest that “clinicians and public health efforts can focus on messaging and referrals to interventions that support individuals with excess weight in achieving and sustaining meaningful weight loss, i.e., ≥ 5% for adults at any level of excess weight,” the authors say.

The study population was health care–seeking but not necessarily for weight loss, and their intent to lose weight was unknown. “Several studies suggest that persons who are trying to lose weight may experience greater reductions in weight,” the researchers point out in their article, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

At the initial visit, 72.5% of the participants were categorized as having either overweight (BMI, 25.0-29.9kg/m²) or obesity (BMI, ≥ 30.0 kg/m²). The median age of the patients was 54 years. A little over half (56.7%) were women, 72.3% were White, and 7.7% were Black.

During a maximum follow-up period of 14 years, the proportion with 5% or greater weight loss was 33.4% of those with initial overweight and 41.8% with initial obesity. The proportion achieving healthy weight (BMI, 18.5-24.9 kg/m²) was just 23.2% and 2.0%, respectively.

For the combined overweight/obesity groups, the adjusted annual probability of 5% or greater weight loss was 1 in 10, increasing with BMI category from 1 in 12 for those with initial overweight to 1 in 6 for those with initial BMI of 45 kg/m² or higher. The annual probability was slightly lower among Black than White women (1 in 9 vs. 1 in 8, respectively).

In contrast, the adjusted annual probability of reducing BMI to the healthy category ranged from 1 in 19 with initial overweight to 1 in 1,667 with initial BMI of 45 kg/m² or higher. This probability was higher among women than men and was highest among White women.

“These findings could, in part, be explained by barriers in availability of and access to obesity management options, including lifestyle interventions and pharmacotherapy. There is a continual need for policies and strategies that ensure community access to nutrition and physical activity opportunities,” Dr. Kompaniyets and colleague write.

Moreover, they say, “understanding patterns of weight loss could help support populations, including Hispanic or Latino and non-Hispanic Black individuals, who are disproportionately affected by obesity due to factors such as structural racism and race and ethnicity-based social and economic disadvantages.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The annual probability of a person with overweight or obesity losing at least 5% of their body weight is about 1 in 10, while weight loss to a healthy category is even less common, new research finds.

On the brighter side, those with higher body mass index (BMI) had greater odds of losing at least 5% of body weight than those with lower BMI, and women were more likely to do so than men. The chances of achieving a healthy weight category – defined as BMI of 18.5-24.9 kg/m² – was less likely than losing 5% in all groups, however.

Even a modest 5% weight loss at any BMI has been associated with improved health measures, including lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure, lower fasting glucose level, lower hemoglobin A1c level, and higher HDL cholesterol level, write Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Atlanta, and colleagues.

The data from more than 18 million U.S. adults from a nationwide ambulatory electronic medical record database, called IQVIA, suggest that “clinicians and public health efforts can focus on messaging and referrals to interventions that support individuals with excess weight in achieving and sustaining meaningful weight loss, i.e., ≥ 5% for adults at any level of excess weight,” the authors say.

The study population was health care–seeking but not necessarily for weight loss, and their intent to lose weight was unknown. “Several studies suggest that persons who are trying to lose weight may experience greater reductions in weight,” the researchers point out in their article, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

At the initial visit, 72.5% of the participants were categorized as having either overweight (BMI, 25.0-29.9kg/m²) or obesity (BMI, ≥ 30.0 kg/m²). The median age of the patients was 54 years. A little over half (56.7%) were women, 72.3% were White, and 7.7% were Black.

During a maximum follow-up period of 14 years, the proportion with 5% or greater weight loss was 33.4% of those with initial overweight and 41.8% with initial obesity. The proportion achieving healthy weight (BMI, 18.5-24.9 kg/m²) was just 23.2% and 2.0%, respectively.

For the combined overweight/obesity groups, the adjusted annual probability of 5% or greater weight loss was 1 in 10, increasing with BMI category from 1 in 12 for those with initial overweight to 1 in 6 for those with initial BMI of 45 kg/m² or higher. The annual probability was slightly lower among Black than White women (1 in 9 vs. 1 in 8, respectively).

In contrast, the adjusted annual probability of reducing BMI to the healthy category ranged from 1 in 19 with initial overweight to 1 in 1,667 with initial BMI of 45 kg/m² or higher. This probability was higher among women than men and was highest among White women.

“These findings could, in part, be explained by barriers in availability of and access to obesity management options, including lifestyle interventions and pharmacotherapy. There is a continual need for policies and strategies that ensure community access to nutrition and physical activity opportunities,” Dr. Kompaniyets and colleague write.

Moreover, they say, “understanding patterns of weight loss could help support populations, including Hispanic or Latino and non-Hispanic Black individuals, who are disproportionately affected by obesity due to factors such as structural racism and race and ethnicity-based social and economic disadvantages.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new lawsuit alleges that Cigna uses artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to inappropriately deny “hundreds or thousands” of claims at a time, bypassing legal requirements to complete individual claim reviews and forcing providers to bill patients in full.

In a complaint filed recently in California’s eastern district court, plaintiffs and Cigna health plan members Suzanne Kisting-Leung and Ayesha Smiley and their attorneys say that Cigna violates state insurance regulations by failing to conduct a “thorough, fair, and objective” review of their and other members’ claims.

The lawsuit says that, instead, Cigna relies on an algorithm, PxDx, to review and frequently deny medically necessary claims. According to court records, the system allows Cigna’s doctors to “instantly reject claims on medical grounds without ever opening patient files.” With use of the system, the average claims processing time is 1.2 seconds.

Cigna says it uses technology to verify coding on standard, low-cost procedures and to expedite physician reimbursement. In a statement to CBS News, the company called the lawsuit “highly questionable.”

The case highlights growing concerns about AI and its ability to replace humans for tasks and interactions in health care, business, and beyond. Public advocacy law firm Clarkson, which is representing the plaintiffs, has previously sued tech giants Google and ChatGPT creator OpenAI for harvesting Internet users’ personal and professional data to train their AI systems.

According to the complaint, Cigna denied the plaintiffs medically necessary tests, including blood work to screen for vitamin D deficiency and ultrasounds for patients suspected of having ovarian cancer. The plaintiffs’ attempts to appeal were unfruitful, and they were forced to pay out of pocket.

The plaintiff’s attorneys argue that the claims do not undergo more detailed reviews by physicians and employees, as mandated by California insurance laws, and that Cigna benefits by saving on labor costs.

Clarkson is demanding a jury trial and has asked the court to certify the Cigna case as a federal class action, potentially allowing the insurer’s other 2 million health plan members in California to join the lawsuit.

I. Glenn Cohen, JD, deputy dean and professor at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass., said in an interview that this is the first lawsuit he’s aware of in which AI was involved in denying health insurance claims and that it is probably an uphill battle for the plaintiffs.

“In the last 25 years, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions have made getting a class action approved more difficult. If allowed to go forward as a class action, which Cigna is likely to vigorously oppose, then the pressure on Cigna to settle the case becomes enormous,” he said.

The allegations come after a recent deep dive by the nonprofit ProPublica uncovered similar claim denial issues. One physician who worked for Cigna told the nonprofit that he and other company doctors essentially rubber-stamped the denials in batches, which took “all of 10 seconds to do 50 at a time.”

In 2022, the American Medical Association and two state physician groups joined another class action against Cigna stemming from allegations that the insurer’s intermediary, Multiplan, intentionally underpaid medical claims. And in March, Cigna’s pharmacy benefit manager, Express Scripts, was accused of conspiring with other PBMs to drive up prescription drug prices for Ohio consumers, violating state antitrust laws.

Mr. Cohen said he expects Cigna to push back in court about the California class size, which the plaintiff’s attorneys hope will encompass all Cigna health plan members in the state.

“The injury is primarily to those whose claims were denied by AI, presumably a much smaller set of individuals and harder to identify,” said Mr. Cohen.

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

A new lawsuit alleges that Cigna uses artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to inappropriately deny “hundreds or thousands” of claims at a time, bypassing legal requirements to complete individual claim reviews and forcing providers to bill patients in full.

In a complaint filed recently in California’s eastern district court, plaintiffs and Cigna health plan members Suzanne Kisting-Leung and Ayesha Smiley and their attorneys say that Cigna violates state insurance regulations by failing to conduct a “thorough, fair, and objective” review of their and other members’ claims.

The lawsuit says that, instead, Cigna relies on an algorithm, PxDx, to review and frequently deny medically necessary claims. According to court records, the system allows Cigna’s doctors to “instantly reject claims on medical grounds without ever opening patient files.” With use of the system, the average claims processing time is 1.2 seconds.

Cigna says it uses technology to verify coding on standard, low-cost procedures and to expedite physician reimbursement. In a statement to CBS News, the company called the lawsuit “highly questionable.”

The case highlights growing concerns about AI and its ability to replace humans for tasks and interactions in health care, business, and beyond. Public advocacy law firm Clarkson, which is representing the plaintiffs, has previously sued tech giants Google and ChatGPT creator OpenAI for harvesting Internet users’ personal and professional data to train their AI systems.

According to the complaint, Cigna denied the plaintiffs medically necessary tests, including blood work to screen for vitamin D deficiency and ultrasounds for patients suspected of having ovarian cancer. The plaintiffs’ attempts to appeal were unfruitful, and they were forced to pay out of pocket.

The plaintiff’s attorneys argue that the claims do not undergo more detailed reviews by physicians and employees, as mandated by California insurance laws, and that Cigna benefits by saving on labor costs.

Clarkson is demanding a jury trial and has asked the court to certify the Cigna case as a federal class action, potentially allowing the insurer’s other 2 million health plan members in California to join the lawsuit.

I. Glenn Cohen, JD, deputy dean and professor at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass., said in an interview that this is the first lawsuit he’s aware of in which AI was involved in denying health insurance claims and that it is probably an uphill battle for the plaintiffs.

“In the last 25 years, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions have made getting a class action approved more difficult. If allowed to go forward as a class action, which Cigna is likely to vigorously oppose, then the pressure on Cigna to settle the case becomes enormous,” he said.

The allegations come after a recent deep dive by the nonprofit ProPublica uncovered similar claim denial issues. One physician who worked for Cigna told the nonprofit that he and other company doctors essentially rubber-stamped the denials in batches, which took “all of 10 seconds to do 50 at a time.”

In 2022, the American Medical Association and two state physician groups joined another class action against Cigna stemming from allegations that the insurer’s intermediary, Multiplan, intentionally underpaid medical claims. And in March, Cigna’s pharmacy benefit manager, Express Scripts, was accused of conspiring with other PBMs to drive up prescription drug prices for Ohio consumers, violating state antitrust laws.

Mr. Cohen said he expects Cigna to push back in court about the California class size, which the plaintiff’s attorneys hope will encompass all Cigna health plan members in the state.

“The injury is primarily to those whose claims were denied by AI, presumably a much smaller set of individuals and harder to identify,” said Mr. Cohen.

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

A new lawsuit alleges that Cigna uses artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to inappropriately deny “hundreds or thousands” of claims at a time, bypassing legal requirements to complete individual claim reviews and forcing providers to bill patients in full.

In a complaint filed recently in California’s eastern district court, plaintiffs and Cigna health plan members Suzanne Kisting-Leung and Ayesha Smiley and their attorneys say that Cigna violates state insurance regulations by failing to conduct a “thorough, fair, and objective” review of their and other members’ claims.

The lawsuit says that, instead, Cigna relies on an algorithm, PxDx, to review and frequently deny medically necessary claims. According to court records, the system allows Cigna’s doctors to “instantly reject claims on medical grounds without ever opening patient files.” With use of the system, the average claims processing time is 1.2 seconds.

Cigna says it uses technology to verify coding on standard, low-cost procedures and to expedite physician reimbursement. In a statement to CBS News, the company called the lawsuit “highly questionable.”

The case highlights growing concerns about AI and its ability to replace humans for tasks and interactions in health care, business, and beyond. Public advocacy law firm Clarkson, which is representing the plaintiffs, has previously sued tech giants Google and ChatGPT creator OpenAI for harvesting Internet users’ personal and professional data to train their AI systems.

According to the complaint, Cigna denied the plaintiffs medically necessary tests, including blood work to screen for vitamin D deficiency and ultrasounds for patients suspected of having ovarian cancer. The plaintiffs’ attempts to appeal were unfruitful, and they were forced to pay out of pocket.

The plaintiff’s attorneys argue that the claims do not undergo more detailed reviews by physicians and employees, as mandated by California insurance laws, and that Cigna benefits by saving on labor costs.

Clarkson is demanding a jury trial and has asked the court to certify the Cigna case as a federal class action, potentially allowing the insurer’s other 2 million health plan members in California to join the lawsuit.

I. Glenn Cohen, JD, deputy dean and professor at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass., said in an interview that this is the first lawsuit he’s aware of in which AI was involved in denying health insurance claims and that it is probably an uphill battle for the plaintiffs.

“In the last 25 years, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions have made getting a class action approved more difficult. If allowed to go forward as a class action, which Cigna is likely to vigorously oppose, then the pressure on Cigna to settle the case becomes enormous,” he said.

The allegations come after a recent deep dive by the nonprofit ProPublica uncovered similar claim denial issues. One physician who worked for Cigna told the nonprofit that he and other company doctors essentially rubber-stamped the denials in batches, which took “all of 10 seconds to do 50 at a time.”

In 2022, the American Medical Association and two state physician groups joined another class action against Cigna stemming from allegations that the insurer’s intermediary, Multiplan, intentionally underpaid medical claims. And in March, Cigna’s pharmacy benefit manager, Express Scripts, was accused of conspiring with other PBMs to drive up prescription drug prices for Ohio consumers, violating state antitrust laws.

Mr. Cohen said he expects Cigna to push back in court about the California class size, which the plaintiff’s attorneys hope will encompass all Cigna health plan members in the state.

“The injury is primarily to those whose claims were denied by AI, presumably a much smaller set of individuals and harder to identify,” said Mr. Cohen.

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

Deanna Denham Hughes was stunned when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2022. She was only 32. She had no family history of cancer, and tests found no genetic link. Ms. Hughes wondered why she, an otherwise healthy Black mother of two, would develop a malignancy known as a “silent killer.”

After emergency surgery to remove the mass, along with her ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes, and appendix, Ms. Hughes said, she saw an Instagram post in which a woman with uterine cancer linked her condition to chemical hair straighteners.

“I almost fell over,” she said from her home in Smyrna, Ga.

When Ms. Hughes was about 4, her mother began applying a chemical straightener, or relaxer, to her hair every 6-8 weeks. “It burned, and it smelled awful,” Ms. Hughes recalled. “But it was just part of our routine to ‘deal with my hair.’ ”

The routine continued until she went to college and met other Black women who wore their hair naturally. Soon, Ms. Hughes quit relaxers.

Social and economic pressures have long compelled Black girls and women to straighten their hair to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. But chemical straighteners are stinky and costly and sometimes cause painful scalp burns. Mounting evidence now shows they could be a health hazard.

Relaxers can contain carcinogens, such as formaldehyde-releasing agents, phthalates, and other endocrine-disrupting compounds, according to National Institutes of Health studies. The compounds can mimic the body’s hormones and have been linked to breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers, studies show.

African American women’s often frequent and lifelong application of chemical relaxers to their hair and scalp might explain why hormone-related cancers kill disproportionately more Black than White women, say researchers and cancer doctors.

“What’s in these products is harmful,” said Tamarra James-Todd, PhD, an epidemiology professor at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who has studied straightening products for the past 20 years.

She believes manufacturers, policymakers, and physicians should warn consumers that relaxers might cause cancer and other health problems.

But regulators have been slow to act, physicians have been reluctant to take up the cause, and racism continues to dictate fashion standards that make it tough for women to quit relaxers, products so addictive they’re known as “creamy crack.”

Michelle Obama straightened her hair when Barack Obama served as president because she believed Americans were “not ready” to see her in braids, the former first lady said after leaving the White House. The U.S. military still prohibited popular Black hairstyles such as dreadlocks and twists while the nation’s first Black president was in office.

California in 2019 became the first of nearly two dozen states to ban race-based hair discrimination. Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed similar legislation, known as the CROWN Act, for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. But the bill failed in the Senate.

The need for legislation underscores the challenges Black girls and women face at school and in the workplace.

“You have to pick your struggles,” said Atlanta-based surgical oncologist Ryland J. Gore, MD. She informs her breast cancer patients about the increased cancer risk from relaxers. Despite her knowledge, however, Dr. Gore continues to use chemical straighteners on her own hair, as she has since she was about 7 years old.

“Your hair tells a story,” she said.

In conversations with patients, Dr. Gore sometimes talks about how African American women once wove messages into their braids about the route to take on the Underground Railroad as they sought freedom from slavery.

“It’s just a deep discussion,” one that touches on culture, history, and research into current hairstyling practices, she said. “The data is out there. So patients should be warned, and then they can make a decision.”

The first hint of a connection between hair products and health issues surfaced in the 1990s. Doctors began seeing signs of sexual maturation in Black babies and young girls who developed breasts and pubic hair after using shampoo containing estrogen or placental extract. When the girls stopped using the shampoo, the hair and breast development receded, according to a study published in the journal Clinical Pediatrics in 1998.

Since then, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers have linked chemicals in hair products to a variety of health issues more prevalent among Black women – from early puberty to preterm birth, obesity, and diabetes.

In recent years, researchers have focused on a possible connection between ingredients in chemical relaxers and hormone-related cancers, like the one Ms. Hughes developed, which tend to be more aggressive and deadly in Black women.

A 2017 study found White women who used chemical relaxers were nearly twice as likely to develop breast cancer as those who did not use them. Because the vast majority of the Black study participants used relaxers, researchers could not effectively test the association in Black women, said lead author Adana Llanos, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, New York.

Researchers did test it in 2020.

The so-called Sister Study, a landmark National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences investigation into the causes of breast cancer and related diseases, followed 50,000 U.S. women whose sisters had been diagnosed with breast cancer and who were cancer-free when they enrolled. Regardless of race, women who reported using relaxers in the prior year were 18% more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who used relaxers at least every 5-8 weeks had a 31% higher breast cancer risk.

Nearly 75% of the Black sisters used relaxers in the prior year, compared with 3% of the non-Hispanic White sisters. Three-quarters of Black women self-reported using the straighteners as adolescents, and frequent use of chemical straighteners during adolescence raised the risk of premenopausal breast cancer, a 2021 NIH-funded study in the International Journal of Cancer found.

Another 2021 analysis of the Sister Study data showed sisters who self-reported that they frequently used relaxers or pressing products doubled their ovarian cancer risk. In 2022, another study found frequent use more than doubled uterine cancer risk.

After researchers discovered the link with uterine cancer, some called for policy changes and other measures to reduce exposure to chemical relaxers.

“It is time to intervene,” Dr. Llanos and her colleagues wrote in a Journal of the National Cancer Institute editorial accompanying the uterine cancer analysis. While acknowledging the need for more research, they issued a “call for action.”

No one can say that using permanent hair straighteners will give you cancer, Dr. Llanos said in an interview. “That’s not how cancer works,” she said, noting that some smokers never develop lung cancer, despite tobacco use being a known risk factor.

The body of research linking hair straighteners and cancer is more limited, said Dr. Llanos, who quit using chemical relaxers 15 years ago. But, she asked rhetorically, “Do we need to do the research for 50 more years to know that chemical relaxers are harmful?”

Charlotte R. Gamble, MD, a gynecological oncologist whose Washington, D.C., practice includes Black women with uterine and ovarian cancer, said she and her colleagues see the uterine cancer study findings as worthy of further exploration – but not yet worthy of discussion with patients.

“The jury’s out for me personally,” she said. “There’s so much more data that’s needed.”

Meanwhile, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers believe they have built a solid body of evidence.

“There are enough things we do know to begin taking action, developing interventions, providing useful information to clinicians and patients and the general public,” said Traci N. Bethea, PhD, assistant professor in the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparities Research at Georgetown University.

Responsibility for regulating personal-care products, including chemical hair straighteners and hair dyes – which also have been linked to hormone-related cancers – lies with the Food and Drug Administration. But the FDA does not subject personal-care products to the same approval process it uses for food and drugs. The FDA restricts only 11 categories of chemicals used in cosmetics, while concerns about health effects have prompted the European Union to restrict the use of at least 2,400 substances.

In March, Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) asked the FDA to investigate the potential health threat posed by chemical relaxers. An FDA representative said the agency would look into it.

Natural hairstyles are enjoying a resurgence among Black girls and women, but many continue to rely on the creamy crack, said Dede Teteh, DrPH, assistant professor of public health at Chapman University, Irvine, Calif.

She had her first straightening perm at 8 and has struggled to withdraw from relaxers as an adult, said Dr. Teteh, who now wears locs. Not long ago, she considered chemically straightening her hair for an academic job interview because she didn’t want her hair to “be a hindrance” when she appeared before White professors.

Dr. Teteh led “The Cost of Beauty,” a hair-health research project published in 2017. She and her team interviewed 91 Black women in Southern California. Some became “combative” at the idea of quitting relaxers and claimed “everything can cause cancer.”

Their reactions speak to the challenges Black women face in America, Dr. Teteh said.

“It’s not that people do not want to hear the information related to their health,” she said. “But they want people to share the information in a way that it’s really empathetic to the plight of being Black here in the United States.”
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Deanna Denham Hughes was stunned when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2022. She was only 32. She had no family history of cancer, and tests found no genetic link. Ms. Hughes wondered why she, an otherwise healthy Black mother of two, would develop a malignancy known as a “silent killer.”

After emergency surgery to remove the mass, along with her ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes, and appendix, Ms. Hughes said, she saw an Instagram post in which a woman with uterine cancer linked her condition to chemical hair straighteners.

“I almost fell over,” she said from her home in Smyrna, Ga.

When Ms. Hughes was about 4, her mother began applying a chemical straightener, or relaxer, to her hair every 6-8 weeks. “It burned, and it smelled awful,” Ms. Hughes recalled. “But it was just part of our routine to ‘deal with my hair.’ ”

The routine continued until she went to college and met other Black women who wore their hair naturally. Soon, Ms. Hughes quit relaxers.

Social and economic pressures have long compelled Black girls and women to straighten their hair to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. But chemical straighteners are stinky and costly and sometimes cause painful scalp burns. Mounting evidence now shows they could be a health hazard.

Relaxers can contain carcinogens, such as formaldehyde-releasing agents, phthalates, and other endocrine-disrupting compounds, according to National Institutes of Health studies. The compounds can mimic the body’s hormones and have been linked to breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers, studies show.

African American women’s often frequent and lifelong application of chemical relaxers to their hair and scalp might explain why hormone-related cancers kill disproportionately more Black than White women, say researchers and cancer doctors.

“What’s in these products is harmful,” said Tamarra James-Todd, PhD, an epidemiology professor at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who has studied straightening products for the past 20 years.

She believes manufacturers, policymakers, and physicians should warn consumers that relaxers might cause cancer and other health problems.

But regulators have been slow to act, physicians have been reluctant to take up the cause, and racism continues to dictate fashion standards that make it tough for women to quit relaxers, products so addictive they’re known as “creamy crack.”

Michelle Obama straightened her hair when Barack Obama served as president because she believed Americans were “not ready” to see her in braids, the former first lady said after leaving the White House. The U.S. military still prohibited popular Black hairstyles such as dreadlocks and twists while the nation’s first Black president was in office.

California in 2019 became the first of nearly two dozen states to ban race-based hair discrimination. Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed similar legislation, known as the CROWN Act, for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. But the bill failed in the Senate.

The need for legislation underscores the challenges Black girls and women face at school and in the workplace.

“You have to pick your struggles,” said Atlanta-based surgical oncologist Ryland J. Gore, MD. She informs her breast cancer patients about the increased cancer risk from relaxers. Despite her knowledge, however, Dr. Gore continues to use chemical straighteners on her own hair, as she has since she was about 7 years old.

“Your hair tells a story,” she said.

In conversations with patients, Dr. Gore sometimes talks about how African American women once wove messages into their braids about the route to take on the Underground Railroad as they sought freedom from slavery.

“It’s just a deep discussion,” one that touches on culture, history, and research into current hairstyling practices, she said. “The data is out there. So patients should be warned, and then they can make a decision.”

The first hint of a connection between hair products and health issues surfaced in the 1990s. Doctors began seeing signs of sexual maturation in Black babies and young girls who developed breasts and pubic hair after using shampoo containing estrogen or placental extract. When the girls stopped using the shampoo, the hair and breast development receded, according to a study published in the journal Clinical Pediatrics in 1998.

Since then, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers have linked chemicals in hair products to a variety of health issues more prevalent among Black women – from early puberty to preterm birth, obesity, and diabetes.

In recent years, researchers have focused on a possible connection between ingredients in chemical relaxers and hormone-related cancers, like the one Ms. Hughes developed, which tend to be more aggressive and deadly in Black women.

A 2017 study found White women who used chemical relaxers were nearly twice as likely to develop breast cancer as those who did not use them. Because the vast majority of the Black study participants used relaxers, researchers could not effectively test the association in Black women, said lead author Adana Llanos, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, New York.

Researchers did test it in 2020.

The so-called Sister Study, a landmark National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences investigation into the causes of breast cancer and related diseases, followed 50,000 U.S. women whose sisters had been diagnosed with breast cancer and who were cancer-free when they enrolled. Regardless of race, women who reported using relaxers in the prior year were 18% more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who used relaxers at least every 5-8 weeks had a 31% higher breast cancer risk.

Nearly 75% of the Black sisters used relaxers in the prior year, compared with 3% of the non-Hispanic White sisters. Three-quarters of Black women self-reported using the straighteners as adolescents, and frequent use of chemical straighteners during adolescence raised the risk of premenopausal breast cancer, a 2021 NIH-funded study in the International Journal of Cancer found.

Another 2021 analysis of the Sister Study data showed sisters who self-reported that they frequently used relaxers or pressing products doubled their ovarian cancer risk. In 2022, another study found frequent use more than doubled uterine cancer risk.

After researchers discovered the link with uterine cancer, some called for policy changes and other measures to reduce exposure to chemical relaxers.

“It is time to intervene,” Dr. Llanos and her colleagues wrote in a Journal of the National Cancer Institute editorial accompanying the uterine cancer analysis. While acknowledging the need for more research, they issued a “call for action.”

No one can say that using permanent hair straighteners will give you cancer, Dr. Llanos said in an interview. “That’s not how cancer works,” she said, noting that some smokers never develop lung cancer, despite tobacco use being a known risk factor.

The body of research linking hair straighteners and cancer is more limited, said Dr. Llanos, who quit using chemical relaxers 15 years ago. But, she asked rhetorically, “Do we need to do the research for 50 more years to know that chemical relaxers are harmful?”

Charlotte R. Gamble, MD, a gynecological oncologist whose Washington, D.C., practice includes Black women with uterine and ovarian cancer, said she and her colleagues see the uterine cancer study findings as worthy of further exploration – but not yet worthy of discussion with patients.

“The jury’s out for me personally,” she said. “There’s so much more data that’s needed.”

Meanwhile, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers believe they have built a solid body of evidence.

“There are enough things we do know to begin taking action, developing interventions, providing useful information to clinicians and patients and the general public,” said Traci N. Bethea, PhD, assistant professor in the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparities Research at Georgetown University.

Responsibility for regulating personal-care products, including chemical hair straighteners and hair dyes – which also have been linked to hormone-related cancers – lies with the Food and Drug Administration. But the FDA does not subject personal-care products to the same approval process it uses for food and drugs. The FDA restricts only 11 categories of chemicals used in cosmetics, while concerns about health effects have prompted the European Union to restrict the use of at least 2,400 substances.

In March, Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) asked the FDA to investigate the potential health threat posed by chemical relaxers. An FDA representative said the agency would look into it.

Natural hairstyles are enjoying a resurgence among Black girls and women, but many continue to rely on the creamy crack, said Dede Teteh, DrPH, assistant professor of public health at Chapman University, Irvine, Calif.

She had her first straightening perm at 8 and has struggled to withdraw from relaxers as an adult, said Dr. Teteh, who now wears locs. Not long ago, she considered chemically straightening her hair for an academic job interview because she didn’t want her hair to “be a hindrance” when she appeared before White professors.

Dr. Teteh led “The Cost of Beauty,” a hair-health research project published in 2017. She and her team interviewed 91 Black women in Southern California. Some became “combative” at the idea of quitting relaxers and claimed “everything can cause cancer.”

Their reactions speak to the challenges Black women face in America, Dr. Teteh said.

“It’s not that people do not want to hear the information related to their health,” she said. “But they want people to share the information in a way that it’s really empathetic to the plight of being Black here in the United States.”
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Deanna Denham Hughes was stunned when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2022. She was only 32. She had no family history of cancer, and tests found no genetic link. Ms. Hughes wondered why she, an otherwise healthy Black mother of two, would develop a malignancy known as a “silent killer.”

After emergency surgery to remove the mass, along with her ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes, and appendix, Ms. Hughes said, she saw an Instagram post in which a woman with uterine cancer linked her condition to chemical hair straighteners.

“I almost fell over,” she said from her home in Smyrna, Ga.

When Ms. Hughes was about 4, her mother began applying a chemical straightener, or relaxer, to her hair every 6-8 weeks. “It burned, and it smelled awful,” Ms. Hughes recalled. “But it was just part of our routine to ‘deal with my hair.’ ”

The routine continued until she went to college and met other Black women who wore their hair naturally. Soon, Ms. Hughes quit relaxers.

Social and economic pressures have long compelled Black girls and women to straighten their hair to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. But chemical straighteners are stinky and costly and sometimes cause painful scalp burns. Mounting evidence now shows they could be a health hazard.

Relaxers can contain carcinogens, such as formaldehyde-releasing agents, phthalates, and other endocrine-disrupting compounds, according to National Institutes of Health studies. The compounds can mimic the body’s hormones and have been linked to breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers, studies show.

African American women’s often frequent and lifelong application of chemical relaxers to their hair and scalp might explain why hormone-related cancers kill disproportionately more Black than White women, say researchers and cancer doctors.

“What’s in these products is harmful,” said Tamarra James-Todd, PhD, an epidemiology professor at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who has studied straightening products for the past 20 years.

She believes manufacturers, policymakers, and physicians should warn consumers that relaxers might cause cancer and other health problems.

But regulators have been slow to act, physicians have been reluctant to take up the cause, and racism continues to dictate fashion standards that make it tough for women to quit relaxers, products so addictive they’re known as “creamy crack.”

Michelle Obama straightened her hair when Barack Obama served as president because she believed Americans were “not ready” to see her in braids, the former first lady said after leaving the White House. The U.S. military still prohibited popular Black hairstyles such as dreadlocks and twists while the nation’s first Black president was in office.

California in 2019 became the first of nearly two dozen states to ban race-based hair discrimination. Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed similar legislation, known as the CROWN Act, for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. But the bill failed in the Senate.

The need for legislation underscores the challenges Black girls and women face at school and in the workplace.

“You have to pick your struggles,” said Atlanta-based surgical oncologist Ryland J. Gore, MD. She informs her breast cancer patients about the increased cancer risk from relaxers. Despite her knowledge, however, Dr. Gore continues to use chemical straighteners on her own hair, as she has since she was about 7 years old.

“Your hair tells a story,” she said.

In conversations with patients, Dr. Gore sometimes talks about how African American women once wove messages into their braids about the route to take on the Underground Railroad as they sought freedom from slavery.

“It’s just a deep discussion,” one that touches on culture, history, and research into current hairstyling practices, she said. “The data is out there. So patients should be warned, and then they can make a decision.”

The first hint of a connection between hair products and health issues surfaced in the 1990s. Doctors began seeing signs of sexual maturation in Black babies and young girls who developed breasts and pubic hair after using shampoo containing estrogen or placental extract. When the girls stopped using the shampoo, the hair and breast development receded, according to a study published in the journal Clinical Pediatrics in 1998.

Since then, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers have linked chemicals in hair products to a variety of health issues more prevalent among Black women – from early puberty to preterm birth, obesity, and diabetes.

In recent years, researchers have focused on a possible connection between ingredients in chemical relaxers and hormone-related cancers, like the one Ms. Hughes developed, which tend to be more aggressive and deadly in Black women.

A 2017 study found White women who used chemical relaxers were nearly twice as likely to develop breast cancer as those who did not use them. Because the vast majority of the Black study participants used relaxers, researchers could not effectively test the association in Black women, said lead author Adana Llanos, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, New York.

Researchers did test it in 2020.

The so-called Sister Study, a landmark National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences investigation into the causes of breast cancer and related diseases, followed 50,000 U.S. women whose sisters had been diagnosed with breast cancer and who were cancer-free when they enrolled. Regardless of race, women who reported using relaxers in the prior year were 18% more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who used relaxers at least every 5-8 weeks had a 31% higher breast cancer risk.

Nearly 75% of the Black sisters used relaxers in the prior year, compared with 3% of the non-Hispanic White sisters. Three-quarters of Black women self-reported using the straighteners as adolescents, and frequent use of chemical straighteners during adolescence raised the risk of premenopausal breast cancer, a 2021 NIH-funded study in the International Journal of Cancer found.

Another 2021 analysis of the Sister Study data showed sisters who self-reported that they frequently used relaxers or pressing products doubled their ovarian cancer risk. In 2022, another study found frequent use more than doubled uterine cancer risk.

After researchers discovered the link with uterine cancer, some called for policy changes and other measures to reduce exposure to chemical relaxers.

“It is time to intervene,” Dr. Llanos and her colleagues wrote in a Journal of the National Cancer Institute editorial accompanying the uterine cancer analysis. While acknowledging the need for more research, they issued a “call for action.”

No one can say that using permanent hair straighteners will give you cancer, Dr. Llanos said in an interview. “That’s not how cancer works,” she said, noting that some smokers never develop lung cancer, despite tobacco use being a known risk factor.

The body of research linking hair straighteners and cancer is more limited, said Dr. Llanos, who quit using chemical relaxers 15 years ago. But, she asked rhetorically, “Do we need to do the research for 50 more years to know that chemical relaxers are harmful?”

Charlotte R. Gamble, MD, a gynecological oncologist whose Washington, D.C., practice includes Black women with uterine and ovarian cancer, said she and her colleagues see the uterine cancer study findings as worthy of further exploration – but not yet worthy of discussion with patients.

“The jury’s out for me personally,” she said. “There’s so much more data that’s needed.”

Meanwhile, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers believe they have built a solid body of evidence.

“There are enough things we do know to begin taking action, developing interventions, providing useful information to clinicians and patients and the general public,” said Traci N. Bethea, PhD, assistant professor in the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparities Research at Georgetown University.

Responsibility for regulating personal-care products, including chemical hair straighteners and hair dyes – which also have been linked to hormone-related cancers – lies with the Food and Drug Administration. But the FDA does not subject personal-care products to the same approval process it uses for food and drugs. The FDA restricts only 11 categories of chemicals used in cosmetics, while concerns about health effects have prompted the European Union to restrict the use of at least 2,400 substances.

In March, Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) asked the FDA to investigate the potential health threat posed by chemical relaxers. An FDA representative said the agency would look into it.

Natural hairstyles are enjoying a resurgence among Black girls and women, but many continue to rely on the creamy crack, said Dede Teteh, DrPH, assistant professor of public health at Chapman University, Irvine, Calif.

She had her first straightening perm at 8 and has struggled to withdraw from relaxers as an adult, said Dr. Teteh, who now wears locs. Not long ago, she considered chemically straightening her hair for an academic job interview because she didn’t want her hair to “be a hindrance” when she appeared before White professors.

Dr. Teteh led “The Cost of Beauty,” a hair-health research project published in 2017. She and her team interviewed 91 Black women in Southern California. Some became “combative” at the idea of quitting relaxers and claimed “everything can cause cancer.”

Their reactions speak to the challenges Black women face in America, Dr. Teteh said.

“It’s not that people do not want to hear the information related to their health,” she said. “But they want people to share the information in a way that it’s really empathetic to the plight of being Black here in the United States.”
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Obesity, in and of itself, and independent of other cardiovascular risk factors, may cause changes to the heart that can lead to sudden cardiac death, a new case-control study suggests.

Researchers who analyzed hearts taken at autopsy from people who had died from sudden cardiac death found that a number of the hearts obtained from obese decedents were heavier than those from normal-weight decedents and that the hazard ratio of unexplained cardiomegaly in this cohort was 5.3, compared with normal-weight individuals.

“Even when we ruled out any conditions that could potentially cause enlargement of the heart, including hypertension, heart valve problems, diabetes, and other cardiovascular risk factors, the association with obesity cardiomyopathy, or OCM, and sudden cardiac death remained,” lead author Joseph Westaby, PhD, from the Cardiac Risk in the Young (CRY) Cardiovascular Pathology Laboratories at St George’s University of London, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JACC: Advances.

Intrigued by this finding, Dr. Westaby and associates sought to characterize the clinical and pathological features of OCM associated with sudden cardiac death by comparing this population to two control groups: sudden cardiac death patients who were either obese or of normal weight, and had morphologically normal hearts.

Their group is uniquely positioned to do such research, Dr. Westaby explained.

“Here at St George’s University of London, we have a specialized cardiovascular pathology service. ... All hearts obtained at autopsy from individuals who have died from sudden cardiac death, or who were suspected to have had a cardiovascular cause of death, anywhere in the U.K., are referred to the CRY Centre for further analysis,” he said.

Patients were divided into two groups according to body mass index: an obesity group (BMI > 30 kg/m²) and a normal-weight group (BMI, 18.5-24.9).

An increased heart weight above 550 g in men and 450 g in women in the absence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes, or valvular disease was classified as unexplained cardiomegaly, and individuals with obesity and cardiomegaly were defined as obesity cardiomyopathy.

Age- and sex-matched controls with obesity (n = 106) were selected based on a BMI greater than 30, with a morphologically normal heart weighing less than 550 g in men and than 450 g in women. 

Age- and sex-matched normal weight controls (n = 106) were selected based on a BMI of 18.5-24.9 and a morphologically normal heart weighing less than 550 g in men and less than 450 g in women. 

The researchers identified 53 OCM cases from a cohort of more than 4,500 sudden cardiac death cases that had BMI measurements. In normal-weight patients, there were 14 cases of unexplained cardiomegaly.

The mean age at death of individuals with OCM was 42 years (range, 30-54 years). Most of the deaths occurred in men (n = 34; 64%), who also died younger than women (40 ± 13 years vs. 45 ± 10 years; P = .036).

The average heart weight in OCM patients was 598 ± 93 g. Risk of sudden cardiac death increased when BMI reached 35.

Compared with matched controls, there were increases in right and left ventricular wall thickness (all P < .05) in OCM cases. Right ventricular epicardial fat was increased in OCM cases, compared with normal-weight controls only.

Left ventricular fibrosis was identified in seven (13%) OCM cases.
 

Role of genetics to be explored

“This study highlights the need for further investigation into these individuals because, at the moment, we can’t be sure that the only contributing factor to this is the obesity,” said Dr. Westaby.

In the works are plans to see if there may be an underlying genetic predisposition in obese individuals that may have contributed to the development of an enlarged heart. The group also plans to study the families of the deceased individuals to determine if they are at risk of developing cardiomegaly, he said.

“This paper makes an important contribution to the literature that raises many important questions for future research,” Timothy P. Fitzgibbons, MD, PhD, from the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Being able to access so many autopsy samples gives the current study considerable heft, Dr. Fitzgibbons said in an interview.

“A lot has been made of the obesity paradox and the perhaps benign nature of obesity but this paper suggests the opposite, that it is a very serious problem and can, in fact, in and of itself, cause heart abnormalities that could cause sudden death,” he noted.

The fact that only 13% of OCM cases had fibrosis on histology suggests that fibrosis was not the main cause of sudden cardiac death, he said.

“Often we will do MRIs to look for areas of fibrosis within the heart because those areas make patients prone to re-entry arrhythmias, in particular, ventricular tachycardia. But the authors suggest that the enlarged myocytes may themselves be predisposing to arrhythmias, rather than fibrosis,” Dr. Fitzgibbons said.

The study was supported by Cardiac Risk in the Young. Dr. Westaby and Dr. Fitzgibbons have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Obesity, in and of itself, and independent of other cardiovascular risk factors, may cause changes to the heart that can lead to sudden cardiac death, a new case-control study suggests.

Researchers who analyzed hearts taken at autopsy from people who had died from sudden cardiac death found that a number of the hearts obtained from obese decedents were heavier than those from normal-weight decedents and that the hazard ratio of unexplained cardiomegaly in this cohort was 5.3, compared with normal-weight individuals.

“Even when we ruled out any conditions that could potentially cause enlargement of the heart, including hypertension, heart valve problems, diabetes, and other cardiovascular risk factors, the association with obesity cardiomyopathy, or OCM, and sudden cardiac death remained,” lead author Joseph Westaby, PhD, from the Cardiac Risk in the Young (CRY) Cardiovascular Pathology Laboratories at St George’s University of London, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JACC: Advances.

Intrigued by this finding, Dr. Westaby and associates sought to characterize the clinical and pathological features of OCM associated with sudden cardiac death by comparing this population to two control groups: sudden cardiac death patients who were either obese or of normal weight, and had morphologically normal hearts.

Their group is uniquely positioned to do such research, Dr. Westaby explained.

“Here at St George’s University of London, we have a specialized cardiovascular pathology service. ... All hearts obtained at autopsy from individuals who have died from sudden cardiac death, or who were suspected to have had a cardiovascular cause of death, anywhere in the U.K., are referred to the CRY Centre for further analysis,” he said.

Patients were divided into two groups according to body mass index: an obesity group (BMI > 30 kg/m²) and a normal-weight group (BMI, 18.5-24.9).

An increased heart weight above 550 g in men and 450 g in women in the absence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes, or valvular disease was classified as unexplained cardiomegaly, and individuals with obesity and cardiomegaly were defined as obesity cardiomyopathy.

Age- and sex-matched controls with obesity (n = 106) were selected based on a BMI greater than 30, with a morphologically normal heart weighing less than 550 g in men and than 450 g in women. 

Age- and sex-matched normal weight controls (n = 106) were selected based on a BMI of 18.5-24.9 and a morphologically normal heart weighing less than 550 g in men and less than 450 g in women. 

The researchers identified 53 OCM cases from a cohort of more than 4,500 sudden cardiac death cases that had BMI measurements. In normal-weight patients, there were 14 cases of unexplained cardiomegaly.

The mean age at death of individuals with OCM was 42 years (range, 30-54 years). Most of the deaths occurred in men (n = 34; 64%), who also died younger than women (40 ± 13 years vs. 45 ± 10 years; P = .036).

The average heart weight in OCM patients was 598 ± 93 g. Risk of sudden cardiac death increased when BMI reached 35.

Compared with matched controls, there were increases in right and left ventricular wall thickness (all P < .05) in OCM cases. Right ventricular epicardial fat was increased in OCM cases, compared with normal-weight controls only.

Left ventricular fibrosis was identified in seven (13%) OCM cases.
 

Role of genetics to be explored

“This study highlights the need for further investigation into these individuals because, at the moment, we can’t be sure that the only contributing factor to this is the obesity,” said Dr. Westaby.

In the works are plans to see if there may be an underlying genetic predisposition in obese individuals that may have contributed to the development of an enlarged heart. The group also plans to study the families of the deceased individuals to determine if they are at risk of developing cardiomegaly, he said.

“This paper makes an important contribution to the literature that raises many important questions for future research,” Timothy P. Fitzgibbons, MD, PhD, from the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Being able to access so many autopsy samples gives the current study considerable heft, Dr. Fitzgibbons said in an interview.

“A lot has been made of the obesity paradox and the perhaps benign nature of obesity but this paper suggests the opposite, that it is a very serious problem and can, in fact, in and of itself, cause heart abnormalities that could cause sudden death,” he noted.

The fact that only 13% of OCM cases had fibrosis on histology suggests that fibrosis was not the main cause of sudden cardiac death, he said.

“Often we will do MRIs to look for areas of fibrosis within the heart because those areas make patients prone to re-entry arrhythmias, in particular, ventricular tachycardia. But the authors suggest that the enlarged myocytes may themselves be predisposing to arrhythmias, rather than fibrosis,” Dr. Fitzgibbons said.

The study was supported by Cardiac Risk in the Young. Dr. Westaby and Dr. Fitzgibbons have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Obesity, in and of itself, and independent of other cardiovascular risk factors, may cause changes to the heart that can lead to sudden cardiac death, a new case-control study suggests.

Researchers who analyzed hearts taken at autopsy from people who had died from sudden cardiac death found that a number of the hearts obtained from obese decedents were heavier than those from normal-weight decedents and that the hazard ratio of unexplained cardiomegaly in this cohort was 5.3, compared with normal-weight individuals.

“Even when we ruled out any conditions that could potentially cause enlargement of the heart, including hypertension, heart valve problems, diabetes, and other cardiovascular risk factors, the association with obesity cardiomyopathy, or OCM, and sudden cardiac death remained,” lead author Joseph Westaby, PhD, from the Cardiac Risk in the Young (CRY) Cardiovascular Pathology Laboratories at St George’s University of London, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JACC: Advances.

Intrigued by this finding, Dr. Westaby and associates sought to characterize the clinical and pathological features of OCM associated with sudden cardiac death by comparing this population to two control groups: sudden cardiac death patients who were either obese or of normal weight, and had morphologically normal hearts.

Their group is uniquely positioned to do such research, Dr. Westaby explained.

“Here at St George’s University of London, we have a specialized cardiovascular pathology service. ... All hearts obtained at autopsy from individuals who have died from sudden cardiac death, or who were suspected to have had a cardiovascular cause of death, anywhere in the U.K., are referred to the CRY Centre for further analysis,” he said.

Patients were divided into two groups according to body mass index: an obesity group (BMI > 30 kg/m²) and a normal-weight group (BMI, 18.5-24.9).

An increased heart weight above 550 g in men and 450 g in women in the absence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes, or valvular disease was classified as unexplained cardiomegaly, and individuals with obesity and cardiomegaly were defined as obesity cardiomyopathy.

Age- and sex-matched controls with obesity (n = 106) were selected based on a BMI greater than 30, with a morphologically normal heart weighing less than 550 g in men and than 450 g in women. 

Age- and sex-matched normal weight controls (n = 106) were selected based on a BMI of 18.5-24.9 and a morphologically normal heart weighing less than 550 g in men and less than 450 g in women. 

The researchers identified 53 OCM cases from a cohort of more than 4,500 sudden cardiac death cases that had BMI measurements. In normal-weight patients, there were 14 cases of unexplained cardiomegaly.

The mean age at death of individuals with OCM was 42 years (range, 30-54 years). Most of the deaths occurred in men (n = 34; 64%), who also died younger than women (40 ± 13 years vs. 45 ± 10 years; P = .036).

The average heart weight in OCM patients was 598 ± 93 g. Risk of sudden cardiac death increased when BMI reached 35.

Compared with matched controls, there were increases in right and left ventricular wall thickness (all P < .05) in OCM cases. Right ventricular epicardial fat was increased in OCM cases, compared with normal-weight controls only.

Left ventricular fibrosis was identified in seven (13%) OCM cases.
 

Role of genetics to be explored

“This study highlights the need for further investigation into these individuals because, at the moment, we can’t be sure that the only contributing factor to this is the obesity,” said Dr. Westaby.

In the works are plans to see if there may be an underlying genetic predisposition in obese individuals that may have contributed to the development of an enlarged heart. The group also plans to study the families of the deceased individuals to determine if they are at risk of developing cardiomegaly, he said.

“This paper makes an important contribution to the literature that raises many important questions for future research,” Timothy P. Fitzgibbons, MD, PhD, from the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Being able to access so many autopsy samples gives the current study considerable heft, Dr. Fitzgibbons said in an interview.

“A lot has been made of the obesity paradox and the perhaps benign nature of obesity but this paper suggests the opposite, that it is a very serious problem and can, in fact, in and of itself, cause heart abnormalities that could cause sudden death,” he noted.

The fact that only 13% of OCM cases had fibrosis on histology suggests that fibrosis was not the main cause of sudden cardiac death, he said.

“Often we will do MRIs to look for areas of fibrosis within the heart because those areas make patients prone to re-entry arrhythmias, in particular, ventricular tachycardia. But the authors suggest that the enlarged myocytes may themselves be predisposing to arrhythmias, rather than fibrosis,” Dr. Fitzgibbons said.

The study was supported by Cardiac Risk in the Young. Dr. Westaby and Dr. Fitzgibbons have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SEATTLE – A family of blockbuster drugs for managing blood glucose – and now for promoting weight loss – has been linked to exacerbation of macular disease that frequently accompanies diabetes, new data show.

Two studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS) have found that use of injectable agonists of glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) appears to hasten the progression of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema (DME).

Clinicians should be aware of these effects of GLP-1 inhibitors to ensure appropriate monitoring of patients for the possibility that retinopathy may accelerate, according to Ehsan Rahimy, MD, an adjunct clinical professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

Dr. Rahimy presented results of a retrospective study of retinopathy progression in patients taking either GLP-1 agonists or sodium-glucose transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, also known as gliflozins. “When we looked at the conversion to proliferative disease, you can see it was statistically higher in the GLP-1 group at all time points,” he said.

GLP-1 agonists can promote considerable weight loss in patients with and without diabetes. Moreover, the finding that gliflozins improve cardiovascular and renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes has accelerated the use of these agents for blood glucose control.

Using a repository of data from more than 13,500 people taking either of the two kinds of medication, the researchers looked for conversion of diabetic eye disease to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) or DME. Secondary outcomes were the need for intravitreal injections, panretinal photocoagulation (PRP), or pars plana vitrectomy (PPV).

Propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and baseline hemoglobin A1c resulted in the inclusion of 5,446 participants in each treatment group. After matching, the mean age of participants in either group was 64 years, and the mean A1c was 8.5%. Slightly more than half the participants were insulin-dependent.

Patients taking GLP-1 inhibitors had higher rates of conversion to PDR than those taking gliflozins at 3 years (6% vs. 4%; P < .01), the researchers found. Nearly 25% of those taking a GLP-1 agonist had progressed to DME after 3 years, compared with 18% of those taking a gliflozin.

People in the group taking GLP-1 inhibitors also had a greater need for interventions than those on a gliflozin; 8% vs. roughly 6%, respectively, required intravitreal injections, Dr. Rahimy reported. Similar trends were noted for need for PRP and PPV, he added, although the absolute numbers of patients were small.
 

Albiglutide the key culprit?

In other research reported at the meeting, a meta-analysis of data collected in 93 randomized clinical trials of the seven currently available GLP-1 agonists found only albiglutide was associated with diabetic retinopathy to a statistically significant degree. Compared with placebo, albiglutide more than doubled the risk for early-stage diabetic retinopathy (relative risk 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-4.67; P = .05).

Other GLP-1 agonists evaluated in the meta-analysis included semaglutide, tirzepatide, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, and lixisenatide. These findings were reported in a poster presented at the meeting by Ishani Kapoor, MD candidate, Drexel University, Philadelphia.

“The strength of these effects depends on the specific GLP-1 receptor agonist used, patient-specific clinical characteristics, and demographics,” Ms. Kapoor and coauthors reported. “Further studies are needed to clarify the patient populations that would benefit from GLP-1 receptor agonists and those at risk for [the] development of additional ocular damage.”
 

What causes progression?

Whether worsening of retinopathy stems from rapid weight loss and acute reductions in concentrations of blood glucose or is a direct effect of GLP-1 agonists on the eye is unclear.

“That rapid reduction is thought to play some role,” Dr. Rahimy said. “But if you actually look out there in the basic science literature, it’s suggested that there are direct effects of these medications on the retina too. That being said, it’s suggested that they may be protective to the retina. And I think that’s where we’ve gotten a lot of mixed signals in our community between what we’ve seen on the basic science side vs. what we’re seeing on the real-world side.”

The study was independently funded. Dr. Rahimy reports consultancies or speakerships with AbbVie, Allergan, Apellis, Carl Zeiss, Genentech, and Google, and research support from Regeneron. Ms. Kapoor reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SEATTLE – A family of blockbuster drugs for managing blood glucose – and now for promoting weight loss – has been linked to exacerbation of macular disease that frequently accompanies diabetes, new data show.

Two studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS) have found that use of injectable agonists of glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) appears to hasten the progression of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema (DME).

Clinicians should be aware of these effects of GLP-1 inhibitors to ensure appropriate monitoring of patients for the possibility that retinopathy may accelerate, according to Ehsan Rahimy, MD, an adjunct clinical professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

Dr. Rahimy presented results of a retrospective study of retinopathy progression in patients taking either GLP-1 agonists or sodium-glucose transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, also known as gliflozins. “When we looked at the conversion to proliferative disease, you can see it was statistically higher in the GLP-1 group at all time points,” he said.

GLP-1 agonists can promote considerable weight loss in patients with and without diabetes. Moreover, the finding that gliflozins improve cardiovascular and renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes has accelerated the use of these agents for blood glucose control.

Using a repository of data from more than 13,500 people taking either of the two kinds of medication, the researchers looked for conversion of diabetic eye disease to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) or DME. Secondary outcomes were the need for intravitreal injections, panretinal photocoagulation (PRP), or pars plana vitrectomy (PPV).

Propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and baseline hemoglobin A1c resulted in the inclusion of 5,446 participants in each treatment group. After matching, the mean age of participants in either group was 64 years, and the mean A1c was 8.5%. Slightly more than half the participants were insulin-dependent.

Patients taking GLP-1 inhibitors had higher rates of conversion to PDR than those taking gliflozins at 3 years (6% vs. 4%; P < .01), the researchers found. Nearly 25% of those taking a GLP-1 agonist had progressed to DME after 3 years, compared with 18% of those taking a gliflozin.

People in the group taking GLP-1 inhibitors also had a greater need for interventions than those on a gliflozin; 8% vs. roughly 6%, respectively, required intravitreal injections, Dr. Rahimy reported. Similar trends were noted for need for PRP and PPV, he added, although the absolute numbers of patients were small.
 

Albiglutide the key culprit?

In other research reported at the meeting, a meta-analysis of data collected in 93 randomized clinical trials of the seven currently available GLP-1 agonists found only albiglutide was associated with diabetic retinopathy to a statistically significant degree. Compared with placebo, albiglutide more than doubled the risk for early-stage diabetic retinopathy (relative risk 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-4.67; P = .05).

Other GLP-1 agonists evaluated in the meta-analysis included semaglutide, tirzepatide, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, and lixisenatide. These findings were reported in a poster presented at the meeting by Ishani Kapoor, MD candidate, Drexel University, Philadelphia.

“The strength of these effects depends on the specific GLP-1 receptor agonist used, patient-specific clinical characteristics, and demographics,” Ms. Kapoor and coauthors reported. “Further studies are needed to clarify the patient populations that would benefit from GLP-1 receptor agonists and those at risk for [the] development of additional ocular damage.”
 

What causes progression?

Whether worsening of retinopathy stems from rapid weight loss and acute reductions in concentrations of blood glucose or is a direct effect of GLP-1 agonists on the eye is unclear.

“That rapid reduction is thought to play some role,” Dr. Rahimy said. “But if you actually look out there in the basic science literature, it’s suggested that there are direct effects of these medications on the retina too. That being said, it’s suggested that they may be protective to the retina. And I think that’s where we’ve gotten a lot of mixed signals in our community between what we’ve seen on the basic science side vs. what we’re seeing on the real-world side.”

The study was independently funded. Dr. Rahimy reports consultancies or speakerships with AbbVie, Allergan, Apellis, Carl Zeiss, Genentech, and Google, and research support from Regeneron. Ms. Kapoor reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SEATTLE – A family of blockbuster drugs for managing blood glucose – and now for promoting weight loss – has been linked to exacerbation of macular disease that frequently accompanies diabetes, new data show.

Two studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS) have found that use of injectable agonists of glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) appears to hasten the progression of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema (DME).

Clinicians should be aware of these effects of GLP-1 inhibitors to ensure appropriate monitoring of patients for the possibility that retinopathy may accelerate, according to Ehsan Rahimy, MD, an adjunct clinical professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

Dr. Rahimy presented results of a retrospective study of retinopathy progression in patients taking either GLP-1 agonists or sodium-glucose transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, also known as gliflozins. “When we looked at the conversion to proliferative disease, you can see it was statistically higher in the GLP-1 group at all time points,” he said.

GLP-1 agonists can promote considerable weight loss in patients with and without diabetes. Moreover, the finding that gliflozins improve cardiovascular and renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes has accelerated the use of these agents for blood glucose control.

Using a repository of data from more than 13,500 people taking either of the two kinds of medication, the researchers looked for conversion of diabetic eye disease to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) or DME. Secondary outcomes were the need for intravitreal injections, panretinal photocoagulation (PRP), or pars plana vitrectomy (PPV).

Propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and baseline hemoglobin A1c resulted in the inclusion of 5,446 participants in each treatment group. After matching, the mean age of participants in either group was 64 years, and the mean A1c was 8.5%. Slightly more than half the participants were insulin-dependent.

Patients taking GLP-1 inhibitors had higher rates of conversion to PDR than those taking gliflozins at 3 years (6% vs. 4%; P < .01), the researchers found. Nearly 25% of those taking a GLP-1 agonist had progressed to DME after 3 years, compared with 18% of those taking a gliflozin.

People in the group taking GLP-1 inhibitors also had a greater need for interventions than those on a gliflozin; 8% vs. roughly 6%, respectively, required intravitreal injections, Dr. Rahimy reported. Similar trends were noted for need for PRP and PPV, he added, although the absolute numbers of patients were small.
 

Albiglutide the key culprit?

In other research reported at the meeting, a meta-analysis of data collected in 93 randomized clinical trials of the seven currently available GLP-1 agonists found only albiglutide was associated with diabetic retinopathy to a statistically significant degree. Compared with placebo, albiglutide more than doubled the risk for early-stage diabetic retinopathy (relative risk 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-4.67; P = .05).

Other GLP-1 agonists evaluated in the meta-analysis included semaglutide, tirzepatide, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, and lixisenatide. These findings were reported in a poster presented at the meeting by Ishani Kapoor, MD candidate, Drexel University, Philadelphia.

“The strength of these effects depends on the specific GLP-1 receptor agonist used, patient-specific clinical characteristics, and demographics,” Ms. Kapoor and coauthors reported. “Further studies are needed to clarify the patient populations that would benefit from GLP-1 receptor agonists and those at risk for [the] development of additional ocular damage.”
 

What causes progression?

Whether worsening of retinopathy stems from rapid weight loss and acute reductions in concentrations of blood glucose or is a direct effect of GLP-1 agonists on the eye is unclear.

“That rapid reduction is thought to play some role,” Dr. Rahimy said. “But if you actually look out there in the basic science literature, it’s suggested that there are direct effects of these medications on the retina too. That being said, it’s suggested that they may be protective to the retina. And I think that’s where we’ve gotten a lot of mixed signals in our community between what we’ve seen on the basic science side vs. what we’re seeing on the real-world side.”

The study was independently funded. Dr. Rahimy reports consultancies or speakerships with AbbVie, Allergan, Apellis, Carl Zeiss, Genentech, and Google, and research support from Regeneron. Ms. Kapoor reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Time-restricted eating (TRE) can be a practical, easy-to-follow way for some people to control their daily food intake and lose weight. It precludes a person’s need to pay close attention to how much they eat as long as they confine consumption to a limited time window. Plus, results from several recent studies show TRE can further benefit people with type 2 diabetes as well as obesity via mechanisms beyond weight loss.

The most tested and recommended eating window is 8 hours long, although periods up to roughly 10 hours may provide some benefits. Results from multiple studies document that TRE produces modest but consistent weight loss of less than 5% in many people. A recent meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled studies involving 899 people showed an overall incremental weight loss, compared with controls of 1.60 kg on a TRE regimen.

The more limited data collected so far in people with type 2 diabetes show additional metabolic benefits from TRE, including improved beta-cell responsiveness, increased insulin sensitivity, nonoxidative glucose disposal, increased time in glycemic range, and virtually no hypoglycemic events, Courtney Peterson, PhD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

‘Eating earlier is better’

An advantage of TRE is that it is “agnostic to food preferences and quality,” said Lisa S. Chow, MD, during a separate session at the meeting. TRE “may have benefits beyond calorie restriction” that appear related to “the timing of eating and the extent of the eating window restriction. Eating earlier [in the day] is better” for markers of metabolic health regardless of how much weight a person may lose on a TRE regimen, noted Dr. Chow, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.

But the TRE paradigm seems amenable to some flexibility on the timing for the eating window while still having benefit.

“Self-selected eating windows are usually late,” Dr. Chow observed, and because compliance with a constrained eating window matters, it may be worth allowing people to choose whichever time window for eating works best for them.

“If you let people pick their eating window, they typically include dinner,” said Dr. Chow, who has run a small TRE study that showed this.

“To maximize the effects [of TRE] people should use the eating window that best fits their life,” agreed Kelsey Gabel, PhD, who also gave a TRE talk during the meeting. “Eating most of your [daily] calories first thing in the morning would have the best cardiometabolic benefit, but reduced adherence would mitigate the benefit,” said Dr. Gabel, a nutrition researcher at the University of Illinois.
 

‘Meeting people where they’re at’

“We can have a larger public health impact by meeting people where they’re at. People should position their eating window where it best fits so they can achieve calorie restriction without even knowing it,” Dr. Gabel advised.

She cited a report as evidence that most people prefer a later eating window. The report reviewed observational data from nearly 800,000 people who used either of two different TRE phone apps. The data showed that most people opted to start their daily eating during 11:00 AM-1:00 PM, and then stop during 6:00 PM-8:00 PM.

“TRE will not solve all of our obesity problems, but it’s a good place to start,” Dr. Gabel declared.

For people who include dinner at a typical evening time in their TRE window, a key message is that “dinner is your last food of the day. There’s no snacking later,” said Dr. Chow.

“The biggest challenge is adherence,” said Dr. Peterson. “Fewer people want to do TRE than you think. We know that calorie restriction works. We just need a way for people to do it,” and for at least some people, TRE is that way. While no evidence clearly shows that 8 hours is the best eating-window duration, “we think 8 hours is a good sweet-spot for motivated people,” she said.
 

Sparser data on TRE in people with T2D

Fewer studies have examined the impact of TRE on glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, and related effects in people with type 2 diabetes. According to Dr. Peterson, published reports currently include two randomized controlled studies and three single-arm studies in people with type 2 diabetes and an additional two studies in people with prediabetes.

The largest of these reports randomized 120 adults in China with type 2 diabetes and overweight to TRE using a 10-hour eating window (8:00 AM-6:00 PM) or unrestricted eating for 12 weeks. By the end of the study, those on the TRE regimen had an average reduction in their hemoglobin A1c from baseline that was 0.88 percentage points greater than among the controls, and the TRE arm had also lost an average of nearly 2.15 kg more from baseline than the controls.

Dr. Peterson highlighted the importance of expanding research using TRE in people with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Peterson and Dr. Gabel report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow has received research support from Dexcom.

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

Time-restricted eating (TRE) can be a practical, easy-to-follow way for some people to control their daily food intake and lose weight. It precludes a person’s need to pay close attention to how much they eat as long as they confine consumption to a limited time window. Plus, results from several recent studies show TRE can further benefit people with type 2 diabetes as well as obesity via mechanisms beyond weight loss.

The most tested and recommended eating window is 8 hours long, although periods up to roughly 10 hours may provide some benefits. Results from multiple studies document that TRE produces modest but consistent weight loss of less than 5% in many people. A recent meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled studies involving 899 people showed an overall incremental weight loss, compared with controls of 1.60 kg on a TRE regimen.

The more limited data collected so far in people with type 2 diabetes show additional metabolic benefits from TRE, including improved beta-cell responsiveness, increased insulin sensitivity, nonoxidative glucose disposal, increased time in glycemic range, and virtually no hypoglycemic events, Courtney Peterson, PhD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

‘Eating earlier is better’

An advantage of TRE is that it is “agnostic to food preferences and quality,” said Lisa S. Chow, MD, during a separate session at the meeting. TRE “may have benefits beyond calorie restriction” that appear related to “the timing of eating and the extent of the eating window restriction. Eating earlier [in the day] is better” for markers of metabolic health regardless of how much weight a person may lose on a TRE regimen, noted Dr. Chow, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.

But the TRE paradigm seems amenable to some flexibility on the timing for the eating window while still having benefit.

“Self-selected eating windows are usually late,” Dr. Chow observed, and because compliance with a constrained eating window matters, it may be worth allowing people to choose whichever time window for eating works best for them.

“If you let people pick their eating window, they typically include dinner,” said Dr. Chow, who has run a small TRE study that showed this.

“To maximize the effects [of TRE] people should use the eating window that best fits their life,” agreed Kelsey Gabel, PhD, who also gave a TRE talk during the meeting. “Eating most of your [daily] calories first thing in the morning would have the best cardiometabolic benefit, but reduced adherence would mitigate the benefit,” said Dr. Gabel, a nutrition researcher at the University of Illinois.
 

‘Meeting people where they’re at’

“We can have a larger public health impact by meeting people where they’re at. People should position their eating window where it best fits so they can achieve calorie restriction without even knowing it,” Dr. Gabel advised.

She cited a report as evidence that most people prefer a later eating window. The report reviewed observational data from nearly 800,000 people who used either of two different TRE phone apps. The data showed that most people opted to start their daily eating during 11:00 AM-1:00 PM, and then stop during 6:00 PM-8:00 PM.

“TRE will not solve all of our obesity problems, but it’s a good place to start,” Dr. Gabel declared.

For people who include dinner at a typical evening time in their TRE window, a key message is that “dinner is your last food of the day. There’s no snacking later,” said Dr. Chow.

“The biggest challenge is adherence,” said Dr. Peterson. “Fewer people want to do TRE than you think. We know that calorie restriction works. We just need a way for people to do it,” and for at least some people, TRE is that way. While no evidence clearly shows that 8 hours is the best eating-window duration, “we think 8 hours is a good sweet-spot for motivated people,” she said.
 

Sparser data on TRE in people with T2D

Fewer studies have examined the impact of TRE on glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, and related effects in people with type 2 diabetes. According to Dr. Peterson, published reports currently include two randomized controlled studies and three single-arm studies in people with type 2 diabetes and an additional two studies in people with prediabetes.

The largest of these reports randomized 120 adults in China with type 2 diabetes and overweight to TRE using a 10-hour eating window (8:00 AM-6:00 PM) or unrestricted eating for 12 weeks. By the end of the study, those on the TRE regimen had an average reduction in their hemoglobin A1c from baseline that was 0.88 percentage points greater than among the controls, and the TRE arm had also lost an average of nearly 2.15 kg more from baseline than the controls.

Dr. Peterson highlighted the importance of expanding research using TRE in people with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Peterson and Dr. Gabel report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow has received research support from Dexcom.

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

Time-restricted eating (TRE) can be a practical, easy-to-follow way for some people to control their daily food intake and lose weight. It precludes a person’s need to pay close attention to how much they eat as long as they confine consumption to a limited time window. Plus, results from several recent studies show TRE can further benefit people with type 2 diabetes as well as obesity via mechanisms beyond weight loss.

The most tested and recommended eating window is 8 hours long, although periods up to roughly 10 hours may provide some benefits. Results from multiple studies document that TRE produces modest but consistent weight loss of less than 5% in many people. A recent meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled studies involving 899 people showed an overall incremental weight loss, compared with controls of 1.60 kg on a TRE regimen.

The more limited data collected so far in people with type 2 diabetes show additional metabolic benefits from TRE, including improved beta-cell responsiveness, increased insulin sensitivity, nonoxidative glucose disposal, increased time in glycemic range, and virtually no hypoglycemic events, Courtney Peterson, PhD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

‘Eating earlier is better’

An advantage of TRE is that it is “agnostic to food preferences and quality,” said Lisa S. Chow, MD, during a separate session at the meeting. TRE “may have benefits beyond calorie restriction” that appear related to “the timing of eating and the extent of the eating window restriction. Eating earlier [in the day] is better” for markers of metabolic health regardless of how much weight a person may lose on a TRE regimen, noted Dr. Chow, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.

But the TRE paradigm seems amenable to some flexibility on the timing for the eating window while still having benefit.

“Self-selected eating windows are usually late,” Dr. Chow observed, and because compliance with a constrained eating window matters, it may be worth allowing people to choose whichever time window for eating works best for them.

“If you let people pick their eating window, they typically include dinner,” said Dr. Chow, who has run a small TRE study that showed this.

“To maximize the effects [of TRE] people should use the eating window that best fits their life,” agreed Kelsey Gabel, PhD, who also gave a TRE talk during the meeting. “Eating most of your [daily] calories first thing in the morning would have the best cardiometabolic benefit, but reduced adherence would mitigate the benefit,” said Dr. Gabel, a nutrition researcher at the University of Illinois.
 

‘Meeting people where they’re at’

“We can have a larger public health impact by meeting people where they’re at. People should position their eating window where it best fits so they can achieve calorie restriction without even knowing it,” Dr. Gabel advised.

She cited a report as evidence that most people prefer a later eating window. The report reviewed observational data from nearly 800,000 people who used either of two different TRE phone apps. The data showed that most people opted to start their daily eating during 11:00 AM-1:00 PM, and then stop during 6:00 PM-8:00 PM.

“TRE will not solve all of our obesity problems, but it’s a good place to start,” Dr. Gabel declared.

For people who include dinner at a typical evening time in their TRE window, a key message is that “dinner is your last food of the day. There’s no snacking later,” said Dr. Chow.

“The biggest challenge is adherence,” said Dr. Peterson. “Fewer people want to do TRE than you think. We know that calorie restriction works. We just need a way for people to do it,” and for at least some people, TRE is that way. While no evidence clearly shows that 8 hours is the best eating-window duration, “we think 8 hours is a good sweet-spot for motivated people,” she said.
 

Sparser data on TRE in people with T2D

Fewer studies have examined the impact of TRE on glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, and related effects in people with type 2 diabetes. According to Dr. Peterson, published reports currently include two randomized controlled studies and three single-arm studies in people with type 2 diabetes and an additional two studies in people with prediabetes.

The largest of these reports randomized 120 adults in China with type 2 diabetes and overweight to TRE using a 10-hour eating window (8:00 AM-6:00 PM) or unrestricted eating for 12 weeks. By the end of the study, those on the TRE regimen had an average reduction in their hemoglobin A1c from baseline that was 0.88 percentage points greater than among the controls, and the TRE arm had also lost an average of nearly 2.15 kg more from baseline than the controls.

Dr. Peterson highlighted the importance of expanding research using TRE in people with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Peterson and Dr. Gabel report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow has received research support from Dexcom.

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