MDedge Endocrinology

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has again determined that current evidence is insufficient to recommend screening for lipid disorders among asymptomatic children and patients aged 20 years or younger.

The group’s final recommendation and corresponding evidence report were published  in the Journal of the American Medical Association, following a draft recommendation in January.

The organization reached a similar conclusion following its evaluation in 2016.

“There’s just not enough evidence to determine whether or not screening all children for high cholesterol improves their heart health into adulthood,” said Katrina Donahue, MD, MPH, a USPSTF member and a professor in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We’re calling for additional research on the effectiveness of screening for and treatment of high cholesterol in children and adolescents to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and death in adulthood.”

The task force recommended other evidence-based strategies to promote heart health, such as screening for obesity and interventions to prevent tobacco use.

The recommendation was the result of a review of 43 studies from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 16, 2022. No randomized controlled trial directly addressed the effectiveness or harms of lipid screening for children and adolescents. The task force continued to use article alerts and targeted journal searches through March 24, 2023.

Conditions such as familial hypercholesterolemia and multifactorial dyslipidemia can cause abnormally high lipid levels in children, potentially leading to premature cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and death in adulthood. According to the USPSTF, the prevalence of FH in U.S. children and adolescents ranges from 0.2% to 0.4% (one in every 250-500 youth). Multifactorial dyslipidemia is more common – the prevalence in children and adolescents ranges from 7.1% to 9.4%.

In an editorial response to the task force’s statement, the authors, including Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, department of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, question the impact of not screening children to identify FH and other conditions and caution against the subsequent delay in treatment.

“Treating FH during childhood slows the progression of vascular finding in atherosclerosis,” the authors write.

They note that the recommendation “leaves a void for clinicians seeking to provide care for patients today” while additional research is conducted.

Sarah Nosal, MD, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that despite the lack of a recommendation, primary care clinicians can still encourage proper nutrition and physical activity for patients.

Dr. Nosal said that even without clear recommendations from the USPSTF, in the rare case of a patient with a family history of FH, she would order a lipid test and discuss treatment plans with the patient and family, if needed.

“We really don’t want to do tests that we don’t know what to do with the information,” she said.

One USPSTF member reported receiving grants from Healthwise, a nonprofit organization, outside the submitted work.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has again determined that current evidence is insufficient to recommend screening for lipid disorders among asymptomatic children and patients aged 20 years or younger.

The group’s final recommendation and corresponding evidence report were published  in the Journal of the American Medical Association, following a draft recommendation in January.

The organization reached a similar conclusion following its evaluation in 2016.

“There’s just not enough evidence to determine whether or not screening all children for high cholesterol improves their heart health into adulthood,” said Katrina Donahue, MD, MPH, a USPSTF member and a professor in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We’re calling for additional research on the effectiveness of screening for and treatment of high cholesterol in children and adolescents to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and death in adulthood.”

The task force recommended other evidence-based strategies to promote heart health, such as screening for obesity and interventions to prevent tobacco use.

The recommendation was the result of a review of 43 studies from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 16, 2022. No randomized controlled trial directly addressed the effectiveness or harms of lipid screening for children and adolescents. The task force continued to use article alerts and targeted journal searches through March 24, 2023.

Conditions such as familial hypercholesterolemia and multifactorial dyslipidemia can cause abnormally high lipid levels in children, potentially leading to premature cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and death in adulthood. According to the USPSTF, the prevalence of FH in U.S. children and adolescents ranges from 0.2% to 0.4% (one in every 250-500 youth). Multifactorial dyslipidemia is more common – the prevalence in children and adolescents ranges from 7.1% to 9.4%.

In an editorial response to the task force’s statement, the authors, including Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, department of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, question the impact of not screening children to identify FH and other conditions and caution against the subsequent delay in treatment.

“Treating FH during childhood slows the progression of vascular finding in atherosclerosis,” the authors write.

They note that the recommendation “leaves a void for clinicians seeking to provide care for patients today” while additional research is conducted.

Sarah Nosal, MD, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that despite the lack of a recommendation, primary care clinicians can still encourage proper nutrition and physical activity for patients.

Dr. Nosal said that even without clear recommendations from the USPSTF, in the rare case of a patient with a family history of FH, she would order a lipid test and discuss treatment plans with the patient and family, if needed.

“We really don’t want to do tests that we don’t know what to do with the information,” she said.

One USPSTF member reported receiving grants from Healthwise, a nonprofit organization, outside the submitted work.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has again determined that current evidence is insufficient to recommend screening for lipid disorders among asymptomatic children and patients aged 20 years or younger.

The group’s final recommendation and corresponding evidence report were published  in the Journal of the American Medical Association, following a draft recommendation in January.

The organization reached a similar conclusion following its evaluation in 2016.

“There’s just not enough evidence to determine whether or not screening all children for high cholesterol improves their heart health into adulthood,” said Katrina Donahue, MD, MPH, a USPSTF member and a professor in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We’re calling for additional research on the effectiveness of screening for and treatment of high cholesterol in children and adolescents to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and death in adulthood.”

The task force recommended other evidence-based strategies to promote heart health, such as screening for obesity and interventions to prevent tobacco use.

The recommendation was the result of a review of 43 studies from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 16, 2022. No randomized controlled trial directly addressed the effectiveness or harms of lipid screening for children and adolescents. The task force continued to use article alerts and targeted journal searches through March 24, 2023.

Conditions such as familial hypercholesterolemia and multifactorial dyslipidemia can cause abnormally high lipid levels in children, potentially leading to premature cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and death in adulthood. According to the USPSTF, the prevalence of FH in U.S. children and adolescents ranges from 0.2% to 0.4% (one in every 250-500 youth). Multifactorial dyslipidemia is more common – the prevalence in children and adolescents ranges from 7.1% to 9.4%.

In an editorial response to the task force’s statement, the authors, including Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, department of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, question the impact of not screening children to identify FH and other conditions and caution against the subsequent delay in treatment.

“Treating FH during childhood slows the progression of vascular finding in atherosclerosis,” the authors write.

They note that the recommendation “leaves a void for clinicians seeking to provide care for patients today” while additional research is conducted.

Sarah Nosal, MD, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that despite the lack of a recommendation, primary care clinicians can still encourage proper nutrition and physical activity for patients.

Dr. Nosal said that even without clear recommendations from the USPSTF, in the rare case of a patient with a family history of FH, she would order a lipid test and discuss treatment plans with the patient and family, if needed.

“We really don’t want to do tests that we don’t know what to do with the information,” she said.

One USPSTF member reported receiving grants from Healthwise, a nonprofit organization, outside the submitted work.

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

It’s interesting how questions often arrive in clusters. This week, my inbox is packed with queries about paid sick leave and paid time off (PTO); what is the difference, which is preferable, what is required, and how does one implement a fair and legal time-off policy for a medical office?

First, the difference: Paid sick leave is the time off allotted to each employee for illness or injury, whereas PTO is an all-encompassing bundle that includes vacation and any other miscellaneous time benefits in addition to sick leave.

Which is preferable? That depends on whom you ask, and sometimes, on the legal situation in your state. Employees generally like the PTO concept, because most never use all of their sick leave. The ability to take the difference as extra vacation time makes them happy and makes your office more attractive to excellent prospects. They also appreciate making their own decisions about taking time off.

Many employers like PTO because there is less paperwork involved and less abuse of sick leave – and they don’t have to make any decisions about whether an employee is actually sick. Reasons for absences are now irrelevant, so feigned illnesses are a thing of the past. If an employee requests a day off with adequate notice, and there is adequate coverage of that employee’s duties, you don’t need to know (or care) about the reason for the request.

Critics of PTO say employees are absent more often, since employees who never used their full allotment of sick leave will typically use all of their PTO; but that, in a sense, is the idea. Time off is necessary and important for good office morale, and should be taken by all employees, as well as by all employers. (Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.”)

Moreover, you should be suspicious of any employee who refuses to take vacations. They may be embezzlers who fear that their illicit modus operandi will be discovered during their absence.

Another common criticism of PTO is the possibility that employees will not stay home when they are truly sick because some employees may view all PTO as vacation time, and don’t want to “waste” any of it on illness. You should make it very clear that sick employees should stay home – and will be sent home if they come to work sick. You have an obligation to protect your other employees – and of course your patients, particularly those who are elderly or immunocompromised – from a staff member with a potentially communicable illness.

The legal requirements of time off are variable. There are currently no federal laws requiring employers to offer paid time off, but each state has its own PTO and sick leave requirements, so you will need to check your state’s specific guidelines before creating or updating a time off policy.

When drafting your policy, make sure everyone knows they will have to request PTO in advance, except for emergencies. Start with defining “in advance” (72 hours? A week?), and then “emergency”; and put these definitions in writing. Illnesses are emergencies, of course, but what about waking up with a bad hangover? A sick child qualifies if your employee is the only available caregiver, but what if the employee’s car has broken down? Some circumstances will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis; but you will have fewer hassles if you anticipate and settle more situations in advance.

What about allowing employees to take salary in exchange for unused PTO, or to roll it over into the next year? We don’t permit either in my office, but some states (for instance, California, Montana, and Nebraska) prohibit use-it-or-lose-it policies.

When an employee leaves or is terminated, do you have to pay accrued PTO? No federal law requires it, but some states do.

What about employees who use up their allotted PTO and request unpaid time off? In my office, we require employees to submit a written request, explaining why they need it, and why it’s a special situation and won’t be a regular occurrence. Even if you (almost) always approve such requests, forcing your employees to jump through a hoop or two makes it less likely that anyone will abuse the privilege. Moreover, this allows you to make judgments on a case-by-case basis, while still being able to honestly say you offer it as a blanket policy to all your employees.

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

It’s interesting how questions often arrive in clusters. This week, my inbox is packed with queries about paid sick leave and paid time off (PTO); what is the difference, which is preferable, what is required, and how does one implement a fair and legal time-off policy for a medical office?

First, the difference: Paid sick leave is the time off allotted to each employee for illness or injury, whereas PTO is an all-encompassing bundle that includes vacation and any other miscellaneous time benefits in addition to sick leave.

Which is preferable? That depends on whom you ask, and sometimes, on the legal situation in your state. Employees generally like the PTO concept, because most never use all of their sick leave. The ability to take the difference as extra vacation time makes them happy and makes your office more attractive to excellent prospects. They also appreciate making their own decisions about taking time off.

Many employers like PTO because there is less paperwork involved and less abuse of sick leave – and they don’t have to make any decisions about whether an employee is actually sick. Reasons for absences are now irrelevant, so feigned illnesses are a thing of the past. If an employee requests a day off with adequate notice, and there is adequate coverage of that employee’s duties, you don’t need to know (or care) about the reason for the request.

Critics of PTO say employees are absent more often, since employees who never used their full allotment of sick leave will typically use all of their PTO; but that, in a sense, is the idea. Time off is necessary and important for good office morale, and should be taken by all employees, as well as by all employers. (Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.”)

Moreover, you should be suspicious of any employee who refuses to take vacations. They may be embezzlers who fear that their illicit modus operandi will be discovered during their absence.

Another common criticism of PTO is the possibility that employees will not stay home when they are truly sick because some employees may view all PTO as vacation time, and don’t want to “waste” any of it on illness. You should make it very clear that sick employees should stay home – and will be sent home if they come to work sick. You have an obligation to protect your other employees – and of course your patients, particularly those who are elderly or immunocompromised – from a staff member with a potentially communicable illness.

The legal requirements of time off are variable. There are currently no federal laws requiring employers to offer paid time off, but each state has its own PTO and sick leave requirements, so you will need to check your state’s specific guidelines before creating or updating a time off policy.

When drafting your policy, make sure everyone knows they will have to request PTO in advance, except for emergencies. Start with defining “in advance” (72 hours? A week?), and then “emergency”; and put these definitions in writing. Illnesses are emergencies, of course, but what about waking up with a bad hangover? A sick child qualifies if your employee is the only available caregiver, but what if the employee’s car has broken down? Some circumstances will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis; but you will have fewer hassles if you anticipate and settle more situations in advance.

What about allowing employees to take salary in exchange for unused PTO, or to roll it over into the next year? We don’t permit either in my office, but some states (for instance, California, Montana, and Nebraska) prohibit use-it-or-lose-it policies.

When an employee leaves or is terminated, do you have to pay accrued PTO? No federal law requires it, but some states do.

What about employees who use up their allotted PTO and request unpaid time off? In my office, we require employees to submit a written request, explaining why they need it, and why it’s a special situation and won’t be a regular occurrence. Even if you (almost) always approve such requests, forcing your employees to jump through a hoop or two makes it less likely that anyone will abuse the privilege. Moreover, this allows you to make judgments on a case-by-case basis, while still being able to honestly say you offer it as a blanket policy to all your employees.

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

It’s interesting how questions often arrive in clusters. This week, my inbox is packed with queries about paid sick leave and paid time off (PTO); what is the difference, which is preferable, what is required, and how does one implement a fair and legal time-off policy for a medical office?

First, the difference: Paid sick leave is the time off allotted to each employee for illness or injury, whereas PTO is an all-encompassing bundle that includes vacation and any other miscellaneous time benefits in addition to sick leave.

Which is preferable? That depends on whom you ask, and sometimes, on the legal situation in your state. Employees generally like the PTO concept, because most never use all of their sick leave. The ability to take the difference as extra vacation time makes them happy and makes your office more attractive to excellent prospects. They also appreciate making their own decisions about taking time off.

Many employers like PTO because there is less paperwork involved and less abuse of sick leave – and they don’t have to make any decisions about whether an employee is actually sick. Reasons for absences are now irrelevant, so feigned illnesses are a thing of the past. If an employee requests a day off with adequate notice, and there is adequate coverage of that employee’s duties, you don’t need to know (or care) about the reason for the request.

Critics of PTO say employees are absent more often, since employees who never used their full allotment of sick leave will typically use all of their PTO; but that, in a sense, is the idea. Time off is necessary and important for good office morale, and should be taken by all employees, as well as by all employers. (Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.”)

Moreover, you should be suspicious of any employee who refuses to take vacations. They may be embezzlers who fear that their illicit modus operandi will be discovered during their absence.

Another common criticism of PTO is the possibility that employees will not stay home when they are truly sick because some employees may view all PTO as vacation time, and don’t want to “waste” any of it on illness. You should make it very clear that sick employees should stay home – and will be sent home if they come to work sick. You have an obligation to protect your other employees – and of course your patients, particularly those who are elderly or immunocompromised – from a staff member with a potentially communicable illness.

The legal requirements of time off are variable. There are currently no federal laws requiring employers to offer paid time off, but each state has its own PTO and sick leave requirements, so you will need to check your state’s specific guidelines before creating or updating a time off policy.

When drafting your policy, make sure everyone knows they will have to request PTO in advance, except for emergencies. Start with defining “in advance” (72 hours? A week?), and then “emergency”; and put these definitions in writing. Illnesses are emergencies, of course, but what about waking up with a bad hangover? A sick child qualifies if your employee is the only available caregiver, but what if the employee’s car has broken down? Some circumstances will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis; but you will have fewer hassles if you anticipate and settle more situations in advance.

What about allowing employees to take salary in exchange for unused PTO, or to roll it over into the next year? We don’t permit either in my office, but some states (for instance, California, Montana, and Nebraska) prohibit use-it-or-lose-it policies.

When an employee leaves or is terminated, do you have to pay accrued PTO? No federal law requires it, but some states do.

What about employees who use up their allotted PTO and request unpaid time off? In my office, we require employees to submit a written request, explaining why they need it, and why it’s a special situation and won’t be a regular occurrence. Even if you (almost) always approve such requests, forcing your employees to jump through a hoop or two makes it less likely that anyone will abuse the privilege. Moreover, this allows you to make judgments on a case-by-case basis, while still being able to honestly say you offer it as a blanket policy to all your employees.

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

MADRID – A late diagnosis of chronic kidney disease is cause for concern. Scientific societies are therefore advocating for screening at younger ages to reverse this trend and slow the progression of the disease. Nearly all patients seen in primary care are candidates for screening because of their risk factors for kidney disease.

During the 29th National Conference of General and Family Medicine of the Spanish Society for General and Family Physicians, Teresa Benedito, MD, family doctor and member of the society’s cardiovascular group, and Roberto Alcázar, MD, nephrologist at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, presented a clinical case encountered in primary care. They used this case to frame a strong argument for the importance of early screening for chronic kidney disease, and they discussed how to properly manage such screening.

The presentation followed the guidelines in the SEMG publication regarding the management and referral of patients with type 2 diabetes. Dr. Benedito explained that the first thing to ask oneself during a patient visit is “whether they present risk factors for kidney disease. If so, we can’t let them leave before we do a kidney screening.” She then listed the factors in question: age older than 60 years, African heritage, family history of chronic kidney disease, decreased kidney mass, weight loss at birth, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and low socioeconomic status.

For his part, Dr. Alcázar mentioned how these factors are similar to cardiovascular risk factors, because “the kidneys are a ball of vessels with double capillarization for purifying blood. They’re the organs with the most arteries per unit of weight, so anything that can damage the arteries can damage the kidneys.”
 

Candidates for screening

“Chronic kidney disease develops in 15% of the adult population in Spain. So, it’s worth asking how many patients have been diagnosed and who should we should be screening.” To the factors listed above, Dr. Alcázar added treatment with nephrotoxic drugs (including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for patients with obstructive urinary tract disease, and a history of acute kidney injury for patients with chronic autoimmune disease or neoplasms. “Thus, nearly all patients seen in primary care would need to be screened.”

Another fundamental question raised was whether patients should be screened before age 60 years. “As a nephrologist, I feel that we have been diagnosing chronic kidney disease late, even though we’ve been doing everything by the book,” said Dr. Alcázar. In his opinion, “the answer to whether we should be screening earlier ... is yes, for two reasons: first, because it’s cost-effective, and second, because it’s very inexpensive.”

Dr. Benedito explained in detail the process for diagnosing this disease. She began by defining the disease as changes in kidney structure and function that last longer than 3 months. These changes are identified by use of two criteria: glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min and kidney injury or lesions with or without reduced filtration rate (renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 30 mg/g, proteinuria, alterations in urinary sediment or in imaging tests). Thus, “if one of these two criteria persists for more than 3 months, the diagnosis is chronic kidney disease. Also, high creatinine levels are not diagnostic for the disease,” she emphasized.
 

Two related parameters

Glomerular filtration and albuminuria “are highly relevant, because screening for chronic kidney disease is based on these two parameters,” said Dr. Benedito. Glomerular filtration rate varies with age, sex, ethnicity, and body mass. It is useful for identifying the stage of the disease and for monitoring disease progression. Albuminuria, on the other hand, is an indication of the severity of the disease. It’s an early marker for kidney injury and systemic disease and is more sensitive than proteinuria. Therefore, “this factor, together with glomerular filtration rate, allows us to detect, classify, and monitor the progression of chronic kidney disease.”

On this point, Dr. Alcázar emphasized the importance of trends, since variation in glomerular filtration depends on serum creatinine, which can vary by nearly 9%. He explained that glomerular filtration rate is related to the number of nephrons remaining. A glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min implies that more than half of the nephrons in each kidney have been lost. Albuminuria informs about structural damage (that is, the condition of the remaining nephrons). It’s therefore essential to test for both parameters. “We need to be actively monitoring and then making our decisions based on trends and not on isolated results. We need to be aware of albuminuria when we make our decisions,” said Dr. Alcázar. Some studies have shown the importance of testing for albuminuria whenever creatinine level is assessed. “We need to buy into this. If we don’t do this, we’ll only ever have half the information we need.”
 

Reducing late diagnosis

According to the IBERICAN study, 14% of patients seen in primary care in Spain have chronic kidney disease. “This statistic should make us stop and think, own our responsibility, and ask ourselves why this screening isn’t taking place [earlier],” said Dr. Benedito. She added, “We need to head off this trend toward late diagnosis. As the disease progresses, it significantly increases cardiovascular risk and leads to higher mortality, going on dialysis, transplants, et cetera.”

Dr. Alcázar noted that 80% of nephrology cases that are referred to him come from primary care. He explained the need to understand that “these patients have a sevenfold greater risk of suffering a serious cardiovascular event within the next year than people without kidney problems.” Most of these patients will experience an event, even if they don’t undergo dialysis (stage 3 and those near stage 4).
 

Correct staging

Also fundamental is having a detailed understanding of how staging is performed. Dr. Benedito explained that a chart that pairs glomerular filtration rate (six categories) with the level of albuminuria (three categories) should be used during the visit. For example, a case might be classified as G3a-A2. However, the simplified form of the chart may prove more practical. It classifies chronic kidney disease as being associated with mild, moderate, and severe risk, using different colors to aid comprehension.

Dr. Alcázar noted that the latest guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension for 2023 include albuminuria as an important parameter. The guidelines indicate that for a patient with moderate or severe risk, it is not necessary to calculate their score. “It’s considered high cardiovascular risk, and steps would need to be taken for intervention.”

He then listed the tools available for reversing albuminuria. The process begins by reducing salt consumption and involves the use of medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone receptor antagonists, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which slow kidney damage regardless of other measures) and strict management of cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, weight management, blood glucose, hypertension, and moderate physical activity).
 

Reducing cardiovascular risk

Dr. Alcázar highlighted important factors to keep in mind when managing each of the cardiovascular risk factors. For hypertension, the aim is to achieve levels less than 130/80 mm Hg, although recommendations vary, depending on the guidelines consulted. “KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) 2021 states that there is no evidence for monitoring diastolic blood pressure, only systolic blood pressure. If we measure it according to the standardized form, SBP should be less than 120 mm Hg, and if not, we would fall back on readings of 130/80 mm Hg.”

For lipid control (specifically, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the staging chart indicates that for patients at mild risk, levels should be less than 100 mg/dL; for those at moderate risk, less than 70 mg/dL; and for those at severe risk, less than 55 mg/dL. Hypertriglyceridemia “should only be treated with fibrates if it comes in over 1,000 mg/dL. Also, care must be taken, because these drugs interfere with creatinine excretion, increasing it,” said Dr. Alcázar.

Guidelines from the KDIGO and the American Diabetes Association state that anyone with diabetes and chronic kidney disease should receive a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor if their glomerular filtration rate exceeds 20 mL/min, “which may contradict slightly what it says on the label. Also, if they have hypertension, they should take an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor,” said Dr. Alcázar. He added that “oral antidiabetics, including metformin, must be adjusted based on renal function if glomerular filtration rate is under 30 mL/min.”
 

Act immediately

When asked whether the course of chronic kidney disease can be changed, Dr. Alcázar responded with an emphatic yes and added that cardiovascular risk can also be substantially reduced. “As nephrologists, we don’t have access to patients in early stages. But family doctors do. Hence the importance of early screening, because going on dialysis at age 60 isn’t the same as at 80.” Currently, “scientific societies are encouraging authorities to screen for chronic kidney disease at earlier ages.”

Regarding drug-based therapy, Dr. Alcázar said that “empagliflozin is not currently indicated for chronic kidney disease in adults.” This sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor delays kidney disease and reduces morbidity. Both benefits were highlighted in two recent studies (DAPA-CKD and CREDENCE). Published in January, EMPA-KIDNEY presents a new twist on nephroprotection for patients with chronic kidney disease (diabetic or not) whose glomerular filtration rates are between 20 and 40 mL/min without albuminuria or whose glomerular filtration rates are between 45 and 90 mL/min with albuminuria. For more than 6,000 patients, empagliflozin was observed “to clearly reduce kidney disease progression, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and the need to go on dialysis,” stated Dr. Alcázar.
 

What professionals expect

Dr. Benedito also explained the criteria for referral to a specialist: glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min (unless the patient is older than 80 years and does not have progressively worsening renal function), albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g, acute worsening of renal function, progressive worsening of renal function of greater than 5 mL/min/yr, chronic kidney disease, hypertension treated with triple therapy (including a diuretic) at maximum doses, anemia of less than 10 g/dL, and nonurologic hematuria, especially in combination with albuminuria.

Dr. Benedito explained what nephrologists expect from family doctors in the management of chronic kidney disease: “screening for early detection, identifying and treating risk factors for chronic kidney disease, detecting progression and complications, adjusting drugs based on glomerular filtration rate, and ensuring that our patients are benefiting from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. These are among the most important steps to be taken.”

Dr. Alcázar mentioned what family doctors expect from nephrologists: “two-way communication, accessibility, coordination of actions to be taken, and using shared and mutually agreed-upon protocols.”

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – A late diagnosis of chronic kidney disease is cause for concern. Scientific societies are therefore advocating for screening at younger ages to reverse this trend and slow the progression of the disease. Nearly all patients seen in primary care are candidates for screening because of their risk factors for kidney disease.

During the 29th National Conference of General and Family Medicine of the Spanish Society for General and Family Physicians, Teresa Benedito, MD, family doctor and member of the society’s cardiovascular group, and Roberto Alcázar, MD, nephrologist at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, presented a clinical case encountered in primary care. They used this case to frame a strong argument for the importance of early screening for chronic kidney disease, and they discussed how to properly manage such screening.

The presentation followed the guidelines in the SEMG publication regarding the management and referral of patients with type 2 diabetes. Dr. Benedito explained that the first thing to ask oneself during a patient visit is “whether they present risk factors for kidney disease. If so, we can’t let them leave before we do a kidney screening.” She then listed the factors in question: age older than 60 years, African heritage, family history of chronic kidney disease, decreased kidney mass, weight loss at birth, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and low socioeconomic status.

For his part, Dr. Alcázar mentioned how these factors are similar to cardiovascular risk factors, because “the kidneys are a ball of vessels with double capillarization for purifying blood. They’re the organs with the most arteries per unit of weight, so anything that can damage the arteries can damage the kidneys.”
 

Candidates for screening

“Chronic kidney disease develops in 15% of the adult population in Spain. So, it’s worth asking how many patients have been diagnosed and who should we should be screening.” To the factors listed above, Dr. Alcázar added treatment with nephrotoxic drugs (including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for patients with obstructive urinary tract disease, and a history of acute kidney injury for patients with chronic autoimmune disease or neoplasms. “Thus, nearly all patients seen in primary care would need to be screened.”

Another fundamental question raised was whether patients should be screened before age 60 years. “As a nephrologist, I feel that we have been diagnosing chronic kidney disease late, even though we’ve been doing everything by the book,” said Dr. Alcázar. In his opinion, “the answer to whether we should be screening earlier ... is yes, for two reasons: first, because it’s cost-effective, and second, because it’s very inexpensive.”

Dr. Benedito explained in detail the process for diagnosing this disease. She began by defining the disease as changes in kidney structure and function that last longer than 3 months. These changes are identified by use of two criteria: glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min and kidney injury or lesions with or without reduced filtration rate (renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 30 mg/g, proteinuria, alterations in urinary sediment or in imaging tests). Thus, “if one of these two criteria persists for more than 3 months, the diagnosis is chronic kidney disease. Also, high creatinine levels are not diagnostic for the disease,” she emphasized.
 

Two related parameters

Glomerular filtration and albuminuria “are highly relevant, because screening for chronic kidney disease is based on these two parameters,” said Dr. Benedito. Glomerular filtration rate varies with age, sex, ethnicity, and body mass. It is useful for identifying the stage of the disease and for monitoring disease progression. Albuminuria, on the other hand, is an indication of the severity of the disease. It’s an early marker for kidney injury and systemic disease and is more sensitive than proteinuria. Therefore, “this factor, together with glomerular filtration rate, allows us to detect, classify, and monitor the progression of chronic kidney disease.”

On this point, Dr. Alcázar emphasized the importance of trends, since variation in glomerular filtration depends on serum creatinine, which can vary by nearly 9%. He explained that glomerular filtration rate is related to the number of nephrons remaining. A glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min implies that more than half of the nephrons in each kidney have been lost. Albuminuria informs about structural damage (that is, the condition of the remaining nephrons). It’s therefore essential to test for both parameters. “We need to be actively monitoring and then making our decisions based on trends and not on isolated results. We need to be aware of albuminuria when we make our decisions,” said Dr. Alcázar. Some studies have shown the importance of testing for albuminuria whenever creatinine level is assessed. “We need to buy into this. If we don’t do this, we’ll only ever have half the information we need.”
 

Reducing late diagnosis

According to the IBERICAN study, 14% of patients seen in primary care in Spain have chronic kidney disease. “This statistic should make us stop and think, own our responsibility, and ask ourselves why this screening isn’t taking place [earlier],” said Dr. Benedito. She added, “We need to head off this trend toward late diagnosis. As the disease progresses, it significantly increases cardiovascular risk and leads to higher mortality, going on dialysis, transplants, et cetera.”

Dr. Alcázar noted that 80% of nephrology cases that are referred to him come from primary care. He explained the need to understand that “these patients have a sevenfold greater risk of suffering a serious cardiovascular event within the next year than people without kidney problems.” Most of these patients will experience an event, even if they don’t undergo dialysis (stage 3 and those near stage 4).
 

Correct staging

Also fundamental is having a detailed understanding of how staging is performed. Dr. Benedito explained that a chart that pairs glomerular filtration rate (six categories) with the level of albuminuria (three categories) should be used during the visit. For example, a case might be classified as G3a-A2. However, the simplified form of the chart may prove more practical. It classifies chronic kidney disease as being associated with mild, moderate, and severe risk, using different colors to aid comprehension.

Dr. Alcázar noted that the latest guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension for 2023 include albuminuria as an important parameter. The guidelines indicate that for a patient with moderate or severe risk, it is not necessary to calculate their score. “It’s considered high cardiovascular risk, and steps would need to be taken for intervention.”

He then listed the tools available for reversing albuminuria. The process begins by reducing salt consumption and involves the use of medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone receptor antagonists, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which slow kidney damage regardless of other measures) and strict management of cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, weight management, blood glucose, hypertension, and moderate physical activity).
 

Reducing cardiovascular risk

Dr. Alcázar highlighted important factors to keep in mind when managing each of the cardiovascular risk factors. For hypertension, the aim is to achieve levels less than 130/80 mm Hg, although recommendations vary, depending on the guidelines consulted. “KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) 2021 states that there is no evidence for monitoring diastolic blood pressure, only systolic blood pressure. If we measure it according to the standardized form, SBP should be less than 120 mm Hg, and if not, we would fall back on readings of 130/80 mm Hg.”

For lipid control (specifically, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the staging chart indicates that for patients at mild risk, levels should be less than 100 mg/dL; for those at moderate risk, less than 70 mg/dL; and for those at severe risk, less than 55 mg/dL. Hypertriglyceridemia “should only be treated with fibrates if it comes in over 1,000 mg/dL. Also, care must be taken, because these drugs interfere with creatinine excretion, increasing it,” said Dr. Alcázar.

Guidelines from the KDIGO and the American Diabetes Association state that anyone with diabetes and chronic kidney disease should receive a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor if their glomerular filtration rate exceeds 20 mL/min, “which may contradict slightly what it says on the label. Also, if they have hypertension, they should take an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor,” said Dr. Alcázar. He added that “oral antidiabetics, including metformin, must be adjusted based on renal function if glomerular filtration rate is under 30 mL/min.”
 

Act immediately

When asked whether the course of chronic kidney disease can be changed, Dr. Alcázar responded with an emphatic yes and added that cardiovascular risk can also be substantially reduced. “As nephrologists, we don’t have access to patients in early stages. But family doctors do. Hence the importance of early screening, because going on dialysis at age 60 isn’t the same as at 80.” Currently, “scientific societies are encouraging authorities to screen for chronic kidney disease at earlier ages.”

Regarding drug-based therapy, Dr. Alcázar said that “empagliflozin is not currently indicated for chronic kidney disease in adults.” This sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor delays kidney disease and reduces morbidity. Both benefits were highlighted in two recent studies (DAPA-CKD and CREDENCE). Published in January, EMPA-KIDNEY presents a new twist on nephroprotection for patients with chronic kidney disease (diabetic or not) whose glomerular filtration rates are between 20 and 40 mL/min without albuminuria or whose glomerular filtration rates are between 45 and 90 mL/min with albuminuria. For more than 6,000 patients, empagliflozin was observed “to clearly reduce kidney disease progression, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and the need to go on dialysis,” stated Dr. Alcázar.
 

What professionals expect

Dr. Benedito also explained the criteria for referral to a specialist: glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min (unless the patient is older than 80 years and does not have progressively worsening renal function), albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g, acute worsening of renal function, progressive worsening of renal function of greater than 5 mL/min/yr, chronic kidney disease, hypertension treated with triple therapy (including a diuretic) at maximum doses, anemia of less than 10 g/dL, and nonurologic hematuria, especially in combination with albuminuria.

Dr. Benedito explained what nephrologists expect from family doctors in the management of chronic kidney disease: “screening for early detection, identifying and treating risk factors for chronic kidney disease, detecting progression and complications, adjusting drugs based on glomerular filtration rate, and ensuring that our patients are benefiting from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. These are among the most important steps to be taken.”

Dr. Alcázar mentioned what family doctors expect from nephrologists: “two-way communication, accessibility, coordination of actions to be taken, and using shared and mutually agreed-upon protocols.”

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – A late diagnosis of chronic kidney disease is cause for concern. Scientific societies are therefore advocating for screening at younger ages to reverse this trend and slow the progression of the disease. Nearly all patients seen in primary care are candidates for screening because of their risk factors for kidney disease.

During the 29th National Conference of General and Family Medicine of the Spanish Society for General and Family Physicians, Teresa Benedito, MD, family doctor and member of the society’s cardiovascular group, and Roberto Alcázar, MD, nephrologist at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, presented a clinical case encountered in primary care. They used this case to frame a strong argument for the importance of early screening for chronic kidney disease, and they discussed how to properly manage such screening.

The presentation followed the guidelines in the SEMG publication regarding the management and referral of patients with type 2 diabetes. Dr. Benedito explained that the first thing to ask oneself during a patient visit is “whether they present risk factors for kidney disease. If so, we can’t let them leave before we do a kidney screening.” She then listed the factors in question: age older than 60 years, African heritage, family history of chronic kidney disease, decreased kidney mass, weight loss at birth, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and low socioeconomic status.

For his part, Dr. Alcázar mentioned how these factors are similar to cardiovascular risk factors, because “the kidneys are a ball of vessels with double capillarization for purifying blood. They’re the organs with the most arteries per unit of weight, so anything that can damage the arteries can damage the kidneys.”
 

Candidates for screening

“Chronic kidney disease develops in 15% of the adult population in Spain. So, it’s worth asking how many patients have been diagnosed and who should we should be screening.” To the factors listed above, Dr. Alcázar added treatment with nephrotoxic drugs (including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for patients with obstructive urinary tract disease, and a history of acute kidney injury for patients with chronic autoimmune disease or neoplasms. “Thus, nearly all patients seen in primary care would need to be screened.”

Another fundamental question raised was whether patients should be screened before age 60 years. “As a nephrologist, I feel that we have been diagnosing chronic kidney disease late, even though we’ve been doing everything by the book,” said Dr. Alcázar. In his opinion, “the answer to whether we should be screening earlier ... is yes, for two reasons: first, because it’s cost-effective, and second, because it’s very inexpensive.”

Dr. Benedito explained in detail the process for diagnosing this disease. She began by defining the disease as changes in kidney structure and function that last longer than 3 months. These changes are identified by use of two criteria: glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min and kidney injury or lesions with or without reduced filtration rate (renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 30 mg/g, proteinuria, alterations in urinary sediment or in imaging tests). Thus, “if one of these two criteria persists for more than 3 months, the diagnosis is chronic kidney disease. Also, high creatinine levels are not diagnostic for the disease,” she emphasized.
 

Two related parameters

Glomerular filtration and albuminuria “are highly relevant, because screening for chronic kidney disease is based on these two parameters,” said Dr. Benedito. Glomerular filtration rate varies with age, sex, ethnicity, and body mass. It is useful for identifying the stage of the disease and for monitoring disease progression. Albuminuria, on the other hand, is an indication of the severity of the disease. It’s an early marker for kidney injury and systemic disease and is more sensitive than proteinuria. Therefore, “this factor, together with glomerular filtration rate, allows us to detect, classify, and monitor the progression of chronic kidney disease.”

On this point, Dr. Alcázar emphasized the importance of trends, since variation in glomerular filtration depends on serum creatinine, which can vary by nearly 9%. He explained that glomerular filtration rate is related to the number of nephrons remaining. A glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min implies that more than half of the nephrons in each kidney have been lost. Albuminuria informs about structural damage (that is, the condition of the remaining nephrons). It’s therefore essential to test for both parameters. “We need to be actively monitoring and then making our decisions based on trends and not on isolated results. We need to be aware of albuminuria when we make our decisions,” said Dr. Alcázar. Some studies have shown the importance of testing for albuminuria whenever creatinine level is assessed. “We need to buy into this. If we don’t do this, we’ll only ever have half the information we need.”
 

Reducing late diagnosis

According to the IBERICAN study, 14% of patients seen in primary care in Spain have chronic kidney disease. “This statistic should make us stop and think, own our responsibility, and ask ourselves why this screening isn’t taking place [earlier],” said Dr. Benedito. She added, “We need to head off this trend toward late diagnosis. As the disease progresses, it significantly increases cardiovascular risk and leads to higher mortality, going on dialysis, transplants, et cetera.”

Dr. Alcázar noted that 80% of nephrology cases that are referred to him come from primary care. He explained the need to understand that “these patients have a sevenfold greater risk of suffering a serious cardiovascular event within the next year than people without kidney problems.” Most of these patients will experience an event, even if they don’t undergo dialysis (stage 3 and those near stage 4).
 

Correct staging

Also fundamental is having a detailed understanding of how staging is performed. Dr. Benedito explained that a chart that pairs glomerular filtration rate (six categories) with the level of albuminuria (three categories) should be used during the visit. For example, a case might be classified as G3a-A2. However, the simplified form of the chart may prove more practical. It classifies chronic kidney disease as being associated with mild, moderate, and severe risk, using different colors to aid comprehension.

Dr. Alcázar noted that the latest guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension for 2023 include albuminuria as an important parameter. The guidelines indicate that for a patient with moderate or severe risk, it is not necessary to calculate their score. “It’s considered high cardiovascular risk, and steps would need to be taken for intervention.”

He then listed the tools available for reversing albuminuria. The process begins by reducing salt consumption and involves the use of medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone receptor antagonists, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which slow kidney damage regardless of other measures) and strict management of cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, weight management, blood glucose, hypertension, and moderate physical activity).
 

Reducing cardiovascular risk

Dr. Alcázar highlighted important factors to keep in mind when managing each of the cardiovascular risk factors. For hypertension, the aim is to achieve levels less than 130/80 mm Hg, although recommendations vary, depending on the guidelines consulted. “KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) 2021 states that there is no evidence for monitoring diastolic blood pressure, only systolic blood pressure. If we measure it according to the standardized form, SBP should be less than 120 mm Hg, and if not, we would fall back on readings of 130/80 mm Hg.”

For lipid control (specifically, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the staging chart indicates that for patients at mild risk, levels should be less than 100 mg/dL; for those at moderate risk, less than 70 mg/dL; and for those at severe risk, less than 55 mg/dL. Hypertriglyceridemia “should only be treated with fibrates if it comes in over 1,000 mg/dL. Also, care must be taken, because these drugs interfere with creatinine excretion, increasing it,” said Dr. Alcázar.

Guidelines from the KDIGO and the American Diabetes Association state that anyone with diabetes and chronic kidney disease should receive a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor if their glomerular filtration rate exceeds 20 mL/min, “which may contradict slightly what it says on the label. Also, if they have hypertension, they should take an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor,” said Dr. Alcázar. He added that “oral antidiabetics, including metformin, must be adjusted based on renal function if glomerular filtration rate is under 30 mL/min.”
 

Act immediately

When asked whether the course of chronic kidney disease can be changed, Dr. Alcázar responded with an emphatic yes and added that cardiovascular risk can also be substantially reduced. “As nephrologists, we don’t have access to patients in early stages. But family doctors do. Hence the importance of early screening, because going on dialysis at age 60 isn’t the same as at 80.” Currently, “scientific societies are encouraging authorities to screen for chronic kidney disease at earlier ages.”

Regarding drug-based therapy, Dr. Alcázar said that “empagliflozin is not currently indicated for chronic kidney disease in adults.” This sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor delays kidney disease and reduces morbidity. Both benefits were highlighted in two recent studies (DAPA-CKD and CREDENCE). Published in January, EMPA-KIDNEY presents a new twist on nephroprotection for patients with chronic kidney disease (diabetic or not) whose glomerular filtration rates are between 20 and 40 mL/min without albuminuria or whose glomerular filtration rates are between 45 and 90 mL/min with albuminuria. For more than 6,000 patients, empagliflozin was observed “to clearly reduce kidney disease progression, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and the need to go on dialysis,” stated Dr. Alcázar.
 

What professionals expect

Dr. Benedito also explained the criteria for referral to a specialist: glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min (unless the patient is older than 80 years and does not have progressively worsening renal function), albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g, acute worsening of renal function, progressive worsening of renal function of greater than 5 mL/min/yr, chronic kidney disease, hypertension treated with triple therapy (including a diuretic) at maximum doses, anemia of less than 10 g/dL, and nonurologic hematuria, especially in combination with albuminuria.

Dr. Benedito explained what nephrologists expect from family doctors in the management of chronic kidney disease: “screening for early detection, identifying and treating risk factors for chronic kidney disease, detecting progression and complications, adjusting drugs based on glomerular filtration rate, and ensuring that our patients are benefiting from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. These are among the most important steps to be taken.”

Dr. Alcázar mentioned what family doctors expect from nephrologists: “two-way communication, accessibility, coordination of actions to be taken, and using shared and mutually agreed-upon protocols.”

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

A new generation of medications designed to help individuals lose weight is in the news and stirring considerable debate within medical, insurer, and employer circles. Indeed, these drugs show striking results, compared with weight loss drugs of the past, with some research reporting a 15%-20% loss in body weight when used as an adjunct to intensive behavior therapy and intensive lifestyle intervention.
 

Obesity and associated chronic diseases are at an epidemic level in the United States and carry enormous personal, family, and societal burdens. As an exercise physiologist and a dual board-certified cardiologist and lifestyle medicine specialist, I am grateful for modern medicine and have leveraged the efficacy of many medications in patient care. I also recognize that it is in my patients’ and my own best interests to strive for health restoration rather than default to a lifetime of disease management. This is especially urgent when it comes to children.

That’s why as physicians we must not allow these new medications to overshadow an evidence-based comprehensive lifestyle approach – the first recommended treatment in most chronic disease care guidelines – as the optimal step toward achieving long-term health improvement.

As a matter of fact, too often lost in news stories about the success of obesity drugs like tirzepatide and semaglutide is that research study participants also received intensive lifestyle interventions. Regardless of whether clinicians ultimately prescribe weight loss medications, it is important that they first engage in patient-centered discussions that provide information about all the available treatment options and explore with patients an adequate dose of lifestyle intervention before pronouncing this approach a failure.

Merely advising a patient to eat better or exercise more is rarely sufficient information, much less sufficient dosing information, for significant weight loss. As a recent American College of Lifestyle Medicine position statement on the treatment of obesity put it: “While adequately dosed lifestyle interventions may unilaterally achieve success, obesity is a complex, multifactorial disease wherein patients may require approaches beyond lifestyle alone. However, lifestyle interventions are too often not adequately ‘dosed’ for success.”

Appetite suppression may reduce food intake, but optimal health requires eating nutrient-dense foods high in fiber and healthy fats, and preserving muscle mass through physical activity. Simply reducing the portion size of the same unhealthy, ultraprocessed foods that the patient ate before starting medication does not achieve optimal health, no matter what the scale says. ACLM’s position statement emphasizes that “a comprehensive lifestyle medicine approach prevents and treats many other comorbidities associated with overweight and obesity, including, but not limited to, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and arthritis, and a lifestyle medicine approach can also reduce the risk of many types of cancer.”

This is even more critical in children, who may not fully understand how to eat healthfully. Furthermore, the long-term effects of weight loss medication on their still-developing bodies are unclear. Decades ago, we didn’t face an epidemic of childhood obesity; type 2 diabetes was called “adult-onset” because it was a lifestyle-related chronic disease that didn’t manifest until adulthood. We would never have considered weight-loss medications for children or gastric bypass for teens. Yet, this lifestyle-related chronic disease is now afflicting our youth.

We have allowed an abnormal food environment to fester, with nearly 60% of the American diet now consisting of ultraprocessed foods. Obesity within families may be related to shared genetics but may also be due to shared food, lifestyle, and environmental factors passed down through generations. A successful obesity treatment plan should address as many of those drivers of obesity as possible, as well as access to healthy food, transportation, and other social determinants of health.

Cost is a major consideration in clinical decision-making for weight loss treatment. The new obesity drugs are expensive, and patients probably must continue to take them throughout their lives to avoid regaining lost weight. With 70% of Americans and 90% of seniors already taking prescription drugs, the United States already spends more on pharmaceuticals than the rest of the world combined. Not all insurance plans cover these medications for the treatment of obesity, and as patients covered through one insurance plan may lose coverage on their next plan, they could be forced to stop the medications and pay out of pocket or experience fluctuations in their weight. Health care providers should consider the physical and emotional burden of weight cycling and strategically advance lifestyle measures to mitigate weight fluctuations in such patients.

Shared decisions between patients and their families and health care providers will become even more important in the rollout of new medications and obesity management guidelines. I’m hopeful that the elevated attention to obesity solutions will shepherd in thoughtful collaborations among board-certified obesity specialists, lifestyle medicine specialists, and primary care providers. ACLM, in support of the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, has offered 5.5 hours of complimentary CE/CME coursework in nutrition and food as medicine to 100,000 health professionals. This free opportunity (valued at $220) is an excellent step toward establishing a foundation of lifestyle medicine knowledge for health professionals treating patients for obesity. Clinicians can register here.

Let’s all get this right: Lifestyle behavior is the foundation of patients’ health and wellness at every stage of life, with or without adjunctive medication therapy. New tools like weight loss medications will arise but cannot truly achieve optimal health without lifestyle medicine as a continuum throughout a patient’s life.

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

A new generation of medications designed to help individuals lose weight is in the news and stirring considerable debate within medical, insurer, and employer circles. Indeed, these drugs show striking results, compared with weight loss drugs of the past, with some research reporting a 15%-20% loss in body weight when used as an adjunct to intensive behavior therapy and intensive lifestyle intervention.
 

Obesity and associated chronic diseases are at an epidemic level in the United States and carry enormous personal, family, and societal burdens. As an exercise physiologist and a dual board-certified cardiologist and lifestyle medicine specialist, I am grateful for modern medicine and have leveraged the efficacy of many medications in patient care. I also recognize that it is in my patients’ and my own best interests to strive for health restoration rather than default to a lifetime of disease management. This is especially urgent when it comes to children.

That’s why as physicians we must not allow these new medications to overshadow an evidence-based comprehensive lifestyle approach – the first recommended treatment in most chronic disease care guidelines – as the optimal step toward achieving long-term health improvement.

As a matter of fact, too often lost in news stories about the success of obesity drugs like tirzepatide and semaglutide is that research study participants also received intensive lifestyle interventions. Regardless of whether clinicians ultimately prescribe weight loss medications, it is important that they first engage in patient-centered discussions that provide information about all the available treatment options and explore with patients an adequate dose of lifestyle intervention before pronouncing this approach a failure.

Merely advising a patient to eat better or exercise more is rarely sufficient information, much less sufficient dosing information, for significant weight loss. As a recent American College of Lifestyle Medicine position statement on the treatment of obesity put it: “While adequately dosed lifestyle interventions may unilaterally achieve success, obesity is a complex, multifactorial disease wherein patients may require approaches beyond lifestyle alone. However, lifestyle interventions are too often not adequately ‘dosed’ for success.”

Appetite suppression may reduce food intake, but optimal health requires eating nutrient-dense foods high in fiber and healthy fats, and preserving muscle mass through physical activity. Simply reducing the portion size of the same unhealthy, ultraprocessed foods that the patient ate before starting medication does not achieve optimal health, no matter what the scale says. ACLM’s position statement emphasizes that “a comprehensive lifestyle medicine approach prevents and treats many other comorbidities associated with overweight and obesity, including, but not limited to, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and arthritis, and a lifestyle medicine approach can also reduce the risk of many types of cancer.”

This is even more critical in children, who may not fully understand how to eat healthfully. Furthermore, the long-term effects of weight loss medication on their still-developing bodies are unclear. Decades ago, we didn’t face an epidemic of childhood obesity; type 2 diabetes was called “adult-onset” because it was a lifestyle-related chronic disease that didn’t manifest until adulthood. We would never have considered weight-loss medications for children or gastric bypass for teens. Yet, this lifestyle-related chronic disease is now afflicting our youth.

We have allowed an abnormal food environment to fester, with nearly 60% of the American diet now consisting of ultraprocessed foods. Obesity within families may be related to shared genetics but may also be due to shared food, lifestyle, and environmental factors passed down through generations. A successful obesity treatment plan should address as many of those drivers of obesity as possible, as well as access to healthy food, transportation, and other social determinants of health.

Cost is a major consideration in clinical decision-making for weight loss treatment. The new obesity drugs are expensive, and patients probably must continue to take them throughout their lives to avoid regaining lost weight. With 70% of Americans and 90% of seniors already taking prescription drugs, the United States already spends more on pharmaceuticals than the rest of the world combined. Not all insurance plans cover these medications for the treatment of obesity, and as patients covered through one insurance plan may lose coverage on their next plan, they could be forced to stop the medications and pay out of pocket or experience fluctuations in their weight. Health care providers should consider the physical and emotional burden of weight cycling and strategically advance lifestyle measures to mitigate weight fluctuations in such patients.

Shared decisions between patients and their families and health care providers will become even more important in the rollout of new medications and obesity management guidelines. I’m hopeful that the elevated attention to obesity solutions will shepherd in thoughtful collaborations among board-certified obesity specialists, lifestyle medicine specialists, and primary care providers. ACLM, in support of the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, has offered 5.5 hours of complimentary CE/CME coursework in nutrition and food as medicine to 100,000 health professionals. This free opportunity (valued at $220) is an excellent step toward establishing a foundation of lifestyle medicine knowledge for health professionals treating patients for obesity. Clinicians can register here.

Let’s all get this right: Lifestyle behavior is the foundation of patients’ health and wellness at every stage of life, with or without adjunctive medication therapy. New tools like weight loss medications will arise but cannot truly achieve optimal health without lifestyle medicine as a continuum throughout a patient’s life.

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

A new generation of medications designed to help individuals lose weight is in the news and stirring considerable debate within medical, insurer, and employer circles. Indeed, these drugs show striking results, compared with weight loss drugs of the past, with some research reporting a 15%-20% loss in body weight when used as an adjunct to intensive behavior therapy and intensive lifestyle intervention.
 

Obesity and associated chronic diseases are at an epidemic level in the United States and carry enormous personal, family, and societal burdens. As an exercise physiologist and a dual board-certified cardiologist and lifestyle medicine specialist, I am grateful for modern medicine and have leveraged the efficacy of many medications in patient care. I also recognize that it is in my patients’ and my own best interests to strive for health restoration rather than default to a lifetime of disease management. This is especially urgent when it comes to children.

That’s why as physicians we must not allow these new medications to overshadow an evidence-based comprehensive lifestyle approach – the first recommended treatment in most chronic disease care guidelines – as the optimal step toward achieving long-term health improvement.

As a matter of fact, too often lost in news stories about the success of obesity drugs like tirzepatide and semaglutide is that research study participants also received intensive lifestyle interventions. Regardless of whether clinicians ultimately prescribe weight loss medications, it is important that they first engage in patient-centered discussions that provide information about all the available treatment options and explore with patients an adequate dose of lifestyle intervention before pronouncing this approach a failure.

Merely advising a patient to eat better or exercise more is rarely sufficient information, much less sufficient dosing information, for significant weight loss. As a recent American College of Lifestyle Medicine position statement on the treatment of obesity put it: “While adequately dosed lifestyle interventions may unilaterally achieve success, obesity is a complex, multifactorial disease wherein patients may require approaches beyond lifestyle alone. However, lifestyle interventions are too often not adequately ‘dosed’ for success.”

Appetite suppression may reduce food intake, but optimal health requires eating nutrient-dense foods high in fiber and healthy fats, and preserving muscle mass through physical activity. Simply reducing the portion size of the same unhealthy, ultraprocessed foods that the patient ate before starting medication does not achieve optimal health, no matter what the scale says. ACLM’s position statement emphasizes that “a comprehensive lifestyle medicine approach prevents and treats many other comorbidities associated with overweight and obesity, including, but not limited to, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and arthritis, and a lifestyle medicine approach can also reduce the risk of many types of cancer.”

This is even more critical in children, who may not fully understand how to eat healthfully. Furthermore, the long-term effects of weight loss medication on their still-developing bodies are unclear. Decades ago, we didn’t face an epidemic of childhood obesity; type 2 diabetes was called “adult-onset” because it was a lifestyle-related chronic disease that didn’t manifest until adulthood. We would never have considered weight-loss medications for children or gastric bypass for teens. Yet, this lifestyle-related chronic disease is now afflicting our youth.

We have allowed an abnormal food environment to fester, with nearly 60% of the American diet now consisting of ultraprocessed foods. Obesity within families may be related to shared genetics but may also be due to shared food, lifestyle, and environmental factors passed down through generations. A successful obesity treatment plan should address as many of those drivers of obesity as possible, as well as access to healthy food, transportation, and other social determinants of health.

Cost is a major consideration in clinical decision-making for weight loss treatment. The new obesity drugs are expensive, and patients probably must continue to take them throughout their lives to avoid regaining lost weight. With 70% of Americans and 90% of seniors already taking prescription drugs, the United States already spends more on pharmaceuticals than the rest of the world combined. Not all insurance plans cover these medications for the treatment of obesity, and as patients covered through one insurance plan may lose coverage on their next plan, they could be forced to stop the medications and pay out of pocket or experience fluctuations in their weight. Health care providers should consider the physical and emotional burden of weight cycling and strategically advance lifestyle measures to mitigate weight fluctuations in such patients.

Shared decisions between patients and their families and health care providers will become even more important in the rollout of new medications and obesity management guidelines. I’m hopeful that the elevated attention to obesity solutions will shepherd in thoughtful collaborations among board-certified obesity specialists, lifestyle medicine specialists, and primary care providers. ACLM, in support of the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, has offered 5.5 hours of complimentary CE/CME coursework in nutrition and food as medicine to 100,000 health professionals. This free opportunity (valued at $220) is an excellent step toward establishing a foundation of lifestyle medicine knowledge for health professionals treating patients for obesity. Clinicians can register here.

Let’s all get this right: Lifestyle behavior is the foundation of patients’ health and wellness at every stage of life, with or without adjunctive medication therapy. New tools like weight loss medications will arise but cannot truly achieve optimal health without lifestyle medicine as a continuum throughout a patient’s life.

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

Are there medical conditions other than obesity where physicians, if even inadvertently, regularly sabotage their patients’ efforts at managing them? Because for patients with obesity, their physicians, sometimes even before they walk into the examining room to meet them, do and say things that may quash their weight loss efforts.

No doubt this list will be nonexhaustive, but here are what I see as the top 10 ways doctors sabotage their patients’ weight loss journeys.

• 1. Having an office that is anxiety provoking, exclusionary, and/or fat phobic for people with obesity, which in turn may remove trust and preclude conversation. Examples of this would be offices without chairs in the waiting room that are suitable for people with obesity; with reading materials such as glossy magazines like Men’s Health and Shape, glorifying unhealthy dieting and body ideals; or where the scale is in a nonprivate area or has a very narrow platform, or maxes out at a weight lower than many patients’.
• 2. Not taking an actual history. Meaning, physicians regularly launch into a “you should really lose weight” speech without exploring a patient’s history of weight loss and social determinants of health. In some cases, that patient may have a history of disordered eating or body dysmorphia, and then this discussion needs to be approached carefully with those facts underwriting its tenor and direction. In other cases, patients’ social determinants of health would make intentional behavior change efforts in the name of weight management an impossible luxury. And sometimes that same patient may in fact be maintaining a clinically meaningful weight loss from their peak weight already. In all cases, not speaking with your patients and instead speaking at your patients will not increase their likelihood to trust or follow or seek your advice.
• 3. Pushing useless diet advice. The most common and most useless are some variation on needing to just eat less and move more. That’s about as useful as telling someone that making money requires them to buy low and sell high. Or telling someone with depression that they should just cheer up and look at the bright side of things.
• 4. Pushing specific diet advice (intermittent fasting, keto, low carb, vegan, low fat, whatever) as if it’s the only way or the best way to lose weight. The research is clear: There is no one best dietary approach, and one person’s best diet is another person’s worst. Yet, some clinicians are themselves diet zealots and preach one diet over all others. Of course, many of their patients may well have already tried that approach, while others won’t enjoy it, and so promoting it above all others will fail a great many people.
• 5. Refusing to prescribe medications to patients who meet the clinical criteria for use, especially now that there are truly effective and useful medications. Do these same clinicians refuse to prescribe antihypertensives or oral hypoglycemics to patients whose blood pressures or blood sugars are risking their health? Related would be those clinicians who don’t bother to learn enough about pharmaceutical options for obesity to feel comfortable prescribing them. This, despite the fact that statistically, well over 30% of their patients have obesity, and polls suggest that at least half of those embark on weight loss efforts annually. If a patient meets clinical criteria for a medication’s approved indication and a doctor won’t prescribe it because of their personal beliefs, in my opinion that’s grounds for a regulatory complaint.
• 6. Fearmongering around medications regarding adverse or unknown effects. The media’s coverage of new antiobesity medications is alarmist, to say the least, and for reasons I can’t fathom, given how well tolerated these medications are when dose titration is slow, monitored, and adjusted appropriately. Many physicians are not only buying into media narratives but are also spreading them.
• 7. Stopping medications for obesity when weight is lost. Do you also stop blood pressure medications when they normalize a patient’s blood pressure? Chronic conditions require ongoing long-term treatment. And yet I hear about this in my practice regularly.
• 8. Prescribing medications that cause weight gain rather than alternatives that don’t, or without discussion of same, or without the concomitant prescription of medication to counter it. From atypical antipsychotics to antidepressants to certain antiseizure medications to some blood pressure medications, there are those that have been shown to lead to, at times, dramatic weight gain. Yet, physicians will still regularly prescribe them to patients with obesity without first trying patients on available alternatives that don’t lead to weight gain, or without at least monitoring and then considering the prescription of an antiobesity medication to try to mitigate iatrogenic gain.
• 9. Setting ridiculous and unrealistic weight loss goals with patients. Without medication, the average person may lose 10% of their weight with purely behavioral efforts, 15%-20% with the addition of medications to those behavioral efforts, and 30% with the addition of bariatric surgery to their behavioral efforts. So why do so many physicians suggest goals that greatly exceed those averages? Imagine being committed to learning to run and having your running coach tell you at your training outset that your goal is to run a marathon within a Boston Marathon qualifying time. The goal should be whatever weight a person reaches living the healthiest life that they can honestly enjoy, not the Boston Marathon of weight loss.
• 10. Not discussing all options with all patients. Yes, food and fitness levers can affect weight, but that doesn’t mean that patients who meet the medical criteria for antiobesity medication or bariatric surgery shouldn’t be informed of their options. Our job as physicians is to fully inform our patients about the risks and benefits of all treatment options and then to support our patients’ decisions as to what option they want to pursue (including none, by the way). Our job is not to exclude discussion of proven and available options because our weight biases see us personally not believing in them – or worse, thinking that patients haven’t tried food and fitness umpteen times before, and that we require them to fail those efforts yet again before we stop gatekeeping their access to effective adjunctive therapeutic interventions.

Until recently, underwriting weight bias in medicine has been the dearth of effective treatments which in turn probably contributed to the overall lack of education for physicians in obesity management despite its extremely high prevalence. The times, though, are definitely a-changin’. Consequent to these new generations of medications rapidly coming online, by necessity we will see improvements in medical education around obesity management. Meanwhile, their efficacy will help dispel the bias that underlies much of this list. A decade or 2 from now, we will see obesity treated as we do every other chronic noncommunicable disease with lifestyle levers – with patient-centered care free from judgment and blame, and with a myriad of therapeutic options that physicians objectively, not subjectively, inform and prescribe to their patients.

Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, department of family medicine, University of Ottawa, and medical director, Bariatric Medical Institute, also in Ottawa. He reported conflicts of interest with Constant Health and Novo Nordisk.
 

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

Are there medical conditions other than obesity where physicians, if even inadvertently, regularly sabotage their patients’ efforts at managing them? Because for patients with obesity, their physicians, sometimes even before they walk into the examining room to meet them, do and say things that may quash their weight loss efforts.

No doubt this list will be nonexhaustive, but here are what I see as the top 10 ways doctors sabotage their patients’ weight loss journeys.

• 1. Having an office that is anxiety provoking, exclusionary, and/or fat phobic for people with obesity, which in turn may remove trust and preclude conversation. Examples of this would be offices without chairs in the waiting room that are suitable for people with obesity; with reading materials such as glossy magazines like Men’s Health and Shape, glorifying unhealthy dieting and body ideals; or where the scale is in a nonprivate area or has a very narrow platform, or maxes out at a weight lower than many patients’.
• 2. Not taking an actual history. Meaning, physicians regularly launch into a “you should really lose weight” speech without exploring a patient’s history of weight loss and social determinants of health. In some cases, that patient may have a history of disordered eating or body dysmorphia, and then this discussion needs to be approached carefully with those facts underwriting its tenor and direction. In other cases, patients’ social determinants of health would make intentional behavior change efforts in the name of weight management an impossible luxury. And sometimes that same patient may in fact be maintaining a clinically meaningful weight loss from their peak weight already. In all cases, not speaking with your patients and instead speaking at your patients will not increase their likelihood to trust or follow or seek your advice.
• 3. Pushing useless diet advice. The most common and most useless are some variation on needing to just eat less and move more. That’s about as useful as telling someone that making money requires them to buy low and sell high. Or telling someone with depression that they should just cheer up and look at the bright side of things.
• 4. Pushing specific diet advice (intermittent fasting, keto, low carb, vegan, low fat, whatever) as if it’s the only way or the best way to lose weight. The research is clear: There is no one best dietary approach, and one person’s best diet is another person’s worst. Yet, some clinicians are themselves diet zealots and preach one diet over all others. Of course, many of their patients may well have already tried that approach, while others won’t enjoy it, and so promoting it above all others will fail a great many people.
• 5. Refusing to prescribe medications to patients who meet the clinical criteria for use, especially now that there are truly effective and useful medications. Do these same clinicians refuse to prescribe antihypertensives or oral hypoglycemics to patients whose blood pressures or blood sugars are risking their health? Related would be those clinicians who don’t bother to learn enough about pharmaceutical options for obesity to feel comfortable prescribing them. This, despite the fact that statistically, well over 30% of their patients have obesity, and polls suggest that at least half of those embark on weight loss efforts annually. If a patient meets clinical criteria for a medication’s approved indication and a doctor won’t prescribe it because of their personal beliefs, in my opinion that’s grounds for a regulatory complaint.
• 6. Fearmongering around medications regarding adverse or unknown effects. The media’s coverage of new antiobesity medications is alarmist, to say the least, and for reasons I can’t fathom, given how well tolerated these medications are when dose titration is slow, monitored, and adjusted appropriately. Many physicians are not only buying into media narratives but are also spreading them.
• 7. Stopping medications for obesity when weight is lost. Do you also stop blood pressure medications when they normalize a patient’s blood pressure? Chronic conditions require ongoing long-term treatment. And yet I hear about this in my practice regularly.
• 8. Prescribing medications that cause weight gain rather than alternatives that don’t, or without discussion of same, or without the concomitant prescription of medication to counter it. From atypical antipsychotics to antidepressants to certain antiseizure medications to some blood pressure medications, there are those that have been shown to lead to, at times, dramatic weight gain. Yet, physicians will still regularly prescribe them to patients with obesity without first trying patients on available alternatives that don’t lead to weight gain, or without at least monitoring and then considering the prescription of an antiobesity medication to try to mitigate iatrogenic gain.
• 9. Setting ridiculous and unrealistic weight loss goals with patients. Without medication, the average person may lose 10% of their weight with purely behavioral efforts, 15%-20% with the addition of medications to those behavioral efforts, and 30% with the addition of bariatric surgery to their behavioral efforts. So why do so many physicians suggest goals that greatly exceed those averages? Imagine being committed to learning to run and having your running coach tell you at your training outset that your goal is to run a marathon within a Boston Marathon qualifying time. The goal should be whatever weight a person reaches living the healthiest life that they can honestly enjoy, not the Boston Marathon of weight loss.
• 10. Not discussing all options with all patients. Yes, food and fitness levers can affect weight, but that doesn’t mean that patients who meet the medical criteria for antiobesity medication or bariatric surgery shouldn’t be informed of their options. Our job as physicians is to fully inform our patients about the risks and benefits of all treatment options and then to support our patients’ decisions as to what option they want to pursue (including none, by the way). Our job is not to exclude discussion of proven and available options because our weight biases see us personally not believing in them – or worse, thinking that patients haven’t tried food and fitness umpteen times before, and that we require them to fail those efforts yet again before we stop gatekeeping their access to effective adjunctive therapeutic interventions.

Until recently, underwriting weight bias in medicine has been the dearth of effective treatments which in turn probably contributed to the overall lack of education for physicians in obesity management despite its extremely high prevalence. The times, though, are definitely a-changin’. Consequent to these new generations of medications rapidly coming online, by necessity we will see improvements in medical education around obesity management. Meanwhile, their efficacy will help dispel the bias that underlies much of this list. A decade or 2 from now, we will see obesity treated as we do every other chronic noncommunicable disease with lifestyle levers – with patient-centered care free from judgment and blame, and with a myriad of therapeutic options that physicians objectively, not subjectively, inform and prescribe to their patients.

Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, department of family medicine, University of Ottawa, and medical director, Bariatric Medical Institute, also in Ottawa. He reported conflicts of interest with Constant Health and Novo Nordisk.
 

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

Are there medical conditions other than obesity where physicians, if even inadvertently, regularly sabotage their patients’ efforts at managing them? Because for patients with obesity, their physicians, sometimes even before they walk into the examining room to meet them, do and say things that may quash their weight loss efforts.

No doubt this list will be nonexhaustive, but here are what I see as the top 10 ways doctors sabotage their patients’ weight loss journeys.

• 1. Having an office that is anxiety provoking, exclusionary, and/or fat phobic for people with obesity, which in turn may remove trust and preclude conversation. Examples of this would be offices without chairs in the waiting room that are suitable for people with obesity; with reading materials such as glossy magazines like Men’s Health and Shape, glorifying unhealthy dieting and body ideals; or where the scale is in a nonprivate area or has a very narrow platform, or maxes out at a weight lower than many patients’.
• 2. Not taking an actual history. Meaning, physicians regularly launch into a “you should really lose weight” speech without exploring a patient’s history of weight loss and social determinants of health. In some cases, that patient may have a history of disordered eating or body dysmorphia, and then this discussion needs to be approached carefully with those facts underwriting its tenor and direction. In other cases, patients’ social determinants of health would make intentional behavior change efforts in the name of weight management an impossible luxury. And sometimes that same patient may in fact be maintaining a clinically meaningful weight loss from their peak weight already. In all cases, not speaking with your patients and instead speaking at your patients will not increase their likelihood to trust or follow or seek your advice.
• 3. Pushing useless diet advice. The most common and most useless are some variation on needing to just eat less and move more. That’s about as useful as telling someone that making money requires them to buy low and sell high. Or telling someone with depression that they should just cheer up and look at the bright side of things.
• 4. Pushing specific diet advice (intermittent fasting, keto, low carb, vegan, low fat, whatever) as if it’s the only way or the best way to lose weight. The research is clear: There is no one best dietary approach, and one person’s best diet is another person’s worst. Yet, some clinicians are themselves diet zealots and preach one diet over all others. Of course, many of their patients may well have already tried that approach, while others won’t enjoy it, and so promoting it above all others will fail a great many people.
• 5. Refusing to prescribe medications to patients who meet the clinical criteria for use, especially now that there are truly effective and useful medications. Do these same clinicians refuse to prescribe antihypertensives or oral hypoglycemics to patients whose blood pressures or blood sugars are risking their health? Related would be those clinicians who don’t bother to learn enough about pharmaceutical options for obesity to feel comfortable prescribing them. This, despite the fact that statistically, well over 30% of their patients have obesity, and polls suggest that at least half of those embark on weight loss efforts annually. If a patient meets clinical criteria for a medication’s approved indication and a doctor won’t prescribe it because of their personal beliefs, in my opinion that’s grounds for a regulatory complaint.
• 6. Fearmongering around medications regarding adverse or unknown effects. The media’s coverage of new antiobesity medications is alarmist, to say the least, and for reasons I can’t fathom, given how well tolerated these medications are when dose titration is slow, monitored, and adjusted appropriately. Many physicians are not only buying into media narratives but are also spreading them.
• 7. Stopping medications for obesity when weight is lost. Do you also stop blood pressure medications when they normalize a patient’s blood pressure? Chronic conditions require ongoing long-term treatment. And yet I hear about this in my practice regularly.
• 8. Prescribing medications that cause weight gain rather than alternatives that don’t, or without discussion of same, or without the concomitant prescription of medication to counter it. From atypical antipsychotics to antidepressants to certain antiseizure medications to some blood pressure medications, there are those that have been shown to lead to, at times, dramatic weight gain. Yet, physicians will still regularly prescribe them to patients with obesity without first trying patients on available alternatives that don’t lead to weight gain, or without at least monitoring and then considering the prescription of an antiobesity medication to try to mitigate iatrogenic gain.
• 9. Setting ridiculous and unrealistic weight loss goals with patients. Without medication, the average person may lose 10% of their weight with purely behavioral efforts, 15%-20% with the addition of medications to those behavioral efforts, and 30% with the addition of bariatric surgery to their behavioral efforts. So why do so many physicians suggest goals that greatly exceed those averages? Imagine being committed to learning to run and having your running coach tell you at your training outset that your goal is to run a marathon within a Boston Marathon qualifying time. The goal should be whatever weight a person reaches living the healthiest life that they can honestly enjoy, not the Boston Marathon of weight loss.
• 10. Not discussing all options with all patients. Yes, food and fitness levers can affect weight, but that doesn’t mean that patients who meet the medical criteria for antiobesity medication or bariatric surgery shouldn’t be informed of their options. Our job as physicians is to fully inform our patients about the risks and benefits of all treatment options and then to support our patients’ decisions as to what option they want to pursue (including none, by the way). Our job is not to exclude discussion of proven and available options because our weight biases see us personally not believing in them – or worse, thinking that patients haven’t tried food and fitness umpteen times before, and that we require them to fail those efforts yet again before we stop gatekeeping their access to effective adjunctive therapeutic interventions.

Until recently, underwriting weight bias in medicine has been the dearth of effective treatments which in turn probably contributed to the overall lack of education for physicians in obesity management despite its extremely high prevalence. The times, though, are definitely a-changin’. Consequent to these new generations of medications rapidly coming online, by necessity we will see improvements in medical education around obesity management. Meanwhile, their efficacy will help dispel the bias that underlies much of this list. A decade or 2 from now, we will see obesity treated as we do every other chronic noncommunicable disease with lifestyle levers – with patient-centered care free from judgment and blame, and with a myriad of therapeutic options that physicians objectively, not subjectively, inform and prescribe to their patients.

Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, department of family medicine, University of Ottawa, and medical director, Bariatric Medical Institute, also in Ottawa. He reported conflicts of interest with Constant Health and Novo Nordisk.
 

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

Medical student loans top hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it’s understandable that physicians may want to select a specialty that pays well.

But overwhelmingly, the physicians this news organization spoke to said they chose a specialty they were passionate about rather than focusing on going where more money was. Moreover, most advised young doctors to follow their hearts rather than their wallets.

“There is no question that many young kids immediately think about money when deciding to pursue medicine, but the thought of a big paycheck will never sustain someone long enough to get them here,” says Sergio Alvarez, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon based in Miami, Fla., and the CEO and medical director of Mia Aesthetics, which has several national locations.

“Getting into medicine is a long game, and there are many hurdles along the way that only the dedicated overcome,” says Dr. Alvarez.

Unfortunately, he says it may be late in that long game before some realize that the pay rate for certain specialties isn’t commensurate with the immense workload and responsibility they require.

“The short of it is that to become a happy doctor, medicine really needs to be a calling: a passion! There are far easier things to do to make money.”

Here is what physicians said about choosing between love or money.
 

The lowest-paying subspecialty in a low-paying specialty

Sophia Yen, MD, MPH, cofounder and CEO of Pandia Health, a women-founded, doctor-led birth control delivery service in Sunnyvale, Calif., and clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, says you should pursue a specialty because you love the work.

“I chose the lowest-paying subspecialty (adolescent medicine) of a low-paying specialty (pediatrics), but I’d do it all again because I love the patient population – I love what I do.”

Dr. Yen says she chose adolescent medicine because she loves doing “outpatient gynecology” without going through the surgical training of a full ob.gyn. “I love the target population of young adults because you can talk to the patient versus in pediatrics, where you often talk to the parent. With young adults you can catch things – for example, teach a young person about consent, alcohol, marijuana’s effects on the growing brain, prevent unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, instill healthy eating, and more.

“Do I wish that I got paid as much as a surgeon?” Dr. Yen says yes. “I hope that someday society will realize the time spent preventing future disease is worth it and pay us accordingly.”

Unfortunately, she says, since the health care system makes more money if you get pregnant, need a cardiac bypass, or need gastric surgery, those who deliver babies or do surgery get paid more than someone who prevents the need for those services.
 

Money doesn’t buy happiness

Stella Bard, MD, a rheumatologist in McKinney, Tex., says she eats, lives, and breathes rheumatology. “I never regret the decision of choosing this specialty for a single second,” says Dr. Bard. “I feel like it’s a rewarding experience with every single patient encounter.” Dr. Bard notes that money is no guarantee of happiness and that she feels blessed to wake up every morning doing what she loves.

Career or calling?

For Dr. Alvarez, inspiration came when watching his father help change people’s lives. “I saw how impactful a doctor is during a person’s most desperate moments, and that was enough to make medicine my life’s passion at the age of 10.”

He says once you’re in medical school, choosing a specialty is far easier than you think. “Each specialty requires a certain personality or specific characteristics, and some will call to you while others simply won’t.”

“For me, plastics was about finesse, art, and life-changing surgeries that affected people from kids to adults and involved every aspect of the human body. Changing someone’s outward appearance has a profoundly positive impact on their confidence and self-esteem, making plastic surgery a genuinely transformative experience.”

Patricia Celan, MD, a postgraduate psychiatry resident in Canada, also chose psychiatry for the love of the field. “I enjoy helping vulnerable people and exploring what makes a person tick, the source of their difficulties, and how to help people counteract and overcome the difficult cards they’ve been dealt in life.”

She says it’s incredibly rewarding to watch someone turn their life around from severe mental illness, especially those who have been victimized and traumatized, and learn to trust people again.

“I could have made more money in a higher-paying specialty, yes, but I’m not sure I would have felt as fulfilled as psychiatry can make me feel.”

Dr. Celan says everyone has their calling, and some lucky people find their deepest passion in higher-paying specialties. “My calling is psychiatry, and I am at peace with this no matter the money.”
 

For the love of surgery

“In my experience, most people don’t choose their specialty based on money,” says Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, an otolaryngologist and board-certified in the subspecialty of pediatric otolaryngology, an attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware and clinical associate professor of otolaryngology and pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

“The first decision point in medical school is usually figuring out if you are a surgery person or a medicine person. I knew very early that I wanted to be a surgeon and wanted to spend time in the OR fixing problems with my hands.”

Part of what attracted Dr. Aaronson to otolaryngology was the variety of conditions managed within the specialty, from head and neck cancer to voice problems to sleep disorders to sinus disease. “I chose my subspecialty because I enjoy working with children and making an impact that will help them live their best possible lives.”

She says a relatively simple surgery like placing ear tubes may help a child’s hearing and allow them to be more successful in school, opening up a new world of opportunities for the child’s future.

“While I don’t think most people choose their specialty based on prospective compensation, I do think all physicians want to be compensated fairly for their time, effort, and level of training,” says Dr. Aaronson.
 

Choosing a specialty for the money can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction

“For me, the decision to pursue gastroenterology went beyond financial considerations,” says Saurabh Sethi, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist specializing in hepatology and interventional endoscopy. “While financial stability is undoubtedly important, no doctor enters this field solely for the love of money. The primary driving force for most medical professionals, myself included, is the passion to help people and make a positive difference in their lives.”

Dr. Sethi says the gratification that comes from providing quality care and witnessing patients’ improved well-being is priceless. Moreover, he believes that selecting a specialty based solely on financial gain is likely to lead to burnout and greater dissatisfaction over time.

“By following my love for gut health and prioritizing patient care, I have found a sense of fulfillment and purpose in my career. It has been a rewarding journey, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the well-being of my patients through my expertise in gastroenterology.”
 

Key takeaways: Love or money?

Multiple factors influence doctors’ specialty choices, including genuine love for the work and the future of the specialty. Others include job prospects, hands-on experience they receive, mentors, childhood dreams, parental expectations, complexity of cases, the lifestyle of each specialty, including office hours worked, on-call requirements, and autonomy.

Physicians also mentioned other factors they considered when choosing their specialty:

• Personal interest.
• Intellectual stimulation.
• Work-life balance.
• Patient populations.
• Future opportunities.
• Desire to make a difference.
• Passion.
• Financial stability.
• Being personally fulfilled.

Overwhelmingly, doctors say to pick a specialty you can envision yourself loving 40 years from now and you won’t go wrong.

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

Medical student loans top hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it’s understandable that physicians may want to select a specialty that pays well.

But overwhelmingly, the physicians this news organization spoke to said they chose a specialty they were passionate about rather than focusing on going where more money was. Moreover, most advised young doctors to follow their hearts rather than their wallets.

“There is no question that many young kids immediately think about money when deciding to pursue medicine, but the thought of a big paycheck will never sustain someone long enough to get them here,” says Sergio Alvarez, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon based in Miami, Fla., and the CEO and medical director of Mia Aesthetics, which has several national locations.

“Getting into medicine is a long game, and there are many hurdles along the way that only the dedicated overcome,” says Dr. Alvarez.

Unfortunately, he says it may be late in that long game before some realize that the pay rate for certain specialties isn’t commensurate with the immense workload and responsibility they require.

“The short of it is that to become a happy doctor, medicine really needs to be a calling: a passion! There are far easier things to do to make money.”

Here is what physicians said about choosing between love or money.
 

The lowest-paying subspecialty in a low-paying specialty

Sophia Yen, MD, MPH, cofounder and CEO of Pandia Health, a women-founded, doctor-led birth control delivery service in Sunnyvale, Calif., and clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, says you should pursue a specialty because you love the work.

“I chose the lowest-paying subspecialty (adolescent medicine) of a low-paying specialty (pediatrics), but I’d do it all again because I love the patient population – I love what I do.”

Dr. Yen says she chose adolescent medicine because she loves doing “outpatient gynecology” without going through the surgical training of a full ob.gyn. “I love the target population of young adults because you can talk to the patient versus in pediatrics, where you often talk to the parent. With young adults you can catch things – for example, teach a young person about consent, alcohol, marijuana’s effects on the growing brain, prevent unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, instill healthy eating, and more.

“Do I wish that I got paid as much as a surgeon?” Dr. Yen says yes. “I hope that someday society will realize the time spent preventing future disease is worth it and pay us accordingly.”

Unfortunately, she says, since the health care system makes more money if you get pregnant, need a cardiac bypass, or need gastric surgery, those who deliver babies or do surgery get paid more than someone who prevents the need for those services.
 

Money doesn’t buy happiness

Stella Bard, MD, a rheumatologist in McKinney, Tex., says she eats, lives, and breathes rheumatology. “I never regret the decision of choosing this specialty for a single second,” says Dr. Bard. “I feel like it’s a rewarding experience with every single patient encounter.” Dr. Bard notes that money is no guarantee of happiness and that she feels blessed to wake up every morning doing what she loves.

Career or calling?

For Dr. Alvarez, inspiration came when watching his father help change people’s lives. “I saw how impactful a doctor is during a person’s most desperate moments, and that was enough to make medicine my life’s passion at the age of 10.”

He says once you’re in medical school, choosing a specialty is far easier than you think. “Each specialty requires a certain personality or specific characteristics, and some will call to you while others simply won’t.”

“For me, plastics was about finesse, art, and life-changing surgeries that affected people from kids to adults and involved every aspect of the human body. Changing someone’s outward appearance has a profoundly positive impact on their confidence and self-esteem, making plastic surgery a genuinely transformative experience.”

Patricia Celan, MD, a postgraduate psychiatry resident in Canada, also chose psychiatry for the love of the field. “I enjoy helping vulnerable people and exploring what makes a person tick, the source of their difficulties, and how to help people counteract and overcome the difficult cards they’ve been dealt in life.”

She says it’s incredibly rewarding to watch someone turn their life around from severe mental illness, especially those who have been victimized and traumatized, and learn to trust people again.

“I could have made more money in a higher-paying specialty, yes, but I’m not sure I would have felt as fulfilled as psychiatry can make me feel.”

Dr. Celan says everyone has their calling, and some lucky people find their deepest passion in higher-paying specialties. “My calling is psychiatry, and I am at peace with this no matter the money.”
 

For the love of surgery

“In my experience, most people don’t choose their specialty based on money,” says Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, an otolaryngologist and board-certified in the subspecialty of pediatric otolaryngology, an attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware and clinical associate professor of otolaryngology and pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

“The first decision point in medical school is usually figuring out if you are a surgery person or a medicine person. I knew very early that I wanted to be a surgeon and wanted to spend time in the OR fixing problems with my hands.”

Part of what attracted Dr. Aaronson to otolaryngology was the variety of conditions managed within the specialty, from head and neck cancer to voice problems to sleep disorders to sinus disease. “I chose my subspecialty because I enjoy working with children and making an impact that will help them live their best possible lives.”

She says a relatively simple surgery like placing ear tubes may help a child’s hearing and allow them to be more successful in school, opening up a new world of opportunities for the child’s future.

“While I don’t think most people choose their specialty based on prospective compensation, I do think all physicians want to be compensated fairly for their time, effort, and level of training,” says Dr. Aaronson.
 

Choosing a specialty for the money can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction

“For me, the decision to pursue gastroenterology went beyond financial considerations,” says Saurabh Sethi, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist specializing in hepatology and interventional endoscopy. “While financial stability is undoubtedly important, no doctor enters this field solely for the love of money. The primary driving force for most medical professionals, myself included, is the passion to help people and make a positive difference in their lives.”

Dr. Sethi says the gratification that comes from providing quality care and witnessing patients’ improved well-being is priceless. Moreover, he believes that selecting a specialty based solely on financial gain is likely to lead to burnout and greater dissatisfaction over time.

“By following my love for gut health and prioritizing patient care, I have found a sense of fulfillment and purpose in my career. It has been a rewarding journey, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the well-being of my patients through my expertise in gastroenterology.”
 

Key takeaways: Love or money?

Multiple factors influence doctors’ specialty choices, including genuine love for the work and the future of the specialty. Others include job prospects, hands-on experience they receive, mentors, childhood dreams, parental expectations, complexity of cases, the lifestyle of each specialty, including office hours worked, on-call requirements, and autonomy.

Physicians also mentioned other factors they considered when choosing their specialty:

• Personal interest.
• Intellectual stimulation.
• Work-life balance.
• Patient populations.
• Future opportunities.
• Desire to make a difference.
• Passion.
• Financial stability.
• Being personally fulfilled.

Overwhelmingly, doctors say to pick a specialty you can envision yourself loving 40 years from now and you won’t go wrong.

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

Medical student loans top hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it’s understandable that physicians may want to select a specialty that pays well.

But overwhelmingly, the physicians this news organization spoke to said they chose a specialty they were passionate about rather than focusing on going where more money was. Moreover, most advised young doctors to follow their hearts rather than their wallets.

“There is no question that many young kids immediately think about money when deciding to pursue medicine, but the thought of a big paycheck will never sustain someone long enough to get them here,” says Sergio Alvarez, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon based in Miami, Fla., and the CEO and medical director of Mia Aesthetics, which has several national locations.

“Getting into medicine is a long game, and there are many hurdles along the way that only the dedicated overcome,” says Dr. Alvarez.

Unfortunately, he says it may be late in that long game before some realize that the pay rate for certain specialties isn’t commensurate with the immense workload and responsibility they require.

“The short of it is that to become a happy doctor, medicine really needs to be a calling: a passion! There are far easier things to do to make money.”

Here is what physicians said about choosing between love or money.
 

The lowest-paying subspecialty in a low-paying specialty

Sophia Yen, MD, MPH, cofounder and CEO of Pandia Health, a women-founded, doctor-led birth control delivery service in Sunnyvale, Calif., and clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, says you should pursue a specialty because you love the work.

“I chose the lowest-paying subspecialty (adolescent medicine) of a low-paying specialty (pediatrics), but I’d do it all again because I love the patient population – I love what I do.”

Dr. Yen says she chose adolescent medicine because she loves doing “outpatient gynecology” without going through the surgical training of a full ob.gyn. “I love the target population of young adults because you can talk to the patient versus in pediatrics, where you often talk to the parent. With young adults you can catch things – for example, teach a young person about consent, alcohol, marijuana’s effects on the growing brain, prevent unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, instill healthy eating, and more.

“Do I wish that I got paid as much as a surgeon?” Dr. Yen says yes. “I hope that someday society will realize the time spent preventing future disease is worth it and pay us accordingly.”

Unfortunately, she says, since the health care system makes more money if you get pregnant, need a cardiac bypass, or need gastric surgery, those who deliver babies or do surgery get paid more than someone who prevents the need for those services.
 

Money doesn’t buy happiness

Stella Bard, MD, a rheumatologist in McKinney, Tex., says she eats, lives, and breathes rheumatology. “I never regret the decision of choosing this specialty for a single second,” says Dr. Bard. “I feel like it’s a rewarding experience with every single patient encounter.” Dr. Bard notes that money is no guarantee of happiness and that she feels blessed to wake up every morning doing what she loves.

Career or calling?

For Dr. Alvarez, inspiration came when watching his father help change people’s lives. “I saw how impactful a doctor is during a person’s most desperate moments, and that was enough to make medicine my life’s passion at the age of 10.”

He says once you’re in medical school, choosing a specialty is far easier than you think. “Each specialty requires a certain personality or specific characteristics, and some will call to you while others simply won’t.”

“For me, plastics was about finesse, art, and life-changing surgeries that affected people from kids to adults and involved every aspect of the human body. Changing someone’s outward appearance has a profoundly positive impact on their confidence and self-esteem, making plastic surgery a genuinely transformative experience.”

Patricia Celan, MD, a postgraduate psychiatry resident in Canada, also chose psychiatry for the love of the field. “I enjoy helping vulnerable people and exploring what makes a person tick, the source of their difficulties, and how to help people counteract and overcome the difficult cards they’ve been dealt in life.”

She says it’s incredibly rewarding to watch someone turn their life around from severe mental illness, especially those who have been victimized and traumatized, and learn to trust people again.

“I could have made more money in a higher-paying specialty, yes, but I’m not sure I would have felt as fulfilled as psychiatry can make me feel.”

Dr. Celan says everyone has their calling, and some lucky people find their deepest passion in higher-paying specialties. “My calling is psychiatry, and I am at peace with this no matter the money.”
 

For the love of surgery

“In my experience, most people don’t choose their specialty based on money,” says Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, an otolaryngologist and board-certified in the subspecialty of pediatric otolaryngology, an attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware and clinical associate professor of otolaryngology and pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

“The first decision point in medical school is usually figuring out if you are a surgery person or a medicine person. I knew very early that I wanted to be a surgeon and wanted to spend time in the OR fixing problems with my hands.”

Part of what attracted Dr. Aaronson to otolaryngology was the variety of conditions managed within the specialty, from head and neck cancer to voice problems to sleep disorders to sinus disease. “I chose my subspecialty because I enjoy working with children and making an impact that will help them live their best possible lives.”

She says a relatively simple surgery like placing ear tubes may help a child’s hearing and allow them to be more successful in school, opening up a new world of opportunities for the child’s future.

“While I don’t think most people choose their specialty based on prospective compensation, I do think all physicians want to be compensated fairly for their time, effort, and level of training,” says Dr. Aaronson.
 

Choosing a specialty for the money can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction

“For me, the decision to pursue gastroenterology went beyond financial considerations,” says Saurabh Sethi, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist specializing in hepatology and interventional endoscopy. “While financial stability is undoubtedly important, no doctor enters this field solely for the love of money. The primary driving force for most medical professionals, myself included, is the passion to help people and make a positive difference in their lives.”

Dr. Sethi says the gratification that comes from providing quality care and witnessing patients’ improved well-being is priceless. Moreover, he believes that selecting a specialty based solely on financial gain is likely to lead to burnout and greater dissatisfaction over time.

“By following my love for gut health and prioritizing patient care, I have found a sense of fulfillment and purpose in my career. It has been a rewarding journey, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the well-being of my patients through my expertise in gastroenterology.”
 

Key takeaways: Love or money?

Multiple factors influence doctors’ specialty choices, including genuine love for the work and the future of the specialty. Others include job prospects, hands-on experience they receive, mentors, childhood dreams, parental expectations, complexity of cases, the lifestyle of each specialty, including office hours worked, on-call requirements, and autonomy.

Physicians also mentioned other factors they considered when choosing their specialty:

• Personal interest.
• Intellectual stimulation.
• Work-life balance.
• Patient populations.
• Future opportunities.
• Desire to make a difference.
• Passion.
• Financial stability.
• Being personally fulfilled.

Overwhelmingly, doctors say to pick a specialty you can envision yourself loving 40 years from now and you won’t go wrong.

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

Micronized oral progesterone might decrease night sweats and improve sleep in perimenopausal women, according to new research.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of about 180 women with vasomotor symptoms (VMS), women who received progesterone perceived a significantly greater decrease in night sweats (P = .023) and improved sleep quality (P = .005), compared with controls. VMS score did not differ significantly by treatment group, however.

“Women who have menstruated within the last year, who are waking twice or more times a week with night sweats and bothered by sleep disturbances would benefit from taking oral micronized progesterone 300 mg at bedtime,” principal investigator Jerilynn C. Prior, MD, professor of endocrinology at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Scientific Reports.
 

A neglected group?

The best management for symptoms in perimenopause is an often-neglected topic of research, said Dr. Prior. Yet perimenopause is often associated with significant symptoms for women, including heavy menstrual bleeding, sore breasts, mood swings, night sweats, and insomnia – all when many women are at the peak of their careers.

Dr. Prior herself had a difficult perimenopause. “I began having cyclic night sweats, clustered around flow, when I was still having regular menstrual cycles, plus breast tenderness and sleep problems,” she said. “I knew from my research and my own experience that my estrogen levels were very high. Higher estrogen levels are not suppressible by exogenous estrogen, so it made no sense to me to ask my family doctor for a prescription for estrogen – or hormone replacement therapy, as it was then called. However, medroxyprogesterone acetate had been reported to be effective for menopausal hot flushes. I tried it, and it helped my night sweats and hot flushes but not my sleep. When oral micronized progesterone became available, I switched to that.”

In the current study, which was performed at the UBC Centre for Menstrual Cycle and Ovulation Research, the investigators studied 189 community-dwelling women from across Canada who were aged 35-58 years, had menstruated in the past year, and were bothered by daytime flushes or night sweats at least twice per week.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 300 mg of oral micronized progesterone or placebo at bedtime for 3 months. They recorded VMS number and intensity while awake and asleep each day. Some women participated remotely by web conference, telephone, or email. The experimental medicine was delivered to these participants by courier. The primary outcome was VMS score during the 3rd month.

Most (87%) participants were White, and about 57% had a college degree. The population’s average body mass index was 26.7, and 66.7% of participants were in late perimenopause.

The mean baseline VMS score among the women was 12.2. The average frequency of VMS per 24-hour day was 4.9. Average VMS intensity was 2.3 on a scale of 0-4. VMS scores decreased over time in both treatment groups.

At month 3, the VMS score was 5.5 in the progesterone group and 7.1 in the placebo group. The difference between groups was not statistically significant.

Compared with controls, however, women in the progesterone group perceived a significantly greater decrease in night sweats and improved sleep quality. Progesterone also was associated with significantly decreased perception of physical and emotional interference with their daily activities, compared with placebo (P = .017). Moreover, progesterone did not increase depression.

There were no serious adverse events.

“I hope that when women who look young and are still menstruating in their late 30s to early 50s go to the doctor and ask for help with night sweats and sleep problems, they will be told about this trial and offered progesterone therapy. I also hope they won’t be told, ‘You are too young,’ or ‘You are not in menopause,’ with the inference that the issue is all in their minds,” said Dr. Prior.
 

Useful dosing information

Mitchell S. Kramer, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Huntington (N.Y.) Hospital Northwell Health, said in a comment that “progesterone has been used for quite a while. I’ve been treating menopausal and perimenopausal hormonal disturbances and VMS for many years, and progesterone has been a real staple of treatment for these symptoms, especially in perimenopausal patients who are not good candidates for estrogen or who won’t accept treatment with estrogen. It’s actually nice to see a study that addresses this issue in a randomized controlled fashion and that confirms the efficacy of progesterone.”

The most helpful aspect of the study is the dosing information, Dr. Kramer added. “They recommend a 300-mg dose of oral micronized progesterone, which is much higher than I normally use. I may start to prescribe the higher dose and perhaps get a better or more complete response. There were no adverse events reported in this study, so the higher dose was enlightening to me,” he said.

Perimenopause is a time that is challenging to manage, said Michelle Jacobson, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Toronto, and obstetrician-gynecologist at Women’s College and Mount Sinai Hospitals in Toronto.

“There are so many nuances to the management. Women are suffering oftentimes from classic menopausal symptoms. There are fluctuating levels of estrogen, sometimes high. Sometimes there are complications of bleeding. There is the potential need for contraception because they are still menstruating,” she said in an interview.

“It’s important to specifically study this group of women with their own unique needs. Dr. Prior is a longtime proponent of using progesterone therapy, and kudos to her for doing this study in perimenopausal women, which is a group that is probably underrepresented in the menopause management literature,” she said.

Dr. Prior and Dr. Kramer reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jacobson reported financial relationships with Astellas, AbbVie, Bayer, BioSyent, Duchesnay, Eisai, Lupin, Organon, Pfizer, and Searchlight.

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

Micronized oral progesterone might decrease night sweats and improve sleep in perimenopausal women, according to new research.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of about 180 women with vasomotor symptoms (VMS), women who received progesterone perceived a significantly greater decrease in night sweats (P = .023) and improved sleep quality (P = .005), compared with controls. VMS score did not differ significantly by treatment group, however.

“Women who have menstruated within the last year, who are waking twice or more times a week with night sweats and bothered by sleep disturbances would benefit from taking oral micronized progesterone 300 mg at bedtime,” principal investigator Jerilynn C. Prior, MD, professor of endocrinology at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Scientific Reports.
 

A neglected group?

The best management for symptoms in perimenopause is an often-neglected topic of research, said Dr. Prior. Yet perimenopause is often associated with significant symptoms for women, including heavy menstrual bleeding, sore breasts, mood swings, night sweats, and insomnia – all when many women are at the peak of their careers.

Dr. Prior herself had a difficult perimenopause. “I began having cyclic night sweats, clustered around flow, when I was still having regular menstrual cycles, plus breast tenderness and sleep problems,” she said. “I knew from my research and my own experience that my estrogen levels were very high. Higher estrogen levels are not suppressible by exogenous estrogen, so it made no sense to me to ask my family doctor for a prescription for estrogen – or hormone replacement therapy, as it was then called. However, medroxyprogesterone acetate had been reported to be effective for menopausal hot flushes. I tried it, and it helped my night sweats and hot flushes but not my sleep. When oral micronized progesterone became available, I switched to that.”

In the current study, which was performed at the UBC Centre for Menstrual Cycle and Ovulation Research, the investigators studied 189 community-dwelling women from across Canada who were aged 35-58 years, had menstruated in the past year, and were bothered by daytime flushes or night sweats at least twice per week.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 300 mg of oral micronized progesterone or placebo at bedtime for 3 months. They recorded VMS number and intensity while awake and asleep each day. Some women participated remotely by web conference, telephone, or email. The experimental medicine was delivered to these participants by courier. The primary outcome was VMS score during the 3rd month.

Most (87%) participants were White, and about 57% had a college degree. The population’s average body mass index was 26.7, and 66.7% of participants were in late perimenopause.

The mean baseline VMS score among the women was 12.2. The average frequency of VMS per 24-hour day was 4.9. Average VMS intensity was 2.3 on a scale of 0-4. VMS scores decreased over time in both treatment groups.

At month 3, the VMS score was 5.5 in the progesterone group and 7.1 in the placebo group. The difference between groups was not statistically significant.

Compared with controls, however, women in the progesterone group perceived a significantly greater decrease in night sweats and improved sleep quality. Progesterone also was associated with significantly decreased perception of physical and emotional interference with their daily activities, compared with placebo (P = .017). Moreover, progesterone did not increase depression.

There were no serious adverse events.

“I hope that when women who look young and are still menstruating in their late 30s to early 50s go to the doctor and ask for help with night sweats and sleep problems, they will be told about this trial and offered progesterone therapy. I also hope they won’t be told, ‘You are too young,’ or ‘You are not in menopause,’ with the inference that the issue is all in their minds,” said Dr. Prior.
 

Useful dosing information

Mitchell S. Kramer, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Huntington (N.Y.) Hospital Northwell Health, said in a comment that “progesterone has been used for quite a while. I’ve been treating menopausal and perimenopausal hormonal disturbances and VMS for many years, and progesterone has been a real staple of treatment for these symptoms, especially in perimenopausal patients who are not good candidates for estrogen or who won’t accept treatment with estrogen. It’s actually nice to see a study that addresses this issue in a randomized controlled fashion and that confirms the efficacy of progesterone.”

The most helpful aspect of the study is the dosing information, Dr. Kramer added. “They recommend a 300-mg dose of oral micronized progesterone, which is much higher than I normally use. I may start to prescribe the higher dose and perhaps get a better or more complete response. There were no adverse events reported in this study, so the higher dose was enlightening to me,” he said.

Perimenopause is a time that is challenging to manage, said Michelle Jacobson, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Toronto, and obstetrician-gynecologist at Women’s College and Mount Sinai Hospitals in Toronto.

“There are so many nuances to the management. Women are suffering oftentimes from classic menopausal symptoms. There are fluctuating levels of estrogen, sometimes high. Sometimes there are complications of bleeding. There is the potential need for contraception because they are still menstruating,” she said in an interview.

“It’s important to specifically study this group of women with their own unique needs. Dr. Prior is a longtime proponent of using progesterone therapy, and kudos to her for doing this study in perimenopausal women, which is a group that is probably underrepresented in the menopause management literature,” she said.

Dr. Prior and Dr. Kramer reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jacobson reported financial relationships with Astellas, AbbVie, Bayer, BioSyent, Duchesnay, Eisai, Lupin, Organon, Pfizer, and Searchlight.

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

Micronized oral progesterone might decrease night sweats and improve sleep in perimenopausal women, according to new research.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of about 180 women with vasomotor symptoms (VMS), women who received progesterone perceived a significantly greater decrease in night sweats (P = .023) and improved sleep quality (P = .005), compared with controls. VMS score did not differ significantly by treatment group, however.

“Women who have menstruated within the last year, who are waking twice or more times a week with night sweats and bothered by sleep disturbances would benefit from taking oral micronized progesterone 300 mg at bedtime,” principal investigator Jerilynn C. Prior, MD, professor of endocrinology at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Scientific Reports.
 

A neglected group?

The best management for symptoms in perimenopause is an often-neglected topic of research, said Dr. Prior. Yet perimenopause is often associated with significant symptoms for women, including heavy menstrual bleeding, sore breasts, mood swings, night sweats, and insomnia – all when many women are at the peak of their careers.

Dr. Prior herself had a difficult perimenopause. “I began having cyclic night sweats, clustered around flow, when I was still having regular menstrual cycles, plus breast tenderness and sleep problems,” she said. “I knew from my research and my own experience that my estrogen levels were very high. Higher estrogen levels are not suppressible by exogenous estrogen, so it made no sense to me to ask my family doctor for a prescription for estrogen – or hormone replacement therapy, as it was then called. However, medroxyprogesterone acetate had been reported to be effective for menopausal hot flushes. I tried it, and it helped my night sweats and hot flushes but not my sleep. When oral micronized progesterone became available, I switched to that.”

In the current study, which was performed at the UBC Centre for Menstrual Cycle and Ovulation Research, the investigators studied 189 community-dwelling women from across Canada who were aged 35-58 years, had menstruated in the past year, and were bothered by daytime flushes or night sweats at least twice per week.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 300 mg of oral micronized progesterone or placebo at bedtime for 3 months. They recorded VMS number and intensity while awake and asleep each day. Some women participated remotely by web conference, telephone, or email. The experimental medicine was delivered to these participants by courier. The primary outcome was VMS score during the 3rd month.

Most (87%) participants were White, and about 57% had a college degree. The population’s average body mass index was 26.7, and 66.7% of participants were in late perimenopause.

The mean baseline VMS score among the women was 12.2. The average frequency of VMS per 24-hour day was 4.9. Average VMS intensity was 2.3 on a scale of 0-4. VMS scores decreased over time in both treatment groups.

At month 3, the VMS score was 5.5 in the progesterone group and 7.1 in the placebo group. The difference between groups was not statistically significant.

Compared with controls, however, women in the progesterone group perceived a significantly greater decrease in night sweats and improved sleep quality. Progesterone also was associated with significantly decreased perception of physical and emotional interference with their daily activities, compared with placebo (P = .017). Moreover, progesterone did not increase depression.

There were no serious adverse events.

“I hope that when women who look young and are still menstruating in their late 30s to early 50s go to the doctor and ask for help with night sweats and sleep problems, they will be told about this trial and offered progesterone therapy. I also hope they won’t be told, ‘You are too young,’ or ‘You are not in menopause,’ with the inference that the issue is all in their minds,” said Dr. Prior.
 

Useful dosing information

Mitchell S. Kramer, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Huntington (N.Y.) Hospital Northwell Health, said in a comment that “progesterone has been used for quite a while. I’ve been treating menopausal and perimenopausal hormonal disturbances and VMS for many years, and progesterone has been a real staple of treatment for these symptoms, especially in perimenopausal patients who are not good candidates for estrogen or who won’t accept treatment with estrogen. It’s actually nice to see a study that addresses this issue in a randomized controlled fashion and that confirms the efficacy of progesterone.”

The most helpful aspect of the study is the dosing information, Dr. Kramer added. “They recommend a 300-mg dose of oral micronized progesterone, which is much higher than I normally use. I may start to prescribe the higher dose and perhaps get a better or more complete response. There were no adverse events reported in this study, so the higher dose was enlightening to me,” he said.

Perimenopause is a time that is challenging to manage, said Michelle Jacobson, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Toronto, and obstetrician-gynecologist at Women’s College and Mount Sinai Hospitals in Toronto.

“There are so many nuances to the management. Women are suffering oftentimes from classic menopausal symptoms. There are fluctuating levels of estrogen, sometimes high. Sometimes there are complications of bleeding. There is the potential need for contraception because they are still menstruating,” she said in an interview.

“It’s important to specifically study this group of women with their own unique needs. Dr. Prior is a longtime proponent of using progesterone therapy, and kudos to her for doing this study in perimenopausal women, which is a group that is probably underrepresented in the menopause management literature,” she said.

Dr. Prior and Dr. Kramer reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jacobson reported financial relationships with Astellas, AbbVie, Bayer, BioSyent, Duchesnay, Eisai, Lupin, Organon, Pfizer, and Searchlight.

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

Although multiple international medical societies over recent years have recommended lowering the threshold for bariatric surgery to a body mass index (BMI) of 30-35 (class 1 obesity) in certain patients, very few patients in this weight category have had such surgery, according to a new study.

On the basis of data from a large U.S. national registry, during 2015 through 2021, just 3.5% of metabolic and bariatric surgeries were performed in patients with class 1 obesity each year.

Most surgeries (96.5%) were in patients with a BMI greater than 35. This reflects advice from a 1991 consensus statement by the National Institutes of Health stating that bariatric surgery can be offered to patients with BMI greater than or equal to 40, or greater than or equal to 35 with comorbidities.

However, medical societies have recommended lower cutoffs in position statements in 2016, 2018, and 2022.

Paul Wisniowski, MD, a surgical resident at Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, presented the study findings in an e-poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

“Professional guidelines and increasing data support bariatric surgery for patients beginning at BMI 30, which is a tipping point for disease progression. Now it needs to happen in the real world,” outgoing ASMBS president Teresa LaMasters, MD, who was not involved with this research, said in an ASMBS press release.

‘Not unexpected,’ ‘need to expand eligibility’

“We expected that there had been little widespread adoption of the new BMI criteria/cutoffs,” senior study author Matthew J. Martin, MD, said in an interview.

“We know that bariatric surgery is already underutilized, as only about 1%-2% of eligible patients who would benefit end up getting surgery,” added Dr. Martin, Chief, Emergency General Surgery, and Director, Acute Care Surgery Research, USC Medical Center and Keck School of Medicine.

He suggests that the main reason that more patients with lower BMIs are not being offered surgery is related to insurance coverage and reimbursement.

“Even though the professional society guidelines have changed, based on the scientific evidence, most insurers are still using the very outdated (1990s) NIH consensus criteria of BMI greater than 35 with comorbidities, or BMI greater than 40.”

Another potential reason is “the lack of awareness of the changing guidelines and recommendation among primary care physicians who refer patients for a bariatric surgery evaluation.”

“I think it is too early in the experience with the new, more effective antiobesity medications to say which group will benefit the most or will prefer them over surgery,” he said.

“There is still only a small minority of patients who end up getting the [newer antiobesity] medications or surgery.”

“The takeaway,” Dr. Martin summarized, “is that bariatric surgery remains the only intervention with a high success rate for patients with class 1 or higher obesity in terms of weight loss, comorbidity improvement or resolution, and sustained health benefits.”

“We need to expand the availability of bariatric surgery for all eligible patients, particularly the class 1 obesity population who are currently the most underserved,” he said.

“This will take continued lobbying and working with the insurance companies to update their guidelines/criteria, education of patients, and education of primary care physicians so that patients can be appropriately referred for a surgical evaluation.”
 

Surgery vs. pharmacotherapy

Invited to comment on this study, Neil Skolnik, MD, who was not involved with this research, noted that data from patients with a lower BMI “has continued to accumulate, showing much greater safety than earlier studies and giving further support of efficacy.”

However, “[new] recommendations take time to take hold,” noted Dr. Skolnik, a family physician and professor in the department of family medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

“And from March of 2020 through 2021, surgery referrals were likely influenced by the COVID pandemic,” he added in an email.

Dr. Skolnik authored a commentary sharing his reservations about ASMBS recommendations issued in 2022 for lower BMI thresholds for this surgery.

“Medications are a safe, effective option for patients with a BMI from 30 to 35,” he said, “and [they] achieve approximately a 15%-20% average weight loss, which is enough to markedly improved both metabolic parameters and biomechanical issues such as knee pain, hip pain, and back pain.”

However, “bariatric surgery remains an excellent option for patients who do not respond sufficiently to pharmacotherapy,” he acknowledged.
 

National registry study, 2015-2021

Dr. Wisniowski and colleagues analyzed data from around 900 U.S. centers that are currently part of the Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program.

They found that from 2015 to 2021, 38,669 patients (3.5%) with type 1 obesity and 1,1067,094 patients (96.5%) with a higher BMI had metabolic and bariatric surgery.

Compared with patients with BMI greater than 35, those with class 1 obesity had shorter operating times and hospital stays, but they lost less weight on short-term evaluation, after multivariable adjustment.

There were no significant differences between the two patient groups in rates of postoperative complications (< 5%) or mortality (< 0.1%).

Sleeve gastrectomy was the most common procedure and increased from 70% to 76% of all procedures during the study period.
 

Single-center study

In a second e-poster presented at the meeting, Tina T. Thomas, MD, New Jersey Bariatric Center, analyzed data from 23 patients with BMI less than 35 or less than 30 with comorbidities who had sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass at their center during 2017 to 2021 and who had 6 months of follow-up data.

At study entry, the patients had a mean BMI of 33.5. At 6 months after the surgery, they had a mean BMI of 25.6, and on average, they had lost 55% of their excess weight.

Nearly 60% of the patients had lost at least 50% of their excess weight, and 9 of 16 patients (56%) with comorbidities had improved or resolved comorbidities. None of the patients died or had surgery-related complications.

“Our study shows significant weight loss and health benefits, as well as the safety and efficacy of the gastric bypass and gastric sleeve procedures, for this patient population,” Ajay Goyal, MD, senior author, and bariatric surgeon at New Jersey Bariatric Center, said in an ASMBS press release.

“Often by the time a patient qualifies for bariatric surgery, their weight-related medical conditions such as [type 2] diabetes and hypertension are severe. By expanding access to bariatric surgery to patients with a lower BMI with obesity-related illnesses, patients can halt the progression, and in some cases resolve, significant and uncontrolled weight-related chronic diseases through weight loss.”
 

Societies call for lower BMI thresholds

Providers, hospitals, and insurers currently use BMI thresholds greater than or equal to 40, or greater than or equal to 35 with an obesity-related comorbidity, to define patients eligible for metabolic and bariatric surgery, based on criteria established in a 1991 consensus statement by NIH.

As more data accumulated, in 2016, a position statement from 45 societies recommended that bariatric surgery should be “considered for patients with [type 2 diabetes] and BMI 30.0-34.9 kg/m² if hyperglycemia is inadequately controlled” despite optimal medical treatment.

Similarly, in 2018, the ASMBS issued a position statement saying that “for patients with BMI 30-35 kg/m² and obesity-related comorbidities who do not achieve substantial, durable weight loss and comorbidity improvement with reasonable nonsurgical methods, bariatric surgery should be offered” to suitable individuals.

Then in October 2022, the ASMBS and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders issued a joint statement that recommended lowering the thresholds for bariatric surgery to a BMI greater than or equal to 35 or greater than or equal to 30 with weight-related comorbidities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Although multiple international medical societies over recent years have recommended lowering the threshold for bariatric surgery to a body mass index (BMI) of 30-35 (class 1 obesity) in certain patients, very few patients in this weight category have had such surgery, according to a new study.

On the basis of data from a large U.S. national registry, during 2015 through 2021, just 3.5% of metabolic and bariatric surgeries were performed in patients with class 1 obesity each year.

Most surgeries (96.5%) were in patients with a BMI greater than 35. This reflects advice from a 1991 consensus statement by the National Institutes of Health stating that bariatric surgery can be offered to patients with BMI greater than or equal to 40, or greater than or equal to 35 with comorbidities.

However, medical societies have recommended lower cutoffs in position statements in 2016, 2018, and 2022.

Paul Wisniowski, MD, a surgical resident at Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, presented the study findings in an e-poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

“Professional guidelines and increasing data support bariatric surgery for patients beginning at BMI 30, which is a tipping point for disease progression. Now it needs to happen in the real world,” outgoing ASMBS president Teresa LaMasters, MD, who was not involved with this research, said in an ASMBS press release.

‘Not unexpected,’ ‘need to expand eligibility’

“We expected that there had been little widespread adoption of the new BMI criteria/cutoffs,” senior study author Matthew J. Martin, MD, said in an interview.

“We know that bariatric surgery is already underutilized, as only about 1%-2% of eligible patients who would benefit end up getting surgery,” added Dr. Martin, Chief, Emergency General Surgery, and Director, Acute Care Surgery Research, USC Medical Center and Keck School of Medicine.

He suggests that the main reason that more patients with lower BMIs are not being offered surgery is related to insurance coverage and reimbursement.

“Even though the professional society guidelines have changed, based on the scientific evidence, most insurers are still using the very outdated (1990s) NIH consensus criteria of BMI greater than 35 with comorbidities, or BMI greater than 40.”

Another potential reason is “the lack of awareness of the changing guidelines and recommendation among primary care physicians who refer patients for a bariatric surgery evaluation.”

“I think it is too early in the experience with the new, more effective antiobesity medications to say which group will benefit the most or will prefer them over surgery,” he said.

“There is still only a small minority of patients who end up getting the [newer antiobesity] medications or surgery.”

“The takeaway,” Dr. Martin summarized, “is that bariatric surgery remains the only intervention with a high success rate for patients with class 1 or higher obesity in terms of weight loss, comorbidity improvement or resolution, and sustained health benefits.”

“We need to expand the availability of bariatric surgery for all eligible patients, particularly the class 1 obesity population who are currently the most underserved,” he said.

“This will take continued lobbying and working with the insurance companies to update their guidelines/criteria, education of patients, and education of primary care physicians so that patients can be appropriately referred for a surgical evaluation.”
 

Surgery vs. pharmacotherapy

Invited to comment on this study, Neil Skolnik, MD, who was not involved with this research, noted that data from patients with a lower BMI “has continued to accumulate, showing much greater safety than earlier studies and giving further support of efficacy.”

However, “[new] recommendations take time to take hold,” noted Dr. Skolnik, a family physician and professor in the department of family medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

“And from March of 2020 through 2021, surgery referrals were likely influenced by the COVID pandemic,” he added in an email.

Dr. Skolnik authored a commentary sharing his reservations about ASMBS recommendations issued in 2022 for lower BMI thresholds for this surgery.

“Medications are a safe, effective option for patients with a BMI from 30 to 35,” he said, “and [they] achieve approximately a 15%-20% average weight loss, which is enough to markedly improved both metabolic parameters and biomechanical issues such as knee pain, hip pain, and back pain.”

However, “bariatric surgery remains an excellent option for patients who do not respond sufficiently to pharmacotherapy,” he acknowledged.
 

National registry study, 2015-2021

Dr. Wisniowski and colleagues analyzed data from around 900 U.S. centers that are currently part of the Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program.

They found that from 2015 to 2021, 38,669 patients (3.5%) with type 1 obesity and 1,1067,094 patients (96.5%) with a higher BMI had metabolic and bariatric surgery.

Compared with patients with BMI greater than 35, those with class 1 obesity had shorter operating times and hospital stays, but they lost less weight on short-term evaluation, after multivariable adjustment.

There were no significant differences between the two patient groups in rates of postoperative complications (< 5%) or mortality (< 0.1%).

Sleeve gastrectomy was the most common procedure and increased from 70% to 76% of all procedures during the study period.
 

Single-center study

In a second e-poster presented at the meeting, Tina T. Thomas, MD, New Jersey Bariatric Center, analyzed data from 23 patients with BMI less than 35 or less than 30 with comorbidities who had sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass at their center during 2017 to 2021 and who had 6 months of follow-up data.

At study entry, the patients had a mean BMI of 33.5. At 6 months after the surgery, they had a mean BMI of 25.6, and on average, they had lost 55% of their excess weight.

Nearly 60% of the patients had lost at least 50% of their excess weight, and 9 of 16 patients (56%) with comorbidities had improved or resolved comorbidities. None of the patients died or had surgery-related complications.

“Our study shows significant weight loss and health benefits, as well as the safety and efficacy of the gastric bypass and gastric sleeve procedures, for this patient population,” Ajay Goyal, MD, senior author, and bariatric surgeon at New Jersey Bariatric Center, said in an ASMBS press release.

“Often by the time a patient qualifies for bariatric surgery, their weight-related medical conditions such as [type 2] diabetes and hypertension are severe. By expanding access to bariatric surgery to patients with a lower BMI with obesity-related illnesses, patients can halt the progression, and in some cases resolve, significant and uncontrolled weight-related chronic diseases through weight loss.”
 

Societies call for lower BMI thresholds

Providers, hospitals, and insurers currently use BMI thresholds greater than or equal to 40, or greater than or equal to 35 with an obesity-related comorbidity, to define patients eligible for metabolic and bariatric surgery, based on criteria established in a 1991 consensus statement by NIH.

As more data accumulated, in 2016, a position statement from 45 societies recommended that bariatric surgery should be “considered for patients with [type 2 diabetes] and BMI 30.0-34.9 kg/m² if hyperglycemia is inadequately controlled” despite optimal medical treatment.

Similarly, in 2018, the ASMBS issued a position statement saying that “for patients with BMI 30-35 kg/m² and obesity-related comorbidities who do not achieve substantial, durable weight loss and comorbidity improvement with reasonable nonsurgical methods, bariatric surgery should be offered” to suitable individuals.

Then in October 2022, the ASMBS and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders issued a joint statement that recommended lowering the thresholds for bariatric surgery to a BMI greater than or equal to 35 or greater than or equal to 30 with weight-related comorbidities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Although multiple international medical societies over recent years have recommended lowering the threshold for bariatric surgery to a body mass index (BMI) of 30-35 (class 1 obesity) in certain patients, very few patients in this weight category have had such surgery, according to a new study.

On the basis of data from a large U.S. national registry, during 2015 through 2021, just 3.5% of metabolic and bariatric surgeries were performed in patients with class 1 obesity each year.

Most surgeries (96.5%) were in patients with a BMI greater than 35. This reflects advice from a 1991 consensus statement by the National Institutes of Health stating that bariatric surgery can be offered to patients with BMI greater than or equal to 40, or greater than or equal to 35 with comorbidities.

However, medical societies have recommended lower cutoffs in position statements in 2016, 2018, and 2022.

Paul Wisniowski, MD, a surgical resident at Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, presented the study findings in an e-poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

“Professional guidelines and increasing data support bariatric surgery for patients beginning at BMI 30, which is a tipping point for disease progression. Now it needs to happen in the real world,” outgoing ASMBS president Teresa LaMasters, MD, who was not involved with this research, said in an ASMBS press release.

‘Not unexpected,’ ‘need to expand eligibility’

“We expected that there had been little widespread adoption of the new BMI criteria/cutoffs,” senior study author Matthew J. Martin, MD, said in an interview.

“We know that bariatric surgery is already underutilized, as only about 1%-2% of eligible patients who would benefit end up getting surgery,” added Dr. Martin, Chief, Emergency General Surgery, and Director, Acute Care Surgery Research, USC Medical Center and Keck School of Medicine.

He suggests that the main reason that more patients with lower BMIs are not being offered surgery is related to insurance coverage and reimbursement.

“Even though the professional society guidelines have changed, based on the scientific evidence, most insurers are still using the very outdated (1990s) NIH consensus criteria of BMI greater than 35 with comorbidities, or BMI greater than 40.”

Another potential reason is “the lack of awareness of the changing guidelines and recommendation among primary care physicians who refer patients for a bariatric surgery evaluation.”

“I think it is too early in the experience with the new, more effective antiobesity medications to say which group will benefit the most or will prefer them over surgery,” he said.

“There is still only a small minority of patients who end up getting the [newer antiobesity] medications or surgery.”

“The takeaway,” Dr. Martin summarized, “is that bariatric surgery remains the only intervention with a high success rate for patients with class 1 or higher obesity in terms of weight loss, comorbidity improvement or resolution, and sustained health benefits.”

“We need to expand the availability of bariatric surgery for all eligible patients, particularly the class 1 obesity population who are currently the most underserved,” he said.

“This will take continued lobbying and working with the insurance companies to update their guidelines/criteria, education of patients, and education of primary care physicians so that patients can be appropriately referred for a surgical evaluation.”
 

Surgery vs. pharmacotherapy

Invited to comment on this study, Neil Skolnik, MD, who was not involved with this research, noted that data from patients with a lower BMI “has continued to accumulate, showing much greater safety than earlier studies and giving further support of efficacy.”

However, “[new] recommendations take time to take hold,” noted Dr. Skolnik, a family physician and professor in the department of family medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

“And from March of 2020 through 2021, surgery referrals were likely influenced by the COVID pandemic,” he added in an email.

Dr. Skolnik authored a commentary sharing his reservations about ASMBS recommendations issued in 2022 for lower BMI thresholds for this surgery.

“Medications are a safe, effective option for patients with a BMI from 30 to 35,” he said, “and [they] achieve approximately a 15%-20% average weight loss, which is enough to markedly improved both metabolic parameters and biomechanical issues such as knee pain, hip pain, and back pain.”

However, “bariatric surgery remains an excellent option for patients who do not respond sufficiently to pharmacotherapy,” he acknowledged.
 

National registry study, 2015-2021

Dr. Wisniowski and colleagues analyzed data from around 900 U.S. centers that are currently part of the Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program.

They found that from 2015 to 2021, 38,669 patients (3.5%) with type 1 obesity and 1,1067,094 patients (96.5%) with a higher BMI had metabolic and bariatric surgery.

Compared with patients with BMI greater than 35, those with class 1 obesity had shorter operating times and hospital stays, but they lost less weight on short-term evaluation, after multivariable adjustment.

There were no significant differences between the two patient groups in rates of postoperative complications (< 5%) or mortality (< 0.1%).

Sleeve gastrectomy was the most common procedure and increased from 70% to 76% of all procedures during the study period.
 

Single-center study

In a second e-poster presented at the meeting, Tina T. Thomas, MD, New Jersey Bariatric Center, analyzed data from 23 patients with BMI less than 35 or less than 30 with comorbidities who had sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass at their center during 2017 to 2021 and who had 6 months of follow-up data.

At study entry, the patients had a mean BMI of 33.5. At 6 months after the surgery, they had a mean BMI of 25.6, and on average, they had lost 55% of their excess weight.

Nearly 60% of the patients had lost at least 50% of their excess weight, and 9 of 16 patients (56%) with comorbidities had improved or resolved comorbidities. None of the patients died or had surgery-related complications.

“Our study shows significant weight loss and health benefits, as well as the safety and efficacy of the gastric bypass and gastric sleeve procedures, for this patient population,” Ajay Goyal, MD, senior author, and bariatric surgeon at New Jersey Bariatric Center, said in an ASMBS press release.

“Often by the time a patient qualifies for bariatric surgery, their weight-related medical conditions such as [type 2] diabetes and hypertension are severe. By expanding access to bariatric surgery to patients with a lower BMI with obesity-related illnesses, patients can halt the progression, and in some cases resolve, significant and uncontrolled weight-related chronic diseases through weight loss.”
 

Societies call for lower BMI thresholds

Providers, hospitals, and insurers currently use BMI thresholds greater than or equal to 40, or greater than or equal to 35 with an obesity-related comorbidity, to define patients eligible for metabolic and bariatric surgery, based on criteria established in a 1991 consensus statement by NIH.

As more data accumulated, in 2016, a position statement from 45 societies recommended that bariatric surgery should be “considered for patients with [type 2 diabetes] and BMI 30.0-34.9 kg/m² if hyperglycemia is inadequately controlled” despite optimal medical treatment.

Similarly, in 2018, the ASMBS issued a position statement saying that “for patients with BMI 30-35 kg/m² and obesity-related comorbidities who do not achieve substantial, durable weight loss and comorbidity improvement with reasonable nonsurgical methods, bariatric surgery should be offered” to suitable individuals.

Then in October 2022, the ASMBS and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders issued a joint statement that recommended lowering the thresholds for bariatric surgery to a BMI greater than or equal to 35 or greater than or equal to 30 with weight-related comorbidities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The price for an in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle continues to increase annually by many clinics, particularly because of “add-ons” of dubious value.

Fertility CARE

The initial application of IVF was for tubal factor infertility. Over the decades since 1981, the year of the first successful live birth in the United States, indications for IVF have dramatically expanded – ovulation dysfunction, unexplained infertility, male factor, advanced stage endometriosis, unexplained infertility, embryo testing to avoid an inherited genetic disease from the intended parents carrying the same mutation, and family balancing for gender, along with fertility preservation, including before potentially gonadotoxic treatment and “elective” planned oocyte cryopreservation.

The cost of IVF remains a significant, and possibly leading, stumbling block for women, couples, and men who lack insurance coverage. From RESOLVE.org, the National Infertility Association: “As of June 2022, 20 states have passed fertility insurance coverage laws, 14 of those laws include IVF coverage, and 12 states have fertility preservation laws for iatrogenic (medically induced) infertility.” Consequently, “affordable IVF” is paramount to providing equal access for patients.

CARE Fertility

I spoke with the past president of The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART.org), Kevin Doody, MD, HCLD, to discuss current IVF treatment options for couples that may decrease their financial burden, particularly by applying a novel approach – called INVOcell – that involves using the woman’s vagina as the embryo “incubator.” Dr. Doody is director of CARE Fertility in Bedford, Tex., and clinical professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
 

How does limiting the dosage of gonadotropins in IVF cycles, known as “minimal stimulation,” affect pregnancy outcomes?

IVF medications are often costly, so it is logical to try and minimize expenses by using them judiciously. “Minimal stimulation” generally is not the best approach, as having more eggs usually leads to better pregnancy rates. High egg yield increases short-term success and provides additional embryos for future attempts.

However, extremely high gonadotropin doses do not necessarily yield more eggs or successful pregnancies. The dose response to gonadotropins follows a sigmoid curve, and typically doses beyond 225-300 IU per day do not offer additional benefits, except for women with an elevated body weight. Yet, some physicians continue to use higher doses in women with low ovarian reserve, which is often not beneficial and can add unnecessary costs.
 

Is “natural cycle” IVF cost-effective with acceptable pregnancy success rates?

Although the first-ever IVF baby was conceived through a natural cycle, this approach has very low success rates. Even with advancements in IVF laboratory technologies, the outcomes of natural cycle IVF have remained disappointingly low and are generally considered unacceptable.

Are there other cost-saving alternatives for IVF that still maintain reasonable success rates?

Some patients can undergo a more simplified ovarian stimulation protocol that reduces the number of monitoring visits, thus reducing costs. In couples without a severe male factor, the application and additional expense of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is unnecessary. Pre-implantation genetic testing for embryo aneuploidy, another “add-on” procedure, has specific indications and medical evidence does not support its use in all patient cycles.

How can the cost of a standard IVF cycle be reduced, especially in areas without mandated infertility insurance coverage?

Addressing this issue involves considering principles of justice in medical ethics, which emphasize equal health care access for all individuals. Infertility is a medical condition and IVF is expensive, so lack of insurance coverage often restricts access. Our clinic offers a more affordable option called “effortless IVF” using an intravaginal culture system (INVOcell), which minimizes the monitoring process while maintaining satisfactory success rates and reducing the risks associated with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

What is INVOcell, and how successful is it in terms of live birth rates?

INVOcell is an innovative approach to IVF, where an intravaginal culture system is used as an “embryo incubator whereby freshly harvested eggs along with sperm are immediately added to a small chamber device that is placed in the woman’s vagina for up to 5 days to allow for fertilization and embryo development.” The woman, typically, has no discomfort from the device. For appropriately selected patients, the literature has shown live birth rates are comparable to those achieved using conventional laboratory incubation systems.

As an early participant in INVOcell research, can you share insights on the ideal candidates for this procedure and any contraindications?

The INVOcell system is best suited for straightforward cases. It is not recommended for severe male factor infertility requiring ICSI, since this will delay application of the chamber device and increase cost. Further, cases involving preimplantation genetic testing are not recommended because the embryos may not develop synchronously within the device to the embryo stage needed for a biopsy.

What training is required for embryologists and physicians to use INVOcell?

Embryologists require training for a few hours to learn the basics of INVOcell. They must master loading eggs into and retrieving embryos from the device. Practicing on discarded eggs and embryos, embryologists can accelerate the acquisition of the proper technique needed for INVOcell. Physicians find the training easier; they mainly need to learn the correct placement and removal of the device in the vagina.
 

Is INVOcell gaining acceptance among patients and IVF centers?

Acceptance varies. In our practice, INVOcell has largely replaced superovulation and intrauterine insemination treatments. However, some clinics still need to determine how this tool fits within their practice.

Have IVF success rates plateaued as affordable options increase?

IVF success rates grew substantially in the 1980s and 1990s, fostered by improved embryo culture systems and higher numbers of embryos transferred, the latter at the expense of a multiple gestation. While the rate of improvement has slowed, coinciding with the increasing use of single embryo transfer, advancements in IVF continue toward the goal of improving the singleton live birth rate per IVF cycle. There is still room for enhancement in success rates alongside cost reduction. Continued innovation is needed, especially for patients with challenging underlying biological issues.

Can you provide insight into the next potential breakthrough in IVF that may reduce costs, be less invasive, and maintain optimal pregnancy rates?

I am very excited about recent breakthroughs in in vitro maturation (IVM) of oocytes. The bottleneck in IVF clinics (and significant expense) primarily relates to the need to stimulate the ovaries to get mature and competent eggs. The technology of IVM has existed for decades but has yet to be fully embraced by clinics because of the poor competency of oocytes matured in the laboratory.

Immature eggs resume meiosis immediately upon removal from the ovary. Nuclear maturation of eggs in the lab is easy. In fact, it happens too quickly, thereby not allowing for the maturation of the egg cytoplasm. This has previously led to poor development of embryos following fertilization and low success rates.

Recently, a new laboratory strategy has resulted in a significant improvement in success. This improved culture system uses a peptide that prevents the resumption of meiosis for the initial culture time frame. Substances, including follicle stimulating hormone, can be added to the media to promote oocyte cytoplasmic maturation. Following this, the eggs are placed in a media without the meiosis inhibitor to allow for nuclear maturation. This results in a significantly higher proportion of competent mature eggs.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

The price for an in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle continues to increase annually by many clinics, particularly because of “add-ons” of dubious value.

Fertility CARE

The initial application of IVF was for tubal factor infertility. Over the decades since 1981, the year of the first successful live birth in the United States, indications for IVF have dramatically expanded – ovulation dysfunction, unexplained infertility, male factor, advanced stage endometriosis, unexplained infertility, embryo testing to avoid an inherited genetic disease from the intended parents carrying the same mutation, and family balancing for gender, along with fertility preservation, including before potentially gonadotoxic treatment and “elective” planned oocyte cryopreservation.

The cost of IVF remains a significant, and possibly leading, stumbling block for women, couples, and men who lack insurance coverage. From RESOLVE.org, the National Infertility Association: “As of June 2022, 20 states have passed fertility insurance coverage laws, 14 of those laws include IVF coverage, and 12 states have fertility preservation laws for iatrogenic (medically induced) infertility.” Consequently, “affordable IVF” is paramount to providing equal access for patients.

CARE Fertility

I spoke with the past president of The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART.org), Kevin Doody, MD, HCLD, to discuss current IVF treatment options for couples that may decrease their financial burden, particularly by applying a novel approach – called INVOcell – that involves using the woman’s vagina as the embryo “incubator.” Dr. Doody is director of CARE Fertility in Bedford, Tex., and clinical professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
 

How does limiting the dosage of gonadotropins in IVF cycles, known as “minimal stimulation,” affect pregnancy outcomes?

IVF medications are often costly, so it is logical to try and minimize expenses by using them judiciously. “Minimal stimulation” generally is not the best approach, as having more eggs usually leads to better pregnancy rates. High egg yield increases short-term success and provides additional embryos for future attempts.

However, extremely high gonadotropin doses do not necessarily yield more eggs or successful pregnancies. The dose response to gonadotropins follows a sigmoid curve, and typically doses beyond 225-300 IU per day do not offer additional benefits, except for women with an elevated body weight. Yet, some physicians continue to use higher doses in women with low ovarian reserve, which is often not beneficial and can add unnecessary costs.
 

Is “natural cycle” IVF cost-effective with acceptable pregnancy success rates?

Although the first-ever IVF baby was conceived through a natural cycle, this approach has very low success rates. Even with advancements in IVF laboratory technologies, the outcomes of natural cycle IVF have remained disappointingly low and are generally considered unacceptable.

Are there other cost-saving alternatives for IVF that still maintain reasonable success rates?

Some patients can undergo a more simplified ovarian stimulation protocol that reduces the number of monitoring visits, thus reducing costs. In couples without a severe male factor, the application and additional expense of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is unnecessary. Pre-implantation genetic testing for embryo aneuploidy, another “add-on” procedure, has specific indications and medical evidence does not support its use in all patient cycles.

How can the cost of a standard IVF cycle be reduced, especially in areas without mandated infertility insurance coverage?

Addressing this issue involves considering principles of justice in medical ethics, which emphasize equal health care access for all individuals. Infertility is a medical condition and IVF is expensive, so lack of insurance coverage often restricts access. Our clinic offers a more affordable option called “effortless IVF” using an intravaginal culture system (INVOcell), which minimizes the monitoring process while maintaining satisfactory success rates and reducing the risks associated with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

What is INVOcell, and how successful is it in terms of live birth rates?

INVOcell is an innovative approach to IVF, where an intravaginal culture system is used as an “embryo incubator whereby freshly harvested eggs along with sperm are immediately added to a small chamber device that is placed in the woman’s vagina for up to 5 days to allow for fertilization and embryo development.” The woman, typically, has no discomfort from the device. For appropriately selected patients, the literature has shown live birth rates are comparable to those achieved using conventional laboratory incubation systems.

As an early participant in INVOcell research, can you share insights on the ideal candidates for this procedure and any contraindications?

The INVOcell system is best suited for straightforward cases. It is not recommended for severe male factor infertility requiring ICSI, since this will delay application of the chamber device and increase cost. Further, cases involving preimplantation genetic testing are not recommended because the embryos may not develop synchronously within the device to the embryo stage needed for a biopsy.

What training is required for embryologists and physicians to use INVOcell?

Embryologists require training for a few hours to learn the basics of INVOcell. They must master loading eggs into and retrieving embryos from the device. Practicing on discarded eggs and embryos, embryologists can accelerate the acquisition of the proper technique needed for INVOcell. Physicians find the training easier; they mainly need to learn the correct placement and removal of the device in the vagina.
 

Is INVOcell gaining acceptance among patients and IVF centers?

Acceptance varies. In our practice, INVOcell has largely replaced superovulation and intrauterine insemination treatments. However, some clinics still need to determine how this tool fits within their practice.

Have IVF success rates plateaued as affordable options increase?

IVF success rates grew substantially in the 1980s and 1990s, fostered by improved embryo culture systems and higher numbers of embryos transferred, the latter at the expense of a multiple gestation. While the rate of improvement has slowed, coinciding with the increasing use of single embryo transfer, advancements in IVF continue toward the goal of improving the singleton live birth rate per IVF cycle. There is still room for enhancement in success rates alongside cost reduction. Continued innovation is needed, especially for patients with challenging underlying biological issues.

Can you provide insight into the next potential breakthrough in IVF that may reduce costs, be less invasive, and maintain optimal pregnancy rates?

I am very excited about recent breakthroughs in in vitro maturation (IVM) of oocytes. The bottleneck in IVF clinics (and significant expense) primarily relates to the need to stimulate the ovaries to get mature and competent eggs. The technology of IVM has existed for decades but has yet to be fully embraced by clinics because of the poor competency of oocytes matured in the laboratory.

Immature eggs resume meiosis immediately upon removal from the ovary. Nuclear maturation of eggs in the lab is easy. In fact, it happens too quickly, thereby not allowing for the maturation of the egg cytoplasm. This has previously led to poor development of embryos following fertilization and low success rates.

Recently, a new laboratory strategy has resulted in a significant improvement in success. This improved culture system uses a peptide that prevents the resumption of meiosis for the initial culture time frame. Substances, including follicle stimulating hormone, can be added to the media to promote oocyte cytoplasmic maturation. Following this, the eggs are placed in a media without the meiosis inhibitor to allow for nuclear maturation. This results in a significantly higher proportion of competent mature eggs.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

The price for an in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle continues to increase annually by many clinics, particularly because of “add-ons” of dubious value.

Fertility CARE

The initial application of IVF was for tubal factor infertility. Over the decades since 1981, the year of the first successful live birth in the United States, indications for IVF have dramatically expanded – ovulation dysfunction, unexplained infertility, male factor, advanced stage endometriosis, unexplained infertility, embryo testing to avoid an inherited genetic disease from the intended parents carrying the same mutation, and family balancing for gender, along with fertility preservation, including before potentially gonadotoxic treatment and “elective” planned oocyte cryopreservation.

The cost of IVF remains a significant, and possibly leading, stumbling block for women, couples, and men who lack insurance coverage. From RESOLVE.org, the National Infertility Association: “As of June 2022, 20 states have passed fertility insurance coverage laws, 14 of those laws include IVF coverage, and 12 states have fertility preservation laws for iatrogenic (medically induced) infertility.” Consequently, “affordable IVF” is paramount to providing equal access for patients.

CARE Fertility

I spoke with the past president of The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART.org), Kevin Doody, MD, HCLD, to discuss current IVF treatment options for couples that may decrease their financial burden, particularly by applying a novel approach – called INVOcell – that involves using the woman’s vagina as the embryo “incubator.” Dr. Doody is director of CARE Fertility in Bedford, Tex., and clinical professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
 

How does limiting the dosage of gonadotropins in IVF cycles, known as “minimal stimulation,” affect pregnancy outcomes?

IVF medications are often costly, so it is logical to try and minimize expenses by using them judiciously. “Minimal stimulation” generally is not the best approach, as having more eggs usually leads to better pregnancy rates. High egg yield increases short-term success and provides additional embryos for future attempts.

However, extremely high gonadotropin doses do not necessarily yield more eggs or successful pregnancies. The dose response to gonadotropins follows a sigmoid curve, and typically doses beyond 225-300 IU per day do not offer additional benefits, except for women with an elevated body weight. Yet, some physicians continue to use higher doses in women with low ovarian reserve, which is often not beneficial and can add unnecessary costs.
 

Is “natural cycle” IVF cost-effective with acceptable pregnancy success rates?

Although the first-ever IVF baby was conceived through a natural cycle, this approach has very low success rates. Even with advancements in IVF laboratory technologies, the outcomes of natural cycle IVF have remained disappointingly low and are generally considered unacceptable.

Are there other cost-saving alternatives for IVF that still maintain reasonable success rates?

Some patients can undergo a more simplified ovarian stimulation protocol that reduces the number of monitoring visits, thus reducing costs. In couples without a severe male factor, the application and additional expense of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is unnecessary. Pre-implantation genetic testing for embryo aneuploidy, another “add-on” procedure, has specific indications and medical evidence does not support its use in all patient cycles.

How can the cost of a standard IVF cycle be reduced, especially in areas without mandated infertility insurance coverage?

Addressing this issue involves considering principles of justice in medical ethics, which emphasize equal health care access for all individuals. Infertility is a medical condition and IVF is expensive, so lack of insurance coverage often restricts access. Our clinic offers a more affordable option called “effortless IVF” using an intravaginal culture system (INVOcell), which minimizes the monitoring process while maintaining satisfactory success rates and reducing the risks associated with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

What is INVOcell, and how successful is it in terms of live birth rates?

INVOcell is an innovative approach to IVF, where an intravaginal culture system is used as an “embryo incubator whereby freshly harvested eggs along with sperm are immediately added to a small chamber device that is placed in the woman’s vagina for up to 5 days to allow for fertilization and embryo development.” The woman, typically, has no discomfort from the device. For appropriately selected patients, the literature has shown live birth rates are comparable to those achieved using conventional laboratory incubation systems.

As an early participant in INVOcell research, can you share insights on the ideal candidates for this procedure and any contraindications?

The INVOcell system is best suited for straightforward cases. It is not recommended for severe male factor infertility requiring ICSI, since this will delay application of the chamber device and increase cost. Further, cases involving preimplantation genetic testing are not recommended because the embryos may not develop synchronously within the device to the embryo stage needed for a biopsy.

What training is required for embryologists and physicians to use INVOcell?

Embryologists require training for a few hours to learn the basics of INVOcell. They must master loading eggs into and retrieving embryos from the device. Practicing on discarded eggs and embryos, embryologists can accelerate the acquisition of the proper technique needed for INVOcell. Physicians find the training easier; they mainly need to learn the correct placement and removal of the device in the vagina.
 

Is INVOcell gaining acceptance among patients and IVF centers?

Acceptance varies. In our practice, INVOcell has largely replaced superovulation and intrauterine insemination treatments. However, some clinics still need to determine how this tool fits within their practice.

Have IVF success rates plateaued as affordable options increase?

IVF success rates grew substantially in the 1980s and 1990s, fostered by improved embryo culture systems and higher numbers of embryos transferred, the latter at the expense of a multiple gestation. While the rate of improvement has slowed, coinciding with the increasing use of single embryo transfer, advancements in IVF continue toward the goal of improving the singleton live birth rate per IVF cycle. There is still room for enhancement in success rates alongside cost reduction. Continued innovation is needed, especially for patients with challenging underlying biological issues.

Can you provide insight into the next potential breakthrough in IVF that may reduce costs, be less invasive, and maintain optimal pregnancy rates?

I am very excited about recent breakthroughs in in vitro maturation (IVM) of oocytes. The bottleneck in IVF clinics (and significant expense) primarily relates to the need to stimulate the ovaries to get mature and competent eggs. The technology of IVM has existed for decades but has yet to be fully embraced by clinics because of the poor competency of oocytes matured in the laboratory.

Immature eggs resume meiosis immediately upon removal from the ovary. Nuclear maturation of eggs in the lab is easy. In fact, it happens too quickly, thereby not allowing for the maturation of the egg cytoplasm. This has previously led to poor development of embryos following fertilization and low success rates.

Recently, a new laboratory strategy has resulted in a significant improvement in success. This improved culture system uses a peptide that prevents the resumption of meiosis for the initial culture time frame. Substances, including follicle stimulating hormone, can be added to the media to promote oocyte cytoplasmic maturation. Following this, the eggs are placed in a media without the meiosis inhibitor to allow for nuclear maturation. This results in a significantly higher proportion of competent mature eggs.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Recently, the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide has changed the obesity treatment landscape. This and other similar medications approaching the market are in high demand because of their ease of use, effectiveness, and lack of interactions with other medications.

Semaglutide is a weekly subcutaneous injection approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for weight loss in conjunction with lifestyle change. It elicits an average weight loss of 15%-18% from baseline in adults with overweight or obesity (body mass index ≥ 27 with at least one obesity-related comorbidity or BMI ≥ 30) in a period of 52-68 weeks (Wilding et al; Rubino et al). Liraglutide is a daily GLP-1 agonist, which is FDA approved for treatment of overweight, with an average weight loss of 8% from treatment start.

Though GLP-1 agonists are very effective for weight loss, questions about side effects have arisen. And now, there are also concerns surrounding GLP-1 agonist–induced rapid weight loss and its resulting impact on muscle mass.

Current modalities of weight loss don’t specifically target fat mass (FM), so it is expected that, to a degree, fat-free mass (FFM), including muscle mass, will also be lost along with fat mass.

Loss of muscle mass is associated with an increased risk for lower bone density, fatigue, injuries, and decreased strength. In addition, sarcopenic obesity, a combination of high body fat percentage and low skeletal muscle mass, is concerning in patients older than 65 years and/or postmenopausal patients. Because GLP-1 agonists cause more rapid and sustainable weight loss, compared with intensive behavioral lifestyle therapy, there has been more media attention recently about possible muscle mass loss with GLP-1–agonist use.

However, proper well-rounded approaches to obesity treatment can mitigate the issue of muscle mass loss even when rapid weight loss occurs. When weight loss is achieved with very-low-calorie dietary changes alone (without exercise), it is also associated with significant reductions in lean muscle mass; however, incorporating exercise, preferably resistance training, can mitigate the muscle mass loss. The muscle-preserving effect of exercise is especially prominent in older populations where it is needed most and should be incorporated (Armanento-Villareal et al.; Winter et al.; Batsis and Zagaria; Mason et al.).

Furthermore, studies in rat models demonstrate liraglutide induces myogenesis in myoblasts and protects against muscular atrophy. In human studies, GLP-1 infusion was associated with an improved skeletal and cardiac muscle microvasculature, suggesting that GLP-1 agonists may have some positive effects on the muscle. A 2020 systematic review examined the effect of gradual vs. rapid weight loss and demonstrated no significant difference in muscle loss between the rapid weight-loss group and gradual weight-loss group. Even after gastric bypass surgery, most of the muscle mass loss occurred during the first year, when weight loss is happening. However, after the first year, skeletal muscle was maintained even without introducing additional dietary or exercise interventions.

Age, although a consideration, should not be a discriminating factor against treating obesity. Sarcopenic obesity is a serious risk especially in patients aged 65 years or older, but GLP-1–agonist therapy can be beneficial to prevent muscle atrophy and increase blood flow to skeletal and cardiac muscle. In addition, patients must be encouraged to maintain an appropriate dietary and exercise regimen to treat their obesity. Management of obesity is complex and multifaceted, and patients should understand their responsibility to follow clinician recommendations during this journey to decrease the associated side effects.

Overall, with any level of weight loss achieved with current strategies, a certain amount of muscle mass loss is expected. All efforts to actively preserve muscle mass can prevent too much muscle loss.

Therefore, providers prescribing medications like GLP-1 agonists to treat obesity must also counsel patients about incorporating aerobic exercise and resistance training as part of the treatment plan as well as ensuring they eat a high-protein diet. Generally, resistance training is preferred over aerobic exercise for muscle mass preservation and increased strength, but studies also demonstrate benefit with aerobic exercise.

In the first few visits of initiating obesity treatment, patients should be encouraged to start to incorporate light physical activity as tolerable while starting to make dietary changes to include at least 0.8g/kg/day of protein (Fappi et al.). These initial visits are also an important opportunity for clinicians to ingrain the importance of exercise as part of healthy weight loss. At every visit, physical activity level should be assessed.

Dr. Ahn is a clinical fellow in obesity medicine, Weight Management Center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Dr. Singhal is an assistant professor of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director, Pediatric Program, MGH Weight Center, Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Singhal reported that his spouse consults with AstraZeneca, Dilachi Pharma, Eli Lilly, Genetech, Immunomedics, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Novartis.

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

Recently, the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide has changed the obesity treatment landscape. This and other similar medications approaching the market are in high demand because of their ease of use, effectiveness, and lack of interactions with other medications.

Semaglutide is a weekly subcutaneous injection approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for weight loss in conjunction with lifestyle change. It elicits an average weight loss of 15%-18% from baseline in adults with overweight or obesity (body mass index ≥ 27 with at least one obesity-related comorbidity or BMI ≥ 30) in a period of 52-68 weeks (Wilding et al; Rubino et al). Liraglutide is a daily GLP-1 agonist, which is FDA approved for treatment of overweight, with an average weight loss of 8% from treatment start.

Though GLP-1 agonists are very effective for weight loss, questions about side effects have arisen. And now, there are also concerns surrounding GLP-1 agonist–induced rapid weight loss and its resulting impact on muscle mass.

Current modalities of weight loss don’t specifically target fat mass (FM), so it is expected that, to a degree, fat-free mass (FFM), including muscle mass, will also be lost along with fat mass.

Loss of muscle mass is associated with an increased risk for lower bone density, fatigue, injuries, and decreased strength. In addition, sarcopenic obesity, a combination of high body fat percentage and low skeletal muscle mass, is concerning in patients older than 65 years and/or postmenopausal patients. Because GLP-1 agonists cause more rapid and sustainable weight loss, compared with intensive behavioral lifestyle therapy, there has been more media attention recently about possible muscle mass loss with GLP-1–agonist use.

However, proper well-rounded approaches to obesity treatment can mitigate the issue of muscle mass loss even when rapid weight loss occurs. When weight loss is achieved with very-low-calorie dietary changes alone (without exercise), it is also associated with significant reductions in lean muscle mass; however, incorporating exercise, preferably resistance training, can mitigate the muscle mass loss. The muscle-preserving effect of exercise is especially prominent in older populations where it is needed most and should be incorporated (Armanento-Villareal et al.; Winter et al.; Batsis and Zagaria; Mason et al.).

Furthermore, studies in rat models demonstrate liraglutide induces myogenesis in myoblasts and protects against muscular atrophy. In human studies, GLP-1 infusion was associated with an improved skeletal and cardiac muscle microvasculature, suggesting that GLP-1 agonists may have some positive effects on the muscle. A 2020 systematic review examined the effect of gradual vs. rapid weight loss and demonstrated no significant difference in muscle loss between the rapid weight-loss group and gradual weight-loss group. Even after gastric bypass surgery, most of the muscle mass loss occurred during the first year, when weight loss is happening. However, after the first year, skeletal muscle was maintained even without introducing additional dietary or exercise interventions.

Age, although a consideration, should not be a discriminating factor against treating obesity. Sarcopenic obesity is a serious risk especially in patients aged 65 years or older, but GLP-1–agonist therapy can be beneficial to prevent muscle atrophy and increase blood flow to skeletal and cardiac muscle. In addition, patients must be encouraged to maintain an appropriate dietary and exercise regimen to treat their obesity. Management of obesity is complex and multifaceted, and patients should understand their responsibility to follow clinician recommendations during this journey to decrease the associated side effects.

Overall, with any level of weight loss achieved with current strategies, a certain amount of muscle mass loss is expected. All efforts to actively preserve muscle mass can prevent too much muscle loss.

Therefore, providers prescribing medications like GLP-1 agonists to treat obesity must also counsel patients about incorporating aerobic exercise and resistance training as part of the treatment plan as well as ensuring they eat a high-protein diet. Generally, resistance training is preferred over aerobic exercise for muscle mass preservation and increased strength, but studies also demonstrate benefit with aerobic exercise.

In the first few visits of initiating obesity treatment, patients should be encouraged to start to incorporate light physical activity as tolerable while starting to make dietary changes to include at least 0.8g/kg/day of protein (Fappi et al.). These initial visits are also an important opportunity for clinicians to ingrain the importance of exercise as part of healthy weight loss. At every visit, physical activity level should be assessed.

Dr. Ahn is a clinical fellow in obesity medicine, Weight Management Center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Dr. Singhal is an assistant professor of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director, Pediatric Program, MGH Weight Center, Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Singhal reported that his spouse consults with AstraZeneca, Dilachi Pharma, Eli Lilly, Genetech, Immunomedics, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Novartis.

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

Recently, the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide has changed the obesity treatment landscape. This and other similar medications approaching the market are in high demand because of their ease of use, effectiveness, and lack of interactions with other medications.

Semaglutide is a weekly subcutaneous injection approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for weight loss in conjunction with lifestyle change. It elicits an average weight loss of 15%-18% from baseline in adults with overweight or obesity (body mass index ≥ 27 with at least one obesity-related comorbidity or BMI ≥ 30) in a period of 52-68 weeks (Wilding et al; Rubino et al). Liraglutide is a daily GLP-1 agonist, which is FDA approved for treatment of overweight, with an average weight loss of 8% from treatment start.

Though GLP-1 agonists are very effective for weight loss, questions about side effects have arisen. And now, there are also concerns surrounding GLP-1 agonist–induced rapid weight loss and its resulting impact on muscle mass.

Current modalities of weight loss don’t specifically target fat mass (FM), so it is expected that, to a degree, fat-free mass (FFM), including muscle mass, will also be lost along with fat mass.

Loss of muscle mass is associated with an increased risk for lower bone density, fatigue, injuries, and decreased strength. In addition, sarcopenic obesity, a combination of high body fat percentage and low skeletal muscle mass, is concerning in patients older than 65 years and/or postmenopausal patients. Because GLP-1 agonists cause more rapid and sustainable weight loss, compared with intensive behavioral lifestyle therapy, there has been more media attention recently about possible muscle mass loss with GLP-1–agonist use.

However, proper well-rounded approaches to obesity treatment can mitigate the issue of muscle mass loss even when rapid weight loss occurs. When weight loss is achieved with very-low-calorie dietary changes alone (without exercise), it is also associated with significant reductions in lean muscle mass; however, incorporating exercise, preferably resistance training, can mitigate the muscle mass loss. The muscle-preserving effect of exercise is especially prominent in older populations where it is needed most and should be incorporated (Armanento-Villareal et al.; Winter et al.; Batsis and Zagaria; Mason et al.).

Furthermore, studies in rat models demonstrate liraglutide induces myogenesis in myoblasts and protects against muscular atrophy. In human studies, GLP-1 infusion was associated with an improved skeletal and cardiac muscle microvasculature, suggesting that GLP-1 agonists may have some positive effects on the muscle. A 2020 systematic review examined the effect of gradual vs. rapid weight loss and demonstrated no significant difference in muscle loss between the rapid weight-loss group and gradual weight-loss group. Even after gastric bypass surgery, most of the muscle mass loss occurred during the first year, when weight loss is happening. However, after the first year, skeletal muscle was maintained even without introducing additional dietary or exercise interventions.

Age, although a consideration, should not be a discriminating factor against treating obesity. Sarcopenic obesity is a serious risk especially in patients aged 65 years or older, but GLP-1–agonist therapy can be beneficial to prevent muscle atrophy and increase blood flow to skeletal and cardiac muscle. In addition, patients must be encouraged to maintain an appropriate dietary and exercise regimen to treat their obesity. Management of obesity is complex and multifaceted, and patients should understand their responsibility to follow clinician recommendations during this journey to decrease the associated side effects.

Overall, with any level of weight loss achieved with current strategies, a certain amount of muscle mass loss is expected. All efforts to actively preserve muscle mass can prevent too much muscle loss.

Therefore, providers prescribing medications like GLP-1 agonists to treat obesity must also counsel patients about incorporating aerobic exercise and resistance training as part of the treatment plan as well as ensuring they eat a high-protein diet. Generally, resistance training is preferred over aerobic exercise for muscle mass preservation and increased strength, but studies also demonstrate benefit with aerobic exercise.

In the first few visits of initiating obesity treatment, patients should be encouraged to start to incorporate light physical activity as tolerable while starting to make dietary changes to include at least 0.8g/kg/day of protein (Fappi et al.). These initial visits are also an important opportunity for clinicians to ingrain the importance of exercise as part of healthy weight loss. At every visit, physical activity level should be assessed.

Dr. Ahn is a clinical fellow in obesity medicine, Weight Management Center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Dr. Singhal is an assistant professor of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director, Pediatric Program, MGH Weight Center, Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Singhal reported that his spouse consults with AstraZeneca, Dilachi Pharma, Eli Lilly, Genetech, Immunomedics, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Novartis.

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