Obesity

Endocrine disruptors (EDs) — chemicals in the environment that could affect human endocrine function — are increasingly becoming a prominent concern for the public as well as professionals. At its 40th congress, the French Society of Endocrinology hosted a public lecture on the subject, given by Nicolas Chevalier, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at the University Hospital of Nice in France.

Environmental EDs

Chevalier began by asking the audience to remember one number: 906. This is the number of substances identified by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety for which there are sufficient scientific data to confirm or at least suspect endocrine-disrupting activity. In reality, the number is likely closer to 10,000, he said.

These chemicals include bisphenol A and its substitutes, parabens, phthalates, and pesticides. Additionally, lithium (mainly found in batteries), polychlorinated biphenyls, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and polybromodiphenyl ethers, or brominated flame retardants, are included. These products are found throughout our environment, so much so that Chevalier said: “We are swimming in a soup of endocrine disruptors.”

The main source of human contamination is food, responsible for an estimated 80%-90% of those encountered. They may enter the food supply during production or preservation, and pesticides are not the only culprits. For example, fatty fish contain heavy metals. Water is also a significant source of contamination. It is worth noting that tap water is the cleanest and most monitored type when it comes to EDs. However, plastic bottles leach not only EDs but also microplastics, which are a major environmental pollution source.

Many other features in our daily environment contain EDs: Clothing (especially shoes), nonstick cookware, plastic containers (especially those heated in the microwave), plastic toys (which young children often put in their mouths), and cosmetic products (makeup, which is increasingly used by young girls). The placenta is not the barrier it was once thought to be: Amniotic fluid has been found to contain about 35 molecules that are toxic for the fetus, with at least 11 or 12 exceeding safety thresholds.

 

Multiple Linked Diseases

An incomplete list of ED-related diseases would include cancer, infertility, obesity, and diabetes, Chevalier said. Are these data alarmist? he asked. After all, life expectancy has increased globally by more than 10 years since the 1970s, and this has occurred alongside the increased use of EDs. However, he suggested remembering a second number: 157. This represents the billions of euros in European healthcare costs primarily caused by neurologic disorders linked to pesticides. They have a half-life estimated at least 10 years, and banning them will not stop them from persisting in the environment for up to 40 years. US studies have shown that their presence in the environment contributes to cognitive delays in young children.

Another area of concern is the rising infertility rates among couples, now affecting around one in five in France. This trend has been linked to the toxicity of EDs on the genital tract, especially in men, and is not only related to increased use of birth control. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, rates of contraceptive use have increased only marginally, but birth rates have significantly decreased in areas contaminated by waste that is inadequately managed by Western standards.

EDs have also been implicated in the rising incidence of several cancers, including breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men, and may have contributed to increases in both childhood obesity and adult diabetes.

 

A Difficult Battle

Chevalier asked: Is the increase in ED contamination inevitable? No, he said, but it is extremely difficult to counter. Governments are reluctant to legislate, particularly when jobs are at stake, even though certain workers are particularly exposed. The ideal situation would be for the public to take matters into their own hands by eliminating EDs from their environment through daily actions that pressure policymakers to act. For example:

• Eliminate plastics (especially for food products) and nonstick coatings
• Reject most cleaning products in favor of traditional solutions (eg, white vinegar and baking soda)
• Avoid imported toys (as producer countries often fail to comply with European health standards)

Environmental charters have been created by several local authorities and regional health agencies. Chevalier urged the public to rely on their recommendations and resources to help drive change.

 

This story was translated from Univadis France using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Endocrine disruptors (EDs) — chemicals in the environment that could affect human endocrine function — are increasingly becoming a prominent concern for the public as well as professionals. At its 40th congress, the French Society of Endocrinology hosted a public lecture on the subject, given by Nicolas Chevalier, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at the University Hospital of Nice in France.

Environmental EDs

Chevalier began by asking the audience to remember one number: 906. This is the number of substances identified by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety for which there are sufficient scientific data to confirm or at least suspect endocrine-disrupting activity. In reality, the number is likely closer to 10,000, he said.

These chemicals include bisphenol A and its substitutes, parabens, phthalates, and pesticides. Additionally, lithium (mainly found in batteries), polychlorinated biphenyls, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and polybromodiphenyl ethers, or brominated flame retardants, are included. These products are found throughout our environment, so much so that Chevalier said: “We are swimming in a soup of endocrine disruptors.”

The main source of human contamination is food, responsible for an estimated 80%-90% of those encountered. They may enter the food supply during production or preservation, and pesticides are not the only culprits. For example, fatty fish contain heavy metals. Water is also a significant source of contamination. It is worth noting that tap water is the cleanest and most monitored type when it comes to EDs. However, plastic bottles leach not only EDs but also microplastics, which are a major environmental pollution source.

Many other features in our daily environment contain EDs: Clothing (especially shoes), nonstick cookware, plastic containers (especially those heated in the microwave), plastic toys (which young children often put in their mouths), and cosmetic products (makeup, which is increasingly used by young girls). The placenta is not the barrier it was once thought to be: Amniotic fluid has been found to contain about 35 molecules that are toxic for the fetus, with at least 11 or 12 exceeding safety thresholds.

 

Multiple Linked Diseases

An incomplete list of ED-related diseases would include cancer, infertility, obesity, and diabetes, Chevalier said. Are these data alarmist? he asked. After all, life expectancy has increased globally by more than 10 years since the 1970s, and this has occurred alongside the increased use of EDs. However, he suggested remembering a second number: 157. This represents the billions of euros in European healthcare costs primarily caused by neurologic disorders linked to pesticides. They have a half-life estimated at least 10 years, and banning them will not stop them from persisting in the environment for up to 40 years. US studies have shown that their presence in the environment contributes to cognitive delays in young children.

Another area of concern is the rising infertility rates among couples, now affecting around one in five in France. This trend has been linked to the toxicity of EDs on the genital tract, especially in men, and is not only related to increased use of birth control. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, rates of contraceptive use have increased only marginally, but birth rates have significantly decreased in areas contaminated by waste that is inadequately managed by Western standards.

EDs have also been implicated in the rising incidence of several cancers, including breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men, and may have contributed to increases in both childhood obesity and adult diabetes.

 

A Difficult Battle

Chevalier asked: Is the increase in ED contamination inevitable? No, he said, but it is extremely difficult to counter. Governments are reluctant to legislate, particularly when jobs are at stake, even though certain workers are particularly exposed. The ideal situation would be for the public to take matters into their own hands by eliminating EDs from their environment through daily actions that pressure policymakers to act. For example:

• Eliminate plastics (especially for food products) and nonstick coatings
• Reject most cleaning products in favor of traditional solutions (eg, white vinegar and baking soda)
• Avoid imported toys (as producer countries often fail to comply with European health standards)

Environmental charters have been created by several local authorities and regional health agencies. Chevalier urged the public to rely on their recommendations and resources to help drive change.

 

This story was translated from Univadis France using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Endocrine disruptors (EDs) — chemicals in the environment that could affect human endocrine function — are increasingly becoming a prominent concern for the public as well as professionals. At its 40th congress, the French Society of Endocrinology hosted a public lecture on the subject, given by Nicolas Chevalier, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at the University Hospital of Nice in France.

Environmental EDs

Chevalier began by asking the audience to remember one number: 906. This is the number of substances identified by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety for which there are sufficient scientific data to confirm or at least suspect endocrine-disrupting activity. In reality, the number is likely closer to 10,000, he said.

These chemicals include bisphenol A and its substitutes, parabens, phthalates, and pesticides. Additionally, lithium (mainly found in batteries), polychlorinated biphenyls, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and polybromodiphenyl ethers, or brominated flame retardants, are included. These products are found throughout our environment, so much so that Chevalier said: “We are swimming in a soup of endocrine disruptors.”

The main source of human contamination is food, responsible for an estimated 80%-90% of those encountered. They may enter the food supply during production or preservation, and pesticides are not the only culprits. For example, fatty fish contain heavy metals. Water is also a significant source of contamination. It is worth noting that tap water is the cleanest and most monitored type when it comes to EDs. However, plastic bottles leach not only EDs but also microplastics, which are a major environmental pollution source.

Many other features in our daily environment contain EDs: Clothing (especially shoes), nonstick cookware, plastic containers (especially those heated in the microwave), plastic toys (which young children often put in their mouths), and cosmetic products (makeup, which is increasingly used by young girls). The placenta is not the barrier it was once thought to be: Amniotic fluid has been found to contain about 35 molecules that are toxic for the fetus, with at least 11 or 12 exceeding safety thresholds.

 

Multiple Linked Diseases

An incomplete list of ED-related diseases would include cancer, infertility, obesity, and diabetes, Chevalier said. Are these data alarmist? he asked. After all, life expectancy has increased globally by more than 10 years since the 1970s, and this has occurred alongside the increased use of EDs. However, he suggested remembering a second number: 157. This represents the billions of euros in European healthcare costs primarily caused by neurologic disorders linked to pesticides. They have a half-life estimated at least 10 years, and banning them will not stop them from persisting in the environment for up to 40 years. US studies have shown that their presence in the environment contributes to cognitive delays in young children.

Another area of concern is the rising infertility rates among couples, now affecting around one in five in France. This trend has been linked to the toxicity of EDs on the genital tract, especially in men, and is not only related to increased use of birth control. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, rates of contraceptive use have increased only marginally, but birth rates have significantly decreased in areas contaminated by waste that is inadequately managed by Western standards.

EDs have also been implicated in the rising incidence of several cancers, including breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men, and may have contributed to increases in both childhood obesity and adult diabetes.

 

A Difficult Battle

Chevalier asked: Is the increase in ED contamination inevitable? No, he said, but it is extremely difficult to counter. Governments are reluctant to legislate, particularly when jobs are at stake, even though certain workers are particularly exposed. The ideal situation would be for the public to take matters into their own hands by eliminating EDs from their environment through daily actions that pressure policymakers to act. For example:

• Eliminate plastics (especially for food products) and nonstick coatings
• Reject most cleaning products in favor of traditional solutions (eg, white vinegar and baking soda)
• Avoid imported toys (as producer countries often fail to comply with European health standards)

Environmental charters have been created by several local authorities and regional health agencies. Chevalier urged the public to rely on their recommendations and resources to help drive change.

 

This story was translated from Univadis France using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Three basic truths about ultraprocessed foods: Junk food, available pretty much everywhere, tastes great. Advertising works. And most of us don’t crave green leafy salads when we’re hungry.

Of those three truths, the one that tends to get more public health attention is advertising. More specifically, advertising junk food to kids. 

Back in the days when cable television was king of all free time, study after study tried to quantify junk- and fast-food advertising to kids and speculated about its impact on childhood obesity rates. But as broadcast television use began fading, advertisers — and, of course, studies about advertising — turned their attention first to gaming and now to social media.

The social media numbers are quite staggering. According to a study published — probably not coincidentally — on Halloween, looking at the 40 top brands of junk- and fast food sold in Canada, those 40 brands alone were mentioned over 16 million times by social media users, reaching an estimated 42 billion total users within a 1-year period. 

And unique to the challenge of junk- and fast-food advertising on social media is that it also includes “earned” advertising, the kind not paid for by manufacturers but rather the kind where friends, family, and influencers post about junk food. Occasionally, though, these lines are blurred by initiatives from fast-food manufacturers explicitly encouraging social sharing. Consequently, even were there a desire, there isn’t likely to be a regulatory mechanism to markedly reduce it. 

For years, here in North America, excepting Quebec, the desire has been mainly to just talk about how concerned we are about junk-food advertising to kids. Elsewhere, however, some countries tried to do more, including both Mexico and Chile, which put kid-targeted TV food advertising bans in place in 2014 and 2016, respectively. 

Did they work? It depends on what outcome you’re considering. If the question is, did they work in regard to obesity? — which is how everyone tends to frame the question — by themselves, probably not. No one sandbag stops a flood, and though junk-food advertising is certainly a sandbag, we’re still facing a torrential downpour of obesity contributors. No doubt they did work to reduce kids’ exposure to junk-food advertising on television, but what remains to be seen is whether there is a means to now tackle social media’s generous servings of the same. Moreover, the obesity lens is the wrong one. Ultraprocessed food consumption isn’t good for anyone, regardless of weight, and its reduced marketing and consumption is a worthy goal of its own.

But Chile and Mexico are filling more than single sandbags, as both countries have rolled out a suite of interventions they are hoping will help improve nutrition: from front-of–package labeling reforms and warnings, to the banning of advertising geared specifically to appeal to children (like sugary cereal cartoon mascots), to implementing sugar-sweetened-beverage taxes, to having blanket overall bans on food advertising during the daytime.

Mexico is even taking first steps to start addressing junk food’s ubiquity by banning its sale in schools altogether. Schools found to be selling common Mexican junk food fare, such as sugary fruit drinks; chips; artificial pork rinds; and soy-encased, salty peanuts with chili, will see their administrators facing heavy fines. 

Because therein lies the biggest rub. Going back to those three simple truths, junk food is hyperpalatable and consequently tends to be what we crave when we’re hungry. So even if we miraculously one day do more than just talk about advertising reforms, and especially given that we won’t be able to do anything about social media’s earned product placements, junk food’s ubiquitous availability within arms’ reach or on our Uber Eats apps will see us be likely to continue its excessive consumption. 

That’s not to say we shouldn’t emulate Mexico and Chile’s initiatives, nor that they shouldn’t continue to build upon them, but one thing is certain: Human nature and inconvenient truths around food are incredibly powerful forces that we haven’t yet figured out how to tame.

Dr. Freedhoff, Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Three basic truths about ultraprocessed foods: Junk food, available pretty much everywhere, tastes great. Advertising works. And most of us don’t crave green leafy salads when we’re hungry.

Of those three truths, the one that tends to get more public health attention is advertising. More specifically, advertising junk food to kids. 

Back in the days when cable television was king of all free time, study after study tried to quantify junk- and fast-food advertising to kids and speculated about its impact on childhood obesity rates. But as broadcast television use began fading, advertisers — and, of course, studies about advertising — turned their attention first to gaming and now to social media.

The social media numbers are quite staggering. According to a study published — probably not coincidentally — on Halloween, looking at the 40 top brands of junk- and fast food sold in Canada, those 40 brands alone were mentioned over 16 million times by social media users, reaching an estimated 42 billion total users within a 1-year period. 

And unique to the challenge of junk- and fast-food advertising on social media is that it also includes “earned” advertising, the kind not paid for by manufacturers but rather the kind where friends, family, and influencers post about junk food. Occasionally, though, these lines are blurred by initiatives from fast-food manufacturers explicitly encouraging social sharing. Consequently, even were there a desire, there isn’t likely to be a regulatory mechanism to markedly reduce it. 

For years, here in North America, excepting Quebec, the desire has been mainly to just talk about how concerned we are about junk-food advertising to kids. Elsewhere, however, some countries tried to do more, including both Mexico and Chile, which put kid-targeted TV food advertising bans in place in 2014 and 2016, respectively. 

Did they work? It depends on what outcome you’re considering. If the question is, did they work in regard to obesity? — which is how everyone tends to frame the question — by themselves, probably not. No one sandbag stops a flood, and though junk-food advertising is certainly a sandbag, we’re still facing a torrential downpour of obesity contributors. No doubt they did work to reduce kids’ exposure to junk-food advertising on television, but what remains to be seen is whether there is a means to now tackle social media’s generous servings of the same. Moreover, the obesity lens is the wrong one. Ultraprocessed food consumption isn’t good for anyone, regardless of weight, and its reduced marketing and consumption is a worthy goal of its own.

But Chile and Mexico are filling more than single sandbags, as both countries have rolled out a suite of interventions they are hoping will help improve nutrition: from front-of–package labeling reforms and warnings, to the banning of advertising geared specifically to appeal to children (like sugary cereal cartoon mascots), to implementing sugar-sweetened-beverage taxes, to having blanket overall bans on food advertising during the daytime.

Mexico is even taking first steps to start addressing junk food’s ubiquity by banning its sale in schools altogether. Schools found to be selling common Mexican junk food fare, such as sugary fruit drinks; chips; artificial pork rinds; and soy-encased, salty peanuts with chili, will see their administrators facing heavy fines. 

Because therein lies the biggest rub. Going back to those three simple truths, junk food is hyperpalatable and consequently tends to be what we crave when we’re hungry. So even if we miraculously one day do more than just talk about advertising reforms, and especially given that we won’t be able to do anything about social media’s earned product placements, junk food’s ubiquitous availability within arms’ reach or on our Uber Eats apps will see us be likely to continue its excessive consumption. 

That’s not to say we shouldn’t emulate Mexico and Chile’s initiatives, nor that they shouldn’t continue to build upon them, but one thing is certain: Human nature and inconvenient truths around food are incredibly powerful forces that we haven’t yet figured out how to tame.

Dr. Freedhoff, Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Three basic truths about ultraprocessed foods: Junk food, available pretty much everywhere, tastes great. Advertising works. And most of us don’t crave green leafy salads when we’re hungry.

Of those three truths, the one that tends to get more public health attention is advertising. More specifically, advertising junk food to kids. 

Back in the days when cable television was king of all free time, study after study tried to quantify junk- and fast-food advertising to kids and speculated about its impact on childhood obesity rates. But as broadcast television use began fading, advertisers — and, of course, studies about advertising — turned their attention first to gaming and now to social media.

The social media numbers are quite staggering. According to a study published — probably not coincidentally — on Halloween, looking at the 40 top brands of junk- and fast food sold in Canada, those 40 brands alone were mentioned over 16 million times by social media users, reaching an estimated 42 billion total users within a 1-year period. 

And unique to the challenge of junk- and fast-food advertising on social media is that it also includes “earned” advertising, the kind not paid for by manufacturers but rather the kind where friends, family, and influencers post about junk food. Occasionally, though, these lines are blurred by initiatives from fast-food manufacturers explicitly encouraging social sharing. Consequently, even were there a desire, there isn’t likely to be a regulatory mechanism to markedly reduce it. 

For years, here in North America, excepting Quebec, the desire has been mainly to just talk about how concerned we are about junk-food advertising to kids. Elsewhere, however, some countries tried to do more, including both Mexico and Chile, which put kid-targeted TV food advertising bans in place in 2014 and 2016, respectively. 

Did they work? It depends on what outcome you’re considering. If the question is, did they work in regard to obesity? — which is how everyone tends to frame the question — by themselves, probably not. No one sandbag stops a flood, and though junk-food advertising is certainly a sandbag, we’re still facing a torrential downpour of obesity contributors. No doubt they did work to reduce kids’ exposure to junk-food advertising on television, but what remains to be seen is whether there is a means to now tackle social media’s generous servings of the same. Moreover, the obesity lens is the wrong one. Ultraprocessed food consumption isn’t good for anyone, regardless of weight, and its reduced marketing and consumption is a worthy goal of its own.

But Chile and Mexico are filling more than single sandbags, as both countries have rolled out a suite of interventions they are hoping will help improve nutrition: from front-of–package labeling reforms and warnings, to the banning of advertising geared specifically to appeal to children (like sugary cereal cartoon mascots), to implementing sugar-sweetened-beverage taxes, to having blanket overall bans on food advertising during the daytime.

Mexico is even taking first steps to start addressing junk food’s ubiquity by banning its sale in schools altogether. Schools found to be selling common Mexican junk food fare, such as sugary fruit drinks; chips; artificial pork rinds; and soy-encased, salty peanuts with chili, will see their administrators facing heavy fines. 

Because therein lies the biggest rub. Going back to those three simple truths, junk food is hyperpalatable and consequently tends to be what we crave when we’re hungry. So even if we miraculously one day do more than just talk about advertising reforms, and especially given that we won’t be able to do anything about social media’s earned product placements, junk food’s ubiquitous availability within arms’ reach or on our Uber Eats apps will see us be likely to continue its excessive consumption. 

That’s not to say we shouldn’t emulate Mexico and Chile’s initiatives, nor that they shouldn’t continue to build upon them, but one thing is certain: Human nature and inconvenient truths around food are incredibly powerful forces that we haven’t yet figured out how to tame.

Dr. Freedhoff, Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new statement, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) has advised against the use of compounded glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RA medication classes.

The ADA recommends GLP-1 RA and GIP/GLP-1 RA medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular and kidney disease risk reduction, and weight management. The new ADA statement pertains to the unapproved, unregulated versions that have emerged as the demand for these medications for weight loss increases. These are often marketed directly to consumers.

“Compounded GLP-1 RA and dual GIP/GLP-1 RA products have been associated with clinically important dosing errors and adverse events. More concerning to individuals’ safety are counterfeit products that have made their way into the US drug supply chain and those advertised online and by unregulated sources,” the ADA said in the statement, published online on December 2, 2024, in Diabetes Care.

The statement, authored by Joshua J. Neumiller, PharmD, CDCES, of the Department of Pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane, and colleagues, states the following:

• Non–FDA-approved compounded incretin products are not recommended for use due to uncertainty about their content and resulting concerns about safety, quality, and effectiveness.
• If an incretin medication is unavailable (eg, in shortage), switching to a different FDA-approved medication is recommended as clinically appropriate to achieve and maintain individualized glucose-lowering, weight management, and/or cardiovascular and kidney risk reduction goals.
• Upon resolution of incretin product unavailability, reassess the appropriateness of resuming the original FDA-approved incretin medication.

The document points out that compounded products are not identical to the FDA-approved versions, may be distributed in nonstandard dosing devices, and may not provide sufficient user instructions.

However, “the ADA also recognizes that individuals and clinicians may still elect to use or recommend compounded products for financial or other reasons,” and therefore offers additional advice for the public, including the following:

• Discuss product use with their usual healthcare providers.
• Only use products that include dosing guidance.
• Verify that the compounding pharmacy is registered with FDA.

In addition, report any adverse events or medication errors to the FDA’s Medwatch.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new statement, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) has advised against the use of compounded glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RA medication classes.

The ADA recommends GLP-1 RA and GIP/GLP-1 RA medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular and kidney disease risk reduction, and weight management. The new ADA statement pertains to the unapproved, unregulated versions that have emerged as the demand for these medications for weight loss increases. These are often marketed directly to consumers.

“Compounded GLP-1 RA and dual GIP/GLP-1 RA products have been associated with clinically important dosing errors and adverse events. More concerning to individuals’ safety are counterfeit products that have made their way into the US drug supply chain and those advertised online and by unregulated sources,” the ADA said in the statement, published online on December 2, 2024, in Diabetes Care.

The statement, authored by Joshua J. Neumiller, PharmD, CDCES, of the Department of Pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane, and colleagues, states the following:

• Non–FDA-approved compounded incretin products are not recommended for use due to uncertainty about their content and resulting concerns about safety, quality, and effectiveness.
• If an incretin medication is unavailable (eg, in shortage), switching to a different FDA-approved medication is recommended as clinically appropriate to achieve and maintain individualized glucose-lowering, weight management, and/or cardiovascular and kidney risk reduction goals.
• Upon resolution of incretin product unavailability, reassess the appropriateness of resuming the original FDA-approved incretin medication.

The document points out that compounded products are not identical to the FDA-approved versions, may be distributed in nonstandard dosing devices, and may not provide sufficient user instructions.

However, “the ADA also recognizes that individuals and clinicians may still elect to use or recommend compounded products for financial or other reasons,” and therefore offers additional advice for the public, including the following:

• Discuss product use with their usual healthcare providers.
• Only use products that include dosing guidance.
• Verify that the compounding pharmacy is registered with FDA.

In addition, report any adverse events or medication errors to the FDA’s Medwatch.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new statement, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) has advised against the use of compounded glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RA medication classes.

The ADA recommends GLP-1 RA and GIP/GLP-1 RA medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular and kidney disease risk reduction, and weight management. The new ADA statement pertains to the unapproved, unregulated versions that have emerged as the demand for these medications for weight loss increases. These are often marketed directly to consumers.

“Compounded GLP-1 RA and dual GIP/GLP-1 RA products have been associated with clinically important dosing errors and adverse events. More concerning to individuals’ safety are counterfeit products that have made their way into the US drug supply chain and those advertised online and by unregulated sources,” the ADA said in the statement, published online on December 2, 2024, in Diabetes Care.

The statement, authored by Joshua J. Neumiller, PharmD, CDCES, of the Department of Pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane, and colleagues, states the following:

• Non–FDA-approved compounded incretin products are not recommended for use due to uncertainty about their content and resulting concerns about safety, quality, and effectiveness.
• If an incretin medication is unavailable (eg, in shortage), switching to a different FDA-approved medication is recommended as clinically appropriate to achieve and maintain individualized glucose-lowering, weight management, and/or cardiovascular and kidney risk reduction goals.
• Upon resolution of incretin product unavailability, reassess the appropriateness of resuming the original FDA-approved incretin medication.

The document points out that compounded products are not identical to the FDA-approved versions, may be distributed in nonstandard dosing devices, and may not provide sufficient user instructions.

However, “the ADA also recognizes that individuals and clinicians may still elect to use or recommend compounded products for financial or other reasons,” and therefore offers additional advice for the public, including the following:

• Discuss product use with their usual healthcare providers.
• Only use products that include dosing guidance.
• Verify that the compounding pharmacy is registered with FDA.

In addition, report any adverse events or medication errors to the FDA’s Medwatch.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The word “malnutrition” probably brings to mind images of very thin patients with catabolic illness. But it really just means “poor nutrition,” which can — and often does — apply to patients with overweight or obesity.

That’s because malnutrition doesn’t occur simply because of a lack of calories, but rather because there is a gap in the nutrition the body requires and the nutrition it receives.

Each day, clinicians see patients with chronic conditions related to malnutrition. That list includes diabetes and hypertension, which can be promoted by excess intake of certain nutrients (carbohydrates and sodium) or inadequate intake of others (fiber, protein, potassium, magnesium, and calcium).

 

Diet Education Is Vital in Chronic Disease Management

Diet education is without a doubt a core pillar of chronic disease management. Nutrition therapy is recommended in treatment guidelines for the management of some of the most commonly seen chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease. But in one study, only 58% of physicians, nurses and other health professionals surveyed had received formal nutrition education and only 40% were confident in their ability to provide nutrition education to patients.

As a registered dietitian, I welcome referrals for both prevention and management of chronic diseases with open arms. But medical nutrition therapy with a registered dietitian may not be realistic for all patients owing to financial, geographic, or other constraints. So, their best option may be the few minutes that a physician or physician extender has to spare at the end of their appointment.

But time constraints may result in clinicians turning to short, easy-to-remember messages such as “Don’t eat anything white” or “Only shop the edges of the grocery store.” Although catchy, this type of advice can inadvertently encourage patients to skip over foods that are actually very nutrient dense. For example, white foods such as onions, turnips, mushrooms, cauliflower, and even popcorn are low in calories and high in nutritional value. The center aisles of the grocery store may harbor high-carbohydrate breakfast cereals and potato chips, but they are also home to legumes, nuts, and canned and frozen fruits and vegetables.

What may be more effective is educating the patient on the importance of focusing on the nutrient density of foods, rather than simply limiting certain food groups or colors.

 

How to Work Nutrient Density into the Conversation

Nutrient density is a concept that refers to the proportion of nutrients to calories in a food item: essentially, a food’s qualitative nutritional value. It provides more depth than simply referring to foods as being high or low in calories, healthy or unhealthy, or good or bad.

Educating patients about nutrition density and encouraging a focus on foods that are low in calories and high in vitamins and minerals can help address micronutrient deficiencies, which may be more common than previously thought and linked to the chronic diseases that we see daily. It is worth noting that some foods that are not low in calories are still nutrient dense. Avocados, liver, and nuts come to mind as foods that are high in calories, but they have additional nutrients such as fiber, potassium, antioxidants, vitamin A, iron, and selenium that can still make them an excellent choice if they are part of a well-balanced diet.

I fear that we often underestimate our patients. We worry that not providing them with a list of acceptable foods will set them up for failure. But, in my experience, that list of “good” and “bad” foods may be useful for a week or so but will eventually become lost on the fridge under children’s artwork and save-the-dates.

Patients know that potato chips offer little more than fat, carbs, and salt and that they’re a poor choice for long-term health. What they might not know is that cocktail peanuts can also satisfy the craving for a salty snack, with more than four times the protein, twice the fiber, and just over half of the sodium found in the same serving size of regular salted potato chips. Peanuts have the added bonus of being high in heart-healthy monounsaturated fatty acids.

The best thing that clinicians can do with just a few minutes of time for diet education is to talk to patients about the nutrient density of whole foods and caution patients against highly processed foods, because processing can decrease nutritional content. Our most effective option is to explain why a varied diet with focus on fruits, vegetables, lean protein, nuts, legumes, and healthy fats is beneficial for cardiovascular and metabolic health. After that, all that is left is to trust the patient to make the right choices for their health.

Brandy Winfree Root, a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The word “malnutrition” probably brings to mind images of very thin patients with catabolic illness. But it really just means “poor nutrition,” which can — and often does — apply to patients with overweight or obesity.

That’s because malnutrition doesn’t occur simply because of a lack of calories, but rather because there is a gap in the nutrition the body requires and the nutrition it receives.

Each day, clinicians see patients with chronic conditions related to malnutrition. That list includes diabetes and hypertension, which can be promoted by excess intake of certain nutrients (carbohydrates and sodium) or inadequate intake of others (fiber, protein, potassium, magnesium, and calcium).

 

Diet Education Is Vital in Chronic Disease Management

Diet education is without a doubt a core pillar of chronic disease management. Nutrition therapy is recommended in treatment guidelines for the management of some of the most commonly seen chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease. But in one study, only 58% of physicians, nurses and other health professionals surveyed had received formal nutrition education and only 40% were confident in their ability to provide nutrition education to patients.

As a registered dietitian, I welcome referrals for both prevention and management of chronic diseases with open arms. But medical nutrition therapy with a registered dietitian may not be realistic for all patients owing to financial, geographic, or other constraints. So, their best option may be the few minutes that a physician or physician extender has to spare at the end of their appointment.

But time constraints may result in clinicians turning to short, easy-to-remember messages such as “Don’t eat anything white” or “Only shop the edges of the grocery store.” Although catchy, this type of advice can inadvertently encourage patients to skip over foods that are actually very nutrient dense. For example, white foods such as onions, turnips, mushrooms, cauliflower, and even popcorn are low in calories and high in nutritional value. The center aisles of the grocery store may harbor high-carbohydrate breakfast cereals and potato chips, but they are also home to legumes, nuts, and canned and frozen fruits and vegetables.

What may be more effective is educating the patient on the importance of focusing on the nutrient density of foods, rather than simply limiting certain food groups or colors.

 

How to Work Nutrient Density into the Conversation

Nutrient density is a concept that refers to the proportion of nutrients to calories in a food item: essentially, a food’s qualitative nutritional value. It provides more depth than simply referring to foods as being high or low in calories, healthy or unhealthy, or good or bad.

Educating patients about nutrition density and encouraging a focus on foods that are low in calories and high in vitamins and minerals can help address micronutrient deficiencies, which may be more common than previously thought and linked to the chronic diseases that we see daily. It is worth noting that some foods that are not low in calories are still nutrient dense. Avocados, liver, and nuts come to mind as foods that are high in calories, but they have additional nutrients such as fiber, potassium, antioxidants, vitamin A, iron, and selenium that can still make them an excellent choice if they are part of a well-balanced diet.

I fear that we often underestimate our patients. We worry that not providing them with a list of acceptable foods will set them up for failure. But, in my experience, that list of “good” and “bad” foods may be useful for a week or so but will eventually become lost on the fridge under children’s artwork and save-the-dates.

Patients know that potato chips offer little more than fat, carbs, and salt and that they’re a poor choice for long-term health. What they might not know is that cocktail peanuts can also satisfy the craving for a salty snack, with more than four times the protein, twice the fiber, and just over half of the sodium found in the same serving size of regular salted potato chips. Peanuts have the added bonus of being high in heart-healthy monounsaturated fatty acids.

The best thing that clinicians can do with just a few minutes of time for diet education is to talk to patients about the nutrient density of whole foods and caution patients against highly processed foods, because processing can decrease nutritional content. Our most effective option is to explain why a varied diet with focus on fruits, vegetables, lean protein, nuts, legumes, and healthy fats is beneficial for cardiovascular and metabolic health. After that, all that is left is to trust the patient to make the right choices for their health.

Brandy Winfree Root, a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The word “malnutrition” probably brings to mind images of very thin patients with catabolic illness. But it really just means “poor nutrition,” which can — and often does — apply to patients with overweight or obesity.

That’s because malnutrition doesn’t occur simply because of a lack of calories, but rather because there is a gap in the nutrition the body requires and the nutrition it receives.

Each day, clinicians see patients with chronic conditions related to malnutrition. That list includes diabetes and hypertension, which can be promoted by excess intake of certain nutrients (carbohydrates and sodium) or inadequate intake of others (fiber, protein, potassium, magnesium, and calcium).

 

Diet Education Is Vital in Chronic Disease Management

Diet education is without a doubt a core pillar of chronic disease management. Nutrition therapy is recommended in treatment guidelines for the management of some of the most commonly seen chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease. But in one study, only 58% of physicians, nurses and other health professionals surveyed had received formal nutrition education and only 40% were confident in their ability to provide nutrition education to patients.

As a registered dietitian, I welcome referrals for both prevention and management of chronic diseases with open arms. But medical nutrition therapy with a registered dietitian may not be realistic for all patients owing to financial, geographic, or other constraints. So, their best option may be the few minutes that a physician or physician extender has to spare at the end of their appointment.

But time constraints may result in clinicians turning to short, easy-to-remember messages such as “Don’t eat anything white” or “Only shop the edges of the grocery store.” Although catchy, this type of advice can inadvertently encourage patients to skip over foods that are actually very nutrient dense. For example, white foods such as onions, turnips, mushrooms, cauliflower, and even popcorn are low in calories and high in nutritional value. The center aisles of the grocery store may harbor high-carbohydrate breakfast cereals and potato chips, but they are also home to legumes, nuts, and canned and frozen fruits and vegetables.

What may be more effective is educating the patient on the importance of focusing on the nutrient density of foods, rather than simply limiting certain food groups or colors.

 

How to Work Nutrient Density into the Conversation

Nutrient density is a concept that refers to the proportion of nutrients to calories in a food item: essentially, a food’s qualitative nutritional value. It provides more depth than simply referring to foods as being high or low in calories, healthy or unhealthy, or good or bad.

Educating patients about nutrition density and encouraging a focus on foods that are low in calories and high in vitamins and minerals can help address micronutrient deficiencies, which may be more common than previously thought and linked to the chronic diseases that we see daily. It is worth noting that some foods that are not low in calories are still nutrient dense. Avocados, liver, and nuts come to mind as foods that are high in calories, but they have additional nutrients such as fiber, potassium, antioxidants, vitamin A, iron, and selenium that can still make them an excellent choice if they are part of a well-balanced diet.

I fear that we often underestimate our patients. We worry that not providing them with a list of acceptable foods will set them up for failure. But, in my experience, that list of “good” and “bad” foods may be useful for a week or so but will eventually become lost on the fridge under children’s artwork and save-the-dates.

Patients know that potato chips offer little more than fat, carbs, and salt and that they’re a poor choice for long-term health. What they might not know is that cocktail peanuts can also satisfy the craving for a salty snack, with more than four times the protein, twice the fiber, and just over half of the sodium found in the same serving size of regular salted potato chips. Peanuts have the added bonus of being high in heart-healthy monounsaturated fatty acids.

The best thing that clinicians can do with just a few minutes of time for diet education is to talk to patients about the nutrient density of whole foods and caution patients against highly processed foods, because processing can decrease nutritional content. Our most effective option is to explain why a varied diet with focus on fruits, vegetables, lean protein, nuts, legumes, and healthy fats is beneficial for cardiovascular and metabolic health. After that, all that is left is to trust the patient to make the right choices for their health.

Brandy Winfree Root, a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Nearly every patient I start on incretin therapy for weight loss asks me the same question, which is, will I have to stay on this forever? The answer is probably yes, but I think it’s much more nuanced than that because A) forever is a long time and B) I think there are various ways to approach this.

I want people to start just saying, let’s see how this works, because not everyone’s going to lose the same amount of weight or respond in the same way. I say let’s try it, but don’t stop it suddenly. If we decide at some point you don’t need quite the same dose, we can reduce the dose and maybe even reduce the frequency of giving it, but you don’t want to stop cold turkey because you may well regain the weight, and that’s obviously not our desired outcome.

There have been multiple clinical trials in which people started on an incretin hormone, either a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual hormone, and they’ve actually shown that stopping it and then continuing patients on a placebo vs active drug results in continued weight gain over time vs either weight maintenance or weight loss when they remain on the incretin hormone. Clearly, on average, people will regain the weight, but that isn’t always true. 

One of the things I think is really important is that, from the get-go on starting on these hormones, people start working with a lifestyle plan, whether it’s working with a coach or an online program. However they approach this, it’s important to start changing habits and increasing exercise.

I can’t say how important this is enough, because people need to increase their physical activity to enhance the benefits of these agents and also to help retain lean body mass. I don’t want people losing a large amount of lean body mass as they go through the process of weight loss. 

I set the stage for the fact that I expect people to adhere to a lifestyle program, and maybe losing weight with the medications is going to help them do even better because they’re going to see positive outcomes.

When they get to the point of weight maintenance, I think we need to reinforce lifestyle. I either go down on the dose given weekly or I start having patients take the dose every other week, for instance, as opposed to every week, and then sometimes every month. Depending on the patient, I get them potentially to a lower dose, and then they’re able to maintain the weight as long as they improved their lifestyle along with the changes in the medication.

I tell people we’ll work with the drug, we’ll work with their metabolic needs, that there are many benefits to being on incretin hormone therapy, but I think it’s important that we can do this on an individualized basis. The thing I don’t want to happen, though, is for people to start on it and then stop it, and then start on it and stop it because they may lose weight, regain weight, get side effects, get used to the side effects, stop it, and start it.

As we know, that’s not the best way to do this, and I think it’s not healthy for people to do that either. I know it’s been somewhat problematic with supply chain issues, but hopefully we’ll be able to start these agents, reach the desired outcome in terms of weight loss, and then help patients maintain that weight with a combination of both medication and lifestyle.

Dr. Peters, professor, Department of Clinical Medicine, Keck School of Medicine; Director, University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes, Los Angeles, disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, Becton Dickinson; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo; Medscape; Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, Zafgen, Dexcom, MannKind, and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Nearly every patient I start on incretin therapy for weight loss asks me the same question, which is, will I have to stay on this forever? The answer is probably yes, but I think it’s much more nuanced than that because A) forever is a long time and B) I think there are various ways to approach this.

I want people to start just saying, let’s see how this works, because not everyone’s going to lose the same amount of weight or respond in the same way. I say let’s try it, but don’t stop it suddenly. If we decide at some point you don’t need quite the same dose, we can reduce the dose and maybe even reduce the frequency of giving it, but you don’t want to stop cold turkey because you may well regain the weight, and that’s obviously not our desired outcome.

There have been multiple clinical trials in which people started on an incretin hormone, either a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual hormone, and they’ve actually shown that stopping it and then continuing patients on a placebo vs active drug results in continued weight gain over time vs either weight maintenance or weight loss when they remain on the incretin hormone. Clearly, on average, people will regain the weight, but that isn’t always true. 

One of the things I think is really important is that, from the get-go on starting on these hormones, people start working with a lifestyle plan, whether it’s working with a coach or an online program. However they approach this, it’s important to start changing habits and increasing exercise.

I can’t say how important this is enough, because people need to increase their physical activity to enhance the benefits of these agents and also to help retain lean body mass. I don’t want people losing a large amount of lean body mass as they go through the process of weight loss. 

I set the stage for the fact that I expect people to adhere to a lifestyle program, and maybe losing weight with the medications is going to help them do even better because they’re going to see positive outcomes.

When they get to the point of weight maintenance, I think we need to reinforce lifestyle. I either go down on the dose given weekly or I start having patients take the dose every other week, for instance, as opposed to every week, and then sometimes every month. Depending on the patient, I get them potentially to a lower dose, and then they’re able to maintain the weight as long as they improved their lifestyle along with the changes in the medication.

I tell people we’ll work with the drug, we’ll work with their metabolic needs, that there are many benefits to being on incretin hormone therapy, but I think it’s important that we can do this on an individualized basis. The thing I don’t want to happen, though, is for people to start on it and then stop it, and then start on it and stop it because they may lose weight, regain weight, get side effects, get used to the side effects, stop it, and start it.

As we know, that’s not the best way to do this, and I think it’s not healthy for people to do that either. I know it’s been somewhat problematic with supply chain issues, but hopefully we’ll be able to start these agents, reach the desired outcome in terms of weight loss, and then help patients maintain that weight with a combination of both medication and lifestyle.

Dr. Peters, professor, Department of Clinical Medicine, Keck School of Medicine; Director, University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes, Los Angeles, disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, Becton Dickinson; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo; Medscape; Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, Zafgen, Dexcom, MannKind, and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Nearly every patient I start on incretin therapy for weight loss asks me the same question, which is, will I have to stay on this forever? The answer is probably yes, but I think it’s much more nuanced than that because A) forever is a long time and B) I think there are various ways to approach this.

I want people to start just saying, let’s see how this works, because not everyone’s going to lose the same amount of weight or respond in the same way. I say let’s try it, but don’t stop it suddenly. If we decide at some point you don’t need quite the same dose, we can reduce the dose and maybe even reduce the frequency of giving it, but you don’t want to stop cold turkey because you may well regain the weight, and that’s obviously not our desired outcome.

There have been multiple clinical trials in which people started on an incretin hormone, either a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual hormone, and they’ve actually shown that stopping it and then continuing patients on a placebo vs active drug results in continued weight gain over time vs either weight maintenance or weight loss when they remain on the incretin hormone. Clearly, on average, people will regain the weight, but that isn’t always true. 

One of the things I think is really important is that, from the get-go on starting on these hormones, people start working with a lifestyle plan, whether it’s working with a coach or an online program. However they approach this, it’s important to start changing habits and increasing exercise.

I can’t say how important this is enough, because people need to increase their physical activity to enhance the benefits of these agents and also to help retain lean body mass. I don’t want people losing a large amount of lean body mass as they go through the process of weight loss. 

I set the stage for the fact that I expect people to adhere to a lifestyle program, and maybe losing weight with the medications is going to help them do even better because they’re going to see positive outcomes.

When they get to the point of weight maintenance, I think we need to reinforce lifestyle. I either go down on the dose given weekly or I start having patients take the dose every other week, for instance, as opposed to every week, and then sometimes every month. Depending on the patient, I get them potentially to a lower dose, and then they’re able to maintain the weight as long as they improved their lifestyle along with the changes in the medication.

I tell people we’ll work with the drug, we’ll work with their metabolic needs, that there are many benefits to being on incretin hormone therapy, but I think it’s important that we can do this on an individualized basis. The thing I don’t want to happen, though, is for people to start on it and then stop it, and then start on it and stop it because they may lose weight, regain weight, get side effects, get used to the side effects, stop it, and start it.

As we know, that’s not the best way to do this, and I think it’s not healthy for people to do that either. I know it’s been somewhat problematic with supply chain issues, but hopefully we’ll be able to start these agents, reach the desired outcome in terms of weight loss, and then help patients maintain that weight with a combination of both medication and lifestyle.

Dr. Peters, professor, Department of Clinical Medicine, Keck School of Medicine; Director, University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes, Los Angeles, disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, Becton Dickinson; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo; Medscape; Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, Zafgen, Dexcom, MannKind, and AstraZeneca.

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

WASHINGTON — Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications appear beneficial for people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis, two new studies suggest. 

“The risk of cardiovascular disease is thought to be at least double that for people with lupus ... and we know the risk of progressing to end-stage renal disease [ESKD] for patients with lupus nephritis can be as high as 10%-30%, so there’s clearly a major unmet need for new treatments and approaches to improve these outcomes, perhaps with adjunctive treatment beyond our typical immunosuppressive therapy,” April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). 

The GLP-1 RAs are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. They also have proven cardiovascular benefit, along with emerging data suggesting kidney protection independent of glucose lowering. Jorge presented findings from a study using data from the US multicenter electronic health record database TriNetX, showing that, among patients who had both T2D and SLE, those using GLP-1 RAs had lower risks for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), venous thrombosis, kidney disease progression, and all-cause mortality, compared with those using a different class of T2D medication. 

A second study using TriNetX, presented at the same ACR meeting session by Anna-Kay Palmer, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, showed that GLP-1 RAs reduced the risk of progression to ESKD in patients with lupus nephritis, possibly caused by reductions in pro-inflammatory mediators.

Asked to comment, session moderator Diane L. Kamen, MD, professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina Division of Rheumatology, Charleston, said in an interview that she definitely supports the use of GLP-1 RAs for patients who have SLE and/or lupus nephritis and also a drug label indication, either T2D or obesity. “[The GLP-1 RA prescriber] will usually run it by rheumatology to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with any of their other medical treatment, and it’s very reassuring to know that they could actually get a win-win.” 

But as far as prescribing off-label for those with SLE/lupus nephritis who don’t have other GLP-1 RA indications, Kamen said, “that’s a black hole at this point. We need to do those prospective studies. But if they have another indication, yes.”

 

Cardiovascular, Kidney Benefits of GLP-1 RAs

Jorge noted that patients with lupus were excluded from the randomized clinical trials of GLP-1 RAs, so the current study was designed to investigate the potential impact of these medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis. 

From TriNetX data for 46 healthcare organizations nationwide, a total of 96,511 patients with both SLE and T2D but not ESKD had initiated either a GLP-1 RA or another diabetes drug class, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), between October 2006 and August 2021. Of those, 29,177 had lupus nephritis. 

Propensity score matching for factors such as demographics, lupus severity, comorbidities, and medication use was used to emulate a randomized trial. This yielded 25,838 with SLE and T2D, of whom 910 initiated a GLP-1 RA and 1004 started a DPP4i, and 12,387 with lupus nephritis and T2D, including 267 on a GLP-1 RA and 324 on a DPP4i. After matching, the mean age was 55 years, more than 90% were women, and just under half were White individuals. About one third had chronic kidney disease stages ≥ 3, and about 15% had heart failure. 

Over an average follow-up time of 1.2-1.4 years among those with SLE, the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) for those taking a GLP-1 RA vs a DPP4i was 0.66, a significant difference. And for venous thrombosis, the HR was also significant at 0.49.

Kidney disease progression, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of 30% or more or new ESKD, was significantly less likely in the GLP-1 RA group, with a HR of 0.77. All-cause mortality also was dramatically reduced (HR, 0.26). As expected, there was no difference in control outcome, genital infections (HR, 1.02). 

In the subgroup with lupus nephritis, there were also lower risks for both MACE (HR, 0.64) and for renal progression (HR, 0.70). “The findings suggest similar cardiac and kidney benefits among patients with SLE and lupus nephritis as have been observed in other populations,” Jorge concluded. 

Kamen commented that the study design “was pretty brilliant, because you wouldn’t be able to do a placebo-controlled trial since the indication was diabetes ... but the fact is you do see that the GLP-1 RA gets the benefit whereas the other drug does not.”

Next steps, Jorge said, will be mechanistic studies to better understand the effects of GLP-1 RAs in lupus and other rheumatic diseases, prospective studies of GLP-1 RAs in SLE and lupus nephritis without diabetes, and clarification of ideal timing for GLP-1 RA use in SLE and lupus nephritis. 

“Ideally, with our prospective studies with these patients we can try to isolate the effect on patients with lupus and also better understand whether there might be an impact on disease activity through the anti-inflammatory effects of these medications, rather than just the cardioprotective and nephroprotective benefits,” she said. 

 

In Those With Lupus Nephritis, Kidney Protection Seen

In her presentation, Palmer noted that, despite immunosuppressive therapies for SLE, 10%-20% of patients who develop lupus nephritis will progress to ESKD within 5 years of diagnosis. 

She added that GLP-1 RAs have been shown to reduce albuminuria in people with diabetes and have been hypothesized to reduce inflammation through multiple pathways, thereby potentially reducing kidney disease independently of the presence of diabetes or weight loss. These pathways include modulating immune cell signaling and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines. 

Based on all this, Palmer and colleagues used International Classification of Diseases – 10th edition diagnostic codes in TriNetX to identify 839 patients who had been diagnosed with lupus nephritis between 2014 and 2024 and who were prescribed liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, or exenatide for any time after the lupus nephritis diagnosis. Another 29,840 patients with lupus nephritis had not used GLP-1 RAs. 

After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, presence of hypertension, diabetes, use of immunosuppressive and diabetes medication, smoking, obesity, and statin use, there were 735 individuals in each group. About two thirds in each had diabetes, whereas the rest had been prescribed the GLP-1 RAs for other indications. 

Patients who were not on GLP-1 RAs were twice as likely to develop ESKD or dialysis (8.88% vs 3.971%; odds ratio, 2.35; P = .001). 

Kamen pointed out that not including the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers was a study flaw. On the other hand, the fact that not everyone in this study had diabetes was an advantage.

Jorge received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cabaletta Bio, and the Lupus Clinical Investigator Network. Kamen is an adviser/review panel member for Alpine Immune Sciences. Palmer had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications appear beneficial for people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis, two new studies suggest. 

“The risk of cardiovascular disease is thought to be at least double that for people with lupus ... and we know the risk of progressing to end-stage renal disease [ESKD] for patients with lupus nephritis can be as high as 10%-30%, so there’s clearly a major unmet need for new treatments and approaches to improve these outcomes, perhaps with adjunctive treatment beyond our typical immunosuppressive therapy,” April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). 

The GLP-1 RAs are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. They also have proven cardiovascular benefit, along with emerging data suggesting kidney protection independent of glucose lowering. Jorge presented findings from a study using data from the US multicenter electronic health record database TriNetX, showing that, among patients who had both T2D and SLE, those using GLP-1 RAs had lower risks for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), venous thrombosis, kidney disease progression, and all-cause mortality, compared with those using a different class of T2D medication. 

A second study using TriNetX, presented at the same ACR meeting session by Anna-Kay Palmer, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, showed that GLP-1 RAs reduced the risk of progression to ESKD in patients with lupus nephritis, possibly caused by reductions in pro-inflammatory mediators.

Asked to comment, session moderator Diane L. Kamen, MD, professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina Division of Rheumatology, Charleston, said in an interview that she definitely supports the use of GLP-1 RAs for patients who have SLE and/or lupus nephritis and also a drug label indication, either T2D or obesity. “[The GLP-1 RA prescriber] will usually run it by rheumatology to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with any of their other medical treatment, and it’s very reassuring to know that they could actually get a win-win.” 

But as far as prescribing off-label for those with SLE/lupus nephritis who don’t have other GLP-1 RA indications, Kamen said, “that’s a black hole at this point. We need to do those prospective studies. But if they have another indication, yes.”

 

Cardiovascular, Kidney Benefits of GLP-1 RAs

Jorge noted that patients with lupus were excluded from the randomized clinical trials of GLP-1 RAs, so the current study was designed to investigate the potential impact of these medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis. 

From TriNetX data for 46 healthcare organizations nationwide, a total of 96,511 patients with both SLE and T2D but not ESKD had initiated either a GLP-1 RA or another diabetes drug class, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), between October 2006 and August 2021. Of those, 29,177 had lupus nephritis. 

Propensity score matching for factors such as demographics, lupus severity, comorbidities, and medication use was used to emulate a randomized trial. This yielded 25,838 with SLE and T2D, of whom 910 initiated a GLP-1 RA and 1004 started a DPP4i, and 12,387 with lupus nephritis and T2D, including 267 on a GLP-1 RA and 324 on a DPP4i. After matching, the mean age was 55 years, more than 90% were women, and just under half were White individuals. About one third had chronic kidney disease stages ≥ 3, and about 15% had heart failure. 

Over an average follow-up time of 1.2-1.4 years among those with SLE, the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) for those taking a GLP-1 RA vs a DPP4i was 0.66, a significant difference. And for venous thrombosis, the HR was also significant at 0.49.

Kidney disease progression, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of 30% or more or new ESKD, was significantly less likely in the GLP-1 RA group, with a HR of 0.77. All-cause mortality also was dramatically reduced (HR, 0.26). As expected, there was no difference in control outcome, genital infections (HR, 1.02). 

In the subgroup with lupus nephritis, there were also lower risks for both MACE (HR, 0.64) and for renal progression (HR, 0.70). “The findings suggest similar cardiac and kidney benefits among patients with SLE and lupus nephritis as have been observed in other populations,” Jorge concluded. 

Kamen commented that the study design “was pretty brilliant, because you wouldn’t be able to do a placebo-controlled trial since the indication was diabetes ... but the fact is you do see that the GLP-1 RA gets the benefit whereas the other drug does not.”

Next steps, Jorge said, will be mechanistic studies to better understand the effects of GLP-1 RAs in lupus and other rheumatic diseases, prospective studies of GLP-1 RAs in SLE and lupus nephritis without diabetes, and clarification of ideal timing for GLP-1 RA use in SLE and lupus nephritis. 

“Ideally, with our prospective studies with these patients we can try to isolate the effect on patients with lupus and also better understand whether there might be an impact on disease activity through the anti-inflammatory effects of these medications, rather than just the cardioprotective and nephroprotective benefits,” she said. 

 

In Those With Lupus Nephritis, Kidney Protection Seen

In her presentation, Palmer noted that, despite immunosuppressive therapies for SLE, 10%-20% of patients who develop lupus nephritis will progress to ESKD within 5 years of diagnosis. 

She added that GLP-1 RAs have been shown to reduce albuminuria in people with diabetes and have been hypothesized to reduce inflammation through multiple pathways, thereby potentially reducing kidney disease independently of the presence of diabetes or weight loss. These pathways include modulating immune cell signaling and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines. 

Based on all this, Palmer and colleagues used International Classification of Diseases – 10th edition diagnostic codes in TriNetX to identify 839 patients who had been diagnosed with lupus nephritis between 2014 and 2024 and who were prescribed liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, or exenatide for any time after the lupus nephritis diagnosis. Another 29,840 patients with lupus nephritis had not used GLP-1 RAs. 

After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, presence of hypertension, diabetes, use of immunosuppressive and diabetes medication, smoking, obesity, and statin use, there were 735 individuals in each group. About two thirds in each had diabetes, whereas the rest had been prescribed the GLP-1 RAs for other indications. 

Patients who were not on GLP-1 RAs were twice as likely to develop ESKD or dialysis (8.88% vs 3.971%; odds ratio, 2.35; P = .001). 

Kamen pointed out that not including the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers was a study flaw. On the other hand, the fact that not everyone in this study had diabetes was an advantage.

Jorge received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cabaletta Bio, and the Lupus Clinical Investigator Network. Kamen is an adviser/review panel member for Alpine Immune Sciences. Palmer had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications appear beneficial for people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis, two new studies suggest. 

“The risk of cardiovascular disease is thought to be at least double that for people with lupus ... and we know the risk of progressing to end-stage renal disease [ESKD] for patients with lupus nephritis can be as high as 10%-30%, so there’s clearly a major unmet need for new treatments and approaches to improve these outcomes, perhaps with adjunctive treatment beyond our typical immunosuppressive therapy,” April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). 

The GLP-1 RAs are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. They also have proven cardiovascular benefit, along with emerging data suggesting kidney protection independent of glucose lowering. Jorge presented findings from a study using data from the US multicenter electronic health record database TriNetX, showing that, among patients who had both T2D and SLE, those using GLP-1 RAs had lower risks for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), venous thrombosis, kidney disease progression, and all-cause mortality, compared with those using a different class of T2D medication. 

A second study using TriNetX, presented at the same ACR meeting session by Anna-Kay Palmer, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, showed that GLP-1 RAs reduced the risk of progression to ESKD in patients with lupus nephritis, possibly caused by reductions in pro-inflammatory mediators.

Asked to comment, session moderator Diane L. Kamen, MD, professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina Division of Rheumatology, Charleston, said in an interview that she definitely supports the use of GLP-1 RAs for patients who have SLE and/or lupus nephritis and also a drug label indication, either T2D or obesity. “[The GLP-1 RA prescriber] will usually run it by rheumatology to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with any of their other medical treatment, and it’s very reassuring to know that they could actually get a win-win.” 

But as far as prescribing off-label for those with SLE/lupus nephritis who don’t have other GLP-1 RA indications, Kamen said, “that’s a black hole at this point. We need to do those prospective studies. But if they have another indication, yes.”

 

Cardiovascular, Kidney Benefits of GLP-1 RAs

Jorge noted that patients with lupus were excluded from the randomized clinical trials of GLP-1 RAs, so the current study was designed to investigate the potential impact of these medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis. 

From TriNetX data for 46 healthcare organizations nationwide, a total of 96,511 patients with both SLE and T2D but not ESKD had initiated either a GLP-1 RA or another diabetes drug class, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), between October 2006 and August 2021. Of those, 29,177 had lupus nephritis. 

Propensity score matching for factors such as demographics, lupus severity, comorbidities, and medication use was used to emulate a randomized trial. This yielded 25,838 with SLE and T2D, of whom 910 initiated a GLP-1 RA and 1004 started a DPP4i, and 12,387 with lupus nephritis and T2D, including 267 on a GLP-1 RA and 324 on a DPP4i. After matching, the mean age was 55 years, more than 90% were women, and just under half were White individuals. About one third had chronic kidney disease stages ≥ 3, and about 15% had heart failure. 

Over an average follow-up time of 1.2-1.4 years among those with SLE, the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) for those taking a GLP-1 RA vs a DPP4i was 0.66, a significant difference. And for venous thrombosis, the HR was also significant at 0.49.

Kidney disease progression, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of 30% or more or new ESKD, was significantly less likely in the GLP-1 RA group, with a HR of 0.77. All-cause mortality also was dramatically reduced (HR, 0.26). As expected, there was no difference in control outcome, genital infections (HR, 1.02). 

In the subgroup with lupus nephritis, there were also lower risks for both MACE (HR, 0.64) and for renal progression (HR, 0.70). “The findings suggest similar cardiac and kidney benefits among patients with SLE and lupus nephritis as have been observed in other populations,” Jorge concluded. 

Kamen commented that the study design “was pretty brilliant, because you wouldn’t be able to do a placebo-controlled trial since the indication was diabetes ... but the fact is you do see that the GLP-1 RA gets the benefit whereas the other drug does not.”

Next steps, Jorge said, will be mechanistic studies to better understand the effects of GLP-1 RAs in lupus and other rheumatic diseases, prospective studies of GLP-1 RAs in SLE and lupus nephritis without diabetes, and clarification of ideal timing for GLP-1 RA use in SLE and lupus nephritis. 

“Ideally, with our prospective studies with these patients we can try to isolate the effect on patients with lupus and also better understand whether there might be an impact on disease activity through the anti-inflammatory effects of these medications, rather than just the cardioprotective and nephroprotective benefits,” she said. 

 

In Those With Lupus Nephritis, Kidney Protection Seen

In her presentation, Palmer noted that, despite immunosuppressive therapies for SLE, 10%-20% of patients who develop lupus nephritis will progress to ESKD within 5 years of diagnosis. 

She added that GLP-1 RAs have been shown to reduce albuminuria in people with diabetes and have been hypothesized to reduce inflammation through multiple pathways, thereby potentially reducing kidney disease independently of the presence of diabetes or weight loss. These pathways include modulating immune cell signaling and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines. 

Based on all this, Palmer and colleagues used International Classification of Diseases – 10th edition diagnostic codes in TriNetX to identify 839 patients who had been diagnosed with lupus nephritis between 2014 and 2024 and who were prescribed liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, or exenatide for any time after the lupus nephritis diagnosis. Another 29,840 patients with lupus nephritis had not used GLP-1 RAs. 

After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, presence of hypertension, diabetes, use of immunosuppressive and diabetes medication, smoking, obesity, and statin use, there were 735 individuals in each group. About two thirds in each had diabetes, whereas the rest had been prescribed the GLP-1 RAs for other indications. 

Patients who were not on GLP-1 RAs were twice as likely to develop ESKD or dialysis (8.88% vs 3.971%; odds ratio, 2.35; P = .001). 

Kamen pointed out that not including the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers was a study flaw. On the other hand, the fact that not everyone in this study had diabetes was an advantage.

Jorge received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cabaletta Bio, and the Lupus Clinical Investigator Network. Kamen is an adviser/review panel member for Alpine Immune Sciences. Palmer had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Up to one in seven young adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) have clinically significant hepatic fibrosis, signaling the crucial need for screening in this population to aid early detection and intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers aimed to assess the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis (stage ≥ 2) in young adults without a history of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypothesizing that the rates would be comparable with those in older adults, especially in the presence of cardiometabolic risk factors.
• Overall, 1420 participants aged 21-79 years with or without T2D (63% or 37%, respectively) were included from outpatient clinics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and divided into two age groups: < 45 years (n = 243) and ≥ 45 years (n = 1177).
• All the participants underwent assessment of liver stiffness via transient elastography, with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) or liver biopsy recommended when indicated.
• Participants also underwent a medical history review, physical examination, and fasting blood tests to rule out secondary causes of liver disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 52% of participants had hepatic steatosis, and 9.5% had clinically significant fibrosis.
• There were no significant differences in the frequencies of hepatic steatosis (50.2% vs 52.7%; P = .6) or clinically significant hepatic fibrosis (7.5% vs 9.9%; P = .2) observed between young and older adults.
• The presence of either T2D or obesity was linked to an increased prevalence of both hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in both the age groups (P < .01).
• In young and older adults, the presence of both T2D and obesity led to the highest rates of both hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis, with the latter rate being statistically similar between the groups (15.7% vs 17.3%; P = .2).
• The presence of T2D and obesity was the strongest risk factors for hepatic fibrosis in young adults (odds ratios, 4.33 and 1.16, respectively; P < .05 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical implication is that young adults with obesity and T2D carry a high risk of future cirrhosis, possibly as high as older adults, and must be aggressively screened at the first visit and carefully followed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Anu Sharma, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, was published online in Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The diagnosis of clinically significant hepatic fibrosis was confirmed via MRE and/or liver biopsy in only 30% of all participants. The study population included a slightly higher proportion of young adults with obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic risk factors than that in national averages, which may have limited its generalizability. Genetic variants associated with MASLD were not included in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded partly by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Echosens. One author disclosed receiving research support and serving as a consultant for various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Up to one in seven young adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) have clinically significant hepatic fibrosis, signaling the crucial need for screening in this population to aid early detection and intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers aimed to assess the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis (stage ≥ 2) in young adults without a history of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypothesizing that the rates would be comparable with those in older adults, especially in the presence of cardiometabolic risk factors.
• Overall, 1420 participants aged 21-79 years with or without T2D (63% or 37%, respectively) were included from outpatient clinics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and divided into two age groups: < 45 years (n = 243) and ≥ 45 years (n = 1177).
• All the participants underwent assessment of liver stiffness via transient elastography, with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) or liver biopsy recommended when indicated.
• Participants also underwent a medical history review, physical examination, and fasting blood tests to rule out secondary causes of liver disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 52% of participants had hepatic steatosis, and 9.5% had clinically significant fibrosis.
• There were no significant differences in the frequencies of hepatic steatosis (50.2% vs 52.7%; P = .6) or clinically significant hepatic fibrosis (7.5% vs 9.9%; P = .2) observed between young and older adults.
• The presence of either T2D or obesity was linked to an increased prevalence of both hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in both the age groups (P < .01).
• In young and older adults, the presence of both T2D and obesity led to the highest rates of both hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis, with the latter rate being statistically similar between the groups (15.7% vs 17.3%; P = .2).
• The presence of T2D and obesity was the strongest risk factors for hepatic fibrosis in young adults (odds ratios, 4.33 and 1.16, respectively; P < .05 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical implication is that young adults with obesity and T2D carry a high risk of future cirrhosis, possibly as high as older adults, and must be aggressively screened at the first visit and carefully followed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Anu Sharma, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, was published online in Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The diagnosis of clinically significant hepatic fibrosis was confirmed via MRE and/or liver biopsy in only 30% of all participants. The study population included a slightly higher proportion of young adults with obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic risk factors than that in national averages, which may have limited its generalizability. Genetic variants associated with MASLD were not included in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded partly by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Echosens. One author disclosed receiving research support and serving as a consultant for various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Up to one in seven young adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) have clinically significant hepatic fibrosis, signaling the crucial need for screening in this population to aid early detection and intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers aimed to assess the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis (stage ≥ 2) in young adults without a history of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypothesizing that the rates would be comparable with those in older adults, especially in the presence of cardiometabolic risk factors.
• Overall, 1420 participants aged 21-79 years with or without T2D (63% or 37%, respectively) were included from outpatient clinics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and divided into two age groups: < 45 years (n = 243) and ≥ 45 years (n = 1177).
• All the participants underwent assessment of liver stiffness via transient elastography, with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) or liver biopsy recommended when indicated.
• Participants also underwent a medical history review, physical examination, and fasting blood tests to rule out secondary causes of liver disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 52% of participants had hepatic steatosis, and 9.5% had clinically significant fibrosis.
• There were no significant differences in the frequencies of hepatic steatosis (50.2% vs 52.7%; P = .6) or clinically significant hepatic fibrosis (7.5% vs 9.9%; P = .2) observed between young and older adults.
• The presence of either T2D or obesity was linked to an increased prevalence of both hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in both the age groups (P < .01).
• In young and older adults, the presence of both T2D and obesity led to the highest rates of both hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis, with the latter rate being statistically similar between the groups (15.7% vs 17.3%; P = .2).
• The presence of T2D and obesity was the strongest risk factors for hepatic fibrosis in young adults (odds ratios, 4.33 and 1.16, respectively; P < .05 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical implication is that young adults with obesity and T2D carry a high risk of future cirrhosis, possibly as high as older adults, and must be aggressively screened at the first visit and carefully followed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Anu Sharma, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, was published online in Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The diagnosis of clinically significant hepatic fibrosis was confirmed via MRE and/or liver biopsy in only 30% of all participants. The study population included a slightly higher proportion of young adults with obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic risk factors than that in national averages, which may have limited its generalizability. Genetic variants associated with MASLD were not included in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded partly by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Echosens. One author disclosed receiving research support and serving as a consultant for various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

If we’ve learned anything about obesity prevention it’s that if we wait too long the die is cast and our success rate is nil. The GLP-1 antagonists seem to be a workable solution for treating the adult and adolescent population, but I have been afraid that their success will divert too much of our attention away from prevention.

Fortunately, there still seems to be a few researchers committed to the age group in which obesity could be headed off before our only option is treatment. In one recent study, “Neighborhood Food Access in Early Life and Trajectories of Child Body Mass Index and Obesity,” researchers collected data from more than 28,000 children in 55 cohorts during the period from 1994 to 2023). The investigators found that residence in a low–food access, low-income neighborhoods during pregnancy and early childhood was associated with higher BMI “Z” scores, a higher risk of obesity, and severe obesity in childhood. The researchers defined low food access as living greater than 0.5 miles away from a grocery store in an urban setting or greater than 10 minutes away in a rural setting. I don’t think those associations should surprise us, but having some data from a large population may be valuable should we ever find the political will to undertake any steps toward prevention.

I found a Viewpoint article published 2 weeks earlier in the same journal, titled, “The Exposome as a Key to Understanding Pediatric Health Disparities.” I know what the “biome” is and have heard gastroenterologists expound on the power that billions of our little single-celled friends residing in our gut have on seemingly unrelated and spatially distant events in our body. But, “exposome” was a new word for me, although it turns out the concept is simple and one I had harbored since late childhood. 

 

The opening sentence of the article reads “One’s environment profoundly changes health outcomes throughout one’s lifespan.” That truism was obvious to my 7-year-old self as I observed my playmates who lived in a poorly kept house in the less desirable area two blocks away and didn’t eat breakfast and were sick more often than the rest of us more-fortunates.

The authors define the exposome as the “totality of an individual’s non-genetic exposures, including psychosocial experiences, structural social determinants, chemical pollution, and neighborhood infrastructure.” This seems to be a pretty complete description of the nurture side of the nature versus nurture conversation. 

I suspect that, like me, most of you through observation and intuition have included your own interpretation of the exposome in your professional activities. However, the authors feel we could be more robust in our efforts and claim that “current pediatric practice largely neglects to characterize health disparities in terms of salient environmental practices.” They go on to call for incorporation of an “exposome lens in pediatric research and healthcare delivery.”

I’m not sure this is a valid criticism. There is certainly more that could be done when it comes to research that examines the effect of environmental stressors. And, I suspect the authors would view this recent paper on the association between neighborhood food access as a step in the right direction. However, when it comes to healthcare delivery, at least at the level where the stethoscope meets the chest, I think, or at least hope, the authors are underestimating the observational skills and sensitivity of primary care providers.

We were all taught to take an appropriate medical history when evaluating a patient. And, through our formal education, our personal observations and through exposure to papers like this one on food access we must be aware of the effect of environmental stressors on our patients’ health. Is there more we could learn about those kind of associations? Certainly. This is where a more broadly focused exposome lens could be most effective. 

The authors of the article observed: “The effect of the exposome is not uniform for all individuals but rather intersects across identities precipitating unique outcomes.” The practical reality is that to generate statistically significant data research must look at identities. This doesn’t mean that large population studies are without value. However, it does obligate investigators to include that caveat about the uniqueness of the individual in their conclusions. And, it is our duty as providers to keep this reality in mind as we interpret studies we read in the context of each individual patient. 

When it comes to healthcare delivery at the structural level, I am concerned that we are moving in a direction that is making it more difficult for the provider to become familiar with the patient’s exposome. I am talking about an over-reliance on the team care delivery model that too often results in the “We never/seldom see the same provider” patient complaint.

I don’t care how slick and user-friendly a practice’s EHR system is; the best way to learn about a patient’s exposome is by repeated exposure (pun unintended) to the same provider. This isn’t always possible, and a well-crafted and conscientiously managed EHR can fill in some of the gaps. But, it is a distant second best. 

Awareness of the importance of the exposome is only the starting point. Finding the political will to make the changes necessary to improve our patients’ outcomes is the bigger challenge. Grocery stores well-stocked with healthy foods don’t just pop up where we want them because we think they may hold answer to preventing pediatric obesity.

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

If we’ve learned anything about obesity prevention it’s that if we wait too long the die is cast and our success rate is nil. The GLP-1 antagonists seem to be a workable solution for treating the adult and adolescent population, but I have been afraid that their success will divert too much of our attention away from prevention.

Fortunately, there still seems to be a few researchers committed to the age group in which obesity could be headed off before our only option is treatment. In one recent study, “Neighborhood Food Access in Early Life and Trajectories of Child Body Mass Index and Obesity,” researchers collected data from more than 28,000 children in 55 cohorts during the period from 1994 to 2023). The investigators found that residence in a low–food access, low-income neighborhoods during pregnancy and early childhood was associated with higher BMI “Z” scores, a higher risk of obesity, and severe obesity in childhood. The researchers defined low food access as living greater than 0.5 miles away from a grocery store in an urban setting or greater than 10 minutes away in a rural setting. I don’t think those associations should surprise us, but having some data from a large population may be valuable should we ever find the political will to undertake any steps toward prevention.

I found a Viewpoint article published 2 weeks earlier in the same journal, titled, “The Exposome as a Key to Understanding Pediatric Health Disparities.” I know what the “biome” is and have heard gastroenterologists expound on the power that billions of our little single-celled friends residing in our gut have on seemingly unrelated and spatially distant events in our body. But, “exposome” was a new word for me, although it turns out the concept is simple and one I had harbored since late childhood. 

 

The opening sentence of the article reads “One’s environment profoundly changes health outcomes throughout one’s lifespan.” That truism was obvious to my 7-year-old self as I observed my playmates who lived in a poorly kept house in the less desirable area two blocks away and didn’t eat breakfast and were sick more often than the rest of us more-fortunates.

The authors define the exposome as the “totality of an individual’s non-genetic exposures, including psychosocial experiences, structural social determinants, chemical pollution, and neighborhood infrastructure.” This seems to be a pretty complete description of the nurture side of the nature versus nurture conversation. 

I suspect that, like me, most of you through observation and intuition have included your own interpretation of the exposome in your professional activities. However, the authors feel we could be more robust in our efforts and claim that “current pediatric practice largely neglects to characterize health disparities in terms of salient environmental practices.” They go on to call for incorporation of an “exposome lens in pediatric research and healthcare delivery.”

I’m not sure this is a valid criticism. There is certainly more that could be done when it comes to research that examines the effect of environmental stressors. And, I suspect the authors would view this recent paper on the association between neighborhood food access as a step in the right direction. However, when it comes to healthcare delivery, at least at the level where the stethoscope meets the chest, I think, or at least hope, the authors are underestimating the observational skills and sensitivity of primary care providers.

We were all taught to take an appropriate medical history when evaluating a patient. And, through our formal education, our personal observations and through exposure to papers like this one on food access we must be aware of the effect of environmental stressors on our patients’ health. Is there more we could learn about those kind of associations? Certainly. This is where a more broadly focused exposome lens could be most effective. 

The authors of the article observed: “The effect of the exposome is not uniform for all individuals but rather intersects across identities precipitating unique outcomes.” The practical reality is that to generate statistically significant data research must look at identities. This doesn’t mean that large population studies are without value. However, it does obligate investigators to include that caveat about the uniqueness of the individual in their conclusions. And, it is our duty as providers to keep this reality in mind as we interpret studies we read in the context of each individual patient. 

When it comes to healthcare delivery at the structural level, I am concerned that we are moving in a direction that is making it more difficult for the provider to become familiar with the patient’s exposome. I am talking about an over-reliance on the team care delivery model that too often results in the “We never/seldom see the same provider” patient complaint.

I don’t care how slick and user-friendly a practice’s EHR system is; the best way to learn about a patient’s exposome is by repeated exposure (pun unintended) to the same provider. This isn’t always possible, and a well-crafted and conscientiously managed EHR can fill in some of the gaps. But, it is a distant second best. 

Awareness of the importance of the exposome is only the starting point. Finding the political will to make the changes necessary to improve our patients’ outcomes is the bigger challenge. Grocery stores well-stocked with healthy foods don’t just pop up where we want them because we think they may hold answer to preventing pediatric obesity.

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

If we’ve learned anything about obesity prevention it’s that if we wait too long the die is cast and our success rate is nil. The GLP-1 antagonists seem to be a workable solution for treating the adult and adolescent population, but I have been afraid that their success will divert too much of our attention away from prevention.

Fortunately, there still seems to be a few researchers committed to the age group in which obesity could be headed off before our only option is treatment. In one recent study, “Neighborhood Food Access in Early Life and Trajectories of Child Body Mass Index and Obesity,” researchers collected data from more than 28,000 children in 55 cohorts during the period from 1994 to 2023). The investigators found that residence in a low–food access, low-income neighborhoods during pregnancy and early childhood was associated with higher BMI “Z” scores, a higher risk of obesity, and severe obesity in childhood. The researchers defined low food access as living greater than 0.5 miles away from a grocery store in an urban setting or greater than 10 minutes away in a rural setting. I don’t think those associations should surprise us, but having some data from a large population may be valuable should we ever find the political will to undertake any steps toward prevention.

I found a Viewpoint article published 2 weeks earlier in the same journal, titled, “The Exposome as a Key to Understanding Pediatric Health Disparities.” I know what the “biome” is and have heard gastroenterologists expound on the power that billions of our little single-celled friends residing in our gut have on seemingly unrelated and spatially distant events in our body. But, “exposome” was a new word for me, although it turns out the concept is simple and one I had harbored since late childhood. 

 

The opening sentence of the article reads “One’s environment profoundly changes health outcomes throughout one’s lifespan.” That truism was obvious to my 7-year-old self as I observed my playmates who lived in a poorly kept house in the less desirable area two blocks away and didn’t eat breakfast and were sick more often than the rest of us more-fortunates.

The authors define the exposome as the “totality of an individual’s non-genetic exposures, including psychosocial experiences, structural social determinants, chemical pollution, and neighborhood infrastructure.” This seems to be a pretty complete description of the nurture side of the nature versus nurture conversation. 

I suspect that, like me, most of you through observation and intuition have included your own interpretation of the exposome in your professional activities. However, the authors feel we could be more robust in our efforts and claim that “current pediatric practice largely neglects to characterize health disparities in terms of salient environmental practices.” They go on to call for incorporation of an “exposome lens in pediatric research and healthcare delivery.”

I’m not sure this is a valid criticism. There is certainly more that could be done when it comes to research that examines the effect of environmental stressors. And, I suspect the authors would view this recent paper on the association between neighborhood food access as a step in the right direction. However, when it comes to healthcare delivery, at least at the level where the stethoscope meets the chest, I think, or at least hope, the authors are underestimating the observational skills and sensitivity of primary care providers.

We were all taught to take an appropriate medical history when evaluating a patient. And, through our formal education, our personal observations and through exposure to papers like this one on food access we must be aware of the effect of environmental stressors on our patients’ health. Is there more we could learn about those kind of associations? Certainly. This is where a more broadly focused exposome lens could be most effective. 

The authors of the article observed: “The effect of the exposome is not uniform for all individuals but rather intersects across identities precipitating unique outcomes.” The practical reality is that to generate statistically significant data research must look at identities. This doesn’t mean that large population studies are without value. However, it does obligate investigators to include that caveat about the uniqueness of the individual in their conclusions. And, it is our duty as providers to keep this reality in mind as we interpret studies we read in the context of each individual patient. 

When it comes to healthcare delivery at the structural level, I am concerned that we are moving in a direction that is making it more difficult for the provider to become familiar with the patient’s exposome. I am talking about an over-reliance on the team care delivery model that too often results in the “We never/seldom see the same provider” patient complaint.

I don’t care how slick and user-friendly a practice’s EHR system is; the best way to learn about a patient’s exposome is by repeated exposure (pun unintended) to the same provider. This isn’t always possible, and a well-crafted and conscientiously managed EHR can fill in some of the gaps. But, it is a distant second best. 

Awareness of the importance of the exposome is only the starting point. Finding the political will to make the changes necessary to improve our patients’ outcomes is the bigger challenge. Grocery stores well-stocked with healthy foods don’t just pop up where we want them because we think they may hold answer to preventing pediatric obesity.

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

TOPLINE:

US alcohol-related mortality rates increased from 10.7 to 21.6 per 100,000 between 1999 and 2020, with the largest rise of 3.8-fold observed in adults aged 25-34 years. Women experienced a 2.5-fold increase, while the Midwest region showed a similar rise in mortality rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Analysis utilized the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research to examine alcohol-related mortality trends from 1999 to 2020.
• Researchers analyzed data from a total US population of 180,408,769 people aged 25 to 85+ years in 1999 and 226,635,013 people in 2020.
• International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes were used to identify deaths with alcohol attribution, including mental and behavioral disorders, alcoholic organ damage, and alcohol-related poisoning.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall mortality rates increased from 10.7 (95% CI, 10.6-10.8) per 100,000 in 1999 to 21.6 (95% CI, 21.4-21.8) per 100,000 in 2020, representing a significant twofold increase.
• Adults aged 55-64 years demonstrated both the steepest increase and highest absolute rates in both 1999 and 2020.
• American Indian and Alaska Native individuals experienced the steepest increase and highest absolute rates among all racial groups.
• The West region maintained the highest absolute rates in both 1999 and 2020, despite the Midwest showing the largest increase.

IN PRACTICE:

“Individuals who consume large amounts of alcohol tend to have the highest risks of total mortality as well as deaths from cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease deaths are predominantly due to myocardial infarction and stroke. To mitigate these risks, health providers may wish to implement screening for alcohol use in primary care and other healthcare settings. By providing brief interventions and referrals to treatment, healthcare providers would be able to achieve the early identification of individuals at risk of alcohol-related harm and offer them the support and resources they need to reduce their alcohol consumption,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexandra Matarazzo, BS, Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. It was published online in The American Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the cross-sectional nature of the data limits the study to descriptive analysis only, making it suitable for hypothesis generation but not hypothesis testing. While the validity and generalizability within the United States are secure because of the use of complete population data, potential bias and uncontrolled confounding may exist because of different population mixes between the two time points.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. One coauthor disclosed serving as an independent scientist in an advisory role to investigators and sponsors as Chair of Data Monitoring Committees for Amgen and UBC, to the Food and Drug Administration, and to Up to Date. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

US alcohol-related mortality rates increased from 10.7 to 21.6 per 100,000 between 1999 and 2020, with the largest rise of 3.8-fold observed in adults aged 25-34 years. Women experienced a 2.5-fold increase, while the Midwest region showed a similar rise in mortality rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Analysis utilized the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research to examine alcohol-related mortality trends from 1999 to 2020.
• Researchers analyzed data from a total US population of 180,408,769 people aged 25 to 85+ years in 1999 and 226,635,013 people in 2020.
• International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes were used to identify deaths with alcohol attribution, including mental and behavioral disorders, alcoholic organ damage, and alcohol-related poisoning.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall mortality rates increased from 10.7 (95% CI, 10.6-10.8) per 100,000 in 1999 to 21.6 (95% CI, 21.4-21.8) per 100,000 in 2020, representing a significant twofold increase.
• Adults aged 55-64 years demonstrated both the steepest increase and highest absolute rates in both 1999 and 2020.
• American Indian and Alaska Native individuals experienced the steepest increase and highest absolute rates among all racial groups.
• The West region maintained the highest absolute rates in both 1999 and 2020, despite the Midwest showing the largest increase.

IN PRACTICE:

“Individuals who consume large amounts of alcohol tend to have the highest risks of total mortality as well as deaths from cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease deaths are predominantly due to myocardial infarction and stroke. To mitigate these risks, health providers may wish to implement screening for alcohol use in primary care and other healthcare settings. By providing brief interventions and referrals to treatment, healthcare providers would be able to achieve the early identification of individuals at risk of alcohol-related harm and offer them the support and resources they need to reduce their alcohol consumption,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexandra Matarazzo, BS, Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. It was published online in The American Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the cross-sectional nature of the data limits the study to descriptive analysis only, making it suitable for hypothesis generation but not hypothesis testing. While the validity and generalizability within the United States are secure because of the use of complete population data, potential bias and uncontrolled confounding may exist because of different population mixes between the two time points.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. One coauthor disclosed serving as an independent scientist in an advisory role to investigators and sponsors as Chair of Data Monitoring Committees for Amgen and UBC, to the Food and Drug Administration, and to Up to Date. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

US alcohol-related mortality rates increased from 10.7 to 21.6 per 100,000 between 1999 and 2020, with the largest rise of 3.8-fold observed in adults aged 25-34 years. Women experienced a 2.5-fold increase, while the Midwest region showed a similar rise in mortality rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Analysis utilized the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research to examine alcohol-related mortality trends from 1999 to 2020.
• Researchers analyzed data from a total US population of 180,408,769 people aged 25 to 85+ years in 1999 and 226,635,013 people in 2020.
• International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes were used to identify deaths with alcohol attribution, including mental and behavioral disorders, alcoholic organ damage, and alcohol-related poisoning.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall mortality rates increased from 10.7 (95% CI, 10.6-10.8) per 100,000 in 1999 to 21.6 (95% CI, 21.4-21.8) per 100,000 in 2020, representing a significant twofold increase.
• Adults aged 55-64 years demonstrated both the steepest increase and highest absolute rates in both 1999 and 2020.
• American Indian and Alaska Native individuals experienced the steepest increase and highest absolute rates among all racial groups.
• The West region maintained the highest absolute rates in both 1999 and 2020, despite the Midwest showing the largest increase.

IN PRACTICE:

“Individuals who consume large amounts of alcohol tend to have the highest risks of total mortality as well as deaths from cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease deaths are predominantly due to myocardial infarction and stroke. To mitigate these risks, health providers may wish to implement screening for alcohol use in primary care and other healthcare settings. By providing brief interventions and referrals to treatment, healthcare providers would be able to achieve the early identification of individuals at risk of alcohol-related harm and offer them the support and resources they need to reduce their alcohol consumption,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexandra Matarazzo, BS, Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. It was published online in The American Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the cross-sectional nature of the data limits the study to descriptive analysis only, making it suitable for hypothesis generation but not hypothesis testing. While the validity and generalizability within the United States are secure because of the use of complete population data, potential bias and uncontrolled confounding may exist because of different population mixes between the two time points.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. One coauthor disclosed serving as an independent scientist in an advisory role to investigators and sponsors as Chair of Data Monitoring Committees for Amgen and UBC, to the Food and Drug Administration, and to Up to Date. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Just a few years after some TikTok videos spiked the demand, one in eight US adults has tried Ozempic (semaglutide) or another drug in its class. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist medications have revolutionized obesity medicine.

But they’re not without problems. In the early days of the social media craze, news reports often featured patients whose gastrointestinal side effects sent them to the emergency room (ER).

“It happened a lot then. Patients didn’t want to complain because they were losing weight, and they wound up in the ER with extreme constipation or a small bowel obstruction,” said Caroline Apovian, MD, co-director of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“But that’s not really happening now,” she added.

Research backs up her assertion: A recent clinical review of studies found that many patients still experience side effects, but only at a mild to moderate level, while the dosage increases — and the unpleasantness tapers with time. Roughly 7% of patients discontinue the medications due to these symptoms.

Here’s what the latest research shows about GLP-1s’ side effects.

 

Most Common: Gastrointestinal Issues

Depending on the symptom and the specific drug, anywhere from one third to one half of patients will experience some kind of stomach trouble.

• In that clinical review, which looked at studies of three GLP-1 medications — semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus), liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza), and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Zepbound) — semaglutide users fared comparatively worse.
• Nausea was reported most frequently — 44.2% of semaglutide users dealt with it, compared with 40.2% for liraglutide and 31% for tirzepatide. Diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting also struck one quarter to one third of semaglutide patients, and slightly fewer for the other two medications.

Apovian finds that careful dosage helps her patients avoid the worst effects.

“We don’t know who’s going to do well and who’s not,” she said. “We start slowly, and usually things go OK.”

If a patient does react poorly, she’ll hold off on increasing the dosage until they acclimate and advise using over-the-counter meds like MiraLAX to address the symptoms.

Few documented severe adverse gastro events appeared in the data, affecting less than 1% of liraglutide and tirzepatide patients and 2.6% of semaglutide users. The majority of these events were gallbladder-related.

 

Questions About Causation: Depression and Suicidality

About a year ago, a study used 18 years’ worth of data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to examine how often patients reported suicidal ideation and/or depression while using GLP-1 medications. Compared with metformin and insulin, researchers found disproportionate reporting by patients using semaglutide and liraglutide. Other GLP-1 medications didn’t show this effect. The researchers pointed out: These statistics don’t show causation — there’s no clear reason why those two medications were linked to more reports.

Further research has been more reassuring:

• Another study also used FAERS but looked only at data from 2018 to 2022, when usage of these drugs was ramping up, and found no link between suicidal or self-injurious behaviors and GLP-1.
• A recent cohort study, which looked at data from nearly 300,000 people, found that GLP-1 users aren’t at increased risk for death by suicide.
• Both the FDA and the European Medicines Agency have issued statements that the evidence doesn’t support a causal association.

There are several factors at play here. People with obesity and diabetes are more likely to have depression to begin with. And more importantly, even if there is a link, causality remains unclear. For instance, patients who lose weight via bariatric surgery are at increased risk for depression, substance abuse, and self-harm. These symptoms may be related to the weight loss itself, not the medications.

“Some people use food as something other than nutrition. They use food to soothe other psychological issues,” Apovian said. “When that’s taken away, the psychological issues are still there.”

In her practice, she’s seen the risk for mental health issues rise with more substantial weight loss — 50-100 pounds.

This lack of clarity regarding causation means it’s important to perform a detailed patient history before prescribing, so you can monitor more closely with preexisting psychiatric disorders.

 

Possible Link: Ocular Symptoms

Here, too, the research isn’t definitive but leans toward no clear association. Several studies have looked for a link between GLP-1 and vision-related issues:

• One examined FAERS data and network pharmacology and found semaglutide and lixisenatide were significantly associated with adverse events like blurred vision, visual impairment, and diabetic retinopathy.
• This summer, a cohort study of almost 17,000 people with diabetes or overweight/obesity suggested a link between semaglutide and nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), a common cause of blindness due to optic nerve damage. The study found “a substantially increased risk of NAION among individuals prescribed semaglutide relative to those prescribed other medications to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity or overweight.”
• But this month, another cohort study with 135,000 participants looked at NAION in people with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both. It compared results with common non-GLP-1 medications and found just the opposite: No increased risk for NAION.

One drawback with all these studies is that they’re based on large databases rather than randomized controlled trials (RCTs). When researchers focused on RCTs in a 2023 meta-analysis, they found a significant association with only one form of GLP-1, albiglutide — which was withdrawn from the market in 2017. The other six FDA-approved drugs didn’t show a statistically significant link.

 

Possible Trouble: Pulmonary Aspiration Under Sedation

Earlier this month, the FDA updated labeling for semaglutide, liraglutide, and tirzepatide to include a warning about the risk for aspiration during surgery. While there are no published studies, several case reports have appeared.

GLP-1 medications delay gastric emptying, so even though a patient may have fasted before surgery as usual, some food or liquid may remain. In response to this possibility, a group of professional medical societies issued guidelines for using these medications during the perioperative period. They include:

• Consideration of dosage, symptoms, and other medical conditions: The risk is higher during the escalation phase, and in general, higher doses mean higher risk.
• Potential discontinuation of GLP-1 usage when assessment shows an elevated risk.
• Assessment on the day of the procedure for possible delayed gastric emptying.
• Preoperative dietary modifications, which might include switching to a liquid diet.

Rare: Serious Effects

And then there are the outliers, the frightening issues that make headlines. On their own, none of these are common enough to affect consideration of GLP-1 use:

• Studies in rats suggested an increased risk for thyroid cancer, but subsequent research has found no evidence.
• Colonic ischemia in association with tirzepatide.
• Acute pancreatitis leading to death in association with semaglutide.
• Speaking of pancreatitis, that clinical review of studies did find that both liraglutide and semaglutide led to an elevated risk for pancreatitis, bowel obstruction, and gastroparesis. But the numbers were so small as to be insignificant — for instance, just 0.2% of patients experienced pancreatitis.

Benefits Outweigh Risks

When you lay out these side effects against the countless known benefits of weight loss and blood sugar management — the lower risk for high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, metabolic syndrome, fatty liver disease, several cancers, and more — the advantages of GLP-1 drugs seem clear. Ultimately, of course, it’s the patient’s decision whether to begin and continue taking any medication for a chronic disease.

Apovian recommends having in-depth conversations before you write that first prescription – she compares the situation to using an antihypertensive drug. If your patient understands potential side effects, they’re more likely to maintain long-term compliance.

“We educate our patients how to use these drugs, indefinitely, if you want to maintain a lower, healthier body weight,” she said. “I don’t see patients who stop using them, but they’re out there. These are people desperate to lose weight, who aren’t given the education to understand we’re treating a disease. It’s not a matter of willpower.”

And once a patient starts taking a GLP-1, monitor them closely, with in-person visits rather than telehealth, while increasing the dosage. If they experience side effects, stay at that level until they ease. And if the patient has a good weight-loss response at a lower dose, stay there. Just because you can go higher, it doesn’t mean you should.

 

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

Just a few years after some TikTok videos spiked the demand, one in eight US adults has tried Ozempic (semaglutide) or another drug in its class. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist medications have revolutionized obesity medicine.

But they’re not without problems. In the early days of the social media craze, news reports often featured patients whose gastrointestinal side effects sent them to the emergency room (ER).

“It happened a lot then. Patients didn’t want to complain because they were losing weight, and they wound up in the ER with extreme constipation or a small bowel obstruction,” said Caroline Apovian, MD, co-director of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“But that’s not really happening now,” she added.

Research backs up her assertion: A recent clinical review of studies found that many patients still experience side effects, but only at a mild to moderate level, while the dosage increases — and the unpleasantness tapers with time. Roughly 7% of patients discontinue the medications due to these symptoms.

Here’s what the latest research shows about GLP-1s’ side effects.

 

Most Common: Gastrointestinal Issues

Depending on the symptom and the specific drug, anywhere from one third to one half of patients will experience some kind of stomach trouble.

• In that clinical review, which looked at studies of three GLP-1 medications — semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus), liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza), and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Zepbound) — semaglutide users fared comparatively worse.
• Nausea was reported most frequently — 44.2% of semaglutide users dealt with it, compared with 40.2% for liraglutide and 31% for tirzepatide. Diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting also struck one quarter to one third of semaglutide patients, and slightly fewer for the other two medications.

Apovian finds that careful dosage helps her patients avoid the worst effects.

“We don’t know who’s going to do well and who’s not,” she said. “We start slowly, and usually things go OK.”

If a patient does react poorly, she’ll hold off on increasing the dosage until they acclimate and advise using over-the-counter meds like MiraLAX to address the symptoms.

Few documented severe adverse gastro events appeared in the data, affecting less than 1% of liraglutide and tirzepatide patients and 2.6% of semaglutide users. The majority of these events were gallbladder-related.

 

Questions About Causation: Depression and Suicidality

About a year ago, a study used 18 years’ worth of data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to examine how often patients reported suicidal ideation and/or depression while using GLP-1 medications. Compared with metformin and insulin, researchers found disproportionate reporting by patients using semaglutide and liraglutide. Other GLP-1 medications didn’t show this effect. The researchers pointed out: These statistics don’t show causation — there’s no clear reason why those two medications were linked to more reports.

Further research has been more reassuring:

• Another study also used FAERS but looked only at data from 2018 to 2022, when usage of these drugs was ramping up, and found no link between suicidal or self-injurious behaviors and GLP-1.
• A recent cohort study, which looked at data from nearly 300,000 people, found that GLP-1 users aren’t at increased risk for death by suicide.
• Both the FDA and the European Medicines Agency have issued statements that the evidence doesn’t support a causal association.

There are several factors at play here. People with obesity and diabetes are more likely to have depression to begin with. And more importantly, even if there is a link, causality remains unclear. For instance, patients who lose weight via bariatric surgery are at increased risk for depression, substance abuse, and self-harm. These symptoms may be related to the weight loss itself, not the medications.

“Some people use food as something other than nutrition. They use food to soothe other psychological issues,” Apovian said. “When that’s taken away, the psychological issues are still there.”

In her practice, she’s seen the risk for mental health issues rise with more substantial weight loss — 50-100 pounds.

This lack of clarity regarding causation means it’s important to perform a detailed patient history before prescribing, so you can monitor more closely with preexisting psychiatric disorders.

 

Possible Link: Ocular Symptoms

Here, too, the research isn’t definitive but leans toward no clear association. Several studies have looked for a link between GLP-1 and vision-related issues:

• One examined FAERS data and network pharmacology and found semaglutide and lixisenatide were significantly associated with adverse events like blurred vision, visual impairment, and diabetic retinopathy.
• This summer, a cohort study of almost 17,000 people with diabetes or overweight/obesity suggested a link between semaglutide and nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), a common cause of blindness due to optic nerve damage. The study found “a substantially increased risk of NAION among individuals prescribed semaglutide relative to those prescribed other medications to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity or overweight.”
• But this month, another cohort study with 135,000 participants looked at NAION in people with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both. It compared results with common non-GLP-1 medications and found just the opposite: No increased risk for NAION.

One drawback with all these studies is that they’re based on large databases rather than randomized controlled trials (RCTs). When researchers focused on RCTs in a 2023 meta-analysis, they found a significant association with only one form of GLP-1, albiglutide — which was withdrawn from the market in 2017. The other six FDA-approved drugs didn’t show a statistically significant link.

 

Possible Trouble: Pulmonary Aspiration Under Sedation

Earlier this month, the FDA updated labeling for semaglutide, liraglutide, and tirzepatide to include a warning about the risk for aspiration during surgery. While there are no published studies, several case reports have appeared.

GLP-1 medications delay gastric emptying, so even though a patient may have fasted before surgery as usual, some food or liquid may remain. In response to this possibility, a group of professional medical societies issued guidelines for using these medications during the perioperative period. They include:

• Consideration of dosage, symptoms, and other medical conditions: The risk is higher during the escalation phase, and in general, higher doses mean higher risk.
• Potential discontinuation of GLP-1 usage when assessment shows an elevated risk.
• Assessment on the day of the procedure for possible delayed gastric emptying.
• Preoperative dietary modifications, which might include switching to a liquid diet.

Rare: Serious Effects

And then there are the outliers, the frightening issues that make headlines. On their own, none of these are common enough to affect consideration of GLP-1 use:

• Studies in rats suggested an increased risk for thyroid cancer, but subsequent research has found no evidence.
• Colonic ischemia in association with tirzepatide.
• Acute pancreatitis leading to death in association with semaglutide.
• Speaking of pancreatitis, that clinical review of studies did find that both liraglutide and semaglutide led to an elevated risk for pancreatitis, bowel obstruction, and gastroparesis. But the numbers were so small as to be insignificant — for instance, just 0.2% of patients experienced pancreatitis.

Benefits Outweigh Risks

When you lay out these side effects against the countless known benefits of weight loss and blood sugar management — the lower risk for high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, metabolic syndrome, fatty liver disease, several cancers, and more — the advantages of GLP-1 drugs seem clear. Ultimately, of course, it’s the patient’s decision whether to begin and continue taking any medication for a chronic disease.

Apovian recommends having in-depth conversations before you write that first prescription – she compares the situation to using an antihypertensive drug. If your patient understands potential side effects, they’re more likely to maintain long-term compliance.

“We educate our patients how to use these drugs, indefinitely, if you want to maintain a lower, healthier body weight,” she said. “I don’t see patients who stop using them, but they’re out there. These are people desperate to lose weight, who aren’t given the education to understand we’re treating a disease. It’s not a matter of willpower.”

And once a patient starts taking a GLP-1, monitor them closely, with in-person visits rather than telehealth, while increasing the dosage. If they experience side effects, stay at that level until they ease. And if the patient has a good weight-loss response at a lower dose, stay there. Just because you can go higher, it doesn’t mean you should.

 

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

Just a few years after some TikTok videos spiked the demand, one in eight US adults has tried Ozempic (semaglutide) or another drug in its class. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist medications have revolutionized obesity medicine.

But they’re not without problems. In the early days of the social media craze, news reports often featured patients whose gastrointestinal side effects sent them to the emergency room (ER).

“It happened a lot then. Patients didn’t want to complain because they were losing weight, and they wound up in the ER with extreme constipation or a small bowel obstruction,” said Caroline Apovian, MD, co-director of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“But that’s not really happening now,” she added.

Research backs up her assertion: A recent clinical review of studies found that many patients still experience side effects, but only at a mild to moderate level, while the dosage increases — and the unpleasantness tapers with time. Roughly 7% of patients discontinue the medications due to these symptoms.

Here’s what the latest research shows about GLP-1s’ side effects.

 

Most Common: Gastrointestinal Issues

Depending on the symptom and the specific drug, anywhere from one third to one half of patients will experience some kind of stomach trouble.

• In that clinical review, which looked at studies of three GLP-1 medications — semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus), liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza), and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Zepbound) — semaglutide users fared comparatively worse.
• Nausea was reported most frequently — 44.2% of semaglutide users dealt with it, compared with 40.2% for liraglutide and 31% for tirzepatide. Diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting also struck one quarter to one third of semaglutide patients, and slightly fewer for the other two medications.

Apovian finds that careful dosage helps her patients avoid the worst effects.

“We don’t know who’s going to do well and who’s not,” she said. “We start slowly, and usually things go OK.”

If a patient does react poorly, she’ll hold off on increasing the dosage until they acclimate and advise using over-the-counter meds like MiraLAX to address the symptoms.

Few documented severe adverse gastro events appeared in the data, affecting less than 1% of liraglutide and tirzepatide patients and 2.6% of semaglutide users. The majority of these events were gallbladder-related.

 

Questions About Causation: Depression and Suicidality

About a year ago, a study used 18 years’ worth of data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to examine how often patients reported suicidal ideation and/or depression while using GLP-1 medications. Compared with metformin and insulin, researchers found disproportionate reporting by patients using semaglutide and liraglutide. Other GLP-1 medications didn’t show this effect. The researchers pointed out: These statistics don’t show causation — there’s no clear reason why those two medications were linked to more reports.

Further research has been more reassuring:

• Another study also used FAERS but looked only at data from 2018 to 2022, when usage of these drugs was ramping up, and found no link between suicidal or self-injurious behaviors and GLP-1.
• A recent cohort study, which looked at data from nearly 300,000 people, found that GLP-1 users aren’t at increased risk for death by suicide.
• Both the FDA and the European Medicines Agency have issued statements that the evidence doesn’t support a causal association.

There are several factors at play here. People with obesity and diabetes are more likely to have depression to begin with. And more importantly, even if there is a link, causality remains unclear. For instance, patients who lose weight via bariatric surgery are at increased risk for depression, substance abuse, and self-harm. These symptoms may be related to the weight loss itself, not the medications.

“Some people use food as something other than nutrition. They use food to soothe other psychological issues,” Apovian said. “When that’s taken away, the psychological issues are still there.”

In her practice, she’s seen the risk for mental health issues rise with more substantial weight loss — 50-100 pounds.

This lack of clarity regarding causation means it’s important to perform a detailed patient history before prescribing, so you can monitor more closely with preexisting psychiatric disorders.

 

Possible Link: Ocular Symptoms

Here, too, the research isn’t definitive but leans toward no clear association. Several studies have looked for a link between GLP-1 and vision-related issues:

• One examined FAERS data and network pharmacology and found semaglutide and lixisenatide were significantly associated with adverse events like blurred vision, visual impairment, and diabetic retinopathy.
• This summer, a cohort study of almost 17,000 people with diabetes or overweight/obesity suggested a link between semaglutide and nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), a common cause of blindness due to optic nerve damage. The study found “a substantially increased risk of NAION among individuals prescribed semaglutide relative to those prescribed other medications to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity or overweight.”
• But this month, another cohort study with 135,000 participants looked at NAION in people with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both. It compared results with common non-GLP-1 medications and found just the opposite: No increased risk for NAION.

One drawback with all these studies is that they’re based on large databases rather than randomized controlled trials (RCTs). When researchers focused on RCTs in a 2023 meta-analysis, they found a significant association with only one form of GLP-1, albiglutide — which was withdrawn from the market in 2017. The other six FDA-approved drugs didn’t show a statistically significant link.

 

Possible Trouble: Pulmonary Aspiration Under Sedation

Earlier this month, the FDA updated labeling for semaglutide, liraglutide, and tirzepatide to include a warning about the risk for aspiration during surgery. While there are no published studies, several case reports have appeared.

GLP-1 medications delay gastric emptying, so even though a patient may have fasted before surgery as usual, some food or liquid may remain. In response to this possibility, a group of professional medical societies issued guidelines for using these medications during the perioperative period. They include:

• Consideration of dosage, symptoms, and other medical conditions: The risk is higher during the escalation phase, and in general, higher doses mean higher risk.
• Potential discontinuation of GLP-1 usage when assessment shows an elevated risk.
• Assessment on the day of the procedure for possible delayed gastric emptying.
• Preoperative dietary modifications, which might include switching to a liquid diet.

Rare: Serious Effects

And then there are the outliers, the frightening issues that make headlines. On their own, none of these are common enough to affect consideration of GLP-1 use:

• Studies in rats suggested an increased risk for thyroid cancer, but subsequent research has found no evidence.
• Colonic ischemia in association with tirzepatide.
• Acute pancreatitis leading to death in association with semaglutide.
• Speaking of pancreatitis, that clinical review of studies did find that both liraglutide and semaglutide led to an elevated risk for pancreatitis, bowel obstruction, and gastroparesis. But the numbers were so small as to be insignificant — for instance, just 0.2% of patients experienced pancreatitis.

Benefits Outweigh Risks

When you lay out these side effects against the countless known benefits of weight loss and blood sugar management — the lower risk for high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, metabolic syndrome, fatty liver disease, several cancers, and more — the advantages of GLP-1 drugs seem clear. Ultimately, of course, it’s the patient’s decision whether to begin and continue taking any medication for a chronic disease.

Apovian recommends having in-depth conversations before you write that first prescription – she compares the situation to using an antihypertensive drug. If your patient understands potential side effects, they’re more likely to maintain long-term compliance.

“We educate our patients how to use these drugs, indefinitely, if you want to maintain a lower, healthier body weight,” she said. “I don’t see patients who stop using them, but they’re out there. These are people desperate to lose weight, who aren’t given the education to understand we’re treating a disease. It’s not a matter of willpower.”

And once a patient starts taking a GLP-1, monitor them closely, with in-person visits rather than telehealth, while increasing the dosage. If they experience side effects, stay at that level until they ease. And if the patient has a good weight-loss response at a lower dose, stay there. Just because you can go higher, it doesn’t mean you should.

 

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