Obesity

More than half of patients taking the two highest doses of tirzepatide as a once-weekly injection lost at least 20% of their body weight in the first phase 3 trial to examine this agent in patients with obesity, but without diabetes, according to preliminary top-line results from the SURMOUNT-1 trial announced by Lilly.  

The full results will be reported at an upcoming medical conference and published at a later date, Lilly added.

There was much excitement in response to the news, but others have urged caution and noted that, even if tirzepatide is eventually approved for obesity, one of the major barriers to use in the United States will be insurance coverage.

“Wow (and a double Wow!) 52lb weight loss (22.5%) at highest dose of tirzepatide,” tweeted Sek Kathiresan, MD, a cardiologist who is cofounder of Verve Therapeutics and on leave from Harvard (@skathire).

“Thus far the challenge with GLP-1s [agonists] for management of obesity is that insurance usually isn’t covering them. This makes them unaffordable for most people,” replied James Marroquin, MD, of the University of Texas at Austin. (@Jamesmarroquin).

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, of the University of Ottawa (Ont.) who writes a column for this news organization on obesity, said if tirzepatide pans out, along with other similar agents already on the market for this indication, “the next few decades should see the pharmaceutical management of obesity rival its surgical management.”

Would compete with ‘game-changer’ semaglutide?

Tirzepatide has been dubbed a “twincretin” because it works not only as an agonist of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, but also of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor. It has been much hyped based on the results of the series of SURPASS clinical trials, which have formed the basis of the application for type 2 diabetes approval, about which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision soon.

Several GLP-1 agonists are on the market for both type 2 diabetes and for obesity indications separately, including semaglutide (marketed as Wegovy for obesity, also a once-weekly injection) and liraglutide (Saxenda for obesity, a daily injection), both Novo Nordisk agents.

Wegovy was approved for weight loss in the United States last year, with doctors telling this news organization then that a third of patients who take the drug are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome that approaches reductions seen with bariatric surgery.

Dr. Freedhoff said he’d like to see “reimbursement by insurers who will see these drugs serving as important ancillary treatments for the myriad of weight-responsive conditions they’re already covering.”

SURMOUNT-1 data: ‘Impressive body weight’ reductions

The new tirzepatide data come from the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SURMOUNT-1 trial, which included 2539 participants from the United States, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Japan Mexico, Russia, and Taiwan. They had obesity or overweight plus at least one comorbidity but not diabetes. They were randomized to 5-mg, 10-mg, or 15-mg once-weekly tirzepatide or placebo injections for 18 months (72 weeks).

Efficacy was analyzed in two ways. Prior to factoring in drug discontinuation, participants taking tirzepatide experienced weight loss of 16.0% (35 lb/16 kg) with 5 mg, 21.4% (49 lb/22 kg) with 10 mg, and 22.5% (52 lb/24 kg) on 15 mg. In contrast, the placebo group lost just 2.4% of body weight (5 lb/2 kg).  

But treatment discontinuation rates because of adverse events were 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6%, for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively. Overall treatment discontinuation rates were 14.3%, 16.4%, 15.1%, and 26.4%, respectively.  

When efficacy was assessed regardless of treatment discontinuation, average body weight reductions were 15.0%, 19.5%, 20.9%, and 3.1% for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively.  

More than half of patients taking tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg (55% and 63%, respectively) lost at least 20% of their body weight, compared with just 1.3% taking placebo.

Overall safety and tolerability were similar to those of other GLP-1 agonists, with adverse events being gastrointestinal in nature and increasing with higher doses. Nausea affected 24.6%, 33.3%, and 31.0% of the tirzepatide 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg dose groups, respectively, and vomiting was experienced by 8.3%, 10.7%, and 12.2% of patients, respectively. Diarrhea and constipation were also reported more often with the drug than placebo.

“Tirzepatide delivered impressive body weight reductions in SURMOUNT-1, which could represent an important step forward for helping the patient and physician partnership treat this complex disease,” said study investigator Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Center and the Sanford I. Weill Professor of Metabolic Research at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in a press release.

Further studies are ongoing for tirzepatide as a potential treatment for obesity or overweight, according to the Lilly statement. SURMOUNT is a phase 3 global clinical development program for tirzepatide that began in late 2019 with over 5,000 people with obesity or overweight across six clinical trials. Results from SURMOUNT-2, SURMOUNT-3, and SURMOUNT-4 are expected in 2023.

Tirzepatide is also being studied as a potential treatment for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Studies of tirzepatide in obstructive sleep apnea and of morbidity/mortality in obesity are also planned.

Dr. Aronne is cofounder, chief scientific advisor, and a member of the board of directors for Intellihealth. He is also a paid scientific advisory board member for Eli Lilly. Dr. Freedhoff has served or is serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health and has received a research grant from Novo Nordisk.

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

More than half of patients taking the two highest doses of tirzepatide as a once-weekly injection lost at least 20% of their body weight in the first phase 3 trial to examine this agent in patients with obesity, but without diabetes, according to preliminary top-line results from the SURMOUNT-1 trial announced by Lilly.  

The full results will be reported at an upcoming medical conference and published at a later date, Lilly added.

There was much excitement in response to the news, but others have urged caution and noted that, even if tirzepatide is eventually approved for obesity, one of the major barriers to use in the United States will be insurance coverage.

“Wow (and a double Wow!) 52lb weight loss (22.5%) at highest dose of tirzepatide,” tweeted Sek Kathiresan, MD, a cardiologist who is cofounder of Verve Therapeutics and on leave from Harvard (@skathire).

“Thus far the challenge with GLP-1s [agonists] for management of obesity is that insurance usually isn’t covering them. This makes them unaffordable for most people,” replied James Marroquin, MD, of the University of Texas at Austin. (@Jamesmarroquin).

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, of the University of Ottawa (Ont.) who writes a column for this news organization on obesity, said if tirzepatide pans out, along with other similar agents already on the market for this indication, “the next few decades should see the pharmaceutical management of obesity rival its surgical management.”

Would compete with ‘game-changer’ semaglutide?

Tirzepatide has been dubbed a “twincretin” because it works not only as an agonist of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, but also of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor. It has been much hyped based on the results of the series of SURPASS clinical trials, which have formed the basis of the application for type 2 diabetes approval, about which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision soon.

Several GLP-1 agonists are on the market for both type 2 diabetes and for obesity indications separately, including semaglutide (marketed as Wegovy for obesity, also a once-weekly injection) and liraglutide (Saxenda for obesity, a daily injection), both Novo Nordisk agents.

Wegovy was approved for weight loss in the United States last year, with doctors telling this news organization then that a third of patients who take the drug are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome that approaches reductions seen with bariatric surgery.

Dr. Freedhoff said he’d like to see “reimbursement by insurers who will see these drugs serving as important ancillary treatments for the myriad of weight-responsive conditions they’re already covering.”

SURMOUNT-1 data: ‘Impressive body weight’ reductions

The new tirzepatide data come from the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SURMOUNT-1 trial, which included 2539 participants from the United States, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Japan Mexico, Russia, and Taiwan. They had obesity or overweight plus at least one comorbidity but not diabetes. They were randomized to 5-mg, 10-mg, or 15-mg once-weekly tirzepatide or placebo injections for 18 months (72 weeks).

Efficacy was analyzed in two ways. Prior to factoring in drug discontinuation, participants taking tirzepatide experienced weight loss of 16.0% (35 lb/16 kg) with 5 mg, 21.4% (49 lb/22 kg) with 10 mg, and 22.5% (52 lb/24 kg) on 15 mg. In contrast, the placebo group lost just 2.4% of body weight (5 lb/2 kg).  

But treatment discontinuation rates because of adverse events were 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6%, for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively. Overall treatment discontinuation rates were 14.3%, 16.4%, 15.1%, and 26.4%, respectively.  

When efficacy was assessed regardless of treatment discontinuation, average body weight reductions were 15.0%, 19.5%, 20.9%, and 3.1% for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively.  

More than half of patients taking tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg (55% and 63%, respectively) lost at least 20% of their body weight, compared with just 1.3% taking placebo.

Overall safety and tolerability were similar to those of other GLP-1 agonists, with adverse events being gastrointestinal in nature and increasing with higher doses. Nausea affected 24.6%, 33.3%, and 31.0% of the tirzepatide 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg dose groups, respectively, and vomiting was experienced by 8.3%, 10.7%, and 12.2% of patients, respectively. Diarrhea and constipation were also reported more often with the drug than placebo.

“Tirzepatide delivered impressive body weight reductions in SURMOUNT-1, which could represent an important step forward for helping the patient and physician partnership treat this complex disease,” said study investigator Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Center and the Sanford I. Weill Professor of Metabolic Research at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in a press release.

Further studies are ongoing for tirzepatide as a potential treatment for obesity or overweight, according to the Lilly statement. SURMOUNT is a phase 3 global clinical development program for tirzepatide that began in late 2019 with over 5,000 people with obesity or overweight across six clinical trials. Results from SURMOUNT-2, SURMOUNT-3, and SURMOUNT-4 are expected in 2023.

Tirzepatide is also being studied as a potential treatment for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Studies of tirzepatide in obstructive sleep apnea and of morbidity/mortality in obesity are also planned.

Dr. Aronne is cofounder, chief scientific advisor, and a member of the board of directors for Intellihealth. He is also a paid scientific advisory board member for Eli Lilly. Dr. Freedhoff has served or is serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health and has received a research grant from Novo Nordisk.

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

More than half of patients taking the two highest doses of tirzepatide as a once-weekly injection lost at least 20% of their body weight in the first phase 3 trial to examine this agent in patients with obesity, but without diabetes, according to preliminary top-line results from the SURMOUNT-1 trial announced by Lilly.  

The full results will be reported at an upcoming medical conference and published at a later date, Lilly added.

There was much excitement in response to the news, but others have urged caution and noted that, even if tirzepatide is eventually approved for obesity, one of the major barriers to use in the United States will be insurance coverage.

“Wow (and a double Wow!) 52lb weight loss (22.5%) at highest dose of tirzepatide,” tweeted Sek Kathiresan, MD, a cardiologist who is cofounder of Verve Therapeutics and on leave from Harvard (@skathire).

“Thus far the challenge with GLP-1s [agonists] for management of obesity is that insurance usually isn’t covering them. This makes them unaffordable for most people,” replied James Marroquin, MD, of the University of Texas at Austin. (@Jamesmarroquin).

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, of the University of Ottawa (Ont.) who writes a column for this news organization on obesity, said if tirzepatide pans out, along with other similar agents already on the market for this indication, “the next few decades should see the pharmaceutical management of obesity rival its surgical management.”

Would compete with ‘game-changer’ semaglutide?

Tirzepatide has been dubbed a “twincretin” because it works not only as an agonist of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, but also of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor. It has been much hyped based on the results of the series of SURPASS clinical trials, which have formed the basis of the application for type 2 diabetes approval, about which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision soon.

Several GLP-1 agonists are on the market for both type 2 diabetes and for obesity indications separately, including semaglutide (marketed as Wegovy for obesity, also a once-weekly injection) and liraglutide (Saxenda for obesity, a daily injection), both Novo Nordisk agents.

Wegovy was approved for weight loss in the United States last year, with doctors telling this news organization then that a third of patients who take the drug are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome that approaches reductions seen with bariatric surgery.

Dr. Freedhoff said he’d like to see “reimbursement by insurers who will see these drugs serving as important ancillary treatments for the myriad of weight-responsive conditions they’re already covering.”

SURMOUNT-1 data: ‘Impressive body weight’ reductions

The new tirzepatide data come from the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SURMOUNT-1 trial, which included 2539 participants from the United States, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Japan Mexico, Russia, and Taiwan. They had obesity or overweight plus at least one comorbidity but not diabetes. They were randomized to 5-mg, 10-mg, or 15-mg once-weekly tirzepatide or placebo injections for 18 months (72 weeks).

Efficacy was analyzed in two ways. Prior to factoring in drug discontinuation, participants taking tirzepatide experienced weight loss of 16.0% (35 lb/16 kg) with 5 mg, 21.4% (49 lb/22 kg) with 10 mg, and 22.5% (52 lb/24 kg) on 15 mg. In contrast, the placebo group lost just 2.4% of body weight (5 lb/2 kg).  

But treatment discontinuation rates because of adverse events were 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6%, for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively. Overall treatment discontinuation rates were 14.3%, 16.4%, 15.1%, and 26.4%, respectively.  

When efficacy was assessed regardless of treatment discontinuation, average body weight reductions were 15.0%, 19.5%, 20.9%, and 3.1% for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively.  

More than half of patients taking tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg (55% and 63%, respectively) lost at least 20% of their body weight, compared with just 1.3% taking placebo.

Overall safety and tolerability were similar to those of other GLP-1 agonists, with adverse events being gastrointestinal in nature and increasing with higher doses. Nausea affected 24.6%, 33.3%, and 31.0% of the tirzepatide 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg dose groups, respectively, and vomiting was experienced by 8.3%, 10.7%, and 12.2% of patients, respectively. Diarrhea and constipation were also reported more often with the drug than placebo.

“Tirzepatide delivered impressive body weight reductions in SURMOUNT-1, which could represent an important step forward for helping the patient and physician partnership treat this complex disease,” said study investigator Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Center and the Sanford I. Weill Professor of Metabolic Research at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in a press release.

Further studies are ongoing for tirzepatide as a potential treatment for obesity or overweight, according to the Lilly statement. SURMOUNT is a phase 3 global clinical development program for tirzepatide that began in late 2019 with over 5,000 people with obesity or overweight across six clinical trials. Results from SURMOUNT-2, SURMOUNT-3, and SURMOUNT-4 are expected in 2023.

Tirzepatide is also being studied as a potential treatment for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Studies of tirzepatide in obstructive sleep apnea and of morbidity/mortality in obesity are also planned.

Dr. Aronne is cofounder, chief scientific advisor, and a member of the board of directors for Intellihealth. He is also a paid scientific advisory board member for Eli Lilly. Dr. Freedhoff has served or is serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health and has received a research grant from Novo Nordisk.

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

Fat shaming doesn’t work. If it did, obesity as we know it wouldn’t exist because if the one thing society ensures isn’t lacking for people with obesity, it’s shame. We know that fat shaming doesn’t lead to weight loss and that it’s actually correlated with weight gain: More shame leads to more gain (Puhl and Suh; Sutin and Terracciano; Tomiyama et al).

Shaming and weight stigma have far more concerning associations than weight gain. People who report experiencing more weight stigma have an increased risk for depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, poor body image, substance abuse, suicidality, unhealthy eating behaviors, disordered eating, increased caloric intake, exercise avoidance, decreased exercise motivation potentially due to heightened cortisol reactivity, elevated C-reactive protein, and elevated blood pressure.

Meanwhile, people with obesity – likely in part owing to negative weight-biased experiences in health care – are reluctant to discuss weight with their health care providers and are less likely to seek care at all for any conditions. When care is sought, people with obesity are more likely to receive substandard treatment, including receiving fewer preventive health screenings, decreased health education, and decreased time spent in appointments.
 

Remember that obesity is not a conscious choice

A fact that is conveniently forgotten by those who are most prone to fat shaming is that obesity, like every chronic noncommunicable disease, isn’t a choice that is consciously made by patients.

And yes, though there are lifestyle means that might affect weight, there are lifestyle means that might affect all chronic diseases – yet obesity is the only one we seem to moralize about. It’s also worth noting that other chronic diseases’ lifestyle levers tend not to be governed by thousands of genes and dozens of hormones; those trying to “lifestyle” their way out of obesity are swimming against strong physiologic currents that influence our most seminally important survival drive: eating.

But forgetting about physiologic currents, there is also staggering privilege associated with intentional perpetual behavior change around food and fitness in the name of health.

Whereas medicine and the world are right and quick to embrace the fights against racism, sexism, and homophobia, the push to confront weight bias is far rarer, despite the fact that it’s been shown to be rampant among health care professionals.
 

Protecting the rights of people with obesity

Perhaps though, times are changing. Movements are popping up to protect the rights of people with obesity while combating hate.

Of note, Brazil seems to have embraced a campaign to fight gordofobia — the Portuguese term used to describe weight-based discrimination. For instance, laws are being passed to ensure appropriate seating is supplied in schools for children with obesity, an annual day was formalized to promote the rights of people with obesity, preferential seating is provided on subways for people with obesity, and fines have been levied against at least one comedian for making fat jokes on the grounds of the state’s duty to protect minorities.

We need to take this fight to medicine. Given the incredibly depressing prevalence of weight bias among trainees, medical schools and residency programs should ensure countering weight bias is not only part of the curriculum but that it’s explicitly examined. National medical licensing examinations should include weight bias as well.

Though we’re closer than ever before to widely effective treatment options for obesity, it’s likely to still be decades before pharmaceutical options to treat obesity are as effective, accepted, and encouraged as medications to treat hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and more are today.

If you’re curious about your own implicit weight biases, consider taking Harvard’s Implicit Association Test for Weight. You might also want to take a few moments and review the Strategies to Overcome and Prevent Obesity Alliances’ Weight Can’t Wait guide for advice on the management of obesity in primary care.

Treat patients with obesity the same as you would those with any chronic condition.

Also, consider your physical office space. Do you have chairs suitable for patients with obesity (wide base and with arms to help patients rise)? A scale that measures up to high weights that’s in a private location? Appropriately sized blood pressure cuffs?

If not, do you know who is deserving of shame?

Doctors who fat shame or who treat patients with obesity differently than they would any other patient with a chronic medical condition.

Examples include the family doctor who hadn’t checked my patient’s blood pressure in over a decade because he couldn’t be bothered buying an appropriately sized blood pressure cuff. Or the fertility doctor who told one of my patients that perhaps her weight reflected God’s will that she does not have children.

Finally, if reading this article about treating people with obesity the same as you would patients with other chronic, noncommunicable, lifestyle responsive diseases made you angry, there’s a great chance that you’re part of the problem.
 

Dr. Freedhoff, is associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, a nonsurgical weight management center. He is one of Canada’s most outspoken obesity experts and the author of The Diet Fix: Why Diets Fail and How to Make Yours Work. He has disclosed the following: He served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health; has received research grant from Novo Nordisk, and has publicly shared opinions via Weighty Matters and social media. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Fat shaming doesn’t work. If it did, obesity as we know it wouldn’t exist because if the one thing society ensures isn’t lacking for people with obesity, it’s shame. We know that fat shaming doesn’t lead to weight loss and that it’s actually correlated with weight gain: More shame leads to more gain (Puhl and Suh; Sutin and Terracciano; Tomiyama et al).

Shaming and weight stigma have far more concerning associations than weight gain. People who report experiencing more weight stigma have an increased risk for depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, poor body image, substance abuse, suicidality, unhealthy eating behaviors, disordered eating, increased caloric intake, exercise avoidance, decreased exercise motivation potentially due to heightened cortisol reactivity, elevated C-reactive protein, and elevated blood pressure.

Meanwhile, people with obesity – likely in part owing to negative weight-biased experiences in health care – are reluctant to discuss weight with their health care providers and are less likely to seek care at all for any conditions. When care is sought, people with obesity are more likely to receive substandard treatment, including receiving fewer preventive health screenings, decreased health education, and decreased time spent in appointments.
 

Remember that obesity is not a conscious choice

A fact that is conveniently forgotten by those who are most prone to fat shaming is that obesity, like every chronic noncommunicable disease, isn’t a choice that is consciously made by patients.

And yes, though there are lifestyle means that might affect weight, there are lifestyle means that might affect all chronic diseases – yet obesity is the only one we seem to moralize about. It’s also worth noting that other chronic diseases’ lifestyle levers tend not to be governed by thousands of genes and dozens of hormones; those trying to “lifestyle” their way out of obesity are swimming against strong physiologic currents that influence our most seminally important survival drive: eating.

But forgetting about physiologic currents, there is also staggering privilege associated with intentional perpetual behavior change around food and fitness in the name of health.

Whereas medicine and the world are right and quick to embrace the fights against racism, sexism, and homophobia, the push to confront weight bias is far rarer, despite the fact that it’s been shown to be rampant among health care professionals.
 

Protecting the rights of people with obesity

Perhaps though, times are changing. Movements are popping up to protect the rights of people with obesity while combating hate.

Of note, Brazil seems to have embraced a campaign to fight gordofobia — the Portuguese term used to describe weight-based discrimination. For instance, laws are being passed to ensure appropriate seating is supplied in schools for children with obesity, an annual day was formalized to promote the rights of people with obesity, preferential seating is provided on subways for people with obesity, and fines have been levied against at least one comedian for making fat jokes on the grounds of the state’s duty to protect minorities.

We need to take this fight to medicine. Given the incredibly depressing prevalence of weight bias among trainees, medical schools and residency programs should ensure countering weight bias is not only part of the curriculum but that it’s explicitly examined. National medical licensing examinations should include weight bias as well.

Though we’re closer than ever before to widely effective treatment options for obesity, it’s likely to still be decades before pharmaceutical options to treat obesity are as effective, accepted, and encouraged as medications to treat hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and more are today.

If you’re curious about your own implicit weight biases, consider taking Harvard’s Implicit Association Test for Weight. You might also want to take a few moments and review the Strategies to Overcome and Prevent Obesity Alliances’ Weight Can’t Wait guide for advice on the management of obesity in primary care.

Treat patients with obesity the same as you would those with any chronic condition.

Also, consider your physical office space. Do you have chairs suitable for patients with obesity (wide base and with arms to help patients rise)? A scale that measures up to high weights that’s in a private location? Appropriately sized blood pressure cuffs?

If not, do you know who is deserving of shame?

Doctors who fat shame or who treat patients with obesity differently than they would any other patient with a chronic medical condition.

Examples include the family doctor who hadn’t checked my patient’s blood pressure in over a decade because he couldn’t be bothered buying an appropriately sized blood pressure cuff. Or the fertility doctor who told one of my patients that perhaps her weight reflected God’s will that she does not have children.

Finally, if reading this article about treating people with obesity the same as you would patients with other chronic, noncommunicable, lifestyle responsive diseases made you angry, there’s a great chance that you’re part of the problem.
 

Dr. Freedhoff, is associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, a nonsurgical weight management center. He is one of Canada’s most outspoken obesity experts and the author of The Diet Fix: Why Diets Fail and How to Make Yours Work. He has disclosed the following: He served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health; has received research grant from Novo Nordisk, and has publicly shared opinions via Weighty Matters and social media. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Fat shaming doesn’t work. If it did, obesity as we know it wouldn’t exist because if the one thing society ensures isn’t lacking for people with obesity, it’s shame. We know that fat shaming doesn’t lead to weight loss and that it’s actually correlated with weight gain: More shame leads to more gain (Puhl and Suh; Sutin and Terracciano; Tomiyama et al).

Shaming and weight stigma have far more concerning associations than weight gain. People who report experiencing more weight stigma have an increased risk for depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, poor body image, substance abuse, suicidality, unhealthy eating behaviors, disordered eating, increased caloric intake, exercise avoidance, decreased exercise motivation potentially due to heightened cortisol reactivity, elevated C-reactive protein, and elevated blood pressure.

Meanwhile, people with obesity – likely in part owing to negative weight-biased experiences in health care – are reluctant to discuss weight with their health care providers and are less likely to seek care at all for any conditions. When care is sought, people with obesity are more likely to receive substandard treatment, including receiving fewer preventive health screenings, decreased health education, and decreased time spent in appointments.
 

Remember that obesity is not a conscious choice

A fact that is conveniently forgotten by those who are most prone to fat shaming is that obesity, like every chronic noncommunicable disease, isn’t a choice that is consciously made by patients.

And yes, though there are lifestyle means that might affect weight, there are lifestyle means that might affect all chronic diseases – yet obesity is the only one we seem to moralize about. It’s also worth noting that other chronic diseases’ lifestyle levers tend not to be governed by thousands of genes and dozens of hormones; those trying to “lifestyle” their way out of obesity are swimming against strong physiologic currents that influence our most seminally important survival drive: eating.

But forgetting about physiologic currents, there is also staggering privilege associated with intentional perpetual behavior change around food and fitness in the name of health.

Whereas medicine and the world are right and quick to embrace the fights against racism, sexism, and homophobia, the push to confront weight bias is far rarer, despite the fact that it’s been shown to be rampant among health care professionals.
 

Protecting the rights of people with obesity

Perhaps though, times are changing. Movements are popping up to protect the rights of people with obesity while combating hate.

Of note, Brazil seems to have embraced a campaign to fight gordofobia — the Portuguese term used to describe weight-based discrimination. For instance, laws are being passed to ensure appropriate seating is supplied in schools for children with obesity, an annual day was formalized to promote the rights of people with obesity, preferential seating is provided on subways for people with obesity, and fines have been levied against at least one comedian for making fat jokes on the grounds of the state’s duty to protect minorities.

We need to take this fight to medicine. Given the incredibly depressing prevalence of weight bias among trainees, medical schools and residency programs should ensure countering weight bias is not only part of the curriculum but that it’s explicitly examined. National medical licensing examinations should include weight bias as well.

Though we’re closer than ever before to widely effective treatment options for obesity, it’s likely to still be decades before pharmaceutical options to treat obesity are as effective, accepted, and encouraged as medications to treat hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and more are today.

If you’re curious about your own implicit weight biases, consider taking Harvard’s Implicit Association Test for Weight. You might also want to take a few moments and review the Strategies to Overcome and Prevent Obesity Alliances’ Weight Can’t Wait guide for advice on the management of obesity in primary care.

Treat patients with obesity the same as you would those with any chronic condition.

Also, consider your physical office space. Do you have chairs suitable for patients with obesity (wide base and with arms to help patients rise)? A scale that measures up to high weights that’s in a private location? Appropriately sized blood pressure cuffs?

If not, do you know who is deserving of shame?

Doctors who fat shame or who treat patients with obesity differently than they would any other patient with a chronic medical condition.

Examples include the family doctor who hadn’t checked my patient’s blood pressure in over a decade because he couldn’t be bothered buying an appropriately sized blood pressure cuff. Or the fertility doctor who told one of my patients that perhaps her weight reflected God’s will that she does not have children.

Finally, if reading this article about treating people with obesity the same as you would patients with other chronic, noncommunicable, lifestyle responsive diseases made you angry, there’s a great chance that you’re part of the problem.
 

Dr. Freedhoff, is associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, a nonsurgical weight management center. He is one of Canada’s most outspoken obesity experts and the author of The Diet Fix: Why Diets Fail and How to Make Yours Work. He has disclosed the following: He served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health; has received research grant from Novo Nordisk, and has publicly shared opinions via Weighty Matters and social media. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Toddlers who watched more TV were significantly more likely than those who watched less TV to consume sugar-sweetened drinks and junk foods, based on data from 529 children.

Previous research had shown an association between screen time and poor diet, but most have involved school-aged children; the relationship in toddlers has not been well studied, Melissa R. Lutz, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a presentation at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

The American Academy of Pediatrics currently recommends no digital media for children younger than 18-24 months, and an hour or less daily for children aged 2-5 years.

To examine the association between TV time and dietary practices in 2-year-olds, the researchers conducted a secondary analysis of data from 529 children who presented for their 2-year-old well-child visit at a single center. The study population was 52% Latino/Hispanic and 30% non-Latino/Hispanic Black, and 69% had an annual household income less than $20,000. The median time spent watching TV daily was 42 minutes. The data were taken from participants in the Greenlight Intervention Study, a randomized trial of an obesity prevention program at four academic pediatric primary care clinics in the United States.

Daily screen time and dietary practices were based on parent reports, and included daily volume of juice, daily counts of fruits and vegetables, daily count of junk foods such as chips, ice cream, French fries, and fast food, and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. The cross-sectional analysis controlled for race/ethnicity, Women, Infants, and Children Program benefits, number of children at home, caregiver education level, and family income.

In adjusted analysis, more than an hour of TV time was significantly associated with junk food intake, with odds ratios of 1.12 for 90 minutes and 1.25 for 120 minutes (P < .05 for both). Similar associations were seen for TV times of 90 minutes and 120 minutes and intake of fast food and sugar-sweetened beverages.

Additionally, the researchers found that toddlers who watched TV during mealtimes were more than twice as likely to consume sugar-sweetened beverages (OR, 2.74), junk food (OR, 2.72), fast food (OR, 2.09), and only about half as likely to consume fruits and vegetables (OR, 0.62).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design, the reliance on caregiver self-reports, potential for residual confounding, and the low average screen time, Dr. Lutz noted.

However, the results suggest that “increased screen TV time and mealtime TV were both associated with poor dietary practices in 2-year-old children,” she said.

Future research should include analysis of passive screen time, as well as the relationship between screen time and diet with other digital devices beyond TV, she added.
 

COVID drove screen time higher

The current study is especially important at this time because of the increased screen exposure for many young children in the wake of the ongoing pandemic, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview. “Screen time use is up even more than before [the pandemic], and this study is a reminder to ask parents of young children about screen time and dietary history.”

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised by the study findings. In her practice, “I see families with more screen time use in general who also are more likely to have juice and junk food available. If kids had no access to screens, I believe they would still have access to unhealthy foods. I believe more research is needed into why screen time is so high in some families.”

The study received funding from NIH. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Toddlers who watched more TV were significantly more likely than those who watched less TV to consume sugar-sweetened drinks and junk foods, based on data from 529 children.

Previous research had shown an association between screen time and poor diet, but most have involved school-aged children; the relationship in toddlers has not been well studied, Melissa R. Lutz, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a presentation at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

The American Academy of Pediatrics currently recommends no digital media for children younger than 18-24 months, and an hour or less daily for children aged 2-5 years.

To examine the association between TV time and dietary practices in 2-year-olds, the researchers conducted a secondary analysis of data from 529 children who presented for their 2-year-old well-child visit at a single center. The study population was 52% Latino/Hispanic and 30% non-Latino/Hispanic Black, and 69% had an annual household income less than $20,000. The median time spent watching TV daily was 42 minutes. The data were taken from participants in the Greenlight Intervention Study, a randomized trial of an obesity prevention program at four academic pediatric primary care clinics in the United States.

Daily screen time and dietary practices were based on parent reports, and included daily volume of juice, daily counts of fruits and vegetables, daily count of junk foods such as chips, ice cream, French fries, and fast food, and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. The cross-sectional analysis controlled for race/ethnicity, Women, Infants, and Children Program benefits, number of children at home, caregiver education level, and family income.

In adjusted analysis, more than an hour of TV time was significantly associated with junk food intake, with odds ratios of 1.12 for 90 minutes and 1.25 for 120 minutes (P < .05 for both). Similar associations were seen for TV times of 90 minutes and 120 minutes and intake of fast food and sugar-sweetened beverages.

Additionally, the researchers found that toddlers who watched TV during mealtimes were more than twice as likely to consume sugar-sweetened beverages (OR, 2.74), junk food (OR, 2.72), fast food (OR, 2.09), and only about half as likely to consume fruits and vegetables (OR, 0.62).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design, the reliance on caregiver self-reports, potential for residual confounding, and the low average screen time, Dr. Lutz noted.

However, the results suggest that “increased screen TV time and mealtime TV were both associated with poor dietary practices in 2-year-old children,” she said.

Future research should include analysis of passive screen time, as well as the relationship between screen time and diet with other digital devices beyond TV, she added.
 

COVID drove screen time higher

The current study is especially important at this time because of the increased screen exposure for many young children in the wake of the ongoing pandemic, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview. “Screen time use is up even more than before [the pandemic], and this study is a reminder to ask parents of young children about screen time and dietary history.”

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised by the study findings. In her practice, “I see families with more screen time use in general who also are more likely to have juice and junk food available. If kids had no access to screens, I believe they would still have access to unhealthy foods. I believe more research is needed into why screen time is so high in some families.”

The study received funding from NIH. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Toddlers who watched more TV were significantly more likely than those who watched less TV to consume sugar-sweetened drinks and junk foods, based on data from 529 children.

Previous research had shown an association between screen time and poor diet, but most have involved school-aged children; the relationship in toddlers has not been well studied, Melissa R. Lutz, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a presentation at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

The American Academy of Pediatrics currently recommends no digital media for children younger than 18-24 months, and an hour or less daily for children aged 2-5 years.

To examine the association between TV time and dietary practices in 2-year-olds, the researchers conducted a secondary analysis of data from 529 children who presented for their 2-year-old well-child visit at a single center. The study population was 52% Latino/Hispanic and 30% non-Latino/Hispanic Black, and 69% had an annual household income less than $20,000. The median time spent watching TV daily was 42 minutes. The data were taken from participants in the Greenlight Intervention Study, a randomized trial of an obesity prevention program at four academic pediatric primary care clinics in the United States.

Daily screen time and dietary practices were based on parent reports, and included daily volume of juice, daily counts of fruits and vegetables, daily count of junk foods such as chips, ice cream, French fries, and fast food, and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. The cross-sectional analysis controlled for race/ethnicity, Women, Infants, and Children Program benefits, number of children at home, caregiver education level, and family income.

In adjusted analysis, more than an hour of TV time was significantly associated with junk food intake, with odds ratios of 1.12 for 90 minutes and 1.25 for 120 minutes (P < .05 for both). Similar associations were seen for TV times of 90 minutes and 120 minutes and intake of fast food and sugar-sweetened beverages.

Additionally, the researchers found that toddlers who watched TV during mealtimes were more than twice as likely to consume sugar-sweetened beverages (OR, 2.74), junk food (OR, 2.72), fast food (OR, 2.09), and only about half as likely to consume fruits and vegetables (OR, 0.62).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design, the reliance on caregiver self-reports, potential for residual confounding, and the low average screen time, Dr. Lutz noted.

However, the results suggest that “increased screen TV time and mealtime TV were both associated with poor dietary practices in 2-year-old children,” she said.

Future research should include analysis of passive screen time, as well as the relationship between screen time and diet with other digital devices beyond TV, she added.
 

COVID drove screen time higher

The current study is especially important at this time because of the increased screen exposure for many young children in the wake of the ongoing pandemic, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview. “Screen time use is up even more than before [the pandemic], and this study is a reminder to ask parents of young children about screen time and dietary history.”

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised by the study findings. In her practice, “I see families with more screen time use in general who also are more likely to have juice and junk food available. If kids had no access to screens, I believe they would still have access to unhealthy foods. I believe more research is needed into why screen time is so high in some families.”

The study received funding from NIH. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

SAN FRANCISCO – Endoscopic treatments for obesity are under-utilized but represent an opportunity for gastroenterologists to help address the metabolic epidemic that affects up to 40% of people in the United States, according to a presentation reviewing these techniques.

Lifestyle modification is the first intervention, but results in just a 5% average weight loss, according to Allison Schulman, MD, MPH, who discussed these options at the 2022 AGA Tech Summit sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology. Although surgical interventions induce more weight loss and greater improvement of metabolic outcomes, they come with significant risks and many patients are reluctant to pursue them, she added. In fact, fewer than 1% of obese individuals who qualify for bariatric surgery ultimately undergo it.

Dr. Schulman emphasized another option: Endoscopic bariatric therapies fill this void in between those two extremes, as they are clearly less invasive” said Dr. Schulman, who is an assistant professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “They may appeal to those who do not qualify or do not want bariatric surgery. They also could bridge a critical gap in the treatment of obesity, as they reach patients earlier, at BMIs [body mass indexes] where they may not be surgical candidates. Furthermore, these therapies are oftentimes repeatable and commonly can be used in combination [with other weight loss approaches].”

Endoscopic therapies for obesity include devices that occupy space in the stomach, such as intragastric balloons, gastric remodeling procedures like endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG), and aspiration therapy.

Potential candidates for noninvasive approaches include patients with a BMI over 30 kg/m² who have not lost sufficient weight through nonsurgical methods or those who do not want to undergo surgery or require a bridge therapy to surgery.

Fluid-filled balloons can be placed and filled to an appropriate volume. One network meta-analysis found that fluid-filled balloons were more likely to lead to weight loss, but also more likely to be removed due to intolerance. She also noted that the Elipse balloon (Allurion Technologies) is designed to be swallowed and thus avoid procedures entirely; it is currently under review by Food and Drug Administration.

Although balloons are linked to 7%-10% weight loss in some studies and reviews, Dr. Schulman said, “we know … that the majority of these lead to much more weight loss in clinical practice, oftentimes closer to 13%-%15.”

One review found that balloons also lead to improvement in obesity-related comorbidities, compared with conventional nonsurgical approaches, and this benefit extends past 1 year. A study of 21 patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) treated with intragastric balloons found that 90% had an improvement in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score, with a median drop of 3 points, and 80% had a drop of at least 2 points. Of these patients, 50% also had an improvement in fibrosis determined by magnetic resonance elastography.

Balloon therapy should be highly individualized, according to Dr. Schulman.

Dr. Schulman also described ESG, which uses sutures to remodel the stomach and reduce volume by up to 70%. She outlined studies and reviews, such as those from Sharaiha and colleagues and Hedjoudje and colleagues, showing that ESG leads to significant and sustained weight loss. The procedure was also quite safe, with one large, single-center study showing that both fever and significant blood loss each occurred in less than 1% of patients (Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jun;89[6]:1132-8), while the systematic review and meta-analysis from Hedjoudje and colleagues found an adverse event frequency of 2.2%.

In a matched control study, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy led to more weight loss, but ESG had fewer adverse events (5.2% versus 16.9%; P < .01) and had a greater effect on gastroesophageal reflux disease.

ESG can be effective when repeated, while surgical revisions are associated with much higher morbidity, according to Dr. Schulman.

During her presentation, Dr. Schulman mentioned the AspireAssist device developed by Aspire Bariatrics, which is similar to a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. It leads to the removal of about 30% of calories consumed during a meal, with patients instructed to aspirate 20-30 minutes after a meal, two to three times a day. It gained Food and Drug Administration approval on the strength of the PATHWAY study, which showed significant weight loss.

“But perhaps more impressive is the overall patient satisfaction and willingness to recommend this device to others,” said Dr. Schulman.

Another approach she described is the transpyloric shuttle (TPS), which leads to faster filling times and delayed gastric emptying, though it must be removed endoscopically at 12 months.

Dr. Schulman also discussed endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapy. This approach is currently a primary therapy for obesity, and is in development for the treatment of diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The approach is predicated on the idea that obesity is a disorder of energy homeostasis, and that enteric neurons in the small bowel are key players, possibly through reduced production of as yet unknown signaling molecules, leading to insulin resistance. It’s also known that diets high in fat and sugar alter the duodenum, which causes changes in nutrient signaling to the brain.

“It’s thought that this leads to duodenal endocrine hyperactivity and ultimately metabolic disease,” said Dr. Schulman.

Finally, she described small-bowel therapies like endobarrier sleeves, duodenal mucosal resurfacing, and an incisionless anastomosis system designed to improve glycemic control by altering the gut through noninvasive means.

Dr. Schulman has consulted for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and MicroTech, and has received research support from GI Dynamics.

SAN FRANCISCO – Endoscopic treatments for obesity are under-utilized but represent an opportunity for gastroenterologists to help address the metabolic epidemic that affects up to 40% of people in the United States, according to a presentation reviewing these techniques.

Lifestyle modification is the first intervention, but results in just a 5% average weight loss, according to Allison Schulman, MD, MPH, who discussed these options at the 2022 AGA Tech Summit sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology. Although surgical interventions induce more weight loss and greater improvement of metabolic outcomes, they come with significant risks and many patients are reluctant to pursue them, she added. In fact, fewer than 1% of obese individuals who qualify for bariatric surgery ultimately undergo it.

Dr. Schulman emphasized another option: Endoscopic bariatric therapies fill this void in between those two extremes, as they are clearly less invasive” said Dr. Schulman, who is an assistant professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “They may appeal to those who do not qualify or do not want bariatric surgery. They also could bridge a critical gap in the treatment of obesity, as they reach patients earlier, at BMIs [body mass indexes] where they may not be surgical candidates. Furthermore, these therapies are oftentimes repeatable and commonly can be used in combination [with other weight loss approaches].”

Endoscopic therapies for obesity include devices that occupy space in the stomach, such as intragastric balloons, gastric remodeling procedures like endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG), and aspiration therapy.

Potential candidates for noninvasive approaches include patients with a BMI over 30 kg/m² who have not lost sufficient weight through nonsurgical methods or those who do not want to undergo surgery or require a bridge therapy to surgery.

Fluid-filled balloons can be placed and filled to an appropriate volume. One network meta-analysis found that fluid-filled balloons were more likely to lead to weight loss, but also more likely to be removed due to intolerance. She also noted that the Elipse balloon (Allurion Technologies) is designed to be swallowed and thus avoid procedures entirely; it is currently under review by Food and Drug Administration.

Although balloons are linked to 7%-10% weight loss in some studies and reviews, Dr. Schulman said, “we know … that the majority of these lead to much more weight loss in clinical practice, oftentimes closer to 13%-%15.”

One review found that balloons also lead to improvement in obesity-related comorbidities, compared with conventional nonsurgical approaches, and this benefit extends past 1 year. A study of 21 patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) treated with intragastric balloons found that 90% had an improvement in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score, with a median drop of 3 points, and 80% had a drop of at least 2 points. Of these patients, 50% also had an improvement in fibrosis determined by magnetic resonance elastography.

Balloon therapy should be highly individualized, according to Dr. Schulman.

Dr. Schulman also described ESG, which uses sutures to remodel the stomach and reduce volume by up to 70%. She outlined studies and reviews, such as those from Sharaiha and colleagues and Hedjoudje and colleagues, showing that ESG leads to significant and sustained weight loss. The procedure was also quite safe, with one large, single-center study showing that both fever and significant blood loss each occurred in less than 1% of patients (Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jun;89[6]:1132-8), while the systematic review and meta-analysis from Hedjoudje and colleagues found an adverse event frequency of 2.2%.

In a matched control study, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy led to more weight loss, but ESG had fewer adverse events (5.2% versus 16.9%; P < .01) and had a greater effect on gastroesophageal reflux disease.

ESG can be effective when repeated, while surgical revisions are associated with much higher morbidity, according to Dr. Schulman.

During her presentation, Dr. Schulman mentioned the AspireAssist device developed by Aspire Bariatrics, which is similar to a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. It leads to the removal of about 30% of calories consumed during a meal, with patients instructed to aspirate 20-30 minutes after a meal, two to three times a day. It gained Food and Drug Administration approval on the strength of the PATHWAY study, which showed significant weight loss.

“But perhaps more impressive is the overall patient satisfaction and willingness to recommend this device to others,” said Dr. Schulman.

Another approach she described is the transpyloric shuttle (TPS), which leads to faster filling times and delayed gastric emptying, though it must be removed endoscopically at 12 months.

Dr. Schulman also discussed endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapy. This approach is currently a primary therapy for obesity, and is in development for the treatment of diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The approach is predicated on the idea that obesity is a disorder of energy homeostasis, and that enteric neurons in the small bowel are key players, possibly through reduced production of as yet unknown signaling molecules, leading to insulin resistance. It’s also known that diets high in fat and sugar alter the duodenum, which causes changes in nutrient signaling to the brain.

“It’s thought that this leads to duodenal endocrine hyperactivity and ultimately metabolic disease,” said Dr. Schulman.

Finally, she described small-bowel therapies like endobarrier sleeves, duodenal mucosal resurfacing, and an incisionless anastomosis system designed to improve glycemic control by altering the gut through noninvasive means.

Dr. Schulman has consulted for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and MicroTech, and has received research support from GI Dynamics.

SAN FRANCISCO – Endoscopic treatments for obesity are under-utilized but represent an opportunity for gastroenterologists to help address the metabolic epidemic that affects up to 40% of people in the United States, according to a presentation reviewing these techniques.

Lifestyle modification is the first intervention, but results in just a 5% average weight loss, according to Allison Schulman, MD, MPH, who discussed these options at the 2022 AGA Tech Summit sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology. Although surgical interventions induce more weight loss and greater improvement of metabolic outcomes, they come with significant risks and many patients are reluctant to pursue them, she added. In fact, fewer than 1% of obese individuals who qualify for bariatric surgery ultimately undergo it.

Dr. Schulman emphasized another option: Endoscopic bariatric therapies fill this void in between those two extremes, as they are clearly less invasive” said Dr. Schulman, who is an assistant professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “They may appeal to those who do not qualify or do not want bariatric surgery. They also could bridge a critical gap in the treatment of obesity, as they reach patients earlier, at BMIs [body mass indexes] where they may not be surgical candidates. Furthermore, these therapies are oftentimes repeatable and commonly can be used in combination [with other weight loss approaches].”

Endoscopic therapies for obesity include devices that occupy space in the stomach, such as intragastric balloons, gastric remodeling procedures like endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG), and aspiration therapy.

Potential candidates for noninvasive approaches include patients with a BMI over 30 kg/m² who have not lost sufficient weight through nonsurgical methods or those who do not want to undergo surgery or require a bridge therapy to surgery.

Fluid-filled balloons can be placed and filled to an appropriate volume. One network meta-analysis found that fluid-filled balloons were more likely to lead to weight loss, but also more likely to be removed due to intolerance. She also noted that the Elipse balloon (Allurion Technologies) is designed to be swallowed and thus avoid procedures entirely; it is currently under review by Food and Drug Administration.

Although balloons are linked to 7%-10% weight loss in some studies and reviews, Dr. Schulman said, “we know … that the majority of these lead to much more weight loss in clinical practice, oftentimes closer to 13%-%15.”

One review found that balloons also lead to improvement in obesity-related comorbidities, compared with conventional nonsurgical approaches, and this benefit extends past 1 year. A study of 21 patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) treated with intragastric balloons found that 90% had an improvement in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score, with a median drop of 3 points, and 80% had a drop of at least 2 points. Of these patients, 50% also had an improvement in fibrosis determined by magnetic resonance elastography.

Balloon therapy should be highly individualized, according to Dr. Schulman.

Dr. Schulman also described ESG, which uses sutures to remodel the stomach and reduce volume by up to 70%. She outlined studies and reviews, such as those from Sharaiha and colleagues and Hedjoudje and colleagues, showing that ESG leads to significant and sustained weight loss. The procedure was also quite safe, with one large, single-center study showing that both fever and significant blood loss each occurred in less than 1% of patients (Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jun;89[6]:1132-8), while the systematic review and meta-analysis from Hedjoudje and colleagues found an adverse event frequency of 2.2%.

In a matched control study, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy led to more weight loss, but ESG had fewer adverse events (5.2% versus 16.9%; P < .01) and had a greater effect on gastroesophageal reflux disease.

ESG can be effective when repeated, while surgical revisions are associated with much higher morbidity, according to Dr. Schulman.

During her presentation, Dr. Schulman mentioned the AspireAssist device developed by Aspire Bariatrics, which is similar to a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. It leads to the removal of about 30% of calories consumed during a meal, with patients instructed to aspirate 20-30 minutes after a meal, two to three times a day. It gained Food and Drug Administration approval on the strength of the PATHWAY study, which showed significant weight loss.

“But perhaps more impressive is the overall patient satisfaction and willingness to recommend this device to others,” said Dr. Schulman.

Another approach she described is the transpyloric shuttle (TPS), which leads to faster filling times and delayed gastric emptying, though it must be removed endoscopically at 12 months.

Dr. Schulman also discussed endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapy. This approach is currently a primary therapy for obesity, and is in development for the treatment of diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The approach is predicated on the idea that obesity is a disorder of energy homeostasis, and that enteric neurons in the small bowel are key players, possibly through reduced production of as yet unknown signaling molecules, leading to insulin resistance. It’s also known that diets high in fat and sugar alter the duodenum, which causes changes in nutrient signaling to the brain.

“It’s thought that this leads to duodenal endocrine hyperactivity and ultimately metabolic disease,” said Dr. Schulman.

Finally, she described small-bowel therapies like endobarrier sleeves, duodenal mucosal resurfacing, and an incisionless anastomosis system designed to improve glycemic control by altering the gut through noninvasive means.

Dr. Schulman has consulted for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and MicroTech, and has received research support from GI Dynamics.

Elementary schools that provide easy access to drinking water and education about its benefits may help their students maintain a healthy weight, a new study found.

Researchers examined the health and drinking habits of 1,249 children in 26 low-income, ethnically diverse elementary schools in the San Francisco Bay Area. In half of the schools, water stations were placed throughout, along with signs explaining why water is healthier than sugary drinks. In addition, assemblies were held explaining the advantages of water over sugary drinks.

That simple message seemed to have had an outsized effect. Schools with water stations had significantly fewer overweight students than the other schools by the end of the 15-month study, according to Anisha Patel, MD, MSPH, MSHS, associate professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University, who will be presenting the findings at the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) 2022 Meeting, Denver.

“Sugar-sweetened beverages are a huge contributor to obesity,” Dr. Patel told this news organization. “This provides a key strategy for schools to adopt, and the time is right for this type of work – in the pandemic period we’ve seen significant increases in obesity. Investments like this could help stem that.”

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 14.4 million children aged 2-19 years in the United States – about 19% of all kids in that age range – were obese in 2017-2018. The agency said the rate of increase in body mass index among this group nearly doubled during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Children with obesity are at higher risk for chronic health problems, including diabetes, heart disease, depression, and high blood pressure.

Dr. Patel’s study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, was the culmination of a decade of interest in the area, she said.

Water stations and compostable or recyclable cups were placed in high-traffic areas of the schools, including playgrounds and cafeterias. The water was tested for lead, and if needed, researchers worked with school districts to remediate, Dr. Patel said in an interview.

The intervention included a kickoff assembly about the health benefits of water intake, and students who were seen drinking water with their lunches were given small prizes.

The researchers assessed body weight, height, and dietary intake of students throughout the study, including their consumption of water, sodas, fruit juices, and flavored and unflavored milk.

Promoting water didn’t lead to magical weight loss. At the start of the study, 49.5% of students in the intervention group were overweight – a figure that nudged up to 49.8% by the end of the study. In the control group, however, 47.7% of students began the study overweight – a number that climbed to 51.4% by the end of the trial (odds ratio, 0.3; P = .01), according to the researchers, who credited the increase to the lack of emphasis on opting for water over sweetened drinks.

“We were very excited the effect sizes were nearly double previous studies, which was great news,” Dr. Patel said.

Water intake began to decline at about the 15-month mark, signaling the need for more long-term, consistent education and incentive to foster lasting habits, Dr. Patel said.

The researchers noted that they were unable to collect data from eight of the target schools because of the pandemic. In addition, the study focused on schools with heavily Latino student populations, so the results might not be generalizable to other communities, they said.

Angie Cradock, a principal research scientist at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said the study “offers an important and practical strategy to promote student health.”

Ms. Cradock serves as deputy director of the Harvard Prevention Research Center on Nutrition and Physical Activity, which focuses on improving population nutrition, increasing physical activity, reducing obesity and chronic disease, and improving health equity.

Dr. Patel and her colleagues’ three-pronged approach of using education, promotion, and accessibility to increase student interest in drinking water could be employed at countless other schools, said Ms. Cradock, who was not involved in the study.

“Negative perceptions of tap water and drinking fountains are common,” she said. “Not all students have access to safe and appealing drinking water while at school, and this strategy seems like a recipe for success.”

Dr. Patel reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Elementary schools that provide easy access to drinking water and education about its benefits may help their students maintain a healthy weight, a new study found.

Researchers examined the health and drinking habits of 1,249 children in 26 low-income, ethnically diverse elementary schools in the San Francisco Bay Area. In half of the schools, water stations were placed throughout, along with signs explaining why water is healthier than sugary drinks. In addition, assemblies were held explaining the advantages of water over sugary drinks.

That simple message seemed to have had an outsized effect. Schools with water stations had significantly fewer overweight students than the other schools by the end of the 15-month study, according to Anisha Patel, MD, MSPH, MSHS, associate professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University, who will be presenting the findings at the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) 2022 Meeting, Denver.

“Sugar-sweetened beverages are a huge contributor to obesity,” Dr. Patel told this news organization. “This provides a key strategy for schools to adopt, and the time is right for this type of work – in the pandemic period we’ve seen significant increases in obesity. Investments like this could help stem that.”

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 14.4 million children aged 2-19 years in the United States – about 19% of all kids in that age range – were obese in 2017-2018. The agency said the rate of increase in body mass index among this group nearly doubled during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Children with obesity are at higher risk for chronic health problems, including diabetes, heart disease, depression, and high blood pressure.

Dr. Patel’s study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, was the culmination of a decade of interest in the area, she said.

Water stations and compostable or recyclable cups were placed in high-traffic areas of the schools, including playgrounds and cafeterias. The water was tested for lead, and if needed, researchers worked with school districts to remediate, Dr. Patel said in an interview.

The intervention included a kickoff assembly about the health benefits of water intake, and students who were seen drinking water with their lunches were given small prizes.

The researchers assessed body weight, height, and dietary intake of students throughout the study, including their consumption of water, sodas, fruit juices, and flavored and unflavored milk.

Promoting water didn’t lead to magical weight loss. At the start of the study, 49.5% of students in the intervention group were overweight – a figure that nudged up to 49.8% by the end of the study. In the control group, however, 47.7% of students began the study overweight – a number that climbed to 51.4% by the end of the trial (odds ratio, 0.3; P = .01), according to the researchers, who credited the increase to the lack of emphasis on opting for water over sweetened drinks.

“We were very excited the effect sizes were nearly double previous studies, which was great news,” Dr. Patel said.

Water intake began to decline at about the 15-month mark, signaling the need for more long-term, consistent education and incentive to foster lasting habits, Dr. Patel said.

The researchers noted that they were unable to collect data from eight of the target schools because of the pandemic. In addition, the study focused on schools with heavily Latino student populations, so the results might not be generalizable to other communities, they said.

Angie Cradock, a principal research scientist at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said the study “offers an important and practical strategy to promote student health.”

Ms. Cradock serves as deputy director of the Harvard Prevention Research Center on Nutrition and Physical Activity, which focuses on improving population nutrition, increasing physical activity, reducing obesity and chronic disease, and improving health equity.

Dr. Patel and her colleagues’ three-pronged approach of using education, promotion, and accessibility to increase student interest in drinking water could be employed at countless other schools, said Ms. Cradock, who was not involved in the study.

“Negative perceptions of tap water and drinking fountains are common,” she said. “Not all students have access to safe and appealing drinking water while at school, and this strategy seems like a recipe for success.”

Dr. Patel reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Elementary schools that provide easy access to drinking water and education about its benefits may help their students maintain a healthy weight, a new study found.

Researchers examined the health and drinking habits of 1,249 children in 26 low-income, ethnically diverse elementary schools in the San Francisco Bay Area. In half of the schools, water stations were placed throughout, along with signs explaining why water is healthier than sugary drinks. In addition, assemblies were held explaining the advantages of water over sugary drinks.

That simple message seemed to have had an outsized effect. Schools with water stations had significantly fewer overweight students than the other schools by the end of the 15-month study, according to Anisha Patel, MD, MSPH, MSHS, associate professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University, who will be presenting the findings at the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) 2022 Meeting, Denver.

“Sugar-sweetened beverages are a huge contributor to obesity,” Dr. Patel told this news organization. “This provides a key strategy for schools to adopt, and the time is right for this type of work – in the pandemic period we’ve seen significant increases in obesity. Investments like this could help stem that.”

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 14.4 million children aged 2-19 years in the United States – about 19% of all kids in that age range – were obese in 2017-2018. The agency said the rate of increase in body mass index among this group nearly doubled during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Children with obesity are at higher risk for chronic health problems, including diabetes, heart disease, depression, and high blood pressure.

Dr. Patel’s study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, was the culmination of a decade of interest in the area, she said.

Water stations and compostable or recyclable cups were placed in high-traffic areas of the schools, including playgrounds and cafeterias. The water was tested for lead, and if needed, researchers worked with school districts to remediate, Dr. Patel said in an interview.

The intervention included a kickoff assembly about the health benefits of water intake, and students who were seen drinking water with their lunches were given small prizes.

The researchers assessed body weight, height, and dietary intake of students throughout the study, including their consumption of water, sodas, fruit juices, and flavored and unflavored milk.

Promoting water didn’t lead to magical weight loss. At the start of the study, 49.5% of students in the intervention group were overweight – a figure that nudged up to 49.8% by the end of the study. In the control group, however, 47.7% of students began the study overweight – a number that climbed to 51.4% by the end of the trial (odds ratio, 0.3; P = .01), according to the researchers, who credited the increase to the lack of emphasis on opting for water over sweetened drinks.

“We were very excited the effect sizes were nearly double previous studies, which was great news,” Dr. Patel said.

Water intake began to decline at about the 15-month mark, signaling the need for more long-term, consistent education and incentive to foster lasting habits, Dr. Patel said.

The researchers noted that they were unable to collect data from eight of the target schools because of the pandemic. In addition, the study focused on schools with heavily Latino student populations, so the results might not be generalizable to other communities, they said.

Angie Cradock, a principal research scientist at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said the study “offers an important and practical strategy to promote student health.”

Ms. Cradock serves as deputy director of the Harvard Prevention Research Center on Nutrition and Physical Activity, which focuses on improving population nutrition, increasing physical activity, reducing obesity and chronic disease, and improving health equity.

Dr. Patel and her colleagues’ three-pronged approach of using education, promotion, and accessibility to increase student interest in drinking water could be employed at countless other schools, said Ms. Cradock, who was not involved in the study.

“Negative perceptions of tap water and drinking fountains are common,” she said. “Not all students have access to safe and appealing drinking water while at school, and this strategy seems like a recipe for success.”

Dr. Patel reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 50% of obese adolescents met criteria for depression, which also was associated with several components of metabolic syndrome, based on data from 160 individuals.

Previous research shows that the metabolic consequences of obesity are worsened with the coexistence of depression in adults, but a similar relationship in obese adolescents has not been explored, according to Nisha Gupta, a medical student at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, and colleagues.

“This relationship is explained by an overactive stress response and adoption of unhealthy lifestyle habits,” both of which increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, the researchers noted in their abstract.

In a study presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, the researchers reviewed data from 160 obese adolescents seen at a pediatric weight management clinic between July 1, 2018, and Dec. 3, 2021. The data included anthropometric, clinical, and laboratory information. Depression was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9). The goal of the study was to compare the prevalence of metabolic syndrome components in obese youth with and without diagnosed depression.

Overall, 46% of the patients had PHQ-9 scores less than 5, which was defined as no clinically significant depression. A total of 26% had current or prior diagnoses of depression, and 25% met the criteria for moderate to severe depression, with PHQ-9 scores of 10 or higher. Notably, 18% of individuals with no prior history of depression met criteria for moderate to severe depression, the researchers wrote.

Teens who reported daytime fatigue or trouble sleeping, and those who reported eating out seven or more times a week had higher scores than those without these reports.

In laboratory analyses, higher PHQ-9 scores were significantly associated with increasing weight, body mass index, body fat percentage, diastolic blood pressure, and fasting blood insulin (P < .02 for all).

The study findings were limited by the relatively small sample size, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that depression is common, but often underdiagnosed in obese adolescents, and depression screening should be part of obesity management.
 

Study highlights need to screen

The current study is important because of the overall increase in obesity in the United States, which extends to children and teens, Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, said in an interview.

“With skyrocketing rates of obesity among children and teens over the last decades, we are seeing more ‘adult’ diseases seep into the younger ages, including type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and now, depression,” he said.

“The results are a wake-up call for the need for better system-wide prevention and management of obesity in adolescents and the importance of screening and managing depression in obese teenagers,” he emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

More than 50% of obese adolescents met criteria for depression, which also was associated with several components of metabolic syndrome, based on data from 160 individuals.

Previous research shows that the metabolic consequences of obesity are worsened with the coexistence of depression in adults, but a similar relationship in obese adolescents has not been explored, according to Nisha Gupta, a medical student at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, and colleagues.

“This relationship is explained by an overactive stress response and adoption of unhealthy lifestyle habits,” both of which increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, the researchers noted in their abstract.

In a study presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, the researchers reviewed data from 160 obese adolescents seen at a pediatric weight management clinic between July 1, 2018, and Dec. 3, 2021. The data included anthropometric, clinical, and laboratory information. Depression was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9). The goal of the study was to compare the prevalence of metabolic syndrome components in obese youth with and without diagnosed depression.

Overall, 46% of the patients had PHQ-9 scores less than 5, which was defined as no clinically significant depression. A total of 26% had current or prior diagnoses of depression, and 25% met the criteria for moderate to severe depression, with PHQ-9 scores of 10 or higher. Notably, 18% of individuals with no prior history of depression met criteria for moderate to severe depression, the researchers wrote.

Teens who reported daytime fatigue or trouble sleeping, and those who reported eating out seven or more times a week had higher scores than those without these reports.

In laboratory analyses, higher PHQ-9 scores were significantly associated with increasing weight, body mass index, body fat percentage, diastolic blood pressure, and fasting blood insulin (P < .02 for all).

The study findings were limited by the relatively small sample size, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that depression is common, but often underdiagnosed in obese adolescents, and depression screening should be part of obesity management.
 

Study highlights need to screen

The current study is important because of the overall increase in obesity in the United States, which extends to children and teens, Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, said in an interview.

“With skyrocketing rates of obesity among children and teens over the last decades, we are seeing more ‘adult’ diseases seep into the younger ages, including type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and now, depression,” he said.

“The results are a wake-up call for the need for better system-wide prevention and management of obesity in adolescents and the importance of screening and managing depression in obese teenagers,” he emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

More than 50% of obese adolescents met criteria for depression, which also was associated with several components of metabolic syndrome, based on data from 160 individuals.

Previous research shows that the metabolic consequences of obesity are worsened with the coexistence of depression in adults, but a similar relationship in obese adolescents has not been explored, according to Nisha Gupta, a medical student at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, and colleagues.

“This relationship is explained by an overactive stress response and adoption of unhealthy lifestyle habits,” both of which increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, the researchers noted in their abstract.

In a study presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, the researchers reviewed data from 160 obese adolescents seen at a pediatric weight management clinic between July 1, 2018, and Dec. 3, 2021. The data included anthropometric, clinical, and laboratory information. Depression was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9). The goal of the study was to compare the prevalence of metabolic syndrome components in obese youth with and without diagnosed depression.

Overall, 46% of the patients had PHQ-9 scores less than 5, which was defined as no clinically significant depression. A total of 26% had current or prior diagnoses of depression, and 25% met the criteria for moderate to severe depression, with PHQ-9 scores of 10 or higher. Notably, 18% of individuals with no prior history of depression met criteria for moderate to severe depression, the researchers wrote.

Teens who reported daytime fatigue or trouble sleeping, and those who reported eating out seven or more times a week had higher scores than those without these reports.

In laboratory analyses, higher PHQ-9 scores were significantly associated with increasing weight, body mass index, body fat percentage, diastolic blood pressure, and fasting blood insulin (P < .02 for all).

The study findings were limited by the relatively small sample size, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that depression is common, but often underdiagnosed in obese adolescents, and depression screening should be part of obesity management.
 

Study highlights need to screen

The current study is important because of the overall increase in obesity in the United States, which extends to children and teens, Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, said in an interview.

“With skyrocketing rates of obesity among children and teens over the last decades, we are seeing more ‘adult’ diseases seep into the younger ages, including type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and now, depression,” he said.

“The results are a wake-up call for the need for better system-wide prevention and management of obesity in adolescents and the importance of screening and managing depression in obese teenagers,” he emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Excess weight over a lifetime may play a greater role in a person’s risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) than previously thought, according to new research.

In their paper published online March 17 in JAMA Oncology, the authors liken the cumulative effects of a lifetime with overweight or obesity to the increased risk of cancer the more people smoke over time.

This population-based, case-control study was led by Xiangwei Li, MSc, of the division of clinical epidemiology and aging research at the German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg.

It looked at height and self-reported weight documented in 10-year increments starting at age 20 years up to the current age for 5,635 people with CRC compared with 4,515 people in a control group.

Odds for colorectal cancer increased substantially over the decades when people carried the excess weight long term compared with participants who remained within the normal weight range during the period.

Coauthor Hermann Brenner, MD, MPH, a colleague in Li’s division at the German Cancer Research Center, said in an interview that a key message in the research is that “overweight and obesity are likely to increase the risk of colorectal cancer more strongly than suggested by previous studies that typically had considered body weight only at a single point of time.”

The researchers used a measure of weighted number of years lived with overweight or obesity (WYOs) determined by multiplying excess body mass index by number of years the person carried the excess weight.

They found a link between WYOs and CRC risk, with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) increasing from 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.44) to 2.54 (95% CI, 2.24-2.89) from the first to the fourth quartile of WYOs, compared with people who stayed within normal weight parameters.

The odds went up substantially the longer the time carrying the excess weight.

“Each SD increment in WYOs was associated with an increase of CRC risk by 55% (adjusted OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.46-1.64),” the authors wrote. “This OR was higher than the OR per SD increase of excess body mass index at any single point of time, which ranged from 1.04 (95% CI, 0.93-1.16) to 1.27 (95% CI 1.16-1.39).”

Dr. Brenner said that although this study focused on colorectal cancer, “the same is likely to apply for other cancers and other chronic diseases.”

Prevention of overweight and obesity to reduce burden of cancer and other chronic diseases “should become a public health priority,” he said.
 

Preventing overweight in childhood is important

Overweight and obesity increasingly are starting in childhood, he noted, and may be a lifelong burden.

Therefore, “efforts to prevent their development in childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood are particularly important,” Dr. Brenner said.

The average age of the patients was 68 years in both the CRC and control groups. There were more men than women in both groups: 59.7% were men in the CRC group and 61.1% were men in the control group.

“Our proposed concept of WYOs is comparable to the concept of pack-years in that WYOs can be considered a weighted measure of years lived with the exposure, with weights reflecting the intensity of exposure,” the authors wrote.
 

Study helps confirm what is becoming more clear to researchers

Kimmie Ng, MD, MPH, a professor at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston, said in an interview that the study helps confirm what is becoming more clear to researchers.

“We do think that exposures over the life course are the ones that will be most strongly contributing to a risk of colorectal cancer as an adult,” she said. “With obesity, what we think is happening is that it’s setting up this milieu of chronic inflammation and insulin resistance and we know those two factors can lead to higher rates of colorectal cancer development and increased tumor growth.”

She said the ideal, but impractical, way to do the study would be to follow healthy people from childhood and document their weight over a lifetime. In this case-control study, people were asked to recall their weight at different time periods, which is a limitation and could lead to recall bias.

But the study is important, Dr. Ng said, and it adds convincing evidence that addressing the link between excess weight and CRC and chronic diseases should be a public health priority. “With the recent rise in young-onset colorectal cancer since the 1990s there has been a lot of interest in looking at whether obesity is a major contributor to that rising trend,” Dr. Ng noted. “If obesity is truly linked to colorectal cancer, these rising rates of obesity are very worrisome for potentially leading to more colorectal cancers in young adulthood and beyond.“

The study authors and Dr. Ng report no relevant financial relationships.

The new research was funded by the German Research Council, the Interdisciplinary Research Program of the National Center for Tumor Diseases, Germany, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Help your patients understand colorectal cancer prevention and screening options by sharing AGA's patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/CRC

Excess weight over a lifetime may play a greater role in a person’s risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) than previously thought, according to new research.

In their paper published online March 17 in JAMA Oncology, the authors liken the cumulative effects of a lifetime with overweight or obesity to the increased risk of cancer the more people smoke over time.

This population-based, case-control study was led by Xiangwei Li, MSc, of the division of clinical epidemiology and aging research at the German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg.

It looked at height and self-reported weight documented in 10-year increments starting at age 20 years up to the current age for 5,635 people with CRC compared with 4,515 people in a control group.

Odds for colorectal cancer increased substantially over the decades when people carried the excess weight long term compared with participants who remained within the normal weight range during the period.

Coauthor Hermann Brenner, MD, MPH, a colleague in Li’s division at the German Cancer Research Center, said in an interview that a key message in the research is that “overweight and obesity are likely to increase the risk of colorectal cancer more strongly than suggested by previous studies that typically had considered body weight only at a single point of time.”

The researchers used a measure of weighted number of years lived with overweight or obesity (WYOs) determined by multiplying excess body mass index by number of years the person carried the excess weight.

They found a link between WYOs and CRC risk, with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) increasing from 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.44) to 2.54 (95% CI, 2.24-2.89) from the first to the fourth quartile of WYOs, compared with people who stayed within normal weight parameters.

The odds went up substantially the longer the time carrying the excess weight.

“Each SD increment in WYOs was associated with an increase of CRC risk by 55% (adjusted OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.46-1.64),” the authors wrote. “This OR was higher than the OR per SD increase of excess body mass index at any single point of time, which ranged from 1.04 (95% CI, 0.93-1.16) to 1.27 (95% CI 1.16-1.39).”

Dr. Brenner said that although this study focused on colorectal cancer, “the same is likely to apply for other cancers and other chronic diseases.”

Prevention of overweight and obesity to reduce burden of cancer and other chronic diseases “should become a public health priority,” he said.
 

Preventing overweight in childhood is important

Overweight and obesity increasingly are starting in childhood, he noted, and may be a lifelong burden.

Therefore, “efforts to prevent their development in childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood are particularly important,” Dr. Brenner said.

The average age of the patients was 68 years in both the CRC and control groups. There were more men than women in both groups: 59.7% were men in the CRC group and 61.1% were men in the control group.

“Our proposed concept of WYOs is comparable to the concept of pack-years in that WYOs can be considered a weighted measure of years lived with the exposure, with weights reflecting the intensity of exposure,” the authors wrote.
 

Study helps confirm what is becoming more clear to researchers

Kimmie Ng, MD, MPH, a professor at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston, said in an interview that the study helps confirm what is becoming more clear to researchers.

“We do think that exposures over the life course are the ones that will be most strongly contributing to a risk of colorectal cancer as an adult,” she said. “With obesity, what we think is happening is that it’s setting up this milieu of chronic inflammation and insulin resistance and we know those two factors can lead to higher rates of colorectal cancer development and increased tumor growth.”

She said the ideal, but impractical, way to do the study would be to follow healthy people from childhood and document their weight over a lifetime. In this case-control study, people were asked to recall their weight at different time periods, which is a limitation and could lead to recall bias.

But the study is important, Dr. Ng said, and it adds convincing evidence that addressing the link between excess weight and CRC and chronic diseases should be a public health priority. “With the recent rise in young-onset colorectal cancer since the 1990s there has been a lot of interest in looking at whether obesity is a major contributor to that rising trend,” Dr. Ng noted. “If obesity is truly linked to colorectal cancer, these rising rates of obesity are very worrisome for potentially leading to more colorectal cancers in young adulthood and beyond.“

The study authors and Dr. Ng report no relevant financial relationships.

The new research was funded by the German Research Council, the Interdisciplinary Research Program of the National Center for Tumor Diseases, Germany, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Help your patients understand colorectal cancer prevention and screening options by sharing AGA's patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/CRC

Excess weight over a lifetime may play a greater role in a person’s risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) than previously thought, according to new research.

In their paper published online March 17 in JAMA Oncology, the authors liken the cumulative effects of a lifetime with overweight or obesity to the increased risk of cancer the more people smoke over time.

This population-based, case-control study was led by Xiangwei Li, MSc, of the division of clinical epidemiology and aging research at the German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg.

It looked at height and self-reported weight documented in 10-year increments starting at age 20 years up to the current age for 5,635 people with CRC compared with 4,515 people in a control group.

Odds for colorectal cancer increased substantially over the decades when people carried the excess weight long term compared with participants who remained within the normal weight range during the period.

Coauthor Hermann Brenner, MD, MPH, a colleague in Li’s division at the German Cancer Research Center, said in an interview that a key message in the research is that “overweight and obesity are likely to increase the risk of colorectal cancer more strongly than suggested by previous studies that typically had considered body weight only at a single point of time.”

The researchers used a measure of weighted number of years lived with overweight or obesity (WYOs) determined by multiplying excess body mass index by number of years the person carried the excess weight.

They found a link between WYOs and CRC risk, with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) increasing from 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.44) to 2.54 (95% CI, 2.24-2.89) from the first to the fourth quartile of WYOs, compared with people who stayed within normal weight parameters.

The odds went up substantially the longer the time carrying the excess weight.

“Each SD increment in WYOs was associated with an increase of CRC risk by 55% (adjusted OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.46-1.64),” the authors wrote. “This OR was higher than the OR per SD increase of excess body mass index at any single point of time, which ranged from 1.04 (95% CI, 0.93-1.16) to 1.27 (95% CI 1.16-1.39).”

Dr. Brenner said that although this study focused on colorectal cancer, “the same is likely to apply for other cancers and other chronic diseases.”

Prevention of overweight and obesity to reduce burden of cancer and other chronic diseases “should become a public health priority,” he said.
 

Preventing overweight in childhood is important

Overweight and obesity increasingly are starting in childhood, he noted, and may be a lifelong burden.

Therefore, “efforts to prevent their development in childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood are particularly important,” Dr. Brenner said.

The average age of the patients was 68 years in both the CRC and control groups. There were more men than women in both groups: 59.7% were men in the CRC group and 61.1% were men in the control group.

“Our proposed concept of WYOs is comparable to the concept of pack-years in that WYOs can be considered a weighted measure of years lived with the exposure, with weights reflecting the intensity of exposure,” the authors wrote.
 

Study helps confirm what is becoming more clear to researchers

Kimmie Ng, MD, MPH, a professor at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston, said in an interview that the study helps confirm what is becoming more clear to researchers.

“We do think that exposures over the life course are the ones that will be most strongly contributing to a risk of colorectal cancer as an adult,” she said. “With obesity, what we think is happening is that it’s setting up this milieu of chronic inflammation and insulin resistance and we know those two factors can lead to higher rates of colorectal cancer development and increased tumor growth.”

She said the ideal, but impractical, way to do the study would be to follow healthy people from childhood and document their weight over a lifetime. In this case-control study, people were asked to recall their weight at different time periods, which is a limitation and could lead to recall bias.

But the study is important, Dr. Ng said, and it adds convincing evidence that addressing the link between excess weight and CRC and chronic diseases should be a public health priority. “With the recent rise in young-onset colorectal cancer since the 1990s there has been a lot of interest in looking at whether obesity is a major contributor to that rising trend,” Dr. Ng noted. “If obesity is truly linked to colorectal cancer, these rising rates of obesity are very worrisome for potentially leading to more colorectal cancers in young adulthood and beyond.“

The study authors and Dr. Ng report no relevant financial relationships.

The new research was funded by the German Research Council, the Interdisciplinary Research Program of the National Center for Tumor Diseases, Germany, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Help your patients understand colorectal cancer prevention and screening options by sharing AGA's patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/CRC

Not so fast! Daily fasting with calorie restriction may not lead to shedding more pounds than just cutting back on calories, according to the authors of a new study.

Over the course of a year, study participants who ate only from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. did not lose significantly more weight than individuals who ate whenever they wanted, nor did they achieve significantly greater improvements in other obesity-related health measures like body mass index (BMI) or metabolic risk, reported lead author Deying Liu, MD, of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China, and colleagues.

“[Daily fasting] has gained popularity because it is a weight-loss strategy that is simple to follow, which may enhance adherence,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine. However, “the long-term efficacy and safety of time-restricted eating as a weight-loss strategy are still uncertain, and the long-term effects on weight loss of time-restricted eating as compared with daily calorie restriction alone have not been fully explored.”

To learn more, Dr. Liu and colleagues recruited 139 adult patients with BMIs between 28 and 45. Individuals with serious medical conditions, such as malignant tumors, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and others were excluded. Other exclusion criteria included smoking, ongoing participation in a weight-loss program, GI surgery within the prior year, use of medications that impact energy balance and weight, and planned or current pregnancy.

All participants were advised to eat calorie-restricted diets, with ranges of 1,500-1,800 kcal per day for men and 1,200-1,500 kcal per day for women. To determine the added impact of fasting, participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into time-restricted (fasting) or non–time-restricted (nonfasting) groups, in which fasting participants ate only during an 8-hour window from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., whereas nonfasting participants ate whenever they wanted.

At 6 months and 12 months, participants were re-evaluated for changes in weight, body fat, BMI, blood pressure, lean body mass, and metabolic risk factors, including glucose level, triglycerides, blood pressure, and others.
 

Caloric intake restriction seems to explain most of beneficial effects

At one-year follow-up, 118 participants (84.9%) remained in the study. Although members of the fasting group lost slightly more weight on average than those in the non-fasting group (mean, 8.0 kg vs. 6.3 kg), the difference between groups was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval, −4.0 to 0.4; P = .11).

Most of the other obesity-related health measures also trended toward favoring the fasting group, but again, none of these improvements was statistically significant. Weight circumference at 1 year, for example, decreased by a mean of 9.4 cm in the fasting group versus 8.8 cm in the nonfasting group, a net difference of 1.8 cm (95% CI, –4.0 to 0.5).

“We found that the two weight-loss regimens that we evaluated had similar success in patients with obesity, regardless of whether they reduced their calorie consumption through time-restricted eating or through calorie restriction alone,” Dr. Liu and colleagues concluded.

Principal investigator Huijie Zhang MD, PhD, professor, chief physician, and deputy director of the department of endocrinology and metabolism at Nafang Hospital, noted that their findings are “consistent with the findings in previous studies.”

“Our data suggest that caloric intake restriction explained most of the beneficial effects of a time-restricted eating regimen,” Dr. Zhang said.

Still, Dr. Zhang called time-restricted eating “a viable and sustainable approach for a person who wants to lose weight.”

More work is needed, Dr. Zhang said, to uncover the impact of fasting in “diverse groups,” including patients with chronic disease like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Investigators should also conduct studies to compare outcomes between men and women, and evaluate the effects of other fasting durations.
 

Can trial be applied to a wider population?

According to Blandine Laferrère, MD, PhD, and Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, Calif., respectively, “the results of the trial suggest that calorie restriction combined with time restriction, when delivered with intensive coaching and monitoring, is an approach that is as safe, sustainable, and effective for weight loss as calorie restriction alone.”

Yet Dr. Laferrère and Dr. Panda also expressed skepticism about broader implementation of a similar regime.

“The applicability of this trial to wider populations is debatable,” they wrote in an accompanying editorial. “The short time period for eating at baseline may be specific to the population studied, since investigators outside China have reported longer time windows. The rigorous coaching and monitoring by trial staff also leaves open the question of whether time-restricted eating is easier to adhere to than intentional calorie restriction. Such cost-benefit analyses are important for the assessment of the scalability of a lifestyle intervention.”
 

Duration is trial’s greatest strength

Kristina Varady, PhD, professor of nutrition in the department of kinesiology and nutrition at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said the “key strength” of the trial was its duration, at 12 months, making it the longest time-restricted eating trial to date”; however, she was critical of the design.

“Quite frankly, I’m surprised this study got into such a high-caliber medical journal,” Dr. Varady said in a written comment. “It doesn’t even have a control group! It goes to show how popular these diets are and how much people want to know about them.”

She also noted that “the study was flawed in that it didn’t really look at the effects of true time-restricted eating.” According to Dr. Varady, combining calorie restriction with time-restricted eating “kind of defeats the purpose” of a time-restricted diet.

“The main benefit of time-restricted eating is that you don’t need to count calories in order to lose weight,” Dr. Varady said, citing two of her own studies from 2018 and 2020. “Just by limiting the eating window to 8 hours per day, people naturally cut out 300-500 calories per day. That’s why people like [time-restricted eating] so much.”

Dr. Varady was also “very surprised” at the adherence data. At 1 year, approximately 85% of the patients were still following the protocol, a notably higher rate than most dietary intervention studies, which typically report adherence rates of 50-60%, she said. The high adherence rate was particularly unexpected because of the 8:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m. eating window, Dr. Varady added, since that meant skipping “the family/social meal every evening over 1 whole year!”

The study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Project and others. The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Varady disclosed author fees from the Hachette Book group for her book “The Every Other Day Diet.”

Not so fast! Daily fasting with calorie restriction may not lead to shedding more pounds than just cutting back on calories, according to the authors of a new study.

Over the course of a year, study participants who ate only from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. did not lose significantly more weight than individuals who ate whenever they wanted, nor did they achieve significantly greater improvements in other obesity-related health measures like body mass index (BMI) or metabolic risk, reported lead author Deying Liu, MD, of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China, and colleagues.

“[Daily fasting] has gained popularity because it is a weight-loss strategy that is simple to follow, which may enhance adherence,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine. However, “the long-term efficacy and safety of time-restricted eating as a weight-loss strategy are still uncertain, and the long-term effects on weight loss of time-restricted eating as compared with daily calorie restriction alone have not been fully explored.”

To learn more, Dr. Liu and colleagues recruited 139 adult patients with BMIs between 28 and 45. Individuals with serious medical conditions, such as malignant tumors, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and others were excluded. Other exclusion criteria included smoking, ongoing participation in a weight-loss program, GI surgery within the prior year, use of medications that impact energy balance and weight, and planned or current pregnancy.

All participants were advised to eat calorie-restricted diets, with ranges of 1,500-1,800 kcal per day for men and 1,200-1,500 kcal per day for women. To determine the added impact of fasting, participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into time-restricted (fasting) or non–time-restricted (nonfasting) groups, in which fasting participants ate only during an 8-hour window from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., whereas nonfasting participants ate whenever they wanted.

At 6 months and 12 months, participants were re-evaluated for changes in weight, body fat, BMI, blood pressure, lean body mass, and metabolic risk factors, including glucose level, triglycerides, blood pressure, and others.
 

Caloric intake restriction seems to explain most of beneficial effects

At one-year follow-up, 118 participants (84.9%) remained in the study. Although members of the fasting group lost slightly more weight on average than those in the non-fasting group (mean, 8.0 kg vs. 6.3 kg), the difference between groups was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval, −4.0 to 0.4; P = .11).

Most of the other obesity-related health measures also trended toward favoring the fasting group, but again, none of these improvements was statistically significant. Weight circumference at 1 year, for example, decreased by a mean of 9.4 cm in the fasting group versus 8.8 cm in the nonfasting group, a net difference of 1.8 cm (95% CI, –4.0 to 0.5).

“We found that the two weight-loss regimens that we evaluated had similar success in patients with obesity, regardless of whether they reduced their calorie consumption through time-restricted eating or through calorie restriction alone,” Dr. Liu and colleagues concluded.

Principal investigator Huijie Zhang MD, PhD, professor, chief physician, and deputy director of the department of endocrinology and metabolism at Nafang Hospital, noted that their findings are “consistent with the findings in previous studies.”

“Our data suggest that caloric intake restriction explained most of the beneficial effects of a time-restricted eating regimen,” Dr. Zhang said.

Still, Dr. Zhang called time-restricted eating “a viable and sustainable approach for a person who wants to lose weight.”

More work is needed, Dr. Zhang said, to uncover the impact of fasting in “diverse groups,” including patients with chronic disease like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Investigators should also conduct studies to compare outcomes between men and women, and evaluate the effects of other fasting durations.
 

Can trial be applied to a wider population?

According to Blandine Laferrère, MD, PhD, and Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, Calif., respectively, “the results of the trial suggest that calorie restriction combined with time restriction, when delivered with intensive coaching and monitoring, is an approach that is as safe, sustainable, and effective for weight loss as calorie restriction alone.”

Yet Dr. Laferrère and Dr. Panda also expressed skepticism about broader implementation of a similar regime.

“The applicability of this trial to wider populations is debatable,” they wrote in an accompanying editorial. “The short time period for eating at baseline may be specific to the population studied, since investigators outside China have reported longer time windows. The rigorous coaching and monitoring by trial staff also leaves open the question of whether time-restricted eating is easier to adhere to than intentional calorie restriction. Such cost-benefit analyses are important for the assessment of the scalability of a lifestyle intervention.”
 

Duration is trial’s greatest strength

Kristina Varady, PhD, professor of nutrition in the department of kinesiology and nutrition at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said the “key strength” of the trial was its duration, at 12 months, making it the longest time-restricted eating trial to date”; however, she was critical of the design.

“Quite frankly, I’m surprised this study got into such a high-caliber medical journal,” Dr. Varady said in a written comment. “It doesn’t even have a control group! It goes to show how popular these diets are and how much people want to know about them.”

She also noted that “the study was flawed in that it didn’t really look at the effects of true time-restricted eating.” According to Dr. Varady, combining calorie restriction with time-restricted eating “kind of defeats the purpose” of a time-restricted diet.

“The main benefit of time-restricted eating is that you don’t need to count calories in order to lose weight,” Dr. Varady said, citing two of her own studies from 2018 and 2020. “Just by limiting the eating window to 8 hours per day, people naturally cut out 300-500 calories per day. That’s why people like [time-restricted eating] so much.”

Dr. Varady was also “very surprised” at the adherence data. At 1 year, approximately 85% of the patients were still following the protocol, a notably higher rate than most dietary intervention studies, which typically report adherence rates of 50-60%, she said. The high adherence rate was particularly unexpected because of the 8:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m. eating window, Dr. Varady added, since that meant skipping “the family/social meal every evening over 1 whole year!”

The study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Project and others. The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Varady disclosed author fees from the Hachette Book group for her book “The Every Other Day Diet.”

Not so fast! Daily fasting with calorie restriction may not lead to shedding more pounds than just cutting back on calories, according to the authors of a new study.

Over the course of a year, study participants who ate only from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. did not lose significantly more weight than individuals who ate whenever they wanted, nor did they achieve significantly greater improvements in other obesity-related health measures like body mass index (BMI) or metabolic risk, reported lead author Deying Liu, MD, of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China, and colleagues.

“[Daily fasting] has gained popularity because it is a weight-loss strategy that is simple to follow, which may enhance adherence,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine. However, “the long-term efficacy and safety of time-restricted eating as a weight-loss strategy are still uncertain, and the long-term effects on weight loss of time-restricted eating as compared with daily calorie restriction alone have not been fully explored.”

To learn more, Dr. Liu and colleagues recruited 139 adult patients with BMIs between 28 and 45. Individuals with serious medical conditions, such as malignant tumors, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and others were excluded. Other exclusion criteria included smoking, ongoing participation in a weight-loss program, GI surgery within the prior year, use of medications that impact energy balance and weight, and planned or current pregnancy.

All participants were advised to eat calorie-restricted diets, with ranges of 1,500-1,800 kcal per day for men and 1,200-1,500 kcal per day for women. To determine the added impact of fasting, participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into time-restricted (fasting) or non–time-restricted (nonfasting) groups, in which fasting participants ate only during an 8-hour window from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., whereas nonfasting participants ate whenever they wanted.

At 6 months and 12 months, participants were re-evaluated for changes in weight, body fat, BMI, blood pressure, lean body mass, and metabolic risk factors, including glucose level, triglycerides, blood pressure, and others.
 

Caloric intake restriction seems to explain most of beneficial effects

At one-year follow-up, 118 participants (84.9%) remained in the study. Although members of the fasting group lost slightly more weight on average than those in the non-fasting group (mean, 8.0 kg vs. 6.3 kg), the difference between groups was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval, −4.0 to 0.4; P = .11).

Most of the other obesity-related health measures also trended toward favoring the fasting group, but again, none of these improvements was statistically significant. Weight circumference at 1 year, for example, decreased by a mean of 9.4 cm in the fasting group versus 8.8 cm in the nonfasting group, a net difference of 1.8 cm (95% CI, –4.0 to 0.5).

“We found that the two weight-loss regimens that we evaluated had similar success in patients with obesity, regardless of whether they reduced their calorie consumption through time-restricted eating or through calorie restriction alone,” Dr. Liu and colleagues concluded.

Principal investigator Huijie Zhang MD, PhD, professor, chief physician, and deputy director of the department of endocrinology and metabolism at Nafang Hospital, noted that their findings are “consistent with the findings in previous studies.”

“Our data suggest that caloric intake restriction explained most of the beneficial effects of a time-restricted eating regimen,” Dr. Zhang said.

Still, Dr. Zhang called time-restricted eating “a viable and sustainable approach for a person who wants to lose weight.”

More work is needed, Dr. Zhang said, to uncover the impact of fasting in “diverse groups,” including patients with chronic disease like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Investigators should also conduct studies to compare outcomes between men and women, and evaluate the effects of other fasting durations.
 

Can trial be applied to a wider population?

According to Blandine Laferrère, MD, PhD, and Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, Calif., respectively, “the results of the trial suggest that calorie restriction combined with time restriction, when delivered with intensive coaching and monitoring, is an approach that is as safe, sustainable, and effective for weight loss as calorie restriction alone.”

Yet Dr. Laferrère and Dr. Panda also expressed skepticism about broader implementation of a similar regime.

“The applicability of this trial to wider populations is debatable,” they wrote in an accompanying editorial. “The short time period for eating at baseline may be specific to the population studied, since investigators outside China have reported longer time windows. The rigorous coaching and monitoring by trial staff also leaves open the question of whether time-restricted eating is easier to adhere to than intentional calorie restriction. Such cost-benefit analyses are important for the assessment of the scalability of a lifestyle intervention.”
 

Duration is trial’s greatest strength

Kristina Varady, PhD, professor of nutrition in the department of kinesiology and nutrition at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said the “key strength” of the trial was its duration, at 12 months, making it the longest time-restricted eating trial to date”; however, she was critical of the design.

“Quite frankly, I’m surprised this study got into such a high-caliber medical journal,” Dr. Varady said in a written comment. “It doesn’t even have a control group! It goes to show how popular these diets are and how much people want to know about them.”

She also noted that “the study was flawed in that it didn’t really look at the effects of true time-restricted eating.” According to Dr. Varady, combining calorie restriction with time-restricted eating “kind of defeats the purpose” of a time-restricted diet.

“The main benefit of time-restricted eating is that you don’t need to count calories in order to lose weight,” Dr. Varady said, citing two of her own studies from 2018 and 2020. “Just by limiting the eating window to 8 hours per day, people naturally cut out 300-500 calories per day. That’s why people like [time-restricted eating] so much.”

Dr. Varady was also “very surprised” at the adherence data. At 1 year, approximately 85% of the patients were still following the protocol, a notably higher rate than most dietary intervention studies, which typically report adherence rates of 50-60%, she said. The high adherence rate was particularly unexpected because of the 8:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m. eating window, Dr. Varady added, since that meant skipping “the family/social meal every evening over 1 whole year!”

The study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Project and others. The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Varady disclosed author fees from the Hachette Book group for her book “The Every Other Day Diet.”

Bariatric surgery can reduce the risk of long-term cardiovascular outcomes in older Medicare beneficiaries with obesity, a large new observational study in which a third of the patients were over age 65 years suggests.

Overall, patients who underwent bariatric surgery had 37% lower all-cause mortality and were significantly less likely to have admissions for new-onset heart failure (64% risk reduction), myocardial infarction (37% risk reduction), and ischemic stroke (29% risk reduction), compared with similar patients who received more conservative treatment, after a median of 4 years of follow-up, report Amgad Mentias, MD, MS, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ohio, and colleagues.

The results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Previous studies on bariatric surgery outcomes have primarily focused on individuals from select health care networks or medical facilities with restricted coverage in the United States or on patients with diabetes, noted Tiffany M. Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

Contemporary cohort of patients

“A lot of the studies showed long-term outcomes outside of the U.S., specifically in Europe,” Dr. Mentias added.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term association between bariatric surgery and risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in a contemporary large cohort from the United States.

Older patients (> 65 years) and those without diabetes were looked at as specific subgroups.

The researchers assessed 189,770 patients. There were 94,885 matched patients in each cohort. Mean age was 62.33 years. Female patients comprised 70% of the cohort. The study group had an average BMI of 44.7 kg/m2.

The study cohort was matched 1:1. Participants were either part of a control group with obesity or a group of Medicare beneficiaries who had bariatric surgery between 2013 and 2019. Sex, propensity score matching on 87 clinical variables, age, and BMI were used to match patients.

Myocardial infarction, new-onset heart failure, ischemic stroke, and all-cause mortality were all study outcomes. As a sensitivity analysis, the study team conducted an instrumental variable assessment.

More specifically, the findings showed that bariatric surgery was linked with the following after a median follow-up of 4.0 years:

• Myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.68)
• Stroke (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.79)
• New-onset heart failure (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.44-0.49)
• Reduced risk of death (9.2 vs. 14.7 per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.66)

Findings for those over the age of 65 were similar – lower risks of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.64), new-onset heart failure (HR, 0.52), myocardial infarction (HR, 0.70), and stroke (HR, 0.76; all P < .001). Similar findings were shown in subgroup analyses in men and women and in patients with and without diabetes.

The study cohort primarily consisted of Medicare patients, which limits the generalizability of the data. Lack of data on medications taken for cardiovascular and weight loss purposes and potential coding errors because the information was gathered from an administrative database were all limitations of the study, the researchers note.

An additional limitation was that residual unmeasured confounders, particularly patient-focused physical, social, and mental support factors, could play a role in whether a patient opted to have bariatric surgery, the study authors note.

“Additional studies are needed to compare cardiovascular outcomes after bariatric surgery with weight loss medications like glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues,” the researchers add.

This study was partially funded by philanthropic contributions by the Khouri family, Bailey family, and Haslam family to the Cleveland Clinic for co-author Dr. Milind Y. Desai’s research. Dr. Mentias has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Powell-Wiley disclosed relationships with the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and the Division of Intramural Research of the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

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

Bariatric surgery can reduce the risk of long-term cardiovascular outcomes in older Medicare beneficiaries with obesity, a large new observational study in which a third of the patients were over age 65 years suggests.

Overall, patients who underwent bariatric surgery had 37% lower all-cause mortality and were significantly less likely to have admissions for new-onset heart failure (64% risk reduction), myocardial infarction (37% risk reduction), and ischemic stroke (29% risk reduction), compared with similar patients who received more conservative treatment, after a median of 4 years of follow-up, report Amgad Mentias, MD, MS, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ohio, and colleagues.

The results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Previous studies on bariatric surgery outcomes have primarily focused on individuals from select health care networks or medical facilities with restricted coverage in the United States or on patients with diabetes, noted Tiffany M. Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

Contemporary cohort of patients

“A lot of the studies showed long-term outcomes outside of the U.S., specifically in Europe,” Dr. Mentias added.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term association between bariatric surgery and risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in a contemporary large cohort from the United States.

Older patients (> 65 years) and those without diabetes were looked at as specific subgroups.

The researchers assessed 189,770 patients. There were 94,885 matched patients in each cohort. Mean age was 62.33 years. Female patients comprised 70% of the cohort. The study group had an average BMI of 44.7 kg/m2.

The study cohort was matched 1:1. Participants were either part of a control group with obesity or a group of Medicare beneficiaries who had bariatric surgery between 2013 and 2019. Sex, propensity score matching on 87 clinical variables, age, and BMI were used to match patients.

Myocardial infarction, new-onset heart failure, ischemic stroke, and all-cause mortality were all study outcomes. As a sensitivity analysis, the study team conducted an instrumental variable assessment.

More specifically, the findings showed that bariatric surgery was linked with the following after a median follow-up of 4.0 years:

• Myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.68)
• Stroke (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.79)
• New-onset heart failure (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.44-0.49)
• Reduced risk of death (9.2 vs. 14.7 per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.66)

Findings for those over the age of 65 were similar – lower risks of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.64), new-onset heart failure (HR, 0.52), myocardial infarction (HR, 0.70), and stroke (HR, 0.76; all P < .001). Similar findings were shown in subgroup analyses in men and women and in patients with and without diabetes.

The study cohort primarily consisted of Medicare patients, which limits the generalizability of the data. Lack of data on medications taken for cardiovascular and weight loss purposes and potential coding errors because the information was gathered from an administrative database were all limitations of the study, the researchers note.

An additional limitation was that residual unmeasured confounders, particularly patient-focused physical, social, and mental support factors, could play a role in whether a patient opted to have bariatric surgery, the study authors note.

“Additional studies are needed to compare cardiovascular outcomes after bariatric surgery with weight loss medications like glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues,” the researchers add.

This study was partially funded by philanthropic contributions by the Khouri family, Bailey family, and Haslam family to the Cleveland Clinic for co-author Dr. Milind Y. Desai’s research. Dr. Mentias has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Powell-Wiley disclosed relationships with the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and the Division of Intramural Research of the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

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

Bariatric surgery can reduce the risk of long-term cardiovascular outcomes in older Medicare beneficiaries with obesity, a large new observational study in which a third of the patients were over age 65 years suggests.

Overall, patients who underwent bariatric surgery had 37% lower all-cause mortality and were significantly less likely to have admissions for new-onset heart failure (64% risk reduction), myocardial infarction (37% risk reduction), and ischemic stroke (29% risk reduction), compared with similar patients who received more conservative treatment, after a median of 4 years of follow-up, report Amgad Mentias, MD, MS, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ohio, and colleagues.

The results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Previous studies on bariatric surgery outcomes have primarily focused on individuals from select health care networks or medical facilities with restricted coverage in the United States or on patients with diabetes, noted Tiffany M. Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

Contemporary cohort of patients

“A lot of the studies showed long-term outcomes outside of the U.S., specifically in Europe,” Dr. Mentias added.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term association between bariatric surgery and risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in a contemporary large cohort from the United States.

Older patients (> 65 years) and those without diabetes were looked at as specific subgroups.

The researchers assessed 189,770 patients. There were 94,885 matched patients in each cohort. Mean age was 62.33 years. Female patients comprised 70% of the cohort. The study group had an average BMI of 44.7 kg/m2.

The study cohort was matched 1:1. Participants were either part of a control group with obesity or a group of Medicare beneficiaries who had bariatric surgery between 2013 and 2019. Sex, propensity score matching on 87 clinical variables, age, and BMI were used to match patients.

Myocardial infarction, new-onset heart failure, ischemic stroke, and all-cause mortality were all study outcomes. As a sensitivity analysis, the study team conducted an instrumental variable assessment.

More specifically, the findings showed that bariatric surgery was linked with the following after a median follow-up of 4.0 years:

• Myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.68)
• Stroke (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.79)
• New-onset heart failure (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.44-0.49)
• Reduced risk of death (9.2 vs. 14.7 per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.66)

Findings for those over the age of 65 were similar – lower risks of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.64), new-onset heart failure (HR, 0.52), myocardial infarction (HR, 0.70), and stroke (HR, 0.76; all P < .001). Similar findings were shown in subgroup analyses in men and women and in patients with and without diabetes.

The study cohort primarily consisted of Medicare patients, which limits the generalizability of the data. Lack of data on medications taken for cardiovascular and weight loss purposes and potential coding errors because the information was gathered from an administrative database were all limitations of the study, the researchers note.

An additional limitation was that residual unmeasured confounders, particularly patient-focused physical, social, and mental support factors, could play a role in whether a patient opted to have bariatric surgery, the study authors note.

“Additional studies are needed to compare cardiovascular outcomes after bariatric surgery with weight loss medications like glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues,” the researchers add.

This study was partially funded by philanthropic contributions by the Khouri family, Bailey family, and Haslam family to the Cleveland Clinic for co-author Dr. Milind Y. Desai’s research. Dr. Mentias has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Powell-Wiley disclosed relationships with the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and the Division of Intramural Research of the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

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

Reports of long waiting times at mental health clinics and anecdotal observations by health care providers suggest the pandemic has generated a dramatic increase in the incidence of eating disorders among the pediatric population. Of course this should come as no surprise to pediatricians.

Eating disorders come in many different forms and a triggering event is sometimes difficult to define. Often the adolescent or preadolescent is searching for some sense of stability in a life tossed on a stormy sea roiled by hormonal and physical change. Wresting control of their bodies during a period of uncertainty may result in a downward spiral into dangerously unhealthy weight loss. If nothing else, the pandemic has been a period of dramatic uncertainty unlike what most children and few adults in this country have ever experienced.

With the unprecedented increase in eating disorder cases, providers in several disciplines are searching for novel strategies to ease the burden on their patients and their practices. I recently learned of a pediatric practice in California that is considering blinding all patients aged 12 and older to the body mass measurements obtained at their health maintenance visits.

Blind weight checks for children with eating disorders, particularly those who seem to be nearing recovery, has been a common and often helpful practice. However, I am unaware of any practice that has made it a universal office policy. I’m unsure of the rationale behind this practice’s policy, but on several fronts, suppressing body mass measurements in the age group most vulnerable to eating disorders makes some sense.

Universal blind weight checks could minimize the risk of in-office shaming. However, careful training of support staff and thoughtful placement of the scales could serve the same purpose. This new policy acknowledges not only the ubiquity of the problem but also that many, maybe even most, children with eating disorders appear normal. And of course, there is the unfortunate fact that body mass is a poor screening test for eating disorders.

As I thought more about this novel approach I came to see its educational value for patients, parents, and even physicians. I can envision how a 13-year-old’s first health maintenance visit would go after the roll-out of the new policy. “Dr. Smith, aren’t you going to tell us how much I (or my daughter Jenny) weigh(s)?” This could, or more likely, should launch a discussion about weight and body image. It might continue with questions like, “How much do you think you weigh?” Or, “Do you think you are too heavy or too thin?”

Or, the conversation could include the provider’s observations that weight is just one measure of health and in fact not a very good one. Other ingredients in a healthy life style, such as sleep and physical activity, are not as easy to measure as weight but in many cases are more important.

As my mind struggled to restructure a health maintenance schedule that included blind weight checks, I wondered why we should wait until age 12. Of course, it is unreasonable to expect parents to stick with a pediatric practice that seems to ignore their infant’s weight. I’m sure that, like me, you have always discouraged new parents from having a baby scale at home because in the first few months too-frequent weighings can usually cause more angst than good.

It might make sense to remove a within-earshot discussion of a child’s weight from the health maintenance visit as soon as the child can absorb and digest the discussion; say, around age 3 years. In a perfect world, the provider should have already elicited a history that suggested a young child’s vulnerability to obesity before the scale and the growth chart told the unfortunate story. But, neither you nor I are perfect providers and so we will always need the scale to document our concerns. However, when and how we report that one vital sign to the patient and his or her parents is a topic ripe for discussion and improvement.

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.

Reports of long waiting times at mental health clinics and anecdotal observations by health care providers suggest the pandemic has generated a dramatic increase in the incidence of eating disorders among the pediatric population. Of course this should come as no surprise to pediatricians.

Eating disorders come in many different forms and a triggering event is sometimes difficult to define. Often the adolescent or preadolescent is searching for some sense of stability in a life tossed on a stormy sea roiled by hormonal and physical change. Wresting control of their bodies during a period of uncertainty may result in a downward spiral into dangerously unhealthy weight loss. If nothing else, the pandemic has been a period of dramatic uncertainty unlike what most children and few adults in this country have ever experienced.

With the unprecedented increase in eating disorder cases, providers in several disciplines are searching for novel strategies to ease the burden on their patients and their practices. I recently learned of a pediatric practice in California that is considering blinding all patients aged 12 and older to the body mass measurements obtained at their health maintenance visits.

Blind weight checks for children with eating disorders, particularly those who seem to be nearing recovery, has been a common and often helpful practice. However, I am unaware of any practice that has made it a universal office policy. I’m unsure of the rationale behind this practice’s policy, but on several fronts, suppressing body mass measurements in the age group most vulnerable to eating disorders makes some sense.

Universal blind weight checks could minimize the risk of in-office shaming. However, careful training of support staff and thoughtful placement of the scales could serve the same purpose. This new policy acknowledges not only the ubiquity of the problem but also that many, maybe even most, children with eating disorders appear normal. And of course, there is the unfortunate fact that body mass is a poor screening test for eating disorders.

As I thought more about this novel approach I came to see its educational value for patients, parents, and even physicians. I can envision how a 13-year-old’s first health maintenance visit would go after the roll-out of the new policy. “Dr. Smith, aren’t you going to tell us how much I (or my daughter Jenny) weigh(s)?” This could, or more likely, should launch a discussion about weight and body image. It might continue with questions like, “How much do you think you weigh?” Or, “Do you think you are too heavy or too thin?”

Or, the conversation could include the provider’s observations that weight is just one measure of health and in fact not a very good one. Other ingredients in a healthy life style, such as sleep and physical activity, are not as easy to measure as weight but in many cases are more important.

As my mind struggled to restructure a health maintenance schedule that included blind weight checks, I wondered why we should wait until age 12. Of course, it is unreasonable to expect parents to stick with a pediatric practice that seems to ignore their infant’s weight. I’m sure that, like me, you have always discouraged new parents from having a baby scale at home because in the first few months too-frequent weighings can usually cause more angst than good.

It might make sense to remove a within-earshot discussion of a child’s weight from the health maintenance visit as soon as the child can absorb and digest the discussion; say, around age 3 years. In a perfect world, the provider should have already elicited a history that suggested a young child’s vulnerability to obesity before the scale and the growth chart told the unfortunate story. But, neither you nor I are perfect providers and so we will always need the scale to document our concerns. However, when and how we report that one vital sign to the patient and his or her parents is a topic ripe for discussion and improvement.

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.

Reports of long waiting times at mental health clinics and anecdotal observations by health care providers suggest the pandemic has generated a dramatic increase in the incidence of eating disorders among the pediatric population. Of course this should come as no surprise to pediatricians.

Eating disorders come in many different forms and a triggering event is sometimes difficult to define. Often the adolescent or preadolescent is searching for some sense of stability in a life tossed on a stormy sea roiled by hormonal and physical change. Wresting control of their bodies during a period of uncertainty may result in a downward spiral into dangerously unhealthy weight loss. If nothing else, the pandemic has been a period of dramatic uncertainty unlike what most children and few adults in this country have ever experienced.

With the unprecedented increase in eating disorder cases, providers in several disciplines are searching for novel strategies to ease the burden on their patients and their practices. I recently learned of a pediatric practice in California that is considering blinding all patients aged 12 and older to the body mass measurements obtained at their health maintenance visits.

Blind weight checks for children with eating disorders, particularly those who seem to be nearing recovery, has been a common and often helpful practice. However, I am unaware of any practice that has made it a universal office policy. I’m unsure of the rationale behind this practice’s policy, but on several fronts, suppressing body mass measurements in the age group most vulnerable to eating disorders makes some sense.

Universal blind weight checks could minimize the risk of in-office shaming. However, careful training of support staff and thoughtful placement of the scales could serve the same purpose. This new policy acknowledges not only the ubiquity of the problem but also that many, maybe even most, children with eating disorders appear normal. And of course, there is the unfortunate fact that body mass is a poor screening test for eating disorders.

As I thought more about this novel approach I came to see its educational value for patients, parents, and even physicians. I can envision how a 13-year-old’s first health maintenance visit would go after the roll-out of the new policy. “Dr. Smith, aren’t you going to tell us how much I (or my daughter Jenny) weigh(s)?” This could, or more likely, should launch a discussion about weight and body image. It might continue with questions like, “How much do you think you weigh?” Or, “Do you think you are too heavy or too thin?”

Or, the conversation could include the provider’s observations that weight is just one measure of health and in fact not a very good one. Other ingredients in a healthy life style, such as sleep and physical activity, are not as easy to measure as weight but in many cases are more important.

As my mind struggled to restructure a health maintenance schedule that included blind weight checks, I wondered why we should wait until age 12. Of course, it is unreasonable to expect parents to stick with a pediatric practice that seems to ignore their infant’s weight. I’m sure that, like me, you have always discouraged new parents from having a baby scale at home because in the first few months too-frequent weighings can usually cause more angst than good.

It might make sense to remove a within-earshot discussion of a child’s weight from the health maintenance visit as soon as the child can absorb and digest the discussion; say, around age 3 years. In a perfect world, the provider should have already elicited a history that suggested a young child’s vulnerability to obesity before the scale and the growth chart told the unfortunate story. But, neither you nor I are perfect providers and so we will always need the scale to document our concerns. However, when and how we report that one vital sign to the patient and his or her parents is a topic ripe for discussion and improvement.

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.