Conference Coverage

DENVER – More than a weight-loss operation, bariatric surgery can also relieve migraine, possibly because of links between head pain and the gut, a neurologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. “There’s evidence-based medicine to support bariatric surgery, a lot of it, and the outcomes are actually pretty good,” said Jennifer McVige, MD, MA, of Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, N.Y.

As Dr. McVige noted, research has linked obesity to migraine even after adjustment for comorbidities. A 2007 analysis of a survey of 30,215 participants, for example, found that “the proportion of subjects with severe headache pain increased with BMI, doubling in the morbidly obese relative to the normally weighted (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9).” And a 2011 study of 3,733 pregnant women found that risk of migraine increased in line with level of obesity: “obese women had a 1.48-fold increased odds of migraine (OR = 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.96). Severely obese (OR = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.27-3.39) and morbidly obese (OR = 2.75; 95% CI, 1.60-4.70) had the highest odds of migraines.”

The link between obesity and headaches is unclear, she said, but there are hints at possible factors. For one, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is increased in people with obesity and is an important factor in migraines. Additionally, nausea is quite common in people with migraine, suggesting a possible gut-brain interaction – or not.

“Nausea is associated with a lot of the medicines that we give patients with migraine. Is it the nausea that’s associated with the migraine medicine, or is nausea occurring at the end of the migraine?” she asked. “That’s always been kind of a conundrum for us.”

Whatever the case, she said, bariatric surgery appears to be helpful for patients with headache. Some studies have been small, but a 2021 analysis of 1,680 patients with migraine found that 55% experienced remission with no need for medication at 180 days post surgery. Women, older patients, and those taking more migraine medications were less likely to reach remission.

Research also suggests that bariatric surgery can relieve headache symptoms in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension.

Dr. McVige cautioned, however, that medical professionals must take special care when they talk to patients about their weight. “I’ve learned from conversations with my patients that they don’t like hearing ‘obese,’ or ‘fat,’ or ‘diet,’ or ‘losing weight.’ What they do like is ‘maybe we could try to find ways to be more healthy, to help your body to look the way that you would like it to look in the future. Let me help you. Maybe we can talk about nutrition. Maybe we can talk about exercise. Let’s talk about energy. Let’s talk about those types of things.’”

Unfortunately, there’s little research into how to have these conversations, Dr. McVige said. Still, “we need to be the first people to come forward and say, ‘This is a tough topic for me to talk about too. It makes me uncomfortable as well. I know you’re uncomfortable, but I have to talk to you because I care about you as a patient.’”

She also advised colleagues to not bring up weight right out of the gate. “It’s easier to say some of those things after you develop a relationship,” she said, “when they know you care about them.”

Dr. McVige reported multiple disclosures related to research funding and speaker fees.

DENVER – More than a weight-loss operation, bariatric surgery can also relieve migraine, possibly because of links between head pain and the gut, a neurologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. “There’s evidence-based medicine to support bariatric surgery, a lot of it, and the outcomes are actually pretty good,” said Jennifer McVige, MD, MA, of Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, N.Y.

As Dr. McVige noted, research has linked obesity to migraine even after adjustment for comorbidities. A 2007 analysis of a survey of 30,215 participants, for example, found that “the proportion of subjects with severe headache pain increased with BMI, doubling in the morbidly obese relative to the normally weighted (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9).” And a 2011 study of 3,733 pregnant women found that risk of migraine increased in line with level of obesity: “obese women had a 1.48-fold increased odds of migraine (OR = 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.96). Severely obese (OR = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.27-3.39) and morbidly obese (OR = 2.75; 95% CI, 1.60-4.70) had the highest odds of migraines.”

The link between obesity and headaches is unclear, she said, but there are hints at possible factors. For one, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is increased in people with obesity and is an important factor in migraines. Additionally, nausea is quite common in people with migraine, suggesting a possible gut-brain interaction – or not.

“Nausea is associated with a lot of the medicines that we give patients with migraine. Is it the nausea that’s associated with the migraine medicine, or is nausea occurring at the end of the migraine?” she asked. “That’s always been kind of a conundrum for us.”

Whatever the case, she said, bariatric surgery appears to be helpful for patients with headache. Some studies have been small, but a 2021 analysis of 1,680 patients with migraine found that 55% experienced remission with no need for medication at 180 days post surgery. Women, older patients, and those taking more migraine medications were less likely to reach remission.

Research also suggests that bariatric surgery can relieve headache symptoms in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension.

Dr. McVige cautioned, however, that medical professionals must take special care when they talk to patients about their weight. “I’ve learned from conversations with my patients that they don’t like hearing ‘obese,’ or ‘fat,’ or ‘diet,’ or ‘losing weight.’ What they do like is ‘maybe we could try to find ways to be more healthy, to help your body to look the way that you would like it to look in the future. Let me help you. Maybe we can talk about nutrition. Maybe we can talk about exercise. Let’s talk about energy. Let’s talk about those types of things.’”

Unfortunately, there’s little research into how to have these conversations, Dr. McVige said. Still, “we need to be the first people to come forward and say, ‘This is a tough topic for me to talk about too. It makes me uncomfortable as well. I know you’re uncomfortable, but I have to talk to you because I care about you as a patient.’”

She also advised colleagues to not bring up weight right out of the gate. “It’s easier to say some of those things after you develop a relationship,” she said, “when they know you care about them.”

Dr. McVige reported multiple disclosures related to research funding and speaker fees.

DENVER – More than a weight-loss operation, bariatric surgery can also relieve migraine, possibly because of links between head pain and the gut, a neurologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. “There’s evidence-based medicine to support bariatric surgery, a lot of it, and the outcomes are actually pretty good,” said Jennifer McVige, MD, MA, of Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, N.Y.

As Dr. McVige noted, research has linked obesity to migraine even after adjustment for comorbidities. A 2007 analysis of a survey of 30,215 participants, for example, found that “the proportion of subjects with severe headache pain increased with BMI, doubling in the morbidly obese relative to the normally weighted (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9).” And a 2011 study of 3,733 pregnant women found that risk of migraine increased in line with level of obesity: “obese women had a 1.48-fold increased odds of migraine (OR = 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.96). Severely obese (OR = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.27-3.39) and morbidly obese (OR = 2.75; 95% CI, 1.60-4.70) had the highest odds of migraines.”

The link between obesity and headaches is unclear, she said, but there are hints at possible factors. For one, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is increased in people with obesity and is an important factor in migraines. Additionally, nausea is quite common in people with migraine, suggesting a possible gut-brain interaction – or not.

“Nausea is associated with a lot of the medicines that we give patients with migraine. Is it the nausea that’s associated with the migraine medicine, or is nausea occurring at the end of the migraine?” she asked. “That’s always been kind of a conundrum for us.”

Whatever the case, she said, bariatric surgery appears to be helpful for patients with headache. Some studies have been small, but a 2021 analysis of 1,680 patients with migraine found that 55% experienced remission with no need for medication at 180 days post surgery. Women, older patients, and those taking more migraine medications were less likely to reach remission.

Research also suggests that bariatric surgery can relieve headache symptoms in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension.

Dr. McVige cautioned, however, that medical professionals must take special care when they talk to patients about their weight. “I’ve learned from conversations with my patients that they don’t like hearing ‘obese,’ or ‘fat,’ or ‘diet,’ or ‘losing weight.’ What they do like is ‘maybe we could try to find ways to be more healthy, to help your body to look the way that you would like it to look in the future. Let me help you. Maybe we can talk about nutrition. Maybe we can talk about exercise. Let’s talk about energy. Let’s talk about those types of things.’”

Unfortunately, there’s little research into how to have these conversations, Dr. McVige said. Still, “we need to be the first people to come forward and say, ‘This is a tough topic for me to talk about too. It makes me uncomfortable as well. I know you’re uncomfortable, but I have to talk to you because I care about you as a patient.’”

She also advised colleagues to not bring up weight right out of the gate. “It’s easier to say some of those things after you develop a relationship,” she said, “when they know you care about them.”

Dr. McVige reported multiple disclosures related to research funding and speaker fees.

A unique primary care program successfully manages patients with depression and comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder and, if widely implemented, may result in more rapid treatment and help alleviate wait times for specialty psychiatric care.

“We know there are strains on the mental health care system, and sometimes something as simple as getting to see a psychiatrist can be incredibly challenging,” coinvestigator Zachary Zuschlag, MD, staff psychiatrist at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital and assistant professor at the University of South Florida, both in Tampa, said in an interview.

“So, a model that encourages primary care doctors, together with consultation from us [psychiatrists] to effectively treat these patients in a more proactive way, is very beneficial,” Dr. Zuschlag said.

The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology annual meeting.
 

Common bedfellows

Dr. Zuschlag noted that comorbid PTSD and depression is common, but it is often considered too complex to be managed in a primary care setting.

Although treating these patients can be challenging, Dr. Zuschlag, who also heads his Veterans Administration facility’s antidepressant monitoring program (ADM), said that when he started the program for this patient population, he used “a much more inclusive model and welcomed these patients even if they had co-occurring issues.”

“Anecdotally, we had seen that our patients with [depression and] co-occurring PTSD appeared to be doing as well as their peers without PTSD, and we just wanted to look at it more systematically,” he added.

The ADM program is specifically designed for psychopharmacologic management of depression and anxiety in the primary care setting. It involves an interdisciplinary team of RN care managers, consulting psychiatrists, psychologists, and primary care physicians. Patients in primary care clinics deemed likely to benefit from psychiatric medications can be enrolled and followed in the program.

The program consists of structured, protocol-based telephone contacts from the RN care managers at scheduled intervals, usually every 3-4 weeks, said Dr. Zuschlag.

During calls, information is collected via evidence-based mental health symptomatic assessment scales. The consulting psychiatrists use this and other information to help guide treatment and coordinate with patients’ primary care physicians to adjust the treatment plan, including medication changes and additional psychotherapy.

To determine the program’s efficacy the investigators retrospectively reviewed all patients enrolled in the ADM program during its first 10 months. Of the 433 program participants, 112 (26%) were identified with active PTSD symptoms at baseline. Another 43 patients had a prior diagnosis of PTSD.

Program completion rates for the cohort with PTSD did not differ from that of the cohort without PTSD.

Overall, mean improvements in depression and anxiety symptoms were evidenced by changes in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 (GAD-7) scores of 44% and 43%, respectively.

No differences in mean reduction in symptoms of depression were observed when comparing those with no history of PTSD with those with any history of PTSD (–6.16 vs. –5.42; P = .3244) or with those with active PTSD symptoms (–6.16 vs. –5.54; P = .4543).

Similarly, for anxiety, a mean reduction of –5.61 on the GAD-7 score was observed for the cohort without PTSD, compared with –4.99 in the cohort with any history of PTSD and –5.35 in the cohort with active PTSD symptoms. Again, these differences were nonsignificant.

Dr. Zuschlag noted that the VA setting is unique, with a lot of resources available to conduct such a program as ADM.

“Care management programs that are multidisciplinary are very effective and, in our experience, those who have completed the program do exceptionally well. The patients love it because there is a lot of contact between them and their various care providers,” he said.
 

A model for other settings?

Commenting on the study, Nagy A. Youssef, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of clinical research at Ohio State University, Columbus, called the results “interesting.”

“Treating patients with comorbid mild to moderate depression and current or past PTSD within the primary care setting using a care management program could be a model for other VA hospitals as well as in non-VA settings,” said Dr. Youssef, who was not part of the study.

Dr. Youssef noted that not only was there no difference in symptomatic improvement between the depression-plus-PTSD and depression-only groups, but program completion rates did not differ.

This further emphasizes “the potential utility of this approach in initial patient treatment, especially with limited mental health resources and the need to help more patients,” he said.

Dr. Zuschlag and Dr. Youssef report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A unique primary care program successfully manages patients with depression and comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder and, if widely implemented, may result in more rapid treatment and help alleviate wait times for specialty psychiatric care.

“We know there are strains on the mental health care system, and sometimes something as simple as getting to see a psychiatrist can be incredibly challenging,” coinvestigator Zachary Zuschlag, MD, staff psychiatrist at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital and assistant professor at the University of South Florida, both in Tampa, said in an interview.

“So, a model that encourages primary care doctors, together with consultation from us [psychiatrists] to effectively treat these patients in a more proactive way, is very beneficial,” Dr. Zuschlag said.

The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology annual meeting.
 

Common bedfellows

Dr. Zuschlag noted that comorbid PTSD and depression is common, but it is often considered too complex to be managed in a primary care setting.

Although treating these patients can be challenging, Dr. Zuschlag, who also heads his Veterans Administration facility’s antidepressant monitoring program (ADM), said that when he started the program for this patient population, he used “a much more inclusive model and welcomed these patients even if they had co-occurring issues.”

“Anecdotally, we had seen that our patients with [depression and] co-occurring PTSD appeared to be doing as well as their peers without PTSD, and we just wanted to look at it more systematically,” he added.

The ADM program is specifically designed for psychopharmacologic management of depression and anxiety in the primary care setting. It involves an interdisciplinary team of RN care managers, consulting psychiatrists, psychologists, and primary care physicians. Patients in primary care clinics deemed likely to benefit from psychiatric medications can be enrolled and followed in the program.

The program consists of structured, protocol-based telephone contacts from the RN care managers at scheduled intervals, usually every 3-4 weeks, said Dr. Zuschlag.

During calls, information is collected via evidence-based mental health symptomatic assessment scales. The consulting psychiatrists use this and other information to help guide treatment and coordinate with patients’ primary care physicians to adjust the treatment plan, including medication changes and additional psychotherapy.

To determine the program’s efficacy the investigators retrospectively reviewed all patients enrolled in the ADM program during its first 10 months. Of the 433 program participants, 112 (26%) were identified with active PTSD symptoms at baseline. Another 43 patients had a prior diagnosis of PTSD.

Program completion rates for the cohort with PTSD did not differ from that of the cohort without PTSD.

Overall, mean improvements in depression and anxiety symptoms were evidenced by changes in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 (GAD-7) scores of 44% and 43%, respectively.

No differences in mean reduction in symptoms of depression were observed when comparing those with no history of PTSD with those with any history of PTSD (–6.16 vs. –5.42; P = .3244) or with those with active PTSD symptoms (–6.16 vs. –5.54; P = .4543).

Similarly, for anxiety, a mean reduction of –5.61 on the GAD-7 score was observed for the cohort without PTSD, compared with –4.99 in the cohort with any history of PTSD and –5.35 in the cohort with active PTSD symptoms. Again, these differences were nonsignificant.

Dr. Zuschlag noted that the VA setting is unique, with a lot of resources available to conduct such a program as ADM.

“Care management programs that are multidisciplinary are very effective and, in our experience, those who have completed the program do exceptionally well. The patients love it because there is a lot of contact between them and their various care providers,” he said.
 

A model for other settings?

Commenting on the study, Nagy A. Youssef, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of clinical research at Ohio State University, Columbus, called the results “interesting.”

“Treating patients with comorbid mild to moderate depression and current or past PTSD within the primary care setting using a care management program could be a model for other VA hospitals as well as in non-VA settings,” said Dr. Youssef, who was not part of the study.

Dr. Youssef noted that not only was there no difference in symptomatic improvement between the depression-plus-PTSD and depression-only groups, but program completion rates did not differ.

This further emphasizes “the potential utility of this approach in initial patient treatment, especially with limited mental health resources and the need to help more patients,” he said.

Dr. Zuschlag and Dr. Youssef report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A unique primary care program successfully manages patients with depression and comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder and, if widely implemented, may result in more rapid treatment and help alleviate wait times for specialty psychiatric care.

“We know there are strains on the mental health care system, and sometimes something as simple as getting to see a psychiatrist can be incredibly challenging,” coinvestigator Zachary Zuschlag, MD, staff psychiatrist at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital and assistant professor at the University of South Florida, both in Tampa, said in an interview.

“So, a model that encourages primary care doctors, together with consultation from us [psychiatrists] to effectively treat these patients in a more proactive way, is very beneficial,” Dr. Zuschlag said.

The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology annual meeting.
 

Common bedfellows

Dr. Zuschlag noted that comorbid PTSD and depression is common, but it is often considered too complex to be managed in a primary care setting.

Although treating these patients can be challenging, Dr. Zuschlag, who also heads his Veterans Administration facility’s antidepressant monitoring program (ADM), said that when he started the program for this patient population, he used “a much more inclusive model and welcomed these patients even if they had co-occurring issues.”

“Anecdotally, we had seen that our patients with [depression and] co-occurring PTSD appeared to be doing as well as their peers without PTSD, and we just wanted to look at it more systematically,” he added.

The ADM program is specifically designed for psychopharmacologic management of depression and anxiety in the primary care setting. It involves an interdisciplinary team of RN care managers, consulting psychiatrists, psychologists, and primary care physicians. Patients in primary care clinics deemed likely to benefit from psychiatric medications can be enrolled and followed in the program.

The program consists of structured, protocol-based telephone contacts from the RN care managers at scheduled intervals, usually every 3-4 weeks, said Dr. Zuschlag.

During calls, information is collected via evidence-based mental health symptomatic assessment scales. The consulting psychiatrists use this and other information to help guide treatment and coordinate with patients’ primary care physicians to adjust the treatment plan, including medication changes and additional psychotherapy.

To determine the program’s efficacy the investigators retrospectively reviewed all patients enrolled in the ADM program during its first 10 months. Of the 433 program participants, 112 (26%) were identified with active PTSD symptoms at baseline. Another 43 patients had a prior diagnosis of PTSD.

Program completion rates for the cohort with PTSD did not differ from that of the cohort without PTSD.

Overall, mean improvements in depression and anxiety symptoms were evidenced by changes in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 (GAD-7) scores of 44% and 43%, respectively.

No differences in mean reduction in symptoms of depression were observed when comparing those with no history of PTSD with those with any history of PTSD (–6.16 vs. –5.42; P = .3244) or with those with active PTSD symptoms (–6.16 vs. –5.54; P = .4543).

Similarly, for anxiety, a mean reduction of –5.61 on the GAD-7 score was observed for the cohort without PTSD, compared with –4.99 in the cohort with any history of PTSD and –5.35 in the cohort with active PTSD symptoms. Again, these differences were nonsignificant.

Dr. Zuschlag noted that the VA setting is unique, with a lot of resources available to conduct such a program as ADM.

“Care management programs that are multidisciplinary are very effective and, in our experience, those who have completed the program do exceptionally well. The patients love it because there is a lot of contact between them and their various care providers,” he said.
 

A model for other settings?

Commenting on the study, Nagy A. Youssef, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of clinical research at Ohio State University, Columbus, called the results “interesting.”

“Treating patients with comorbid mild to moderate depression and current or past PTSD within the primary care setting using a care management program could be a model for other VA hospitals as well as in non-VA settings,” said Dr. Youssef, who was not part of the study.

Dr. Youssef noted that not only was there no difference in symptomatic improvement between the depression-plus-PTSD and depression-only groups, but program completion rates did not differ.

This further emphasizes “the potential utility of this approach in initial patient treatment, especially with limited mental health resources and the need to help more patients,” he said.

Dr. Zuschlag and Dr. Youssef report no relevant financial relationships.

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

MADRID – During the International Scientific Symposium “New Frontiers in Scientific Research” that recently took place in Barcelona, specialists analyzed the role of the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet. This analysis was in relation to three comorbidities that have a higher incidence among overweight and obese patients: polycystic ovary syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and type 2 diabetes. The experts’ aim? To analyze and update the latest evidence on the benefits of this dietary choice.

Polycystic ovary syndrome

Alessandra Gambineri, MD, PhD, associate professor at the department of medicine and surgery (DIMEC) at the University of Bologna, Italy, addressed the link between obesity and polycystic ovary syndrome, which she described as a chronic disease that affects about 10% of women of childbearing age and that presents diverse phenotypes with different characteristics.

“The pathophysiology of this syndrome is characterized by the interaction of three factors: androgen excess, adipose tissue dysfunction, and insulin resistance. These factors interact with each other and are expressed differently in each phenotype,” said Dr. Gambineri.

She indicated that adipose tissue dysfunction is central to this pathology. This centrality results from its association with secretions, such as free fatty acids, proinflammatory cytokines, certain adipokines that promote insulin resistance, glucocorticosteroids, androgens, and oxidative stress.

“Similarly, the oxidative stress that characterizes this syndrome is increasingly present in obese individuals,” said Dr. Gambineri. “This oxidative stress also produces ovary hypotoxicity that aggravates ovulatory function. In this context, the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet can be useful in several ways: weight reduction; promoting the loss of mainly visceral/abdominal fat; decreasing lipotoxicity; and improving inflammation, hyperinsulinemia, and insulin resistance.”

This was the path followed to carry out a study that aimed to analyze the effects of the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet on manifestations of polycystic ovary syndrome in the obesity phenotype. Dr. Gambineri presented its results.

“The objective was to compare the effects of a very-low-calorie ketogenic diet and the standard low-calorie (hypocaloric) diet as a control group,” she said. “The effects studied include body weight, insulin resistance, menstrual cycle, ovulation, ovarian morphology, and hyperandrogenism in a population of 30 obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome and insulin resistance.”

Study participants had a diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome as defined by the National Institutes of Health criteria and were aged 18-45 years. These women were randomly assigned to two groups of equal size: experimental (very-low-calorie ketogenic diet) and control (hypocaloric diet). “The women assigned to the experimental group followed the ketogenic stage for eight weeks and then moved to the second, low-calorie diet phase for an additional eight weeks, while those in the control group (hypocaloric diet) followed the low-calorie diet for all 16 weeks.”

The primary outcomes were changes in weight and body composition, specifically fat mass and lean mass, measured by bioimpedance. “The changes observed in the following aspects were considered secondary outcomes: abdominal fat distribution, metabolic parameters, ovulation, ovarian morphology, hirsutism, hyperandrogenism, psychological well-being, and psychological distress,” said Dr. Gambineri. “Any reduction in the ovarian stroma, the area where androgens are synthesized, was also analyzed.”

The study authors found that although BMI decreased in both groups, this reduction was greater in the group that followed the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet. Significant weight loss was observed in both groups, 12.4 kg versus 4.7 kg. Significant differences were also observed in waist circumference (−8.1% in the experimental group vs. −2.2% in the control group), fat mass (−15.1% vs. −8.5%), and free testosterone (−30.3% vs. +10.6%). Only the experimental group saw a reduction in insulin.

“A key point regarding hyperandrogenism, especially regarding what’s referred to as free testosterone, there was only a significant reduction in the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet group,” said Dr. Gambineri. “This reduction was especially evident in the first part of the study, coinciding with the ketogenic period. The reason for this effect lies in the significant increase in the concentration of sex hormone-binding globulins, SHB6. Said globulins bind to the testosterone present in female blood, producing a reduction in free testosterone, a very important effect considering that this syndrome is an androgenic disorder. Furthermore, current treatments for polycystic ovary syndrome do not reduce free testosterone as much as this dietary approach does.”

For the specialist, among all these positive effects in these patients, perhaps most important is the notable improvement that occurs in ovulation. “At the beginning of the study, only 38.5% of the participants in the experimental group and 14.3% of those in the control group had ovulatory cycles. After the intervention, 84.6% managed to ovulate, compared to 35.7% who achieved this goal in the other group.”

Dr. Gambineri suggested that this method is “valid for reducing fat mass and rapidly improving hyperandrogenism and ovulatory dysfunction in women with obesity and polycystic ovary syndrome.”
 

Reversing type 2 diabetes?

Daniela Sofrà, MD, an endocrinologist specializing in diabetology at La Source Clinic, Lausanne, Switzerland, reviewed the current evidence on the role of the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet in the management of type 2 diabetes.

“It’s time to rethink diabetes treatment and focus efforts on managing obesity as an associated factor,” she said. “One of the hypotheses being examined in this regard is the twin cycle, which postulates that type 2 diabetes is the result of excess fat in the liver. This in turn is associated with insulin resistance with pancreas dysfunction.”

Dr. Sofrà added that there is a study documenting for the first time the reversibility of the morphology of the diabetic pancreas after caloric restriction with the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet. “The reason for this effect is the use of visceral and intrahepatic fat, which can lead to the remission of the clinical manifestation of type 2 diabetes, understanding as such the definition made by the American Diabetes Association: glycosylated hemoglobin < 6.5% without pharmacological therapy.”

Specifically, the results of this research showed that after following the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet and achieving a 15% weight loss (mean weight loss of the participants), liver glucose levels returned to normal levels within 7 days. Beta cell function returned to near normal within 8 weeks.

“Subsequent studies have shown the durability of remission of type 2 diabetes, thanks to the reactivation of the insulin-secreting function of beta cells that had become dedifferentiated in the face of chronic nutrient excess. Specifically, 6 out of 10 patients maintained glycosylated hemoglobin < 6% after 6 months without the need for pharmacological therapy,” Dr. Sofrà added.

Likewise, she highlighted that the probability of achieving remission is mainly determined by the duration of the disease. “The years with diabetes are one of the main predictors of the response that the patient will have with this dietary intervention. Studies have shown that remission is possible in patients with diabetes for less than 6 years, although there are other projects that indicate that it can be achieved with up to 10 years’ duration.”

Based on these data, Dr. Sofrà emphasized the pleiotropic effects of the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet on glycemic control, favoring the possible remission of diabetes or the reduction of drugs, as well as the reduction of the HOMA-IR index (insulin resistance) and waist circumference in people with type 2 diabetes.
 

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

The third comorbidity of obesity that may benefit from the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet is hepatic steatosis, or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, said Hardy Walle, MD, an internal medicine specialist and director/founder of the Bodymed center, Kirkel, Germany, and one of the authors of this research.

“Recent research shows that ectopic fat and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease could be considered a cause, or at least one of the causes, of most of the diseases that affect the population as a consequence of overweight and obesity,” said Dr. Walle. “Some authors have stated that without fatty liver, there is no type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Walle pointed out that between 30% and 40% of the adult population has nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, a percentage that increases considerably in people with obesity, reaching 70% prevalence and increasing, in the case of type 2 diabetes, to almost 90%. “Even normal weight does not rule out fatty liver; in fact, about 15% of people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are not overweight.”

In a setting where there are no approved drugs for the treatment of fatty liver (the current standard approach focuses on lifestyle interventions), a short-term hypocaloric diet (or liver fasting) is considered an effective method for management of this pathology. This principle was demonstrated by a study by the Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany, that Dr. Walle used to illustrate this statement.

“The participants (60 patients with hepatic steatosis) followed a hypocaloric diet (less than 1,000 kcal/day) for 14 days with a formula rich in protein and fiber specially developed for the treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. A fibroscan was then performed with controlled attenuation parameter measurement to quantify fatty liver disease. The results showed not only a significant improvement in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease parameters but also a marked improvement in all relevant metabolic parameters (serum lipids, liver enzymes),” explained Dr. Walle.

“This evidence leads us to affirm that the concept of hepatic fasting (by means of a hypocaloric diet) marks a point of reference for a future treatment approach for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” he concluded.

The study that Dr. Gambineri presented was carried out with the collaboration of the Pronokal Group (Nestlé Health Science). Dr. Gambineri, Dr. Sofrà, and Dr. Walle disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

MADRID – During the International Scientific Symposium “New Frontiers in Scientific Research” that recently took place in Barcelona, specialists analyzed the role of the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet. This analysis was in relation to three comorbidities that have a higher incidence among overweight and obese patients: polycystic ovary syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and type 2 diabetes. The experts’ aim? To analyze and update the latest evidence on the benefits of this dietary choice.

Polycystic ovary syndrome

Alessandra Gambineri, MD, PhD, associate professor at the department of medicine and surgery (DIMEC) at the University of Bologna, Italy, addressed the link between obesity and polycystic ovary syndrome, which she described as a chronic disease that affects about 10% of women of childbearing age and that presents diverse phenotypes with different characteristics.

“The pathophysiology of this syndrome is characterized by the interaction of three factors: androgen excess, adipose tissue dysfunction, and insulin resistance. These factors interact with each other and are expressed differently in each phenotype,” said Dr. Gambineri.

She indicated that adipose tissue dysfunction is central to this pathology. This centrality results from its association with secretions, such as free fatty acids, proinflammatory cytokines, certain adipokines that promote insulin resistance, glucocorticosteroids, androgens, and oxidative stress.

“Similarly, the oxidative stress that characterizes this syndrome is increasingly present in obese individuals,” said Dr. Gambineri. “This oxidative stress also produces ovary hypotoxicity that aggravates ovulatory function. In this context, the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet can be useful in several ways: weight reduction; promoting the loss of mainly visceral/abdominal fat; decreasing lipotoxicity; and improving inflammation, hyperinsulinemia, and insulin resistance.”

This was the path followed to carry out a study that aimed to analyze the effects of the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet on manifestations of polycystic ovary syndrome in the obesity phenotype. Dr. Gambineri presented its results.

“The objective was to compare the effects of a very-low-calorie ketogenic diet and the standard low-calorie (hypocaloric) diet as a control group,” she said. “The effects studied include body weight, insulin resistance, menstrual cycle, ovulation, ovarian morphology, and hyperandrogenism in a population of 30 obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome and insulin resistance.”

Study participants had a diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome as defined by the National Institutes of Health criteria and were aged 18-45 years. These women were randomly assigned to two groups of equal size: experimental (very-low-calorie ketogenic diet) and control (hypocaloric diet). “The women assigned to the experimental group followed the ketogenic stage for eight weeks and then moved to the second, low-calorie diet phase for an additional eight weeks, while those in the control group (hypocaloric diet) followed the low-calorie diet for all 16 weeks.”

The primary outcomes were changes in weight and body composition, specifically fat mass and lean mass, measured by bioimpedance. “The changes observed in the following aspects were considered secondary outcomes: abdominal fat distribution, metabolic parameters, ovulation, ovarian morphology, hirsutism, hyperandrogenism, psychological well-being, and psychological distress,” said Dr. Gambineri. “Any reduction in the ovarian stroma, the area where androgens are synthesized, was also analyzed.”

The study authors found that although BMI decreased in both groups, this reduction was greater in the group that followed the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet. Significant weight loss was observed in both groups, 12.4 kg versus 4.7 kg. Significant differences were also observed in waist circumference (−8.1% in the experimental group vs. −2.2% in the control group), fat mass (−15.1% vs. −8.5%), and free testosterone (−30.3% vs. +10.6%). Only the experimental group saw a reduction in insulin.

“A key point regarding hyperandrogenism, especially regarding what’s referred to as free testosterone, there was only a significant reduction in the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet group,” said Dr. Gambineri. “This reduction was especially evident in the first part of the study, coinciding with the ketogenic period. The reason for this effect lies in the significant increase in the concentration of sex hormone-binding globulins, SHB6. Said globulins bind to the testosterone present in female blood, producing a reduction in free testosterone, a very important effect considering that this syndrome is an androgenic disorder. Furthermore, current treatments for polycystic ovary syndrome do not reduce free testosterone as much as this dietary approach does.”

For the specialist, among all these positive effects in these patients, perhaps most important is the notable improvement that occurs in ovulation. “At the beginning of the study, only 38.5% of the participants in the experimental group and 14.3% of those in the control group had ovulatory cycles. After the intervention, 84.6% managed to ovulate, compared to 35.7% who achieved this goal in the other group.”

Dr. Gambineri suggested that this method is “valid for reducing fat mass and rapidly improving hyperandrogenism and ovulatory dysfunction in women with obesity and polycystic ovary syndrome.”
 

Reversing type 2 diabetes?

Daniela Sofrà, MD, an endocrinologist specializing in diabetology at La Source Clinic, Lausanne, Switzerland, reviewed the current evidence on the role of the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet in the management of type 2 diabetes.

“It’s time to rethink diabetes treatment and focus efforts on managing obesity as an associated factor,” she said. “One of the hypotheses being examined in this regard is the twin cycle, which postulates that type 2 diabetes is the result of excess fat in the liver. This in turn is associated with insulin resistance with pancreas dysfunction.”

Dr. Sofrà added that there is a study documenting for the first time the reversibility of the morphology of the diabetic pancreas after caloric restriction with the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet. “The reason for this effect is the use of visceral and intrahepatic fat, which can lead to the remission of the clinical manifestation of type 2 diabetes, understanding as such the definition made by the American Diabetes Association: glycosylated hemoglobin < 6.5% without pharmacological therapy.”

Specifically, the results of this research showed that after following the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet and achieving a 15% weight loss (mean weight loss of the participants), liver glucose levels returned to normal levels within 7 days. Beta cell function returned to near normal within 8 weeks.

“Subsequent studies have shown the durability of remission of type 2 diabetes, thanks to the reactivation of the insulin-secreting function of beta cells that had become dedifferentiated in the face of chronic nutrient excess. Specifically, 6 out of 10 patients maintained glycosylated hemoglobin < 6% after 6 months without the need for pharmacological therapy,” Dr. Sofrà added.

Likewise, she highlighted that the probability of achieving remission is mainly determined by the duration of the disease. “The years with diabetes are one of the main predictors of the response that the patient will have with this dietary intervention. Studies have shown that remission is possible in patients with diabetes for less than 6 years, although there are other projects that indicate that it can be achieved with up to 10 years’ duration.”

Based on these data, Dr. Sofrà emphasized the pleiotropic effects of the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet on glycemic control, favoring the possible remission of diabetes or the reduction of drugs, as well as the reduction of the HOMA-IR index (insulin resistance) and waist circumference in people with type 2 diabetes.
 

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

The third comorbidity of obesity that may benefit from the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet is hepatic steatosis, or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, said Hardy Walle, MD, an internal medicine specialist and director/founder of the Bodymed center, Kirkel, Germany, and one of the authors of this research.

“Recent research shows that ectopic fat and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease could be considered a cause, or at least one of the causes, of most of the diseases that affect the population as a consequence of overweight and obesity,” said Dr. Walle. “Some authors have stated that without fatty liver, there is no type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Walle pointed out that between 30% and 40% of the adult population has nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, a percentage that increases considerably in people with obesity, reaching 70% prevalence and increasing, in the case of type 2 diabetes, to almost 90%. “Even normal weight does not rule out fatty liver; in fact, about 15% of people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are not overweight.”

In a setting where there are no approved drugs for the treatment of fatty liver (the current standard approach focuses on lifestyle interventions), a short-term hypocaloric diet (or liver fasting) is considered an effective method for management of this pathology. This principle was demonstrated by a study by the Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany, that Dr. Walle used to illustrate this statement.

“The participants (60 patients with hepatic steatosis) followed a hypocaloric diet (less than 1,000 kcal/day) for 14 days with a formula rich in protein and fiber specially developed for the treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. A fibroscan was then performed with controlled attenuation parameter measurement to quantify fatty liver disease. The results showed not only a significant improvement in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease parameters but also a marked improvement in all relevant metabolic parameters (serum lipids, liver enzymes),” explained Dr. Walle.

“This evidence leads us to affirm that the concept of hepatic fasting (by means of a hypocaloric diet) marks a point of reference for a future treatment approach for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” he concluded.

The study that Dr. Gambineri presented was carried out with the collaboration of the Pronokal Group (Nestlé Health Science). Dr. Gambineri, Dr. Sofrà, and Dr. Walle disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

MADRID – During the International Scientific Symposium “New Frontiers in Scientific Research” that recently took place in Barcelona, specialists analyzed the role of the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet. This analysis was in relation to three comorbidities that have a higher incidence among overweight and obese patients: polycystic ovary syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and type 2 diabetes. The experts’ aim? To analyze and update the latest evidence on the benefits of this dietary choice.

Polycystic ovary syndrome

Alessandra Gambineri, MD, PhD, associate professor at the department of medicine and surgery (DIMEC) at the University of Bologna, Italy, addressed the link between obesity and polycystic ovary syndrome, which she described as a chronic disease that affects about 10% of women of childbearing age and that presents diverse phenotypes with different characteristics.

“The pathophysiology of this syndrome is characterized by the interaction of three factors: androgen excess, adipose tissue dysfunction, and insulin resistance. These factors interact with each other and are expressed differently in each phenotype,” said Dr. Gambineri.

She indicated that adipose tissue dysfunction is central to this pathology. This centrality results from its association with secretions, such as free fatty acids, proinflammatory cytokines, certain adipokines that promote insulin resistance, glucocorticosteroids, androgens, and oxidative stress.

“Similarly, the oxidative stress that characterizes this syndrome is increasingly present in obese individuals,” said Dr. Gambineri. “This oxidative stress also produces ovary hypotoxicity that aggravates ovulatory function. In this context, the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet can be useful in several ways: weight reduction; promoting the loss of mainly visceral/abdominal fat; decreasing lipotoxicity; and improving inflammation, hyperinsulinemia, and insulin resistance.”

This was the path followed to carry out a study that aimed to analyze the effects of the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet on manifestations of polycystic ovary syndrome in the obesity phenotype. Dr. Gambineri presented its results.

“The objective was to compare the effects of a very-low-calorie ketogenic diet and the standard low-calorie (hypocaloric) diet as a control group,” she said. “The effects studied include body weight, insulin resistance, menstrual cycle, ovulation, ovarian morphology, and hyperandrogenism in a population of 30 obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome and insulin resistance.”

Study participants had a diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome as defined by the National Institutes of Health criteria and were aged 18-45 years. These women were randomly assigned to two groups of equal size: experimental (very-low-calorie ketogenic diet) and control (hypocaloric diet). “The women assigned to the experimental group followed the ketogenic stage for eight weeks and then moved to the second, low-calorie diet phase for an additional eight weeks, while those in the control group (hypocaloric diet) followed the low-calorie diet for all 16 weeks.”

The primary outcomes were changes in weight and body composition, specifically fat mass and lean mass, measured by bioimpedance. “The changes observed in the following aspects were considered secondary outcomes: abdominal fat distribution, metabolic parameters, ovulation, ovarian morphology, hirsutism, hyperandrogenism, psychological well-being, and psychological distress,” said Dr. Gambineri. “Any reduction in the ovarian stroma, the area where androgens are synthesized, was also analyzed.”

The study authors found that although BMI decreased in both groups, this reduction was greater in the group that followed the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet. Significant weight loss was observed in both groups, 12.4 kg versus 4.7 kg. Significant differences were also observed in waist circumference (−8.1% in the experimental group vs. −2.2% in the control group), fat mass (−15.1% vs. −8.5%), and free testosterone (−30.3% vs. +10.6%). Only the experimental group saw a reduction in insulin.

“A key point regarding hyperandrogenism, especially regarding what’s referred to as free testosterone, there was only a significant reduction in the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet group,” said Dr. Gambineri. “This reduction was especially evident in the first part of the study, coinciding with the ketogenic period. The reason for this effect lies in the significant increase in the concentration of sex hormone-binding globulins, SHB6. Said globulins bind to the testosterone present in female blood, producing a reduction in free testosterone, a very important effect considering that this syndrome is an androgenic disorder. Furthermore, current treatments for polycystic ovary syndrome do not reduce free testosterone as much as this dietary approach does.”

For the specialist, among all these positive effects in these patients, perhaps most important is the notable improvement that occurs in ovulation. “At the beginning of the study, only 38.5% of the participants in the experimental group and 14.3% of those in the control group had ovulatory cycles. After the intervention, 84.6% managed to ovulate, compared to 35.7% who achieved this goal in the other group.”

Dr. Gambineri suggested that this method is “valid for reducing fat mass and rapidly improving hyperandrogenism and ovulatory dysfunction in women with obesity and polycystic ovary syndrome.”
 

Reversing type 2 diabetes?

Daniela Sofrà, MD, an endocrinologist specializing in diabetology at La Source Clinic, Lausanne, Switzerland, reviewed the current evidence on the role of the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet in the management of type 2 diabetes.

“It’s time to rethink diabetes treatment and focus efforts on managing obesity as an associated factor,” she said. “One of the hypotheses being examined in this regard is the twin cycle, which postulates that type 2 diabetes is the result of excess fat in the liver. This in turn is associated with insulin resistance with pancreas dysfunction.”

Dr. Sofrà added that there is a study documenting for the first time the reversibility of the morphology of the diabetic pancreas after caloric restriction with the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet. “The reason for this effect is the use of visceral and intrahepatic fat, which can lead to the remission of the clinical manifestation of type 2 diabetes, understanding as such the definition made by the American Diabetes Association: glycosylated hemoglobin < 6.5% without pharmacological therapy.”

Specifically, the results of this research showed that after following the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet and achieving a 15% weight loss (mean weight loss of the participants), liver glucose levels returned to normal levels within 7 days. Beta cell function returned to near normal within 8 weeks.

“Subsequent studies have shown the durability of remission of type 2 diabetes, thanks to the reactivation of the insulin-secreting function of beta cells that had become dedifferentiated in the face of chronic nutrient excess. Specifically, 6 out of 10 patients maintained glycosylated hemoglobin < 6% after 6 months without the need for pharmacological therapy,” Dr. Sofrà added.

Likewise, she highlighted that the probability of achieving remission is mainly determined by the duration of the disease. “The years with diabetes are one of the main predictors of the response that the patient will have with this dietary intervention. Studies have shown that remission is possible in patients with diabetes for less than 6 years, although there are other projects that indicate that it can be achieved with up to 10 years’ duration.”

Based on these data, Dr. Sofrà emphasized the pleiotropic effects of the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet on glycemic control, favoring the possible remission of diabetes or the reduction of drugs, as well as the reduction of the HOMA-IR index (insulin resistance) and waist circumference in people with type 2 diabetes.
 

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

The third comorbidity of obesity that may benefit from the very-low-calorie ketogenic diet is hepatic steatosis, or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, said Hardy Walle, MD, an internal medicine specialist and director/founder of the Bodymed center, Kirkel, Germany, and one of the authors of this research.

“Recent research shows that ectopic fat and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease could be considered a cause, or at least one of the causes, of most of the diseases that affect the population as a consequence of overweight and obesity,” said Dr. Walle. “Some authors have stated that without fatty liver, there is no type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Walle pointed out that between 30% and 40% of the adult population has nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, a percentage that increases considerably in people with obesity, reaching 70% prevalence and increasing, in the case of type 2 diabetes, to almost 90%. “Even normal weight does not rule out fatty liver; in fact, about 15% of people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are not overweight.”

In a setting where there are no approved drugs for the treatment of fatty liver (the current standard approach focuses on lifestyle interventions), a short-term hypocaloric diet (or liver fasting) is considered an effective method for management of this pathology. This principle was demonstrated by a study by the Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany, that Dr. Walle used to illustrate this statement.

“The participants (60 patients with hepatic steatosis) followed a hypocaloric diet (less than 1,000 kcal/day) for 14 days with a formula rich in protein and fiber specially developed for the treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. A fibroscan was then performed with controlled attenuation parameter measurement to quantify fatty liver disease. The results showed not only a significant improvement in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease parameters but also a marked improvement in all relevant metabolic parameters (serum lipids, liver enzymes),” explained Dr. Walle.

“This evidence leads us to affirm that the concept of hepatic fasting (by means of a hypocaloric diet) marks a point of reference for a future treatment approach for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” he concluded.

The study that Dr. Gambineri presented was carried out with the collaboration of the Pronokal Group (Nestlé Health Science). Dr. Gambineri, Dr. Sofrà, and Dr. Walle disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Health insurance should cover treatment for infertility caused by gender-affirming medical interventions, the American Medical Association said June 13 at its House of Delegates meeting.

Speaking on behalf of the Medical Student Section, Justin Magrath, of Louisiana, said, “We as a section feel that these interventions should be considered as additional causes of iatrogenic infertility and be covered by insurance.”

Iatrogenic infertility is infertility caused by surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or other medically necessary treatment. The AMA voted June 13 to support including the phrase, “impaired fertility as a consequence of gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgery,” in that definition.

The AMA also supports access to fertility preservation services for people who undergo those treatments.

“I’ve had many friends who went through transitions and gender-affirming care and had no idea that these options were available and others who did know they were available but they were so expensive that they couldn’t access them,” said emergency medicine resident Sophia Spadafore, MD, delegate for the Resident and Fellow Section. “So while people might be able to access gender-affirming care, sometimes they have to make the decision between future fertility and having children and accessing this kind of lifesaving care that we support.”

The AMA already had policies that support insurance coverage of treatments for gender dysphoria and the right to seek fertility preservation services for people who undergo gender-affirming hormone therapy or surgery, but until this week, it had not addressed insurance coverage for preserving fertility in those cases.

“The transgender population already faces many barriers to care, such as provider discrimination, legal concerns, financial burden, and emotional cost,” Mr. Magrath said during a reference committee hearing on June 11. “We as a section ask our organization to continue to serve as an ally, providing equitable care for diverse populations and expanding coverage for medically necessary treatments.”

“I am a gender surgeon, so this is pretty important to me,” said Sean Figy, MD, of Nebraska, a delegate for the American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery.

The original resolution included the words “medically necessary” when referring to gender-affirming treatments, and Dr. Figy expressed hesitancy about those words. An amendment removed them.

“I’ve seen that phrase weaponized against gender-nonconforming patients,” he said.

Ophthalmologist Charles Hickey, MD, of the Ohio delegation, spoke in favor of referral or of waiting to adopt the resolution.

“I think the different amendments being discussed here are evidence that this needs a more thorough and careful treatment than we can do at this point right now,” he said.

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

CHICAGO – Health insurance should cover treatment for infertility caused by gender-affirming medical interventions, the American Medical Association said June 13 at its House of Delegates meeting.

Speaking on behalf of the Medical Student Section, Justin Magrath, of Louisiana, said, “We as a section feel that these interventions should be considered as additional causes of iatrogenic infertility and be covered by insurance.”

Iatrogenic infertility is infertility caused by surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or other medically necessary treatment. The AMA voted June 13 to support including the phrase, “impaired fertility as a consequence of gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgery,” in that definition.

The AMA also supports access to fertility preservation services for people who undergo those treatments.

“I’ve had many friends who went through transitions and gender-affirming care and had no idea that these options were available and others who did know they were available but they were so expensive that they couldn’t access them,” said emergency medicine resident Sophia Spadafore, MD, delegate for the Resident and Fellow Section. “So while people might be able to access gender-affirming care, sometimes they have to make the decision between future fertility and having children and accessing this kind of lifesaving care that we support.”

The AMA already had policies that support insurance coverage of treatments for gender dysphoria and the right to seek fertility preservation services for people who undergo gender-affirming hormone therapy or surgery, but until this week, it had not addressed insurance coverage for preserving fertility in those cases.

“The transgender population already faces many barriers to care, such as provider discrimination, legal concerns, financial burden, and emotional cost,” Mr. Magrath said during a reference committee hearing on June 11. “We as a section ask our organization to continue to serve as an ally, providing equitable care for diverse populations and expanding coverage for medically necessary treatments.”

“I am a gender surgeon, so this is pretty important to me,” said Sean Figy, MD, of Nebraska, a delegate for the American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery.

The original resolution included the words “medically necessary” when referring to gender-affirming treatments, and Dr. Figy expressed hesitancy about those words. An amendment removed them.

“I’ve seen that phrase weaponized against gender-nonconforming patients,” he said.

Ophthalmologist Charles Hickey, MD, of the Ohio delegation, spoke in favor of referral or of waiting to adopt the resolution.

“I think the different amendments being discussed here are evidence that this needs a more thorough and careful treatment than we can do at this point right now,” he said.

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

CHICAGO – Health insurance should cover treatment for infertility caused by gender-affirming medical interventions, the American Medical Association said June 13 at its House of Delegates meeting.

Speaking on behalf of the Medical Student Section, Justin Magrath, of Louisiana, said, “We as a section feel that these interventions should be considered as additional causes of iatrogenic infertility and be covered by insurance.”

Iatrogenic infertility is infertility caused by surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or other medically necessary treatment. The AMA voted June 13 to support including the phrase, “impaired fertility as a consequence of gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgery,” in that definition.

The AMA also supports access to fertility preservation services for people who undergo those treatments.

“I’ve had many friends who went through transitions and gender-affirming care and had no idea that these options were available and others who did know they were available but they were so expensive that they couldn’t access them,” said emergency medicine resident Sophia Spadafore, MD, delegate for the Resident and Fellow Section. “So while people might be able to access gender-affirming care, sometimes they have to make the decision between future fertility and having children and accessing this kind of lifesaving care that we support.”

The AMA already had policies that support insurance coverage of treatments for gender dysphoria and the right to seek fertility preservation services for people who undergo gender-affirming hormone therapy or surgery, but until this week, it had not addressed insurance coverage for preserving fertility in those cases.

“The transgender population already faces many barriers to care, such as provider discrimination, legal concerns, financial burden, and emotional cost,” Mr. Magrath said during a reference committee hearing on June 11. “We as a section ask our organization to continue to serve as an ally, providing equitable care for diverse populations and expanding coverage for medically necessary treatments.”

“I am a gender surgeon, so this is pretty important to me,” said Sean Figy, MD, of Nebraska, a delegate for the American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery.

The original resolution included the words “medically necessary” when referring to gender-affirming treatments, and Dr. Figy expressed hesitancy about those words. An amendment removed them.

“I’ve seen that phrase weaponized against gender-nonconforming patients,” he said.

Ophthalmologist Charles Hickey, MD, of the Ohio delegation, spoke in favor of referral or of waiting to adopt the resolution.

“I think the different amendments being discussed here are evidence that this needs a more thorough and careful treatment than we can do at this point right now,” he said.

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

DENVER – Psychedelics such as psilocybin “truly have the potential to transform how we treat a number of neuropsychiatric diseases, including headaches,” a neuropharmacologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

However, Bryan Roth, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, also offered a major cautionary note: There have been no randomized, phase 3 trials of psychedelics, and he bluntly said that “I do not recommend the use of psychedelics for any medical condition.”

The potential disease-altering powers of psychedelics have received a tremendous amount of research and media attention over the past several years. A landmark randomized, double-blind study released in 2016 triggered much of the interest, Dr. Roth said, when it suggested that high-dose psilocybin significantly lowered levels of depressed mood/anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer. At 6 months, 80% of patients who took the dose reported moderate or greater improvement in well-being/life satisfaction.

“You have the potential – unprecedented in psychiatry – that a single dose of a therapeutic agent may induce a rapid, robust, and sustained antidepressant action,” he said. Also of note: The “vast majority” of subjects say their encounter with a psychedelic was “one of the most meaningful experiences of their lives.”

Dr. Roth said his own research suggests that psychedelics cause a “huge increase” in the asynchronous firing of neurons. “Noise is being injected into the system and is interpreted by the brain or the mind, which always likes to make a story about what’s going on. The story it makes up is idiosyncratic to every person and memorable for reasons that are not understood.”

Now, Dr. Roth said, he and colleagues are working to “create drugs that have this potential remarkable therapeutic efficacy in psychiatric and neurologic disorders without the psychedelic effects.” A $27 million grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is providing support for their efforts, he said.

For the moment, he said, there’s no way to know if “the psychedelic experience is essential to the therapeutic action of these drugs. But it’s a testable hypothesis.”

As he noted, a tiny 2010 study of 2-bromo-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), which doesn’t cause hallucinations, showed promise as a treatment for cluster headaches.

For now, Dr. Roth said, his lab is synthesizing and testing new compounds that interact with the crucial 5-HT2A receptor.
 

Additional research

In another presentation at the AHS annual meeting, neurologist Emmanuelle A. D. Schindler, MD, PhD, of Yale School of Medicine, highlighted her 2021 study of an exploratory double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study of psilocybin versus placebo for migraine headache. A single oral dose of the drug, the researchers found, reduced headache frequency and pain over 2 weeks. The study is small, with just 10 subjects, and multiple exclusion criteria.

She also revealed preliminary findings from an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of psilocybin versus placebo in cluster headaches. In 14 subjects, a psilocybin pulse was linked to fewer cluster attacks over 3 weeks, although the effect wasn’t statistically significant. However, there was a statistically significant reduction over 8 weeks in patients with chronic headache.

Dr. Schindler noted that “with these early studies, we only looked out to 2 weeks for migraine, and we only looked out to 2 months for cluster.” There are multiple other limitations, she acknowledged. “We have to do a lot more research and consider safety as well.”

However, “there is a really unique capacity for lasting effects after limited dosing,” she added, and the studies do show reductions in headache burden “that do not correlate with acute psychedelic effects.”

Moving forward, Dr. Roth cautioned that while U.S. states are allowing the use of psychedelics for medical purposes, “we don’t know if they ultimately are therapeutic. And we have strong reason to believe that microdosing or chronic dosing of these compounds is ultimately going to be deleterious to the health of our patients.”

Dr. Roth did not provide disclosure information. Dr. Schindler discloses research funding (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Wallace Research Foundation, Clusterbusters, Department of Veterans Affairs), serves on advisory boards (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Clusterbusters), and has a patent.

DENVER – Psychedelics such as psilocybin “truly have the potential to transform how we treat a number of neuropsychiatric diseases, including headaches,” a neuropharmacologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

However, Bryan Roth, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, also offered a major cautionary note: There have been no randomized, phase 3 trials of psychedelics, and he bluntly said that “I do not recommend the use of psychedelics for any medical condition.”

The potential disease-altering powers of psychedelics have received a tremendous amount of research and media attention over the past several years. A landmark randomized, double-blind study released in 2016 triggered much of the interest, Dr. Roth said, when it suggested that high-dose psilocybin significantly lowered levels of depressed mood/anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer. At 6 months, 80% of patients who took the dose reported moderate or greater improvement in well-being/life satisfaction.

“You have the potential – unprecedented in psychiatry – that a single dose of a therapeutic agent may induce a rapid, robust, and sustained antidepressant action,” he said. Also of note: The “vast majority” of subjects say their encounter with a psychedelic was “one of the most meaningful experiences of their lives.”

Dr. Roth said his own research suggests that psychedelics cause a “huge increase” in the asynchronous firing of neurons. “Noise is being injected into the system and is interpreted by the brain or the mind, which always likes to make a story about what’s going on. The story it makes up is idiosyncratic to every person and memorable for reasons that are not understood.”

Now, Dr. Roth said, he and colleagues are working to “create drugs that have this potential remarkable therapeutic efficacy in psychiatric and neurologic disorders without the psychedelic effects.” A $27 million grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is providing support for their efforts, he said.

For the moment, he said, there’s no way to know if “the psychedelic experience is essential to the therapeutic action of these drugs. But it’s a testable hypothesis.”

As he noted, a tiny 2010 study of 2-bromo-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), which doesn’t cause hallucinations, showed promise as a treatment for cluster headaches.

For now, Dr. Roth said, his lab is synthesizing and testing new compounds that interact with the crucial 5-HT2A receptor.
 

Additional research

In another presentation at the AHS annual meeting, neurologist Emmanuelle A. D. Schindler, MD, PhD, of Yale School of Medicine, highlighted her 2021 study of an exploratory double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study of psilocybin versus placebo for migraine headache. A single oral dose of the drug, the researchers found, reduced headache frequency and pain over 2 weeks. The study is small, with just 10 subjects, and multiple exclusion criteria.

She also revealed preliminary findings from an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of psilocybin versus placebo in cluster headaches. In 14 subjects, a psilocybin pulse was linked to fewer cluster attacks over 3 weeks, although the effect wasn’t statistically significant. However, there was a statistically significant reduction over 8 weeks in patients with chronic headache.

Dr. Schindler noted that “with these early studies, we only looked out to 2 weeks for migraine, and we only looked out to 2 months for cluster.” There are multiple other limitations, she acknowledged. “We have to do a lot more research and consider safety as well.”

However, “there is a really unique capacity for lasting effects after limited dosing,” she added, and the studies do show reductions in headache burden “that do not correlate with acute psychedelic effects.”

Moving forward, Dr. Roth cautioned that while U.S. states are allowing the use of psychedelics for medical purposes, “we don’t know if they ultimately are therapeutic. And we have strong reason to believe that microdosing or chronic dosing of these compounds is ultimately going to be deleterious to the health of our patients.”

Dr. Roth did not provide disclosure information. Dr. Schindler discloses research funding (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Wallace Research Foundation, Clusterbusters, Department of Veterans Affairs), serves on advisory boards (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Clusterbusters), and has a patent.

DENVER – Psychedelics such as psilocybin “truly have the potential to transform how we treat a number of neuropsychiatric diseases, including headaches,” a neuropharmacologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

However, Bryan Roth, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, also offered a major cautionary note: There have been no randomized, phase 3 trials of psychedelics, and he bluntly said that “I do not recommend the use of psychedelics for any medical condition.”

The potential disease-altering powers of psychedelics have received a tremendous amount of research and media attention over the past several years. A landmark randomized, double-blind study released in 2016 triggered much of the interest, Dr. Roth said, when it suggested that high-dose psilocybin significantly lowered levels of depressed mood/anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer. At 6 months, 80% of patients who took the dose reported moderate or greater improvement in well-being/life satisfaction.

“You have the potential – unprecedented in psychiatry – that a single dose of a therapeutic agent may induce a rapid, robust, and sustained antidepressant action,” he said. Also of note: The “vast majority” of subjects say their encounter with a psychedelic was “one of the most meaningful experiences of their lives.”

Dr. Roth said his own research suggests that psychedelics cause a “huge increase” in the asynchronous firing of neurons. “Noise is being injected into the system and is interpreted by the brain or the mind, which always likes to make a story about what’s going on. The story it makes up is idiosyncratic to every person and memorable for reasons that are not understood.”

Now, Dr. Roth said, he and colleagues are working to “create drugs that have this potential remarkable therapeutic efficacy in psychiatric and neurologic disorders without the psychedelic effects.” A $27 million grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is providing support for their efforts, he said.

For the moment, he said, there’s no way to know if “the psychedelic experience is essential to the therapeutic action of these drugs. But it’s a testable hypothesis.”

As he noted, a tiny 2010 study of 2-bromo-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), which doesn’t cause hallucinations, showed promise as a treatment for cluster headaches.

For now, Dr. Roth said, his lab is synthesizing and testing new compounds that interact with the crucial 5-HT2A receptor.
 

Additional research

In another presentation at the AHS annual meeting, neurologist Emmanuelle A. D. Schindler, MD, PhD, of Yale School of Medicine, highlighted her 2021 study of an exploratory double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study of psilocybin versus placebo for migraine headache. A single oral dose of the drug, the researchers found, reduced headache frequency and pain over 2 weeks. The study is small, with just 10 subjects, and multiple exclusion criteria.

She also revealed preliminary findings from an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of psilocybin versus placebo in cluster headaches. In 14 subjects, a psilocybin pulse was linked to fewer cluster attacks over 3 weeks, although the effect wasn’t statistically significant. However, there was a statistically significant reduction over 8 weeks in patients with chronic headache.

Dr. Schindler noted that “with these early studies, we only looked out to 2 weeks for migraine, and we only looked out to 2 months for cluster.” There are multiple other limitations, she acknowledged. “We have to do a lot more research and consider safety as well.”

However, “there is a really unique capacity for lasting effects after limited dosing,” she added, and the studies do show reductions in headache burden “that do not correlate with acute psychedelic effects.”

Moving forward, Dr. Roth cautioned that while U.S. states are allowing the use of psychedelics for medical purposes, “we don’t know if they ultimately are therapeutic. And we have strong reason to believe that microdosing or chronic dosing of these compounds is ultimately going to be deleterious to the health of our patients.”

Dr. Roth did not provide disclosure information. Dr. Schindler discloses research funding (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Wallace Research Foundation, Clusterbusters, Department of Veterans Affairs), serves on advisory boards (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Clusterbusters), and has a patent.

Experts engaged in a contentious debate on the usefulness of the NOVA system, which divides foods into different categories based on how much they have been processed, during a session at a virtual conference sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition.

The NOVA system divides foods into “fresh or minimally processed,” such as strawberries or steel-cut oats; “processed culinary ingredients,” such as olive oil; “processed foods,” such as cheeses; and “ultra-processed foods.” UPFs are defined as “industrial formulations made by deconstructing natural food into its chemical constituents, modifying them and recombining them with additives into products liable to displace all other NOVA food groups.”

According to doctors who presented during the meeting, ultra-processed foods are drawing increased attention, because researchers have been examining them in National Institutes of Health–funded studies and journalists have been writing about them.

During the debate session at the meeting, some experts said that, with obesity and poor health skyrocketing, increased awareness and labeling of UPFs can only be a good thing. In contrast others noted at the meeting that the classification system that has come to be used for identifying UPFs – the NOVA Food Classification system – is too mushy, confusing, and, ultimately unhelpful.

Carlos Monteiro, MD, PhD, professor of nutrition and public health at the University of Sao Paolo, was part of the group favoring the NOVA system’s classifying certain foods as UPFs, during the debate. He drew attention to the extent to which the world’s population is getting its calories from UPFs.

Mexico and France get about 30% of calories from these foods. In Canada, it’s 48%. And in the United States, it’s 57%, Dr. Monteiro said.

Studies have found that UPFs, many of which are designed to be exceedingly flavorful and intended to replace consumption of unprocessed whole foods, lead to more overall energy intake, more added sugar in the diet, and less fiber and protein intake, he said.

To further support his arguments, Dr. Monteiro pointed to studies suggesting that it is not just the resulting change in the nutritional intake that is unhealthy, but the UPF manufacturing process itself. When adjusting for fat, sugar, and sodium intake, for example, health outcomes associated with UPFs remain poor, he explained.

“I’m sorry,” he said in the debate. “If you don’t reduce this, you don’t reduce your obesity, your diabetes prevalence.”

A study presented by Jacqueline Vernarelli, PhD, during a different session at the meeting suggested there may be other downsides to consuming UPFs. This research, which was based on the U.S. National Youth Fitness Survey, found that poorer locomotor skills among children aged 3-5 and poorer cardiovascular fitness among those aged 12-15 were associated with getting more calories from UPFs.

Those with lower cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,234 calories a day from UPFs, and those with higher cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,007 calories a day from UPFs (P = .002), according to the new research.

“It’s notable here that, although these differences are significant, both groups are consuming a pretty high proportion of their diet from ultra-processed foods,” said Dr. Vernarelli, associate professor of public health at Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Conn., during her presentation.

In the debate session, Arne Astrup, MD, PhD, senior project director at the Healthy Weight Center at the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Hellerup, Denmark, presented an opposing view.

He said the definition of UPFs makes it too difficult to categorize many foods, pointing to a study from this year in which about 150 nutrition experts, doctors, and dietitians classified 120 foods. Only three marketed foods and one generic food were classified the same by all the evaluators.

Referring to the study Dr. Astrup cited, Dr. Monteiro said it was a mere “exercise,” and the experts involved in it had conflicts of interest.

Dr. Astrup touted this study’s size and its appearance in the peer-reviewed journal the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Defending his point of view, Dr. Astrup said, “The definition and classification is so ambiguous, and the risk of misclassification is so extremely high, I think we really miss the basic requirement of science, namely that we know what we are talking about,” he said.

If you take an unprocessed food, and insert a “little additive … suddenly it’s an ultra-processed food,” he added.
 

UPF definition doesn’t flag some unhealthy foods

Susan Roberts, PhD, professor of nutrition at Tufts University, Boston, was a discussant at the debate and touched on the merits of both sides. She noted that the UPF definition doesn’t flag some “clearly unhealthy foods,” such as table sugar, but does flag some healthy ones, such as plant-based burgers – to which Dr. Monteiro said that the system was not a system meant to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy groups, during the debate session.

The inclusion of both healthy and unhealthy foods in NOVA’s definition of a UPF is a serious problem, Dr. Roberts said.

“It’s almost like it’s an emotional classification designed to get at the food industry rather than focusing on health – and I think that’s asking for trouble because it’s just going to be such a mess to tell consumers, ‘Well, this ultra-processed food is healthy and this one isn’t,’ ” she said. What’s happening is the term ultra-processed is being used interchangeably with unhealthy.

The discussion that the UPF classification has generated is useful, Dr. Roberts continued. “This definition grew out of that recognition that we’re engaged in an unprecedented experiment of how unhealthy can you make the world without having a major catastrophe.”

She added that the UPF concept deserves a more formalized and rigorous evaluation.

“This is an important topic for the future of public health, and I think it needs big committees to address it seriously,” she said. “I think we should not be dealing with this individually in different labs.”
 

Doctor’s take on usefulness of discussing UPF concept with patients

Mark Corkins, MD, who did not participate in the debate at the meeting, said he talks to parents and children about nutrition at every office visit in which he sees a child with an unhealthy weight.

“Persistence wears down resistance,” said the chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics nutrition committee, in an interview.“A consistent message – you say the same thing and you say it multiple times.”

The idea of “ultra-processed foods” plays a role in those conversations, but largely in the background. It’s a topic that’s important for pediatric health, Dr. Corkins said – but he doesn’t make it the focal point.

“It’s not a direct attack on ultra-processed foods that usually I take as my direction,” said Dr. Corkins, who is also chief of pediatric gastroenterology at Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.. “What I try to focus on, and what I think the American Academy of Pediatrics would focus on, is that we need to focus on making the diet better.”

He added, “Parents are aware – they don’t call it ultra-processed food, they call it junk food.”

Dr. Corkins continued that he is reluctant to directly challenge parents on feeding their children unhealthy foods – ultra-processed or not – lest he shame them and harm the relationship.

“Guilt as a motivator isn’t really highly successful,” he said, in an interview.

Dr. Astrup reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Green Leaf Medical and RNPC, France. Dr. Roberts reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Danone, and an ownership interest in Instinct Health Science. Dr. Monteiro and Dr. Corkins reported no relevant disclosures.

Experts engaged in a contentious debate on the usefulness of the NOVA system, which divides foods into different categories based on how much they have been processed, during a session at a virtual conference sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition.

The NOVA system divides foods into “fresh or minimally processed,” such as strawberries or steel-cut oats; “processed culinary ingredients,” such as olive oil; “processed foods,” such as cheeses; and “ultra-processed foods.” UPFs are defined as “industrial formulations made by deconstructing natural food into its chemical constituents, modifying them and recombining them with additives into products liable to displace all other NOVA food groups.”

According to doctors who presented during the meeting, ultra-processed foods are drawing increased attention, because researchers have been examining them in National Institutes of Health–funded studies and journalists have been writing about them.

During the debate session at the meeting, some experts said that, with obesity and poor health skyrocketing, increased awareness and labeling of UPFs can only be a good thing. In contrast others noted at the meeting that the classification system that has come to be used for identifying UPFs – the NOVA Food Classification system – is too mushy, confusing, and, ultimately unhelpful.

Carlos Monteiro, MD, PhD, professor of nutrition and public health at the University of Sao Paolo, was part of the group favoring the NOVA system’s classifying certain foods as UPFs, during the debate. He drew attention to the extent to which the world’s population is getting its calories from UPFs.

Mexico and France get about 30% of calories from these foods. In Canada, it’s 48%. And in the United States, it’s 57%, Dr. Monteiro said.

Studies have found that UPFs, many of which are designed to be exceedingly flavorful and intended to replace consumption of unprocessed whole foods, lead to more overall energy intake, more added sugar in the diet, and less fiber and protein intake, he said.

To further support his arguments, Dr. Monteiro pointed to studies suggesting that it is not just the resulting change in the nutritional intake that is unhealthy, but the UPF manufacturing process itself. When adjusting for fat, sugar, and sodium intake, for example, health outcomes associated with UPFs remain poor, he explained.

“I’m sorry,” he said in the debate. “If you don’t reduce this, you don’t reduce your obesity, your diabetes prevalence.”

A study presented by Jacqueline Vernarelli, PhD, during a different session at the meeting suggested there may be other downsides to consuming UPFs. This research, which was based on the U.S. National Youth Fitness Survey, found that poorer locomotor skills among children aged 3-5 and poorer cardiovascular fitness among those aged 12-15 were associated with getting more calories from UPFs.

Those with lower cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,234 calories a day from UPFs, and those with higher cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,007 calories a day from UPFs (P = .002), according to the new research.

“It’s notable here that, although these differences are significant, both groups are consuming a pretty high proportion of their diet from ultra-processed foods,” said Dr. Vernarelli, associate professor of public health at Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Conn., during her presentation.

In the debate session, Arne Astrup, MD, PhD, senior project director at the Healthy Weight Center at the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Hellerup, Denmark, presented an opposing view.

He said the definition of UPFs makes it too difficult to categorize many foods, pointing to a study from this year in which about 150 nutrition experts, doctors, and dietitians classified 120 foods. Only three marketed foods and one generic food were classified the same by all the evaluators.

Referring to the study Dr. Astrup cited, Dr. Monteiro said it was a mere “exercise,” and the experts involved in it had conflicts of interest.

Dr. Astrup touted this study’s size and its appearance in the peer-reviewed journal the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Defending his point of view, Dr. Astrup said, “The definition and classification is so ambiguous, and the risk of misclassification is so extremely high, I think we really miss the basic requirement of science, namely that we know what we are talking about,” he said.

If you take an unprocessed food, and insert a “little additive … suddenly it’s an ultra-processed food,” he added.
 

UPF definition doesn’t flag some unhealthy foods

Susan Roberts, PhD, professor of nutrition at Tufts University, Boston, was a discussant at the debate and touched on the merits of both sides. She noted that the UPF definition doesn’t flag some “clearly unhealthy foods,” such as table sugar, but does flag some healthy ones, such as plant-based burgers – to which Dr. Monteiro said that the system was not a system meant to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy groups, during the debate session.

The inclusion of both healthy and unhealthy foods in NOVA’s definition of a UPF is a serious problem, Dr. Roberts said.

“It’s almost like it’s an emotional classification designed to get at the food industry rather than focusing on health – and I think that’s asking for trouble because it’s just going to be such a mess to tell consumers, ‘Well, this ultra-processed food is healthy and this one isn’t,’ ” she said. What’s happening is the term ultra-processed is being used interchangeably with unhealthy.

The discussion that the UPF classification has generated is useful, Dr. Roberts continued. “This definition grew out of that recognition that we’re engaged in an unprecedented experiment of how unhealthy can you make the world without having a major catastrophe.”

She added that the UPF concept deserves a more formalized and rigorous evaluation.

“This is an important topic for the future of public health, and I think it needs big committees to address it seriously,” she said. “I think we should not be dealing with this individually in different labs.”
 

Doctor’s take on usefulness of discussing UPF concept with patients

Mark Corkins, MD, who did not participate in the debate at the meeting, said he talks to parents and children about nutrition at every office visit in which he sees a child with an unhealthy weight.

“Persistence wears down resistance,” said the chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics nutrition committee, in an interview.“A consistent message – you say the same thing and you say it multiple times.”

The idea of “ultra-processed foods” plays a role in those conversations, but largely in the background. It’s a topic that’s important for pediatric health, Dr. Corkins said – but he doesn’t make it the focal point.

“It’s not a direct attack on ultra-processed foods that usually I take as my direction,” said Dr. Corkins, who is also chief of pediatric gastroenterology at Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.. “What I try to focus on, and what I think the American Academy of Pediatrics would focus on, is that we need to focus on making the diet better.”

He added, “Parents are aware – they don’t call it ultra-processed food, they call it junk food.”

Dr. Corkins continued that he is reluctant to directly challenge parents on feeding their children unhealthy foods – ultra-processed or not – lest he shame them and harm the relationship.

“Guilt as a motivator isn’t really highly successful,” he said, in an interview.

Dr. Astrup reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Green Leaf Medical and RNPC, France. Dr. Roberts reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Danone, and an ownership interest in Instinct Health Science. Dr. Monteiro and Dr. Corkins reported no relevant disclosures.

Experts engaged in a contentious debate on the usefulness of the NOVA system, which divides foods into different categories based on how much they have been processed, during a session at a virtual conference sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition.

The NOVA system divides foods into “fresh or minimally processed,” such as strawberries or steel-cut oats; “processed culinary ingredients,” such as olive oil; “processed foods,” such as cheeses; and “ultra-processed foods.” UPFs are defined as “industrial formulations made by deconstructing natural food into its chemical constituents, modifying them and recombining them with additives into products liable to displace all other NOVA food groups.”

According to doctors who presented during the meeting, ultra-processed foods are drawing increased attention, because researchers have been examining them in National Institutes of Health–funded studies and journalists have been writing about them.

During the debate session at the meeting, some experts said that, with obesity and poor health skyrocketing, increased awareness and labeling of UPFs can only be a good thing. In contrast others noted at the meeting that the classification system that has come to be used for identifying UPFs – the NOVA Food Classification system – is too mushy, confusing, and, ultimately unhelpful.

Carlos Monteiro, MD, PhD, professor of nutrition and public health at the University of Sao Paolo, was part of the group favoring the NOVA system’s classifying certain foods as UPFs, during the debate. He drew attention to the extent to which the world’s population is getting its calories from UPFs.

Mexico and France get about 30% of calories from these foods. In Canada, it’s 48%. And in the United States, it’s 57%, Dr. Monteiro said.

Studies have found that UPFs, many of which are designed to be exceedingly flavorful and intended to replace consumption of unprocessed whole foods, lead to more overall energy intake, more added sugar in the diet, and less fiber and protein intake, he said.

To further support his arguments, Dr. Monteiro pointed to studies suggesting that it is not just the resulting change in the nutritional intake that is unhealthy, but the UPF manufacturing process itself. When adjusting for fat, sugar, and sodium intake, for example, health outcomes associated with UPFs remain poor, he explained.

“I’m sorry,” he said in the debate. “If you don’t reduce this, you don’t reduce your obesity, your diabetes prevalence.”

A study presented by Jacqueline Vernarelli, PhD, during a different session at the meeting suggested there may be other downsides to consuming UPFs. This research, which was based on the U.S. National Youth Fitness Survey, found that poorer locomotor skills among children aged 3-5 and poorer cardiovascular fitness among those aged 12-15 were associated with getting more calories from UPFs.

Those with lower cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,234 calories a day from UPFs, and those with higher cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,007 calories a day from UPFs (P = .002), according to the new research.

“It’s notable here that, although these differences are significant, both groups are consuming a pretty high proportion of their diet from ultra-processed foods,” said Dr. Vernarelli, associate professor of public health at Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Conn., during her presentation.

In the debate session, Arne Astrup, MD, PhD, senior project director at the Healthy Weight Center at the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Hellerup, Denmark, presented an opposing view.

He said the definition of UPFs makes it too difficult to categorize many foods, pointing to a study from this year in which about 150 nutrition experts, doctors, and dietitians classified 120 foods. Only three marketed foods and one generic food were classified the same by all the evaluators.

Referring to the study Dr. Astrup cited, Dr. Monteiro said it was a mere “exercise,” and the experts involved in it had conflicts of interest.

Dr. Astrup touted this study’s size and its appearance in the peer-reviewed journal the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Defending his point of view, Dr. Astrup said, “The definition and classification is so ambiguous, and the risk of misclassification is so extremely high, I think we really miss the basic requirement of science, namely that we know what we are talking about,” he said.

If you take an unprocessed food, and insert a “little additive … suddenly it’s an ultra-processed food,” he added.
 

UPF definition doesn’t flag some unhealthy foods

Susan Roberts, PhD, professor of nutrition at Tufts University, Boston, was a discussant at the debate and touched on the merits of both sides. She noted that the UPF definition doesn’t flag some “clearly unhealthy foods,” such as table sugar, but does flag some healthy ones, such as plant-based burgers – to which Dr. Monteiro said that the system was not a system meant to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy groups, during the debate session.

The inclusion of both healthy and unhealthy foods in NOVA’s definition of a UPF is a serious problem, Dr. Roberts said.

“It’s almost like it’s an emotional classification designed to get at the food industry rather than focusing on health – and I think that’s asking for trouble because it’s just going to be such a mess to tell consumers, ‘Well, this ultra-processed food is healthy and this one isn’t,’ ” she said. What’s happening is the term ultra-processed is being used interchangeably with unhealthy.

The discussion that the UPF classification has generated is useful, Dr. Roberts continued. “This definition grew out of that recognition that we’re engaged in an unprecedented experiment of how unhealthy can you make the world without having a major catastrophe.”

She added that the UPF concept deserves a more formalized and rigorous evaluation.

“This is an important topic for the future of public health, and I think it needs big committees to address it seriously,” she said. “I think we should not be dealing with this individually in different labs.”
 

Doctor’s take on usefulness of discussing UPF concept with patients

Mark Corkins, MD, who did not participate in the debate at the meeting, said he talks to parents and children about nutrition at every office visit in which he sees a child with an unhealthy weight.

“Persistence wears down resistance,” said the chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics nutrition committee, in an interview.“A consistent message – you say the same thing and you say it multiple times.”

The idea of “ultra-processed foods” plays a role in those conversations, but largely in the background. It’s a topic that’s important for pediatric health, Dr. Corkins said – but he doesn’t make it the focal point.

“It’s not a direct attack on ultra-processed foods that usually I take as my direction,” said Dr. Corkins, who is also chief of pediatric gastroenterology at Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.. “What I try to focus on, and what I think the American Academy of Pediatrics would focus on, is that we need to focus on making the diet better.”

He added, “Parents are aware – they don’t call it ultra-processed food, they call it junk food.”

Dr. Corkins continued that he is reluctant to directly challenge parents on feeding their children unhealthy foods – ultra-processed or not – lest he shame them and harm the relationship.

“Guilt as a motivator isn’t really highly successful,” he said, in an interview.

Dr. Astrup reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Green Leaf Medical and RNPC, France. Dr. Roberts reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Danone, and an ownership interest in Instinct Health Science. Dr. Monteiro and Dr. Corkins reported no relevant disclosures.

ATLANTA – U.S. clinicians caring for people with diabetes should take a more aggressive approach to using combined medical treatments proven to slow the otherwise relentless progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a new joint statement by the American Diabetes Association and a major international nephrology organization presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

The statement elevates treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class to first-line for people with diabetes and laboratory-based evidence of advancing CKD. It also re-emphasizes the key role of concurrent first-line treatment with a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker), metformin, and a statin.

The new statement also urges clinicians to rapidly add treatment with the new nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) for further renal protection in the many patients suitable for treatment with this agent, and it recommends the second-line addition of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist as the best add-on for any patient who needs additional glycemic control on top of metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor.

The consensus joint statement with these updates came from a nine-member writing group assembled by the ADA and the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization.

“We’re going to try to make this feasible. We have to; I don’t think we have a choice,” commented Amy K. Mottl, MD, a nephrologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Mottl was not involved with writing the consensus statement but has been active in the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative of the American Society of Nephrology, another group promoting a more aggressive multidrug-class approach to treating CKD in people with diabetes.
 

Wider use of costly drugs

Adoption of this evidence-based approach by U.S. clinicians will both increase the number of agents that many patients receive and drive a significant uptick in the cost and complexity of patient care, a consequence acknowledged by the authors of the joint statement as well as outside experts.

But they view this as unavoidable given what’s now known about the high incidence of worsening CKD in patients with diabetes and the types of interventions proven to blunt this.

Much of the financial implication stems from the price of agents from the new drug classes now emphasized in the consensus recommendations – SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists. All these drugs currently remain on-patent with relatively expensive retail prices in the range of about $600 to $1,000/month.

Commenting on the cost concerns, Dr. Mottl highlighted that she currently has several patients in her practice on agents from two or more of these newer classes, and she has generally found it possible for patients to get much of their expenses covered by insurers and through drug-company assistance programs.

“The major gap is patients on Medicare,” she noted in an interview, because the Federal health insurance program does not allow beneficiaries to receive rebates for their drug costs. “The Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative is currently lobbying members of Congress to lift that barrier,” she emphasized.
 

Improved alignment

Details of the KDIGO recommendations feature in a guideline from that organization that appeared as a draft document online in March 2022. The ADA’s version recently appeared as an update to its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022, as reported by this news organization. A panel of five KDIGO representatives and four members appointed by the ADA produced the harmonization statement.

Recommendations from both organizations were largely in agreement at the outset, but following the panel’s review, the two groups are now “very well-aligned,” said Peter Rossing, MD, DMSc, a diabetologist and professor at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen, and a KDIGO representative to the writing committee, who presented the joint statement at the ADA meeting.

“These are very important drugs that are vastly underused,” commented Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, who specializes in CKD and was not involved with the new statement.

“Coherence and simplicity are what we need so that there are no excuses about moving forward” with the recommended combination treatment, he stressed.

Moving too slow

“No one is resisting using these new medications, but they are just moving too slowly, and data now show that it’s moving more slowly in the United States than elsewhere. That may be partly because U.S. patients are charged much more for these drugs, and partly because U.S. health care is so much more fragmented,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new joint consensus statement may help, “but the fragmentation of the United States system and COVID-19 are big enemies” for any short-term increased use of the highlighted agents, he added.

Evidence for low U.S. use of SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists is becoming well known.

Dr. Rossing cited a 2019 report from the CURE-CKD registry of more than 600,000 U.S. patients with CKD showing that less than 1% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and less than 1% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Not all these patients had diabetes, but a subgroup analysis of those with diabetes, prediabetes, or hypertension showed that usage of each of these two classes remained at less than 1% even in this group.

A separate report at the ADA meeting documented that of more than 1.3 million people with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020, just 10% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. And this is in a setting where drug cost is not a limiting factor.

In addition to focusing on the updated scheme for drug intervention in the consensus statement, Dr. Rossing highlighted several other important points that the writing committee emphasized.

Lifestyle optimization is a core first-line element of managing patients with diabetes and CKD, including a healthy diet, exercise, smoking cessation, and weight control. Other key steps for management include optimization of blood pressure, glucose, and lipids. The statement also calls out a potentially helpful role for continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The statement notes that patients who also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease usually qualify for and could potentially benefit from more intensified lipid management with ezetimibe or a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor, as well as a potential role for treatment with antiplatelet agents.
 

‘If you don’t screen, you won’t find it’

Dr. Rossing also stressed the importance of regular screening for the onset of advanced CKD in patients. Patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 60 mL/min/1.73m2, as well as those who develop microalbuminuria with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 30 mg/g (30 mg/mmol), have a stage of CKD that warrants the drug interventions he outlined.

Guidelines from both the ADA and KDIGO were already in place, recommending annual screening of patients with diabetes for both these parameters starting at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or 5 years following initial diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

“If you don’t screen, you won’t find it, and you won’t be able to treat,” Dr. Rossing warned. He also highlighted the panel’s recommendation to treat these patients with an SGLT2 inhibitor as long as their eGFR is at least 20 mL/min/1.73m2. Treatment can then continue even when their eGFR drops lower.

Starting treatment with finerenone requires that patients have a normal level of serum potassium, he emphasized.

One reason for developing the new ADA and KDIGO statement is that “discrepancies in clinical practice guideline recommendations from various professional organizations add to confusion that impedes understanding of best practices,” write Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and associates in a recent commentary.

The goal of the new statement is to harmonize and promote the shared recommendations of the two organizations, added Dr. Tuttle, who is executive director for research at Providence Healthcare, Spokane, Washington, and a KDIGO representative on the statement writing panel.

Dr. Mottl has reported being a consultant to Bayer. Dr. Rossing has reported being a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Vifor, as well as receiving research grants from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Coresh has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tuttle has reported being a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere.

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

ATLANTA – U.S. clinicians caring for people with diabetes should take a more aggressive approach to using combined medical treatments proven to slow the otherwise relentless progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a new joint statement by the American Diabetes Association and a major international nephrology organization presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

The statement elevates treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class to first-line for people with diabetes and laboratory-based evidence of advancing CKD. It also re-emphasizes the key role of concurrent first-line treatment with a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker), metformin, and a statin.

The new statement also urges clinicians to rapidly add treatment with the new nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) for further renal protection in the many patients suitable for treatment with this agent, and it recommends the second-line addition of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist as the best add-on for any patient who needs additional glycemic control on top of metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor.

The consensus joint statement with these updates came from a nine-member writing group assembled by the ADA and the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization.

“We’re going to try to make this feasible. We have to; I don’t think we have a choice,” commented Amy K. Mottl, MD, a nephrologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Mottl was not involved with writing the consensus statement but has been active in the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative of the American Society of Nephrology, another group promoting a more aggressive multidrug-class approach to treating CKD in people with diabetes.
 

Wider use of costly drugs

Adoption of this evidence-based approach by U.S. clinicians will both increase the number of agents that many patients receive and drive a significant uptick in the cost and complexity of patient care, a consequence acknowledged by the authors of the joint statement as well as outside experts.

But they view this as unavoidable given what’s now known about the high incidence of worsening CKD in patients with diabetes and the types of interventions proven to blunt this.

Much of the financial implication stems from the price of agents from the new drug classes now emphasized in the consensus recommendations – SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists. All these drugs currently remain on-patent with relatively expensive retail prices in the range of about $600 to $1,000/month.

Commenting on the cost concerns, Dr. Mottl highlighted that she currently has several patients in her practice on agents from two or more of these newer classes, and she has generally found it possible for patients to get much of their expenses covered by insurers and through drug-company assistance programs.

“The major gap is patients on Medicare,” she noted in an interview, because the Federal health insurance program does not allow beneficiaries to receive rebates for their drug costs. “The Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative is currently lobbying members of Congress to lift that barrier,” she emphasized.
 

Improved alignment

Details of the KDIGO recommendations feature in a guideline from that organization that appeared as a draft document online in March 2022. The ADA’s version recently appeared as an update to its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022, as reported by this news organization. A panel of five KDIGO representatives and four members appointed by the ADA produced the harmonization statement.

Recommendations from both organizations were largely in agreement at the outset, but following the panel’s review, the two groups are now “very well-aligned,” said Peter Rossing, MD, DMSc, a diabetologist and professor at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen, and a KDIGO representative to the writing committee, who presented the joint statement at the ADA meeting.

“These are very important drugs that are vastly underused,” commented Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, who specializes in CKD and was not involved with the new statement.

“Coherence and simplicity are what we need so that there are no excuses about moving forward” with the recommended combination treatment, he stressed.

Moving too slow

“No one is resisting using these new medications, but they are just moving too slowly, and data now show that it’s moving more slowly in the United States than elsewhere. That may be partly because U.S. patients are charged much more for these drugs, and partly because U.S. health care is so much more fragmented,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new joint consensus statement may help, “but the fragmentation of the United States system and COVID-19 are big enemies” for any short-term increased use of the highlighted agents, he added.

Evidence for low U.S. use of SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists is becoming well known.

Dr. Rossing cited a 2019 report from the CURE-CKD registry of more than 600,000 U.S. patients with CKD showing that less than 1% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and less than 1% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Not all these patients had diabetes, but a subgroup analysis of those with diabetes, prediabetes, or hypertension showed that usage of each of these two classes remained at less than 1% even in this group.

A separate report at the ADA meeting documented that of more than 1.3 million people with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020, just 10% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. And this is in a setting where drug cost is not a limiting factor.

In addition to focusing on the updated scheme for drug intervention in the consensus statement, Dr. Rossing highlighted several other important points that the writing committee emphasized.

Lifestyle optimization is a core first-line element of managing patients with diabetes and CKD, including a healthy diet, exercise, smoking cessation, and weight control. Other key steps for management include optimization of blood pressure, glucose, and lipids. The statement also calls out a potentially helpful role for continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The statement notes that patients who also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease usually qualify for and could potentially benefit from more intensified lipid management with ezetimibe or a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor, as well as a potential role for treatment with antiplatelet agents.
 

‘If you don’t screen, you won’t find it’

Dr. Rossing also stressed the importance of regular screening for the onset of advanced CKD in patients. Patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 60 mL/min/1.73m2, as well as those who develop microalbuminuria with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 30 mg/g (30 mg/mmol), have a stage of CKD that warrants the drug interventions he outlined.

Guidelines from both the ADA and KDIGO were already in place, recommending annual screening of patients with diabetes for both these parameters starting at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or 5 years following initial diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

“If you don’t screen, you won’t find it, and you won’t be able to treat,” Dr. Rossing warned. He also highlighted the panel’s recommendation to treat these patients with an SGLT2 inhibitor as long as their eGFR is at least 20 mL/min/1.73m2. Treatment can then continue even when their eGFR drops lower.

Starting treatment with finerenone requires that patients have a normal level of serum potassium, he emphasized.

One reason for developing the new ADA and KDIGO statement is that “discrepancies in clinical practice guideline recommendations from various professional organizations add to confusion that impedes understanding of best practices,” write Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and associates in a recent commentary.

The goal of the new statement is to harmonize and promote the shared recommendations of the two organizations, added Dr. Tuttle, who is executive director for research at Providence Healthcare, Spokane, Washington, and a KDIGO representative on the statement writing panel.

Dr. Mottl has reported being a consultant to Bayer. Dr. Rossing has reported being a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Vifor, as well as receiving research grants from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Coresh has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tuttle has reported being a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere.

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

ATLANTA – U.S. clinicians caring for people with diabetes should take a more aggressive approach to using combined medical treatments proven to slow the otherwise relentless progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a new joint statement by the American Diabetes Association and a major international nephrology organization presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

The statement elevates treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class to first-line for people with diabetes and laboratory-based evidence of advancing CKD. It also re-emphasizes the key role of concurrent first-line treatment with a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker), metformin, and a statin.

The new statement also urges clinicians to rapidly add treatment with the new nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) for further renal protection in the many patients suitable for treatment with this agent, and it recommends the second-line addition of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist as the best add-on for any patient who needs additional glycemic control on top of metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor.

The consensus joint statement with these updates came from a nine-member writing group assembled by the ADA and the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization.

“We’re going to try to make this feasible. We have to; I don’t think we have a choice,” commented Amy K. Mottl, MD, a nephrologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Mottl was not involved with writing the consensus statement but has been active in the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative of the American Society of Nephrology, another group promoting a more aggressive multidrug-class approach to treating CKD in people with diabetes.
 

Wider use of costly drugs

Adoption of this evidence-based approach by U.S. clinicians will both increase the number of agents that many patients receive and drive a significant uptick in the cost and complexity of patient care, a consequence acknowledged by the authors of the joint statement as well as outside experts.

But they view this as unavoidable given what’s now known about the high incidence of worsening CKD in patients with diabetes and the types of interventions proven to blunt this.

Much of the financial implication stems from the price of agents from the new drug classes now emphasized in the consensus recommendations – SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists. All these drugs currently remain on-patent with relatively expensive retail prices in the range of about $600 to $1,000/month.

Commenting on the cost concerns, Dr. Mottl highlighted that she currently has several patients in her practice on agents from two or more of these newer classes, and she has generally found it possible for patients to get much of their expenses covered by insurers and through drug-company assistance programs.

“The major gap is patients on Medicare,” she noted in an interview, because the Federal health insurance program does not allow beneficiaries to receive rebates for their drug costs. “The Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative is currently lobbying members of Congress to lift that barrier,” she emphasized.
 

Improved alignment

Details of the KDIGO recommendations feature in a guideline from that organization that appeared as a draft document online in March 2022. The ADA’s version recently appeared as an update to its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022, as reported by this news organization. A panel of five KDIGO representatives and four members appointed by the ADA produced the harmonization statement.

Recommendations from both organizations were largely in agreement at the outset, but following the panel’s review, the two groups are now “very well-aligned,” said Peter Rossing, MD, DMSc, a diabetologist and professor at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen, and a KDIGO representative to the writing committee, who presented the joint statement at the ADA meeting.

“These are very important drugs that are vastly underused,” commented Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, who specializes in CKD and was not involved with the new statement.

“Coherence and simplicity are what we need so that there are no excuses about moving forward” with the recommended combination treatment, he stressed.

Moving too slow

“No one is resisting using these new medications, but they are just moving too slowly, and data now show that it’s moving more slowly in the United States than elsewhere. That may be partly because U.S. patients are charged much more for these drugs, and partly because U.S. health care is so much more fragmented,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new joint consensus statement may help, “but the fragmentation of the United States system and COVID-19 are big enemies” for any short-term increased use of the highlighted agents, he added.

Evidence for low U.S. use of SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists is becoming well known.

Dr. Rossing cited a 2019 report from the CURE-CKD registry of more than 600,000 U.S. patients with CKD showing that less than 1% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and less than 1% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Not all these patients had diabetes, but a subgroup analysis of those with diabetes, prediabetes, or hypertension showed that usage of each of these two classes remained at less than 1% even in this group.

A separate report at the ADA meeting documented that of more than 1.3 million people with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020, just 10% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. And this is in a setting where drug cost is not a limiting factor.

In addition to focusing on the updated scheme for drug intervention in the consensus statement, Dr. Rossing highlighted several other important points that the writing committee emphasized.

Lifestyle optimization is a core first-line element of managing patients with diabetes and CKD, including a healthy diet, exercise, smoking cessation, and weight control. Other key steps for management include optimization of blood pressure, glucose, and lipids. The statement also calls out a potentially helpful role for continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The statement notes that patients who also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease usually qualify for and could potentially benefit from more intensified lipid management with ezetimibe or a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor, as well as a potential role for treatment with antiplatelet agents.
 

‘If you don’t screen, you won’t find it’

Dr. Rossing also stressed the importance of regular screening for the onset of advanced CKD in patients. Patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 60 mL/min/1.73m2, as well as those who develop microalbuminuria with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 30 mg/g (30 mg/mmol), have a stage of CKD that warrants the drug interventions he outlined.

Guidelines from both the ADA and KDIGO were already in place, recommending annual screening of patients with diabetes for both these parameters starting at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or 5 years following initial diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

“If you don’t screen, you won’t find it, and you won’t be able to treat,” Dr. Rossing warned. He also highlighted the panel’s recommendation to treat these patients with an SGLT2 inhibitor as long as their eGFR is at least 20 mL/min/1.73m2. Treatment can then continue even when their eGFR drops lower.

Starting treatment with finerenone requires that patients have a normal level of serum potassium, he emphasized.

One reason for developing the new ADA and KDIGO statement is that “discrepancies in clinical practice guideline recommendations from various professional organizations add to confusion that impedes understanding of best practices,” write Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and associates in a recent commentary.

The goal of the new statement is to harmonize and promote the shared recommendations of the two organizations, added Dr. Tuttle, who is executive director for research at Providence Healthcare, Spokane, Washington, and a KDIGO representative on the statement writing panel.

Dr. Mottl has reported being a consultant to Bayer. Dr. Rossing has reported being a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Vifor, as well as receiving research grants from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Coresh has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tuttle has reported being a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere.

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

Individuals with diabetes who experience COVID-19 are at increased risk for long COVID compared to individuals without diabetes, according to data from a literature review of seven studies.

Diabetes remains a risk factor for severe COVID-19, but whether it is a risk factor for postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), also known as long COVID, remains unclear, Jessica L. Harding, PhD, of Emory University, said in a late-breaking poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Long COVID is generally defined as “sequelae that extend beyond the 4 weeks after initial infection” and may include a range of symptoms that affect multiple organs, Dr. Harding said. A study conducted in January of 2022 suggested that type 2 diabetes was one of several strong risk factors for long COVID, she noted.

Dr. Harding and colleagues reviewed data from seven studies published from Jan. 1, 2020, to Jan. 27, 2022, on the risk of PASC in people with and without diabetes. The studies included patients with a minimum of 4 weeks’ follow-up after COVID-19 diagnosis. All seven studies had a longitudinal cohort design, and included adults from high-income countries, with study populations ranging from 104 to 4,182.

Across the studies, long COVID definitions varied, but included ongoing symptoms of fatigue, cough, and dyspnea, with follow-up periods of 4 weeks to 7 months.

Overall, three of the seven studies indicated that diabetes was a risk factor for long COVID (odds ratio [OR] greater than 4 for all) and four studies indicated that diabetes was not a risk factor for long COVID (OR, 0.5-2.2).

One of the three studies showing increased risk included 2,334 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19; of these about 5% had diabetes. The odds ratio for PASC for individuals with diabetes was 4.18. In another study of 209 persons with COVID-19, of whom 22% had diabetes, diabetes was significantly correlated with respiratory viral disease (meaning at least two respiratory symptoms). The third study showing an increased risk of long COVID in diabetes patients included 104 kidney transplant patients, of whom 20% had diabetes; the odds ratio for PASC was 4.42.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small number of studies and the heterogeneity of studies regarding definitions of long COVID, specific populations at risk, follow-up times, and risk adjustment, Dr. Harding noted.

More high-quality studies across multiple populations and settings are needed to determine if diabetes is indeed a risk factor for long COVID, she said.

In the meantime, “careful monitoring of people with diabetes for development of PASC may be advised,” Dr. Harding concluded.
 

Findings support need for screening

“Given the devastating impact of COVID on people with diabetes, it’s important to know what data has been accumulated on long COVID for future research and discoveries in this area,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview. “The more information we have, the better we can understand the implications.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Dr. Gabbay said he was surprised by the current study findings. “We know very little on this subject, so yes, I am surprised to see just how significant the risk of long COVID for people with diabetes seems to be, but clearly, more research needs to be done to understand long COVID,” he emphasized.

The take-home message for clinicians is the importance of screening patients for PASC; also “ask your patients if they had COVID, to better understand any symptoms they might have that could be related to PACS,” he noted. 

“It is crucial that we confirm these results and then look at risk factors in people with diabetes that might explain who is at highest risk and ultimately understand the causes and potential cure,” Dr. Gabbay added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Harding and Dr. Gabbay had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals with diabetes who experience COVID-19 are at increased risk for long COVID compared to individuals without diabetes, according to data from a literature review of seven studies.

Diabetes remains a risk factor for severe COVID-19, but whether it is a risk factor for postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), also known as long COVID, remains unclear, Jessica L. Harding, PhD, of Emory University, said in a late-breaking poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Long COVID is generally defined as “sequelae that extend beyond the 4 weeks after initial infection” and may include a range of symptoms that affect multiple organs, Dr. Harding said. A study conducted in January of 2022 suggested that type 2 diabetes was one of several strong risk factors for long COVID, she noted.

Dr. Harding and colleagues reviewed data from seven studies published from Jan. 1, 2020, to Jan. 27, 2022, on the risk of PASC in people with and without diabetes. The studies included patients with a minimum of 4 weeks’ follow-up after COVID-19 diagnosis. All seven studies had a longitudinal cohort design, and included adults from high-income countries, with study populations ranging from 104 to 4,182.

Across the studies, long COVID definitions varied, but included ongoing symptoms of fatigue, cough, and dyspnea, with follow-up periods of 4 weeks to 7 months.

Overall, three of the seven studies indicated that diabetes was a risk factor for long COVID (odds ratio [OR] greater than 4 for all) and four studies indicated that diabetes was not a risk factor for long COVID (OR, 0.5-2.2).

One of the three studies showing increased risk included 2,334 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19; of these about 5% had diabetes. The odds ratio for PASC for individuals with diabetes was 4.18. In another study of 209 persons with COVID-19, of whom 22% had diabetes, diabetes was significantly correlated with respiratory viral disease (meaning at least two respiratory symptoms). The third study showing an increased risk of long COVID in diabetes patients included 104 kidney transplant patients, of whom 20% had diabetes; the odds ratio for PASC was 4.42.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small number of studies and the heterogeneity of studies regarding definitions of long COVID, specific populations at risk, follow-up times, and risk adjustment, Dr. Harding noted.

More high-quality studies across multiple populations and settings are needed to determine if diabetes is indeed a risk factor for long COVID, she said.

In the meantime, “careful monitoring of people with diabetes for development of PASC may be advised,” Dr. Harding concluded.
 

Findings support need for screening

“Given the devastating impact of COVID on people with diabetes, it’s important to know what data has been accumulated on long COVID for future research and discoveries in this area,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview. “The more information we have, the better we can understand the implications.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Dr. Gabbay said he was surprised by the current study findings. “We know very little on this subject, so yes, I am surprised to see just how significant the risk of long COVID for people with diabetes seems to be, but clearly, more research needs to be done to understand long COVID,” he emphasized.

The take-home message for clinicians is the importance of screening patients for PASC; also “ask your patients if they had COVID, to better understand any symptoms they might have that could be related to PACS,” he noted. 

“It is crucial that we confirm these results and then look at risk factors in people with diabetes that might explain who is at highest risk and ultimately understand the causes and potential cure,” Dr. Gabbay added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Harding and Dr. Gabbay had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals with diabetes who experience COVID-19 are at increased risk for long COVID compared to individuals without diabetes, according to data from a literature review of seven studies.

Diabetes remains a risk factor for severe COVID-19, but whether it is a risk factor for postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), also known as long COVID, remains unclear, Jessica L. Harding, PhD, of Emory University, said in a late-breaking poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Long COVID is generally defined as “sequelae that extend beyond the 4 weeks after initial infection” and may include a range of symptoms that affect multiple organs, Dr. Harding said. A study conducted in January of 2022 suggested that type 2 diabetes was one of several strong risk factors for long COVID, she noted.

Dr. Harding and colleagues reviewed data from seven studies published from Jan. 1, 2020, to Jan. 27, 2022, on the risk of PASC in people with and without diabetes. The studies included patients with a minimum of 4 weeks’ follow-up after COVID-19 diagnosis. All seven studies had a longitudinal cohort design, and included adults from high-income countries, with study populations ranging from 104 to 4,182.

Across the studies, long COVID definitions varied, but included ongoing symptoms of fatigue, cough, and dyspnea, with follow-up periods of 4 weeks to 7 months.

Overall, three of the seven studies indicated that diabetes was a risk factor for long COVID (odds ratio [OR] greater than 4 for all) and four studies indicated that diabetes was not a risk factor for long COVID (OR, 0.5-2.2).

One of the three studies showing increased risk included 2,334 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19; of these about 5% had diabetes. The odds ratio for PASC for individuals with diabetes was 4.18. In another study of 209 persons with COVID-19, of whom 22% had diabetes, diabetes was significantly correlated with respiratory viral disease (meaning at least two respiratory symptoms). The third study showing an increased risk of long COVID in diabetes patients included 104 kidney transplant patients, of whom 20% had diabetes; the odds ratio for PASC was 4.42.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small number of studies and the heterogeneity of studies regarding definitions of long COVID, specific populations at risk, follow-up times, and risk adjustment, Dr. Harding noted.

More high-quality studies across multiple populations and settings are needed to determine if diabetes is indeed a risk factor for long COVID, she said.

In the meantime, “careful monitoring of people with diabetes for development of PASC may be advised,” Dr. Harding concluded.
 

Findings support need for screening

“Given the devastating impact of COVID on people with diabetes, it’s important to know what data has been accumulated on long COVID for future research and discoveries in this area,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview. “The more information we have, the better we can understand the implications.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Dr. Gabbay said he was surprised by the current study findings. “We know very little on this subject, so yes, I am surprised to see just how significant the risk of long COVID for people with diabetes seems to be, but clearly, more research needs to be done to understand long COVID,” he emphasized.

The take-home message for clinicians is the importance of screening patients for PASC; also “ask your patients if they had COVID, to better understand any symptoms they might have that could be related to PACS,” he noted. 

“It is crucial that we confirm these results and then look at risk factors in people with diabetes that might explain who is at highest risk and ultimately understand the causes and potential cure,” Dr. Gabbay added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Harding and Dr. Gabbay had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Ongoing research in patients with oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) so far suggests that a set of biomarkers in synovial fluid may help to predict which patients may be more likely to stay with persistent oligoarticular disease rather than progress to polyarticular disease, according to new research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year. Identifying biomarkers in synovial fluid or possibly serum could aid families and physicians in being more proactive in treatment protocols, said AnneMarie C. Brescia, MD, of Nemours Children’s Hospital in Wilmington, Del.

“JIA carries the risk of permanent joint damage and disability, which can result when joint involvement evolves from oligoarticular into a polyarticular course, termed extended oligoarticular disease,” Dr. Brescia told attendees. “Since disease progression increases the risk for disability, early prediction of this course is essential.”

This group – those whose oligoarticular disease will begin recruiting joints and ultimately become extended oligoarticular JIA – is “very important because they have been shown to have worse health-related quality of life and greater risk of needing a joint replacement than even polyarticular [JIA],” Dr. Brescia said. “So, our lab has really focused on trying to predict who will fall in this group.”

Melissa Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University in Indianapolis, was not involved in the study but agreed that having highly sensitive and specific biomarkers could be particularly helpful in clinical care.

“Biomarkers can help guide treatment decisions and help physicians and their patients share the decision-making about next choices and when to change,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization. “If a provider and parent know that their child has these markers in their serum or synovial fluid that may predict extension of their disease, then they may be more aggressive upfront with therapy.”

The study aimed to determine whether differential levels of synovial fluid proteins could be used to predict whether JIA would evolve into an extended course before it became clinically evident. Although early aggressive treatment is common with rheumatoid arthritis and can lead to remission, JIA treatment paradigms tend to be more reactive, Dr. Brescia said.

“It would be better to switch to proactive, that if we’re able to predict that this patient may have a more difficult course with extension to polyarticular, we could be prepared, we could inform the parents, and it would just help us have a more proactive approach,” she said.

The researchers used antibody arrays to detect the following inflammatory mediators in blinded samples: CD14, interleukin (IL)-1-alpha, IL-3, IL-5, IL-6, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and angiogenin. They analyzed 37 samples with persistent disease and 32 samples from disease that had not yet extended but would become extended in that patient. The samples came from patients who were taking no medicines or only NSAIDs. The researchers assessed the sensitivity and specificity of each biomarker. Sensitivity referred the biomarker’s ability to correctly indicate that the sample would extend, and specificity referred to the biomarker’s accuracy in determining that the disease in the sample would remain persistent.

Combining samples from cohorts at Nemours Children’s Health (14 persistent and 7 extended-to-be) and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital (23 persistent and 25 extended-to-be) yielded the following results:

“This is a work in progress,” Dr. Brescia said, “so hopefully you’ll hear about it next year.” In response to an attendee’s question, she said she believes identifying reliable biomarkers will eventually lead to refining treatment paradigms.

“I think it will at least change the guidance we can provide parents about making next choices and how quickly to accelerate to those next choices,” Dr. Brescia said. For example, if a child’s serum or synovial fluid has markers that show a very high likelihood of extension, the parent may decide to proceed to the next level medication sooner. “I do think it will push both parents and doctors to be a little more proactive instead of reactive when the poor patient comes back with 13 joints involved when they had just been an oligo for years.”

Dr. Oliver noted the promise of CD14 and IL-6 in potentially predicting which patients’ disease will stay persistent but cautioned that it’s still early in evaluating these biomarkers, especially with the limited patient samples in this study.

“I think these results are promising, and it’s great that there are groups out there working on this,” Dr. Oliver said. “Once we have a reliable, highly sensitive and specific biomarker, that will definitely help providers, parents, and patients be more informed.”

The research was supported by the Open Net Foundation, the Arthritis Foundation, Delaware Community Foundation, the Delaware Clinical and Translational Research (DE-CTR) ACCEL Program, the Nancy Taylor Foundation for Chronic Diseases, and CARRA. Dr. Brescia and Dr. Oliver have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ongoing research in patients with oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) so far suggests that a set of biomarkers in synovial fluid may help to predict which patients may be more likely to stay with persistent oligoarticular disease rather than progress to polyarticular disease, according to new research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year. Identifying biomarkers in synovial fluid or possibly serum could aid families and physicians in being more proactive in treatment protocols, said AnneMarie C. Brescia, MD, of Nemours Children’s Hospital in Wilmington, Del.

“JIA carries the risk of permanent joint damage and disability, which can result when joint involvement evolves from oligoarticular into a polyarticular course, termed extended oligoarticular disease,” Dr. Brescia told attendees. “Since disease progression increases the risk for disability, early prediction of this course is essential.”

This group – those whose oligoarticular disease will begin recruiting joints and ultimately become extended oligoarticular JIA – is “very important because they have been shown to have worse health-related quality of life and greater risk of needing a joint replacement than even polyarticular [JIA],” Dr. Brescia said. “So, our lab has really focused on trying to predict who will fall in this group.”

Melissa Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University in Indianapolis, was not involved in the study but agreed that having highly sensitive and specific biomarkers could be particularly helpful in clinical care.

“Biomarkers can help guide treatment decisions and help physicians and their patients share the decision-making about next choices and when to change,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization. “If a provider and parent know that their child has these markers in their serum or synovial fluid that may predict extension of their disease, then they may be more aggressive upfront with therapy.”

The study aimed to determine whether differential levels of synovial fluid proteins could be used to predict whether JIA would evolve into an extended course before it became clinically evident. Although early aggressive treatment is common with rheumatoid arthritis and can lead to remission, JIA treatment paradigms tend to be more reactive, Dr. Brescia said.

“It would be better to switch to proactive, that if we’re able to predict that this patient may have a more difficult course with extension to polyarticular, we could be prepared, we could inform the parents, and it would just help us have a more proactive approach,” she said.

The researchers used antibody arrays to detect the following inflammatory mediators in blinded samples: CD14, interleukin (IL)-1-alpha, IL-3, IL-5, IL-6, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and angiogenin. They analyzed 37 samples with persistent disease and 32 samples from disease that had not yet extended but would become extended in that patient. The samples came from patients who were taking no medicines or only NSAIDs. The researchers assessed the sensitivity and specificity of each biomarker. Sensitivity referred the biomarker’s ability to correctly indicate that the sample would extend, and specificity referred to the biomarker’s accuracy in determining that the disease in the sample would remain persistent.

Combining samples from cohorts at Nemours Children’s Health (14 persistent and 7 extended-to-be) and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital (23 persistent and 25 extended-to-be) yielded the following results:

“This is a work in progress,” Dr. Brescia said, “so hopefully you’ll hear about it next year.” In response to an attendee’s question, she said she believes identifying reliable biomarkers will eventually lead to refining treatment paradigms.

“I think it will at least change the guidance we can provide parents about making next choices and how quickly to accelerate to those next choices,” Dr. Brescia said. For example, if a child’s serum or synovial fluid has markers that show a very high likelihood of extension, the parent may decide to proceed to the next level medication sooner. “I do think it will push both parents and doctors to be a little more proactive instead of reactive when the poor patient comes back with 13 joints involved when they had just been an oligo for years.”

Dr. Oliver noted the promise of CD14 and IL-6 in potentially predicting which patients’ disease will stay persistent but cautioned that it’s still early in evaluating these biomarkers, especially with the limited patient samples in this study.

“I think these results are promising, and it’s great that there are groups out there working on this,” Dr. Oliver said. “Once we have a reliable, highly sensitive and specific biomarker, that will definitely help providers, parents, and patients be more informed.”

The research was supported by the Open Net Foundation, the Arthritis Foundation, Delaware Community Foundation, the Delaware Clinical and Translational Research (DE-CTR) ACCEL Program, the Nancy Taylor Foundation for Chronic Diseases, and CARRA. Dr. Brescia and Dr. Oliver have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ongoing research in patients with oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) so far suggests that a set of biomarkers in synovial fluid may help to predict which patients may be more likely to stay with persistent oligoarticular disease rather than progress to polyarticular disease, according to new research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year. Identifying biomarkers in synovial fluid or possibly serum could aid families and physicians in being more proactive in treatment protocols, said AnneMarie C. Brescia, MD, of Nemours Children’s Hospital in Wilmington, Del.

“JIA carries the risk of permanent joint damage and disability, which can result when joint involvement evolves from oligoarticular into a polyarticular course, termed extended oligoarticular disease,” Dr. Brescia told attendees. “Since disease progression increases the risk for disability, early prediction of this course is essential.”

This group – those whose oligoarticular disease will begin recruiting joints and ultimately become extended oligoarticular JIA – is “very important because they have been shown to have worse health-related quality of life and greater risk of needing a joint replacement than even polyarticular [JIA],” Dr. Brescia said. “So, our lab has really focused on trying to predict who will fall in this group.”

Melissa Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University in Indianapolis, was not involved in the study but agreed that having highly sensitive and specific biomarkers could be particularly helpful in clinical care.

“Biomarkers can help guide treatment decisions and help physicians and their patients share the decision-making about next choices and when to change,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization. “If a provider and parent know that their child has these markers in their serum or synovial fluid that may predict extension of their disease, then they may be more aggressive upfront with therapy.”

The study aimed to determine whether differential levels of synovial fluid proteins could be used to predict whether JIA would evolve into an extended course before it became clinically evident. Although early aggressive treatment is common with rheumatoid arthritis and can lead to remission, JIA treatment paradigms tend to be more reactive, Dr. Brescia said.

“It would be better to switch to proactive, that if we’re able to predict that this patient may have a more difficult course with extension to polyarticular, we could be prepared, we could inform the parents, and it would just help us have a more proactive approach,” she said.

The researchers used antibody arrays to detect the following inflammatory mediators in blinded samples: CD14, interleukin (IL)-1-alpha, IL-3, IL-5, IL-6, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and angiogenin. They analyzed 37 samples with persistent disease and 32 samples from disease that had not yet extended but would become extended in that patient. The samples came from patients who were taking no medicines or only NSAIDs. The researchers assessed the sensitivity and specificity of each biomarker. Sensitivity referred the biomarker’s ability to correctly indicate that the sample would extend, and specificity referred to the biomarker’s accuracy in determining that the disease in the sample would remain persistent.

Combining samples from cohorts at Nemours Children’s Health (14 persistent and 7 extended-to-be) and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital (23 persistent and 25 extended-to-be) yielded the following results:

“This is a work in progress,” Dr. Brescia said, “so hopefully you’ll hear about it next year.” In response to an attendee’s question, she said she believes identifying reliable biomarkers will eventually lead to refining treatment paradigms.

“I think it will at least change the guidance we can provide parents about making next choices and how quickly to accelerate to those next choices,” Dr. Brescia said. For example, if a child’s serum or synovial fluid has markers that show a very high likelihood of extension, the parent may decide to proceed to the next level medication sooner. “I do think it will push both parents and doctors to be a little more proactive instead of reactive when the poor patient comes back with 13 joints involved when they had just been an oligo for years.”

Dr. Oliver noted the promise of CD14 and IL-6 in potentially predicting which patients’ disease will stay persistent but cautioned that it’s still early in evaluating these biomarkers, especially with the limited patient samples in this study.

“I think these results are promising, and it’s great that there are groups out there working on this,” Dr. Oliver said. “Once we have a reliable, highly sensitive and specific biomarker, that will definitely help providers, parents, and patients be more informed.”

The research was supported by the Open Net Foundation, the Arthritis Foundation, Delaware Community Foundation, the Delaware Clinical and Translational Research (DE-CTR) ACCEL Program, the Nancy Taylor Foundation for Chronic Diseases, and CARRA. Dr. Brescia and Dr. Oliver have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Postpartum complications may go unrecognized in women who incur anal sphincter injuries during childbirth, a review of electronic medical records at one academic health system suggests.

In the first 3 months after delivery, few patients with an obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) had documented pelvic floor problems, compared with higher rates documented in medical literature, the researchers found.

“Lack of identified pelvic floor dysfunction in this population differs from the incidence in previously published data and may reflect lack of identification by obstetric providers,” the researchers reported. The findings “highlight a gap in health care that, when addressed, could significantly improve postpartum quality of life.”

The findings are scheduled to be presented at the annual scientific meeting of the American Urogynecologic Society and International Urogynecological Association.

Anal sphincter injuries occur in about 4.4% of vaginal deliveries and are the most common cause of anal incontinence in women of reproductive age.

For the new study, researchers reviewed records of 287 women who underwent a vaginal birth that resulted in an anal sphincter injury at five Ohio hospitals affiliated with Cleveland Clinic from 2013 to 2015.

Of those who met eligibility criteria, 209 (72.8%) were White, 262 (91.3%) were non-Hispanic, and 249 (86.8%) were aged 20-34 years. Most had an epidural (92%), did not require a blood transfusion (97.9%), did not develop a vaginal hematoma (98.9%), and did not have their injury repaired in an operating room (97.2%), the researchers reported.

Among pelvic floor disorders, urinary incontinence was not reported in 96% of patients, fecal incontinence was not reported in 97.1%, and pelvic organ prolapse was not reported in 99.3%. Most had no recorded complications from their lacerations (87.8%) or postpartum depression (92%), the researchers found.

However, a 2015 study found that, 12 weeks after delivery, women with OASIs commonly reported symptoms of incontinence, with 26% reporting urinary stress incontinence, 21.4% urinary urgency incontinence, 59% anal incontinence, and 15% fecal incontinence.

Depression was also seldom identified despite higher risk of mood disorders among women with OASI, the researchers found.

The team also examined interpregnancy intervals, defined as the time between a woman’s first vaginal delivery and conception of a subsequent pregnancy. Of 178 women for whom data were available, the median interval was 26.4 months (95% confidence interval, 23.7-29.9), similar to the median for births nationally.

Lead researcher Alexandra Nutaitis, DO, a resident in obstetrics and gynecology at Cleveland Clinic Akron General, said in an interview that it’s unclear whether physicians did not inquire about symptoms or didn’t record them. She noted that anal sphincter injuries are a “stigmatized topic.”
 

Not asked, not told

Carolyn Swenson, MD, an associate professor in urogynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said physicians in the study may have relied on patients to bring up their symptoms rather than using questionnaires to screen for problems.

“What we know is that if you don’t ask women about pelvic floor disorders, they often don’t tell you that they are experiencing symptoms,” said Dr. Swenson, who was not involved in the new research.

Dr. Swenson called for validated questionnaires to assess pelvic floor symptoms in postpartum patients.

Regarding interpregnancy intervals, Dr. Nutaitis said she would be surprised if women who experienced an OASI didn’t delay having another child longer than women who did not undergo that physical and psychological trauma – but other factors such as societal pressures may override any reluctance to proceed with another pregnancy.

Dr. Swenson said it’s possible that a subgroup of women who have severe complications, such as those with a fourth-degree tear, might put off having another child. However, more research is needed to find out, she said.

Dr. Nutaitis and Dr. Swenson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Postpartum complications may go unrecognized in women who incur anal sphincter injuries during childbirth, a review of electronic medical records at one academic health system suggests.

In the first 3 months after delivery, few patients with an obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) had documented pelvic floor problems, compared with higher rates documented in medical literature, the researchers found.

“Lack of identified pelvic floor dysfunction in this population differs from the incidence in previously published data and may reflect lack of identification by obstetric providers,” the researchers reported. The findings “highlight a gap in health care that, when addressed, could significantly improve postpartum quality of life.”

The findings are scheduled to be presented at the annual scientific meeting of the American Urogynecologic Society and International Urogynecological Association.

Anal sphincter injuries occur in about 4.4% of vaginal deliveries and are the most common cause of anal incontinence in women of reproductive age.

For the new study, researchers reviewed records of 287 women who underwent a vaginal birth that resulted in an anal sphincter injury at five Ohio hospitals affiliated with Cleveland Clinic from 2013 to 2015.

Of those who met eligibility criteria, 209 (72.8%) were White, 262 (91.3%) were non-Hispanic, and 249 (86.8%) were aged 20-34 years. Most had an epidural (92%), did not require a blood transfusion (97.9%), did not develop a vaginal hematoma (98.9%), and did not have their injury repaired in an operating room (97.2%), the researchers reported.

Among pelvic floor disorders, urinary incontinence was not reported in 96% of patients, fecal incontinence was not reported in 97.1%, and pelvic organ prolapse was not reported in 99.3%. Most had no recorded complications from their lacerations (87.8%) or postpartum depression (92%), the researchers found.

However, a 2015 study found that, 12 weeks after delivery, women with OASIs commonly reported symptoms of incontinence, with 26% reporting urinary stress incontinence, 21.4% urinary urgency incontinence, 59% anal incontinence, and 15% fecal incontinence.

Depression was also seldom identified despite higher risk of mood disorders among women with OASI, the researchers found.

The team also examined interpregnancy intervals, defined as the time between a woman’s first vaginal delivery and conception of a subsequent pregnancy. Of 178 women for whom data were available, the median interval was 26.4 months (95% confidence interval, 23.7-29.9), similar to the median for births nationally.

Lead researcher Alexandra Nutaitis, DO, a resident in obstetrics and gynecology at Cleveland Clinic Akron General, said in an interview that it’s unclear whether physicians did not inquire about symptoms or didn’t record them. She noted that anal sphincter injuries are a “stigmatized topic.”
 

Not asked, not told

Carolyn Swenson, MD, an associate professor in urogynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said physicians in the study may have relied on patients to bring up their symptoms rather than using questionnaires to screen for problems.

“What we know is that if you don’t ask women about pelvic floor disorders, they often don’t tell you that they are experiencing symptoms,” said Dr. Swenson, who was not involved in the new research.

Dr. Swenson called for validated questionnaires to assess pelvic floor symptoms in postpartum patients.

Regarding interpregnancy intervals, Dr. Nutaitis said she would be surprised if women who experienced an OASI didn’t delay having another child longer than women who did not undergo that physical and psychological trauma – but other factors such as societal pressures may override any reluctance to proceed with another pregnancy.

Dr. Swenson said it’s possible that a subgroup of women who have severe complications, such as those with a fourth-degree tear, might put off having another child. However, more research is needed to find out, she said.

Dr. Nutaitis and Dr. Swenson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Postpartum complications may go unrecognized in women who incur anal sphincter injuries during childbirth, a review of electronic medical records at one academic health system suggests.

In the first 3 months after delivery, few patients with an obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) had documented pelvic floor problems, compared with higher rates documented in medical literature, the researchers found.

“Lack of identified pelvic floor dysfunction in this population differs from the incidence in previously published data and may reflect lack of identification by obstetric providers,” the researchers reported. The findings “highlight a gap in health care that, when addressed, could significantly improve postpartum quality of life.”

The findings are scheduled to be presented at the annual scientific meeting of the American Urogynecologic Society and International Urogynecological Association.

Anal sphincter injuries occur in about 4.4% of vaginal deliveries and are the most common cause of anal incontinence in women of reproductive age.

For the new study, researchers reviewed records of 287 women who underwent a vaginal birth that resulted in an anal sphincter injury at five Ohio hospitals affiliated with Cleveland Clinic from 2013 to 2015.

Of those who met eligibility criteria, 209 (72.8%) were White, 262 (91.3%) were non-Hispanic, and 249 (86.8%) were aged 20-34 years. Most had an epidural (92%), did not require a blood transfusion (97.9%), did not develop a vaginal hematoma (98.9%), and did not have their injury repaired in an operating room (97.2%), the researchers reported.

Among pelvic floor disorders, urinary incontinence was not reported in 96% of patients, fecal incontinence was not reported in 97.1%, and pelvic organ prolapse was not reported in 99.3%. Most had no recorded complications from their lacerations (87.8%) or postpartum depression (92%), the researchers found.

However, a 2015 study found that, 12 weeks after delivery, women with OASIs commonly reported symptoms of incontinence, with 26% reporting urinary stress incontinence, 21.4% urinary urgency incontinence, 59% anal incontinence, and 15% fecal incontinence.

Depression was also seldom identified despite higher risk of mood disorders among women with OASI, the researchers found.

The team also examined interpregnancy intervals, defined as the time between a woman’s first vaginal delivery and conception of a subsequent pregnancy. Of 178 women for whom data were available, the median interval was 26.4 months (95% confidence interval, 23.7-29.9), similar to the median for births nationally.

Lead researcher Alexandra Nutaitis, DO, a resident in obstetrics and gynecology at Cleveland Clinic Akron General, said in an interview that it’s unclear whether physicians did not inquire about symptoms or didn’t record them. She noted that anal sphincter injuries are a “stigmatized topic.”
 

Not asked, not told

Carolyn Swenson, MD, an associate professor in urogynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said physicians in the study may have relied on patients to bring up their symptoms rather than using questionnaires to screen for problems.

“What we know is that if you don’t ask women about pelvic floor disorders, they often don’t tell you that they are experiencing symptoms,” said Dr. Swenson, who was not involved in the new research.

Dr. Swenson called for validated questionnaires to assess pelvic floor symptoms in postpartum patients.

Regarding interpregnancy intervals, Dr. Nutaitis said she would be surprised if women who experienced an OASI didn’t delay having another child longer than women who did not undergo that physical and psychological trauma – but other factors such as societal pressures may override any reluctance to proceed with another pregnancy.

Dr. Swenson said it’s possible that a subgroup of women who have severe complications, such as those with a fourth-degree tear, might put off having another child. However, more research is needed to find out, she said.

Dr. Nutaitis and Dr. Swenson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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