Endocrinology

Guidance from professional societies on how to handle the risk for pulmonary aspiration during general anesthesia or deep sedation for patients taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) continues to evolve, as does the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) labeling for the drugs. The changes can be challenging to keep up with, and endocrinologists seem to be making their own decisions based on clinical experience and their interpretations of the potential impact and value of the emerging information.

The latest FDA label change warns about the risk for pulmonary aspiration but notes “insufficient” data to inform recommendations to mitigate the risk in vulnerable patients. Yet, the latest multi-society guidance, led by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and based on consensus, not evidence, has nuanced advice for managing patients at risk.

Does the FDA’s label change make a difference regarding the multi-society guidance, which was published earlier? “The answer is no,” Girish Joshi, MD, vice chair, ASA Committee on Practice Parameters, told this news organization. “The concern of increased pulmonary aspiration in patients who are on GLP-1 receptor agonists has been known, and that concern still exists. So, we started with not an assumption but the premise that patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists are at a higher risk of aspiration during sedation, analgesia, and/or general anesthesia. The FDA basically confirms what we say in the guidance.”

Joshi, professor in the Anesthesiology and Pain Management Department at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, aimed to make the guidance, which was published simultaneously in several society journals, more implementable with a letter to the editor of Anesthesiology. The key, he said, is to identify patients at higher risk for aspiration; all others would follow treatment as usual.

The letter highlights three overarching recommendations and then expands upon them: Standardized preoperative assessment for risk for delayed gastric emptying (yes/no); selective preoperative care plan based on delayed gastric emptying assessment and shared decision-making; and on the day of the procedure, reassess for delayed gastric emptying and mitigate risk if there is clinical concern.

But it seems as though, for now, endocrinologists are managing these patients as they see fit, within the parameters of any institutional guidance requirements. Here is what they said about their practice:

Amy E. Rothberg, MD, DABOM, director of the Weight Management Program & Rewind at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, said, “I think it makes sense to inform our patients of the labeling and rare but potential adverse effects if they intend to undergo anesthesia for a scheduled procedure/surgery. There is never no risk of aspiration during anesthesia.”

“I find it a bit curious that ASA implies that those who experience GI side effects are more likely than those who do not to have this potential risk. I doubt there is evidence that those without GI side effects are necessarily ‘safer’ and a study to determine that is unlikely to take be conducted.”

“My institution does require a 1-week pause on GLP-1s for those undergoing anesthesia for surgery,” she added. “That’s not evidence-based either, but probably reduces the risk of aspiration during anesthesia — but I don’t know what the actual denominator is for aspiration in those who continued vs those who took a pause from GLP-1s. Pausing does certainly (anecdotally) increase the traffic of communications between physicians and their patients about what to do in the interval.”

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine and a clinical scholar at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said, “The FDA label change is a warning that really doesn’t say exactly who on GLP-1 RAs is at highest risk or what to do, and if any intervention has been shown to help. The ASA recommendations seem much more nuanced and practical, including point-of-care gastric ultrasound to see if there is retained food/fluid prior to surgery.”

“In my practice, I individualize what I say, depending on the person and the circumstance,” she said. “Mostly, I have people hold one dose before planned surgery, so they have been 10 days at least without a dose. But if worried about gastrointestinal symptoms or gastroparesis, I have them do a clear liquid diet for 24 hours presurgery. Or at least avoid heavy fat meals the day before.”

“There is a risk of aspiration with anything that slows gastric emptying — maybe even in patients with gastroparesis at baseline due to physiologic, not pharmacological, reasons — and anesthesiologists should be aware of the need to assess patients individually.”

Michael A. Weintraub, MD, of NYU Langone Health Diabetes & Endocrine Associates in New York City, observed, “The risk of a pulmonary aspiration event with GLP-1 medication is quite rare, but not zero. On the other hand, stopping the GLP-1 can cause hyperglycemia or rebound weight gain. Furthermore, it can become complicated to restart GLP1 dosing, particularly given the existing medication shortages.”

“In most cases, stopping a weekly GLP-1 medication 1 week prior to the procedure minimizes the risks of pulmonary aspiration and prevents any worsening hyperglycemia or weight gain,” he said. However, taking the drug 7 days prior to the procedure is optimal. “That way, they would be due for the next dose on the day of the procedure, and taking it the day following procedure minimizes disruption in their once-weekly regimen.”

Malini Gupta, MD, director of G2Endo Endocrinology & Metabolism, Memphis, Tennessee, advised that physicians weigh the risk of stopping the medication (which can cause a glycemic spike) vs risk for aspiration.

“In my opinion, all patients should follow a strict liquid diet or NPO status prior to a surgery to further decrease the risk of aspiration,” she said. “I generally hold the GLP-1 RA for a week before a surgery. If additional glycemic control is necessary, I will add to or adjust one of the patient’s other diabetes medications.”

Jaime Almandoz, MD, associate professor of medicine and medical director of the Weight Wellness Program in Dallas, said, “As endocrinologists, we typically rely on our anesthesia colleagues for guidance on perioperative management. In light of emerging guidelines for holding GLP-1 medications, we also recommend patients adopt a liquid diet 24 hours prior to surgery, along with the fasting protocol.”

“For those managing diabetes with GLP-1 therapies, it is crucial to establish a blood sugar management plan while off these medications, especially during fasting or postoperative periods, which can be further influenced by many factors, including nausea, pain medications, and antibiotics after the procedure.”

Joshi added that at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, “we do a huge number of cases using the same information. We identify patients who are at risk, and then we tell our proceduralists and our surgeons if they’re in the escalating phase of the dosing or if they have GI symptoms; don’t even schedule them as an elective case; wait till the escalation phase is over and then schedule them.”

“That way,” he said, “it becomes logistically easy to manage because the recommendation from the group is that patients who are at higher risk should receive a 24-hour liquid diet — the same as colonoscopy. But sometimes it can be challenging to do so.”

Joshi has received honoraria for consultation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Haisco-USA Pharmaceuticals. Gupta is on the speakers bureau for Amgen (Tepezza) and IBSA (Tirosint) and is a creative consultant for AbbVie. Almandoz serves on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim. The other experts declared no relevant relationships.
 

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

Guidance from professional societies on how to handle the risk for pulmonary aspiration during general anesthesia or deep sedation for patients taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) continues to evolve, as does the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) labeling for the drugs. The changes can be challenging to keep up with, and endocrinologists seem to be making their own decisions based on clinical experience and their interpretations of the potential impact and value of the emerging information.

The latest FDA label change warns about the risk for pulmonary aspiration but notes “insufficient” data to inform recommendations to mitigate the risk in vulnerable patients. Yet, the latest multi-society guidance, led by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and based on consensus, not evidence, has nuanced advice for managing patients at risk.

Does the FDA’s label change make a difference regarding the multi-society guidance, which was published earlier? “The answer is no,” Girish Joshi, MD, vice chair, ASA Committee on Practice Parameters, told this news organization. “The concern of increased pulmonary aspiration in patients who are on GLP-1 receptor agonists has been known, and that concern still exists. So, we started with not an assumption but the premise that patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists are at a higher risk of aspiration during sedation, analgesia, and/or general anesthesia. The FDA basically confirms what we say in the guidance.”

Joshi, professor in the Anesthesiology and Pain Management Department at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, aimed to make the guidance, which was published simultaneously in several society journals, more implementable with a letter to the editor of Anesthesiology. The key, he said, is to identify patients at higher risk for aspiration; all others would follow treatment as usual.

The letter highlights three overarching recommendations and then expands upon them: Standardized preoperative assessment for risk for delayed gastric emptying (yes/no); selective preoperative care plan based on delayed gastric emptying assessment and shared decision-making; and on the day of the procedure, reassess for delayed gastric emptying and mitigate risk if there is clinical concern.

But it seems as though, for now, endocrinologists are managing these patients as they see fit, within the parameters of any institutional guidance requirements. Here is what they said about their practice:

Amy E. Rothberg, MD, DABOM, director of the Weight Management Program & Rewind at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, said, “I think it makes sense to inform our patients of the labeling and rare but potential adverse effects if they intend to undergo anesthesia for a scheduled procedure/surgery. There is never no risk of aspiration during anesthesia.”

“I find it a bit curious that ASA implies that those who experience GI side effects are more likely than those who do not to have this potential risk. I doubt there is evidence that those without GI side effects are necessarily ‘safer’ and a study to determine that is unlikely to take be conducted.”

“My institution does require a 1-week pause on GLP-1s for those undergoing anesthesia for surgery,” she added. “That’s not evidence-based either, but probably reduces the risk of aspiration during anesthesia — but I don’t know what the actual denominator is for aspiration in those who continued vs those who took a pause from GLP-1s. Pausing does certainly (anecdotally) increase the traffic of communications between physicians and their patients about what to do in the interval.”

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine and a clinical scholar at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said, “The FDA label change is a warning that really doesn’t say exactly who on GLP-1 RAs is at highest risk or what to do, and if any intervention has been shown to help. The ASA recommendations seem much more nuanced and practical, including point-of-care gastric ultrasound to see if there is retained food/fluid prior to surgery.”

“In my practice, I individualize what I say, depending on the person and the circumstance,” she said. “Mostly, I have people hold one dose before planned surgery, so they have been 10 days at least without a dose. But if worried about gastrointestinal symptoms or gastroparesis, I have them do a clear liquid diet for 24 hours presurgery. Or at least avoid heavy fat meals the day before.”

“There is a risk of aspiration with anything that slows gastric emptying — maybe even in patients with gastroparesis at baseline due to physiologic, not pharmacological, reasons — and anesthesiologists should be aware of the need to assess patients individually.”

Michael A. Weintraub, MD, of NYU Langone Health Diabetes & Endocrine Associates in New York City, observed, “The risk of a pulmonary aspiration event with GLP-1 medication is quite rare, but not zero. On the other hand, stopping the GLP-1 can cause hyperglycemia or rebound weight gain. Furthermore, it can become complicated to restart GLP1 dosing, particularly given the existing medication shortages.”

“In most cases, stopping a weekly GLP-1 medication 1 week prior to the procedure minimizes the risks of pulmonary aspiration and prevents any worsening hyperglycemia or weight gain,” he said. However, taking the drug 7 days prior to the procedure is optimal. “That way, they would be due for the next dose on the day of the procedure, and taking it the day following procedure minimizes disruption in their once-weekly regimen.”

Malini Gupta, MD, director of G2Endo Endocrinology & Metabolism, Memphis, Tennessee, advised that physicians weigh the risk of stopping the medication (which can cause a glycemic spike) vs risk for aspiration.

“In my opinion, all patients should follow a strict liquid diet or NPO status prior to a surgery to further decrease the risk of aspiration,” she said. “I generally hold the GLP-1 RA for a week before a surgery. If additional glycemic control is necessary, I will add to or adjust one of the patient’s other diabetes medications.”

Jaime Almandoz, MD, associate professor of medicine and medical director of the Weight Wellness Program in Dallas, said, “As endocrinologists, we typically rely on our anesthesia colleagues for guidance on perioperative management. In light of emerging guidelines for holding GLP-1 medications, we also recommend patients adopt a liquid diet 24 hours prior to surgery, along with the fasting protocol.”

“For those managing diabetes with GLP-1 therapies, it is crucial to establish a blood sugar management plan while off these medications, especially during fasting or postoperative periods, which can be further influenced by many factors, including nausea, pain medications, and antibiotics after the procedure.”

Joshi added that at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, “we do a huge number of cases using the same information. We identify patients who are at risk, and then we tell our proceduralists and our surgeons if they’re in the escalating phase of the dosing or if they have GI symptoms; don’t even schedule them as an elective case; wait till the escalation phase is over and then schedule them.”

“That way,” he said, “it becomes logistically easy to manage because the recommendation from the group is that patients who are at higher risk should receive a 24-hour liquid diet — the same as colonoscopy. But sometimes it can be challenging to do so.”

Joshi has received honoraria for consultation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Haisco-USA Pharmaceuticals. Gupta is on the speakers bureau for Amgen (Tepezza) and IBSA (Tirosint) and is a creative consultant for AbbVie. Almandoz serves on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim. The other experts declared no relevant relationships.
 

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

Guidance from professional societies on how to handle the risk for pulmonary aspiration during general anesthesia or deep sedation for patients taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) continues to evolve, as does the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) labeling for the drugs. The changes can be challenging to keep up with, and endocrinologists seem to be making their own decisions based on clinical experience and their interpretations of the potential impact and value of the emerging information.

The latest FDA label change warns about the risk for pulmonary aspiration but notes “insufficient” data to inform recommendations to mitigate the risk in vulnerable patients. Yet, the latest multi-society guidance, led by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and based on consensus, not evidence, has nuanced advice for managing patients at risk.

Does the FDA’s label change make a difference regarding the multi-society guidance, which was published earlier? “The answer is no,” Girish Joshi, MD, vice chair, ASA Committee on Practice Parameters, told this news organization. “The concern of increased pulmonary aspiration in patients who are on GLP-1 receptor agonists has been known, and that concern still exists. So, we started with not an assumption but the premise that patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists are at a higher risk of aspiration during sedation, analgesia, and/or general anesthesia. The FDA basically confirms what we say in the guidance.”

Joshi, professor in the Anesthesiology and Pain Management Department at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, aimed to make the guidance, which was published simultaneously in several society journals, more implementable with a letter to the editor of Anesthesiology. The key, he said, is to identify patients at higher risk for aspiration; all others would follow treatment as usual.

The letter highlights three overarching recommendations and then expands upon them: Standardized preoperative assessment for risk for delayed gastric emptying (yes/no); selective preoperative care plan based on delayed gastric emptying assessment and shared decision-making; and on the day of the procedure, reassess for delayed gastric emptying and mitigate risk if there is clinical concern.

But it seems as though, for now, endocrinologists are managing these patients as they see fit, within the parameters of any institutional guidance requirements. Here is what they said about their practice:

Amy E. Rothberg, MD, DABOM, director of the Weight Management Program & Rewind at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, said, “I think it makes sense to inform our patients of the labeling and rare but potential adverse effects if they intend to undergo anesthesia for a scheduled procedure/surgery. There is never no risk of aspiration during anesthesia.”

“I find it a bit curious that ASA implies that those who experience GI side effects are more likely than those who do not to have this potential risk. I doubt there is evidence that those without GI side effects are necessarily ‘safer’ and a study to determine that is unlikely to take be conducted.”

“My institution does require a 1-week pause on GLP-1s for those undergoing anesthesia for surgery,” she added. “That’s not evidence-based either, but probably reduces the risk of aspiration during anesthesia — but I don’t know what the actual denominator is for aspiration in those who continued vs those who took a pause from GLP-1s. Pausing does certainly (anecdotally) increase the traffic of communications between physicians and their patients about what to do in the interval.”

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine and a clinical scholar at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said, “The FDA label change is a warning that really doesn’t say exactly who on GLP-1 RAs is at highest risk or what to do, and if any intervention has been shown to help. The ASA recommendations seem much more nuanced and practical, including point-of-care gastric ultrasound to see if there is retained food/fluid prior to surgery.”

“In my practice, I individualize what I say, depending on the person and the circumstance,” she said. “Mostly, I have people hold one dose before planned surgery, so they have been 10 days at least without a dose. But if worried about gastrointestinal symptoms or gastroparesis, I have them do a clear liquid diet for 24 hours presurgery. Or at least avoid heavy fat meals the day before.”

“There is a risk of aspiration with anything that slows gastric emptying — maybe even in patients with gastroparesis at baseline due to physiologic, not pharmacological, reasons — and anesthesiologists should be aware of the need to assess patients individually.”

Michael A. Weintraub, MD, of NYU Langone Health Diabetes & Endocrine Associates in New York City, observed, “The risk of a pulmonary aspiration event with GLP-1 medication is quite rare, but not zero. On the other hand, stopping the GLP-1 can cause hyperglycemia or rebound weight gain. Furthermore, it can become complicated to restart GLP1 dosing, particularly given the existing medication shortages.”

“In most cases, stopping a weekly GLP-1 medication 1 week prior to the procedure minimizes the risks of pulmonary aspiration and prevents any worsening hyperglycemia or weight gain,” he said. However, taking the drug 7 days prior to the procedure is optimal. “That way, they would be due for the next dose on the day of the procedure, and taking it the day following procedure minimizes disruption in their once-weekly regimen.”

Malini Gupta, MD, director of G2Endo Endocrinology & Metabolism, Memphis, Tennessee, advised that physicians weigh the risk of stopping the medication (which can cause a glycemic spike) vs risk for aspiration.

“In my opinion, all patients should follow a strict liquid diet or NPO status prior to a surgery to further decrease the risk of aspiration,” she said. “I generally hold the GLP-1 RA for a week before a surgery. If additional glycemic control is necessary, I will add to or adjust one of the patient’s other diabetes medications.”

Jaime Almandoz, MD, associate professor of medicine and medical director of the Weight Wellness Program in Dallas, said, “As endocrinologists, we typically rely on our anesthesia colleagues for guidance on perioperative management. In light of emerging guidelines for holding GLP-1 medications, we also recommend patients adopt a liquid diet 24 hours prior to surgery, along with the fasting protocol.”

“For those managing diabetes with GLP-1 therapies, it is crucial to establish a blood sugar management plan while off these medications, especially during fasting or postoperative periods, which can be further influenced by many factors, including nausea, pain medications, and antibiotics after the procedure.”

Joshi added that at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, “we do a huge number of cases using the same information. We identify patients who are at risk, and then we tell our proceduralists and our surgeons if they’re in the escalating phase of the dosing or if they have GI symptoms; don’t even schedule them as an elective case; wait till the escalation phase is over and then schedule them.”

“That way,” he said, “it becomes logistically easy to manage because the recommendation from the group is that patients who are at higher risk should receive a 24-hour liquid diet — the same as colonoscopy. But sometimes it can be challenging to do so.”

Joshi has received honoraria for consultation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Haisco-USA Pharmaceuticals. Gupta is on the speakers bureau for Amgen (Tepezza) and IBSA (Tirosint) and is a creative consultant for AbbVie. Almandoz serves on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim. The other experts declared no relevant relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO — A preview of much-anticipated updates to guidelines on managing thyroid disease in pregnancy shows key changes to recommendations in the evolving field, ranging from consideration of the chance of spontaneous normalization of thyroid levels during pregnancy to a heightened emphasis on shared decision-making and the nuances can factor into personalized treatment.

The guidelines, expected to be published in early 2025, have not been updated since 2017, and with substantial advances and evidence from countless studies since then, the new guidelines were developed with a goal to start afresh, said ATA Thyroid and Pregnancy Guidelines Task Force cochair Tim IM Korevaar, MD, PhD, in presenting the final draft guidelines at the American Thyroid Association (ATA) 2024 Meeting.

“Obviously, we’re not going to ignore the 2017 guidelines, which have been a very good resource for us so far, but we really wanted to start from scratch and follow a ‘blank canvas’ approach in optimizing the evidence,” said Korevaar, an endocrinologist and obstetric internist with the Division of Pharmacology and Vascular Medicine & Academic Center for Thyroid Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

The guidelines, developed through a collaborative effort involving a wide variety of related medical societies, involved 14 systematic literature reviews. While the pregnancy issues covered by the guidelines is extensive, key highlights include:
 

Management in Preconception

Beginning with preconception, a key change in the guidelines will be that patients with euthyroid thyroid peroxidase (TPO) antibodies, which can be indicative of thyroid dysfunction, routine treatment with levothyroxine is not recommended, based on new evidence from randomized trials of high-risk patients showing no clear benefit from the treatment. 

“In these trials, and across analyses, there was absolutely no beneficial effect of levothyroxine in these patients [with euthyroid TPO antibody positivity],” he said.

With evidence showing, however, that TPO antibody positivity can lead to subclinical or overt hypothyroidism within 1 or 2 years, the guidelines will recommend that TPO antibody–positive patients do have thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels tested every 3-6 months until pregnancy, and existing recommendations to test during pregnancy among those patients remain in place, Korevaar reported.

In terms of preconception subclinical hypothyroidism, the guidelines will emphasize the existing recommendation “to always strive to reassess” thyroid levels, and if subclinical hypothyroidism does persist, to treat with low-dose levothyroxine.
 

During Pregnancy

During pregnancy, the new proposed recommendations will reflect the important change that three key risk factors, including age over 30 years, having at least two prior pregnancies, and morbid obesity (body mass index [BMI] at least 40 kg/m²), previously considered a risk for thyroid dysfunction in pregnancy, should not, on their own, suggest the need for thyroid testing, based on low evidence of an increased risk in pregnancy.

Research on the issue includes a recent study from Korevaar’s team showing these factors to in fact have low predictability of thyroid dysfunction.

“We deemed that these risk differences weren’t really clinically meaningful (in predicting risk), and so we have removed to maternal age, BMI, and parity as risk factors for thyroid testing indications in pregnancy,” Korevaar said.

Factors considered a risk, resulting in recommended testing at presentation include a history of subclinical or clinical hypo- or hyperthyroidism, postpartum thyroiditis, known thyroid antibody positivity, symptoms of thyroid dysfunction or goiter, and other factors. 
 

Treatment for Subclinical Hypothyroidism in Pregnancy

Whereas current guidelines recommend TPO antibody status in determining when to consider treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism, the new proposed guideline will instead recommend treatment based on the timing of the diagnosis of the subclinical hypothyroidism, with consideration of treatment during the first trimester, but not in the second or third trimester, based on newer evidence of the absolute risk for pregnancy complications and randomized trial data.

“The recommendations are now to no longer based on TPO antibody status, but instead according to the timing of the diagnosis of subclinical hypothyroidism,” Korevaar said.

Based on the collective data, “due to the low risk, we do not recommend for routine levothyroxine treatment in the second or third trimester groups with TSH levels under 10 mU/L now.”

“However, for subclinical hypothyroidism diagnosed in the first trimester, the recommendation would be that you can consider levothyroxine treatment,” he said.

While a clear indication for treatment in any trimester is the presence of overt hypothyroidism, or TSH levels over 10 mU/L, Korevaar underscored the importance of considering nuances of the recommendations that may warrant flexibility, for instance among patients with borderline TSH levels.
 

Spontaneous Normalization of Thyroid Levels in Pregnancy

Another new recommendation addresses the issue of spontaneous normalization of abnormal thyroid function during pregnancy, with several large studies showing a large proportion of subclinical hypothyroidism cases spontaneously revert to euthyroidism by the third trimester — despite no treatment having been provided.

Under the important proposed recommendation, retesting of subclinical hypothyroidism is suggested within 3 weeks.

“The data shows that a large proportion of patients spontaneously revert to euthyroidism,” Korevaar said.

“Upon identifying subclinical hypothyroidism in the first trimester, there will be essentially two options that clinicians can discuss with their patient — one would be to consider confirmatory tests in 3 weeks or to discuss the starting the lower dose levothyroxine in the first trimester,” he said.

In terms of overt hypothyroidism, likewise, if patients have a TSH levels below 6 mU/L in pregnancy, “you can either consider doing confirmatory testing within 3 weeks, or discussing with the patient starting levothyroxine treatment,” Korevaar added.
 

Overt Hyperthyroidism

For overt hyperthyroidism, no significant changes from current guidelines are being proposed, with the key exception of a heightened emphasis on the need for shared decision-making with patients, Korevaar said.

“We want to emphasize shared decision-making especially for women who have Graves’ disease prior to pregnancy, because the antithyroid treatment modalities, primarily methimazole (MMI) and propylthiouracil (PTU), have different advantages and disadvantages for an upcoming pregnancy,” he said.

“If you help a patient become involved in the decision-making process, that can also be very helpful in managing the disease and following-up on the pregnancy.”

Under the recommendations, PTU remains the preferred drug in overt hyperthyroidism, due to a more favorable profile in terms of potential birth defects vs MMI, with research showing a higher absolute risk of 3% vs 5%.

The guidelines further suggest the option of stopping the antithyroid medications upon a positive pregnancy test, with the exception of high-risk patients.

Korevaar noted that, if the treatment is stopped early in pregnancy, relapse is not likely to occur until after approximately 3 months, or 12 weeks, at which time, the high-risk teratogenic period, which is between week 5 and week 15, will have passed.

Current guidelines regarding whether to stop treatment in higher-risk hyperthyroid patients are recommended to remain unchanged.
 

Thyroid Nodules and Cancer

Recommendations regarding thyroid nodules and cancer during pregnancy are also expected to remain largely similar to those in the 2017 guidelines, with the exception of an emphasis on simply considering how the patient would normally be managed outside of pregnancy. 

For instance, regarding the question of whether treatment can be withheld for 9 months during pregnancy. “A lot of times, the answer is yes,” Korevaar said.

Other topics that will be largely unchanged include issues of universal screening, definitions of normal and abnormal TSH and free T4 reference ranges and isolated hypothyroxinemia.
 

Steps Forward in Improving Updates, Readability

In addition to recommendation updates, the new guidelines are being revised to better reflect more recent evidence-based developments and user-friendliness.

“We have now made the step to a more systematic and replicable methodology to ensure for easier updates with a shorter interval,” Korevaar told this news organization.

“Furthermore, since 2006, the ATA guideline documents have followed a question-and-answer format, lacked recommendation tables and had none or only a few graphic illustrations,” he added. 

“We are now further developing the typical outline of the guidelines to improve the readability and dissemination of the guideline document.”

Korevaar’s disclosures include lectureship fees from IBSA, Merck, and Berlin Chemie.

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

CHICAGO — A preview of much-anticipated updates to guidelines on managing thyroid disease in pregnancy shows key changes to recommendations in the evolving field, ranging from consideration of the chance of spontaneous normalization of thyroid levels during pregnancy to a heightened emphasis on shared decision-making and the nuances can factor into personalized treatment.

The guidelines, expected to be published in early 2025, have not been updated since 2017, and with substantial advances and evidence from countless studies since then, the new guidelines were developed with a goal to start afresh, said ATA Thyroid and Pregnancy Guidelines Task Force cochair Tim IM Korevaar, MD, PhD, in presenting the final draft guidelines at the American Thyroid Association (ATA) 2024 Meeting.

“Obviously, we’re not going to ignore the 2017 guidelines, which have been a very good resource for us so far, but we really wanted to start from scratch and follow a ‘blank canvas’ approach in optimizing the evidence,” said Korevaar, an endocrinologist and obstetric internist with the Division of Pharmacology and Vascular Medicine & Academic Center for Thyroid Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

The guidelines, developed through a collaborative effort involving a wide variety of related medical societies, involved 14 systematic literature reviews. While the pregnancy issues covered by the guidelines is extensive, key highlights include:
 

Management in Preconception

Beginning with preconception, a key change in the guidelines will be that patients with euthyroid thyroid peroxidase (TPO) antibodies, which can be indicative of thyroid dysfunction, routine treatment with levothyroxine is not recommended, based on new evidence from randomized trials of high-risk patients showing no clear benefit from the treatment. 

“In these trials, and across analyses, there was absolutely no beneficial effect of levothyroxine in these patients [with euthyroid TPO antibody positivity],” he said.

With evidence showing, however, that TPO antibody positivity can lead to subclinical or overt hypothyroidism within 1 or 2 years, the guidelines will recommend that TPO antibody–positive patients do have thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels tested every 3-6 months until pregnancy, and existing recommendations to test during pregnancy among those patients remain in place, Korevaar reported.

In terms of preconception subclinical hypothyroidism, the guidelines will emphasize the existing recommendation “to always strive to reassess” thyroid levels, and if subclinical hypothyroidism does persist, to treat with low-dose levothyroxine.
 

During Pregnancy

During pregnancy, the new proposed recommendations will reflect the important change that three key risk factors, including age over 30 years, having at least two prior pregnancies, and morbid obesity (body mass index [BMI] at least 40 kg/m²), previously considered a risk for thyroid dysfunction in pregnancy, should not, on their own, suggest the need for thyroid testing, based on low evidence of an increased risk in pregnancy.

Research on the issue includes a recent study from Korevaar’s team showing these factors to in fact have low predictability of thyroid dysfunction.

“We deemed that these risk differences weren’t really clinically meaningful (in predicting risk), and so we have removed to maternal age, BMI, and parity as risk factors for thyroid testing indications in pregnancy,” Korevaar said.

Factors considered a risk, resulting in recommended testing at presentation include a history of subclinical or clinical hypo- or hyperthyroidism, postpartum thyroiditis, known thyroid antibody positivity, symptoms of thyroid dysfunction or goiter, and other factors. 
 

Treatment for Subclinical Hypothyroidism in Pregnancy

Whereas current guidelines recommend TPO antibody status in determining when to consider treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism, the new proposed guideline will instead recommend treatment based on the timing of the diagnosis of the subclinical hypothyroidism, with consideration of treatment during the first trimester, but not in the second or third trimester, based on newer evidence of the absolute risk for pregnancy complications and randomized trial data.

“The recommendations are now to no longer based on TPO antibody status, but instead according to the timing of the diagnosis of subclinical hypothyroidism,” Korevaar said.

Based on the collective data, “due to the low risk, we do not recommend for routine levothyroxine treatment in the second or third trimester groups with TSH levels under 10 mU/L now.”

“However, for subclinical hypothyroidism diagnosed in the first trimester, the recommendation would be that you can consider levothyroxine treatment,” he said.

While a clear indication for treatment in any trimester is the presence of overt hypothyroidism, or TSH levels over 10 mU/L, Korevaar underscored the importance of considering nuances of the recommendations that may warrant flexibility, for instance among patients with borderline TSH levels.
 

Spontaneous Normalization of Thyroid Levels in Pregnancy

Another new recommendation addresses the issue of spontaneous normalization of abnormal thyroid function during pregnancy, with several large studies showing a large proportion of subclinical hypothyroidism cases spontaneously revert to euthyroidism by the third trimester — despite no treatment having been provided.

Under the important proposed recommendation, retesting of subclinical hypothyroidism is suggested within 3 weeks.

“The data shows that a large proportion of patients spontaneously revert to euthyroidism,” Korevaar said.

“Upon identifying subclinical hypothyroidism in the first trimester, there will be essentially two options that clinicians can discuss with their patient — one would be to consider confirmatory tests in 3 weeks or to discuss the starting the lower dose levothyroxine in the first trimester,” he said.

In terms of overt hypothyroidism, likewise, if patients have a TSH levels below 6 mU/L in pregnancy, “you can either consider doing confirmatory testing within 3 weeks, or discussing with the patient starting levothyroxine treatment,” Korevaar added.
 

Overt Hyperthyroidism

For overt hyperthyroidism, no significant changes from current guidelines are being proposed, with the key exception of a heightened emphasis on the need for shared decision-making with patients, Korevaar said.

“We want to emphasize shared decision-making especially for women who have Graves’ disease prior to pregnancy, because the antithyroid treatment modalities, primarily methimazole (MMI) and propylthiouracil (PTU), have different advantages and disadvantages for an upcoming pregnancy,” he said.

“If you help a patient become involved in the decision-making process, that can also be very helpful in managing the disease and following-up on the pregnancy.”

Under the recommendations, PTU remains the preferred drug in overt hyperthyroidism, due to a more favorable profile in terms of potential birth defects vs MMI, with research showing a higher absolute risk of 3% vs 5%.

The guidelines further suggest the option of stopping the antithyroid medications upon a positive pregnancy test, with the exception of high-risk patients.

Korevaar noted that, if the treatment is stopped early in pregnancy, relapse is not likely to occur until after approximately 3 months, or 12 weeks, at which time, the high-risk teratogenic period, which is between week 5 and week 15, will have passed.

Current guidelines regarding whether to stop treatment in higher-risk hyperthyroid patients are recommended to remain unchanged.
 

Thyroid Nodules and Cancer

Recommendations regarding thyroid nodules and cancer during pregnancy are also expected to remain largely similar to those in the 2017 guidelines, with the exception of an emphasis on simply considering how the patient would normally be managed outside of pregnancy. 

For instance, regarding the question of whether treatment can be withheld for 9 months during pregnancy. “A lot of times, the answer is yes,” Korevaar said.

Other topics that will be largely unchanged include issues of universal screening, definitions of normal and abnormal TSH and free T4 reference ranges and isolated hypothyroxinemia.
 

Steps Forward in Improving Updates, Readability

In addition to recommendation updates, the new guidelines are being revised to better reflect more recent evidence-based developments and user-friendliness.

“We have now made the step to a more systematic and replicable methodology to ensure for easier updates with a shorter interval,” Korevaar told this news organization.

“Furthermore, since 2006, the ATA guideline documents have followed a question-and-answer format, lacked recommendation tables and had none or only a few graphic illustrations,” he added. 

“We are now further developing the typical outline of the guidelines to improve the readability and dissemination of the guideline document.”

Korevaar’s disclosures include lectureship fees from IBSA, Merck, and Berlin Chemie.

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

CHICAGO — A preview of much-anticipated updates to guidelines on managing thyroid disease in pregnancy shows key changes to recommendations in the evolving field, ranging from consideration of the chance of spontaneous normalization of thyroid levels during pregnancy to a heightened emphasis on shared decision-making and the nuances can factor into personalized treatment.

The guidelines, expected to be published in early 2025, have not been updated since 2017, and with substantial advances and evidence from countless studies since then, the new guidelines were developed with a goal to start afresh, said ATA Thyroid and Pregnancy Guidelines Task Force cochair Tim IM Korevaar, MD, PhD, in presenting the final draft guidelines at the American Thyroid Association (ATA) 2024 Meeting.

“Obviously, we’re not going to ignore the 2017 guidelines, which have been a very good resource for us so far, but we really wanted to start from scratch and follow a ‘blank canvas’ approach in optimizing the evidence,” said Korevaar, an endocrinologist and obstetric internist with the Division of Pharmacology and Vascular Medicine & Academic Center for Thyroid Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

The guidelines, developed through a collaborative effort involving a wide variety of related medical societies, involved 14 systematic literature reviews. While the pregnancy issues covered by the guidelines is extensive, key highlights include:
 

Management in Preconception

Beginning with preconception, a key change in the guidelines will be that patients with euthyroid thyroid peroxidase (TPO) antibodies, which can be indicative of thyroid dysfunction, routine treatment with levothyroxine is not recommended, based on new evidence from randomized trials of high-risk patients showing no clear benefit from the treatment. 

“In these trials, and across analyses, there was absolutely no beneficial effect of levothyroxine in these patients [with euthyroid TPO antibody positivity],” he said.

With evidence showing, however, that TPO antibody positivity can lead to subclinical or overt hypothyroidism within 1 or 2 years, the guidelines will recommend that TPO antibody–positive patients do have thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels tested every 3-6 months until pregnancy, and existing recommendations to test during pregnancy among those patients remain in place, Korevaar reported.

In terms of preconception subclinical hypothyroidism, the guidelines will emphasize the existing recommendation “to always strive to reassess” thyroid levels, and if subclinical hypothyroidism does persist, to treat with low-dose levothyroxine.
 

During Pregnancy

During pregnancy, the new proposed recommendations will reflect the important change that three key risk factors, including age over 30 years, having at least two prior pregnancies, and morbid obesity (body mass index [BMI] at least 40 kg/m²), previously considered a risk for thyroid dysfunction in pregnancy, should not, on their own, suggest the need for thyroid testing, based on low evidence of an increased risk in pregnancy.

Research on the issue includes a recent study from Korevaar’s team showing these factors to in fact have low predictability of thyroid dysfunction.

“We deemed that these risk differences weren’t really clinically meaningful (in predicting risk), and so we have removed to maternal age, BMI, and parity as risk factors for thyroid testing indications in pregnancy,” Korevaar said.

Factors considered a risk, resulting in recommended testing at presentation include a history of subclinical or clinical hypo- or hyperthyroidism, postpartum thyroiditis, known thyroid antibody positivity, symptoms of thyroid dysfunction or goiter, and other factors. 
 

Treatment for Subclinical Hypothyroidism in Pregnancy

Whereas current guidelines recommend TPO antibody status in determining when to consider treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism, the new proposed guideline will instead recommend treatment based on the timing of the diagnosis of the subclinical hypothyroidism, with consideration of treatment during the first trimester, but not in the second or third trimester, based on newer evidence of the absolute risk for pregnancy complications and randomized trial data.

“The recommendations are now to no longer based on TPO antibody status, but instead according to the timing of the diagnosis of subclinical hypothyroidism,” Korevaar said.

Based on the collective data, “due to the low risk, we do not recommend for routine levothyroxine treatment in the second or third trimester groups with TSH levels under 10 mU/L now.”

“However, for subclinical hypothyroidism diagnosed in the first trimester, the recommendation would be that you can consider levothyroxine treatment,” he said.

While a clear indication for treatment in any trimester is the presence of overt hypothyroidism, or TSH levels over 10 mU/L, Korevaar underscored the importance of considering nuances of the recommendations that may warrant flexibility, for instance among patients with borderline TSH levels.
 

Spontaneous Normalization of Thyroid Levels in Pregnancy

Another new recommendation addresses the issue of spontaneous normalization of abnormal thyroid function during pregnancy, with several large studies showing a large proportion of subclinical hypothyroidism cases spontaneously revert to euthyroidism by the third trimester — despite no treatment having been provided.

Under the important proposed recommendation, retesting of subclinical hypothyroidism is suggested within 3 weeks.

“The data shows that a large proportion of patients spontaneously revert to euthyroidism,” Korevaar said.

“Upon identifying subclinical hypothyroidism in the first trimester, there will be essentially two options that clinicians can discuss with their patient — one would be to consider confirmatory tests in 3 weeks or to discuss the starting the lower dose levothyroxine in the first trimester,” he said.

In terms of overt hypothyroidism, likewise, if patients have a TSH levels below 6 mU/L in pregnancy, “you can either consider doing confirmatory testing within 3 weeks, or discussing with the patient starting levothyroxine treatment,” Korevaar added.
 

Overt Hyperthyroidism

For overt hyperthyroidism, no significant changes from current guidelines are being proposed, with the key exception of a heightened emphasis on the need for shared decision-making with patients, Korevaar said.

“We want to emphasize shared decision-making especially for women who have Graves’ disease prior to pregnancy, because the antithyroid treatment modalities, primarily methimazole (MMI) and propylthiouracil (PTU), have different advantages and disadvantages for an upcoming pregnancy,” he said.

“If you help a patient become involved in the decision-making process, that can also be very helpful in managing the disease and following-up on the pregnancy.”

Under the recommendations, PTU remains the preferred drug in overt hyperthyroidism, due to a more favorable profile in terms of potential birth defects vs MMI, with research showing a higher absolute risk of 3% vs 5%.

The guidelines further suggest the option of stopping the antithyroid medications upon a positive pregnancy test, with the exception of high-risk patients.

Korevaar noted that, if the treatment is stopped early in pregnancy, relapse is not likely to occur until after approximately 3 months, or 12 weeks, at which time, the high-risk teratogenic period, which is between week 5 and week 15, will have passed.

Current guidelines regarding whether to stop treatment in higher-risk hyperthyroid patients are recommended to remain unchanged.
 

Thyroid Nodules and Cancer

Recommendations regarding thyroid nodules and cancer during pregnancy are also expected to remain largely similar to those in the 2017 guidelines, with the exception of an emphasis on simply considering how the patient would normally be managed outside of pregnancy. 

For instance, regarding the question of whether treatment can be withheld for 9 months during pregnancy. “A lot of times, the answer is yes,” Korevaar said.

Other topics that will be largely unchanged include issues of universal screening, definitions of normal and abnormal TSH and free T4 reference ranges and isolated hypothyroxinemia.
 

Steps Forward in Improving Updates, Readability

In addition to recommendation updates, the new guidelines are being revised to better reflect more recent evidence-based developments and user-friendliness.

“We have now made the step to a more systematic and replicable methodology to ensure for easier updates with a shorter interval,” Korevaar told this news organization.

“Furthermore, since 2006, the ATA guideline documents have followed a question-and-answer format, lacked recommendation tables and had none or only a few graphic illustrations,” he added. 

“We are now further developing the typical outline of the guidelines to improve the readability and dissemination of the guideline document.”

Korevaar’s disclosures include lectureship fees from IBSA, Merck, and Berlin Chemie.

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

First, there were “Ozempic babies.” Now, there is also Ozempic-before-baby.

Unplanned pregnancies are still regularly being reported among people using glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) drugs, and now fertility specialists are increasingly incorporating the medicines into preconception care plans.

The specialists say their colleagues in other areas of medicine may have an opportunity, too, to talk about weight loss using these new drugs in terms of reproductive health. Motivation and compliance can transform when the goal isn’t simply weight loss but having children.

“We have this really special moment to help patients be healthier, in order to be healthier for their kids,” said Christina Boots, MD, MSci, an associate professor of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. “And I think that’s also a very motivating moment. It may be hard to get up and go for a run to make my jeans fit better, but when I think about it in terms of, ‘this might someday help my future daughter,’ that is a whole different level of motivation.”

Discussing obesity treatment can be a delicate conversation, but one that would be beneficial to have with any patient of reproductive age. Here’s why, what to know about the current lengthy list of unknowns and risks, and some options for approaching the topic with patients.
 

What Fertility Docs Are Doing

While overweight and obesity are consistently linked to fertility and pregnancy outcomes, Boots predicts the biggest impact of GLP-1 weight loss for fertility among women will be a specific subset: Those who are not cycling regularly, such as those with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

“The women who are cycling regularly who have very unexplained infertility and no other comorbidities like high blood pressure or something else going on, I don’t think it’s going to help their fertility very much at all,” she said “It might, but I think there’s probably something else going on in her tubes or with her eggs or his sperm, but it has nothing to do with her metabolic health.

Women who aren’t cycling regularly will benefit, but those with truly unexplained fertility probably won’t, she said.

In their recent narrative review on treating obesity and fertility with GLP-1 RAs that appeared in Fertility and Sterility, Boots and co-author Alyse S. Goldberg, MD, an endocrinologist with the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, advocate for the use of GLP-1s as a go-to treatment for obesity as part of preconception care by reproductive endocrinologists, calling the drugs “the most effective, least invasive means of weight loss.”

The paper is timely and necessary because use of GLP-1s is only going to increase, Patricia Jimenez, MD, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, said in an email to this news organization.

“GLP-1 RAs are becoming a larger part of my practice. More patients are either using them already or interested in using them,” said Jimenez, who is board certified in reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, and obesity medicine. “I specifically see patients to discuss this and do prescribe antiobesity medications, not only GLP-1 RAs. Often this is with people with PCOS who are not planning to conceive soon or patients willing to delay fertility treatment [by] 3-6 months.”

Treating obesity is also important for women who are seeking in vitro fertilization, Boots said, because many IVF clinics have a body mass index cutoff of 40 kg/m².

Like Jimenez’s approach, Boots and Goldberg call for comprehensive obesity care beyond the use of medication, including nutritional counseling and mental health support. Those supports are important during the transition off of GLP-1 medications, which poses a risk for rapid weight regain. That’s even with the potential support of taking metformin, which Boots often prescribes as a bridge.

Semaglutide should be stopped at least 2 months prior to conception, and tirzepatide should be stopped 1 month prior to conception, according to the manufacturers. (Boots and Goldberg listed the Canadian label recommendation for stopping tirzepatide, noting there is no suggested timeline for stopping prior to conception on the US label.)

Numerous studies have shown rapid weight regain is common when stopping GLP-1s, which presents a unique set of risks for pregnant women including early pregnancy loss, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and nonelective cesarean delivery.
 

Weighing Risks, Benefits, and Unknowns

Early looks at small human data sets, mostly involving semaglutide and earlier short-acting GLP-1s, and their impact on the risk for birth defects are “reassuring,” Boots said.

“But birth defects are just one small aspect. There’s also metabolic health and things like that long-term. Understanding what it does to the growing baby and the proximity of that medication to that growing baby is really important to see, and can’t be answered with animal studies, not perfectly anyway,” Boots said.

There are no published reports, from clinical trials nor case collections, examining the use of tirzepatide among pregnant people.

“One of the most important questions we need to answer is the preconception safety of these medications, and that includes safety for men,” Joshua Halpern, MD, MS, an adjunct assistant professor of urology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, and chief scientific officer for Posterity Health, said in an email to this news organization.

“For example, a recent study found that men who were taking metformin, another popular medication for diabetes, were more likely to have children with birth defects, compared with those who were not taking the medication,” Halpern said. “Further studies are needed to determine whether a similar effect might hold true for the GLP-1 agonists.”

Small early studies on sperm are encouraging, Halpern said, suggesting that GLP-1 use may be beneficial, but a better understanding of direct effects is needed.

Among women, there may be cases where continuing use of a GLP-1 during pregnancy may offer benefits that outweigh risks, Boots suggested. Manufacturers have also created pregnancy exposure registries to measure the safety of their therapies during pregnancy.

“I have a group of patients whose sugars are so well controlled on these medications, but as soon as they come off, they get weight regain and their glucose is just so poorly controlled,” she said. “There may be a group of women where the benefits of glucose control outweigh the risks of being on the medication the whole pregnancy.”

The list of important unknowns also includes a need to examine how rapid weight loss may impact ovulation rates and spontaneous conception, as well as miscarriage rates, birth weight, and metabolic health of the child.

More detailed rebound weight gain data is coming next year, with additional analysis expected as well on birth weight and pregnancy outcomes, said Jacqueline Maya, MD, first author of the research abstract presented at this year’s American Diabetes Association conference that examined gestational weight gain among people with preexisting type 2 diabetes who were exposed to GLP-1s during pregnancy. The study included 47 exposed pregnancies (based on prescription records and electronic chart information) and compared gestational weight gain to 141 unexposed matched pregnancies. Among the exposed group, 62% exceeded recommended weight gain, compared with 41% in the unexposed group. On average, gestational weight gain in exposed pregnancies exceeded that among matched unexposed pregnancies by about 6 pounds.

The team is now working with an additional data set to examine exposed pregnancies among people with obesity, said Maya, an instructor of pediatrics at Mass General Hospital and Harvard School of Medicine. She is particularly interested in examining weight trajectories during pregnancy to see how they may affect fetal outcomes. Her team’s current project also will likely include analysis to examine other variables like postpartum weight gain and adiposity characteristics of the baby.

Maya said the team hopes to have more to report at the American Diabetes Association conference in June next year.
 

Offer the Conversation

Using a GLP-1 for weight loss takes time, usually around 1 year to reach a plateau. Boots encouraged nonfertility providers to ask patients of reproductive age about their family plans as an opening.

“I hope for all primary care doctors and gynecologists, that with any patient of reproductive age, you should be bringing this up, asking, ‘Have you thought about having kids? Are you thinking about it soon?’ And if they say they are sometime in the near future, then you can say, ‘Is it OK if I bring up your weight?’ And you should ask permission.”

If the patient declines, it’s OK to bring it up again at a future visit.

“People with obesity have often experienced negative weight bias that impacts their care,” Jimenez said. “Treat obesity as a disease, not a personal failing. Ask permission to discuss weight with the patient beforehand. If they say no, respect that answer. This goes a long way in developing a positive relationship, so they return for care and may be willing to discuss later.” 

When patients are open to the conversation, Boots suggests not focusing on the potential for poor outcomes, and instead perhaps saying, “If you’re thinking about having a baby in 5 years, optimizing your health now will not only make your pregnancy healthier, but your child healthier long-term.”

Discussing contraception plans remains important. People starting semaglutide or tirzepatide should use contraception other than oral birth control for 4 weeks while starting the medicine and for 4 weeks after each dose increase.

Boots said that the contraception conversation is particularly important because many people have come to deeply believe that they are infertile and, thus, may perhaps think contraception advice doesn’t apply to them. Maya hypothesized that behavioral changes following weight loss may also be a pathway toward pregnancy.

“Pregnancy while on GLP-1 RAs does happen. I always have a discussion about this possibility and contraception. This can sometimes be challenging for people with infertility to consider,” Jimenez said. “Explaining the risks, benefits, and unknowns can help. As the [Fertility and Sterility] paper describes, the limited data available has not shown increased fetal or maternal complications. We need more high quality data to better understand the impact of exposure or use around the time of conception and during pregnancy.”

It’s also important to introduce the idea to patients that they may someday need to come off the medications, such as when they are ready to have children, and how important lifestyle and behavioral changes will be at that time, Maya said.

“We do know what the alternative is, and we do know what the risks of obesity are,” she said. “So, it’s a tug and pull. We’re not starting off with healthy. We’re starting off with a disease that is physically and emotionally very difficult for the patient, especially when it starts in childhood.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

First, there were “Ozempic babies.” Now, there is also Ozempic-before-baby.

Unplanned pregnancies are still regularly being reported among people using glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) drugs, and now fertility specialists are increasingly incorporating the medicines into preconception care plans.

The specialists say their colleagues in other areas of medicine may have an opportunity, too, to talk about weight loss using these new drugs in terms of reproductive health. Motivation and compliance can transform when the goal isn’t simply weight loss but having children.

“We have this really special moment to help patients be healthier, in order to be healthier for their kids,” said Christina Boots, MD, MSci, an associate professor of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. “And I think that’s also a very motivating moment. It may be hard to get up and go for a run to make my jeans fit better, but when I think about it in terms of, ‘this might someday help my future daughter,’ that is a whole different level of motivation.”

Discussing obesity treatment can be a delicate conversation, but one that would be beneficial to have with any patient of reproductive age. Here’s why, what to know about the current lengthy list of unknowns and risks, and some options for approaching the topic with patients.
 

What Fertility Docs Are Doing

While overweight and obesity are consistently linked to fertility and pregnancy outcomes, Boots predicts the biggest impact of GLP-1 weight loss for fertility among women will be a specific subset: Those who are not cycling regularly, such as those with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

“The women who are cycling regularly who have very unexplained infertility and no other comorbidities like high blood pressure or something else going on, I don’t think it’s going to help their fertility very much at all,” she said “It might, but I think there’s probably something else going on in her tubes or with her eggs or his sperm, but it has nothing to do with her metabolic health.

Women who aren’t cycling regularly will benefit, but those with truly unexplained fertility probably won’t, she said.

In their recent narrative review on treating obesity and fertility with GLP-1 RAs that appeared in Fertility and Sterility, Boots and co-author Alyse S. Goldberg, MD, an endocrinologist with the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, advocate for the use of GLP-1s as a go-to treatment for obesity as part of preconception care by reproductive endocrinologists, calling the drugs “the most effective, least invasive means of weight loss.”

The paper is timely and necessary because use of GLP-1s is only going to increase, Patricia Jimenez, MD, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, said in an email to this news organization.

“GLP-1 RAs are becoming a larger part of my practice. More patients are either using them already or interested in using them,” said Jimenez, who is board certified in reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, and obesity medicine. “I specifically see patients to discuss this and do prescribe antiobesity medications, not only GLP-1 RAs. Often this is with people with PCOS who are not planning to conceive soon or patients willing to delay fertility treatment [by] 3-6 months.”

Treating obesity is also important for women who are seeking in vitro fertilization, Boots said, because many IVF clinics have a body mass index cutoff of 40 kg/m².

Like Jimenez’s approach, Boots and Goldberg call for comprehensive obesity care beyond the use of medication, including nutritional counseling and mental health support. Those supports are important during the transition off of GLP-1 medications, which poses a risk for rapid weight regain. That’s even with the potential support of taking metformin, which Boots often prescribes as a bridge.

Semaglutide should be stopped at least 2 months prior to conception, and tirzepatide should be stopped 1 month prior to conception, according to the manufacturers. (Boots and Goldberg listed the Canadian label recommendation for stopping tirzepatide, noting there is no suggested timeline for stopping prior to conception on the US label.)

Numerous studies have shown rapid weight regain is common when stopping GLP-1s, which presents a unique set of risks for pregnant women including early pregnancy loss, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and nonelective cesarean delivery.
 

Weighing Risks, Benefits, and Unknowns

Early looks at small human data sets, mostly involving semaglutide and earlier short-acting GLP-1s, and their impact on the risk for birth defects are “reassuring,” Boots said.

“But birth defects are just one small aspect. There’s also metabolic health and things like that long-term. Understanding what it does to the growing baby and the proximity of that medication to that growing baby is really important to see, and can’t be answered with animal studies, not perfectly anyway,” Boots said.

There are no published reports, from clinical trials nor case collections, examining the use of tirzepatide among pregnant people.

“One of the most important questions we need to answer is the preconception safety of these medications, and that includes safety for men,” Joshua Halpern, MD, MS, an adjunct assistant professor of urology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, and chief scientific officer for Posterity Health, said in an email to this news organization.

“For example, a recent study found that men who were taking metformin, another popular medication for diabetes, were more likely to have children with birth defects, compared with those who were not taking the medication,” Halpern said. “Further studies are needed to determine whether a similar effect might hold true for the GLP-1 agonists.”

Small early studies on sperm are encouraging, Halpern said, suggesting that GLP-1 use may be beneficial, but a better understanding of direct effects is needed.

Among women, there may be cases where continuing use of a GLP-1 during pregnancy may offer benefits that outweigh risks, Boots suggested. Manufacturers have also created pregnancy exposure registries to measure the safety of their therapies during pregnancy.

“I have a group of patients whose sugars are so well controlled on these medications, but as soon as they come off, they get weight regain and their glucose is just so poorly controlled,” she said. “There may be a group of women where the benefits of glucose control outweigh the risks of being on the medication the whole pregnancy.”

The list of important unknowns also includes a need to examine how rapid weight loss may impact ovulation rates and spontaneous conception, as well as miscarriage rates, birth weight, and metabolic health of the child.

More detailed rebound weight gain data is coming next year, with additional analysis expected as well on birth weight and pregnancy outcomes, said Jacqueline Maya, MD, first author of the research abstract presented at this year’s American Diabetes Association conference that examined gestational weight gain among people with preexisting type 2 diabetes who were exposed to GLP-1s during pregnancy. The study included 47 exposed pregnancies (based on prescription records and electronic chart information) and compared gestational weight gain to 141 unexposed matched pregnancies. Among the exposed group, 62% exceeded recommended weight gain, compared with 41% in the unexposed group. On average, gestational weight gain in exposed pregnancies exceeded that among matched unexposed pregnancies by about 6 pounds.

The team is now working with an additional data set to examine exposed pregnancies among people with obesity, said Maya, an instructor of pediatrics at Mass General Hospital and Harvard School of Medicine. She is particularly interested in examining weight trajectories during pregnancy to see how they may affect fetal outcomes. Her team’s current project also will likely include analysis to examine other variables like postpartum weight gain and adiposity characteristics of the baby.

Maya said the team hopes to have more to report at the American Diabetes Association conference in June next year.
 

Offer the Conversation

Using a GLP-1 for weight loss takes time, usually around 1 year to reach a plateau. Boots encouraged nonfertility providers to ask patients of reproductive age about their family plans as an opening.

“I hope for all primary care doctors and gynecologists, that with any patient of reproductive age, you should be bringing this up, asking, ‘Have you thought about having kids? Are you thinking about it soon?’ And if they say they are sometime in the near future, then you can say, ‘Is it OK if I bring up your weight?’ And you should ask permission.”

If the patient declines, it’s OK to bring it up again at a future visit.

“People with obesity have often experienced negative weight bias that impacts their care,” Jimenez said. “Treat obesity as a disease, not a personal failing. Ask permission to discuss weight with the patient beforehand. If they say no, respect that answer. This goes a long way in developing a positive relationship, so they return for care and may be willing to discuss later.” 

When patients are open to the conversation, Boots suggests not focusing on the potential for poor outcomes, and instead perhaps saying, “If you’re thinking about having a baby in 5 years, optimizing your health now will not only make your pregnancy healthier, but your child healthier long-term.”

Discussing contraception plans remains important. People starting semaglutide or tirzepatide should use contraception other than oral birth control for 4 weeks while starting the medicine and for 4 weeks after each dose increase.

Boots said that the contraception conversation is particularly important because many people have come to deeply believe that they are infertile and, thus, may perhaps think contraception advice doesn’t apply to them. Maya hypothesized that behavioral changes following weight loss may also be a pathway toward pregnancy.

“Pregnancy while on GLP-1 RAs does happen. I always have a discussion about this possibility and contraception. This can sometimes be challenging for people with infertility to consider,” Jimenez said. “Explaining the risks, benefits, and unknowns can help. As the [Fertility and Sterility] paper describes, the limited data available has not shown increased fetal or maternal complications. We need more high quality data to better understand the impact of exposure or use around the time of conception and during pregnancy.”

It’s also important to introduce the idea to patients that they may someday need to come off the medications, such as when they are ready to have children, and how important lifestyle and behavioral changes will be at that time, Maya said.

“We do know what the alternative is, and we do know what the risks of obesity are,” she said. “So, it’s a tug and pull. We’re not starting off with healthy. We’re starting off with a disease that is physically and emotionally very difficult for the patient, especially when it starts in childhood.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

First, there were “Ozempic babies.” Now, there is also Ozempic-before-baby.

Unplanned pregnancies are still regularly being reported among people using glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) drugs, and now fertility specialists are increasingly incorporating the medicines into preconception care plans.

The specialists say their colleagues in other areas of medicine may have an opportunity, too, to talk about weight loss using these new drugs in terms of reproductive health. Motivation and compliance can transform when the goal isn’t simply weight loss but having children.

“We have this really special moment to help patients be healthier, in order to be healthier for their kids,” said Christina Boots, MD, MSci, an associate professor of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. “And I think that’s also a very motivating moment. It may be hard to get up and go for a run to make my jeans fit better, but when I think about it in terms of, ‘this might someday help my future daughter,’ that is a whole different level of motivation.”

Discussing obesity treatment can be a delicate conversation, but one that would be beneficial to have with any patient of reproductive age. Here’s why, what to know about the current lengthy list of unknowns and risks, and some options for approaching the topic with patients.
 

What Fertility Docs Are Doing

While overweight and obesity are consistently linked to fertility and pregnancy outcomes, Boots predicts the biggest impact of GLP-1 weight loss for fertility among women will be a specific subset: Those who are not cycling regularly, such as those with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

“The women who are cycling regularly who have very unexplained infertility and no other comorbidities like high blood pressure or something else going on, I don’t think it’s going to help their fertility very much at all,” she said “It might, but I think there’s probably something else going on in her tubes or with her eggs or his sperm, but it has nothing to do with her metabolic health.

Women who aren’t cycling regularly will benefit, but those with truly unexplained fertility probably won’t, she said.

In their recent narrative review on treating obesity and fertility with GLP-1 RAs that appeared in Fertility and Sterility, Boots and co-author Alyse S. Goldberg, MD, an endocrinologist with the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, advocate for the use of GLP-1s as a go-to treatment for obesity as part of preconception care by reproductive endocrinologists, calling the drugs “the most effective, least invasive means of weight loss.”

The paper is timely and necessary because use of GLP-1s is only going to increase, Patricia Jimenez, MD, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, said in an email to this news organization.

“GLP-1 RAs are becoming a larger part of my practice. More patients are either using them already or interested in using them,” said Jimenez, who is board certified in reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, and obesity medicine. “I specifically see patients to discuss this and do prescribe antiobesity medications, not only GLP-1 RAs. Often this is with people with PCOS who are not planning to conceive soon or patients willing to delay fertility treatment [by] 3-6 months.”

Treating obesity is also important for women who are seeking in vitro fertilization, Boots said, because many IVF clinics have a body mass index cutoff of 40 kg/m².

Like Jimenez’s approach, Boots and Goldberg call for comprehensive obesity care beyond the use of medication, including nutritional counseling and mental health support. Those supports are important during the transition off of GLP-1 medications, which poses a risk for rapid weight regain. That’s even with the potential support of taking metformin, which Boots often prescribes as a bridge.

Semaglutide should be stopped at least 2 months prior to conception, and tirzepatide should be stopped 1 month prior to conception, according to the manufacturers. (Boots and Goldberg listed the Canadian label recommendation for stopping tirzepatide, noting there is no suggested timeline for stopping prior to conception on the US label.)

Numerous studies have shown rapid weight regain is common when stopping GLP-1s, which presents a unique set of risks for pregnant women including early pregnancy loss, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and nonelective cesarean delivery.
 

Weighing Risks, Benefits, and Unknowns

Early looks at small human data sets, mostly involving semaglutide and earlier short-acting GLP-1s, and their impact on the risk for birth defects are “reassuring,” Boots said.

“But birth defects are just one small aspect. There’s also metabolic health and things like that long-term. Understanding what it does to the growing baby and the proximity of that medication to that growing baby is really important to see, and can’t be answered with animal studies, not perfectly anyway,” Boots said.

There are no published reports, from clinical trials nor case collections, examining the use of tirzepatide among pregnant people.

“One of the most important questions we need to answer is the preconception safety of these medications, and that includes safety for men,” Joshua Halpern, MD, MS, an adjunct assistant professor of urology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, and chief scientific officer for Posterity Health, said in an email to this news organization.

“For example, a recent study found that men who were taking metformin, another popular medication for diabetes, were more likely to have children with birth defects, compared with those who were not taking the medication,” Halpern said. “Further studies are needed to determine whether a similar effect might hold true for the GLP-1 agonists.”

Small early studies on sperm are encouraging, Halpern said, suggesting that GLP-1 use may be beneficial, but a better understanding of direct effects is needed.

Among women, there may be cases where continuing use of a GLP-1 during pregnancy may offer benefits that outweigh risks, Boots suggested. Manufacturers have also created pregnancy exposure registries to measure the safety of their therapies during pregnancy.

“I have a group of patients whose sugars are so well controlled on these medications, but as soon as they come off, they get weight regain and their glucose is just so poorly controlled,” she said. “There may be a group of women where the benefits of glucose control outweigh the risks of being on the medication the whole pregnancy.”

The list of important unknowns also includes a need to examine how rapid weight loss may impact ovulation rates and spontaneous conception, as well as miscarriage rates, birth weight, and metabolic health of the child.

More detailed rebound weight gain data is coming next year, with additional analysis expected as well on birth weight and pregnancy outcomes, said Jacqueline Maya, MD, first author of the research abstract presented at this year’s American Diabetes Association conference that examined gestational weight gain among people with preexisting type 2 diabetes who were exposed to GLP-1s during pregnancy. The study included 47 exposed pregnancies (based on prescription records and electronic chart information) and compared gestational weight gain to 141 unexposed matched pregnancies. Among the exposed group, 62% exceeded recommended weight gain, compared with 41% in the unexposed group. On average, gestational weight gain in exposed pregnancies exceeded that among matched unexposed pregnancies by about 6 pounds.

The team is now working with an additional data set to examine exposed pregnancies among people with obesity, said Maya, an instructor of pediatrics at Mass General Hospital and Harvard School of Medicine. She is particularly interested in examining weight trajectories during pregnancy to see how they may affect fetal outcomes. Her team’s current project also will likely include analysis to examine other variables like postpartum weight gain and adiposity characteristics of the baby.

Maya said the team hopes to have more to report at the American Diabetes Association conference in June next year.
 

Offer the Conversation

Using a GLP-1 for weight loss takes time, usually around 1 year to reach a plateau. Boots encouraged nonfertility providers to ask patients of reproductive age about their family plans as an opening.

“I hope for all primary care doctors and gynecologists, that with any patient of reproductive age, you should be bringing this up, asking, ‘Have you thought about having kids? Are you thinking about it soon?’ And if they say they are sometime in the near future, then you can say, ‘Is it OK if I bring up your weight?’ And you should ask permission.”

If the patient declines, it’s OK to bring it up again at a future visit.

“People with obesity have often experienced negative weight bias that impacts their care,” Jimenez said. “Treat obesity as a disease, not a personal failing. Ask permission to discuss weight with the patient beforehand. If they say no, respect that answer. This goes a long way in developing a positive relationship, so they return for care and may be willing to discuss later.” 

When patients are open to the conversation, Boots suggests not focusing on the potential for poor outcomes, and instead perhaps saying, “If you’re thinking about having a baby in 5 years, optimizing your health now will not only make your pregnancy healthier, but your child healthier long-term.”

Discussing contraception plans remains important. People starting semaglutide or tirzepatide should use contraception other than oral birth control for 4 weeks while starting the medicine and for 4 weeks after each dose increase.

Boots said that the contraception conversation is particularly important because many people have come to deeply believe that they are infertile and, thus, may perhaps think contraception advice doesn’t apply to them. Maya hypothesized that behavioral changes following weight loss may also be a pathway toward pregnancy.

“Pregnancy while on GLP-1 RAs does happen. I always have a discussion about this possibility and contraception. This can sometimes be challenging for people with infertility to consider,” Jimenez said. “Explaining the risks, benefits, and unknowns can help. As the [Fertility and Sterility] paper describes, the limited data available has not shown increased fetal or maternal complications. We need more high quality data to better understand the impact of exposure or use around the time of conception and during pregnancy.”

It’s also important to introduce the idea to patients that they may someday need to come off the medications, such as when they are ready to have children, and how important lifestyle and behavioral changes will be at that time, Maya said.

“We do know what the alternative is, and we do know what the risks of obesity are,” she said. “So, it’s a tug and pull. We’re not starting off with healthy. We’re starting off with a disease that is physically and emotionally very difficult for the patient, especially when it starts in childhood.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Several types of anti-obesity medications (AOMs), including glucagon-like peptide 1s (GLP-1s), are associated with decreased alcohol use, new research suggests.

The findings, from surveys of more than 14,000 participants in WeightWatchers’ telehealth weight management program, were presented on November 6 at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2024 meeting by the company’s Chief Nutrition Officer, Michelle I. Cardel, PhD, RD, based in Gainesville, Florida.

Similar reductions in alcohol consumption were seen in people taking different classes of AOMs, suggesting “an additional mechanism by which AOMs reduce energy intake, and also signal a potential role for these medications to reduce alcohol use,” Cardel said, adding “Clinicians treating individuals for obesity may consider anti-obesity medications particularly among those who report higher alcohol intake.”

Asked to comment, session moderator and obesity researcher Joseph A. Skelton, MD, professor of pediatrics at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said, “I think there are some overlapping pathways there, possibly a reward system or something like that in the brain. I don’t think we know exactly what the end result will be as a potential use of the medications. But there’s a signal that needs to be investigated more.”

Cardel noted that there was one previous large cohort study finding that semaglutide was associated with a lower risk for alcohol use disorder, and another study that analyzed social media threads of people saying they’d quit drinking after starting a GLP-1 drug. But this new study is the first to examine the relationship with different classes of AOMs and to quantify the amount of alcohol consumed.
 

About Half Reported Reduced Alcohol Consumption, Regardless the AOM Class

The study included 14,053 WeightWatchers’ telehealth program participants who initiated an AOM between January 2022 and August 2023 and refilled the same AOM between October and November 2023. Those who had previously used AOMs before coming to the program or who had undergone bariatric surgery were excluded.

Participants had a mean age of 43 years, were 86% women, were 60% White, and had a mean body mass index of 36. They were surveyed about their weekly alcohol use prior to AOM initiation and again at the time of AOM refill.

At baseline, they were divided into categories of 0 (no alcohol use; n = 6562), category 1 (one to three drinks for women and one to six for men; n = 5948), category 2 (4-6 for women and 7-14 for men; n = 1216), and category 3 (≥ 7 for women and ≥ 15 for men; n = 327).

At the second survey, 24% reported decreased drinking after starting an AOM, 71% reported no change, and 4% reported increased drinking (P < .0001). But when just the 7491 individuals who reported any alcohol use at baseline were included, 45% reported decreased drinking after starting an AOM, 52% reported no change, and only 2% reported increased drinking.

The decrease in drinking with AOM use rose with greater alcohol use at baseline, from 37% for category 1, 76% for category 2, and 91% for category 3. The proportions reporting increased drinking were just 3%, 1%, and 0%, respectively. The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for decreasing drinking were 5.97 for category 2 (P < .0001) and 19.18 for category 3 (P < .0001) vs category 1.

The proportions reporting reduced drinking were similar across AOM classes: 51% for metformin, 46% for bupropion/naltrexone, 46% for first-generation GLP-1s (Saxenda, Trulicity, and Victoza), and 45% for the second-generation GLP-1 drugs (Mounjaro, Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy, and Zepbound). All were statistically significant at P < .0001.

The highest proportion reporting increased drinking was 4% for bupropion/naltrexone. Compared with women, men were significantly more likely to report decreased drinking with AOM use (adjusted OR, 0.74; P < .001), but there were no differences by race/ethnicity or age.

Compared with those who had overweight, those in obesity classes I, II, and III were all more likely to decrease drinking with AOM use, with adjusted ORs of 1.26 (P = .0045), 1.49 (P < .001), and 1.63 (P < .001), respectively.
 

Mechanisms Appear Both Biological and Behavioral

During the discussion, Cardel said that qualitative assessments with participants suggest that there are at least two mechanisms behind this phenomenon: One biological and the other intentional.

“What we hear from them is twofold, one, particularly amongst those folks on GLP-1 medications, we’re hearing that physiologically, they feel different with the medications, that their cravings for alcohol are decreased, and that when they do choose to drink that there’s often a very much a negative reinforcement ... I’ve had a patient tell me, ‘I used to be able to have two or three margaritas, and maybe I didn’t feel like the best I’d ever felt in the morning, but I was okay. And now if I have two or three drinks, I will be throwing up for 5 hours, and it’s the worst hangover I’ve ever had in my life.’ And so it very much creates that negative reinforcement loop.”

But at the same time, “folks who are coming to us and seeking these medications are very much on a on a health-based journey. That’s what they tell us. The majority of our patients are there to improve their health. We rarely hear about the vanity or aesthetic part of it. So perhaps it’s that, in terms of trying to improve their health, they’re also trying to reduce their alcohol consumption, either just for their overall health or also as a means of trying to decrease their overall calorie consumption.”

In future research, Cardel said, “we want to examine whether the anti-obesity medications are more successful at reducing alcohol use compared to non-pharmacological weight management interventions, as we know that people often reduce their alcohol consumption on a weight management journey as a means of prioritizing their calories for food and decreasing the calories from alcohol.”

Cardel and all the study coauthors were employees and shareholders at WeightWatchers at the time the research was conducted. Skelton is editor in chief of the journal Childhood Obesity.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Several types of anti-obesity medications (AOMs), including glucagon-like peptide 1s (GLP-1s), are associated with decreased alcohol use, new research suggests.

The findings, from surveys of more than 14,000 participants in WeightWatchers’ telehealth weight management program, were presented on November 6 at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2024 meeting by the company’s Chief Nutrition Officer, Michelle I. Cardel, PhD, RD, based in Gainesville, Florida.

Similar reductions in alcohol consumption were seen in people taking different classes of AOMs, suggesting “an additional mechanism by which AOMs reduce energy intake, and also signal a potential role for these medications to reduce alcohol use,” Cardel said, adding “Clinicians treating individuals for obesity may consider anti-obesity medications particularly among those who report higher alcohol intake.”

Asked to comment, session moderator and obesity researcher Joseph A. Skelton, MD, professor of pediatrics at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said, “I think there are some overlapping pathways there, possibly a reward system or something like that in the brain. I don’t think we know exactly what the end result will be as a potential use of the medications. But there’s a signal that needs to be investigated more.”

Cardel noted that there was one previous large cohort study finding that semaglutide was associated with a lower risk for alcohol use disorder, and another study that analyzed social media threads of people saying they’d quit drinking after starting a GLP-1 drug. But this new study is the first to examine the relationship with different classes of AOMs and to quantify the amount of alcohol consumed.
 

About Half Reported Reduced Alcohol Consumption, Regardless the AOM Class

The study included 14,053 WeightWatchers’ telehealth program participants who initiated an AOM between January 2022 and August 2023 and refilled the same AOM between October and November 2023. Those who had previously used AOMs before coming to the program or who had undergone bariatric surgery were excluded.

Participants had a mean age of 43 years, were 86% women, were 60% White, and had a mean body mass index of 36. They were surveyed about their weekly alcohol use prior to AOM initiation and again at the time of AOM refill.

At baseline, they were divided into categories of 0 (no alcohol use; n = 6562), category 1 (one to three drinks for women and one to six for men; n = 5948), category 2 (4-6 for women and 7-14 for men; n = 1216), and category 3 (≥ 7 for women and ≥ 15 for men; n = 327).

At the second survey, 24% reported decreased drinking after starting an AOM, 71% reported no change, and 4% reported increased drinking (P < .0001). But when just the 7491 individuals who reported any alcohol use at baseline were included, 45% reported decreased drinking after starting an AOM, 52% reported no change, and only 2% reported increased drinking.

The decrease in drinking with AOM use rose with greater alcohol use at baseline, from 37% for category 1, 76% for category 2, and 91% for category 3. The proportions reporting increased drinking were just 3%, 1%, and 0%, respectively. The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for decreasing drinking were 5.97 for category 2 (P < .0001) and 19.18 for category 3 (P < .0001) vs category 1.

The proportions reporting reduced drinking were similar across AOM classes: 51% for metformin, 46% for bupropion/naltrexone, 46% for first-generation GLP-1s (Saxenda, Trulicity, and Victoza), and 45% for the second-generation GLP-1 drugs (Mounjaro, Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy, and Zepbound). All were statistically significant at P < .0001.

The highest proportion reporting increased drinking was 4% for bupropion/naltrexone. Compared with women, men were significantly more likely to report decreased drinking with AOM use (adjusted OR, 0.74; P < .001), but there were no differences by race/ethnicity or age.

Compared with those who had overweight, those in obesity classes I, II, and III were all more likely to decrease drinking with AOM use, with adjusted ORs of 1.26 (P = .0045), 1.49 (P < .001), and 1.63 (P < .001), respectively.
 

Mechanisms Appear Both Biological and Behavioral

During the discussion, Cardel said that qualitative assessments with participants suggest that there are at least two mechanisms behind this phenomenon: One biological and the other intentional.

“What we hear from them is twofold, one, particularly amongst those folks on GLP-1 medications, we’re hearing that physiologically, they feel different with the medications, that their cravings for alcohol are decreased, and that when they do choose to drink that there’s often a very much a negative reinforcement ... I’ve had a patient tell me, ‘I used to be able to have two or three margaritas, and maybe I didn’t feel like the best I’d ever felt in the morning, but I was okay. And now if I have two or three drinks, I will be throwing up for 5 hours, and it’s the worst hangover I’ve ever had in my life.’ And so it very much creates that negative reinforcement loop.”

But at the same time, “folks who are coming to us and seeking these medications are very much on a on a health-based journey. That’s what they tell us. The majority of our patients are there to improve their health. We rarely hear about the vanity or aesthetic part of it. So perhaps it’s that, in terms of trying to improve their health, they’re also trying to reduce their alcohol consumption, either just for their overall health or also as a means of trying to decrease their overall calorie consumption.”

In future research, Cardel said, “we want to examine whether the anti-obesity medications are more successful at reducing alcohol use compared to non-pharmacological weight management interventions, as we know that people often reduce their alcohol consumption on a weight management journey as a means of prioritizing their calories for food and decreasing the calories from alcohol.”

Cardel and all the study coauthors were employees and shareholders at WeightWatchers at the time the research was conducted. Skelton is editor in chief of the journal Childhood Obesity.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Several types of anti-obesity medications (AOMs), including glucagon-like peptide 1s (GLP-1s), are associated with decreased alcohol use, new research suggests.

The findings, from surveys of more than 14,000 participants in WeightWatchers’ telehealth weight management program, were presented on November 6 at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2024 meeting by the company’s Chief Nutrition Officer, Michelle I. Cardel, PhD, RD, based in Gainesville, Florida.

Similar reductions in alcohol consumption were seen in people taking different classes of AOMs, suggesting “an additional mechanism by which AOMs reduce energy intake, and also signal a potential role for these medications to reduce alcohol use,” Cardel said, adding “Clinicians treating individuals for obesity may consider anti-obesity medications particularly among those who report higher alcohol intake.”

Asked to comment, session moderator and obesity researcher Joseph A. Skelton, MD, professor of pediatrics at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said, “I think there are some overlapping pathways there, possibly a reward system or something like that in the brain. I don’t think we know exactly what the end result will be as a potential use of the medications. But there’s a signal that needs to be investigated more.”

Cardel noted that there was one previous large cohort study finding that semaglutide was associated with a lower risk for alcohol use disorder, and another study that analyzed social media threads of people saying they’d quit drinking after starting a GLP-1 drug. But this new study is the first to examine the relationship with different classes of AOMs and to quantify the amount of alcohol consumed.
 

About Half Reported Reduced Alcohol Consumption, Regardless the AOM Class

The study included 14,053 WeightWatchers’ telehealth program participants who initiated an AOM between January 2022 and August 2023 and refilled the same AOM between October and November 2023. Those who had previously used AOMs before coming to the program or who had undergone bariatric surgery were excluded.

Participants had a mean age of 43 years, were 86% women, were 60% White, and had a mean body mass index of 36. They were surveyed about their weekly alcohol use prior to AOM initiation and again at the time of AOM refill.

At baseline, they were divided into categories of 0 (no alcohol use; n = 6562), category 1 (one to three drinks for women and one to six for men; n = 5948), category 2 (4-6 for women and 7-14 for men; n = 1216), and category 3 (≥ 7 for women and ≥ 15 for men; n = 327).

At the second survey, 24% reported decreased drinking after starting an AOM, 71% reported no change, and 4% reported increased drinking (P < .0001). But when just the 7491 individuals who reported any alcohol use at baseline were included, 45% reported decreased drinking after starting an AOM, 52% reported no change, and only 2% reported increased drinking.

The decrease in drinking with AOM use rose with greater alcohol use at baseline, from 37% for category 1, 76% for category 2, and 91% for category 3. The proportions reporting increased drinking were just 3%, 1%, and 0%, respectively. The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for decreasing drinking were 5.97 for category 2 (P < .0001) and 19.18 for category 3 (P < .0001) vs category 1.

The proportions reporting reduced drinking were similar across AOM classes: 51% for metformin, 46% for bupropion/naltrexone, 46% for first-generation GLP-1s (Saxenda, Trulicity, and Victoza), and 45% for the second-generation GLP-1 drugs (Mounjaro, Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy, and Zepbound). All were statistically significant at P < .0001.

The highest proportion reporting increased drinking was 4% for bupropion/naltrexone. Compared with women, men were significantly more likely to report decreased drinking with AOM use (adjusted OR, 0.74; P < .001), but there were no differences by race/ethnicity or age.

Compared with those who had overweight, those in obesity classes I, II, and III were all more likely to decrease drinking with AOM use, with adjusted ORs of 1.26 (P = .0045), 1.49 (P < .001), and 1.63 (P < .001), respectively.
 

Mechanisms Appear Both Biological and Behavioral

During the discussion, Cardel said that qualitative assessments with participants suggest that there are at least two mechanisms behind this phenomenon: One biological and the other intentional.

“What we hear from them is twofold, one, particularly amongst those folks on GLP-1 medications, we’re hearing that physiologically, they feel different with the medications, that their cravings for alcohol are decreased, and that when they do choose to drink that there’s often a very much a negative reinforcement ... I’ve had a patient tell me, ‘I used to be able to have two or three margaritas, and maybe I didn’t feel like the best I’d ever felt in the morning, but I was okay. And now if I have two or three drinks, I will be throwing up for 5 hours, and it’s the worst hangover I’ve ever had in my life.’ And so it very much creates that negative reinforcement loop.”

But at the same time, “folks who are coming to us and seeking these medications are very much on a on a health-based journey. That’s what they tell us. The majority of our patients are there to improve their health. We rarely hear about the vanity or aesthetic part of it. So perhaps it’s that, in terms of trying to improve their health, they’re also trying to reduce their alcohol consumption, either just for their overall health or also as a means of trying to decrease their overall calorie consumption.”

In future research, Cardel said, “we want to examine whether the anti-obesity medications are more successful at reducing alcohol use compared to non-pharmacological weight management interventions, as we know that people often reduce their alcohol consumption on a weight management journey as a means of prioritizing their calories for food and decreasing the calories from alcohol.”

Cardel and all the study coauthors were employees and shareholders at WeightWatchers at the time the research was conducted. Skelton is editor in chief of the journal Childhood Obesity.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS — An upcoming document will entirely reframe obesity as a “condition of excess adiposity” that constitutes a disease called “clinical obesity” when related tissue and organ abnormalities are present.

The authors of the new framework are a Lancet Commission of 56 of the world’s leading obesity experts, including academic clinicians, scientists, public health experts, patient representatives, and officers from the World Health Organization. Following peer review, it will be launched via livestream and published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology in mid-January 2025, with formal endorsement from more than 75 medical societies and other relevant stakeholder organizations.

On November 4, 2024, at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week meeting, the publication’s lead author, Francesco Rubino, MD, Chair of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery at King’s College London in England, gave a preview. He began by noting that, despite the declaration of obesity as a chronic disease over a decade ago, the concept is still debated and not widely accepted by the public or even by all in the medical community.

“The idea of obesity as a disease remains highly controversial,” Rubino noted, adding that the current body mass index (BMI)–based definition contributes to this because it doesn’t distinguish between people whose excess adiposity place them at excess risk for disease but they’re currently healthy vs those who already have undergone bodily harm from that adiposity.

“Having a framework that distinguishes at an individual level when you are in a condition of risk and when you have a condition of disease is fundamentally important. You don’t want to blur the picture in either direction, because obviously the consequence would be quite significant. ... So, the commission focused exactly on that point,” he said.

The new paper will propose a two-part clinical approach: First, assess whether the patient has excess adiposity, with methods that will be outlined. Next, assess on an organ-by-organ basis for the presence of abnormalities related to excess adiposity, or “clinical obesity.” The document will also provide those specific criteria, Rubino said, noting that those details are under embargo until January.

However, he did say that “We are going to propose a pragmatic approach to say that BMI alone is not enough in the clinic. It’s okay as a screening tool, but when somebody potentially has obesity, then you have to add additional measures of adiposity that makes sure you decrease the level of risk… Once you have obesity, then you need to establish if it’s clinical or nonclinical.”

Asked to comment, session moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, Chief Population Health Officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, said in an interview, “I think it’ll help explain and move medicine as a whole in a direction to a greater understanding of obesity actually being a disease, how to define it, and how to identify it. And will, I think, lead to a greater understanding of the underlying disease.”

And, Clark said, it should also help target individuals with preventive vs therapeutic approaches. “I would describe it as matching the right tool to the right patient. If a person has clinical obesity, they likely can and would benefit from either different or additional tools, as opposed to otherwise healthy obesity.”

Rubino said he hopes the new framework will prompt improvements in reimbursement and public policy. “Policymakers scratch their heads when they have limited resources and you need to prioritize things. Having an obesity definition that is blurry doesn’t allow you to have a fair, human, and meaningful prioritization. ... Now that we have drugs that cannot be given to 100% of people, how do you decide who gets them first? I hope this will make it easier for people to access treatment. At the moment, it is not only difficult, but it’s also unfair. It’s random. Somebody gets access, while somebody else who is very, very sick has no access. I don’t think that’s what we want.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS — An upcoming document will entirely reframe obesity as a “condition of excess adiposity” that constitutes a disease called “clinical obesity” when related tissue and organ abnormalities are present.

The authors of the new framework are a Lancet Commission of 56 of the world’s leading obesity experts, including academic clinicians, scientists, public health experts, patient representatives, and officers from the World Health Organization. Following peer review, it will be launched via livestream and published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology in mid-January 2025, with formal endorsement from more than 75 medical societies and other relevant stakeholder organizations.

On November 4, 2024, at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week meeting, the publication’s lead author, Francesco Rubino, MD, Chair of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery at King’s College London in England, gave a preview. He began by noting that, despite the declaration of obesity as a chronic disease over a decade ago, the concept is still debated and not widely accepted by the public or even by all in the medical community.

“The idea of obesity as a disease remains highly controversial,” Rubino noted, adding that the current body mass index (BMI)–based definition contributes to this because it doesn’t distinguish between people whose excess adiposity place them at excess risk for disease but they’re currently healthy vs those who already have undergone bodily harm from that adiposity.

“Having a framework that distinguishes at an individual level when you are in a condition of risk and when you have a condition of disease is fundamentally important. You don’t want to blur the picture in either direction, because obviously the consequence would be quite significant. ... So, the commission focused exactly on that point,” he said.

The new paper will propose a two-part clinical approach: First, assess whether the patient has excess adiposity, with methods that will be outlined. Next, assess on an organ-by-organ basis for the presence of abnormalities related to excess adiposity, or “clinical obesity.” The document will also provide those specific criteria, Rubino said, noting that those details are under embargo until January.

However, he did say that “We are going to propose a pragmatic approach to say that BMI alone is not enough in the clinic. It’s okay as a screening tool, but when somebody potentially has obesity, then you have to add additional measures of adiposity that makes sure you decrease the level of risk… Once you have obesity, then you need to establish if it’s clinical or nonclinical.”

Asked to comment, session moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, Chief Population Health Officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, said in an interview, “I think it’ll help explain and move medicine as a whole in a direction to a greater understanding of obesity actually being a disease, how to define it, and how to identify it. And will, I think, lead to a greater understanding of the underlying disease.”

And, Clark said, it should also help target individuals with preventive vs therapeutic approaches. “I would describe it as matching the right tool to the right patient. If a person has clinical obesity, they likely can and would benefit from either different or additional tools, as opposed to otherwise healthy obesity.”

Rubino said he hopes the new framework will prompt improvements in reimbursement and public policy. “Policymakers scratch their heads when they have limited resources and you need to prioritize things. Having an obesity definition that is blurry doesn’t allow you to have a fair, human, and meaningful prioritization. ... Now that we have drugs that cannot be given to 100% of people, how do you decide who gets them first? I hope this will make it easier for people to access treatment. At the moment, it is not only difficult, but it’s also unfair. It’s random. Somebody gets access, while somebody else who is very, very sick has no access. I don’t think that’s what we want.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS — An upcoming document will entirely reframe obesity as a “condition of excess adiposity” that constitutes a disease called “clinical obesity” when related tissue and organ abnormalities are present.

The authors of the new framework are a Lancet Commission of 56 of the world’s leading obesity experts, including academic clinicians, scientists, public health experts, patient representatives, and officers from the World Health Organization. Following peer review, it will be launched via livestream and published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology in mid-January 2025, with formal endorsement from more than 75 medical societies and other relevant stakeholder organizations.

On November 4, 2024, at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week meeting, the publication’s lead author, Francesco Rubino, MD, Chair of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery at King’s College London in England, gave a preview. He began by noting that, despite the declaration of obesity as a chronic disease over a decade ago, the concept is still debated and not widely accepted by the public or even by all in the medical community.

“The idea of obesity as a disease remains highly controversial,” Rubino noted, adding that the current body mass index (BMI)–based definition contributes to this because it doesn’t distinguish between people whose excess adiposity place them at excess risk for disease but they’re currently healthy vs those who already have undergone bodily harm from that adiposity.

“Having a framework that distinguishes at an individual level when you are in a condition of risk and when you have a condition of disease is fundamentally important. You don’t want to blur the picture in either direction, because obviously the consequence would be quite significant. ... So, the commission focused exactly on that point,” he said.

The new paper will propose a two-part clinical approach: First, assess whether the patient has excess adiposity, with methods that will be outlined. Next, assess on an organ-by-organ basis for the presence of abnormalities related to excess adiposity, or “clinical obesity.” The document will also provide those specific criteria, Rubino said, noting that those details are under embargo until January.

However, he did say that “We are going to propose a pragmatic approach to say that BMI alone is not enough in the clinic. It’s okay as a screening tool, but when somebody potentially has obesity, then you have to add additional measures of adiposity that makes sure you decrease the level of risk… Once you have obesity, then you need to establish if it’s clinical or nonclinical.”

Asked to comment, session moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, Chief Population Health Officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, said in an interview, “I think it’ll help explain and move medicine as a whole in a direction to a greater understanding of obesity actually being a disease, how to define it, and how to identify it. And will, I think, lead to a greater understanding of the underlying disease.”

And, Clark said, it should also help target individuals with preventive vs therapeutic approaches. “I would describe it as matching the right tool to the right patient. If a person has clinical obesity, they likely can and would benefit from either different or additional tools, as opposed to otherwise healthy obesity.”

Rubino said he hopes the new framework will prompt improvements in reimbursement and public policy. “Policymakers scratch their heads when they have limited resources and you need to prioritize things. Having an obesity definition that is blurry doesn’t allow you to have a fair, human, and meaningful prioritization. ... Now that we have drugs that cannot be given to 100% of people, how do you decide who gets them first? I hope this will make it easier for people to access treatment. At the moment, it is not only difficult, but it’s also unfair. It’s random. Somebody gets access, while somebody else who is very, very sick has no access. I don’t think that’s what we want.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Patients who are new users of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have a low absolute risk of thyroid cancer, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association (ATA).

The study, presented by Juan Brito Campana, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, used Medicare records to perform a secondary analysis of 41,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk who were new users of GLP-1 receptor agonists, compared to users of other diabetes medications. 

“We took the innovative approach of applying the methodological rigor of a randomized clinical trial to the very large dataset of observational studies,” said Brito Campana.

The results showed a low absolute risk of thyroid cancer, with only 0.17% of patients in the GLP-1 group developing the disease. However, the data also showed a potential relative increase in risk during the first year of GLP-1 receptor agonist use. 

“This is likely due to increased detection rather than true incidence, as the latency period for thyroid cancer development is typically longer,” Brito Campana said. 

“We also note the limitations of the observational study design, including the short follow-up period and lack of detailed histological data. However, we believe the benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonists likely outweigh the risk of thyroid cancer.”
 

Malignancy in Bethesda III and IV Thyroid Nodules

At the same ATA session, Sapir Nachum Goldberg, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented the results of a retrospective record review that examined the prevalence of malignancy in Bethesda III and IV thyroid nodules with negative Thyrogen Receptor Signaling (ThyroSeq) version 3 molecular testing results.

Goldberg reported that 87% of patients with ThyroSeq negative subtype results were managed nonoperatively. “Based on our data, the true prevalence of malignancy likely lies between our low and high estimates of 3% and 23%,” she said. “We believe that the prevalence of malignancy may be higher in real-world practice than validation studies.”

Additionally, nodules with “currently negative” or “negative but limited” ThyroSeq results had a higher prevalence of malignancy (7%), compared with those with a “negative” result (2%). Factors like immediate vs delayed surgery, nodule size, and ultrasound pattern did not significantly impact malignancy prevalence.

The study results also indicated that surveillance ultrasonography is not routinely performed in up to one-third of patients, Goldberg said.

She closed by suggesting that colleagues consider the negative subtype in clinical decision-making. For “negative but limited” nodules, repeat the fine needle aspiration and, for “negative” and “currently negative” nodules, consider ultrasound follow-up as per ATA guidelines for Bethesda II cytology, she said.
 

RET-Mutated Medullary Thyroid Cancer

For patients with RET-mutated medullary thyroid cancer, Julien Hadoux, MD, PhD, of Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, presented a combined analysis of the efficacy of the RET inhibitor selpercatinib from the phase 1/2 LIBRETTO-001 and phase 3 LIBRETTO-531 trials.

This post hoc analysis used a combined cohort of 509 patients with RET-mutated advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer who had received selpercatinib in the two trials.

Hadoux reported that robust and durable responses were seen across all mutation groups, including M918T, extracellular cysteine, and an “other” group composed of various uncommon RET mutations. “The median [progression-free survival] PFS was not reached for either the M918T or extracellular groups and it was 51.4 months for the Other group,” he said. 

“Selpercatinib showed superior median PFS vs control, regardless of the RET mutation. This analysis constitutes the largest catalog of RET mutations in medullary thyroid cancers treated with RET-specific inhibitors.”
 

TRK-Fusion Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

Steven Waguespack, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, shared updated efficacy and safety data from three phase 1/2 pooled clinical trials of the tropomyosin kinase receptor (TRK) inhibitor larotrectinib in thyroid cancer. These data updated results initially published in 2022.

“Larotrectinib continues to demonstrate rapid and durable responses, extended survival, and offers a favorable safety profile in patients with TRK fusion differentiated thyroid cancer, with limited activity in anaplastic thyroid cancer,” Waguespack said. 

“Additionally, in a subset of patients, we identified some acquired on-target NTRK mutations and off-target GNAS and TP53 mutations that may give further insight into mechanisms of resistance.”

The primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR); at 48 months, the ORR was 79% by independent review. The median PFS in patients with TRK fusion differentiated thyroid cancer was 44 months, while the median duration of response was 41 months. The 4-year overall survival rate was 86%.

Waguespack closed with a cautionary note to colleagues: “While circulating tumor DNA next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis can be used to test for NTRK gene fusions, negative results should be followed up with tissue-based NGS,” he said.

Brito Campana and Goldberg disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Hadoux reported receiving honoraria for speaker engagements, advisory roles, or funding for CME from Eli Lilly, AAA, IPSEN, Roche, Pharma Mar, and EISAI, and research grants from Novartis, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Patients who are new users of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have a low absolute risk of thyroid cancer, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association (ATA).

The study, presented by Juan Brito Campana, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, used Medicare records to perform a secondary analysis of 41,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk who were new users of GLP-1 receptor agonists, compared to users of other diabetes medications. 

“We took the innovative approach of applying the methodological rigor of a randomized clinical trial to the very large dataset of observational studies,” said Brito Campana.

The results showed a low absolute risk of thyroid cancer, with only 0.17% of patients in the GLP-1 group developing the disease. However, the data also showed a potential relative increase in risk during the first year of GLP-1 receptor agonist use. 

“This is likely due to increased detection rather than true incidence, as the latency period for thyroid cancer development is typically longer,” Brito Campana said. 

“We also note the limitations of the observational study design, including the short follow-up period and lack of detailed histological data. However, we believe the benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonists likely outweigh the risk of thyroid cancer.”
 

Malignancy in Bethesda III and IV Thyroid Nodules

At the same ATA session, Sapir Nachum Goldberg, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented the results of a retrospective record review that examined the prevalence of malignancy in Bethesda III and IV thyroid nodules with negative Thyrogen Receptor Signaling (ThyroSeq) version 3 molecular testing results.

Goldberg reported that 87% of patients with ThyroSeq negative subtype results were managed nonoperatively. “Based on our data, the true prevalence of malignancy likely lies between our low and high estimates of 3% and 23%,” she said. “We believe that the prevalence of malignancy may be higher in real-world practice than validation studies.”

Additionally, nodules with “currently negative” or “negative but limited” ThyroSeq results had a higher prevalence of malignancy (7%), compared with those with a “negative” result (2%). Factors like immediate vs delayed surgery, nodule size, and ultrasound pattern did not significantly impact malignancy prevalence.

The study results also indicated that surveillance ultrasonography is not routinely performed in up to one-third of patients, Goldberg said.

She closed by suggesting that colleagues consider the negative subtype in clinical decision-making. For “negative but limited” nodules, repeat the fine needle aspiration and, for “negative” and “currently negative” nodules, consider ultrasound follow-up as per ATA guidelines for Bethesda II cytology, she said.
 

RET-Mutated Medullary Thyroid Cancer

For patients with RET-mutated medullary thyroid cancer, Julien Hadoux, MD, PhD, of Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, presented a combined analysis of the efficacy of the RET inhibitor selpercatinib from the phase 1/2 LIBRETTO-001 and phase 3 LIBRETTO-531 trials.

This post hoc analysis used a combined cohort of 509 patients with RET-mutated advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer who had received selpercatinib in the two trials.

Hadoux reported that robust and durable responses were seen across all mutation groups, including M918T, extracellular cysteine, and an “other” group composed of various uncommon RET mutations. “The median [progression-free survival] PFS was not reached for either the M918T or extracellular groups and it was 51.4 months for the Other group,” he said. 

“Selpercatinib showed superior median PFS vs control, regardless of the RET mutation. This analysis constitutes the largest catalog of RET mutations in medullary thyroid cancers treated with RET-specific inhibitors.”
 

TRK-Fusion Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

Steven Waguespack, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, shared updated efficacy and safety data from three phase 1/2 pooled clinical trials of the tropomyosin kinase receptor (TRK) inhibitor larotrectinib in thyroid cancer. These data updated results initially published in 2022.

“Larotrectinib continues to demonstrate rapid and durable responses, extended survival, and offers a favorable safety profile in patients with TRK fusion differentiated thyroid cancer, with limited activity in anaplastic thyroid cancer,” Waguespack said. 

“Additionally, in a subset of patients, we identified some acquired on-target NTRK mutations and off-target GNAS and TP53 mutations that may give further insight into mechanisms of resistance.”

The primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR); at 48 months, the ORR was 79% by independent review. The median PFS in patients with TRK fusion differentiated thyroid cancer was 44 months, while the median duration of response was 41 months. The 4-year overall survival rate was 86%.

Waguespack closed with a cautionary note to colleagues: “While circulating tumor DNA next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis can be used to test for NTRK gene fusions, negative results should be followed up with tissue-based NGS,” he said.

Brito Campana and Goldberg disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Hadoux reported receiving honoraria for speaker engagements, advisory roles, or funding for CME from Eli Lilly, AAA, IPSEN, Roche, Pharma Mar, and EISAI, and research grants from Novartis, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Patients who are new users of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have a low absolute risk of thyroid cancer, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association (ATA).

The study, presented by Juan Brito Campana, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, used Medicare records to perform a secondary analysis of 41,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk who were new users of GLP-1 receptor agonists, compared to users of other diabetes medications. 

“We took the innovative approach of applying the methodological rigor of a randomized clinical trial to the very large dataset of observational studies,” said Brito Campana.

The results showed a low absolute risk of thyroid cancer, with only 0.17% of patients in the GLP-1 group developing the disease. However, the data also showed a potential relative increase in risk during the first year of GLP-1 receptor agonist use. 

“This is likely due to increased detection rather than true incidence, as the latency period for thyroid cancer development is typically longer,” Brito Campana said. 

“We also note the limitations of the observational study design, including the short follow-up period and lack of detailed histological data. However, we believe the benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonists likely outweigh the risk of thyroid cancer.”
 

Malignancy in Bethesda III and IV Thyroid Nodules

At the same ATA session, Sapir Nachum Goldberg, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented the results of a retrospective record review that examined the prevalence of malignancy in Bethesda III and IV thyroid nodules with negative Thyrogen Receptor Signaling (ThyroSeq) version 3 molecular testing results.

Goldberg reported that 87% of patients with ThyroSeq negative subtype results were managed nonoperatively. “Based on our data, the true prevalence of malignancy likely lies between our low and high estimates of 3% and 23%,” she said. “We believe that the prevalence of malignancy may be higher in real-world practice than validation studies.”

Additionally, nodules with “currently negative” or “negative but limited” ThyroSeq results had a higher prevalence of malignancy (7%), compared with those with a “negative” result (2%). Factors like immediate vs delayed surgery, nodule size, and ultrasound pattern did not significantly impact malignancy prevalence.

The study results also indicated that surveillance ultrasonography is not routinely performed in up to one-third of patients, Goldberg said.

She closed by suggesting that colleagues consider the negative subtype in clinical decision-making. For “negative but limited” nodules, repeat the fine needle aspiration and, for “negative” and “currently negative” nodules, consider ultrasound follow-up as per ATA guidelines for Bethesda II cytology, she said.
 

RET-Mutated Medullary Thyroid Cancer

For patients with RET-mutated medullary thyroid cancer, Julien Hadoux, MD, PhD, of Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, presented a combined analysis of the efficacy of the RET inhibitor selpercatinib from the phase 1/2 LIBRETTO-001 and phase 3 LIBRETTO-531 trials.

This post hoc analysis used a combined cohort of 509 patients with RET-mutated advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer who had received selpercatinib in the two trials.

Hadoux reported that robust and durable responses were seen across all mutation groups, including M918T, extracellular cysteine, and an “other” group composed of various uncommon RET mutations. “The median [progression-free survival] PFS was not reached for either the M918T or extracellular groups and it was 51.4 months for the Other group,” he said. 

“Selpercatinib showed superior median PFS vs control, regardless of the RET mutation. This analysis constitutes the largest catalog of RET mutations in medullary thyroid cancers treated with RET-specific inhibitors.”
 

TRK-Fusion Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

Steven Waguespack, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, shared updated efficacy and safety data from three phase 1/2 pooled clinical trials of the tropomyosin kinase receptor (TRK) inhibitor larotrectinib in thyroid cancer. These data updated results initially published in 2022.

“Larotrectinib continues to demonstrate rapid and durable responses, extended survival, and offers a favorable safety profile in patients with TRK fusion differentiated thyroid cancer, with limited activity in anaplastic thyroid cancer,” Waguespack said. 

“Additionally, in a subset of patients, we identified some acquired on-target NTRK mutations and off-target GNAS and TP53 mutations that may give further insight into mechanisms of resistance.”

The primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR); at 48 months, the ORR was 79% by independent review. The median PFS in patients with TRK fusion differentiated thyroid cancer was 44 months, while the median duration of response was 41 months. The 4-year overall survival rate was 86%.

Waguespack closed with a cautionary note to colleagues: “While circulating tumor DNA next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis can be used to test for NTRK gene fusions, negative results should be followed up with tissue-based NGS,” he said.

Brito Campana and Goldberg disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Hadoux reported receiving honoraria for speaker engagements, advisory roles, or funding for CME from Eli Lilly, AAA, IPSEN, Roche, Pharma Mar, and EISAI, and research grants from Novartis, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — The use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is associated with a significant decrease in the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to the results of a retrospective study.

“This is the first large study to investigate the impact of GLP-1 RA use on EO-CRC risk,” principal investigator Temitope Olasehinde, MD, resident physician at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.

The results indicate the GLP-1 RAs have a potentially protective role to play in combating EO-CRC, the incidence of which is notably rising in younger adults, with a corresponding increase in associated mortality.

Previous studies investigating the link between GLP-1 RAs and CRC did not capture patients aged younger than 50 years; thus, it was unknown if these results could be extrapolated to a younger age group, said Olasehinde.

The researcher presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
 

Retrospective Database Analysis

Olasehinde and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a large federated deidentified health research network, to identify patients (age ≤ 49 years) with diagnosed T2D subsequently prescribed antidiabetic medications who had not received a prior diagnosis of CRC. Additionally, patients were stratified on the basis of first-time GLP-1 RA use.

They identified 2,025,034 drug-naive patients with T2D; of these, 284,685 were subsequently prescribed GLP-1 RAs, and 1,740,349 remained in the non–GLP-1 RA cohort. Following propensity score matching, there were 86,186 patients in each cohort.

Patients who received GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than those who received non–GLP-1 RAs (0.6% vs 0.9%; P < .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-068).

Furthermore, a sub-analysis revealed that patients who were obese and taking GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than patients who were obese but not taking GLP-1 RAs (0.7% vs 1.1%; P < .001; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-067).
 

A Proposed Protective Effect

Although GLP-1 RAs are indicated for the treatment of T2D and obesity, recent evidence suggests that they may play a role in reducing the risk for CRC as well. This protective effect may be produced not only by addressing T2D and obesity — both important risk factors for CRC — but also via cellular mechanisms, Olasehinde noted.

“GLP-1 receptors are widely expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract, with various effects on tissues in the stomach, small intestine, and colon,” she explained. Specifically, activation of these receptors in the proximal and distal colon promotes the release of “important factors that protect and facilitate healing of the intestinal epithelium” and “regulate the gut microbiome.”

This is particularly relevant in EO-CRC, she added, given its greater association with T2D and obesity, both factors that “have been shown to create dysbiosis in the gut microbiome and low-grade inflammation via release of free radicals/inflammatory cytokines.”

These results provide more evidence that EO-CRC “is clinically and molecularly distinct from late-onset colorectal cancer,” which is important for both clinicians and patients to understand, said Olasehinde.

“It is imperative that we are all aware of the specific signs and symptoms this population presents with and the implications of this diagnosis in younger age groups,” she added. “Patients should continue making informed dietary and lifestyle modifications/choices to help reduce the burden of EO-CRC.”

Hypothesis-Generating Results

Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research, called the results promising but — at this stage — primarily useful for stimulating future research. 

"We do need more studies such as this to generate hypotheses that can be studied prospectively," Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health, and director of GI Outcomes Research at NYU Langone Health in New York City, told Medscape Medical News. 

She referred to another study, published in JAMA Oncology, that also used the TriNetX research network, which showed that GLP-1 RAs were associated with reduced CRC risk in drug-naive patients with T2D. 

Shaukat also noted that the current analysis has limitations that should be considered. "The study is retrospective, and confounding is a possibility,” she said. 

“How the groups that did and did not receive GLP-1 RAs differ in other risk factors that could be the drivers of the cancers is not known. Whether cancers were detected through screening or symptoms, stage, and other features that may differ are not known. Finally, since we don’t know who did or did not have colonoscopy, undiagnosed cancers are not known," she explained. 

Shaukat, who was the lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines, added that the field would benefit from studies providing "biological plausibility information, such as animal studies to understand how GLP-1 RAs may modulate risk of colon cancer; other population-based cohort studies on the incidence of colon cancer among GLP-1 RA users and non-users; and prospective trials on chemoprevention." 

The study had no specific funding. Olasehinde reported no relevant financial relationships. Shaukat reported serving as a consultant for Freenome, Medtronic, and Motus GI, as well as an advisory board member for Iterative Scopes Inc.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — The use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is associated with a significant decrease in the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to the results of a retrospective study.

“This is the first large study to investigate the impact of GLP-1 RA use on EO-CRC risk,” principal investigator Temitope Olasehinde, MD, resident physician at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.

The results indicate the GLP-1 RAs have a potentially protective role to play in combating EO-CRC, the incidence of which is notably rising in younger adults, with a corresponding increase in associated mortality.

Previous studies investigating the link between GLP-1 RAs and CRC did not capture patients aged younger than 50 years; thus, it was unknown if these results could be extrapolated to a younger age group, said Olasehinde.

The researcher presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
 

Retrospective Database Analysis

Olasehinde and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a large federated deidentified health research network, to identify patients (age ≤ 49 years) with diagnosed T2D subsequently prescribed antidiabetic medications who had not received a prior diagnosis of CRC. Additionally, patients were stratified on the basis of first-time GLP-1 RA use.

They identified 2,025,034 drug-naive patients with T2D; of these, 284,685 were subsequently prescribed GLP-1 RAs, and 1,740,349 remained in the non–GLP-1 RA cohort. Following propensity score matching, there were 86,186 patients in each cohort.

Patients who received GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than those who received non–GLP-1 RAs (0.6% vs 0.9%; P < .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-068).

Furthermore, a sub-analysis revealed that patients who were obese and taking GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than patients who were obese but not taking GLP-1 RAs (0.7% vs 1.1%; P < .001; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-067).
 

A Proposed Protective Effect

Although GLP-1 RAs are indicated for the treatment of T2D and obesity, recent evidence suggests that they may play a role in reducing the risk for CRC as well. This protective effect may be produced not only by addressing T2D and obesity — both important risk factors for CRC — but also via cellular mechanisms, Olasehinde noted.

“GLP-1 receptors are widely expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract, with various effects on tissues in the stomach, small intestine, and colon,” she explained. Specifically, activation of these receptors in the proximal and distal colon promotes the release of “important factors that protect and facilitate healing of the intestinal epithelium” and “regulate the gut microbiome.”

This is particularly relevant in EO-CRC, she added, given its greater association with T2D and obesity, both factors that “have been shown to create dysbiosis in the gut microbiome and low-grade inflammation via release of free radicals/inflammatory cytokines.”

These results provide more evidence that EO-CRC “is clinically and molecularly distinct from late-onset colorectal cancer,” which is important for both clinicians and patients to understand, said Olasehinde.

“It is imperative that we are all aware of the specific signs and symptoms this population presents with and the implications of this diagnosis in younger age groups,” she added. “Patients should continue making informed dietary and lifestyle modifications/choices to help reduce the burden of EO-CRC.”

Hypothesis-Generating Results

Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research, called the results promising but — at this stage — primarily useful for stimulating future research. 

"We do need more studies such as this to generate hypotheses that can be studied prospectively," Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health, and director of GI Outcomes Research at NYU Langone Health in New York City, told Medscape Medical News. 

She referred to another study, published in JAMA Oncology, that also used the TriNetX research network, which showed that GLP-1 RAs were associated with reduced CRC risk in drug-naive patients with T2D. 

Shaukat also noted that the current analysis has limitations that should be considered. "The study is retrospective, and confounding is a possibility,” she said. 

“How the groups that did and did not receive GLP-1 RAs differ in other risk factors that could be the drivers of the cancers is not known. Whether cancers were detected through screening or symptoms, stage, and other features that may differ are not known. Finally, since we don’t know who did or did not have colonoscopy, undiagnosed cancers are not known," she explained. 

Shaukat, who was the lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines, added that the field would benefit from studies providing "biological plausibility information, such as animal studies to understand how GLP-1 RAs may modulate risk of colon cancer; other population-based cohort studies on the incidence of colon cancer among GLP-1 RA users and non-users; and prospective trials on chemoprevention." 

The study had no specific funding. Olasehinde reported no relevant financial relationships. Shaukat reported serving as a consultant for Freenome, Medtronic, and Motus GI, as well as an advisory board member for Iterative Scopes Inc.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — The use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is associated with a significant decrease in the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to the results of a retrospective study.

“This is the first large study to investigate the impact of GLP-1 RA use on EO-CRC risk,” principal investigator Temitope Olasehinde, MD, resident physician at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.

The results indicate the GLP-1 RAs have a potentially protective role to play in combating EO-CRC, the incidence of which is notably rising in younger adults, with a corresponding increase in associated mortality.

Previous studies investigating the link between GLP-1 RAs and CRC did not capture patients aged younger than 50 years; thus, it was unknown if these results could be extrapolated to a younger age group, said Olasehinde.

The researcher presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
 

Retrospective Database Analysis

Olasehinde and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a large federated deidentified health research network, to identify patients (age ≤ 49 years) with diagnosed T2D subsequently prescribed antidiabetic medications who had not received a prior diagnosis of CRC. Additionally, patients were stratified on the basis of first-time GLP-1 RA use.

They identified 2,025,034 drug-naive patients with T2D; of these, 284,685 were subsequently prescribed GLP-1 RAs, and 1,740,349 remained in the non–GLP-1 RA cohort. Following propensity score matching, there were 86,186 patients in each cohort.

Patients who received GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than those who received non–GLP-1 RAs (0.6% vs 0.9%; P < .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-068).

Furthermore, a sub-analysis revealed that patients who were obese and taking GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than patients who were obese but not taking GLP-1 RAs (0.7% vs 1.1%; P < .001; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-067).
 

A Proposed Protective Effect

Although GLP-1 RAs are indicated for the treatment of T2D and obesity, recent evidence suggests that they may play a role in reducing the risk for CRC as well. This protective effect may be produced not only by addressing T2D and obesity — both important risk factors for CRC — but also via cellular mechanisms, Olasehinde noted.

“GLP-1 receptors are widely expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract, with various effects on tissues in the stomach, small intestine, and colon,” she explained. Specifically, activation of these receptors in the proximal and distal colon promotes the release of “important factors that protect and facilitate healing of the intestinal epithelium” and “regulate the gut microbiome.”

This is particularly relevant in EO-CRC, she added, given its greater association with T2D and obesity, both factors that “have been shown to create dysbiosis in the gut microbiome and low-grade inflammation via release of free radicals/inflammatory cytokines.”

These results provide more evidence that EO-CRC “is clinically and molecularly distinct from late-onset colorectal cancer,” which is important for both clinicians and patients to understand, said Olasehinde.

“It is imperative that we are all aware of the specific signs and symptoms this population presents with and the implications of this diagnosis in younger age groups,” she added. “Patients should continue making informed dietary and lifestyle modifications/choices to help reduce the burden of EO-CRC.”

Hypothesis-Generating Results

Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research, called the results promising but — at this stage — primarily useful for stimulating future research. 

"We do need more studies such as this to generate hypotheses that can be studied prospectively," Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health, and director of GI Outcomes Research at NYU Langone Health in New York City, told Medscape Medical News. 

She referred to another study, published in JAMA Oncology, that also used the TriNetX research network, which showed that GLP-1 RAs were associated with reduced CRC risk in drug-naive patients with T2D. 

Shaukat also noted that the current analysis has limitations that should be considered. "The study is retrospective, and confounding is a possibility,” she said. 

“How the groups that did and did not receive GLP-1 RAs differ in other risk factors that could be the drivers of the cancers is not known. Whether cancers were detected through screening or symptoms, stage, and other features that may differ are not known. Finally, since we don’t know who did or did not have colonoscopy, undiagnosed cancers are not known," she explained. 

Shaukat, who was the lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines, added that the field would benefit from studies providing "biological plausibility information, such as animal studies to understand how GLP-1 RAs may modulate risk of colon cancer; other population-based cohort studies on the incidence of colon cancer among GLP-1 RA users and non-users; and prospective trials on chemoprevention." 

The study had no specific funding. Olasehinde reported no relevant financial relationships. Shaukat reported serving as a consultant for Freenome, Medtronic, and Motus GI, as well as an advisory board member for Iterative Scopes Inc.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In daily practice, physicians need a quick and simple way to assess whether a patient’s weight presents a health risk. For decades, the body mass index (BMI) has been used for this purpose, with calculations based on height and weight. Despite its convenience, BMI has faced increasing criticism. Recent research suggests that another metric, the body roundness index (BRI), might better gauge the health risks associated with obesity.

According to experts, BRI may more accurately identify people with high levels of visceral fat than BMI. It’s well documented that abdominal fat is strongly linked to higher risks for obesity-related diseases.
 

Studies Support BRI

Several studies have suggested that BRI could be a valuable tool for assessing health risks. In June of this year, researchers from China reported a significant U-shaped association between BRI and overall mortality in a paper published in JAMA Network Open. People with very low or very high BRI had an increased risk for death, noted Xiaoqian Zhang, MD, from Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China, and his colleagues.

A study published in September in the Journal of the American Heart Association showed that elevated BRI over several years was associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases. “The BRI can be included as a predictive factor for cardiovascular disease incidence,” stated the authors, led by Man Yang, MD, from Nanjing Medical University in Nanjing, China.
 

Why Replace BMI?

Why is a replacement for BMI necessary? When asked by this news organization, Manfred Müller, MD, senior professor at the Institute of Human Nutrition and Food Science at the University of Kiel, in Germany, explained: “BMI was designed to provide a simple value that was as independent of body size as possible, that could detect obesity and estimate related disease risks. But scientifically, BMI has always been a very crude measure to characterize disease risks.”

Müller was part of a research group led by US mathematician Diana Thomas, PhD, who, at the time, worked at Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey, and now holds a position at the US Military Academy at West Point, in New York. The group developed and published the BRI in 2013.
 

BMI Classifies Bodybuilders as Obese

The researchers justified their search for a “better” anthropometric measure with two aspects of BMI that still constitute the main points of criticism of the widely used index today:

BMI incorrectly classifies individuals with significant muscle mass, like bodybuilders, as obese, as it doesn’t distinguish between fat and muscle mass. 

BMI provides no information about fat distribution in the body — whether it’s concentrated in the hips or the abdomen, for example. 

In practice, this means that a person with a normal BMI could already have prediabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol, which might go undetected if no further investigations are conducted based solely on their BMI.

The BRI aims to solve this problem. As the name suggests, this index seeks to capture a person’s “roundness.” The formula for calculating BRI includes waist circumference and height but excludes body weight:

BRI = 364.2 − 365.5 × √(1 − [Waist circumference in cm/2π]²/[0.5 × Height in cm]²)

In their 2013 article, Thomas, Müller, and colleagues wrote that it still needed to be proven whether their newly developed index correlated with mortality and the risk for cardiovascular and metabolic diseases — and whether it was sufficiently better than BMI to justify the more complex calculation.
 

Could BRI Replace BMI?

Opinions differ on whether the BRI should replace the BMI. Zhang’s team concluded that the BRI needs to be validated in additional independent cohorts. If it does, it could become a practical screening tool in patient care.

Yang’s research group is optimistic about the BRI’s future: “The longitudinal trajectory of the BRI could be used as a novel indicator of cardiovascular disease risk, which provides a new possibility for cardiovascular disease prevention,” they wrote.

However, even BRI Co-creator Thomas has concerns. “Our entire medical system has been built around the BMI,” she told JAMA, referring to factors such as children’s growth charts and dosage recommendations for medications. That cannot be changed overnight.

Any anthropometric measure intended to replace BMI would need to be rigorously validated across all age groups, genders, and ethnicities. The impact of interventions such as bariatric surgery, diet, and exercise on the new measure would also need to be demonstrated.
 

Anthropometric Measures Only for Clinical Use

Even if BRI proves to be a “better” metric than BMI for patient care, Müller believes it would be no more suitable for research than BMI. “Regardless of the anthropometric measure, these are practical tools for everyday use,” he stressed.

“A high BRI, like a high BMI, is a risk factor — similar to high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, or smoking — but it is not a disease,” he added. “In practice, as a physician, I know that a patient with a high BMI or BRI has an increased risk. I need to pay attention to that patient.”

Problems arise when indices like BMI or BRI are used in research. “These ‘invented’ anthropometric measures have no biological basis, which can harm obesity research,” Müller emphasized.

He cited the example of genetic research into obesity, which seeks to identify associations between specific genetic patterns and BMI values. “Why should weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared be genetically determined?” he asked. “These measures are human-made constructs that have nothing to do with biology.”

Müller believes that the use of BMI has created a “gray area in obesity research” that may account for many of the “unexplained” phenomena in this field.
 

The BMI Might Be Responsible for the ‘Healthy Obese’

One such phenomenon is the much-discussed “healthy obese,” referring to individuals with a BMI over 30 who do not have high blood sugar, high blood pressure, metabolic disorders, or elevated uric acid levels. “It’s speculated that it must be due to genetic factors, but in reality, the classification is simply wrong,” Müller said.

According to Müller, research should rely on other methods to determine obesity or relevant fat. For example, to assess diabetes risk, liver fat needs to be measured through enzyme tests, ultrasonography, CT, or MRI.

Visceral fat is also important in assessing cardiometabolic risk. “In the doctor’s office, it’s acceptable to estimate this by looking at waist circumference or even BRI. But for research, that’s inadequate,” noted Müller. Direct measurement of trunk fat with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry or visceral fat with CT or MRI is needed.

“You always have to distinguish between research and patient care. In daily practice, measures like BRI or BMI are sufficient for assessing cardiometabolic risk. But in research, they are not,” Müller explained. To accurately study the disease risks associated with obesity, one must be aware that “with BMI, you cannot create scientifically valid patient or population groups because this value is far too imprecise.”
 

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

In daily practice, physicians need a quick and simple way to assess whether a patient’s weight presents a health risk. For decades, the body mass index (BMI) has been used for this purpose, with calculations based on height and weight. Despite its convenience, BMI has faced increasing criticism. Recent research suggests that another metric, the body roundness index (BRI), might better gauge the health risks associated with obesity.

According to experts, BRI may more accurately identify people with high levels of visceral fat than BMI. It’s well documented that abdominal fat is strongly linked to higher risks for obesity-related diseases.
 

Studies Support BRI

Several studies have suggested that BRI could be a valuable tool for assessing health risks. In June of this year, researchers from China reported a significant U-shaped association between BRI and overall mortality in a paper published in JAMA Network Open. People with very low or very high BRI had an increased risk for death, noted Xiaoqian Zhang, MD, from Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China, and his colleagues.

A study published in September in the Journal of the American Heart Association showed that elevated BRI over several years was associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases. “The BRI can be included as a predictive factor for cardiovascular disease incidence,” stated the authors, led by Man Yang, MD, from Nanjing Medical University in Nanjing, China.
 

Why Replace BMI?

Why is a replacement for BMI necessary? When asked by this news organization, Manfred Müller, MD, senior professor at the Institute of Human Nutrition and Food Science at the University of Kiel, in Germany, explained: “BMI was designed to provide a simple value that was as independent of body size as possible, that could detect obesity and estimate related disease risks. But scientifically, BMI has always been a very crude measure to characterize disease risks.”

Müller was part of a research group led by US mathematician Diana Thomas, PhD, who, at the time, worked at Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey, and now holds a position at the US Military Academy at West Point, in New York. The group developed and published the BRI in 2013.
 

BMI Classifies Bodybuilders as Obese

The researchers justified their search for a “better” anthropometric measure with two aspects of BMI that still constitute the main points of criticism of the widely used index today:

BMI incorrectly classifies individuals with significant muscle mass, like bodybuilders, as obese, as it doesn’t distinguish between fat and muscle mass. 

BMI provides no information about fat distribution in the body — whether it’s concentrated in the hips or the abdomen, for example. 

In practice, this means that a person with a normal BMI could already have prediabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol, which might go undetected if no further investigations are conducted based solely on their BMI.

The BRI aims to solve this problem. As the name suggests, this index seeks to capture a person’s “roundness.” The formula for calculating BRI includes waist circumference and height but excludes body weight:

BRI = 364.2 − 365.5 × √(1 − [Waist circumference in cm/2π]²/[0.5 × Height in cm]²)

In their 2013 article, Thomas, Müller, and colleagues wrote that it still needed to be proven whether their newly developed index correlated with mortality and the risk for cardiovascular and metabolic diseases — and whether it was sufficiently better than BMI to justify the more complex calculation.
 

Could BRI Replace BMI?

Opinions differ on whether the BRI should replace the BMI. Zhang’s team concluded that the BRI needs to be validated in additional independent cohorts. If it does, it could become a practical screening tool in patient care.

Yang’s research group is optimistic about the BRI’s future: “The longitudinal trajectory of the BRI could be used as a novel indicator of cardiovascular disease risk, which provides a new possibility for cardiovascular disease prevention,” they wrote.

However, even BRI Co-creator Thomas has concerns. “Our entire medical system has been built around the BMI,” she told JAMA, referring to factors such as children’s growth charts and dosage recommendations for medications. That cannot be changed overnight.

Any anthropometric measure intended to replace BMI would need to be rigorously validated across all age groups, genders, and ethnicities. The impact of interventions such as bariatric surgery, diet, and exercise on the new measure would also need to be demonstrated.
 

Anthropometric Measures Only for Clinical Use

Even if BRI proves to be a “better” metric than BMI for patient care, Müller believes it would be no more suitable for research than BMI. “Regardless of the anthropometric measure, these are practical tools for everyday use,” he stressed.

“A high BRI, like a high BMI, is a risk factor — similar to high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, or smoking — but it is not a disease,” he added. “In practice, as a physician, I know that a patient with a high BMI or BRI has an increased risk. I need to pay attention to that patient.”

Problems arise when indices like BMI or BRI are used in research. “These ‘invented’ anthropometric measures have no biological basis, which can harm obesity research,” Müller emphasized.

He cited the example of genetic research into obesity, which seeks to identify associations between specific genetic patterns and BMI values. “Why should weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared be genetically determined?” he asked. “These measures are human-made constructs that have nothing to do with biology.”

Müller believes that the use of BMI has created a “gray area in obesity research” that may account for many of the “unexplained” phenomena in this field.
 

The BMI Might Be Responsible for the ‘Healthy Obese’

One such phenomenon is the much-discussed “healthy obese,” referring to individuals with a BMI over 30 who do not have high blood sugar, high blood pressure, metabolic disorders, or elevated uric acid levels. “It’s speculated that it must be due to genetic factors, but in reality, the classification is simply wrong,” Müller said.

According to Müller, research should rely on other methods to determine obesity or relevant fat. For example, to assess diabetes risk, liver fat needs to be measured through enzyme tests, ultrasonography, CT, or MRI.

Visceral fat is also important in assessing cardiometabolic risk. “In the doctor’s office, it’s acceptable to estimate this by looking at waist circumference or even BRI. But for research, that’s inadequate,” noted Müller. Direct measurement of trunk fat with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry or visceral fat with CT or MRI is needed.

“You always have to distinguish between research and patient care. In daily practice, measures like BRI or BMI are sufficient for assessing cardiometabolic risk. But in research, they are not,” Müller explained. To accurately study the disease risks associated with obesity, one must be aware that “with BMI, you cannot create scientifically valid patient or population groups because this value is far too imprecise.”
 

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

In daily practice, physicians need a quick and simple way to assess whether a patient’s weight presents a health risk. For decades, the body mass index (BMI) has been used for this purpose, with calculations based on height and weight. Despite its convenience, BMI has faced increasing criticism. Recent research suggests that another metric, the body roundness index (BRI), might better gauge the health risks associated with obesity.

According to experts, BRI may more accurately identify people with high levels of visceral fat than BMI. It’s well documented that abdominal fat is strongly linked to higher risks for obesity-related diseases.
 

Studies Support BRI

Several studies have suggested that BRI could be a valuable tool for assessing health risks. In June of this year, researchers from China reported a significant U-shaped association between BRI and overall mortality in a paper published in JAMA Network Open. People with very low or very high BRI had an increased risk for death, noted Xiaoqian Zhang, MD, from Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China, and his colleagues.

A study published in September in the Journal of the American Heart Association showed that elevated BRI over several years was associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases. “The BRI can be included as a predictive factor for cardiovascular disease incidence,” stated the authors, led by Man Yang, MD, from Nanjing Medical University in Nanjing, China.
 

Why Replace BMI?

Why is a replacement for BMI necessary? When asked by this news organization, Manfred Müller, MD, senior professor at the Institute of Human Nutrition and Food Science at the University of Kiel, in Germany, explained: “BMI was designed to provide a simple value that was as independent of body size as possible, that could detect obesity and estimate related disease risks. But scientifically, BMI has always been a very crude measure to characterize disease risks.”

Müller was part of a research group led by US mathematician Diana Thomas, PhD, who, at the time, worked at Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey, and now holds a position at the US Military Academy at West Point, in New York. The group developed and published the BRI in 2013.
 

BMI Classifies Bodybuilders as Obese

The researchers justified their search for a “better” anthropometric measure with two aspects of BMI that still constitute the main points of criticism of the widely used index today:

BMI incorrectly classifies individuals with significant muscle mass, like bodybuilders, as obese, as it doesn’t distinguish between fat and muscle mass. 

BMI provides no information about fat distribution in the body — whether it’s concentrated in the hips or the abdomen, for example. 

In practice, this means that a person with a normal BMI could already have prediabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol, which might go undetected if no further investigations are conducted based solely on their BMI.

The BRI aims to solve this problem. As the name suggests, this index seeks to capture a person’s “roundness.” The formula for calculating BRI includes waist circumference and height but excludes body weight:

BRI = 364.2 − 365.5 × √(1 − [Waist circumference in cm/2π]²/[0.5 × Height in cm]²)

In their 2013 article, Thomas, Müller, and colleagues wrote that it still needed to be proven whether their newly developed index correlated with mortality and the risk for cardiovascular and metabolic diseases — and whether it was sufficiently better than BMI to justify the more complex calculation.
 

Could BRI Replace BMI?

Opinions differ on whether the BRI should replace the BMI. Zhang’s team concluded that the BRI needs to be validated in additional independent cohorts. If it does, it could become a practical screening tool in patient care.

Yang’s research group is optimistic about the BRI’s future: “The longitudinal trajectory of the BRI could be used as a novel indicator of cardiovascular disease risk, which provides a new possibility for cardiovascular disease prevention,” they wrote.

However, even BRI Co-creator Thomas has concerns. “Our entire medical system has been built around the BMI,” she told JAMA, referring to factors such as children’s growth charts and dosage recommendations for medications. That cannot be changed overnight.

Any anthropometric measure intended to replace BMI would need to be rigorously validated across all age groups, genders, and ethnicities. The impact of interventions such as bariatric surgery, diet, and exercise on the new measure would also need to be demonstrated.
 

Anthropometric Measures Only for Clinical Use

Even if BRI proves to be a “better” metric than BMI for patient care, Müller believes it would be no more suitable for research than BMI. “Regardless of the anthropometric measure, these are practical tools for everyday use,” he stressed.

“A high BRI, like a high BMI, is a risk factor — similar to high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, or smoking — but it is not a disease,” he added. “In practice, as a physician, I know that a patient with a high BMI or BRI has an increased risk. I need to pay attention to that patient.”

Problems arise when indices like BMI or BRI are used in research. “These ‘invented’ anthropometric measures have no biological basis, which can harm obesity research,” Müller emphasized.

He cited the example of genetic research into obesity, which seeks to identify associations between specific genetic patterns and BMI values. “Why should weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared be genetically determined?” he asked. “These measures are human-made constructs that have nothing to do with biology.”

Müller believes that the use of BMI has created a “gray area in obesity research” that may account for many of the “unexplained” phenomena in this field.
 

The BMI Might Be Responsible for the ‘Healthy Obese’

One such phenomenon is the much-discussed “healthy obese,” referring to individuals with a BMI over 30 who do not have high blood sugar, high blood pressure, metabolic disorders, or elevated uric acid levels. “It’s speculated that it must be due to genetic factors, but in reality, the classification is simply wrong,” Müller said.

According to Müller, research should rely on other methods to determine obesity or relevant fat. For example, to assess diabetes risk, liver fat needs to be measured through enzyme tests, ultrasonography, CT, or MRI.

Visceral fat is also important in assessing cardiometabolic risk. “In the doctor’s office, it’s acceptable to estimate this by looking at waist circumference or even BRI. But for research, that’s inadequate,” noted Müller. Direct measurement of trunk fat with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry or visceral fat with CT or MRI is needed.

“You always have to distinguish between research and patient care. In daily practice, measures like BRI or BMI are sufficient for assessing cardiometabolic risk. But in research, they are not,” Müller explained. To accurately study the disease risks associated with obesity, one must be aware that “with BMI, you cannot create scientifically valid patient or population groups because this value is far too imprecise.”
 

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