Obesity

Sometime in the last year or 2 I wrote that, despite my considerable reservations, I had finally come to the conclusion that the American Medical Association’s decision to designate obesity as a disease was appropriate. My rationalization was that the disease label would open more opportunities for funding obesity treatments. However, the explosive growth and popularity of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists over the last year has had me rethinking my decision to suppress my long-held reservations about the disease designation.

So, if it’s not a disease, then what should we call it? How do we explain its surge in high-income countries that began in the 1980s? While there are still some folks who see obesity as a character flaw, I think you and I as healthcare providers have difficulty explaining the increase prevalence of obesity as either global breakdown of willpower or a widespread genetic shift as the result of burst of radiation from solar flares.

However, if we want to continue our search and finger-pointing we need to have a better definition of exactly what obesity is. If we’re going to continue calling it a disease we have done a pretty sloppy job of creating diagnostic criteria. To be honest, we aren’t doing such a hot job with “long COVID” either.

A recent article in the New York Times makes it clear that I’m not the only physician who is feeling uncomfortable with this lack of diagnostic specificity.

We know that using body mass index (BMI) as a criteria is imprecise. There are healthy individuals with elevated BMIs and there are others who are carrying an unhealthy amount of fat who have normal BMIs. And, there are individuals who have what might appear to be an excess amount of fat who are fit and healthy by other criteria.

Some investigators feel that a set of measurements that includes a waist and/or hip measurement may be a more accurate way of determining visceral adipose tissue. However, this body roundness index (BRI) currently relies on a tape measurement. Until the technique can be preformed by an inexpensive and readily available scanner, the BRI cannot be considered a practical tool for determining obesity.

Dr. Francisco Rubino, the chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at Kings College in London, England, has been quoted as saying that, “if one defines a disease inaccurately, everything that stems from that – from diagnosis to treatment to policies – will be distorted and biased.”

Denmark has been forced to relabel obesity as a risk factor because the disease designation was stressing the financial viability of their healthcare system as more and more patients were being prescribe GLP-1 agonists, sometimes off label. A rationing strategy was resulting in suboptimal treatment of a significant portion of the obese population.

Spearheaded by Dr. Rubino, a Lancet Commission composed of physicians has tasked itself to define an “evidence-based diagnosis for obesity. Instead of relying on a single metric such as the BMI or BRI, diagnosing “clinical obesity” would involve a broad array of observations including a history, physical examination, standard laboratory and additional testing, “naming signs and symptoms, organ by organ, tissue by tissue, with plausible mechanisms for each one.” In other words, treating each patient as an individual using evidence-based criteria to make a diagnosis. While likely to be time consuming, this strategy feels like a more scientific approach. I suspect once clinical obesity is more rigorously defined it could be divided into several subtypes. For example, there would be a few conditions that were genetic; Prader-Willi syndrome being the best known.

However, I think the Lancet Commission’s strategy will find that the majority of individuals who make up this half-century global surge have become clinically obese because they have been unable to adapt to the obeseogenic forces in our society, which include diet, autocentricity, and attractive sedentary forms of entertainment, to name just three.

In some cases these unfortunate individuals are more vulnerable because there were born into an economically disadvantaged situation. In other scenarios a lack of foresight and/or political will may have left individuals with no other choice but to rely on automobiles to get around. Still others may find themselves living in a nutritional desert because all of the grocery stores have closed.

I recently encountered a descriptor in a story about the Federal Emergency Management Agency which could easily be adapted to describe this large and growing subtype of individuals with clinical obesity. “Social vulnerability” is measure of how well a community can withstand external stressors that impact human health. For example, the emergency management folks are thinking in terms of natural disaster such as hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes and are asking how well a given community can meet the challenges one would create.

But, the term social vulnerability can easily be applied to individuals living in a society in which unhealthy food is abundant, an infrastructure that discourages or outright prevents non-motorized travel, and the temptation of sedentary entertainment options is unavoidable. Fortunately, not every citizen living in an obesogenic society becomes obese. What factors have protected the non-obese individuals from these obeseogenic stressors? What are the characteristics of the unfortunate “vulnerables” living in the same society who end up being obese?

It is time to shift our focus away from a poorly defined disease model to one in which we begin looking at our society to find out why we have so many socially vulnerable individuals. The toll of obesity as it is currently defined is many order of magnitudes greater than any natural disaster. We have become communities that can no longer withstand the its obesogenic stressors many of which we have created and/or allowed to accumulate over the last century.

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

Sometime in the last year or 2 I wrote that, despite my considerable reservations, I had finally come to the conclusion that the American Medical Association’s decision to designate obesity as a disease was appropriate. My rationalization was that the disease label would open more opportunities for funding obesity treatments. However, the explosive growth and popularity of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists over the last year has had me rethinking my decision to suppress my long-held reservations about the disease designation.

So, if it’s not a disease, then what should we call it? How do we explain its surge in high-income countries that began in the 1980s? While there are still some folks who see obesity as a character flaw, I think you and I as healthcare providers have difficulty explaining the increase prevalence of obesity as either global breakdown of willpower or a widespread genetic shift as the result of burst of radiation from solar flares.

However, if we want to continue our search and finger-pointing we need to have a better definition of exactly what obesity is. If we’re going to continue calling it a disease we have done a pretty sloppy job of creating diagnostic criteria. To be honest, we aren’t doing such a hot job with “long COVID” either.

A recent article in the New York Times makes it clear that I’m not the only physician who is feeling uncomfortable with this lack of diagnostic specificity.

We know that using body mass index (BMI) as a criteria is imprecise. There are healthy individuals with elevated BMIs and there are others who are carrying an unhealthy amount of fat who have normal BMIs. And, there are individuals who have what might appear to be an excess amount of fat who are fit and healthy by other criteria.

Some investigators feel that a set of measurements that includes a waist and/or hip measurement may be a more accurate way of determining visceral adipose tissue. However, this body roundness index (BRI) currently relies on a tape measurement. Until the technique can be preformed by an inexpensive and readily available scanner, the BRI cannot be considered a practical tool for determining obesity.

Dr. Francisco Rubino, the chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at Kings College in London, England, has been quoted as saying that, “if one defines a disease inaccurately, everything that stems from that – from diagnosis to treatment to policies – will be distorted and biased.”

Denmark has been forced to relabel obesity as a risk factor because the disease designation was stressing the financial viability of their healthcare system as more and more patients were being prescribe GLP-1 agonists, sometimes off label. A rationing strategy was resulting in suboptimal treatment of a significant portion of the obese population.

Spearheaded by Dr. Rubino, a Lancet Commission composed of physicians has tasked itself to define an “evidence-based diagnosis for obesity. Instead of relying on a single metric such as the BMI or BRI, diagnosing “clinical obesity” would involve a broad array of observations including a history, physical examination, standard laboratory and additional testing, “naming signs and symptoms, organ by organ, tissue by tissue, with plausible mechanisms for each one.” In other words, treating each patient as an individual using evidence-based criteria to make a diagnosis. While likely to be time consuming, this strategy feels like a more scientific approach. I suspect once clinical obesity is more rigorously defined it could be divided into several subtypes. For example, there would be a few conditions that were genetic; Prader-Willi syndrome being the best known.

However, I think the Lancet Commission’s strategy will find that the majority of individuals who make up this half-century global surge have become clinically obese because they have been unable to adapt to the obeseogenic forces in our society, which include diet, autocentricity, and attractive sedentary forms of entertainment, to name just three.

In some cases these unfortunate individuals are more vulnerable because there were born into an economically disadvantaged situation. In other scenarios a lack of foresight and/or political will may have left individuals with no other choice but to rely on automobiles to get around. Still others may find themselves living in a nutritional desert because all of the grocery stores have closed.

I recently encountered a descriptor in a story about the Federal Emergency Management Agency which could easily be adapted to describe this large and growing subtype of individuals with clinical obesity. “Social vulnerability” is measure of how well a community can withstand external stressors that impact human health. For example, the emergency management folks are thinking in terms of natural disaster such as hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes and are asking how well a given community can meet the challenges one would create.

But, the term social vulnerability can easily be applied to individuals living in a society in which unhealthy food is abundant, an infrastructure that discourages or outright prevents non-motorized travel, and the temptation of sedentary entertainment options is unavoidable. Fortunately, not every citizen living in an obesogenic society becomes obese. What factors have protected the non-obese individuals from these obeseogenic stressors? What are the characteristics of the unfortunate “vulnerables” living in the same society who end up being obese?

It is time to shift our focus away from a poorly defined disease model to one in which we begin looking at our society to find out why we have so many socially vulnerable individuals. The toll of obesity as it is currently defined is many order of magnitudes greater than any natural disaster. We have become communities that can no longer withstand the its obesogenic stressors many of which we have created and/or allowed to accumulate over the last century.

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

Sometime in the last year or 2 I wrote that, despite my considerable reservations, I had finally come to the conclusion that the American Medical Association’s decision to designate obesity as a disease was appropriate. My rationalization was that the disease label would open more opportunities for funding obesity treatments. However, the explosive growth and popularity of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists over the last year has had me rethinking my decision to suppress my long-held reservations about the disease designation.

So, if it’s not a disease, then what should we call it? How do we explain its surge in high-income countries that began in the 1980s? While there are still some folks who see obesity as a character flaw, I think you and I as healthcare providers have difficulty explaining the increase prevalence of obesity as either global breakdown of willpower or a widespread genetic shift as the result of burst of radiation from solar flares.

However, if we want to continue our search and finger-pointing we need to have a better definition of exactly what obesity is. If we’re going to continue calling it a disease we have done a pretty sloppy job of creating diagnostic criteria. To be honest, we aren’t doing such a hot job with “long COVID” either.

A recent article in the New York Times makes it clear that I’m not the only physician who is feeling uncomfortable with this lack of diagnostic specificity.

We know that using body mass index (BMI) as a criteria is imprecise. There are healthy individuals with elevated BMIs and there are others who are carrying an unhealthy amount of fat who have normal BMIs. And, there are individuals who have what might appear to be an excess amount of fat who are fit and healthy by other criteria.

Some investigators feel that a set of measurements that includes a waist and/or hip measurement may be a more accurate way of determining visceral adipose tissue. However, this body roundness index (BRI) currently relies on a tape measurement. Until the technique can be preformed by an inexpensive and readily available scanner, the BRI cannot be considered a practical tool for determining obesity.

Dr. Francisco Rubino, the chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at Kings College in London, England, has been quoted as saying that, “if one defines a disease inaccurately, everything that stems from that – from diagnosis to treatment to policies – will be distorted and biased.”

Denmark has been forced to relabel obesity as a risk factor because the disease designation was stressing the financial viability of their healthcare system as more and more patients were being prescribe GLP-1 agonists, sometimes off label. A rationing strategy was resulting in suboptimal treatment of a significant portion of the obese population.

Spearheaded by Dr. Rubino, a Lancet Commission composed of physicians has tasked itself to define an “evidence-based diagnosis for obesity. Instead of relying on a single metric such as the BMI or BRI, diagnosing “clinical obesity” would involve a broad array of observations including a history, physical examination, standard laboratory and additional testing, “naming signs and symptoms, organ by organ, tissue by tissue, with plausible mechanisms for each one.” In other words, treating each patient as an individual using evidence-based criteria to make a diagnosis. While likely to be time consuming, this strategy feels like a more scientific approach. I suspect once clinical obesity is more rigorously defined it could be divided into several subtypes. For example, there would be a few conditions that were genetic; Prader-Willi syndrome being the best known.

However, I think the Lancet Commission’s strategy will find that the majority of individuals who make up this half-century global surge have become clinically obese because they have been unable to adapt to the obeseogenic forces in our society, which include diet, autocentricity, and attractive sedentary forms of entertainment, to name just three.

In some cases these unfortunate individuals are more vulnerable because there were born into an economically disadvantaged situation. In other scenarios a lack of foresight and/or political will may have left individuals with no other choice but to rely on automobiles to get around. Still others may find themselves living in a nutritional desert because all of the grocery stores have closed.

I recently encountered a descriptor in a story about the Federal Emergency Management Agency which could easily be adapted to describe this large and growing subtype of individuals with clinical obesity. “Social vulnerability” is measure of how well a community can withstand external stressors that impact human health. For example, the emergency management folks are thinking in terms of natural disaster such as hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes and are asking how well a given community can meet the challenges one would create.

But, the term social vulnerability can easily be applied to individuals living in a society in which unhealthy food is abundant, an infrastructure that discourages or outright prevents non-motorized travel, and the temptation of sedentary entertainment options is unavoidable. Fortunately, not every citizen living in an obesogenic society becomes obese. What factors have protected the non-obese individuals from these obeseogenic stressors? What are the characteristics of the unfortunate “vulnerables” living in the same society who end up being obese?

It is time to shift our focus away from a poorly defined disease model to one in which we begin looking at our society to find out why we have so many socially vulnerable individuals. The toll of obesity as it is currently defined is many order of magnitudes greater than any natural disaster. We have become communities that can no longer withstand the its obesogenic stressors many of which we have created and/or allowed to accumulate over the last century.

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

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.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — The rationale for using obesity medications in pediatric patients is that it’s using “a biological intervention to treat a biologically based disease,” according to Claudia Fox, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics and codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Fox provided an overview of what obesity medications are approved for in youth and how to determine which medications may be best for different patients.

“This field is changing so rapidly that even over the course of the last 3 or 4 months, the verbiage around what we should be calling these interventions has changed,” Fox noted. Instead of “anti-obesity” medications, “most of us are now using the term obesity medications to highlight or to reduce chances of stigma and bias that can come along with this topic.”

Jessica Ivers, MD, a pediatrician at Swedish Pediatrics in Seattle, Washington, said she found the session very informative, particularly because she doesn’t think many pediatricians currently feel very comfortable prescribing obesity medications.

“It answered questions that any general pediatrician would have, and it’s kind of a new field that people are learning about,” Ivers said. “I think we just need more education. It’s just too new, and people haven’t had the education and the support from colleagues to [use the medications].”

Fox first reminded attendees of precisely what obesity is: A chronic, relapsing, multifactorial, neurobehavioral disease that involves the accumulation and/or distribution of excess body fat that results in impaired health. AAP clinical practice guidelines currently advise that youth aged 12 years or older who have obesity be offered weight loss pharmacotherapy as an adjunct to lifestyle treatment, taking into consideration the indications, risks, and benefits of each medication.

That doesn’t necessarily mean every child aged 12 years or older with a body mass index (BMI) of at least the 95th percentile should be prescribed one of these medications, Fox said. But pediatricians should start becoming familiar with the options and recognize that part of reducing the stigma of this disease is emphasizing that these medications are prescribed not for “weight loss” but to treat the disease of obesity, Fox said. The guidelines advise “early, intensive care” and focusing on the whole child, “using a family-centered and nonstigmatizing approach that acknowledges obesity’s biologic, social, and structural drivers.”
 

Offer the Full Spectrum of Care Early On

Early intervention means starting obesity treatment at diagnosis, without watchful waiting or the previously recommended staged approach. Instead of trying lifestyle therapy for 3-6 months, then considering the addition of medication, and then considering bariatric surgery, “we should be offering the full spectrum of obesity care as appropriate for that individual patient,” Fox said.

Some children with severe obesity may need the combination of lifestyle therapy and pharmacotherapy right up front, whereas another might be able to try lifestyle therapy alone for a while first. “What we know is that, for most interventions, whether it is lifestyle therapy, a medication, or bariatric surgery, early response typically predicts longer-term response,” Fox said. A study conducted by her group, for example, found that a 3% BMI reduction after 1 month with lifestyle therapy was very predictive of clinically meaningful BMI reduction at 1 year.

As with any medical treatment, physicians need to weigh the risks of the medication — short-term side effects and unknown long-term risks (or benefits) — against the risks of not treating. Because obesity is a progressive disease, “if we don’t treat it, most will develop comorbid conditions, or worsening of their already present comorbid conditions, and this does indeed lead to shortened life expectancy,” Fox said. Those who should be treated with medication are obviously those in whom the benefits outweigh the risks, Fox said, which depends on their age, their comorbidities, the severity of obesity, and the safety and efficacy of medication options.

“If I have a patient who has maybe class 2 obesity but no other comorbid conditions, I may be less inclined to start an obesity medication than a kid who has class 1 obesity and obstructive sleep apnea, for instance,” Fox said. “Some of the medications are very, very potent and effective. If you have a kid who maybe has less severe forms of obesity, perhaps they don’t need something that’s so potent.”

BMI trajectory is also a factor to consider. She said she may not be too concerned about a 16-year-old who has always been at the 95th percentile and is otherwise healthy, but the situation is different for a 16-year-old who used to be in the 25th percentile and has rapidly progressed to the 50th and then 75th percentiles in a trajectory heading straight up.

Another factor that may come into play is the patient and family preferences, though Fox noted that weight bias and stigma often interfere here. If obesity medications are brought up, the family may bring up the need for more exercise and better meal prep at home.

“They have this sense that they just need to try harder, that if they did that, the obesity would somehow get better on its own,” Fox said. “That’s an internalized bias that it’s somehow their fault, rather than realizing that this is indeed a biological disorder.”

Finally, clinicians may want to consider the child’s response to lifestyle therapy and whether they have already had bariatric surgery because these medications can be prescribed in people who did not have an adequate response to surgery.
 

Overview of the Medications

There are currently six obesity medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in youth: Phentermine, orlistat, liraglutide, phentermine/topiramate, semaglutide, and setmelanotide.

Of these, orlistat is rarely used now because it results in the least amount of change in BMI (about a 3% loss change in BMI), has a lot of gastrointestinal side effects, often is not covered by insurance, and is expensive out of pocket. Setmelanotide is indicated only in those aged 6 years or older who have obesity because of Bardet-Biedl syndrome or one of three other rare genetic conditions: a POMC, LEPR, or PCSK1 deficiency. Fox therefore focused on the other medications besides these two.

While nearly all the currently available obesity medications are only approved in those aged 12 years or older, Fox noted that studies are ongoing at younger ages, so some of these medications may receive approval in younger populations in the future. The only one currently available for a younger age is liraglutide, which is approved down to 6 years old in children with type 2 diabetes.

“Very young kids who have very severe forms of obesity need intervention, and unfortunately, at this point, we really don’t have much to offer them,” Fox said.

Fox highlighted six key factors to consider in selecting a medication for those aged 12 years or older, though one of these, in the US healthcare system, can tend to trump all the others. Those factors are mechanism of action, side effect profile, effects on other diagnoses, patient/family preferences, provider comfort, and finally — the potentially overruling one — insurance coverage and access.

“These days, insurance coverage and access are really the No. 1 driver when I’m seeing a patient,” Fox said. “The first thing I do is look at their insurance and then also look at what kind of updates our pharmacist has given us about which medication is currently in stock.”

Each medication has different properties that should be considered with the child’s health profile. For example, topiramate is a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor so likely shouldn’t be prescribed in a child who is taking any other carbonic anhydrase inhibitor. Fox said she probably wouldn’t prescribe phentermine in a child with severe anxiety because it might enhance the anxiety effect. But if a child has migraines, she may be more inclined to try phentermine/topiramate first because the topiramate may help with the migraines. Similarly, if a child has type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, she may lean toward one of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist drugs.
 

Liraglutide and Semaglutide

Liraglutide and semaglutide are both GLP-1 receptor agonists administered subcutaneously to reduce appetite, increase satiety, slow gastric emptying, and reduce the food reward response in the brain. Liraglutide can result in up to 4.5%-5% change in BMI, and semaglutide, the most potent of all the medications, can result in up to a 17% change in BMI.

Liraglutide and semaglutide are both approved for patients aged 12 years or older who weigh at least 60 kg and have a BMI of at least the 95th percentile. Liraglutide is also approved for those aged 10 years or older with type 2 diabetes. Both are contraindicated in those with a family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia II. The risks to watch for include pancreatitis and gallbladder disease. Also keep in mind if you have a patient with type 1 diabetes and insulin resistance; prescribing a GLP-1 agonist is appropriate, but their insulin needs will decrease, necessitating close monitoring of their blood glucose, Fox noted.

These GLP-1 medications can be considered for those who have insurance coverage for them, who have diabetes or prediabetes, who are comfortable with daily (liraglutide) or weekly (semaglutide) injections, who have food cravings, and who have poor satiety or satiation. Without insurance, these medications are very expensive.

The most common side effects include injection site reactions and nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, though all these usually fade and can be minimized with small portions and slower eating if needed. Less common possible side effects can include abdominal pain, constipation, headache, dizziness, fatigue, and hypoglycemia. If patients develop severe belly pain that radiates to their back, they should be assessed for pancreatitis.

It’s also important to demonstrate for patients how to do the injections, Fox said. Liraglutide dosing begins at 0.6 mg daily for a week, followed by a week at 1.2 mg, a week at 1.8 mg, a week at 2.4 mg, and then 3 mg daily. Semaglutide dosing starts at 0.25 mg weekly for 4 weeks, then going up each subsequent month as needed to 0.5 mg, then 1 mg, then 1.7 mg, and finally 2.4 mg. Though there’s no standard follow-up schedule for these medications, Fox suggested considering monthly visits for the first 3 months and then every 2-3 months to assess heart rate and blood pressure, the injection site, adherence, side effects, and the effect on BMI and eating.

“Are they getting appetite suppression, but not too much appetite suppression?” Fox said. “Just like in eating disorder treatment, we want our patients to eat regularly spaced meals. If their appetite is so suppressed that they are hardly eating anything, that’s a problem.”

Fox also offered the following additional pearls about these medications:

• Though manufacturers have struggled to keep up with demand, the shortages of these medications are improving. However, beware the compounding pharmacies filling the gap because compounded medications are not FDA approved, and quality control issues are a concern.
• Prior authorizations are usually needed, and common reasons for denial to anticipate include lack of documentation on not having contraindications, the patient not following a low-calorie diet or engaging in physical activity, and the patient not having seen a registered dietitian.
• Patients should expect gastrointestinal side effects, but ondansetron can be prescribed to lessen the intensity.

Phentermine/Topiramate

Phentermine/topiramate extended-release is a once-daily oral tablet, with the phentermine acting to reduce appetite (by simulating the release of norepinephrine) and the topiramate reducing caloric intake and food reward response (by increasing gamma-aminobutyric acid activity). It’s approved for those aged 12 years or older with a BMI of at least the 95th percentile and should be considered in those with strong hunger, low energy, binge eating disorder, or migraines, as well as those who have insurance coverage for it. It can result in up to a 10% change in BMI.

Contraindications include pregnancy, substance use, cardiovascular disease (though it’s okay in patients with controlled hypertension), hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, and monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) use. Fox emphasized the teratogenic effects, so patients capable of pregnancy need to be on reliable birth control. The most common side effects include paresthesia, dizziness, dysgeusia, insomnia, and constipation.

A risk of topiramate is kidney stones, so patients should drink a lot of water, especially in hot weather, Fox said. Other risks can include metabolic acidosis, suicidality, poor cognitive function, high blood pressure, and renal impairment.

“If your patient is struggling academically, I might use this medication a bit more cautiously, particularly when the dose gets above 100 mg a day,” Fox said. “That’s when the cognitive effects tend to emerge more strongly.”

Patients with congenital heart disease should meet with their cardiologist before starting this medication, and although patients taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) can take this, there is a potential increased risk for serotonin syndrome because phentermine has a little bit of serotonergic activity, she said.

Before prescribing, do an exam to ensure the patient doesn’t have a heart murmur, isn’t hypertensive, isn’t pregnant, has normal kidney function, and has bicarbonate in a reasonable range. Dosing begins with a daily 3.75/23-mg capsule for 2 weeks, followed by 2 weeks at 7.5 mg/46 mg. As with the GLP-1 drugs, Fox advises considering monthly follow-ups for the first 3 months and then visits every 2-3 months. Each visit should include the assessment of cardiovascular health, heart rate, blood pressure, side effects, pregnancy risk, and the medication’s effect on BMI and eating. If the patient is tolerating a dose of 7.5 mg/46 mg, it can be increased to 11.25 mg/69 mg for 2 weeks and then to 15 mg/92 mg. Bicarbonate and creatinine should be checked every 6-12 months; if bicarbonate < 18 mEq/L, the dose should be reduced and then bicarbonate should be checked again a month later.

Fox noted that this drug is expected to go off patent in late 2024 or in 2025, which will substantially reduce the cost. It’s also possible to prescribe phentermine and topiramate separately, which may reduce costs or help with insurance coverage and can allow for evening dosing of topiramate.
 

Phentermine

Phentermine alone is only approved for those older than 16 years who have a BMI of at least 30, or at least 27 with weight-related comorbidities, and it’s not approved for use longer than 12 weeks. It results in a BMI change of up to 5%. It should be considered in those with strong hunger and low energy and in those who don’t have adequate insurance coverage because out-of-pocket costs can be as little as $5/mo.

Contraindications are the same as those for the combined pill above: Substance use, cardiovascular disease, hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, MAOI use, and agitation. Again, take caution with patients who have hypertension, have congenital heart disease, or take SSRIs or insulin.

Side effects can include palpitations, tachycardia, dry mouth, headache, insomnia, and anxiety. The dose starts at 15 mg daily, and Fox advises following a similar follow-up as with the other medications, at which clinicians should assess BMI, the medication’s effect on eating, cardiovascular health, and side effects and have a discussion about off-label use. Off-label use refers to prescriptions lasting longer than 12 weeks, but it’s arguably safer than attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder stimulants because of the lower addiction potential, Fox said.
 

What Else to Know

Because obesity is a chronic disease, treatment will be ongoing, Fox noted. A lot of people will ask when or where the “off-ramp” for these medications is, but many people will need these medications long term just as someone with other chronic diseases requires lifetime pharmacotherapy. The treatment intensity will vary based on disease severity and individual characteristics, Fox said.

For those feeling overwhelmed by the options, Fox advises clinicians to start by picking one medication to learn and then spending the time to read the FDA package insert in full. Get samples and then closely follow patients to learn that medication well before moving on to learn another. She also noted the opportunity for pediatricians to see a pediatric obesity medicine fellowship.

No external funding was used for the presentation. Fox is a site principal investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Ivers had no disclosures.

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

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — The rationale for using obesity medications in pediatric patients is that it’s using “a biological intervention to treat a biologically based disease,” according to Claudia Fox, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics and codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Fox provided an overview of what obesity medications are approved for in youth and how to determine which medications may be best for different patients.

“This field is changing so rapidly that even over the course of the last 3 or 4 months, the verbiage around what we should be calling these interventions has changed,” Fox noted. Instead of “anti-obesity” medications, “most of us are now using the term obesity medications to highlight or to reduce chances of stigma and bias that can come along with this topic.”

Jessica Ivers, MD, a pediatrician at Swedish Pediatrics in Seattle, Washington, said she found the session very informative, particularly because she doesn’t think many pediatricians currently feel very comfortable prescribing obesity medications.

“It answered questions that any general pediatrician would have, and it’s kind of a new field that people are learning about,” Ivers said. “I think we just need more education. It’s just too new, and people haven’t had the education and the support from colleagues to [use the medications].”

Fox first reminded attendees of precisely what obesity is: A chronic, relapsing, multifactorial, neurobehavioral disease that involves the accumulation and/or distribution of excess body fat that results in impaired health. AAP clinical practice guidelines currently advise that youth aged 12 years or older who have obesity be offered weight loss pharmacotherapy as an adjunct to lifestyle treatment, taking into consideration the indications, risks, and benefits of each medication.

That doesn’t necessarily mean every child aged 12 years or older with a body mass index (BMI) of at least the 95th percentile should be prescribed one of these medications, Fox said. But pediatricians should start becoming familiar with the options and recognize that part of reducing the stigma of this disease is emphasizing that these medications are prescribed not for “weight loss” but to treat the disease of obesity, Fox said. The guidelines advise “early, intensive care” and focusing on the whole child, “using a family-centered and nonstigmatizing approach that acknowledges obesity’s biologic, social, and structural drivers.”
 

Offer the Full Spectrum of Care Early On

Early intervention means starting obesity treatment at diagnosis, without watchful waiting or the previously recommended staged approach. Instead of trying lifestyle therapy for 3-6 months, then considering the addition of medication, and then considering bariatric surgery, “we should be offering the full spectrum of obesity care as appropriate for that individual patient,” Fox said.

Some children with severe obesity may need the combination of lifestyle therapy and pharmacotherapy right up front, whereas another might be able to try lifestyle therapy alone for a while first. “What we know is that, for most interventions, whether it is lifestyle therapy, a medication, or bariatric surgery, early response typically predicts longer-term response,” Fox said. A study conducted by her group, for example, found that a 3% BMI reduction after 1 month with lifestyle therapy was very predictive of clinically meaningful BMI reduction at 1 year.

As with any medical treatment, physicians need to weigh the risks of the medication — short-term side effects and unknown long-term risks (or benefits) — against the risks of not treating. Because obesity is a progressive disease, “if we don’t treat it, most will develop comorbid conditions, or worsening of their already present comorbid conditions, and this does indeed lead to shortened life expectancy,” Fox said. Those who should be treated with medication are obviously those in whom the benefits outweigh the risks, Fox said, which depends on their age, their comorbidities, the severity of obesity, and the safety and efficacy of medication options.

“If I have a patient who has maybe class 2 obesity but no other comorbid conditions, I may be less inclined to start an obesity medication than a kid who has class 1 obesity and obstructive sleep apnea, for instance,” Fox said. “Some of the medications are very, very potent and effective. If you have a kid who maybe has less severe forms of obesity, perhaps they don’t need something that’s so potent.”

BMI trajectory is also a factor to consider. She said she may not be too concerned about a 16-year-old who has always been at the 95th percentile and is otherwise healthy, but the situation is different for a 16-year-old who used to be in the 25th percentile and has rapidly progressed to the 50th and then 75th percentiles in a trajectory heading straight up.

Another factor that may come into play is the patient and family preferences, though Fox noted that weight bias and stigma often interfere here. If obesity medications are brought up, the family may bring up the need for more exercise and better meal prep at home.

“They have this sense that they just need to try harder, that if they did that, the obesity would somehow get better on its own,” Fox said. “That’s an internalized bias that it’s somehow their fault, rather than realizing that this is indeed a biological disorder.”

Finally, clinicians may want to consider the child’s response to lifestyle therapy and whether they have already had bariatric surgery because these medications can be prescribed in people who did not have an adequate response to surgery.
 

Overview of the Medications

There are currently six obesity medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in youth: Phentermine, orlistat, liraglutide, phentermine/topiramate, semaglutide, and setmelanotide.

Of these, orlistat is rarely used now because it results in the least amount of change in BMI (about a 3% loss change in BMI), has a lot of gastrointestinal side effects, often is not covered by insurance, and is expensive out of pocket. Setmelanotide is indicated only in those aged 6 years or older who have obesity because of Bardet-Biedl syndrome or one of three other rare genetic conditions: a POMC, LEPR, or PCSK1 deficiency. Fox therefore focused on the other medications besides these two.

While nearly all the currently available obesity medications are only approved in those aged 12 years or older, Fox noted that studies are ongoing at younger ages, so some of these medications may receive approval in younger populations in the future. The only one currently available for a younger age is liraglutide, which is approved down to 6 years old in children with type 2 diabetes.

“Very young kids who have very severe forms of obesity need intervention, and unfortunately, at this point, we really don’t have much to offer them,” Fox said.

Fox highlighted six key factors to consider in selecting a medication for those aged 12 years or older, though one of these, in the US healthcare system, can tend to trump all the others. Those factors are mechanism of action, side effect profile, effects on other diagnoses, patient/family preferences, provider comfort, and finally — the potentially overruling one — insurance coverage and access.

“These days, insurance coverage and access are really the No. 1 driver when I’m seeing a patient,” Fox said. “The first thing I do is look at their insurance and then also look at what kind of updates our pharmacist has given us about which medication is currently in stock.”

Each medication has different properties that should be considered with the child’s health profile. For example, topiramate is a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor so likely shouldn’t be prescribed in a child who is taking any other carbonic anhydrase inhibitor. Fox said she probably wouldn’t prescribe phentermine in a child with severe anxiety because it might enhance the anxiety effect. But if a child has migraines, she may be more inclined to try phentermine/topiramate first because the topiramate may help with the migraines. Similarly, if a child has type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, she may lean toward one of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist drugs.
 

Liraglutide and Semaglutide

Liraglutide and semaglutide are both GLP-1 receptor agonists administered subcutaneously to reduce appetite, increase satiety, slow gastric emptying, and reduce the food reward response in the brain. Liraglutide can result in up to 4.5%-5% change in BMI, and semaglutide, the most potent of all the medications, can result in up to a 17% change in BMI.

Liraglutide and semaglutide are both approved for patients aged 12 years or older who weigh at least 60 kg and have a BMI of at least the 95th percentile. Liraglutide is also approved for those aged 10 years or older with type 2 diabetes. Both are contraindicated in those with a family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia II. The risks to watch for include pancreatitis and gallbladder disease. Also keep in mind if you have a patient with type 1 diabetes and insulin resistance; prescribing a GLP-1 agonist is appropriate, but their insulin needs will decrease, necessitating close monitoring of their blood glucose, Fox noted.

These GLP-1 medications can be considered for those who have insurance coverage for them, who have diabetes or prediabetes, who are comfortable with daily (liraglutide) or weekly (semaglutide) injections, who have food cravings, and who have poor satiety or satiation. Without insurance, these medications are very expensive.

The most common side effects include injection site reactions and nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, though all these usually fade and can be minimized with small portions and slower eating if needed. Less common possible side effects can include abdominal pain, constipation, headache, dizziness, fatigue, and hypoglycemia. If patients develop severe belly pain that radiates to their back, they should be assessed for pancreatitis.

It’s also important to demonstrate for patients how to do the injections, Fox said. Liraglutide dosing begins at 0.6 mg daily for a week, followed by a week at 1.2 mg, a week at 1.8 mg, a week at 2.4 mg, and then 3 mg daily. Semaglutide dosing starts at 0.25 mg weekly for 4 weeks, then going up each subsequent month as needed to 0.5 mg, then 1 mg, then 1.7 mg, and finally 2.4 mg. Though there’s no standard follow-up schedule for these medications, Fox suggested considering monthly visits for the first 3 months and then every 2-3 months to assess heart rate and blood pressure, the injection site, adherence, side effects, and the effect on BMI and eating.

“Are they getting appetite suppression, but not too much appetite suppression?” Fox said. “Just like in eating disorder treatment, we want our patients to eat regularly spaced meals. If their appetite is so suppressed that they are hardly eating anything, that’s a problem.”

Fox also offered the following additional pearls about these medications:

• Though manufacturers have struggled to keep up with demand, the shortages of these medications are improving. However, beware the compounding pharmacies filling the gap because compounded medications are not FDA approved, and quality control issues are a concern.
• Prior authorizations are usually needed, and common reasons for denial to anticipate include lack of documentation on not having contraindications, the patient not following a low-calorie diet or engaging in physical activity, and the patient not having seen a registered dietitian.
• Patients should expect gastrointestinal side effects, but ondansetron can be prescribed to lessen the intensity.

Phentermine/Topiramate

Phentermine/topiramate extended-release is a once-daily oral tablet, with the phentermine acting to reduce appetite (by simulating the release of norepinephrine) and the topiramate reducing caloric intake and food reward response (by increasing gamma-aminobutyric acid activity). It’s approved for those aged 12 years or older with a BMI of at least the 95th percentile and should be considered in those with strong hunger, low energy, binge eating disorder, or migraines, as well as those who have insurance coverage for it. It can result in up to a 10% change in BMI.

Contraindications include pregnancy, substance use, cardiovascular disease (though it’s okay in patients with controlled hypertension), hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, and monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) use. Fox emphasized the teratogenic effects, so patients capable of pregnancy need to be on reliable birth control. The most common side effects include paresthesia, dizziness, dysgeusia, insomnia, and constipation.

A risk of topiramate is kidney stones, so patients should drink a lot of water, especially in hot weather, Fox said. Other risks can include metabolic acidosis, suicidality, poor cognitive function, high blood pressure, and renal impairment.

“If your patient is struggling academically, I might use this medication a bit more cautiously, particularly when the dose gets above 100 mg a day,” Fox said. “That’s when the cognitive effects tend to emerge more strongly.”

Patients with congenital heart disease should meet with their cardiologist before starting this medication, and although patients taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) can take this, there is a potential increased risk for serotonin syndrome because phentermine has a little bit of serotonergic activity, she said.

Before prescribing, do an exam to ensure the patient doesn’t have a heart murmur, isn’t hypertensive, isn’t pregnant, has normal kidney function, and has bicarbonate in a reasonable range. Dosing begins with a daily 3.75/23-mg capsule for 2 weeks, followed by 2 weeks at 7.5 mg/46 mg. As with the GLP-1 drugs, Fox advises considering monthly follow-ups for the first 3 months and then visits every 2-3 months. Each visit should include the assessment of cardiovascular health, heart rate, blood pressure, side effects, pregnancy risk, and the medication’s effect on BMI and eating. If the patient is tolerating a dose of 7.5 mg/46 mg, it can be increased to 11.25 mg/69 mg for 2 weeks and then to 15 mg/92 mg. Bicarbonate and creatinine should be checked every 6-12 months; if bicarbonate < 18 mEq/L, the dose should be reduced and then bicarbonate should be checked again a month later.

Fox noted that this drug is expected to go off patent in late 2024 or in 2025, which will substantially reduce the cost. It’s also possible to prescribe phentermine and topiramate separately, which may reduce costs or help with insurance coverage and can allow for evening dosing of topiramate.
 

Phentermine

Phentermine alone is only approved for those older than 16 years who have a BMI of at least 30, or at least 27 with weight-related comorbidities, and it’s not approved for use longer than 12 weeks. It results in a BMI change of up to 5%. It should be considered in those with strong hunger and low energy and in those who don’t have adequate insurance coverage because out-of-pocket costs can be as little as $5/mo.

Contraindications are the same as those for the combined pill above: Substance use, cardiovascular disease, hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, MAOI use, and agitation. Again, take caution with patients who have hypertension, have congenital heart disease, or take SSRIs or insulin.

Side effects can include palpitations, tachycardia, dry mouth, headache, insomnia, and anxiety. The dose starts at 15 mg daily, and Fox advises following a similar follow-up as with the other medications, at which clinicians should assess BMI, the medication’s effect on eating, cardiovascular health, and side effects and have a discussion about off-label use. Off-label use refers to prescriptions lasting longer than 12 weeks, but it’s arguably safer than attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder stimulants because of the lower addiction potential, Fox said.
 

What Else to Know

Because obesity is a chronic disease, treatment will be ongoing, Fox noted. A lot of people will ask when or where the “off-ramp” for these medications is, but many people will need these medications long term just as someone with other chronic diseases requires lifetime pharmacotherapy. The treatment intensity will vary based on disease severity and individual characteristics, Fox said.

For those feeling overwhelmed by the options, Fox advises clinicians to start by picking one medication to learn and then spending the time to read the FDA package insert in full. Get samples and then closely follow patients to learn that medication well before moving on to learn another. She also noted the opportunity for pediatricians to see a pediatric obesity medicine fellowship.

No external funding was used for the presentation. Fox is a site principal investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Ivers had no disclosures.

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

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — The rationale for using obesity medications in pediatric patients is that it’s using “a biological intervention to treat a biologically based disease,” according to Claudia Fox, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics and codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Fox provided an overview of what obesity medications are approved for in youth and how to determine which medications may be best for different patients.

“This field is changing so rapidly that even over the course of the last 3 or 4 months, the verbiage around what we should be calling these interventions has changed,” Fox noted. Instead of “anti-obesity” medications, “most of us are now using the term obesity medications to highlight or to reduce chances of stigma and bias that can come along with this topic.”

Jessica Ivers, MD, a pediatrician at Swedish Pediatrics in Seattle, Washington, said she found the session very informative, particularly because she doesn’t think many pediatricians currently feel very comfortable prescribing obesity medications.

“It answered questions that any general pediatrician would have, and it’s kind of a new field that people are learning about,” Ivers said. “I think we just need more education. It’s just too new, and people haven’t had the education and the support from colleagues to [use the medications].”

Fox first reminded attendees of precisely what obesity is: A chronic, relapsing, multifactorial, neurobehavioral disease that involves the accumulation and/or distribution of excess body fat that results in impaired health. AAP clinical practice guidelines currently advise that youth aged 12 years or older who have obesity be offered weight loss pharmacotherapy as an adjunct to lifestyle treatment, taking into consideration the indications, risks, and benefits of each medication.

That doesn’t necessarily mean every child aged 12 years or older with a body mass index (BMI) of at least the 95th percentile should be prescribed one of these medications, Fox said. But pediatricians should start becoming familiar with the options and recognize that part of reducing the stigma of this disease is emphasizing that these medications are prescribed not for “weight loss” but to treat the disease of obesity, Fox said. The guidelines advise “early, intensive care” and focusing on the whole child, “using a family-centered and nonstigmatizing approach that acknowledges obesity’s biologic, social, and structural drivers.”
 

Offer the Full Spectrum of Care Early On

Early intervention means starting obesity treatment at diagnosis, without watchful waiting or the previously recommended staged approach. Instead of trying lifestyle therapy for 3-6 months, then considering the addition of medication, and then considering bariatric surgery, “we should be offering the full spectrum of obesity care as appropriate for that individual patient,” Fox said.

Some children with severe obesity may need the combination of lifestyle therapy and pharmacotherapy right up front, whereas another might be able to try lifestyle therapy alone for a while first. “What we know is that, for most interventions, whether it is lifestyle therapy, a medication, or bariatric surgery, early response typically predicts longer-term response,” Fox said. A study conducted by her group, for example, found that a 3% BMI reduction after 1 month with lifestyle therapy was very predictive of clinically meaningful BMI reduction at 1 year.

As with any medical treatment, physicians need to weigh the risks of the medication — short-term side effects and unknown long-term risks (or benefits) — against the risks of not treating. Because obesity is a progressive disease, “if we don’t treat it, most will develop comorbid conditions, or worsening of their already present comorbid conditions, and this does indeed lead to shortened life expectancy,” Fox said. Those who should be treated with medication are obviously those in whom the benefits outweigh the risks, Fox said, which depends on their age, their comorbidities, the severity of obesity, and the safety and efficacy of medication options.

“If I have a patient who has maybe class 2 obesity but no other comorbid conditions, I may be less inclined to start an obesity medication than a kid who has class 1 obesity and obstructive sleep apnea, for instance,” Fox said. “Some of the medications are very, very potent and effective. If you have a kid who maybe has less severe forms of obesity, perhaps they don’t need something that’s so potent.”

BMI trajectory is also a factor to consider. She said she may not be too concerned about a 16-year-old who has always been at the 95th percentile and is otherwise healthy, but the situation is different for a 16-year-old who used to be in the 25th percentile and has rapidly progressed to the 50th and then 75th percentiles in a trajectory heading straight up.

Another factor that may come into play is the patient and family preferences, though Fox noted that weight bias and stigma often interfere here. If obesity medications are brought up, the family may bring up the need for more exercise and better meal prep at home.

“They have this sense that they just need to try harder, that if they did that, the obesity would somehow get better on its own,” Fox said. “That’s an internalized bias that it’s somehow their fault, rather than realizing that this is indeed a biological disorder.”

Finally, clinicians may want to consider the child’s response to lifestyle therapy and whether they have already had bariatric surgery because these medications can be prescribed in people who did not have an adequate response to surgery.
 

Overview of the Medications

There are currently six obesity medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in youth: Phentermine, orlistat, liraglutide, phentermine/topiramate, semaglutide, and setmelanotide.

Of these, orlistat is rarely used now because it results in the least amount of change in BMI (about a 3% loss change in BMI), has a lot of gastrointestinal side effects, often is not covered by insurance, and is expensive out of pocket. Setmelanotide is indicated only in those aged 6 years or older who have obesity because of Bardet-Biedl syndrome or one of three other rare genetic conditions: a POMC, LEPR, or PCSK1 deficiency. Fox therefore focused on the other medications besides these two.

While nearly all the currently available obesity medications are only approved in those aged 12 years or older, Fox noted that studies are ongoing at younger ages, so some of these medications may receive approval in younger populations in the future. The only one currently available for a younger age is liraglutide, which is approved down to 6 years old in children with type 2 diabetes.

“Very young kids who have very severe forms of obesity need intervention, and unfortunately, at this point, we really don’t have much to offer them,” Fox said.

Fox highlighted six key factors to consider in selecting a medication for those aged 12 years or older, though one of these, in the US healthcare system, can tend to trump all the others. Those factors are mechanism of action, side effect profile, effects on other diagnoses, patient/family preferences, provider comfort, and finally — the potentially overruling one — insurance coverage and access.

“These days, insurance coverage and access are really the No. 1 driver when I’m seeing a patient,” Fox said. “The first thing I do is look at their insurance and then also look at what kind of updates our pharmacist has given us about which medication is currently in stock.”

Each medication has different properties that should be considered with the child’s health profile. For example, topiramate is a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor so likely shouldn’t be prescribed in a child who is taking any other carbonic anhydrase inhibitor. Fox said she probably wouldn’t prescribe phentermine in a child with severe anxiety because it might enhance the anxiety effect. But if a child has migraines, she may be more inclined to try phentermine/topiramate first because the topiramate may help with the migraines. Similarly, if a child has type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, she may lean toward one of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist drugs.
 

Liraglutide and Semaglutide

Liraglutide and semaglutide are both GLP-1 receptor agonists administered subcutaneously to reduce appetite, increase satiety, slow gastric emptying, and reduce the food reward response in the brain. Liraglutide can result in up to 4.5%-5% change in BMI, and semaglutide, the most potent of all the medications, can result in up to a 17% change in BMI.

Liraglutide and semaglutide are both approved for patients aged 12 years or older who weigh at least 60 kg and have a BMI of at least the 95th percentile. Liraglutide is also approved for those aged 10 years or older with type 2 diabetes. Both are contraindicated in those with a family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia II. The risks to watch for include pancreatitis and gallbladder disease. Also keep in mind if you have a patient with type 1 diabetes and insulin resistance; prescribing a GLP-1 agonist is appropriate, but their insulin needs will decrease, necessitating close monitoring of their blood glucose, Fox noted.

These GLP-1 medications can be considered for those who have insurance coverage for them, who have diabetes or prediabetes, who are comfortable with daily (liraglutide) or weekly (semaglutide) injections, who have food cravings, and who have poor satiety or satiation. Without insurance, these medications are very expensive.

The most common side effects include injection site reactions and nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, though all these usually fade and can be minimized with small portions and slower eating if needed. Less common possible side effects can include abdominal pain, constipation, headache, dizziness, fatigue, and hypoglycemia. If patients develop severe belly pain that radiates to their back, they should be assessed for pancreatitis.

It’s also important to demonstrate for patients how to do the injections, Fox said. Liraglutide dosing begins at 0.6 mg daily for a week, followed by a week at 1.2 mg, a week at 1.8 mg, a week at 2.4 mg, and then 3 mg daily. Semaglutide dosing starts at 0.25 mg weekly for 4 weeks, then going up each subsequent month as needed to 0.5 mg, then 1 mg, then 1.7 mg, and finally 2.4 mg. Though there’s no standard follow-up schedule for these medications, Fox suggested considering monthly visits for the first 3 months and then every 2-3 months to assess heart rate and blood pressure, the injection site, adherence, side effects, and the effect on BMI and eating.

“Are they getting appetite suppression, but not too much appetite suppression?” Fox said. “Just like in eating disorder treatment, we want our patients to eat regularly spaced meals. If their appetite is so suppressed that they are hardly eating anything, that’s a problem.”

Fox also offered the following additional pearls about these medications:

• Though manufacturers have struggled to keep up with demand, the shortages of these medications are improving. However, beware the compounding pharmacies filling the gap because compounded medications are not FDA approved, and quality control issues are a concern.
• Prior authorizations are usually needed, and common reasons for denial to anticipate include lack of documentation on not having contraindications, the patient not following a low-calorie diet or engaging in physical activity, and the patient not having seen a registered dietitian.
• Patients should expect gastrointestinal side effects, but ondansetron can be prescribed to lessen the intensity.

Phentermine/Topiramate

Phentermine/topiramate extended-release is a once-daily oral tablet, with the phentermine acting to reduce appetite (by simulating the release of norepinephrine) and the topiramate reducing caloric intake and food reward response (by increasing gamma-aminobutyric acid activity). It’s approved for those aged 12 years or older with a BMI of at least the 95th percentile and should be considered in those with strong hunger, low energy, binge eating disorder, or migraines, as well as those who have insurance coverage for it. It can result in up to a 10% change in BMI.

Contraindications include pregnancy, substance use, cardiovascular disease (though it’s okay in patients with controlled hypertension), hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, and monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) use. Fox emphasized the teratogenic effects, so patients capable of pregnancy need to be on reliable birth control. The most common side effects include paresthesia, dizziness, dysgeusia, insomnia, and constipation.

A risk of topiramate is kidney stones, so patients should drink a lot of water, especially in hot weather, Fox said. Other risks can include metabolic acidosis, suicidality, poor cognitive function, high blood pressure, and renal impairment.

“If your patient is struggling academically, I might use this medication a bit more cautiously, particularly when the dose gets above 100 mg a day,” Fox said. “That’s when the cognitive effects tend to emerge more strongly.”

Patients with congenital heart disease should meet with their cardiologist before starting this medication, and although patients taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) can take this, there is a potential increased risk for serotonin syndrome because phentermine has a little bit of serotonergic activity, she said.

Before prescribing, do an exam to ensure the patient doesn’t have a heart murmur, isn’t hypertensive, isn’t pregnant, has normal kidney function, and has bicarbonate in a reasonable range. Dosing begins with a daily 3.75/23-mg capsule for 2 weeks, followed by 2 weeks at 7.5 mg/46 mg. As with the GLP-1 drugs, Fox advises considering monthly follow-ups for the first 3 months and then visits every 2-3 months. Each visit should include the assessment of cardiovascular health, heart rate, blood pressure, side effects, pregnancy risk, and the medication’s effect on BMI and eating. If the patient is tolerating a dose of 7.5 mg/46 mg, it can be increased to 11.25 mg/69 mg for 2 weeks and then to 15 mg/92 mg. Bicarbonate and creatinine should be checked every 6-12 months; if bicarbonate < 18 mEq/L, the dose should be reduced and then bicarbonate should be checked again a month later.

Fox noted that this drug is expected to go off patent in late 2024 or in 2025, which will substantially reduce the cost. It’s also possible to prescribe phentermine and topiramate separately, which may reduce costs or help with insurance coverage and can allow for evening dosing of topiramate.
 

Phentermine

Phentermine alone is only approved for those older than 16 years who have a BMI of at least 30, or at least 27 with weight-related comorbidities, and it’s not approved for use longer than 12 weeks. It results in a BMI change of up to 5%. It should be considered in those with strong hunger and low energy and in those who don’t have adequate insurance coverage because out-of-pocket costs can be as little as $5/mo.

Contraindications are the same as those for the combined pill above: Substance use, cardiovascular disease, hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, MAOI use, and agitation. Again, take caution with patients who have hypertension, have congenital heart disease, or take SSRIs or insulin.

Side effects can include palpitations, tachycardia, dry mouth, headache, insomnia, and anxiety. The dose starts at 15 mg daily, and Fox advises following a similar follow-up as with the other medications, at which clinicians should assess BMI, the medication’s effect on eating, cardiovascular health, and side effects and have a discussion about off-label use. Off-label use refers to prescriptions lasting longer than 12 weeks, but it’s arguably safer than attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder stimulants because of the lower addiction potential, Fox said.
 

What Else to Know

Because obesity is a chronic disease, treatment will be ongoing, Fox noted. A lot of people will ask when or where the “off-ramp” for these medications is, but many people will need these medications long term just as someone with other chronic diseases requires lifetime pharmacotherapy. The treatment intensity will vary based on disease severity and individual characteristics, Fox said.

For those feeling overwhelmed by the options, Fox advises clinicians to start by picking one medication to learn and then spending the time to read the FDA package insert in full. Get samples and then closely follow patients to learn that medication well before moving on to learn another. She also noted the opportunity for pediatricians to see a pediatric obesity medicine fellowship.

No external funding was used for the presentation. Fox is a site principal investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Ivers had no disclosures.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity .

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here in London at the European Society of Cardiology meetings, at theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology booth, using the meetings as an opportunity to meet with colleagues to talk about recent things that they’ve been writing about.

Today I’m joined by a good friend and colleague, Dr. Dhruv Kazi from Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston. Thanks for joining us.

Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, MS: Thank you for having me.

Harrington: Dr. Kazi is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He’s also the associate director of the Smith Center, which is an outcomes research center at the Beth Israel Deaconess. Thanks for joining us.

Kazi: Excited to be here.

Harrington: The topic I think you know that I want to discuss is a really important paper. There are two papers. They’re part of the American Heart Association’s 100th anniversary celebration, if you will. Many of the papers looked back at where science taken us.

With your coauthor, Karen Joynt Maddox, your papers are looking forward. They’re about the burden of cardiovascular disease in 2050. One paper really focused on what I would call the clinical and public health issues. Yours is focused on the economics. Is that a good description?

Kazi: Perfect.

Harrington: Tell us what you, Karen, and the other writers set out to do. What were you asked to do?

Kazi: As you know, the American Heart Association is entering its second century. Part of this was an exercise to say, where will the country be in 2050, which is a long enough time horizon for us to start planning for the future. What are the conditions that affect the magnitude of the disease, and the kinds of people who will be affected, that we should be aware of?

We looked back and said, if prior trends remain the same, where will we be in 2050, accounting for changes in demographics, changes in the composition of the population, and knowing that some of the cardiovascular risk factors are getting worse?

Harrington: For me, what was really striking is that, when I first saw the title and read “2050,” I thought, Oh, that’s a long way away. Then as I started reading it, I realized that this is not so far away.

Kazi: Absolutely.

Harrington: If we’re going to make a difference, it might take us 25 years.

Kazi: Especially if we set ourselves ambitious goals, we›re going to have to dig deep. Business-as-usual is not going to get us there.

Harrington: No. What I think has happened is we›ve spent so much time taking care of acute illness. Case fatality rates are fantastic. I was actually making the comment yesterday to a colleague that when I was an intern, the 30-day death rate from acute myocardial infarction was about 20%.

Kazi: Oh, wow.

Harrington: Now it’s 5%. That’s a big difference in a career.
 

Trends in the Wrong Direction

Kazi: There are fundamental trends. The decline in case fatalities is a really positive development, and I would hope that, going forward, that would continue. Those are risk-adjusted death rates and what is happening is that risk is going up. This is a function of the fact that the US population is aging; 2030 will be the first year that all the baby boomers will be over the age of 65.

By the mid-2030s, we’ll have more adults over the age of 65 than kids. That aging of the population is going to increase risk. The second is — and this is a positive development — we are a more diverse population, but the populations that are minoritized have higher cardiovascular risk, for a variety of reasons.

As the population of Asian Americans increases and doubles, in fact, as the population of Hispanic Americans doubles, we’re going to see an increase in risk related to cardiovascular disease. The third is that, over the past decade, there are some risk factors that are going in the wrong direction.

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because that’s humbling. I’m involved, as you know, with the American Heart Association, as are you. Despite all the work on Life’s Simple 7 and now Life’s Essential 8, we still have some issues.

Kazi: The big ones that come to mind are hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, all of which are trending in the wrong direction. Hypertension, we were gaining traction; and then over the past decade, we’ve slipped again. As you know, national blood pressure control rates have declined in many populations.

Harrington: Rather substantially.

Kazi: Substantially so, which has implications, in particular, for stroke rates in the future and stroke rates in young adults in the future. Obesity is a problem that we have very little control over. We’re already at 40% on average, which means that some populations are already in the 60% range.

Harrington: We also have obesity in kids — the burden, I’ll call it, of obesity. It’s not that you become obese in your thirties or your forties; you›re becoming obese as a teenager or even younger.

Kazi: Exactly. Since the 1990s, obesity in US adults has doubled, but obesity in US children has quadrupled. It’s starting from a lower base, but it’s very much an escalating problem.

Harrington: Diabetes is tightly linked to it but not totally explained.

Kazi: Exactly. The increase in diabetes is largely driven by obesity, but it›s probably also driven by changes in diet and lifestyle that don›t go through obesity.

Harrington: Yeah, it’s interesting. I think I have this figure correctly. It used to be rare that you saw a child with type 2 diabetes or what we call type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Now, the vast majority of kids with diabetes have type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: In the adolescents/young adults age group, most of it is type 2.

Harrington: Diabetes going up, obesity up, hypertension not well controlled, smoking combustible cigarettes way down.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Cholesterol levels. I was surprised. Cholesterol looked better. You said — because I was at a meeting where somebody asked you — that’s not explained by treatment.

Kazi: No, it’s not, at least going back to the ‘70s, but likely even sooner. I think that can only be attributed to substantial dietary changes. We are consuming less fat and less trans-fat. It’s possible that those collectively are improving our cholesterol levels, possibly at the expense of our glucose levels, because we basically substituted fats in our diet with more carbs at a population level.
 

Cigarettes and Vaping

Harrington: Some things certainly trend in the right direction but others in a really difficult direction. It’s going to lead to pretty large changes in risk for coronary disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure.

Kazi: I want to go back to the tobacco point. There are definitely marked declines in tobacco, still tightly related to income in the country. You see much higher prevalence of tobacco use in lower-income populations, but it’s unclear to me where it’s going in kids. We know that combustible tobacco use is going down but e-cigarettes went up. What that leads to over the next 30 years is unclear to me.

Harrington: That is a really important comment that’s worth sidebarring. The vaping use has been a terrible epidemic among our high schoolers. What is that going to lead to? Is it going to lead to the use of combustible cigarettes and we’re going to see that go back up? It remains to be seen.

Kazi: Yes, it remains to be seen. Going back to your point about this change in risk factors and this change in demographics, both aging and becoming a more diverse population means that we have large increases in some healthcare conditions.

Coronary heart disease goes up some, there›s a big jump in stroke — nearly a doubling in stroke — which is related to hypertension, obesity, an aging population, and a more diverse population. There are changes in stroke in the young, and atrial fibrillation related to, again, hypertension. We’re seeing these projections, and with them come these pretty large projections in changes in healthcare spending.
 

Healthcare Spending Not Sustainable

Harrington: Big. I mean, it’s not sustainable. Give the audience the number — it’s pretty frightening.

Kazi: We’re talking about a quadrupling of healthcare costs related to cardiovascular disease over 25 years. We’ve gotten used to the narrative that healthcare in the US is expensive and drugs are expensive, but this is an enormous problem — an unsustainable problem, like you called it.

It’s a doubling as a proportion of the economy. I was looking this up this morning. If the US healthcare economy were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest economy in the world.

Harrington: Healthcare as it is today, is it 21% of our economy?

Kazi: It’s 17% now. If it were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest in the world. We are spending more on healthcare than all but two other countries’ total economies. It’s kind of crazy.

Harrington: We’re talking about a quadrupling.

Kazi: Within that, the cardiovascular piece is a big piece, and we›re talking about a quadrupling.

Harrington: That’s both direct and indirect costs.

Kazi: The quadrupling of costs is just the direct costs. Indirect costs, for the listeners, refer to costs unrelated to healthcare but changes in productivity, either because people are disabled and unable to participate fully in the workforce or they die early.

The productivity costs are also increased substantially as a result. If you look at both healthcare and productivity, that goes up threefold. These are very large changes.

Harrington: Let’s now get to what we can do about it. I made the comment to you when I first read the papers that I was very depressed. Then, after I went through my Kübler-Ross stages of depression, death, and dying, I came to acceptance.

What are we going to do about it? This is a focus on policy, but also a focus on how we deliver healthcare, how we think about healthcare, and how we develop drugs and devices.

The drug question is going to be the one the audience is thinking about. They say, well, what about GLP-1 agonists? Aren’t those going to save the day?

Kazi: Yes and no. I’ll say that, early in my career, I used to be very attracted to simple solutions to complex problems. I’ve come to realize that simple solutions are elegant, attractive, and wrong. We›re dealing with a very complex issue and I think we’re going to need a multipronged approach.

The way I think about it is that there was a group of people who are at very high risk today. How do we help those individuals? Then how do we help the future generation so that they’re not dealing with the projections that we’re talking about.

My colleague, Karen Joynt Maddox, who led one of the papers, as you mentioned, has an elegant line in the paper where she says projections are not destiny. These are things we can change.

Harrington: If nothing changes, this is what it’s going to look like.

Kazi: This is where we’re headed.

Harrington: We can change. We’ve got some time to change, but we don’t have forever.

Kazi: Yes, exactly. We picked the 25-year timeline instead of a “let’s plan for the next century” timeline because we want something concrete and actionable. It’s close enough to be meaningful but far enough to give us the runway we need to act.

Harrington: Give me two things from the policy perspective, because it’s mostly policy.

Kazi: There are policy and clinical interventions. From the policy perspective, if I had to list two things, one is expansion of access to care. As we talk about this big increase in the burden of disease and risk factors, if you have a large proportion of your population that has hypertension or diabetes, you’re going to have to expand access to care to ensure that people get treated so they can get access to this care before they develop the complications that we worry about, like stroke and heart disease, that are very expensive to treat downstream.

The second, more broadly related to access to care, is the access to medications that are effective. You bring up GLP-1s. I think we need a real strategy for how we can give people access to GLP-1s at a price that is affordable to individuals but also affordable to the health system, and to help them stay on the drugs.

GLP-1s are transformative in what they do for weight loss and for diabetes, but more than 50% of people who start one are off it at 12 months. There’s something fundamentally wrong about how we’re delivering GLP-1s today. It’s not just about the cost of the drugs but the support system people need to stay on.

Harrington: I’ve made the comment, in many forms now, that we know the drugs work. We have to figure out how to use them.

Kazi: Exactly, yes.

Harrington: Using them includes chronicity. This is a chronic condition. Some people can come off the drugs, but many can’t. We’re going to have to figure this out, and maybe the newer generations of drugs will help us address what people call the off-ramping. How are we going to do that? I think you’re spot-on. Those are critically important questions.

Kazi: As we looked at this modeling, I’ll tell you — I had a come-to-Jesus moment where I was like, there is no way to fix cardiovascular disease in the US without going through obesity and diabetes. We have to address obesity in the US. We can’t just treat our way out of it. Obesity is fundamentally a food problem and we’ve got to engage again with food policy in a meaningful way.

Harrington: As you know, with the American Heart Association, we›re doing a large amount of work now on food as medicine and food is medicine. We are trying to figure out what the levers are that we can pull to actually help people eat healthier diets.

Kazi: Yes. Rather than framing it as an individual choice that people are eating poorly, it’s, how do we make healthy diets the default in the environment?

Harrington: This is where you get to the children as well.

Kazi: Exactly.

Harrington: I could talk about this all day. I’ve had the benefit of reading the papers now a few times and talking to you on several occasions. Thank you for joining us.

Kazi: Thank you.
 

Dr. Harrington, Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean, Weill Cornell Medicine; Provost for Medical Affairs, Cornell University, New York, NY, disclosed ties with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT Executive Committee); Janssen (RCT Char), NHLBI (RCT Executive Committee, DSMB Chair); PCORI (RCT Co-Chair); DCRI, Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; and Cytokinetics. Dr. Kazi, Associate Director, Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Harvard Medical School, Director, Department of Cardiac Critical Care Unit, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed receiving a research grant from Boston Scientific (grant to examine the economics of stroke prevention).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity .

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here in London at the European Society of Cardiology meetings, at theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology booth, using the meetings as an opportunity to meet with colleagues to talk about recent things that they’ve been writing about.

Today I’m joined by a good friend and colleague, Dr. Dhruv Kazi from Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston. Thanks for joining us.

Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, MS: Thank you for having me.

Harrington: Dr. Kazi is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He’s also the associate director of the Smith Center, which is an outcomes research center at the Beth Israel Deaconess. Thanks for joining us.

Kazi: Excited to be here.

Harrington: The topic I think you know that I want to discuss is a really important paper. There are two papers. They’re part of the American Heart Association’s 100th anniversary celebration, if you will. Many of the papers looked back at where science taken us.

With your coauthor, Karen Joynt Maddox, your papers are looking forward. They’re about the burden of cardiovascular disease in 2050. One paper really focused on what I would call the clinical and public health issues. Yours is focused on the economics. Is that a good description?

Kazi: Perfect.

Harrington: Tell us what you, Karen, and the other writers set out to do. What were you asked to do?

Kazi: As you know, the American Heart Association is entering its second century. Part of this was an exercise to say, where will the country be in 2050, which is a long enough time horizon for us to start planning for the future. What are the conditions that affect the magnitude of the disease, and the kinds of people who will be affected, that we should be aware of?

We looked back and said, if prior trends remain the same, where will we be in 2050, accounting for changes in demographics, changes in the composition of the population, and knowing that some of the cardiovascular risk factors are getting worse?

Harrington: For me, what was really striking is that, when I first saw the title and read “2050,” I thought, Oh, that’s a long way away. Then as I started reading it, I realized that this is not so far away.

Kazi: Absolutely.

Harrington: If we’re going to make a difference, it might take us 25 years.

Kazi: Especially if we set ourselves ambitious goals, we›re going to have to dig deep. Business-as-usual is not going to get us there.

Harrington: No. What I think has happened is we›ve spent so much time taking care of acute illness. Case fatality rates are fantastic. I was actually making the comment yesterday to a colleague that when I was an intern, the 30-day death rate from acute myocardial infarction was about 20%.

Kazi: Oh, wow.

Harrington: Now it’s 5%. That’s a big difference in a career.
 

Trends in the Wrong Direction

Kazi: There are fundamental trends. The decline in case fatalities is a really positive development, and I would hope that, going forward, that would continue. Those are risk-adjusted death rates and what is happening is that risk is going up. This is a function of the fact that the US population is aging; 2030 will be the first year that all the baby boomers will be over the age of 65.

By the mid-2030s, we’ll have more adults over the age of 65 than kids. That aging of the population is going to increase risk. The second is — and this is a positive development — we are a more diverse population, but the populations that are minoritized have higher cardiovascular risk, for a variety of reasons.

As the population of Asian Americans increases and doubles, in fact, as the population of Hispanic Americans doubles, we’re going to see an increase in risk related to cardiovascular disease. The third is that, over the past decade, there are some risk factors that are going in the wrong direction.

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because that’s humbling. I’m involved, as you know, with the American Heart Association, as are you. Despite all the work on Life’s Simple 7 and now Life’s Essential 8, we still have some issues.

Kazi: The big ones that come to mind are hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, all of which are trending in the wrong direction. Hypertension, we were gaining traction; and then over the past decade, we’ve slipped again. As you know, national blood pressure control rates have declined in many populations.

Harrington: Rather substantially.

Kazi: Substantially so, which has implications, in particular, for stroke rates in the future and stroke rates in young adults in the future. Obesity is a problem that we have very little control over. We’re already at 40% on average, which means that some populations are already in the 60% range.

Harrington: We also have obesity in kids — the burden, I’ll call it, of obesity. It’s not that you become obese in your thirties or your forties; you›re becoming obese as a teenager or even younger.

Kazi: Exactly. Since the 1990s, obesity in US adults has doubled, but obesity in US children has quadrupled. It’s starting from a lower base, but it’s very much an escalating problem.

Harrington: Diabetes is tightly linked to it but not totally explained.

Kazi: Exactly. The increase in diabetes is largely driven by obesity, but it›s probably also driven by changes in diet and lifestyle that don›t go through obesity.

Harrington: Yeah, it’s interesting. I think I have this figure correctly. It used to be rare that you saw a child with type 2 diabetes or what we call type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Now, the vast majority of kids with diabetes have type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: In the adolescents/young adults age group, most of it is type 2.

Harrington: Diabetes going up, obesity up, hypertension not well controlled, smoking combustible cigarettes way down.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Cholesterol levels. I was surprised. Cholesterol looked better. You said — because I was at a meeting where somebody asked you — that’s not explained by treatment.

Kazi: No, it’s not, at least going back to the ‘70s, but likely even sooner. I think that can only be attributed to substantial dietary changes. We are consuming less fat and less trans-fat. It’s possible that those collectively are improving our cholesterol levels, possibly at the expense of our glucose levels, because we basically substituted fats in our diet with more carbs at a population level.
 

Cigarettes and Vaping

Harrington: Some things certainly trend in the right direction but others in a really difficult direction. It’s going to lead to pretty large changes in risk for coronary disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure.

Kazi: I want to go back to the tobacco point. There are definitely marked declines in tobacco, still tightly related to income in the country. You see much higher prevalence of tobacco use in lower-income populations, but it’s unclear to me where it’s going in kids. We know that combustible tobacco use is going down but e-cigarettes went up. What that leads to over the next 30 years is unclear to me.

Harrington: That is a really important comment that’s worth sidebarring. The vaping use has been a terrible epidemic among our high schoolers. What is that going to lead to? Is it going to lead to the use of combustible cigarettes and we’re going to see that go back up? It remains to be seen.

Kazi: Yes, it remains to be seen. Going back to your point about this change in risk factors and this change in demographics, both aging and becoming a more diverse population means that we have large increases in some healthcare conditions.

Coronary heart disease goes up some, there›s a big jump in stroke — nearly a doubling in stroke — which is related to hypertension, obesity, an aging population, and a more diverse population. There are changes in stroke in the young, and atrial fibrillation related to, again, hypertension. We’re seeing these projections, and with them come these pretty large projections in changes in healthcare spending.
 

Healthcare Spending Not Sustainable

Harrington: Big. I mean, it’s not sustainable. Give the audience the number — it’s pretty frightening.

Kazi: We’re talking about a quadrupling of healthcare costs related to cardiovascular disease over 25 years. We’ve gotten used to the narrative that healthcare in the US is expensive and drugs are expensive, but this is an enormous problem — an unsustainable problem, like you called it.

It’s a doubling as a proportion of the economy. I was looking this up this morning. If the US healthcare economy were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest economy in the world.

Harrington: Healthcare as it is today, is it 21% of our economy?

Kazi: It’s 17% now. If it were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest in the world. We are spending more on healthcare than all but two other countries’ total economies. It’s kind of crazy.

Harrington: We’re talking about a quadrupling.

Kazi: Within that, the cardiovascular piece is a big piece, and we›re talking about a quadrupling.

Harrington: That’s both direct and indirect costs.

Kazi: The quadrupling of costs is just the direct costs. Indirect costs, for the listeners, refer to costs unrelated to healthcare but changes in productivity, either because people are disabled and unable to participate fully in the workforce or they die early.

The productivity costs are also increased substantially as a result. If you look at both healthcare and productivity, that goes up threefold. These are very large changes.

Harrington: Let’s now get to what we can do about it. I made the comment to you when I first read the papers that I was very depressed. Then, after I went through my Kübler-Ross stages of depression, death, and dying, I came to acceptance.

What are we going to do about it? This is a focus on policy, but also a focus on how we deliver healthcare, how we think about healthcare, and how we develop drugs and devices.

The drug question is going to be the one the audience is thinking about. They say, well, what about GLP-1 agonists? Aren’t those going to save the day?

Kazi: Yes and no. I’ll say that, early in my career, I used to be very attracted to simple solutions to complex problems. I’ve come to realize that simple solutions are elegant, attractive, and wrong. We›re dealing with a very complex issue and I think we’re going to need a multipronged approach.

The way I think about it is that there was a group of people who are at very high risk today. How do we help those individuals? Then how do we help the future generation so that they’re not dealing with the projections that we’re talking about.

My colleague, Karen Joynt Maddox, who led one of the papers, as you mentioned, has an elegant line in the paper where she says projections are not destiny. These are things we can change.

Harrington: If nothing changes, this is what it’s going to look like.

Kazi: This is where we’re headed.

Harrington: We can change. We’ve got some time to change, but we don’t have forever.

Kazi: Yes, exactly. We picked the 25-year timeline instead of a “let’s plan for the next century” timeline because we want something concrete and actionable. It’s close enough to be meaningful but far enough to give us the runway we need to act.

Harrington: Give me two things from the policy perspective, because it’s mostly policy.

Kazi: There are policy and clinical interventions. From the policy perspective, if I had to list two things, one is expansion of access to care. As we talk about this big increase in the burden of disease and risk factors, if you have a large proportion of your population that has hypertension or diabetes, you’re going to have to expand access to care to ensure that people get treated so they can get access to this care before they develop the complications that we worry about, like stroke and heart disease, that are very expensive to treat downstream.

The second, more broadly related to access to care, is the access to medications that are effective. You bring up GLP-1s. I think we need a real strategy for how we can give people access to GLP-1s at a price that is affordable to individuals but also affordable to the health system, and to help them stay on the drugs.

GLP-1s are transformative in what they do for weight loss and for diabetes, but more than 50% of people who start one are off it at 12 months. There’s something fundamentally wrong about how we’re delivering GLP-1s today. It’s not just about the cost of the drugs but the support system people need to stay on.

Harrington: I’ve made the comment, in many forms now, that we know the drugs work. We have to figure out how to use them.

Kazi: Exactly, yes.

Harrington: Using them includes chronicity. This is a chronic condition. Some people can come off the drugs, but many can’t. We’re going to have to figure this out, and maybe the newer generations of drugs will help us address what people call the off-ramping. How are we going to do that? I think you’re spot-on. Those are critically important questions.

Kazi: As we looked at this modeling, I’ll tell you — I had a come-to-Jesus moment where I was like, there is no way to fix cardiovascular disease in the US without going through obesity and diabetes. We have to address obesity in the US. We can’t just treat our way out of it. Obesity is fundamentally a food problem and we’ve got to engage again with food policy in a meaningful way.

Harrington: As you know, with the American Heart Association, we›re doing a large amount of work now on food as medicine and food is medicine. We are trying to figure out what the levers are that we can pull to actually help people eat healthier diets.

Kazi: Yes. Rather than framing it as an individual choice that people are eating poorly, it’s, how do we make healthy diets the default in the environment?

Harrington: This is where you get to the children as well.

Kazi: Exactly.

Harrington: I could talk about this all day. I’ve had the benefit of reading the papers now a few times and talking to you on several occasions. Thank you for joining us.

Kazi: Thank you.
 

Dr. Harrington, Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean, Weill Cornell Medicine; Provost for Medical Affairs, Cornell University, New York, NY, disclosed ties with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT Executive Committee); Janssen (RCT Char), NHLBI (RCT Executive Committee, DSMB Chair); PCORI (RCT Co-Chair); DCRI, Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; and Cytokinetics. Dr. Kazi, Associate Director, Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Harvard Medical School, Director, Department of Cardiac Critical Care Unit, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed receiving a research grant from Boston Scientific (grant to examine the economics of stroke prevention).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity .

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here in London at the European Society of Cardiology meetings, at theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology booth, using the meetings as an opportunity to meet with colleagues to talk about recent things that they’ve been writing about.

Today I’m joined by a good friend and colleague, Dr. Dhruv Kazi from Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston. Thanks for joining us.

Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, MS: Thank you for having me.

Harrington: Dr. Kazi is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He’s also the associate director of the Smith Center, which is an outcomes research center at the Beth Israel Deaconess. Thanks for joining us.

Kazi: Excited to be here.

Harrington: The topic I think you know that I want to discuss is a really important paper. There are two papers. They’re part of the American Heart Association’s 100th anniversary celebration, if you will. Many of the papers looked back at where science taken us.

With your coauthor, Karen Joynt Maddox, your papers are looking forward. They’re about the burden of cardiovascular disease in 2050. One paper really focused on what I would call the clinical and public health issues. Yours is focused on the economics. Is that a good description?

Kazi: Perfect.

Harrington: Tell us what you, Karen, and the other writers set out to do. What were you asked to do?

Kazi: As you know, the American Heart Association is entering its second century. Part of this was an exercise to say, where will the country be in 2050, which is a long enough time horizon for us to start planning for the future. What are the conditions that affect the magnitude of the disease, and the kinds of people who will be affected, that we should be aware of?

We looked back and said, if prior trends remain the same, where will we be in 2050, accounting for changes in demographics, changes in the composition of the population, and knowing that some of the cardiovascular risk factors are getting worse?

Harrington: For me, what was really striking is that, when I first saw the title and read “2050,” I thought, Oh, that’s a long way away. Then as I started reading it, I realized that this is not so far away.

Kazi: Absolutely.

Harrington: If we’re going to make a difference, it might take us 25 years.

Kazi: Especially if we set ourselves ambitious goals, we›re going to have to dig deep. Business-as-usual is not going to get us there.

Harrington: No. What I think has happened is we›ve spent so much time taking care of acute illness. Case fatality rates are fantastic. I was actually making the comment yesterday to a colleague that when I was an intern, the 30-day death rate from acute myocardial infarction was about 20%.

Kazi: Oh, wow.

Harrington: Now it’s 5%. That’s a big difference in a career.
 

Trends in the Wrong Direction

Kazi: There are fundamental trends. The decline in case fatalities is a really positive development, and I would hope that, going forward, that would continue. Those are risk-adjusted death rates and what is happening is that risk is going up. This is a function of the fact that the US population is aging; 2030 will be the first year that all the baby boomers will be over the age of 65.

By the mid-2030s, we’ll have more adults over the age of 65 than kids. That aging of the population is going to increase risk. The second is — and this is a positive development — we are a more diverse population, but the populations that are minoritized have higher cardiovascular risk, for a variety of reasons.

As the population of Asian Americans increases and doubles, in fact, as the population of Hispanic Americans doubles, we’re going to see an increase in risk related to cardiovascular disease. The third is that, over the past decade, there are some risk factors that are going in the wrong direction.

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because that’s humbling. I’m involved, as you know, with the American Heart Association, as are you. Despite all the work on Life’s Simple 7 and now Life’s Essential 8, we still have some issues.

Kazi: The big ones that come to mind are hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, all of which are trending in the wrong direction. Hypertension, we were gaining traction; and then over the past decade, we’ve slipped again. As you know, national blood pressure control rates have declined in many populations.

Harrington: Rather substantially.

Kazi: Substantially so, which has implications, in particular, for stroke rates in the future and stroke rates in young adults in the future. Obesity is a problem that we have very little control over. We’re already at 40% on average, which means that some populations are already in the 60% range.

Harrington: We also have obesity in kids — the burden, I’ll call it, of obesity. It’s not that you become obese in your thirties or your forties; you›re becoming obese as a teenager or even younger.

Kazi: Exactly. Since the 1990s, obesity in US adults has doubled, but obesity in US children has quadrupled. It’s starting from a lower base, but it’s very much an escalating problem.

Harrington: Diabetes is tightly linked to it but not totally explained.

Kazi: Exactly. The increase in diabetes is largely driven by obesity, but it›s probably also driven by changes in diet and lifestyle that don›t go through obesity.

Harrington: Yeah, it’s interesting. I think I have this figure correctly. It used to be rare that you saw a child with type 2 diabetes or what we call type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Now, the vast majority of kids with diabetes have type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: In the adolescents/young adults age group, most of it is type 2.

Harrington: Diabetes going up, obesity up, hypertension not well controlled, smoking combustible cigarettes way down.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Cholesterol levels. I was surprised. Cholesterol looked better. You said — because I was at a meeting where somebody asked you — that’s not explained by treatment.

Kazi: No, it’s not, at least going back to the ‘70s, but likely even sooner. I think that can only be attributed to substantial dietary changes. We are consuming less fat and less trans-fat. It’s possible that those collectively are improving our cholesterol levels, possibly at the expense of our glucose levels, because we basically substituted fats in our diet with more carbs at a population level.
 

Cigarettes and Vaping

Harrington: Some things certainly trend in the right direction but others in a really difficult direction. It’s going to lead to pretty large changes in risk for coronary disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure.

Kazi: I want to go back to the tobacco point. There are definitely marked declines in tobacco, still tightly related to income in the country. You see much higher prevalence of tobacco use in lower-income populations, but it’s unclear to me where it’s going in kids. We know that combustible tobacco use is going down but e-cigarettes went up. What that leads to over the next 30 years is unclear to me.

Harrington: That is a really important comment that’s worth sidebarring. The vaping use has been a terrible epidemic among our high schoolers. What is that going to lead to? Is it going to lead to the use of combustible cigarettes and we’re going to see that go back up? It remains to be seen.

Kazi: Yes, it remains to be seen. Going back to your point about this change in risk factors and this change in demographics, both aging and becoming a more diverse population means that we have large increases in some healthcare conditions.

Coronary heart disease goes up some, there›s a big jump in stroke — nearly a doubling in stroke — which is related to hypertension, obesity, an aging population, and a more diverse population. There are changes in stroke in the young, and atrial fibrillation related to, again, hypertension. We’re seeing these projections, and with them come these pretty large projections in changes in healthcare spending.
 

Healthcare Spending Not Sustainable

Harrington: Big. I mean, it’s not sustainable. Give the audience the number — it’s pretty frightening.

Kazi: We’re talking about a quadrupling of healthcare costs related to cardiovascular disease over 25 years. We’ve gotten used to the narrative that healthcare in the US is expensive and drugs are expensive, but this is an enormous problem — an unsustainable problem, like you called it.

It’s a doubling as a proportion of the economy. I was looking this up this morning. If the US healthcare economy were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest economy in the world.

Harrington: Healthcare as it is today, is it 21% of our economy?

Kazi: It’s 17% now. If it were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest in the world. We are spending more on healthcare than all but two other countries’ total economies. It’s kind of crazy.

Harrington: We’re talking about a quadrupling.

Kazi: Within that, the cardiovascular piece is a big piece, and we›re talking about a quadrupling.

Harrington: That’s both direct and indirect costs.

Kazi: The quadrupling of costs is just the direct costs. Indirect costs, for the listeners, refer to costs unrelated to healthcare but changes in productivity, either because people are disabled and unable to participate fully in the workforce or they die early.

The productivity costs are also increased substantially as a result. If you look at both healthcare and productivity, that goes up threefold. These are very large changes.

Harrington: Let’s now get to what we can do about it. I made the comment to you when I first read the papers that I was very depressed. Then, after I went through my Kübler-Ross stages of depression, death, and dying, I came to acceptance.

What are we going to do about it? This is a focus on policy, but also a focus on how we deliver healthcare, how we think about healthcare, and how we develop drugs and devices.

The drug question is going to be the one the audience is thinking about. They say, well, what about GLP-1 agonists? Aren’t those going to save the day?

Kazi: Yes and no. I’ll say that, early in my career, I used to be very attracted to simple solutions to complex problems. I’ve come to realize that simple solutions are elegant, attractive, and wrong. We›re dealing with a very complex issue and I think we’re going to need a multipronged approach.

The way I think about it is that there was a group of people who are at very high risk today. How do we help those individuals? Then how do we help the future generation so that they’re not dealing with the projections that we’re talking about.

My colleague, Karen Joynt Maddox, who led one of the papers, as you mentioned, has an elegant line in the paper where she says projections are not destiny. These are things we can change.

Harrington: If nothing changes, this is what it’s going to look like.

Kazi: This is where we’re headed.

Harrington: We can change. We’ve got some time to change, but we don’t have forever.

Kazi: Yes, exactly. We picked the 25-year timeline instead of a “let’s plan for the next century” timeline because we want something concrete and actionable. It’s close enough to be meaningful but far enough to give us the runway we need to act.

Harrington: Give me two things from the policy perspective, because it’s mostly policy.

Kazi: There are policy and clinical interventions. From the policy perspective, if I had to list two things, one is expansion of access to care. As we talk about this big increase in the burden of disease and risk factors, if you have a large proportion of your population that has hypertension or diabetes, you’re going to have to expand access to care to ensure that people get treated so they can get access to this care before they develop the complications that we worry about, like stroke and heart disease, that are very expensive to treat downstream.

The second, more broadly related to access to care, is the access to medications that are effective. You bring up GLP-1s. I think we need a real strategy for how we can give people access to GLP-1s at a price that is affordable to individuals but also affordable to the health system, and to help them stay on the drugs.

GLP-1s are transformative in what they do for weight loss and for diabetes, but more than 50% of people who start one are off it at 12 months. There’s something fundamentally wrong about how we’re delivering GLP-1s today. It’s not just about the cost of the drugs but the support system people need to stay on.

Harrington: I’ve made the comment, in many forms now, that we know the drugs work. We have to figure out how to use them.

Kazi: Exactly, yes.

Harrington: Using them includes chronicity. This is a chronic condition. Some people can come off the drugs, but many can’t. We’re going to have to figure this out, and maybe the newer generations of drugs will help us address what people call the off-ramping. How are we going to do that? I think you’re spot-on. Those are critically important questions.

Kazi: As we looked at this modeling, I’ll tell you — I had a come-to-Jesus moment where I was like, there is no way to fix cardiovascular disease in the US without going through obesity and diabetes. We have to address obesity in the US. We can’t just treat our way out of it. Obesity is fundamentally a food problem and we’ve got to engage again with food policy in a meaningful way.

Harrington: As you know, with the American Heart Association, we›re doing a large amount of work now on food as medicine and food is medicine. We are trying to figure out what the levers are that we can pull to actually help people eat healthier diets.

Kazi: Yes. Rather than framing it as an individual choice that people are eating poorly, it’s, how do we make healthy diets the default in the environment?

Harrington: This is where you get to the children as well.

Kazi: Exactly.

Harrington: I could talk about this all day. I’ve had the benefit of reading the papers now a few times and talking to you on several occasions. Thank you for joining us.

Kazi: Thank you.
 

Dr. Harrington, Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean, Weill Cornell Medicine; Provost for Medical Affairs, Cornell University, New York, NY, disclosed ties with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT Executive Committee); Janssen (RCT Char), NHLBI (RCT Executive Committee, DSMB Chair); PCORI (RCT Co-Chair); DCRI, Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; and Cytokinetics. Dr. Kazi, Associate Director, Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Harvard Medical School, Director, Department of Cardiac Critical Care Unit, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed receiving a research grant from Boston Scientific (grant to examine the economics of stroke prevention).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Trying to reduce your carbohydrate intake means going against nearly a million years of evolution.

Humans are among a few species with multiple copies of certain genes that help us break down starch — carbs like potatoes, beans, corn, and grains — so that we can turn it into energy our bodies can use.

However, it’s been difficult for researchers to pinpoint when in human history we acquired multiple copies of these genes because they’re in a region of the genome that’s hard to sequence.

A recent study published in Science suggests that humans may have developed multiple copies of the gene for amylase — an enzyme that’s the first step in starch digestion — over 800,000 years ago, long before the agricultural revolution. This genetic change could have helped us adapt to eating starchy foods.

The study shows how “what your ancestors ate thousands of years ago could be affecting our genetics today,” said Kelsey Jorgensen, PhD, a biological anthropologist at The University of Kansas, Lawrence, who was not involved in the study.

The double-edged sword has sharpened over all those centuries. On one hand, the human body needs and craves carbs to function. On the other hand, our modern-day consumption of carbs, especially calorie-dense/nutritionally-barren processed carbs, has long since passed “healthy.”
 

How Researchers Found Our Carb-Lover Gene

The enzyme amylase turns complex carbs into maltose, a sweet-tasting sugar that is made of two glucose molecules linked together. We make two kinds of amylases: Salivary amylase that breaks down carbs in our mouths and pancreatic amylase that is secreted into our small intestines.

Modern humans have multiple copies of both amylases. Past research showed that human populations with diets high in starch can have up to nine copies of the gene for salivary amylase, called AMY1.

To pinpoint when in human history we acquired multiple copies of AMY1, the new study utilized novel techniques, called optical genome mapping and long-read sequencing, to sequence and analyze the genes. They sequenced 98 modern-day samples and 68 ancient DNA samples, including one from a Siberian person who lived 45,000 years ago.

The ancient DNA data in the study allowed the researchers to track how the number of amylase genes changed over time, said George Perry, PhD, an anthropological geneticist at The Pennsylvania State University-University Park (he was not involved in the study).

Based on the sequencing, the team analyzed changes in the genes in their samples to gauge evolutionary timelines. Perry noted that this was a “very clever approach to estimating the amylase copy number mutation rate, which in turn can really help in testing evolutionary hypotheses.”

The researchers found that even before farming, hunter-gatherers had between four and eight AMY1 genes in their cells. This suggests that people across Eurasia already had a number of these genes long before they started growing crops. (Recent research indicates that Neanderthals also ate starchy foods.)

“Even archaic hominins had these [genetic] variations and that indicates that they were consuming starch,” said Feyza Yilmaz, PhD, an associate computational scientist at The Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine, and a lead author of the study.

However, 4000 years ago, after the agricultural revolution, the research indicates that there were even more AMY1 copies acquired. Yilmaz noted, “with the advance of agriculture, we see an increase in high amylase copy number haplotypes. So genetic variation goes hand in hand with adaptation to the environment.” 

A previous study showed that species that share an environment with humans, such as dogs and pigs, also have copy number variation of amylase genes, said Yilmaz, indicating a link between genome changes and an increase in starch consumption.
 

Potential Health Impacts on Modern Humans

The duplications in the AMY1 gene could have allowed humans to better digest starches. And it’s conceivable that having more copies of the gene means being able to break down starches even more efficiently, and those with more copies “may be more prone to having high blood sugar, prediabetes, that sort of thing,” Jorgensen said.

Whether those with more AMY1 genes have more health risks is an active area of research. “Researchers tested whether there’s a correlation between AMY1 gene copies and diabetes or BMI [body mass index]. And so far, some studies show that there is indeed correlation, but other studies show that there is no correlation at all,” said Yilmaz.

Yilmaz pointed out that only 5 or 10% of carb digestion happens in our mouths, the rest occurs in our small intestine, plus there are many other factors involved in eating and metabolism.

“I am really looking forward to seeing studies which truly figure out the connection between AMY1 copy number and metabolic health and also what type of factors play a role in metabolic health,” said Yilmaz.

It’s also possible that having more AMY1 copies could lead to more carb cravings as the enzyme creates a type of sugar in our mouths. “Previous studies show that there’s a correlation between AMY1 copy number and also the amylase enzyme levels, so the faster we process the starch, the taste [of starches] will be sweeter,” said Yilmaz.

However, the link between cravings and copy numbers isn’t clear. And we don’t exactly know what came first — did the starch in humans’ diet lead to more copies of amylase genes, or did the copies of the amylase genes drive cravings that lead us to cultivate more carbs? We’ll need more research to find out.
 

How Will Today’s Processed Carbs Affect Our Genes Tomorrow?

As our diet changes to increasingly include processed carbs, what will happen to our AMY1 genes is fuzzy. “I don’t know what this could do to our genomes in the next 1000 years or more than 1000 years,” Yilmaz noted, but she said from the evidence it seems as though we may have peaked in AMY1 copies.

Jorgensen noted that this research is focused on a European population. She wonders whether the pattern of AMY1 duplication will be repeated in other populations “because the rise of starch happened first in the Middle East and then Europe and then later in the Americas,” she said.

“There’s individual variation and then there’s population-wide variation,” Jorgensen pointed out. She speculates that the historical diet of different cultures could explain population-based variations in AMY1 genes — it’s something future research could investigate. Other populations may also experience genetic changes as much of the world shifts to a more carb-heavy Western diet.

Overall, this research adds to the growing evidence that humans have a long history of loving carbs — for better and, at least over our most recent history and immediate future, for worse.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Trying to reduce your carbohydrate intake means going against nearly a million years of evolution.

Humans are among a few species with multiple copies of certain genes that help us break down starch — carbs like potatoes, beans, corn, and grains — so that we can turn it into energy our bodies can use.

However, it’s been difficult for researchers to pinpoint when in human history we acquired multiple copies of these genes because they’re in a region of the genome that’s hard to sequence.

A recent study published in Science suggests that humans may have developed multiple copies of the gene for amylase — an enzyme that’s the first step in starch digestion — over 800,000 years ago, long before the agricultural revolution. This genetic change could have helped us adapt to eating starchy foods.

The study shows how “what your ancestors ate thousands of years ago could be affecting our genetics today,” said Kelsey Jorgensen, PhD, a biological anthropologist at The University of Kansas, Lawrence, who was not involved in the study.

The double-edged sword has sharpened over all those centuries. On one hand, the human body needs and craves carbs to function. On the other hand, our modern-day consumption of carbs, especially calorie-dense/nutritionally-barren processed carbs, has long since passed “healthy.”
 

How Researchers Found Our Carb-Lover Gene

The enzyme amylase turns complex carbs into maltose, a sweet-tasting sugar that is made of two glucose molecules linked together. We make two kinds of amylases: Salivary amylase that breaks down carbs in our mouths and pancreatic amylase that is secreted into our small intestines.

Modern humans have multiple copies of both amylases. Past research showed that human populations with diets high in starch can have up to nine copies of the gene for salivary amylase, called AMY1.

To pinpoint when in human history we acquired multiple copies of AMY1, the new study utilized novel techniques, called optical genome mapping and long-read sequencing, to sequence and analyze the genes. They sequenced 98 modern-day samples and 68 ancient DNA samples, including one from a Siberian person who lived 45,000 years ago.

The ancient DNA data in the study allowed the researchers to track how the number of amylase genes changed over time, said George Perry, PhD, an anthropological geneticist at The Pennsylvania State University-University Park (he was not involved in the study).

Based on the sequencing, the team analyzed changes in the genes in their samples to gauge evolutionary timelines. Perry noted that this was a “very clever approach to estimating the amylase copy number mutation rate, which in turn can really help in testing evolutionary hypotheses.”

The researchers found that even before farming, hunter-gatherers had between four and eight AMY1 genes in their cells. This suggests that people across Eurasia already had a number of these genes long before they started growing crops. (Recent research indicates that Neanderthals also ate starchy foods.)

“Even archaic hominins had these [genetic] variations and that indicates that they were consuming starch,” said Feyza Yilmaz, PhD, an associate computational scientist at The Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine, and a lead author of the study.

However, 4000 years ago, after the agricultural revolution, the research indicates that there were even more AMY1 copies acquired. Yilmaz noted, “with the advance of agriculture, we see an increase in high amylase copy number haplotypes. So genetic variation goes hand in hand with adaptation to the environment.” 

A previous study showed that species that share an environment with humans, such as dogs and pigs, also have copy number variation of amylase genes, said Yilmaz, indicating a link between genome changes and an increase in starch consumption.
 

Potential Health Impacts on Modern Humans

The duplications in the AMY1 gene could have allowed humans to better digest starches. And it’s conceivable that having more copies of the gene means being able to break down starches even more efficiently, and those with more copies “may be more prone to having high blood sugar, prediabetes, that sort of thing,” Jorgensen said.

Whether those with more AMY1 genes have more health risks is an active area of research. “Researchers tested whether there’s a correlation between AMY1 gene copies and diabetes or BMI [body mass index]. And so far, some studies show that there is indeed correlation, but other studies show that there is no correlation at all,” said Yilmaz.

Yilmaz pointed out that only 5 or 10% of carb digestion happens in our mouths, the rest occurs in our small intestine, plus there are many other factors involved in eating and metabolism.

“I am really looking forward to seeing studies which truly figure out the connection between AMY1 copy number and metabolic health and also what type of factors play a role in metabolic health,” said Yilmaz.

It’s also possible that having more AMY1 copies could lead to more carb cravings as the enzyme creates a type of sugar in our mouths. “Previous studies show that there’s a correlation between AMY1 copy number and also the amylase enzyme levels, so the faster we process the starch, the taste [of starches] will be sweeter,” said Yilmaz.

However, the link between cravings and copy numbers isn’t clear. And we don’t exactly know what came first — did the starch in humans’ diet lead to more copies of amylase genes, or did the copies of the amylase genes drive cravings that lead us to cultivate more carbs? We’ll need more research to find out.
 

How Will Today’s Processed Carbs Affect Our Genes Tomorrow?

As our diet changes to increasingly include processed carbs, what will happen to our AMY1 genes is fuzzy. “I don’t know what this could do to our genomes in the next 1000 years or more than 1000 years,” Yilmaz noted, but she said from the evidence it seems as though we may have peaked in AMY1 copies.

Jorgensen noted that this research is focused on a European population. She wonders whether the pattern of AMY1 duplication will be repeated in other populations “because the rise of starch happened first in the Middle East and then Europe and then later in the Americas,” she said.

“There’s individual variation and then there’s population-wide variation,” Jorgensen pointed out. She speculates that the historical diet of different cultures could explain population-based variations in AMY1 genes — it’s something future research could investigate. Other populations may also experience genetic changes as much of the world shifts to a more carb-heavy Western diet.

Overall, this research adds to the growing evidence that humans have a long history of loving carbs — for better and, at least over our most recent history and immediate future, for worse.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Trying to reduce your carbohydrate intake means going against nearly a million years of evolution.

Humans are among a few species with multiple copies of certain genes that help us break down starch — carbs like potatoes, beans, corn, and grains — so that we can turn it into energy our bodies can use.

However, it’s been difficult for researchers to pinpoint when in human history we acquired multiple copies of these genes because they’re in a region of the genome that’s hard to sequence.

A recent study published in Science suggests that humans may have developed multiple copies of the gene for amylase — an enzyme that’s the first step in starch digestion — over 800,000 years ago, long before the agricultural revolution. This genetic change could have helped us adapt to eating starchy foods.

The study shows how “what your ancestors ate thousands of years ago could be affecting our genetics today,” said Kelsey Jorgensen, PhD, a biological anthropologist at The University of Kansas, Lawrence, who was not involved in the study.

The double-edged sword has sharpened over all those centuries. On one hand, the human body needs and craves carbs to function. On the other hand, our modern-day consumption of carbs, especially calorie-dense/nutritionally-barren processed carbs, has long since passed “healthy.”
 

How Researchers Found Our Carb-Lover Gene

The enzyme amylase turns complex carbs into maltose, a sweet-tasting sugar that is made of two glucose molecules linked together. We make two kinds of amylases: Salivary amylase that breaks down carbs in our mouths and pancreatic amylase that is secreted into our small intestines.

Modern humans have multiple copies of both amylases. Past research showed that human populations with diets high in starch can have up to nine copies of the gene for salivary amylase, called AMY1.

To pinpoint when in human history we acquired multiple copies of AMY1, the new study utilized novel techniques, called optical genome mapping and long-read sequencing, to sequence and analyze the genes. They sequenced 98 modern-day samples and 68 ancient DNA samples, including one from a Siberian person who lived 45,000 years ago.

The ancient DNA data in the study allowed the researchers to track how the number of amylase genes changed over time, said George Perry, PhD, an anthropological geneticist at The Pennsylvania State University-University Park (he was not involved in the study).

Based on the sequencing, the team analyzed changes in the genes in their samples to gauge evolutionary timelines. Perry noted that this was a “very clever approach to estimating the amylase copy number mutation rate, which in turn can really help in testing evolutionary hypotheses.”

The researchers found that even before farming, hunter-gatherers had between four and eight AMY1 genes in their cells. This suggests that people across Eurasia already had a number of these genes long before they started growing crops. (Recent research indicates that Neanderthals also ate starchy foods.)

“Even archaic hominins had these [genetic] variations and that indicates that they were consuming starch,” said Feyza Yilmaz, PhD, an associate computational scientist at The Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine, and a lead author of the study.

However, 4000 years ago, after the agricultural revolution, the research indicates that there were even more AMY1 copies acquired. Yilmaz noted, “with the advance of agriculture, we see an increase in high amylase copy number haplotypes. So genetic variation goes hand in hand with adaptation to the environment.” 

A previous study showed that species that share an environment with humans, such as dogs and pigs, also have copy number variation of amylase genes, said Yilmaz, indicating a link between genome changes and an increase in starch consumption.
 

Potential Health Impacts on Modern Humans

The duplications in the AMY1 gene could have allowed humans to better digest starches. And it’s conceivable that having more copies of the gene means being able to break down starches even more efficiently, and those with more copies “may be more prone to having high blood sugar, prediabetes, that sort of thing,” Jorgensen said.

Whether those with more AMY1 genes have more health risks is an active area of research. “Researchers tested whether there’s a correlation between AMY1 gene copies and diabetes or BMI [body mass index]. And so far, some studies show that there is indeed correlation, but other studies show that there is no correlation at all,” said Yilmaz.

Yilmaz pointed out that only 5 or 10% of carb digestion happens in our mouths, the rest occurs in our small intestine, plus there are many other factors involved in eating and metabolism.

“I am really looking forward to seeing studies which truly figure out the connection between AMY1 copy number and metabolic health and also what type of factors play a role in metabolic health,” said Yilmaz.

It’s also possible that having more AMY1 copies could lead to more carb cravings as the enzyme creates a type of sugar in our mouths. “Previous studies show that there’s a correlation between AMY1 copy number and also the amylase enzyme levels, so the faster we process the starch, the taste [of starches] will be sweeter,” said Yilmaz.

However, the link between cravings and copy numbers isn’t clear. And we don’t exactly know what came first — did the starch in humans’ diet lead to more copies of amylase genes, or did the copies of the amylase genes drive cravings that lead us to cultivate more carbs? We’ll need more research to find out.
 

How Will Today’s Processed Carbs Affect Our Genes Tomorrow?

As our diet changes to increasingly include processed carbs, what will happen to our AMY1 genes is fuzzy. “I don’t know what this could do to our genomes in the next 1000 years or more than 1000 years,” Yilmaz noted, but she said from the evidence it seems as though we may have peaked in AMY1 copies.

Jorgensen noted that this research is focused on a European population. She wonders whether the pattern of AMY1 duplication will be repeated in other populations “because the rise of starch happened first in the Middle East and then Europe and then later in the Americas,” she said.

“There’s individual variation and then there’s population-wide variation,” Jorgensen pointed out. She speculates that the historical diet of different cultures could explain population-based variations in AMY1 genes — it’s something future research could investigate. Other populations may also experience genetic changes as much of the world shifts to a more carb-heavy Western diet.

Overall, this research adds to the growing evidence that humans have a long history of loving carbs — for better and, at least over our most recent history and immediate future, for worse.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

High-intensity exercise suppresses ghrelin levels more than moderate-intensity exercise, leading to a greater reduction in hunger. This effect may be more pronounced in women than in men.

METHODOLOGY:

• Ghrelin circulates in acylated and deacylated forms and is associated with hunger perceptions. Previous studies have indicated that acute exercise can modulate ghrelin levels, but data on the effect of exercise intensity on ghrelin levels and appetite remain limited.
• To close this gap, researchers examined 14 adults, including eight men (mean age, 43.1 years; body mass index [BMI], 22.2) and six women (mean age, 32.2 years; BMI, 22.7) who fasted overnight and then completed exercises of varying intensity.
• Participants completed a maximal graded cycle ergometer lactate threshold (LT) and peak oxygen consumption (VO2_peak) test to determine the exercise intensity.
• Three calorically matched cycle exercise bouts were conducted: Control (no exercise), moderate-intensity (power output at LT), and high-intensity (power output associated with 75% of the difference between LT and VO2_peak).
• Total ghrelin, acylated ghrelin, deacylated ghrelin, and lactate levels were measured at baseline and at multiple intervals post-exercise; appetite ratings were assessed using a visual analog scale at baseline and every 30 minutes thereafter.

TAKEAWAY:

• Total ghrelin levels were significantly lower during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity and no exercise (P < .0001 for both).
• Both men and women had significantly lower deacylated ghrelin levels during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity (P < .0001) and no exercise (P = .002), whereas only women had significantly lower acylated ghrelin levels during high-intensity exercise (P < .0001).
• Hunger scores were higher in the moderate-intensity exercise group than in the no exercise group (P < .01), with no differences found between high-intensity exercise and moderate-intensity or no exercise.
• Lactate levels were significantly higher during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity and no exercise (P < .0001 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“Exercise should be thought of as a ‘drug,’ where the ‘dose’ should be customized based on an individual’s personal goals,” the lead author said in a news release. “Our research suggests that high-intensity exercise may be important for appetite suppression, which can be particularly useful as part of a weight loss program.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Kara C. Anderson, PhD, Department of Kinesiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, and was published online on October 24, 2024, in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

LIMITATIONS: 

The real-world application of the study was limited as participants were tested under fasting conditions, which may not have reflected typical exercise scenarios. The differences in fitness levels and exercise caloric expenditure between men and women may have affected the findings. The study only included lean individuals, limiting the applicability of the findings to individuals with overweight or obesity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by funds from the School of Education and Human Development, University of Virginia, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One author reported serving as an editor for the Journal of the Endocrine Society, which played no role in the evaluation of the manuscript.
 

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

TOPLINE: 

High-intensity exercise suppresses ghrelin levels more than moderate-intensity exercise, leading to a greater reduction in hunger. This effect may be more pronounced in women than in men.

METHODOLOGY:

• Ghrelin circulates in acylated and deacylated forms and is associated with hunger perceptions. Previous studies have indicated that acute exercise can modulate ghrelin levels, but data on the effect of exercise intensity on ghrelin levels and appetite remain limited.
• To close this gap, researchers examined 14 adults, including eight men (mean age, 43.1 years; body mass index [BMI], 22.2) and six women (mean age, 32.2 years; BMI, 22.7) who fasted overnight and then completed exercises of varying intensity.
• Participants completed a maximal graded cycle ergometer lactate threshold (LT) and peak oxygen consumption (VO2_peak) test to determine the exercise intensity.
• Three calorically matched cycle exercise bouts were conducted: Control (no exercise), moderate-intensity (power output at LT), and high-intensity (power output associated with 75% of the difference between LT and VO2_peak).
• Total ghrelin, acylated ghrelin, deacylated ghrelin, and lactate levels were measured at baseline and at multiple intervals post-exercise; appetite ratings were assessed using a visual analog scale at baseline and every 30 minutes thereafter.

TAKEAWAY:

• Total ghrelin levels were significantly lower during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity and no exercise (P < .0001 for both).
• Both men and women had significantly lower deacylated ghrelin levels during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity (P < .0001) and no exercise (P = .002), whereas only women had significantly lower acylated ghrelin levels during high-intensity exercise (P < .0001).
• Hunger scores were higher in the moderate-intensity exercise group than in the no exercise group (P < .01), with no differences found between high-intensity exercise and moderate-intensity or no exercise.
• Lactate levels were significantly higher during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity and no exercise (P < .0001 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“Exercise should be thought of as a ‘drug,’ where the ‘dose’ should be customized based on an individual’s personal goals,” the lead author said in a news release. “Our research suggests that high-intensity exercise may be important for appetite suppression, which can be particularly useful as part of a weight loss program.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Kara C. Anderson, PhD, Department of Kinesiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, and was published online on October 24, 2024, in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

LIMITATIONS: 

The real-world application of the study was limited as participants were tested under fasting conditions, which may not have reflected typical exercise scenarios. The differences in fitness levels and exercise caloric expenditure between men and women may have affected the findings. The study only included lean individuals, limiting the applicability of the findings to individuals with overweight or obesity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by funds from the School of Education and Human Development, University of Virginia, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One author reported serving as an editor for the Journal of the Endocrine Society, which played no role in the evaluation of the manuscript.
 

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

TOPLINE: 

High-intensity exercise suppresses ghrelin levels more than moderate-intensity exercise, leading to a greater reduction in hunger. This effect may be more pronounced in women than in men.

METHODOLOGY:

• Ghrelin circulates in acylated and deacylated forms and is associated with hunger perceptions. Previous studies have indicated that acute exercise can modulate ghrelin levels, but data on the effect of exercise intensity on ghrelin levels and appetite remain limited.
• To close this gap, researchers examined 14 adults, including eight men (mean age, 43.1 years; body mass index [BMI], 22.2) and six women (mean age, 32.2 years; BMI, 22.7) who fasted overnight and then completed exercises of varying intensity.
• Participants completed a maximal graded cycle ergometer lactate threshold (LT) and peak oxygen consumption (VO2_peak) test to determine the exercise intensity.
• Three calorically matched cycle exercise bouts were conducted: Control (no exercise), moderate-intensity (power output at LT), and high-intensity (power output associated with 75% of the difference between LT and VO2_peak).
• Total ghrelin, acylated ghrelin, deacylated ghrelin, and lactate levels were measured at baseline and at multiple intervals post-exercise; appetite ratings were assessed using a visual analog scale at baseline and every 30 minutes thereafter.

TAKEAWAY:

• Total ghrelin levels were significantly lower during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity and no exercise (P < .0001 for both).
• Both men and women had significantly lower deacylated ghrelin levels during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity (P < .0001) and no exercise (P = .002), whereas only women had significantly lower acylated ghrelin levels during high-intensity exercise (P < .0001).
• Hunger scores were higher in the moderate-intensity exercise group than in the no exercise group (P < .01), with no differences found between high-intensity exercise and moderate-intensity or no exercise.
• Lactate levels were significantly higher during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity and no exercise (P < .0001 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“Exercise should be thought of as a ‘drug,’ where the ‘dose’ should be customized based on an individual’s personal goals,” the lead author said in a news release. “Our research suggests that high-intensity exercise may be important for appetite suppression, which can be particularly useful as part of a weight loss program.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Kara C. Anderson, PhD, Department of Kinesiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, and was published online on October 24, 2024, in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

LIMITATIONS: 

The real-world application of the study was limited as participants were tested under fasting conditions, which may not have reflected typical exercise scenarios. The differences in fitness levels and exercise caloric expenditure between men and women may have affected the findings. The study only included lean individuals, limiting the applicability of the findings to individuals with overweight or obesity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by funds from the School of Education and Human Development, University of Virginia, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One author reported serving as an editor for the Journal of the Endocrine Society, which played no role in the evaluation of the manuscript.
 

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

Plant-based diets have become increasingly popular over the last decade as the evidence supporting their health benefits becomes stronger. 

Research pooled from nearly 100 studies has indicated that people who adhere to a vegan diet (ie, completely devoid of animal products) or a vegetarian diet (ie, devoid of meat, but may include dairy and eggs) are able to ward off some chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, optimize glycemic control, and decrease their risk for cancer compared with those who consume omnivorous diets. 

Vegan and vegetarian diets, or flexitarian diets — which are less reliant on animal protein than the standard US diet but do not completely exclude meat, fish, eggs, or dairy — may promote homeostasis and decrease inflammation by providing more fiber, antioxidants, and unsaturated fatty acids than the typical Western diet. 
 

Inflammation and Obesity

Adipose tissue is a major producer of pro-inflammatory cytokines like interleukin (IL)-6, whose presence then triggers a rush of acute-phase reactants such as C-reactive protein (CRP) by the liver. This process develops into chronic low-grade inflammation that can increase a person’s chances of developing diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, metabolic syndrome, and related complications.

Adopting a plant-based diet can improve markers of chronic low-grade inflammation that can lead to chronic disease and worsen existent chronic disease. A meta-analysis of 29 studies encompassing nearly 2700 participants found that initiation of a plant-based diet showed significant improvement in CRP, IL-6, and soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1. 

If we want to prevent these inflammatory disease states and their complications, the obvious response is to counsel patients to avoid excessive weight gain or to lose weight if obesity is their baseline. This can be tough for some patients, but it is nonetheless an important step in chronic disease prevention and management.
 

Plant-Based Diet for Type 2 Diabetes

According to a review of nine studies of patients living with type 2 diabetes who adhered to a plant-based diet, all but one found that this approach led to significantly lower A1c values than those seen in control groups. Six of the included studies reported that participants were able to decrease or discontinue medications for the management of diabetes. Researchers across all included studies also noted a decrease in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides, as well as increased weight loss in participants in each intervention group. 

Such improvements are probably the result of the increase in fiber intake that occurs with a plant-based diet. A high-fiber diet is known to promote improved glucose and lipid metabolism as well as weight loss. 

It is also worth noting that participants in the intervention groups also experienced improvements in depression and less chronic pain than did those in the control groups. 
 

Plant-Based Diet for Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD)

Although the use of a plant-based diet in the prevention of CKD is well documented, adopting such diets for the treatment of CKD may intimidate both patients and practitioners owing to the high potassium and phosphorus content of many fruits and vegetables.

However, research indicates that the bioavailability of both potassium and phosphorus is lower in plant-based, whole foods than in preservatives and the highly processed food items that incorporate them. This makes a plant-based diet more viable than previously thought. 

Diets rich in vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes have been shown to decrease dietary acid load, both preventing and treating metabolic acidosis. Such diets have also been shown to decrease blood pressure and the risk for a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate. This type of diet would also prioritize the unsaturated fatty acids and fiber-rich proteins such as avocados, beans, and nuts shown to improve dyslipidemia, which may occur alongside CKD.
 

Realistic Options for Patients on Medical Diets

There is one question that I always seem to get from when recommending a plant-based diet: “These patients already have so many restrictions. Why would you add more?” And my answer is also always the same: I don’t. 

I rarely, if ever, recommend completely cutting out any food item or food group. Instead, I ask the patient to increase their intake of plant-based foods and only limit highly processed foods and fatty meats. By shifting a patient’s focus to beans; nuts; and low-carbohydrate, high-fiber fruits and vegetables, I am often opening up a whole new world of possibilities. 

Instead of a sandwich with low-sodium turkey and cheese on white bread with a side of unsalted pretzels, I recommend a caprese salad with blueberries and almonds or a Southwest salad with black beans, corn, and avocado. I don’t encourage my patients to skip the foods that they love, but instead to only think about all the delicious plant-based options that will provide them with more than just calories.

Meat, dairy, seafood, and eggs can certainly be a part of a healthy diet, but what if our chronically ill patients, especially those with diabetes, had more options than just grilled chicken and green beans for every meal? What if we focus on decreasing dietary restrictions, incorporating a variety of nourishing foods, and educating our patients, instead of on portion control and moderation? 

This is how I choose to incorporate plant-based diets into my practice to treat and prevent these chronic inflammatory conditions and promote sustainable, realistic change in my clients’ health.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Plant-based diets have become increasingly popular over the last decade as the evidence supporting their health benefits becomes stronger. 

Research pooled from nearly 100 studies has indicated that people who adhere to a vegan diet (ie, completely devoid of animal products) or a vegetarian diet (ie, devoid of meat, but may include dairy and eggs) are able to ward off some chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, optimize glycemic control, and decrease their risk for cancer compared with those who consume omnivorous diets. 

Vegan and vegetarian diets, or flexitarian diets — which are less reliant on animal protein than the standard US diet but do not completely exclude meat, fish, eggs, or dairy — may promote homeostasis and decrease inflammation by providing more fiber, antioxidants, and unsaturated fatty acids than the typical Western diet. 
 

Inflammation and Obesity

Adipose tissue is a major producer of pro-inflammatory cytokines like interleukin (IL)-6, whose presence then triggers a rush of acute-phase reactants such as C-reactive protein (CRP) by the liver. This process develops into chronic low-grade inflammation that can increase a person’s chances of developing diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, metabolic syndrome, and related complications.

Adopting a plant-based diet can improve markers of chronic low-grade inflammation that can lead to chronic disease and worsen existent chronic disease. A meta-analysis of 29 studies encompassing nearly 2700 participants found that initiation of a plant-based diet showed significant improvement in CRP, IL-6, and soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1. 

If we want to prevent these inflammatory disease states and their complications, the obvious response is to counsel patients to avoid excessive weight gain or to lose weight if obesity is their baseline. This can be tough for some patients, but it is nonetheless an important step in chronic disease prevention and management.
 

Plant-Based Diet for Type 2 Diabetes

According to a review of nine studies of patients living with type 2 diabetes who adhered to a plant-based diet, all but one found that this approach led to significantly lower A1c values than those seen in control groups. Six of the included studies reported that participants were able to decrease or discontinue medications for the management of diabetes. Researchers across all included studies also noted a decrease in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides, as well as increased weight loss in participants in each intervention group. 

Such improvements are probably the result of the increase in fiber intake that occurs with a plant-based diet. A high-fiber diet is known to promote improved glucose and lipid metabolism as well as weight loss. 

It is also worth noting that participants in the intervention groups also experienced improvements in depression and less chronic pain than did those in the control groups. 
 

Plant-Based Diet for Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD)

Although the use of a plant-based diet in the prevention of CKD is well documented, adopting such diets for the treatment of CKD may intimidate both patients and practitioners owing to the high potassium and phosphorus content of many fruits and vegetables.

However, research indicates that the bioavailability of both potassium and phosphorus is lower in plant-based, whole foods than in preservatives and the highly processed food items that incorporate them. This makes a plant-based diet more viable than previously thought. 

Diets rich in vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes have been shown to decrease dietary acid load, both preventing and treating metabolic acidosis. Such diets have also been shown to decrease blood pressure and the risk for a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate. This type of diet would also prioritize the unsaturated fatty acids and fiber-rich proteins such as avocados, beans, and nuts shown to improve dyslipidemia, which may occur alongside CKD.
 

Realistic Options for Patients on Medical Diets

There is one question that I always seem to get from when recommending a plant-based diet: “These patients already have so many restrictions. Why would you add more?” And my answer is also always the same: I don’t. 

I rarely, if ever, recommend completely cutting out any food item or food group. Instead, I ask the patient to increase their intake of plant-based foods and only limit highly processed foods and fatty meats. By shifting a patient’s focus to beans; nuts; and low-carbohydrate, high-fiber fruits and vegetables, I am often opening up a whole new world of possibilities. 

Instead of a sandwich with low-sodium turkey and cheese on white bread with a side of unsalted pretzels, I recommend a caprese salad with blueberries and almonds or a Southwest salad with black beans, corn, and avocado. I don’t encourage my patients to skip the foods that they love, but instead to only think about all the delicious plant-based options that will provide them with more than just calories.

Meat, dairy, seafood, and eggs can certainly be a part of a healthy diet, but what if our chronically ill patients, especially those with diabetes, had more options than just grilled chicken and green beans for every meal? What if we focus on decreasing dietary restrictions, incorporating a variety of nourishing foods, and educating our patients, instead of on portion control and moderation? 

This is how I choose to incorporate plant-based diets into my practice to treat and prevent these chronic inflammatory conditions and promote sustainable, realistic change in my clients’ health.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Plant-based diets have become increasingly popular over the last decade as the evidence supporting their health benefits becomes stronger. 

Research pooled from nearly 100 studies has indicated that people who adhere to a vegan diet (ie, completely devoid of animal products) or a vegetarian diet (ie, devoid of meat, but may include dairy and eggs) are able to ward off some chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, optimize glycemic control, and decrease their risk for cancer compared with those who consume omnivorous diets. 

Vegan and vegetarian diets, or flexitarian diets — which are less reliant on animal protein than the standard US diet but do not completely exclude meat, fish, eggs, or dairy — may promote homeostasis and decrease inflammation by providing more fiber, antioxidants, and unsaturated fatty acids than the typical Western diet. 
 

Inflammation and Obesity

Adipose tissue is a major producer of pro-inflammatory cytokines like interleukin (IL)-6, whose presence then triggers a rush of acute-phase reactants such as C-reactive protein (CRP) by the liver. This process develops into chronic low-grade inflammation that can increase a person’s chances of developing diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, metabolic syndrome, and related complications.

Adopting a plant-based diet can improve markers of chronic low-grade inflammation that can lead to chronic disease and worsen existent chronic disease. A meta-analysis of 29 studies encompassing nearly 2700 participants found that initiation of a plant-based diet showed significant improvement in CRP, IL-6, and soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1. 

If we want to prevent these inflammatory disease states and their complications, the obvious response is to counsel patients to avoid excessive weight gain or to lose weight if obesity is their baseline. This can be tough for some patients, but it is nonetheless an important step in chronic disease prevention and management.
 

Plant-Based Diet for Type 2 Diabetes

According to a review of nine studies of patients living with type 2 diabetes who adhered to a plant-based diet, all but one found that this approach led to significantly lower A1c values than those seen in control groups. Six of the included studies reported that participants were able to decrease or discontinue medications for the management of diabetes. Researchers across all included studies also noted a decrease in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides, as well as increased weight loss in participants in each intervention group. 

Such improvements are probably the result of the increase in fiber intake that occurs with a plant-based diet. A high-fiber diet is known to promote improved glucose and lipid metabolism as well as weight loss. 

It is also worth noting that participants in the intervention groups also experienced improvements in depression and less chronic pain than did those in the control groups. 
 

Plant-Based Diet for Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD)

Although the use of a plant-based diet in the prevention of CKD is well documented, adopting such diets for the treatment of CKD may intimidate both patients and practitioners owing to the high potassium and phosphorus content of many fruits and vegetables.

However, research indicates that the bioavailability of both potassium and phosphorus is lower in plant-based, whole foods than in preservatives and the highly processed food items that incorporate them. This makes a plant-based diet more viable than previously thought. 

Diets rich in vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes have been shown to decrease dietary acid load, both preventing and treating metabolic acidosis. Such diets have also been shown to decrease blood pressure and the risk for a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate. This type of diet would also prioritize the unsaturated fatty acids and fiber-rich proteins such as avocados, beans, and nuts shown to improve dyslipidemia, which may occur alongside CKD.
 

Realistic Options for Patients on Medical Diets

There is one question that I always seem to get from when recommending a plant-based diet: “These patients already have so many restrictions. Why would you add more?” And my answer is also always the same: I don’t. 

I rarely, if ever, recommend completely cutting out any food item or food group. Instead, I ask the patient to increase their intake of plant-based foods and only limit highly processed foods and fatty meats. By shifting a patient’s focus to beans; nuts; and low-carbohydrate, high-fiber fruits and vegetables, I am often opening up a whole new world of possibilities. 

Instead of a sandwich with low-sodium turkey and cheese on white bread with a side of unsalted pretzels, I recommend a caprese salad with blueberries and almonds or a Southwest salad with black beans, corn, and avocado. I don’t encourage my patients to skip the foods that they love, but instead to only think about all the delicious plant-based options that will provide them with more than just calories.

Meat, dairy, seafood, and eggs can certainly be a part of a healthy diet, but what if our chronically ill patients, especially those with diabetes, had more options than just grilled chicken and green beans for every meal? What if we focus on decreasing dietary restrictions, incorporating a variety of nourishing foods, and educating our patients, instead of on portion control and moderation? 

This is how I choose to incorporate plant-based diets into my practice to treat and prevent these chronic inflammatory conditions and promote sustainable, realistic change in my clients’ health.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lauren is a 45-year-old corporate lawyer who managed to excel in every aspect of her life, including parenting her three children while working full-time as a corporate lawyer. A math major at Harvard, she loves data.

Suffice it to say, given that I was treating her for a thyroid condition rather than diabetes, I was a little surprised when she requested I prescribe her a FreeStyle Libre (Abbott) monitor. She explained she was struggling to lose 10 pounds, and she thought continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) would help her determine which foods were impeding her weight loss journey. 

While I didn’t see much downside to acquiescing, I felt she had probably been spending too much time on Reddit. What information could CGM give someone without diabetes that couldn’t be gleaned from a food label? Nevertheless, Lauren filled the prescription and began her foray into this relatively uncharted world. When she returned for a follow-up visit several months later, I was shocked to see that she had lost her intended weight. With my tail between my legs, I decided to review the theories and science behind the use of CGM in patients without insulin resistance. 

Although it’s not rocket science, CGM can help patients through a “carrot and stick” approach to dieting. Lean proteins, nonstarchy vegetables, and monounsaturated fats such as nuts and avocado all support weight loss and tend to keep blood glucose levels stable. In contrast, foods known to cause weight gain (eg, sugary foods, refined starches, and processed foods) cause sugar spikes in real time. Similarly, large portion sizes are more likely to result in sugar spikes, and pairing proteins with carbohydrates minimizes blood glucose excursions. 

Though all of this is basic common sense, the constant feedback from a CGM device holds patients accountable for their food choices and helps with behavioral change. And because blood glucose is influenced by myriad factors including stress, genetics and metabolism, CGM can also potentially help create personal guidance for food choices. 

In addition, CGM can reveal the effect of poor sleep and stress on blood glucose levels, thereby encouraging healthier lifestyle choices. The data collected also may provide information on how different modalities of physical activity affect blood glucose levels. A recent study compared the effect of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and continuous moderate-intensity exercise on postmeal blood glucose in overweight individuals without diabetes. CGM revealed that HIIT is more advantageous for preventing postmeal spikes. 

Although CGM appears to be a sophisticated form of cognitive-behavioral therapy, I do worry that the incessant stream of information can lead to worsening anxiety, obsessive compulsive behaviors, or restrictive eating tendencies. Still, thanks to Lauren, I now believe that real-time CGM may lead to behavior modification in food selection and physical activity. 
 

Dr. Messer, Clinical Assistant Professor, Mount Sinai School of Medicine; Associate Professor, Hofstra School of Medicine, New York, NY, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lauren is a 45-year-old corporate lawyer who managed to excel in every aspect of her life, including parenting her three children while working full-time as a corporate lawyer. A math major at Harvard, she loves data.

Suffice it to say, given that I was treating her for a thyroid condition rather than diabetes, I was a little surprised when she requested I prescribe her a FreeStyle Libre (Abbott) monitor. She explained she was struggling to lose 10 pounds, and she thought continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) would help her determine which foods were impeding her weight loss journey. 

While I didn’t see much downside to acquiescing, I felt she had probably been spending too much time on Reddit. What information could CGM give someone without diabetes that couldn’t be gleaned from a food label? Nevertheless, Lauren filled the prescription and began her foray into this relatively uncharted world. When she returned for a follow-up visit several months later, I was shocked to see that she had lost her intended weight. With my tail between my legs, I decided to review the theories and science behind the use of CGM in patients without insulin resistance. 

Although it’s not rocket science, CGM can help patients through a “carrot and stick” approach to dieting. Lean proteins, nonstarchy vegetables, and monounsaturated fats such as nuts and avocado all support weight loss and tend to keep blood glucose levels stable. In contrast, foods known to cause weight gain (eg, sugary foods, refined starches, and processed foods) cause sugar spikes in real time. Similarly, large portion sizes are more likely to result in sugar spikes, and pairing proteins with carbohydrates minimizes blood glucose excursions. 

Though all of this is basic common sense, the constant feedback from a CGM device holds patients accountable for their food choices and helps with behavioral change. And because blood glucose is influenced by myriad factors including stress, genetics and metabolism, CGM can also potentially help create personal guidance for food choices. 

In addition, CGM can reveal the effect of poor sleep and stress on blood glucose levels, thereby encouraging healthier lifestyle choices. The data collected also may provide information on how different modalities of physical activity affect blood glucose levels. A recent study compared the effect of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and continuous moderate-intensity exercise on postmeal blood glucose in overweight individuals without diabetes. CGM revealed that HIIT is more advantageous for preventing postmeal spikes. 

Although CGM appears to be a sophisticated form of cognitive-behavioral therapy, I do worry that the incessant stream of information can lead to worsening anxiety, obsessive compulsive behaviors, or restrictive eating tendencies. Still, thanks to Lauren, I now believe that real-time CGM may lead to behavior modification in food selection and physical activity. 
 

Dr. Messer, Clinical Assistant Professor, Mount Sinai School of Medicine; Associate Professor, Hofstra School of Medicine, New York, NY, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lauren is a 45-year-old corporate lawyer who managed to excel in every aspect of her life, including parenting her three children while working full-time as a corporate lawyer. A math major at Harvard, she loves data.

Suffice it to say, given that I was treating her for a thyroid condition rather than diabetes, I was a little surprised when she requested I prescribe her a FreeStyle Libre (Abbott) monitor. She explained she was struggling to lose 10 pounds, and she thought continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) would help her determine which foods were impeding her weight loss journey. 

While I didn’t see much downside to acquiescing, I felt she had probably been spending too much time on Reddit. What information could CGM give someone without diabetes that couldn’t be gleaned from a food label? Nevertheless, Lauren filled the prescription and began her foray into this relatively uncharted world. When she returned for a follow-up visit several months later, I was shocked to see that she had lost her intended weight. With my tail between my legs, I decided to review the theories and science behind the use of CGM in patients without insulin resistance. 

Although it’s not rocket science, CGM can help patients through a “carrot and stick” approach to dieting. Lean proteins, nonstarchy vegetables, and monounsaturated fats such as nuts and avocado all support weight loss and tend to keep blood glucose levels stable. In contrast, foods known to cause weight gain (eg, sugary foods, refined starches, and processed foods) cause sugar spikes in real time. Similarly, large portion sizes are more likely to result in sugar spikes, and pairing proteins with carbohydrates minimizes blood glucose excursions. 

Though all of this is basic common sense, the constant feedback from a CGM device holds patients accountable for their food choices and helps with behavioral change. And because blood glucose is influenced by myriad factors including stress, genetics and metabolism, CGM can also potentially help create personal guidance for food choices. 

In addition, CGM can reveal the effect of poor sleep and stress on blood glucose levels, thereby encouraging healthier lifestyle choices. The data collected also may provide information on how different modalities of physical activity affect blood glucose levels. A recent study compared the effect of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and continuous moderate-intensity exercise on postmeal blood glucose in overweight individuals without diabetes. CGM revealed that HIIT is more advantageous for preventing postmeal spikes. 

Although CGM appears to be a sophisticated form of cognitive-behavioral therapy, I do worry that the incessant stream of information can lead to worsening anxiety, obsessive compulsive behaviors, or restrictive eating tendencies. Still, thanks to Lauren, I now believe that real-time CGM may lead to behavior modification in food selection and physical activity. 
 

Dr. Messer, Clinical Assistant Professor, Mount Sinai School of Medicine; Associate Professor, Hofstra School of Medicine, New York, NY, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When prescribing glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medications, many physicians prefer tirzepatide over the more well-known semaglutide due to its superior efficacy in weight loss and A1c reduction. Studies indicated that tirzepatide can lead to greater weight loss than semaglutide.

Factors like insurance coverage, drug availability, and side effects also influence physicians’ choices, with some patients benefiting from the broader dosing options that tirzepatide offers.

In this Q&A, Medscape Medical News explored how physicians can make the best decisions with their patients when choosing between GLP-1 medications tirzepatide and semaglutide for the treatment for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

We spoke to physicians who specialize in medical weight loss on things to consider when choosing between these two medications, such as patient profiles, drug access and availability, and financial considerations. We also discussed the side effect profiles of the medications based on current data in the literature.
 

Medscape Medical News: How are you deciding which of the two drugs to prescribe?

Caroline Messer, MD, endocrinologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell, New York City: To some degree, it’s based on insurance. But in general, I’m pushing most patients toward tirzepatide just because the data show that there’s more weight loss and more A1c reduction on tirzepatide. But the research shows that there are more side effects. But I think every practicing clinician who uses these medications knows that there are actually fewer side effects despite what the trial showed.

Sue Decotiis, MD, weight loss doctor, New York City: I think that many doctors that are prescribing these drugs are not really weight loss specialists. It’s just like one of many drugs that they prescribe. And semaglutide (Ozempic) is more well known. I think it’s because they don’t really know that it’s not as good as the other drugs. There are still massive shortages of these drugs. So that’s another reason why a doctor may choose one drug over another. Also, if a patient’s reliant on insurance to cover it, they may go with whatever the insurance company is willing to cover.

Kathleen Dungan, MD, professor of internal medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and College of Medicine: Some patients may have preferences with the delivery device. In the past year, in particular, availability of these drugs was limited and varied from time to time and geographically, and therefore, patients needed to substitute one drug for another in order to maintain treatment.

Maria Teresa Anton, MD, endocrinologist and educator, Pritikin Longevity Center, Miami: While I do not prescribe these medications, I do focus on integrating them into a comprehensive lifestyle program that empowers patients to make sustainable changes. By fostering an environment of education and support, we enhance their well-being and promote long-term health outcomes. In my practice, I’ve found that the most successful outcomes occur when these medications are combined with a comprehensive approach, including dietary changes, physical activity, and behavioral support.
 

Medscape Medical News: How do you make the decision of tirzepatide vs semaglutide?

Messer: There’s no guideline per se. Sometimes when I don’t want a patient to lose too much weight, I might consider Ozempic or Wegovy if you know they only have 5 lb to lose. If diabetes, then I might go for the Ozempic instead, just because the weight loss is so drastic with tirzepatide with any kind of appetite.

Decotiis: If somebody has a lot of weight to lose and they’re highly insulin resistant, as most people are when they start these drugs, I really prefer tirzepatide ... because I think patients are going to lose more weight, they’re going to lose more fat. I also see that patients have less side effects because before tirzepatide came out, I was prescribing mostly semaglutide, and there were a lot of side effects. But semaglutide is fine. I mean, it’s a good drug. Maybe it’s better for people that don’t have as much weight to lose. So I don’t have to worry about them hitting that wall after a certain period of time. But it’s a good drug. I mean, I certainly still use it.
 

Medscape Medical News: What of the data and the literature on the differences in the outcomes and the side effect profile?

Messer: In terms of outcomes, the weight loss is almost double [with tirzepatide]. It depends what trial you’re looking at, but we tend to see like about 15% of your body weight you lose with the semaglutide and 25%-30% with the tirzepatide. The big difference, I suppose…is semaglutide now has a cardiovascular indication and the tirzepatide doesn’t, but I’m very confident that tirzepatide is going to get the same indication.

Decotiis: When that first Lilly study came out in June of 2022, it really blew everybody away. I mean, some patients lost up to 25% of their weight on tirzepatide, whereas on Ozempic, it was really like 15%. Now, in my practice, I really monitor everyone with a body composition scale. I’m not just looking at somebody’s weight or body mass index, I am looking at how much body fat they have, how much muscle mass they have, how much water they have, and how much bone they have.

The golden rule here is make sure the patient loses fat, and you want to make sure they’re not losing muscle or too much water. The patient really needs to be adequately hydrated. So what I’m saying is a lot of people who have lost weight have not reached the promised land because they haven’t lost enough body fat to get them into that healthy zone. But once they reduce the body fat to a certain percentage, let’s say for a woman about 20%, or a man in the low teens, they’re less likely to regain that weight because they haven’t really lost fat. And that’s how we gain health.
 

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

When prescribing glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medications, many physicians prefer tirzepatide over the more well-known semaglutide due to its superior efficacy in weight loss and A1c reduction. Studies indicated that tirzepatide can lead to greater weight loss than semaglutide.

Factors like insurance coverage, drug availability, and side effects also influence physicians’ choices, with some patients benefiting from the broader dosing options that tirzepatide offers.

In this Q&A, Medscape Medical News explored how physicians can make the best decisions with their patients when choosing between GLP-1 medications tirzepatide and semaglutide for the treatment for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

We spoke to physicians who specialize in medical weight loss on things to consider when choosing between these two medications, such as patient profiles, drug access and availability, and financial considerations. We also discussed the side effect profiles of the medications based on current data in the literature.
 

Medscape Medical News: How are you deciding which of the two drugs to prescribe?

Caroline Messer, MD, endocrinologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell, New York City: To some degree, it’s based on insurance. But in general, I’m pushing most patients toward tirzepatide just because the data show that there’s more weight loss and more A1c reduction on tirzepatide. But the research shows that there are more side effects. But I think every practicing clinician who uses these medications knows that there are actually fewer side effects despite what the trial showed.

Sue Decotiis, MD, weight loss doctor, New York City: I think that many doctors that are prescribing these drugs are not really weight loss specialists. It’s just like one of many drugs that they prescribe. And semaglutide (Ozempic) is more well known. I think it’s because they don’t really know that it’s not as good as the other drugs. There are still massive shortages of these drugs. So that’s another reason why a doctor may choose one drug over another. Also, if a patient’s reliant on insurance to cover it, they may go with whatever the insurance company is willing to cover.

Kathleen Dungan, MD, professor of internal medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and College of Medicine: Some patients may have preferences with the delivery device. In the past year, in particular, availability of these drugs was limited and varied from time to time and geographically, and therefore, patients needed to substitute one drug for another in order to maintain treatment.

Maria Teresa Anton, MD, endocrinologist and educator, Pritikin Longevity Center, Miami: While I do not prescribe these medications, I do focus on integrating them into a comprehensive lifestyle program that empowers patients to make sustainable changes. By fostering an environment of education and support, we enhance their well-being and promote long-term health outcomes. In my practice, I’ve found that the most successful outcomes occur when these medications are combined with a comprehensive approach, including dietary changes, physical activity, and behavioral support.
 

Medscape Medical News: How do you make the decision of tirzepatide vs semaglutide?

Messer: There’s no guideline per se. Sometimes when I don’t want a patient to lose too much weight, I might consider Ozempic or Wegovy if you know they only have 5 lb to lose. If diabetes, then I might go for the Ozempic instead, just because the weight loss is so drastic with tirzepatide with any kind of appetite.

Decotiis: If somebody has a lot of weight to lose and they’re highly insulin resistant, as most people are when they start these drugs, I really prefer tirzepatide ... because I think patients are going to lose more weight, they’re going to lose more fat. I also see that patients have less side effects because before tirzepatide came out, I was prescribing mostly semaglutide, and there were a lot of side effects. But semaglutide is fine. I mean, it’s a good drug. Maybe it’s better for people that don’t have as much weight to lose. So I don’t have to worry about them hitting that wall after a certain period of time. But it’s a good drug. I mean, I certainly still use it.
 

Medscape Medical News: What of the data and the literature on the differences in the outcomes and the side effect profile?

Messer: In terms of outcomes, the weight loss is almost double [with tirzepatide]. It depends what trial you’re looking at, but we tend to see like about 15% of your body weight you lose with the semaglutide and 25%-30% with the tirzepatide. The big difference, I suppose…is semaglutide now has a cardiovascular indication and the tirzepatide doesn’t, but I’m very confident that tirzepatide is going to get the same indication.

Decotiis: When that first Lilly study came out in June of 2022, it really blew everybody away. I mean, some patients lost up to 25% of their weight on tirzepatide, whereas on Ozempic, it was really like 15%. Now, in my practice, I really monitor everyone with a body composition scale. I’m not just looking at somebody’s weight or body mass index, I am looking at how much body fat they have, how much muscle mass they have, how much water they have, and how much bone they have.

The golden rule here is make sure the patient loses fat, and you want to make sure they’re not losing muscle or too much water. The patient really needs to be adequately hydrated. So what I’m saying is a lot of people who have lost weight have not reached the promised land because they haven’t lost enough body fat to get them into that healthy zone. But once they reduce the body fat to a certain percentage, let’s say for a woman about 20%, or a man in the low teens, they’re less likely to regain that weight because they haven’t really lost fat. And that’s how we gain health.
 

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

When prescribing glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medications, many physicians prefer tirzepatide over the more well-known semaglutide due to its superior efficacy in weight loss and A1c reduction. Studies indicated that tirzepatide can lead to greater weight loss than semaglutide.

Factors like insurance coverage, drug availability, and side effects also influence physicians’ choices, with some patients benefiting from the broader dosing options that tirzepatide offers.

In this Q&A, Medscape Medical News explored how physicians can make the best decisions with their patients when choosing between GLP-1 medications tirzepatide and semaglutide for the treatment for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

We spoke to physicians who specialize in medical weight loss on things to consider when choosing between these two medications, such as patient profiles, drug access and availability, and financial considerations. We also discussed the side effect profiles of the medications based on current data in the literature.
 

Medscape Medical News: How are you deciding which of the two drugs to prescribe?

Caroline Messer, MD, endocrinologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell, New York City: To some degree, it’s based on insurance. But in general, I’m pushing most patients toward tirzepatide just because the data show that there’s more weight loss and more A1c reduction on tirzepatide. But the research shows that there are more side effects. But I think every practicing clinician who uses these medications knows that there are actually fewer side effects despite what the trial showed.

Sue Decotiis, MD, weight loss doctor, New York City: I think that many doctors that are prescribing these drugs are not really weight loss specialists. It’s just like one of many drugs that they prescribe. And semaglutide (Ozempic) is more well known. I think it’s because they don’t really know that it’s not as good as the other drugs. There are still massive shortages of these drugs. So that’s another reason why a doctor may choose one drug over another. Also, if a patient’s reliant on insurance to cover it, they may go with whatever the insurance company is willing to cover.

Kathleen Dungan, MD, professor of internal medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and College of Medicine: Some patients may have preferences with the delivery device. In the past year, in particular, availability of these drugs was limited and varied from time to time and geographically, and therefore, patients needed to substitute one drug for another in order to maintain treatment.

Maria Teresa Anton, MD, endocrinologist and educator, Pritikin Longevity Center, Miami: While I do not prescribe these medications, I do focus on integrating them into a comprehensive lifestyle program that empowers patients to make sustainable changes. By fostering an environment of education and support, we enhance their well-being and promote long-term health outcomes. In my practice, I’ve found that the most successful outcomes occur when these medications are combined with a comprehensive approach, including dietary changes, physical activity, and behavioral support.
 

Medscape Medical News: How do you make the decision of tirzepatide vs semaglutide?

Messer: There’s no guideline per se. Sometimes when I don’t want a patient to lose too much weight, I might consider Ozempic or Wegovy if you know they only have 5 lb to lose. If diabetes, then I might go for the Ozempic instead, just because the weight loss is so drastic with tirzepatide with any kind of appetite.

Decotiis: If somebody has a lot of weight to lose and they’re highly insulin resistant, as most people are when they start these drugs, I really prefer tirzepatide ... because I think patients are going to lose more weight, they’re going to lose more fat. I also see that patients have less side effects because before tirzepatide came out, I was prescribing mostly semaglutide, and there were a lot of side effects. But semaglutide is fine. I mean, it’s a good drug. Maybe it’s better for people that don’t have as much weight to lose. So I don’t have to worry about them hitting that wall after a certain period of time. But it’s a good drug. I mean, I certainly still use it.
 

Medscape Medical News: What of the data and the literature on the differences in the outcomes and the side effect profile?

Messer: In terms of outcomes, the weight loss is almost double [with tirzepatide]. It depends what trial you’re looking at, but we tend to see like about 15% of your body weight you lose with the semaglutide and 25%-30% with the tirzepatide. The big difference, I suppose…is semaglutide now has a cardiovascular indication and the tirzepatide doesn’t, but I’m very confident that tirzepatide is going to get the same indication.

Decotiis: When that first Lilly study came out in June of 2022, it really blew everybody away. I mean, some patients lost up to 25% of their weight on tirzepatide, whereas on Ozempic, it was really like 15%. Now, in my practice, I really monitor everyone with a body composition scale. I’m not just looking at somebody’s weight or body mass index, I am looking at how much body fat they have, how much muscle mass they have, how much water they have, and how much bone they have.

The golden rule here is make sure the patient loses fat, and you want to make sure they’re not losing muscle or too much water. The patient really needs to be adequately hydrated. So what I’m saying is a lot of people who have lost weight have not reached the promised land because they haven’t lost enough body fat to get them into that healthy zone. But once they reduce the body fat to a certain percentage, let’s say for a woman about 20%, or a man in the low teens, they’re less likely to regain that weight because they haven’t really lost fat. And that’s how we gain health.
 

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

A new study provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) used to treat diabetes and obesity could be repurposed for opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD).

Researchers found that patients with OUD or AUD who were taking semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) or similar medications for diabetes or weight-related conditions had a 40% lower rate of opioid overdose and a 50% lower rate of alcohol intoxication than their peers with OUD or AUD who were not taking these medications.

Their real-world study of more than 1 million adults with a history of OUD or AUD provide “foundational” estimates of the association between glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RA prescriptions and opioid overdose/alcohol intoxication “and introduce the idea that GLP-1 RA and other related drugs should be investigated as a novel pharmacotherapy treatment option for individuals with OUD or AUD,” wrote the investigators, led by Fares Qeadan, PhD, Parkinson School of Health Sciences and Public Health, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois.

The study was published online in the journal Addiction.
 

Protective Effect?

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, earlier studies have pointed to a link between weight loss drugs and reduced overdose risk in people with OUD and decreased alcohol intake in people with AUD.

Until now, most studies on GLP-1 RAs and GIP agonists like tirzepatide (Mounjaro) to treat substance use disorders consisted of animal studies and small-scale clinical trials, investigators noted.

This new retrospective cohort study analyzed de-identified electronic health record data from the Oracle Health Real-World Data.

Participants, all aged 18 years or older, included 503,747 patients with a history of OUD, of whom 8103 had a GLP-1 RA or GIP prescription, and 817,309 patients with a history of AUD, of whom 5621 had a GLP-1 RA or GIP prescription.

Patients with OUD who were prescribed GLP-1 RAs had a 40% lower rate of opioid overdose than those without such prescriptions (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83), the study team found.

In addition, patients with AUD and a GLP-1 RA prescription exhibited a 50% lower rate of alcohol intoxication (aIRR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.40-0.63).

The protective effect of GLP-1 RA on opioid overdose and alcohol intoxication was maintained across patients with comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes and obesity.

“Future research should focus on prospective clinical trials to validate these findings, explore the underlying mechanisms, and determine the long-term efficacy and safety of GIP/GLP-1 RA medications in diverse populations,” Qeadan and colleagues concluded.

“Additionally, the study highlights the importance of interdisciplinary research in understanding the neurobiological links between metabolic disorders and problematic substance use, potentially leading to more effective treatment strategies within healthcare systems,” they added.
 

Questions Remain

In a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre, Matt Field, DPhil, professor of psychology, The University of Sheffield, in England, noted that the findings “add to those from other studies, particularly animal research, which suggest that this and similar drugs might one day be prescribed to help people with addiction.”

However, “a note of caution is that the outcomes are very extreme instances of substance intoxication,” added Field, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Those outcomes are very different from the outcomes used when researchers test new treatments for addiction, in which case we might look at whether the treatment helps people to stop taking the substance altogether (complete abstinence), or if it helps people to reduce the amount of substance they consume, or how often they consume it. Those things could not be measured in this study,” he continued.

“This leaves open the possibility that while Ozempic may — for reasons currently unknown — prevent people from taking so much alcohol or heroin that they overdose and end up in hospital, it may not actually help them to reduce their substance use, or to abstain altogether,” Field said.

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Field declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

A new study provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) used to treat diabetes and obesity could be repurposed for opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD).

Researchers found that patients with OUD or AUD who were taking semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) or similar medications for diabetes or weight-related conditions had a 40% lower rate of opioid overdose and a 50% lower rate of alcohol intoxication than their peers with OUD or AUD who were not taking these medications.

Their real-world study of more than 1 million adults with a history of OUD or AUD provide “foundational” estimates of the association between glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RA prescriptions and opioid overdose/alcohol intoxication “and introduce the idea that GLP-1 RA and other related drugs should be investigated as a novel pharmacotherapy treatment option for individuals with OUD or AUD,” wrote the investigators, led by Fares Qeadan, PhD, Parkinson School of Health Sciences and Public Health, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois.

The study was published online in the journal Addiction.
 

Protective Effect?

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, earlier studies have pointed to a link between weight loss drugs and reduced overdose risk in people with OUD and decreased alcohol intake in people with AUD.

Until now, most studies on GLP-1 RAs and GIP agonists like tirzepatide (Mounjaro) to treat substance use disorders consisted of animal studies and small-scale clinical trials, investigators noted.

This new retrospective cohort study analyzed de-identified electronic health record data from the Oracle Health Real-World Data.

Participants, all aged 18 years or older, included 503,747 patients with a history of OUD, of whom 8103 had a GLP-1 RA or GIP prescription, and 817,309 patients with a history of AUD, of whom 5621 had a GLP-1 RA or GIP prescription.

Patients with OUD who were prescribed GLP-1 RAs had a 40% lower rate of opioid overdose than those without such prescriptions (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83), the study team found.

In addition, patients with AUD and a GLP-1 RA prescription exhibited a 50% lower rate of alcohol intoxication (aIRR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.40-0.63).

The protective effect of GLP-1 RA on opioid overdose and alcohol intoxication was maintained across patients with comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes and obesity.

“Future research should focus on prospective clinical trials to validate these findings, explore the underlying mechanisms, and determine the long-term efficacy and safety of GIP/GLP-1 RA medications in diverse populations,” Qeadan and colleagues concluded.

“Additionally, the study highlights the importance of interdisciplinary research in understanding the neurobiological links between metabolic disorders and problematic substance use, potentially leading to more effective treatment strategies within healthcare systems,” they added.
 

Questions Remain

In a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre, Matt Field, DPhil, professor of psychology, The University of Sheffield, in England, noted that the findings “add to those from other studies, particularly animal research, which suggest that this and similar drugs might one day be prescribed to help people with addiction.”

However, “a note of caution is that the outcomes are very extreme instances of substance intoxication,” added Field, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Those outcomes are very different from the outcomes used when researchers test new treatments for addiction, in which case we might look at whether the treatment helps people to stop taking the substance altogether (complete abstinence), or if it helps people to reduce the amount of substance they consume, or how often they consume it. Those things could not be measured in this study,” he continued.

“This leaves open the possibility that while Ozempic may — for reasons currently unknown — prevent people from taking so much alcohol or heroin that they overdose and end up in hospital, it may not actually help them to reduce their substance use, or to abstain altogether,” Field said.

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Field declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

A new study provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) used to treat diabetes and obesity could be repurposed for opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD).

Researchers found that patients with OUD or AUD who were taking semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) or similar medications for diabetes or weight-related conditions had a 40% lower rate of opioid overdose and a 50% lower rate of alcohol intoxication than their peers with OUD or AUD who were not taking these medications.

Their real-world study of more than 1 million adults with a history of OUD or AUD provide “foundational” estimates of the association between glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RA prescriptions and opioid overdose/alcohol intoxication “and introduce the idea that GLP-1 RA and other related drugs should be investigated as a novel pharmacotherapy treatment option for individuals with OUD or AUD,” wrote the investigators, led by Fares Qeadan, PhD, Parkinson School of Health Sciences and Public Health, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois.

The study was published online in the journal Addiction.
 

Protective Effect?

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, earlier studies have pointed to a link between weight loss drugs and reduced overdose risk in people with OUD and decreased alcohol intake in people with AUD.

Until now, most studies on GLP-1 RAs and GIP agonists like tirzepatide (Mounjaro) to treat substance use disorders consisted of animal studies and small-scale clinical trials, investigators noted.

This new retrospective cohort study analyzed de-identified electronic health record data from the Oracle Health Real-World Data.

Participants, all aged 18 years or older, included 503,747 patients with a history of OUD, of whom 8103 had a GLP-1 RA or GIP prescription, and 817,309 patients with a history of AUD, of whom 5621 had a GLP-1 RA or GIP prescription.

Patients with OUD who were prescribed GLP-1 RAs had a 40% lower rate of opioid overdose than those without such prescriptions (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83), the study team found.

In addition, patients with AUD and a GLP-1 RA prescription exhibited a 50% lower rate of alcohol intoxication (aIRR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.40-0.63).

The protective effect of GLP-1 RA on opioid overdose and alcohol intoxication was maintained across patients with comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes and obesity.

“Future research should focus on prospective clinical trials to validate these findings, explore the underlying mechanisms, and determine the long-term efficacy and safety of GIP/GLP-1 RA medications in diverse populations,” Qeadan and colleagues concluded.

“Additionally, the study highlights the importance of interdisciplinary research in understanding the neurobiological links between metabolic disorders and problematic substance use, potentially leading to more effective treatment strategies within healthcare systems,” they added.
 

Questions Remain

In a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre, Matt Field, DPhil, professor of psychology, The University of Sheffield, in England, noted that the findings “add to those from other studies, particularly animal research, which suggest that this and similar drugs might one day be prescribed to help people with addiction.”

However, “a note of caution is that the outcomes are very extreme instances of substance intoxication,” added Field, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Those outcomes are very different from the outcomes used when researchers test new treatments for addiction, in which case we might look at whether the treatment helps people to stop taking the substance altogether (complete abstinence), or if it helps people to reduce the amount of substance they consume, or how often they consume it. Those things could not be measured in this study,” he continued.

“This leaves open the possibility that while Ozempic may — for reasons currently unknown — prevent people from taking so much alcohol or heroin that they overdose and end up in hospital, it may not actually help them to reduce their substance use, or to abstain altogether,” Field said.

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Field declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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