Obesity

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

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

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

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

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

What Fertility Docs Are Doing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weighing Risks, Benefits, and Unknowns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offer the Conversation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

What Fertility Docs Are Doing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weighing Risks, Benefits, and Unknowns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offer the Conversation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

What Fertility Docs Are Doing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weighing Risks, Benefits, and Unknowns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offer the Conversation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

About Half Reported Reduced Alcohol Consumption, Regardless the AOM Class

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mechanisms Appear Both Biological and Behavioral

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

About Half Reported Reduced Alcohol Consumption, Regardless the AOM Class

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mechanisms Appear Both Biological and Behavioral

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

About Half Reported Reduced Alcohol Consumption, Regardless the AOM Class

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mechanisms Appear Both Biological and Behavioral

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Semaglutide use is associated with an increased risk of retained solid gastric contents, but colonoscopy prep appears to mitigate this issue, according to investigators.

These findings suggest that patients taking GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) may benefit from a 24-hour liquid fast before anesthetic procedures without the need for a medication hold, reported lead author Haarika Korlipara, MD, of NewYork–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

“[T]he effects of delayed gastric emptying in patients on long-acting GLP-1RAs are clinically important in the management of anesthetized patients, who may develop periprocedural complications in the setting of retained solid gastric contents,” the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center

The researchers retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 1,212 patients undergoing upper endoscopy at a tertiary care center. Among them, 602 were on semaglutide for more than four weeks, while 610 were controls not taking the medication.

The primary outcome was the presence of retained solid gastric contents. Secondary outcomes included the need for intubation, early procedure termination, and recommendations for repeat endoscopy.

Semaglutide use was an independent predictor of retained solid gastric contents (odds ratio [OR], 4.74; 95% CI, 2.40-9.35; P less than .0001). Multivariable propensity-matched analysis showed a 6% absolute increase in retained gastric contents in the semaglutide group compared to controls (P less than .0001).

This increase appeared clinically relevant, as semaglutide use was associated with a higher rate of early procedure termination (OR, 3.09; P = 0.02) and recommendations for repeat endoscopies (OR, 3.61; P = 0.02), “indicating the degree of retained solid gastric contents was enough to limit the intended gastric mucosal examination,” the investigators wrote.

However, patients who underwent same-day colonoscopy, which included a 24-hour clear liquid fast leading up to the procedure, were less likely to have retained gastric contents (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.73; P = 0.003), suggesting that extended fasting protocols may mitigate the risk of procedural complications.

“Patients with a history of gastroparesis are often advised to stop ingesting solid foods and maintain a clear liquid diet for a longer period than standard ASA guidance before anesthetized procedures,” Dr. Korlipara and colleagues wrote. “In our opinion, this recommendation should be considered in patients on long-term GLP-1RA therapy, in response to the findings reported in this study and others about the protective effects of a 24-hour liquid fast.”

Point-of-care gastric ultrasound may also be considered to evaluate patients at higher risk of retained stomach contents, they added, especially in patients with additional risk factors for delayed gastric emptying.

“Previously published data have linked prolonged gastric emptying delays in patients chronically using these medications,” they wrote. “Considering the effect on blood sugar and associated procedural risk, especially in patients taking this medication for diabetes management, more studies are warranted to determine the effect of medication on periprocedural complications and recommend repeat evaluation.”

After this study was released, new clinical guidance on the use of GLP-1RAs before surgery was co-published by AGA and four other societies. The guidance notes that, in most cases, patients can continue to take GLP-1RAs, but individual risk factors for complications should be assessed prior to surgery. The guidance cautions that patients at high risk for significant GI side effects should follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before a procedure and the anesthesia plan be adjusted accordingly. In rare cases, the procedure should be delayed.

Dr. Korlipara disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Semaglutide use is associated with an increased risk of retained solid gastric contents, but colonoscopy prep appears to mitigate this issue, according to investigators.

These findings suggest that patients taking GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) may benefit from a 24-hour liquid fast before anesthetic procedures without the need for a medication hold, reported lead author Haarika Korlipara, MD, of NewYork–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

“[T]he effects of delayed gastric emptying in patients on long-acting GLP-1RAs are clinically important in the management of anesthetized patients, who may develop periprocedural complications in the setting of retained solid gastric contents,” the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center

The researchers retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 1,212 patients undergoing upper endoscopy at a tertiary care center. Among them, 602 were on semaglutide for more than four weeks, while 610 were controls not taking the medication.

The primary outcome was the presence of retained solid gastric contents. Secondary outcomes included the need for intubation, early procedure termination, and recommendations for repeat endoscopy.

Semaglutide use was an independent predictor of retained solid gastric contents (odds ratio [OR], 4.74; 95% CI, 2.40-9.35; P less than .0001). Multivariable propensity-matched analysis showed a 6% absolute increase in retained gastric contents in the semaglutide group compared to controls (P less than .0001).

This increase appeared clinically relevant, as semaglutide use was associated with a higher rate of early procedure termination (OR, 3.09; P = 0.02) and recommendations for repeat endoscopies (OR, 3.61; P = 0.02), “indicating the degree of retained solid gastric contents was enough to limit the intended gastric mucosal examination,” the investigators wrote.

However, patients who underwent same-day colonoscopy, which included a 24-hour clear liquid fast leading up to the procedure, were less likely to have retained gastric contents (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.73; P = 0.003), suggesting that extended fasting protocols may mitigate the risk of procedural complications.

“Patients with a history of gastroparesis are often advised to stop ingesting solid foods and maintain a clear liquid diet for a longer period than standard ASA guidance before anesthetized procedures,” Dr. Korlipara and colleagues wrote. “In our opinion, this recommendation should be considered in patients on long-term GLP-1RA therapy, in response to the findings reported in this study and others about the protective effects of a 24-hour liquid fast.”

Point-of-care gastric ultrasound may also be considered to evaluate patients at higher risk of retained stomach contents, they added, especially in patients with additional risk factors for delayed gastric emptying.

“Previously published data have linked prolonged gastric emptying delays in patients chronically using these medications,” they wrote. “Considering the effect on blood sugar and associated procedural risk, especially in patients taking this medication for diabetes management, more studies are warranted to determine the effect of medication on periprocedural complications and recommend repeat evaluation.”

After this study was released, new clinical guidance on the use of GLP-1RAs before surgery was co-published by AGA and four other societies. The guidance notes that, in most cases, patients can continue to take GLP-1RAs, but individual risk factors for complications should be assessed prior to surgery. The guidance cautions that patients at high risk for significant GI side effects should follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before a procedure and the anesthesia plan be adjusted accordingly. In rare cases, the procedure should be delayed.

Dr. Korlipara disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Semaglutide use is associated with an increased risk of retained solid gastric contents, but colonoscopy prep appears to mitigate this issue, according to investigators.

These findings suggest that patients taking GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) may benefit from a 24-hour liquid fast before anesthetic procedures without the need for a medication hold, reported lead author Haarika Korlipara, MD, of NewYork–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

“[T]he effects of delayed gastric emptying in patients on long-acting GLP-1RAs are clinically important in the management of anesthetized patients, who may develop periprocedural complications in the setting of retained solid gastric contents,” the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center

The researchers retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 1,212 patients undergoing upper endoscopy at a tertiary care center. Among them, 602 were on semaglutide for more than four weeks, while 610 were controls not taking the medication.

The primary outcome was the presence of retained solid gastric contents. Secondary outcomes included the need for intubation, early procedure termination, and recommendations for repeat endoscopy.

Semaglutide use was an independent predictor of retained solid gastric contents (odds ratio [OR], 4.74; 95% CI, 2.40-9.35; P less than .0001). Multivariable propensity-matched analysis showed a 6% absolute increase in retained gastric contents in the semaglutide group compared to controls (P less than .0001).

This increase appeared clinically relevant, as semaglutide use was associated with a higher rate of early procedure termination (OR, 3.09; P = 0.02) and recommendations for repeat endoscopies (OR, 3.61; P = 0.02), “indicating the degree of retained solid gastric contents was enough to limit the intended gastric mucosal examination,” the investigators wrote.

However, patients who underwent same-day colonoscopy, which included a 24-hour clear liquid fast leading up to the procedure, were less likely to have retained gastric contents (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.73; P = 0.003), suggesting that extended fasting protocols may mitigate the risk of procedural complications.

“Patients with a history of gastroparesis are often advised to stop ingesting solid foods and maintain a clear liquid diet for a longer period than standard ASA guidance before anesthetized procedures,” Dr. Korlipara and colleagues wrote. “In our opinion, this recommendation should be considered in patients on long-term GLP-1RA therapy, in response to the findings reported in this study and others about the protective effects of a 24-hour liquid fast.”

Point-of-care gastric ultrasound may also be considered to evaluate patients at higher risk of retained stomach contents, they added, especially in patients with additional risk factors for delayed gastric emptying.

“Previously published data have linked prolonged gastric emptying delays in patients chronically using these medications,” they wrote. “Considering the effect on blood sugar and associated procedural risk, especially in patients taking this medication for diabetes management, more studies are warranted to determine the effect of medication on periprocedural complications and recommend repeat evaluation.”

After this study was released, new clinical guidance on the use of GLP-1RAs before surgery was co-published by AGA and four other societies. The guidance notes that, in most cases, patients can continue to take GLP-1RAs, but individual risk factors for complications should be assessed prior to surgery. The guidance cautions that patients at high risk for significant GI side effects should follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before a procedure and the anesthesia plan be adjusted accordingly. In rare cases, the procedure should be delayed.

Dr. Korlipara disclosed no conflicts of interest.

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

 

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

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

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

 

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

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

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

 

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

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

TOPLINE:

People with central obesity (CO), characterized by excess fat around the abdomen, are at a greater risk for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), particularly those who are younger than 60 years or without a history of hysterectomy. Also, women who have overweight but do not have CO are at greater risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study to estimate the association between CO and general obesity and the risk for POP in individuals using the UK Biobank.
• A total of 251,143 participants (median age, 57 years) without preexisting POP were included, of whom 60.9% were postmenopausal and 17.2% had undergone hysterectomy before enrollment.
• Participants were followed for a median duration of 13.8 years, and POP cases were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes.
• Waist circumference, height, and body weight were measured at enrollment for the calculation of waist/height ratio and body mass index (BMI); CO was defined as a waist/height ratio ≥ 0.5.
• The relative risk of POP for the various combinations of waist/height ratio and BMI was evaluated against the reference group (waist/height ratio < 0.5; BMI < 25) using Cox proportional hazards models.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, 9781 cases of POP were identified, of which 71.2% occurred in a single pelvic compartment.
• Around 21.7% of all POP cases were attributable to CO; 2% were attributable to being overweight without CO.
• The risk for POP was 48% higher in individuals with CO regardless of BMI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.41-1.56) and 23% higher in those who had overweight without CO (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.34).
• The association between POP and CO was further strengthened in individuals who were younger than 60 years and those without a history of hysterectomy.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that waist/height ratio combined with BMI could help differentiate individuals with varying risks of prolapse more accurately. Among individuals within the same BMI category, waist/height ratio can vary, with those having a higher ratio generally facing a greater risk of POP, compared with those with a normal ratio. Therefore, they should not be grouped together based solely on a single measure of obesity. In addition, this combination can help identify more individuals at high risk for POP, compared with using either alone,” the study authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Keyi Si, PhD, of Tongji University in Shanghai, China, and was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

Differences in healthcare-seeking behavior could have biased the association between obesity and risk for POP, as individuals with obesity may have been less likely to notice or report symptoms of POP. The diagnosis of POP was according to ICD-10 codes rather than physical examination, which may have affected accuracy. Other limitations included missing data on delivery mode and history of constipation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality, the Shanghai Hospital Development Center, and the Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

People with central obesity (CO), characterized by excess fat around the abdomen, are at a greater risk for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), particularly those who are younger than 60 years or without a history of hysterectomy. Also, women who have overweight but do not have CO are at greater risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study to estimate the association between CO and general obesity and the risk for POP in individuals using the UK Biobank.
• A total of 251,143 participants (median age, 57 years) without preexisting POP were included, of whom 60.9% were postmenopausal and 17.2% had undergone hysterectomy before enrollment.
• Participants were followed for a median duration of 13.8 years, and POP cases were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes.
• Waist circumference, height, and body weight were measured at enrollment for the calculation of waist/height ratio and body mass index (BMI); CO was defined as a waist/height ratio ≥ 0.5.
• The relative risk of POP for the various combinations of waist/height ratio and BMI was evaluated against the reference group (waist/height ratio < 0.5; BMI < 25) using Cox proportional hazards models.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, 9781 cases of POP were identified, of which 71.2% occurred in a single pelvic compartment.
• Around 21.7% of all POP cases were attributable to CO; 2% were attributable to being overweight without CO.
• The risk for POP was 48% higher in individuals with CO regardless of BMI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.41-1.56) and 23% higher in those who had overweight without CO (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.34).
• The association between POP and CO was further strengthened in individuals who were younger than 60 years and those without a history of hysterectomy.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that waist/height ratio combined with BMI could help differentiate individuals with varying risks of prolapse more accurately. Among individuals within the same BMI category, waist/height ratio can vary, with those having a higher ratio generally facing a greater risk of POP, compared with those with a normal ratio. Therefore, they should not be grouped together based solely on a single measure of obesity. In addition, this combination can help identify more individuals at high risk for POP, compared with using either alone,” the study authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Keyi Si, PhD, of Tongji University in Shanghai, China, and was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

Differences in healthcare-seeking behavior could have biased the association between obesity and risk for POP, as individuals with obesity may have been less likely to notice or report symptoms of POP. The diagnosis of POP was according to ICD-10 codes rather than physical examination, which may have affected accuracy. Other limitations included missing data on delivery mode and history of constipation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality, the Shanghai Hospital Development Center, and the Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

People with central obesity (CO), characterized by excess fat around the abdomen, are at a greater risk for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), particularly those who are younger than 60 years or without a history of hysterectomy. Also, women who have overweight but do not have CO are at greater risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study to estimate the association between CO and general obesity and the risk for POP in individuals using the UK Biobank.
• A total of 251,143 participants (median age, 57 years) without preexisting POP were included, of whom 60.9% were postmenopausal and 17.2% had undergone hysterectomy before enrollment.
• Participants were followed for a median duration of 13.8 years, and POP cases were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes.
• Waist circumference, height, and body weight were measured at enrollment for the calculation of waist/height ratio and body mass index (BMI); CO was defined as a waist/height ratio ≥ 0.5.
• The relative risk of POP for the various combinations of waist/height ratio and BMI was evaluated against the reference group (waist/height ratio < 0.5; BMI < 25) using Cox proportional hazards models.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, 9781 cases of POP were identified, of which 71.2% occurred in a single pelvic compartment.
• Around 21.7% of all POP cases were attributable to CO; 2% were attributable to being overweight without CO.
• The risk for POP was 48% higher in individuals with CO regardless of BMI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.41-1.56) and 23% higher in those who had overweight without CO (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.34).
• The association between POP and CO was further strengthened in individuals who were younger than 60 years and those without a history of hysterectomy.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that waist/height ratio combined with BMI could help differentiate individuals with varying risks of prolapse more accurately. Among individuals within the same BMI category, waist/height ratio can vary, with those having a higher ratio generally facing a greater risk of POP, compared with those with a normal ratio. Therefore, they should not be grouped together based solely on a single measure of obesity. In addition, this combination can help identify more individuals at high risk for POP, compared with using either alone,” the study authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Keyi Si, PhD, of Tongji University in Shanghai, China, and was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

Differences in healthcare-seeking behavior could have biased the association between obesity and risk for POP, as individuals with obesity may have been less likely to notice or report symptoms of POP. The diagnosis of POP was according to ICD-10 codes rather than physical examination, which may have affected accuracy. Other limitations included missing data on delivery mode and history of constipation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality, the Shanghai Hospital Development Center, and the Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Despite the prevalence of obesity in primary care, there appear to be major knowledge gaps among providers regarding obesity management, new research suggests. 

Anonymous surveys of 96 primary care providers at a Boston, Massachusetts, safety-net hospital revealed that participants had limited understanding of criteria for prescribing antiobesity medications (AOM), and expressed discomfort in prescribing AOMs because of knowledge concerns, especially for non–glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. One third reported that they didn’t prescribe AOMs, and rates of referral for bariatric surgery were also low. 

The findings were presented at the Obesity Society’s annual Obesity Week meeting by Alejandro Campos, MD, a third-year resident in the section of internal medicine, Boston Medical Center, and the Department of Medicine, Boston University. 

“I think it comes down to education. ... Not only training primary care physicians or residents about criteria and pathophysiology, but also stigma. Perceptions need to be addressed from the start of training in the healthcare field,” Campos told this news organization in an interview.

During his presentation, Campos noted this is the first such study in the setting of a safety-net hospital, which cares for lower-income people who experience disproportionate rates of obesity. But, “these findings are similar to ones observed from non–safety-net settings, which can indicate some potential transferability.”

Asked to comment, session moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, Chief Population Health Officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, told this news organization that the findings didn’t surprise him. “I’d say that medical education around obesity has definitely improved, and training is improving but it’s not uniform. The treatment of obesity as a disease, especially with some of the newer medical treatments, is not standard of care and practiced widely.”

The study involved a standard-model Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices questionnaire, distributed electronically for anonymous responses among both trained and in-training primary care providers. It contained a total of 43 items, 7 of them demographic, 11 on knowledge, 9 regarding attitudes, and 16 asking about practices.

The hospital is the largest safety-net hospital in New England, with a patient population that includes 58% enrolled in Medicaid, 32% Black/African American individuals, 24% identifying as Hispanic/Latino individuals, and 37% living below the poverty line.

The 96 responding providers (from a total 350 invited) all worked in either family medicine or internal medicine. The trained providers included both attending MDs and nurse practitioners, while those in-training were residents in one of those two specialties. Two thirds were women. The majority were aged 20-30 years (49.45%) or 31-40 years (27.47%).

Overall, 73.63% reported having received some type of obesity training. Just over half (52.08%) reported receiving that training during medical or nursing school, while 43.75% reported receiving it during residency.

When asked to choose from a list of conditions to pick which are considered weight-related comorbidities, between 80% and 90% choose type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), hypertension, hyperlipidemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and coronary artery disease. Fewer, but still a majority, also listed osteoarthritis and gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, respondents were less likely to cite cancer, mood disorders, or chronic kidney disease as being related to obesity.

Asked to list benefits of a 10% body weight loss, most recognized reductions in OSA, glycemia, cardiovascular disease risk, osteoarthritis, and hepatic steatosis. But, only about half knew weight loss could also improve urinary incontinence.

Only 25% could correctly name both indications for AOMs. Just 27.1% knew that one was a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 with comorbidities, while 46.9% knew BMI ≥ 30 without comorbidities was an AOM indication. Only 9.4% were correct on both of those indications for bariatric surgery.

“Reassuringly,” Campos said, the majority either “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” that “lack of will power” contributes to obesity. However, more than 20% agreed that “lack of exercise or physical activity” contributed.

Overall, 73% of the trained providers and 59% of those in training reported that they prescribe AOMs. Asked about their comfort level in prescribing specific types of AOMs, many more endorsed semaglutide and liraglutide than older medications such as bupropion/naltrexone and phentermine/topiramate.

Asked about factors that influence their comfort with prescribing AOMs, the top five factors selected, in order, were side-effect knowledge, insurance coverage, safety issues, and dosing knowledge. Fewer respondents endorsed “patient’s ideas, concerns, and expectations,” cost, or efficacy.

Referrals to nutrition services were endorsed more often than to obesity medicine specialists or bariatric surgery.

Asked about barriers to obesity treatment in their practices, “time constraints” was the most frequently endorsed, followed by “lack of training or knowledge,” “patient adherence and motivation,” and “limited resources.”

“What are the future directives? We feel we have the need to provide ongoing obesity management, education and assistance to primary care providers, including support for securing coverage for treatments,” Campos said.

He added that Boston Medical Center is now developing and implementing an embedded weight management program within primary care “to assist the front line of obesity care.”

Asked by this news organization whether he believes the rise of GLP-1 drugs will make a difference, Campos said “Definitely, I think with that momentum obesity medicine as a whole will gain more attention and hopefully more implementation in the curricula for medical and nursing schools, because in the end it requires a multidisciplinary approach.”

Campos and Clark had no disclosures.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Despite the prevalence of obesity in primary care, there appear to be major knowledge gaps among providers regarding obesity management, new research suggests. 

Anonymous surveys of 96 primary care providers at a Boston, Massachusetts, safety-net hospital revealed that participants had limited understanding of criteria for prescribing antiobesity medications (AOM), and expressed discomfort in prescribing AOMs because of knowledge concerns, especially for non–glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. One third reported that they didn’t prescribe AOMs, and rates of referral for bariatric surgery were also low. 

The findings were presented at the Obesity Society’s annual Obesity Week meeting by Alejandro Campos, MD, a third-year resident in the section of internal medicine, Boston Medical Center, and the Department of Medicine, Boston University. 

“I think it comes down to education. ... Not only training primary care physicians or residents about criteria and pathophysiology, but also stigma. Perceptions need to be addressed from the start of training in the healthcare field,” Campos told this news organization in an interview.

During his presentation, Campos noted this is the first such study in the setting of a safety-net hospital, which cares for lower-income people who experience disproportionate rates of obesity. But, “these findings are similar to ones observed from non–safety-net settings, which can indicate some potential transferability.”

Asked to comment, session moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, Chief Population Health Officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, told this news organization that the findings didn’t surprise him. “I’d say that medical education around obesity has definitely improved, and training is improving but it’s not uniform. The treatment of obesity as a disease, especially with some of the newer medical treatments, is not standard of care and practiced widely.”

The study involved a standard-model Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices questionnaire, distributed electronically for anonymous responses among both trained and in-training primary care providers. It contained a total of 43 items, 7 of them demographic, 11 on knowledge, 9 regarding attitudes, and 16 asking about practices.

The hospital is the largest safety-net hospital in New England, with a patient population that includes 58% enrolled in Medicaid, 32% Black/African American individuals, 24% identifying as Hispanic/Latino individuals, and 37% living below the poverty line.

The 96 responding providers (from a total 350 invited) all worked in either family medicine or internal medicine. The trained providers included both attending MDs and nurse practitioners, while those in-training were residents in one of those two specialties. Two thirds were women. The majority were aged 20-30 years (49.45%) or 31-40 years (27.47%).

Overall, 73.63% reported having received some type of obesity training. Just over half (52.08%) reported receiving that training during medical or nursing school, while 43.75% reported receiving it during residency.

When asked to choose from a list of conditions to pick which are considered weight-related comorbidities, between 80% and 90% choose type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), hypertension, hyperlipidemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and coronary artery disease. Fewer, but still a majority, also listed osteoarthritis and gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, respondents were less likely to cite cancer, mood disorders, or chronic kidney disease as being related to obesity.

Asked to list benefits of a 10% body weight loss, most recognized reductions in OSA, glycemia, cardiovascular disease risk, osteoarthritis, and hepatic steatosis. But, only about half knew weight loss could also improve urinary incontinence.

Only 25% could correctly name both indications for AOMs. Just 27.1% knew that one was a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 with comorbidities, while 46.9% knew BMI ≥ 30 without comorbidities was an AOM indication. Only 9.4% were correct on both of those indications for bariatric surgery.

“Reassuringly,” Campos said, the majority either “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” that “lack of will power” contributes to obesity. However, more than 20% agreed that “lack of exercise or physical activity” contributed.

Overall, 73% of the trained providers and 59% of those in training reported that they prescribe AOMs. Asked about their comfort level in prescribing specific types of AOMs, many more endorsed semaglutide and liraglutide than older medications such as bupropion/naltrexone and phentermine/topiramate.

Asked about factors that influence their comfort with prescribing AOMs, the top five factors selected, in order, were side-effect knowledge, insurance coverage, safety issues, and dosing knowledge. Fewer respondents endorsed “patient’s ideas, concerns, and expectations,” cost, or efficacy.

Referrals to nutrition services were endorsed more often than to obesity medicine specialists or bariatric surgery.

Asked about barriers to obesity treatment in their practices, “time constraints” was the most frequently endorsed, followed by “lack of training or knowledge,” “patient adherence and motivation,” and “limited resources.”

“What are the future directives? We feel we have the need to provide ongoing obesity management, education and assistance to primary care providers, including support for securing coverage for treatments,” Campos said.

He added that Boston Medical Center is now developing and implementing an embedded weight management program within primary care “to assist the front line of obesity care.”

Asked by this news organization whether he believes the rise of GLP-1 drugs will make a difference, Campos said “Definitely, I think with that momentum obesity medicine as a whole will gain more attention and hopefully more implementation in the curricula for medical and nursing schools, because in the end it requires a multidisciplinary approach.”

Campos and Clark had no disclosures.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Despite the prevalence of obesity in primary care, there appear to be major knowledge gaps among providers regarding obesity management, new research suggests. 

Anonymous surveys of 96 primary care providers at a Boston, Massachusetts, safety-net hospital revealed that participants had limited understanding of criteria for prescribing antiobesity medications (AOM), and expressed discomfort in prescribing AOMs because of knowledge concerns, especially for non–glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. One third reported that they didn’t prescribe AOMs, and rates of referral for bariatric surgery were also low. 

The findings were presented at the Obesity Society’s annual Obesity Week meeting by Alejandro Campos, MD, a third-year resident in the section of internal medicine, Boston Medical Center, and the Department of Medicine, Boston University. 

“I think it comes down to education. ... Not only training primary care physicians or residents about criteria and pathophysiology, but also stigma. Perceptions need to be addressed from the start of training in the healthcare field,” Campos told this news organization in an interview.

During his presentation, Campos noted this is the first such study in the setting of a safety-net hospital, which cares for lower-income people who experience disproportionate rates of obesity. But, “these findings are similar to ones observed from non–safety-net settings, which can indicate some potential transferability.”

Asked to comment, session moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, Chief Population Health Officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, told this news organization that the findings didn’t surprise him. “I’d say that medical education around obesity has definitely improved, and training is improving but it’s not uniform. The treatment of obesity as a disease, especially with some of the newer medical treatments, is not standard of care and practiced widely.”

The study involved a standard-model Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices questionnaire, distributed electronically for anonymous responses among both trained and in-training primary care providers. It contained a total of 43 items, 7 of them demographic, 11 on knowledge, 9 regarding attitudes, and 16 asking about practices.

The hospital is the largest safety-net hospital in New England, with a patient population that includes 58% enrolled in Medicaid, 32% Black/African American individuals, 24% identifying as Hispanic/Latino individuals, and 37% living below the poverty line.

The 96 responding providers (from a total 350 invited) all worked in either family medicine or internal medicine. The trained providers included both attending MDs and nurse practitioners, while those in-training were residents in one of those two specialties. Two thirds were women. The majority were aged 20-30 years (49.45%) or 31-40 years (27.47%).

Overall, 73.63% reported having received some type of obesity training. Just over half (52.08%) reported receiving that training during medical or nursing school, while 43.75% reported receiving it during residency.

When asked to choose from a list of conditions to pick which are considered weight-related comorbidities, between 80% and 90% choose type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), hypertension, hyperlipidemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and coronary artery disease. Fewer, but still a majority, also listed osteoarthritis and gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, respondents were less likely to cite cancer, mood disorders, or chronic kidney disease as being related to obesity.

Asked to list benefits of a 10% body weight loss, most recognized reductions in OSA, glycemia, cardiovascular disease risk, osteoarthritis, and hepatic steatosis. But, only about half knew weight loss could also improve urinary incontinence.

Only 25% could correctly name both indications for AOMs. Just 27.1% knew that one was a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 with comorbidities, while 46.9% knew BMI ≥ 30 without comorbidities was an AOM indication. Only 9.4% were correct on both of those indications for bariatric surgery.

“Reassuringly,” Campos said, the majority either “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” that “lack of will power” contributes to obesity. However, more than 20% agreed that “lack of exercise or physical activity” contributed.

Overall, 73% of the trained providers and 59% of those in training reported that they prescribe AOMs. Asked about their comfort level in prescribing specific types of AOMs, many more endorsed semaglutide and liraglutide than older medications such as bupropion/naltrexone and phentermine/topiramate.

Asked about factors that influence their comfort with prescribing AOMs, the top five factors selected, in order, were side-effect knowledge, insurance coverage, safety issues, and dosing knowledge. Fewer respondents endorsed “patient’s ideas, concerns, and expectations,” cost, or efficacy.

Referrals to nutrition services were endorsed more often than to obesity medicine specialists or bariatric surgery.

Asked about barriers to obesity treatment in their practices, “time constraints” was the most frequently endorsed, followed by “lack of training or knowledge,” “patient adherence and motivation,” and “limited resources.”

“What are the future directives? We feel we have the need to provide ongoing obesity management, education and assistance to primary care providers, including support for securing coverage for treatments,” Campos said.

He added that Boston Medical Center is now developing and implementing an embedded weight management program within primary care “to assist the front line of obesity care.”

Asked by this news organization whether he believes the rise of GLP-1 drugs will make a difference, Campos said “Definitely, I think with that momentum obesity medicine as a whole will gain more attention and hopefully more implementation in the curricula for medical and nursing schools, because in the end it requires a multidisciplinary approach.”

Campos and Clark had no disclosures.

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

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For the past 4 years, primary care clinicians have labored under a seemingly endless onslaught of bad news. A recent report estimated that there were over 1.3 million excess deaths in the United States from March 2020 to May 2023, including nearly half a million Americans younger than age 65. Social isolation and an ailing economy accelerated preexisting rises in drug overdoses and obesity, while teenage vaping threatened to hook a new generation on tobacco products even as adult smoking plummeted. Meanwhile, more than half of the nation’s physicians now report feelings of burnout, pay for family doctors appears to be stagnating, and our interactions with an increasing number of patients are fraught with suspicions about the value of vaccines— not just against COVID-19 but against flu and other viruses, too — and the medical system as a whole, doctors included. 

Now, for the good news.

A year and a half since the end of the pandemic emergency, we are seeing gains on several fronts, and physicians deserve much of the credit. Preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 10,000 fewer people died from drug overdoses than in the previous year. Although multiple factors contributed to this change, the elimination of the X-waiver, which had previously been required for physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, in January 2023 has improved access to medications for addiction treatment. In addition, the expansion of state requirements to check prescription drug monitoring programs when opioids or benzodiazepines are prescribed, and to prescribe naloxone to patients taking more than a certain number of morphine milligram equivalents per day, has probably reduced the harms of hazardous drug use.

On the obesity front, recent data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that the prevalence of obesity in adults fell for the first time in more than a decade, from 41.9% to 40.3%. To be sure, obesity remains far too common, and this finding could be the result of statistical chance rather than representing a true decline. But the widespread prescribing of GLP-1 receptor agonists by primary care physicians, in particular, could have played a role in the encouraging trend.

Although more research is needed to prove causality, one analysis suggests that these drugs could easily have lowered the body mass index (BMI) of more than enough patients to account for the observed decline. What’s more, the rise in prevalence of BMIs above 40 (from 7.7% to 9.7%) could be explained by the mortality benefit of the drugs: More people remained in this severe obesity category because they didn’t die from complications of their weight. Whether future studies support keeping people on GLP-1s for life or eventually “off-ramping” them to other weight control strategies, family physicians are well positioned to help.

Finally, with little fanfare, the youth smoking rate has fallen precipitously. In 2023, 1.9% of high school students and 1.1% of middle-schoolers reported smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days. And they didn’t simply swap one form of nicotine delivery device for another. The 30-day prevalence of vaping among high school students fell from 27.5% in 2019 to 7.8% this year. Changing social norms and stricter federal regulation of tobacco products are probably more responsible for this positive trend than medical care, though the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends education or brief counseling to prevent initiation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. Should tobacco use in youth remain at these historically low levels, millions of premature deaths from lung cancer and heart disease will have been prevented.

America’s doctors have earned the right to take a bow. We have much more work to do, but our efforts are making a meaningful difference in three seemingly intractable health problems.

Dr. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For the past 4 years, primary care clinicians have labored under a seemingly endless onslaught of bad news. A recent report estimated that there were over 1.3 million excess deaths in the United States from March 2020 to May 2023, including nearly half a million Americans younger than age 65. Social isolation and an ailing economy accelerated preexisting rises in drug overdoses and obesity, while teenage vaping threatened to hook a new generation on tobacco products even as adult smoking plummeted. Meanwhile, more than half of the nation’s physicians now report feelings of burnout, pay for family doctors appears to be stagnating, and our interactions with an increasing number of patients are fraught with suspicions about the value of vaccines— not just against COVID-19 but against flu and other viruses, too — and the medical system as a whole, doctors included. 

Now, for the good news.

A year and a half since the end of the pandemic emergency, we are seeing gains on several fronts, and physicians deserve much of the credit. Preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 10,000 fewer people died from drug overdoses than in the previous year. Although multiple factors contributed to this change, the elimination of the X-waiver, which had previously been required for physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, in January 2023 has improved access to medications for addiction treatment. In addition, the expansion of state requirements to check prescription drug monitoring programs when opioids or benzodiazepines are prescribed, and to prescribe naloxone to patients taking more than a certain number of morphine milligram equivalents per day, has probably reduced the harms of hazardous drug use.

On the obesity front, recent data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that the prevalence of obesity in adults fell for the first time in more than a decade, from 41.9% to 40.3%. To be sure, obesity remains far too common, and this finding could be the result of statistical chance rather than representing a true decline. But the widespread prescribing of GLP-1 receptor agonists by primary care physicians, in particular, could have played a role in the encouraging trend.

Although more research is needed to prove causality, one analysis suggests that these drugs could easily have lowered the body mass index (BMI) of more than enough patients to account for the observed decline. What’s more, the rise in prevalence of BMIs above 40 (from 7.7% to 9.7%) could be explained by the mortality benefit of the drugs: More people remained in this severe obesity category because they didn’t die from complications of their weight. Whether future studies support keeping people on GLP-1s for life or eventually “off-ramping” them to other weight control strategies, family physicians are well positioned to help.

Finally, with little fanfare, the youth smoking rate has fallen precipitously. In 2023, 1.9% of high school students and 1.1% of middle-schoolers reported smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days. And they didn’t simply swap one form of nicotine delivery device for another. The 30-day prevalence of vaping among high school students fell from 27.5% in 2019 to 7.8% this year. Changing social norms and stricter federal regulation of tobacco products are probably more responsible for this positive trend than medical care, though the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends education or brief counseling to prevent initiation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. Should tobacco use in youth remain at these historically low levels, millions of premature deaths from lung cancer and heart disease will have been prevented.

America’s doctors have earned the right to take a bow. We have much more work to do, but our efforts are making a meaningful difference in three seemingly intractable health problems.

Dr. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For the past 4 years, primary care clinicians have labored under a seemingly endless onslaught of bad news. A recent report estimated that there were over 1.3 million excess deaths in the United States from March 2020 to May 2023, including nearly half a million Americans younger than age 65. Social isolation and an ailing economy accelerated preexisting rises in drug overdoses and obesity, while teenage vaping threatened to hook a new generation on tobacco products even as adult smoking plummeted. Meanwhile, more than half of the nation’s physicians now report feelings of burnout, pay for family doctors appears to be stagnating, and our interactions with an increasing number of patients are fraught with suspicions about the value of vaccines— not just against COVID-19 but against flu and other viruses, too — and the medical system as a whole, doctors included. 

Now, for the good news.

A year and a half since the end of the pandemic emergency, we are seeing gains on several fronts, and physicians deserve much of the credit. Preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 10,000 fewer people died from drug overdoses than in the previous year. Although multiple factors contributed to this change, the elimination of the X-waiver, which had previously been required for physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, in January 2023 has improved access to medications for addiction treatment. In addition, the expansion of state requirements to check prescription drug monitoring programs when opioids or benzodiazepines are prescribed, and to prescribe naloxone to patients taking more than a certain number of morphine milligram equivalents per day, has probably reduced the harms of hazardous drug use.

On the obesity front, recent data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that the prevalence of obesity in adults fell for the first time in more than a decade, from 41.9% to 40.3%. To be sure, obesity remains far too common, and this finding could be the result of statistical chance rather than representing a true decline. But the widespread prescribing of GLP-1 receptor agonists by primary care physicians, in particular, could have played a role in the encouraging trend.

Although more research is needed to prove causality, one analysis suggests that these drugs could easily have lowered the body mass index (BMI) of more than enough patients to account for the observed decline. What’s more, the rise in prevalence of BMIs above 40 (from 7.7% to 9.7%) could be explained by the mortality benefit of the drugs: More people remained in this severe obesity category because they didn’t die from complications of their weight. Whether future studies support keeping people on GLP-1s for life or eventually “off-ramping” them to other weight control strategies, family physicians are well positioned to help.

Finally, with little fanfare, the youth smoking rate has fallen precipitously. In 2023, 1.9% of high school students and 1.1% of middle-schoolers reported smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days. And they didn’t simply swap one form of nicotine delivery device for another. The 30-day prevalence of vaping among high school students fell from 27.5% in 2019 to 7.8% this year. Changing social norms and stricter federal regulation of tobacco products are probably more responsible for this positive trend than medical care, though the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends education or brief counseling to prevent initiation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. Should tobacco use in youth remain at these historically low levels, millions of premature deaths from lung cancer and heart disease will have been prevented.

America’s doctors have earned the right to take a bow. We have much more work to do, but our efforts are making a meaningful difference in three seemingly intractable health problems.

Dr. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Weight loss interventions using medication or behavioral changes can improve insulin resistance, hormonal markers, and menstrual frequency in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), according to a new meta-analysis. Losing weight may not significantly reduce hirsutism or improve quality of life in women with the condition, however.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials comparing weight loss interventions to usual care in women with PCOS.
• They focused on 12 studies with behavioral interventions (mainly diets with modest energy deficits), nine trials that used glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and eight studies using other weight loss medications.
• A total of 1529 participants were included in the analysis.
• The investigators synthesized the data using a random-effects meta-analysis with Knapp-Hartung adjustment to examine pooled mean differences.

TAKEAWAY:

• Menstrual frequency increased by 2.64 menses per year (95% CI, 0.65-4.63) with weight loss interventions.
• “To our knowledge, this is the first review to show a clinically significant association in improvement in menstrual frequency with weight loss interventions, an important indicator of subsequent fertility and an important outcome for women,” the researchers wrote.
• Glycemic control also improved, with a mean reduction in homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance of 0.45 (95% CI, –0.75 to –0.15).
• Free androgen index decreased by an average of 2.03 (95% CI, –3.0 to –1.07).

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians may use these findings to counsel women with PCOS on the expected improvements in PCOS markers after weight loss and direct patients toward interventions,” the authors of the study wrote. “Because weight loss programs are cost-effective interventions to improve cardiometabolic risk, they may be particularly valuable for this population at elevated risk.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jadine Scragg, PhD, with the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford in England. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Interventions using GLP-1 agonists were dosed for glycemic control rather than weight management. The studies in the meta-analysis were relatively few and heterogeneous. Data were insufficient to assess ovulation and acne.

DISCLOSURES:

The meta-analysis was supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research School for Primary Care Research. Authors disclosed ties to Nestlé Health Science and Second Nature.

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

TOPLINE:

Weight loss interventions using medication or behavioral changes can improve insulin resistance, hormonal markers, and menstrual frequency in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), according to a new meta-analysis. Losing weight may not significantly reduce hirsutism or improve quality of life in women with the condition, however.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials comparing weight loss interventions to usual care in women with PCOS.
• They focused on 12 studies with behavioral interventions (mainly diets with modest energy deficits), nine trials that used glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and eight studies using other weight loss medications.
• A total of 1529 participants were included in the analysis.
• The investigators synthesized the data using a random-effects meta-analysis with Knapp-Hartung adjustment to examine pooled mean differences.

TAKEAWAY:

• Menstrual frequency increased by 2.64 menses per year (95% CI, 0.65-4.63) with weight loss interventions.
• “To our knowledge, this is the first review to show a clinically significant association in improvement in menstrual frequency with weight loss interventions, an important indicator of subsequent fertility and an important outcome for women,” the researchers wrote.
• Glycemic control also improved, with a mean reduction in homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance of 0.45 (95% CI, –0.75 to –0.15).
• Free androgen index decreased by an average of 2.03 (95% CI, –3.0 to –1.07).

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians may use these findings to counsel women with PCOS on the expected improvements in PCOS markers after weight loss and direct patients toward interventions,” the authors of the study wrote. “Because weight loss programs are cost-effective interventions to improve cardiometabolic risk, they may be particularly valuable for this population at elevated risk.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jadine Scragg, PhD, with the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford in England. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Interventions using GLP-1 agonists were dosed for glycemic control rather than weight management. The studies in the meta-analysis were relatively few and heterogeneous. Data were insufficient to assess ovulation and acne.

DISCLOSURES:

The meta-analysis was supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research School for Primary Care Research. Authors disclosed ties to Nestlé Health Science and Second Nature.

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

TOPLINE:

Weight loss interventions using medication or behavioral changes can improve insulin resistance, hormonal markers, and menstrual frequency in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), according to a new meta-analysis. Losing weight may not significantly reduce hirsutism or improve quality of life in women with the condition, however.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials comparing weight loss interventions to usual care in women with PCOS.
• They focused on 12 studies with behavioral interventions (mainly diets with modest energy deficits), nine trials that used glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and eight studies using other weight loss medications.
• A total of 1529 participants were included in the analysis.
• The investigators synthesized the data using a random-effects meta-analysis with Knapp-Hartung adjustment to examine pooled mean differences.

TAKEAWAY:

• Menstrual frequency increased by 2.64 menses per year (95% CI, 0.65-4.63) with weight loss interventions.
• “To our knowledge, this is the first review to show a clinically significant association in improvement in menstrual frequency with weight loss interventions, an important indicator of subsequent fertility and an important outcome for women,” the researchers wrote.
• Glycemic control also improved, with a mean reduction in homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance of 0.45 (95% CI, –0.75 to –0.15).
• Free androgen index decreased by an average of 2.03 (95% CI, –3.0 to –1.07).

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians may use these findings to counsel women with PCOS on the expected improvements in PCOS markers after weight loss and direct patients toward interventions,” the authors of the study wrote. “Because weight loss programs are cost-effective interventions to improve cardiometabolic risk, they may be particularly valuable for this population at elevated risk.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jadine Scragg, PhD, with the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford in England. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Interventions using GLP-1 agonists were dosed for glycemic control rather than weight management. The studies in the meta-analysis were relatively few and heterogeneous. Data were insufficient to assess ovulation and acne.

DISCLOSURES:

The meta-analysis was supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research School for Primary Care Research. Authors disclosed ties to Nestlé Health Science and Second Nature.

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

TOPLINE:

In women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and with obesity or overweight, the combination of topiramate and metformin along with a low-calorie diet can result in effective weight loss and improve androgen levels, lipid levels, and psychosocial scores, without any serious adverse events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Topiramate is often used off-label for weight loss and may be a promising option added to a metformin regimen to improve cardiometabolic and reproductive health in women with PCOS and obesity or overweight when lifestyle changes alone fall short.
• This double-blind trial conducted at Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre in Porto Alegre, Brazil, evaluated the effects of adding topiramate to metformin in 61 women aged 14-40 years with PCOS and body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with concurrent hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia.
• All participants were prescribed a 20 kcal/kg diet, as well as desogestrel for contraception during the study, and either started on 850 mg metformin or continued with their existing metformin regimen.
• They were randomly assigned to receive either topiramate or placebo (25 mg for 15 days and then 50 mg at night) along with metformin, with dose adjustments based on weight loss at 3 months.
• The primary outcome was the percent change in body weight from baseline, and the secondary outcomes included changes in clinical, cardiometabolic, and hormonal parameters and psychosocial features at 3 and 6 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Topiramate combined with metformin resulted in greater mean weight loss at 3 months (−3.4% vs −1.6%; P = .03) and 6 months (−4.5% vs −1.4%; P = .03) than placebo plus metformin.
• Both treatment groups showed improvements in androgen and lipid levels and psychosocial scores, while the levels of C-reactive protein decreased only in the topiramate plus metformin group.
• Women who experienced ≥ 3% weight loss at 6 months showed a significant improvement in hirsutism scores (change in modified Ferriman-Gallwey scores, 8.4-6.5), unlike those who experienced < 3% weight loss (change in modified Ferriman-Gallwey scores, 8.02-8.78).
• Paresthesia was more common in the topiramate plus metformin group than in the metformin plus placebo group (23.3% vs 3.2%), but no serious adverse events were reported.

IN PRACTICE:

“In the era of new effective drugs for treating obesity, topiramate with metformin can be an option for women with obesity and PCOS, considering its low cost, reports of long-term experience with this medication, and ease to use,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lucas Bandeira Marchesan, Gynecological Endocrinology Unit, Division of Endocrinology, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and high attrition rates were major limitations of this study. Increasing the topiramate dose at 3 months in those with < 3% weight loss did not provide additional benefit, and this study did not test for a higher topiramate dose response from the beginning, which could have potentially provided a better response to the medication. The small sample size of the study also prevented the authors from conducting a subgroup analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Brazil, and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

In women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and with obesity or overweight, the combination of topiramate and metformin along with a low-calorie diet can result in effective weight loss and improve androgen levels, lipid levels, and psychosocial scores, without any serious adverse events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Topiramate is often used off-label for weight loss and may be a promising option added to a metformin regimen to improve cardiometabolic and reproductive health in women with PCOS and obesity or overweight when lifestyle changes alone fall short.
• This double-blind trial conducted at Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre in Porto Alegre, Brazil, evaluated the effects of adding topiramate to metformin in 61 women aged 14-40 years with PCOS and body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with concurrent hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia.
• All participants were prescribed a 20 kcal/kg diet, as well as desogestrel for contraception during the study, and either started on 850 mg metformin or continued with their existing metformin regimen.
• They were randomly assigned to receive either topiramate or placebo (25 mg for 15 days and then 50 mg at night) along with metformin, with dose adjustments based on weight loss at 3 months.
• The primary outcome was the percent change in body weight from baseline, and the secondary outcomes included changes in clinical, cardiometabolic, and hormonal parameters and psychosocial features at 3 and 6 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Topiramate combined with metformin resulted in greater mean weight loss at 3 months (−3.4% vs −1.6%; P = .03) and 6 months (−4.5% vs −1.4%; P = .03) than placebo plus metformin.
• Both treatment groups showed improvements in androgen and lipid levels and psychosocial scores, while the levels of C-reactive protein decreased only in the topiramate plus metformin group.
• Women who experienced ≥ 3% weight loss at 6 months showed a significant improvement in hirsutism scores (change in modified Ferriman-Gallwey scores, 8.4-6.5), unlike those who experienced < 3% weight loss (change in modified Ferriman-Gallwey scores, 8.02-8.78).
• Paresthesia was more common in the topiramate plus metformin group than in the metformin plus placebo group (23.3% vs 3.2%), but no serious adverse events were reported.

IN PRACTICE:

“In the era of new effective drugs for treating obesity, topiramate with metformin can be an option for women with obesity and PCOS, considering its low cost, reports of long-term experience with this medication, and ease to use,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lucas Bandeira Marchesan, Gynecological Endocrinology Unit, Division of Endocrinology, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and high attrition rates were major limitations of this study. Increasing the topiramate dose at 3 months in those with < 3% weight loss did not provide additional benefit, and this study did not test for a higher topiramate dose response from the beginning, which could have potentially provided a better response to the medication. The small sample size of the study also prevented the authors from conducting a subgroup analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Brazil, and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

In women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and with obesity or overweight, the combination of topiramate and metformin along with a low-calorie diet can result in effective weight loss and improve androgen levels, lipid levels, and psychosocial scores, without any serious adverse events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Topiramate is often used off-label for weight loss and may be a promising option added to a metformin regimen to improve cardiometabolic and reproductive health in women with PCOS and obesity or overweight when lifestyle changes alone fall short.
• This double-blind trial conducted at Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre in Porto Alegre, Brazil, evaluated the effects of adding topiramate to metformin in 61 women aged 14-40 years with PCOS and body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with concurrent hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia.
• All participants were prescribed a 20 kcal/kg diet, as well as desogestrel for contraception during the study, and either started on 850 mg metformin or continued with their existing metformin regimen.
• They were randomly assigned to receive either topiramate or placebo (25 mg for 15 days and then 50 mg at night) along with metformin, with dose adjustments based on weight loss at 3 months.
• The primary outcome was the percent change in body weight from baseline, and the secondary outcomes included changes in clinical, cardiometabolic, and hormonal parameters and psychosocial features at 3 and 6 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Topiramate combined with metformin resulted in greater mean weight loss at 3 months (−3.4% vs −1.6%; P = .03) and 6 months (−4.5% vs −1.4%; P = .03) than placebo plus metformin.
• Both treatment groups showed improvements in androgen and lipid levels and psychosocial scores, while the levels of C-reactive protein decreased only in the topiramate plus metformin group.
• Women who experienced ≥ 3% weight loss at 6 months showed a significant improvement in hirsutism scores (change in modified Ferriman-Gallwey scores, 8.4-6.5), unlike those who experienced < 3% weight loss (change in modified Ferriman-Gallwey scores, 8.02-8.78).
• Paresthesia was more common in the topiramate plus metformin group than in the metformin plus placebo group (23.3% vs 3.2%), but no serious adverse events were reported.

IN PRACTICE:

“In the era of new effective drugs for treating obesity, topiramate with metformin can be an option for women with obesity and PCOS, considering its low cost, reports of long-term experience with this medication, and ease to use,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lucas Bandeira Marchesan, Gynecological Endocrinology Unit, Division of Endocrinology, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and high attrition rates were major limitations of this study. Increasing the topiramate dose at 3 months in those with < 3% weight loss did not provide additional benefit, and this study did not test for a higher topiramate dose response from the beginning, which could have potentially provided a better response to the medication. The small sample size of the study also prevented the authors from conducting a subgroup analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Brazil, and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.