Search

Summary: Anti‐obesity medications (AOMs) have emerged as one element of comprehensive obesity clinical care intended to improve long‐term health outcomes for children and adolescents. The number of pediatric AOM clinical trials has burgeoned in recent years as new pharmacotherapeutics have been developed. Factors related to growth and development in children and adolescents can present unique challenges in terms of designing and conducting clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of AOMs. These barriers can delay the AOM development and evaluation process, increase the cost of performing trials, create challenges in the interpretation of results, influence the generalizability of the findings and present ethical dilemmas. In an effort to address these issues and provide guidance to streamline the process of designing and conducting pediatric AOM clinical trials, relevant key stakeholders convened a series of roundtable meetings to discuss, debate and achieve harmonization on design features. Stakeholder participants included a multidisciplinary group of international pediatric obesity experts, patient (parent) representatives and representatives from academic medicine, key regulatory agencies and industry. Topics of discussion included primary efficacy end‐points, secondary end‐points, eligibility criteria, trial run‐in and follow‐up phases, use of active comparators and guidelines for down‐titration and/or stopping rules for excessive weight reduction. Consensus recommendations were agreed upon. Regarding end‐points, emphasis was placed on moving away from BMI z‐score as a primary outcome, incorporating multiple alternative BMI‐related outcomes and measuring adiposity/body fat as a prominent secondary end‐point. Trial eligibility criteria were carefully considered to maximize generalizability while maintaining safety. The limited value of trial run‐in phases was discussed. It was also underscored that designing trials with extended follow‐up periods after AOM withdrawal should be avoided owing to ethical issues (including possible psychological harm) related to weight regain without providing the opportunity to access other treatments. The panel emphasized the value of the randomized, placebo‐controlled trial but recommended the thoughtful consideration of the use of active comparators in addition to, or instead of, placebo to achieve clinical equipoise when appropriate. Finally, the panel recommended that clinical trial protocols should include clear guidance regarding AOM down‐titration to avoid excessive weight reduction when applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Anaerobic bacteria like Fusobacterium can lead to severe and life-threatening infections. The inherent complexities in the isolation of these bacteria may result in diagnostic and therapeutic delays, thereby escalating both morbidity and mortality rates. We aimed to examine data from patients with infections due to Fusobacterium to gain insights into the epidemiology and clinical outcomes of patients with these infections. Methods and Results: We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical data from a cohort of patients with cultures positive for Fusobacterium species at a tertiary care medical center in the United States. Between 2009 and 2015, we identified 96 patients with cultures positive for Fusobacterium. Patients could be categorized into three groups based on the site of primary infection. Patients with head and neck infections constituted 37% (n 36). Patients with infections of other soft tissue sites accounted for 38.5% (n 37). Patients with anaerobic bacteremia due to Fusobacterium formed 24% (n 23) of the cohort. Surgical intervention coupled with antibiotic therapy emerged as cornerstones of management for patients with head and neck or other soft tissue infections, who generally exhibited more favorable outcomes. Patients with bacteremia were older, more likely to have malignancy, and had a high mortality rate. When speciation was available, Fusobacterium necrophorum was the most frequently isolated species. Conclusions: Our retrospective analysis of epidemiology and clinical outcomes of Fusobacterium infections revealed three distinct cohorts. Patients with head, neck, or soft tissue infections had better outcomes than those with bacteremia. Our findings highlight the importance of employing management strategies based on infection site and underlying comorbidities in patients with Fusobacterium infections. Further research is needed to investigate the optimal therapeutic strategies and identify prognostic indicators to improve clinical outcomes for these complex infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key Points: Question: Can a coordinated, multifaceted intervention increase the prescription of 3 evidence-based therapies among adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease? Findings: In a cluster randomized clinical trial of cardiology clinics across the US, participants in the intervention group were more likely to be prescribed all 3 therapies (high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and/or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists) after an intervention of assessment, education, and feedback vs those in the usual care group (173/457 [37.9%] vs 85/588 [14.5%], respectively, which is a difference of 23.4%). Meaning: A coordinated, multifaceted intervention increased prescription of 3 groups of evidence-based therapies in adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Importance: Evidence-based therapies to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in adults with type 2 diabetes are underused in clinical practice. Objective: To assess the effect of a coordinated, multifaceted intervention of assessment, education, and feedback vs usual care on the proportion of adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prescribed all 3 groups of recommended, evidence-based therapies (high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs] or angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitors and/or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists [GLP-1RAs]). Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster randomized clinical trial with 43 US cardiology clinics recruiting participants from July 2019 through May 2022 and follow-up through December 2022. The participants were adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease not already taking all 3 groups of evidence-based therapies. Interventions: Assessing local barriers, developing care pathways, coordinating care, educating clinicians, reporting data back to the clinics, and providing tools for participants (n = 459) vs usual care per practice guidelines (n = 590). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants prescribed all 3 groups of recommended therapies at 6 to 12 months after enrollment. The secondary outcomes included changes in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors and a composite outcome of all-cause death or hospitalization for myocardial infarction, stroke, decompensated heart failure, or urgent revascularization (the trial was not powered to show these differences). Results: Of 1049 participants enrolled (459 at 20 intervention clinics and 590 at 23 usual care clinics), the median age was 70 years and there were 338 women (32.2%), 173 Black participants (16.5%), and 90 Hispanic participants (8.6%). At the last follow-up visit (12 months for 97.3% of participants), those in the intervention group were more likely to be prescribed all 3 therapies (173/457 [37.9%]) vs the usual care group (85/588 [14.5%]), which is a difference of 23.4% (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.38 [95% CI, 2.49 to 7.71]; P <.001) and were more likely to be prescribed each of the 3 therapies (change from baseline in high-intensity statins from 66.5% to 70.7% for intervention vs from 58.2% to 56.8% for usual care [adjusted OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.06-2.83]; ACEIs or ARBs: from 75.1% to 81.4% for intervention vs from 69.6% to 68.4% for usual care [adjusted OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.14-2.91]; SGLT2 inhibitors and/or GLP-1RAs: from 12.3% to 60.4% for intervention vs from 14.5% to 35.5% for usual care [adjusted OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.08-4.64]). The intervention was not associated with changes in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors. The composite secondary outcome occurred in 23 of 457 participants (5%) in the intervention group vs 40 of 588 participants (6.8%) in the usual care group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.46 to 1.33]). Conclusions and Relevance: A coordinated, multifaceted intervention increased prescription of 3 groups of evidence-based therapies in adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03936660 This cluster randomized clinical trial assesses the effect of a coordinated, multifaceted intervention of assessment, education, and feedback vs usual care on the prescribing of all 3 groups of recommended therapies (high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and/or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists) for adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cardiovascular (CV) outcomes trial (CVOT) results have led to changes in indications for some glucose-lowering agents, with recommendations based on the presence of comorbidities. Objective: This study aimed to understand internal medicine (IM) and family medicine (FM) physicians' knowledge of CVOTs and beliefs about type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) medications, excluding insulin, for CV disease risk reduction. Methods: WebMD, LLC, fielded a 23-item online survey from September 18 to 20, 2018, to 47,534 Medscape members (US IM and FM physicians) who were invited to participate via e-mail (quota = 500). Results: Of the 702 physicians who responded, 503 were eligible and completed the survey. Overall, 39% of respondents were not familiar with the 2018 American Diabetes Association treatment recommendations for those with T2DM and atherosclerotic CV disease. Respondents reported they were most familiar with TECOS (42%), LEADER (39%), EMPA-REG OUTCOME (33%), and CANVAS (30%). Many respondents did not know which CVOT showed superiority for major adverse CV events (26%) or CV mortality (31%). When provided with a list of seven treatment priorities, 33% of respondents ranked using T2DM medications with CV benefits as least important. Conclusions: Findings from this 2018 survey suggest that there are knowledge gaps among IM and FM physicians regarding the results from CVOTs, with implications for the treatment of patients with T2DM and CV disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: We examined eligibility and preventable cardiovascular disease events in US adults with diabetes mellitus from the Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG OUTCOME). Methods: We identified adults with diabetes mellitus eligible for EMPA-REG OUTCOME based on trial eligibility criteria available from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 2007-2016. We estimated composite cardiovascular disease endpoints, as well as all-cause deaths, death from cardiovascular disease and hospitalizations for heart failure from trial treatment and placebo event rates, the difference indicating the preventable events. Results: Among 29,629 US adults aged ≥18 years (representing 231.9 million), 4672 (27.3 million) had diabetes mellitus, with 342 (1.86 million) meeting eligibility criteria of EMPA-REG OUTCOME. We estimated from trial primary endpoint event rates of 10.5% and 12.1% in the empagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively, that based on the 'treatment' of our 1.86 million estimated EMPA-REG OUTCOME eligible subjects, 12,066 (95% confidence interval: 10,352-13,780) cardiovascular disease events could be prevented annually. Estimated annual preventable deaths from any cause, cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations from heart failure were 17,078 (95% confidence interval: 14,652-19,504), 14,479 (95% confidence interval: 12,422-16,536) and 9467 (95% confidence interval: 8122-10,812), respectively. Conclusion: Empagliflozin, if provided to EMPA-REG OUTCOME eligible US adults, may prevent many cardiovascular disease events, cardiovascular and total deaths, as well as heart failure hospitalizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: It is unclear whether patients and their loved ones appreciate that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of morbidity and mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The purpose of this survey was to evaluate the degree of awareness regarding the link between T2DM and CVD.Methods: An online survey was conducted among US adults (general population) and adults with self-reported T2DM.Results: Of 13,027 participants recruited, 1505 completed the survey (12% response rate): 501 with T2DM and 1004 from the general population, of whom 364 knew someone with T2DM (e.g., partner, friend, relative, colleague: "SweetHearts"). Of those with T2DM, 52% were unaware that patients with T2DM are at increased risk of CVD and related macrovascular events. People with T2DM were more likely to be aware of the increased risk of microvascular disease (blindness [57%], nephropathy [57%], neuropathy [64%]) than macrovascular disease (myocardial infarction [41%], stroke [43%]). Despite CVD being the leading cause of death in T2DM, 67% of those with T2DM and 69% of SweetHearts were unaware of this, similar figures to those of the general population (74%). People with T2DM indicated they would take preventive measures if they were aware of their increased CVD risk: 88% would modify their diet and 81% would talk to their healthcare provider. Respondents with T2DM (73%) indicated that a desire to live longer/spend more time with family would motivate them to decrease their CVD risk.Conclusions: Findings indicate that education regarding the association between T2DM and CVD in patients and their loved ones is warranted. Plain language summary available for this article. Please see Fig. 1 and the following link: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7546817 .Funding: The "For Your SweetHeart™" survey was supported by the Boehringer Ingelheim & Eli Lilly and Company Diabetes Alliance, and was developed in partnership with KRC Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigated the effect of several doses of scopolamine in older rabbits that were trained for 20 days in the 750 ms delay eyeblink classical conditioning procedure. Our aim was to determine if the scopolamine-injected older rabbit would be a useful model for testing drugs for cognition enhancement in Alzheimer's disease (AD). A total of 39 rabbits with a mean age of 31 months received classical eyeblink conditioning with daily injections of 0.25, 0.75, or 1.5 mg/kg scopolamine hydrobromide or sterile saline vehicle. Doses of 0.75 and 1.5 mg/kg scopolamine significantly impaired acquisition, whereas acquisition was not significantly impaired with 0.25 mg/kg scopolamine. Results exhibit parallels in performance on delay eyeblink classical conditioning between scopolamine-treated older rabbits and human patients diagnosed with AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previously we demonstrated that GTS-21, a nicotinic cholinergic agonist, ameliorated eyeblink classical conditioning deficits in older rabbits. The present experiment was undertaken to replicate and extend these results by examining the effects of GTS-21 on retention and relearning. Retired breeder rabbits received 15 daily injections of 0.5 mg/kg GTS 21 (n = 8) or sterile saline vehicle (n = 8) during acquisition training, and no further injections occurred. Acquisition of conditioned responses (CRs) was significantly better in GTS-21-treated rabbits. During the first tone-alone retention session in week 6 of the experiment, rabbits initially treated with GTS-21 produced significantly more CRs than vehicle-treated rabbits. There were no group differences in retention at the 13-week retest. Differences in relearning were in the predicted direction but did not attain statistical significance. Results indicate that treatment with GTS-21 ameliorates learning beyond the period when the drug is actually administered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In July 1997, a dual chamber pacemaker combined with a tiered therapy implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) first become available in the United States. We report the first-year experience of one center in the United States with this dual chamber ICD. Of a total of 174 ICDs, 95 (55%) were dual chamber devices and 79 (45%) were single chamber. New dual chamber ICD insertions averaged 57.4 ± 8.9 minutes, though there was a learning curve as the last 30 implants averaged 45.1 ± 6.1 minutes with a negative slope to the regression line of procedure duration (-0.52, P < 0.05). New single chamber ICD implants were 18.5 minutes quicker (38.9 ± 7.2 minutes). The most challenging implants were dual chamber upgrades (mean procedure duration 64.9 ± 15.8 minutes), especially if there was a previously implanted pacemaker and ICD at separate sites. Indications for a new dual chamber device were grouped into classic pacemaker indications (52.5%), which comprised the Class IACC/AHA guidelines, ICD-specific indications (24.6%), and other (23.0%). In the 34 patients undergoing dual chamber upgrade, the classic and ICD-specific groups were equal (47.0% each). Complications were rare (2.8%), though 3 (8.8%) of 34 undergoing a dual chamber upgrade developed late infections requiring explantation. In its first year, the dual chamber ICD has become a common device at our institution comprising 55% of new implants. As experience grows, we anticipate similar usage at most institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cardiovascular outcomes trial (CVOT) results have led to changes in diabetes position statements and indications for some glucose-lowering agents. This study aimed to understand PCPs' knowledge of CVOTs and beliefs about T2D medications for CV disease (CVD). Methods: WebMD, LLC fielded a 23-item online survey from Sept 18-20, 2018 to 47,534 Medscape members who were randomly selected across U.S. internal medicine and family PCPs (quota=500). Results: Overall, 503 of 702 PCPs were eligible and completed the survey. Overall, 39% of respondents were slightly/not at all familiar with the 2018 ADA treatment recommendations for those with T2D and atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD). Many respondents did not know which CVOT showed superiority for major adverse CV events (26%) or CV mortality (31%). PCPs were most familiar with TECOS and LEADER and least familiar with EXAMINE. Also, 24-58% did not know which CVOTs showed an increased risk of AEs (e.g., amputation, genital infection, pancreatitis, retinopathy, etc.). The main challenges PCPs experienced using T2D agents with CV benefits included insurance coverage (75%), cost (73%), and formulary changes (61%). Using T2D medications with CV benefits was ranked the least important treatment priority by 33% (P<.05; Figure). Conclusions: PCPs have knowledge gaps and treatment barriers using T2D medications for patients with T2D and ASCVD. Disclosure: G.E. Dailey: Research Support; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi US. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Sanofi US. J. Pak: Employee; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. J.H. Shubrook: Advisory Panel; Self; Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc. Consultant; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc. Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim; Eli Lilly and Company [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]