Novel PPARG mutation in multiple family members with chylomicronemia.

Chylomicronemia is characterized by severe hypertriglyceridemia when chylomicrons persist in plasma despite a fasting state. The recessive monogenic form is due to homozygous or compound heterozygous loss-of-function mutations in the LPL gene or genes involved in the assembly, transport, or function of LPL, including APOC2, APOA5, GP1HBP1, and LMF1. The multifactorial form of chylomicronemia is due to both common small-effect variants and rare heterozygous large-effect variants in genes in which mutations are associated secondarily with hypertriglyceridemia. The combined inheritance of these variants increases susceptibility to chylomicronemia, and the number of hypertriglyceridemia-associated alleles carried by an individual represents a genetic or polygenic triglyceride risk score. Among these genes associated with hypertriglyceridemia is PPARG. PPARγ is a nuclear transcription factor encoded by the PPARG gene expressed predominantly in adipocytes that is involved in glucose, lipid, and adipose tissue metabolism. Known rare mutations and common polymorphisms in the PPARG genes are associated with a broad range of clinical phenotypes, including hypertriglyceridemia. Here, we present multiple family members with a novel heterozygous PPARG mutation that has not been previously reported.

PREVENT: A Randomized, Placebo-controlled Crossover Trial of Avexitide for Treatment of Postbariatric Hypoglycemia.

CONTEXT: Postbariatric hypoglycemia (PBH), characterized by enteroinsular axis overstimulation and hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia, is a complication of bariatric surgery for which there is no approved therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of avexitide [exendin (9-39)], a glucagon-like peptide-1 antagonist, for treatment of PBH. METHODS: A multicenter, Phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study (PREVENT). Eighteen female patients with PBH were given placebo for 14 days followed by avexitide 30 mg twice daily and 60 mg once daily, each for 14 days in random order. The main outcome measures were glucose nadir and insulin peak during mixed-meal tolerance testing (MMTT) and hypoglycemic events captured by self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), electronic diary, and blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). RESULTS: Compared with placebo, avexitide 30 mg twice daily and 60 mg once daily raised the glucose nadir by 21% (P = .001) and 26% (P = .0002) and lowered the insulin peak by 23% (P = .029) and 21% (P = .042), corresponding to 50% and 75% fewer participants requiring rescue during MMTT, respectively. Significant reductions in rates of Levels 1 to 3 hypoglycemia were observed, defined, respectively, as SMBG <70 mg/dL, SMBG <54 mg/dL, and a severe event characterized by altered mental and/or physical function requiring assistance. CGM demonstrated reductions in hypoglycemia without induction of clinically relevant hyperglycemia. Avexitide was well tolerated, with no increase in adverse events. CONCLUSION: Avexitide administered for 28 days was well tolerated and resulted in robust and consistent improvements across multiple clinical and metabolic parameters, reinforcing the targeted therapeutic approach and demonstrating durability of effect. Avexitide may represent a first promising treatment for patients with severe PBH.

Current attitudes on self-use and prescription of hormone therapy among New York City gynaecologists.

OBJECTIVE: The results of the Women's Health Initiative studies dramatically altered hormone therapy use around the world. In countries outside the United States, self-use in physicians remained unaltered while prescription use declined, implying that physicians may not concur with the findings. We wished to explore prevailing attitudes among American physicians by examining New York City obstetrician-gynaecologists' self-use and prescription use of hormone therapy. STUDY DESIGN: All board-certified obstetrician-gynaecologists in New York City were invited to complete and return a detailed, previously validated questionnaire concerning hormone therapy use. RESULTS: Two hundred and nine questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of 12% (209/1797). Gynaecologists agreed with the findings from the Women's Health Initiative studies regarding indications and contraindications to hormone therapy use. Even so, three-quarters of female gynaecologists and female partners of male gynaecologists (74%; 67/91) use or have previously used hormone therapy. However, only 27.3% (21/77) of male gynaecologists and 12.3% (14/114) of female gynaecologists recommend hormone therapy to all menopausal women regardless of contraindications. Gynaecologists remain divided in their attitude toward hormone therapy; 30% of gynaecologists felt that hormone therapy use generally prolonged women's lives, 36% felt it was not useful in prolonging women's lives, and 33% were unsure. CONCLUSION: Since the publication of the Women's Health Initiative findings, New York City gynaecologists prescribe hormone therapy to fewer patients. However, they continue to self-use hormone therapy at much higher rates, even as they seem to concur with Women's Health Initiative recommendations, contributing to the ongoing controversy surrounding the validity of the Women's Health Initiative findings.