Prevalence of Obesity Among Electronic Cigarette and Tobacco Users in the United States: Results from the 2018 Wave of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

Objective: Tobacco use and obesity are leading causes of preventable death in the U.S. E-cigarette use is on the rise; however, obesity prevalence among e-cigarette users is unknown. The present study characterized obesity prevalence among e-cigarette and tobacco users in a national sample of U.S. adults. Method: Data were obtained from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Approximately 249,726 participants provided data on e-cigarette and tobacco use, height, weight, and demographics, and were categorized as follows: Ever vaped, ever smoked; Ever vaped, never smoked; Never vaped, ever smoked; Never vaped, never smoked. Results: Obesity prevalence (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) differed significantly across groups: 33.0% (ever vaped, ever smoked); 27.7% (ever vaped, never smoked); 33.1% (never vaped, ever smoked); 32.1% (never vaped, never smoked), p < .001. Groups also differed demographically. Logistic regressions adjusted for demographics revealed subjects in the never vaped, ever smoked group were significantly more likely to have obesity relative to those in the never vaped, never smoked group (p < 0.001) with vaping status having no main effect. Secondary analyses using never smokers as the reference found current smokers were less likely to have obesity and former smokers were more likely to have obesity, p < .001. Discussion: The present study is the first to characterize U.S. obesity prevalence among e-cigarette and tobacco users. Obesity prevalence was lower in the ever vaped, never smoked group; however, this finding appears to be attributable to demographic variables. As e-cigarette use becomes more common, future research should examine the development and maintenance of obesity among users.

Vitamin D Supplementation and Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies support an association between a low blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and the risk of type 2 diabetes. However, whether vitamin D supplementation lowers the risk of diabetes is unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults who met at least two of three glycemic criteria for prediabetes (fasting plasma glucose level, 100 to 125 mg per deciliter; plasma glucose level 2 hours after a 75-g oral glucose load, 140 to 199 mg per deciliter; and glycated hemoglobin level, 5.7 to 6.4%) and no diagnostic criteria for diabetes to receive 4000 IU per day of vitamin D3 or placebo, regardless of the baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. The primary outcome in this time-to-event analysis was new-onset diabetes, and the trial design was event-driven, with a target number of diabetes events of 508. RESULTS: A total of 2423 participants underwent randomization (1211 to the vitamin D group and 1212 to the placebo group). By month 24, the mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level in the vitamin D group was 54.3 ng per milliliter (from 27.7 ng per milliliter at baseline), as compared with 28.8 ng per milliliter in the placebo group (from 28.2 ng per milliliter at baseline). After a median follow-up of 2.5 years, the primary outcome of diabetes occurred in 293 participants in the vitamin D group and 323 in the placebo group (9.39 and 10.66 events per 100 person-years, respectively). The hazard ratio for vitamin D as compared with placebo was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.04; P = 0.12). The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among persons at high risk for type 2 diabetes not selected for vitamin D insufficiency, vitamin D3 supplementation at a dose of 4000 IU per day did not result in a significantly lower risk of diabetes than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; D2d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01942694.).

Assessing risk factors for hypertension in young adults with perinatally acquired HIV infection: A case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: Although the risk of AIDS-associated diseases has declined dramatically with combination antiretroviral therapy (cART), the incidence rates of chronic non-AIDS-associated diseases in perinatally HIV-infected adults have risen and have not been well characterized. Both traditional and HIV-associated risk factors have been found to contribute to hypertension in non-perinatally HIV-infected adults; whether these same factors contribute to hypertension in perinatally infected adults is not known. The purpose of this study was to determine the socio-demographic, clinical, virological and immunological factors associated with systemic hypertension among a cohort of perinatally HIV-infected adolescents and young adults. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study among a population of adults aged 18-35 years with perinatally acquired HIV infection receiving care at the University of Maryland Medical Center. Covariates assessed included traditional risk factors such as age, family history of hypertension, and smoking, as well as numerous HIV- and antiretroviral-associated covariates, including CD4 nadir. RESULTS: Approximately 31% of the cohort met criteria for hypertension. There were no significant differences in the odds of most traditional or HIV-associated risk factors among perinatally HIV-infected adults with hypertension compared with those with no diagnosis of hypertension. Exposure to lopinavir/ritonavir was associated with greater odds of not having hypertension, while a concurrent diagnosis of chronic kidney disease (CKD) was associated with greater odds of having hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that most traditional and HIV-related risk factors do not appear to increase the odds of having hypertension in this cohort of individuals. The aetiology of hypertension in this population remains to be elucidated.

Effect of Weekly Subcutaneous Semaglutide vs Daily Liraglutide on Body Weight in Adults With Overweight or Obesity Without Diabetes: The STEP 8 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Phase 3 trials have not compared semaglutide and liraglutide, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues available for weight management. Objective: To compare the efficacy and adverse event profiles of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg, vs once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, 3.0 mg (both with diet and physical activity), in people with overweight or obesity. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label, 68-week, phase 3b trial conducted at 19 US sites from September 2019 (enrollment: September 11-November 26) to May 2021 (end of follow-up: May 11) in adults with body mass index of 30 or greater or 27 or greater with 1 or more weight-related comorbidities, without diabetes (N = 338). Interventions: Participants were randomized (3:1:3:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg (16-week escalation; n = 126), or matching placebo, or once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, 3.0 mg (4-week escalation; n = 127), or matching placebo, plus diet and physical activity. Participants unable to tolerate 2.4 mg of semaglutide could receive 1.7 mg; participants unable to tolerate 3.0 mg of liraglutide discontinued treatment and could restart the 4-week titration. Placebo groups were pooled (n = 85). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was percentage change in body weight, and confirmatory secondary end points were achievement of 10% or more, 15% or more, and 20% or more weight loss, assessed for semaglutide vs liraglutide at week 68. Semaglutide vs liraglutide comparisons were open-label, with active treatment groups double-blinded against matched placebo groups. Comparisons of active treatments vs pooled placebo were supportive secondary end points. Results: Of 338 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 49 [13] years; 265 women [78.4%]; mean [SD] body weight, 104.5 [23.8] kg; mean [SD] body mass index, 37.5 [6.8]), 319 (94.4%) completed the trial, and 271 (80.2%) completed treatment. The mean weight change from baseline was -15.8% with semaglutide vs -6.4% with liraglutide (difference, -9.4 percentage points [95% CI, -12.0 to -6.8]; P < .001); weight change with pooled placebo was -1.9%. Participants had significantly greater odds of achieving 10% or more, 15% or more, and 20% or more weight loss with semaglutide vs liraglutide (70.9% of participants vs 25.6% [odds ratio, 6.3 {95% CI, 3.5 to 11.2}], 55.6% vs 12.0% [odds ratio, 7.9 {95% CI, 4.1 to 15.4}], and 38.5% vs 6.0% [odds ratio, 8.2 {95% CI, 3.5 to 19.1}], respectively; all P < .001). Proportions of participants discontinuing treatment for any reason were 13.5% with semaglutide and 27.6% with liraglutide. Gastrointestinal adverse events were reported by 84.1% with semaglutide and 82.7% with liraglutide. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide compared with once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, added to counseling for diet and physical activity, resulted in significantly greater weight loss at 68 weeks. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04074161.

Effect of Subcutaneous Semaglutide vs Placebo as an Adjunct to Intensive Behavioral Therapy on Body Weight in Adults With Overweight or Obesity: The STEP 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Weight loss improves cardiometabolic risk factors in people with overweight or obesity. Intensive lifestyle intervention and pharmacotherapy are the most effective noninvasive weight loss approaches. Objective: To compare the effects of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg vs placebo for weight management as an adjunct to intensive behavioral therapy with initial low-calorie diet in adults with overweight or obesity. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 68-week, phase 3a study (STEP 3) conducted at 41 sites in the US from August 2018 to April 2020 in adults without diabetes (N = 611) and with either overweight (body mass index ≥27) plus at least 1 comorbidity or obesity (body mass index ≥30). Interventions: Participants were randomized (2:1) to semaglutide, 2.4 mg (n = 407) or placebo (n = 204), both combined with a low-calorie diet for the first 8 weeks and intensive behavioral therapy (ie, 30 counseling visits) during 68 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The co-primary end points were percentage change in body weight and the loss of 5% or more of baseline weight by week 68. Confirmatory secondary end points included losses of at least 10% or 15% of baseline weight. Results: Of 611 randomized participants (495 women [81.0%], mean age 46 years [SD, 13], body weight 105.8 kg [SD, 22.9], and body mass index 38.0 [SD, 6.7]), 567 (92.8%) completed the trial, and 505 (82.7%) were receiving treatment at trial end. At week 68, the estimated mean body weight change from baseline was -16.0% for semaglutide vs -5.7% for placebo (difference, -10.3 percentage points [95% CI, -12.0 to -8.6]; P < .001). More participants treated with semaglutide vs placebo lost at least 5% of baseline body weight (86.6% vs 47.6%, respectively; P < .001). A higher proportion of participants in the semaglutide vs placebo group achieved weight losses of at least 10% or 15% (75.3% vs 27.0% and 55.8% vs 13.2%, respectively; P < .001). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequent with semaglutide (82.8%) vs placebo (63.2%). Treatment was discontinued owing to these events in 3.4% of semaglutide participants vs 0% of placebo participants. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with overweight or obesity, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide compared with placebo, used as an adjunct to intensive behavioral therapy and initial low-calorie diet, resulted in significantly greater weight loss during 68 weeks. Further research is needed to assess the durability of these findings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03611582.

Changes in weight control behaviors and hedonic hunger in a commercial weight management program adapted for individuals with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: A WW (formerly Weight Watchers) program adapted for persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) previously was found to be more effective than standard care (SC) intervention for weight loss, improved glycemic control, and weight- and diabetes-related quality of life measures. With data from the same national trial, this study examined whether WW adapted for persons with T2DM also increased engagement in weight control behaviors and decreased hedonic hunger, each of which could contribute to improved diabetes management. INTERVENTION AND METHODS: Individuals with T2DM (n = 563) and overweight or obesity participated in a 12-month, 16-site, randomized trial of WW with diabetes counseling or SC. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) evaluated whether 12-month changes in weight control behaviors (Eating Behavior Inventory; EBI) and hedonic hunger (Power of Food Scale; PFS) differed by treatment condition. If a significant treatment effect was found, 12-month changes in EBI/PFS were regressed on 12-month changes in HbA1c and percent weight loss to explore potential treatment differences in these associations. RESULTS: EBI scores increased significantly over the 12-months (p < 0.001), with greater improvements in WW than SC (p < 0.001). PFS decreased significantly in the 12-months (p < 0.001), with no differences between treatment groups (p = 0.15). HLM analyses that followed up on the significant treatment effect for 12-month change in EBI revealed no significant differences by treatment condition for the relationship between change in EBI scores and change in HbA1c (p = 0.14) or percent weight loss (p = 0.32). Across all participants, 12-month improvements in EBI and PFS were related to improved HbA1c (r = 0.22; -0.13, respectively) and greater percent weight loss (r = 0.41; -0.18, respectively) (ps < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: WW with diabetes counseling produced greater engagement in weight control behaviors in those with T2DM than did SC. Across both groups, improved weight control behaviors and hedonic hunger were related to improved glycemic control and weight loss.

Generalizable Framework for Algorithmic Interpretation of Thin Film Morphologies in Scanning Probe Images.

We describe an open-source and widely adaptable Python library that recognizes morphological features and domains in images collected via scanning probe microscopy. π-Conjugated polymers (CPs) are ideal for evaluating the Materials Morphology Python (m2py) library because of their wide range of morphologies and feature sizes. Using thin films of nanostructured CPs, we demonstrate the functionality of a general m2py workflow. We apply numerical methods to enhance the signals collected by the scanning probe, followed by Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to reduce the dimensionality of the data. Then, a Gaussian Mixture Model segments every pixel in the image into phases, which have similar material-property signals. Finally, the phase-labeled pixels are grouped and labeled as morphological domains using either connected components labeling or persistence watershed segmentation. These tools are adaptable to any scanning probe measurement, so the labels that m2py generates will allow researchers to individually address and analyze the identified domains in the image. This level of control, allows one to describe the morphology of the system using quantitative and statistical descriptors such as the size, distribution, and shape of the domains. Such descriptors will enable researchers to quantitatively track and compare differences within and between samples.

The POTRA domains of Toc75 exhibit chaperone-like function to facilitate import into chloroplasts.

Protein trafficking across membranes is an essential function in cells; however, the exact mechanism for how this occurs is not well understood. In the endosymbionts, mitochondria and chloroplasts, the vast majority of proteins are synthesized in the cytoplasm as preproteins and then imported into the organelles via specialized machineries. In chloroplasts, protein import is accomplished by the TOC (translocon on the outer chloroplast membrane) and TIC (translocon on the inner chloroplast membrane) machineries in the outer and inner envelope membranes, respectively. TOC mediates initial recognition of preproteins at the outer membrane and includes a core membrane channel, Toc75, and two receptor proteins, Toc33/34 and Toc159, each containing GTPase domains that control preprotein binding and translocation. Toc75 is predicted to have a ß-barrel fold consisting of an N-terminal intermembrane space (IMS) domain and a C-terminal 16-stranded ß-barrel domain. Here we report the crystal structure of the N-terminal IMS domain of Toc75 from Arabidopsis thaliana, revealing three tandem polypeptide transport-associated (POTRA) domains, with POTRA2 containing an additional elongated helix not observed previously in other POTRA domains. Functional studies show an interaction with the preprotein, preSSU, which is mediated through POTRA2-3. POTRA2-3 also was found to have chaperone-like activity in an insulin aggregation assay, which we propose facilitates preprotein import. Our data suggest a model in which the POTRA domains serve as a binding site for the preprotein as it emerges from the Toc75 channel and provide a chaperone-like activity to prevent misfolding or aggregation as the preprotein traverses the intermembrane space.

Efficacy and safety of semaglutide compared with liraglutide and placebo for weight loss in patients with obesity: a randomised, double-blind, placebo and active controlled, dose-ranging, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a major public health issue, and new pharmaceuticals for weight management are needed. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue semaglutide in comparison with liraglutide and a placebo in promoting weight loss. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo and active controlled, multicentre, dose-ranging, phase 2 trial. The study was done in eight countries involving 71 clinical sites. Eligible participants were adults (≥18 years) without diabetes and with a body-mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or more. We randomly assigned participants (6:1) to each active treatment group (ie, semaglutide [0·05 mg, 0·1 mg, 0·2 mg, 0·3 mg, or 0·4 mg; initiated at 0·05 mg per day and incrementally escalated every 4 weeks] or liraglutide [3·0 mg; initiated at 0·6 mg per day and escalated by 0·6 mg per week]) or matching placebo group (equal injection volume and escalation schedule to active treatment group) using a block size of 56. All treatment doses were delivered once-daily via subcutaneous injections. Participants and investigators were masked to the assigned study treatment but not the target dose. The primary endpoint was percentage weight loss at week 52. The primary analysis was done using intention-to-treat ANCOVA estimation with missing data derived from the placebo pool. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02453711. FINDINGS: Between Oct 1, 2015, and Feb 11, 2016, 957 individuals were randomly assigned (102-103 participants per active treatment group and 136 in the pooled placebo group). Mean baseline characteristics included age 47 years, bodyweight 111·5 kg, and BMI 39·3 kg/m2. Bodyweight data were available for 891 (93%) of 957 participants at week 52. Estimated mean weight loss was -2·3% for the placebo group versus -6·0% (0·05 mg), -8·6% (0·1 mg), -11·6% (0·2 mg), -11·2% (0·3 mg), and -13·8% (0·4 mg) for the semaglutide groups. All semaglutide groups versus placebo were significant (unadjusted p≤0·0010), and remained significant after adjustment for multiple testing (p≤0·0055). Mean bodyweight reductions for 0·2 mg or more of semaglutide versus liraglutide were all significant (-13·8% to -11·2% vs -7·8%). Estimated weight loss of 10% or more occurred in 10% of participants receiving placebo compared with 37-65% receiving 0·1 mg or more of semaglutide (p<0·0001 vs placebo). All semaglutide doses were generally well tolerated, with no new safety concerns. The most common adverse events were dose-related gastrointestinal symptoms, primarily nausea, as seen previously with GLP-1 receptor agonists. INTERPRETATION: In combination with dietary and physical activity counselling, semaglutide was well tolerated over 52 weeks and showed clinically relevant weight loss compared with placebo at all doses. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S.

Neuropsychiatric safety with liraglutide 3.0 mg for weight management: Results from randomized controlled phase 2 and 3a trials.

AIMS: Liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, regulates appetite via receptors in the brain. Because of concerns regarding the potential of centrally-acting anti-obesity medications to affect mental health, pooled neuropsychiatric safety data from all phase 2 and 3a randomized, double-blind trials with liraglutide 3.0 mg were evaluated post hoc. METHODS: Data from the liraglutide weight-management programme were pooled. Across trials, individuals with a body mass index ≥30 or ≥27 kg/m2 with weight-related comorbidities were randomized to once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide 3.0 mg (n = 3384) or placebo (n = 1941), both with a 500 kcal/d deficit diet, plus exercise. Adverse events related to neuropsychiatric safety were collected in all trials. Additionally, in the phase 3a trials, validated mental-health questionnaires were prospectively and systematically administered. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis of 5325 randomized and exposed individuals, rates of depression (2.1 vs 2.1 events/100 person-years) and anxiety (1.9 vs 1.7 events/100 person-years) through adverse event reporting were similarly low in liraglutide and placebo groups. Nine (0.3%) individuals receiving liraglutide and 2 (0.1%) receiving placebo reported adverse events of suicidal ideation or behaviour. In phase 3a trials, mean baseline Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores of 2.8 ± 3.0 vs 2.9 ± 3.1 for liraglutide vs placebo improved to 1.8 ± 2.7 vs 1.9 ± 2.7, respectively, at treatment end; 34/3291 individuals (1.0%) receiving liraglutide 3.0 mg vs 19/1843 (1.0%) receiving placebo reported suicidal ideation on the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this exploratory pooled analysis provide no cause for concern regarding the neuropsychiatric safety of treatment with liraglutide 3.0 mg in patients similar to those included in the examined trials. Although there was a small numerical imbalance in suicidal ideation with liraglutide through adverse event reporting, no between-treatment imbalances in suicidal ideation/behaviour or depression were noted through prospective questionnaire assessments.