Healthcare professionals' perceptions and management of obesity & knowledge of glucagon, GLP‐1, GIP receptor agonists, and dual agonists

Background Anti‐obesity medications (AOMs) have historically had limited weight‐loss efficacy. However, newer glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist (GLP‐1 RA)–based therapies seem to be more effective, including dual agonists of GLP‐1R and the glucagon receptor (GCGR) or glucose‐dependent insulin...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inObesity science & practice Vol. 10; no. 3; pp. e756 - n/a
Main Authors Garvey, W. Timothy, Mahle, Cathy D., Bell, Trevor, Kushner, Robert F.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.06.2024
Wiley
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Background Anti‐obesity medications (AOMs) have historically had limited weight‐loss efficacy. However, newer glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist (GLP‐1 RA)–based therapies seem to be more effective, including dual agonists of GLP‐1R and the glucagon receptor (GCGR) or glucose‐dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor. Objective To explore healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experience in obesity treatment and their understanding of agonists of GCGR, glucose‐dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) RA, and GLP‐1 RA. Methods This cross‐sectional online survey of HCPs prescribing AOMs was conducted in the United States in 2023 with a questionnaire designed to evaluate prescribing behavior and understanding of GCGR, GIP RA, and GLP‐1 RA. Results The 785 respondents (251 primary‐care physicians [PCPs], 263 endocrinologists, and 271 advanced practice providers [APPs]) reported 55% of their patients had obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 or ≥27 with weight‐related complications) and recommended AOMs to 49% overall, significantly more endocrinologists (57% of patients, p < 0.0005) than PCPs (43%) or APPs (46%). The greatest barriers to treatment were medication cost/lack of insurance (mean 4.2 on 1–5 scale [no barrier–extreme barrier]), low patient engagement/adherence (3.3), and inadequate time/staff (3.1). Metformin was the type 2 diabetes (T2D) medication most commonly prescribed to treat obesity in T2D patients (92.5% of respondents). Most HCPs (65%) were very/extremely familiar with GLP‐1 RA, but only 30% with GIP RA and 16% with GCGR. Most HCPs expected dual GCGR/GLP‐1 RA to benefit many obesity‐related conditions; however, only a minority of HCPs perceived that they would benefit non‐cardiometabolic complications of obesity. Conclusions Among HCPs prescribing AOMs, gaps exist in the management of people living with obesity as <50% are prescribed AOMs. Barriers to treatment indicate a need to improve access to AOMs. HCPs were less familiar with GCGR or GIP RA than GLP‐1 RA but expect dual GCGR/GLP‐1 RA may offer additional benefits, potentially addressing treatment barriers and access. Thus, there is a need for greater education among HCPs regarding the mechanism of action and therapeutic effects of GCGR agonists, and dual GCGR/GLP‐1 RA, so that the full range of obesity‐related complications can be effectively treated. We explored US healthcare professionals' experience in obesity treatment and their understanding of new anti‐obesity medications. The 785 respondents to the survey (251 primary‐care physicians, 263 endocrinologists, 271 advanced practice providers) indicated that they prescribe anti‐obesity medication to less than 50% of their patients with obesity, and reported substantial barriers to treatment, including cost and lack of insurance coverage. Most respondents were familiar with glucagon‐like peptide (GLP)‐1 receptor agonists, but only a minority were familiar with glucose‐dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonists or glucagon receptor agonists. Most expected investigational dual glucagon/GLP‐1 receptor agonists to potentially benefit many obesity‐related conditions.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:2055-2238
2055-2238
DOI:10.1002/osp4.756