Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: In 2019, 1 mg subcutaneous semaglutide was registered for the treatment of diabetes in Israel. Recognition of its effect on weight has led to its use as a treatment for obesity.

Objectives: To explore physicians’ pre-therapy considerations, therapy practices, and attitudes regarding subcutaneous semaglutide for weight loss.

Methods: A 22-item questionnaire was disseminated to physicians who prescribed semaglutide 1-mg for weight loss using an authorized off-label path.

Results: In total, 127 physicians completed the questionnaire. As for pretreatment requirements, in the absence of diabetes, 30% requested a minimal body mass index of 30 kg/m². Additional requirements were documented lifestyle-change effort (67%) and prior weight loss medication use (13%). Half of the physicians regarded calorie restriction, and 23% considered physical activity as necessary for weight loss while on therapy. As for dose, most physicians (78%) started with a 0.25-mg weekly injection, 57% doubled the dose monthly, and all others recommended doubling when side effects subsided. Regarding weight loss goal, 43% of the physicians set a personal goal with each patient while 26% limited the goal to 10% of initial weight. Fewer than 50% of physicians discussed treatment duration with their patients, and 52% of patients discontinued therapy in the first 3 months. The main reasons for discontinuation were price, lack of effect, and fear of long-term side effects.

Conclusions: The diverse approaches regarding off-label use of semaglutide for weight reduction highlight the necessity to guide physicians and standardize treatment regimen.

Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is the most common method of reconstruction for breast cancer. Bacterial infection is a well-known risk with reported rates ranging from 1% to 43%. The most common pathogens of breast implant infection described in the literature are Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and coagulase-negative staphylococci. However, the prevalence of other pathogens and their antibiotic sensitivity profile differs profoundly in different parts of the world.

Objectives: To review the current literature and protocols with respect to our region and to determine a more accurate antibiotic protocol aimed at our specific local pathogens.

Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of all cases of clinically infected implant-based breast reconstruction in our institution from June 2013 to June 2019, as well as review of microbiologic data from around the world based on current literature.

Results: A total of 28 patients representing 28 clinically infected implant-based breast reconstruction were identified during the studied period. Thirteen patients (46.4%) had a positive bacterial culture growth, with P. aeruginosa being the most common microorganism identified (46.1%). Review of international microbiological data demonstrated significant variation at different places and time periods.

Conclusions: Microbiological data in cases of infected breast reconstructions should be collected and analyzed in every medical center and updated every few years due to the variations observed. These data will help to adjust the optimal empirical antibiotic regimens given to patients presenting with infections after breast reconstruction.

Methods: We assessed 25 patients with insomnia who were enrolled in a hypnotic study but prior to the study were asked to undergo two full nights in lab polysomnography studies: with and without a placebo. Although they were not explicitly told that they were receiving a placebo, the participants knew that the results of these studies would determine whether they met the criteria to participate in the pharmaceutical study.

Results: Although the participants acknowledged that they were given a placebo, almost all measures of their sleep improved. With placebo, sleep latency was shortened from 55.8 ± 43.5 to 39.8 ± 58.5 minutes (P < 0.05); total sleep time was extended from 283 ± 72.5 to 362.9 ± 56.3 minutes, and sleep efficiency improved from 59.57 ± 14.78 to 75.5 ± 11.70% (P < 0.05). Interestingly, placebo had no effect on the relative sleep stage distribution (percentage of total sleep time), except for a trend toward increased percentage of REM[1] sleep.

Conclusions: Our findings how a clear and significant beneficial effect of placebo on insomnia, despite participants' understanding that they were receiving placebo. These results emphasize the importance of the patients' perception and belief in insomnia treatment, and suggest that in some cases placebo may serve as a treatment.