CHEST Physician

Several new studies in lung cancer have opened their doors recently. Is one of your patients eligible to participate?

Resected stage II, IIIA, or IIIB with nodal involvement non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with this type of cancer can join a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study assessing whether an investigational drug called V940 added to pembrolizumab (Keytruda) delays cancer recurrence better than pembrolizumab alone.

V940 is an individualized neoantigen therapy designed to generate T-cell antitumor responses targeted to a patient’s specific mutation profile.

V940 plus pembrolizumab showed a trend toward longer recurrence-free survival vs pembrolizumab alone in a recent phase 2 study in melanoma (hazard ratio, 0.561; P = .053).

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive intramuscular injections of V940 every 3 weeks plus intravenous (IV) pembrolizumab every 6 weeks for up to approximately 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity, whichever happens first. The other people in the trial will be on the same schedule, with a placebo replacing V940.

Centers in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, and six other countries started recruiting for the trial’s 868 participants in December 2023. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 12 years and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic NSCLC with a programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–tumor proportion score of > 50%. Adults in this clinical situation are eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial to determine whether an experimental antibody-drug conjugate called MK-2870 added to standard pembrolizumab prolongs survival.

MK-2870 delivers a cytotoxin to cancer cells by binding to trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, known to promote tumor cell growth and metastasis. For up to 2 years, half of participants will receive MK-2870 by IV every 2 weeks plus IV pembrolizumab every 6 weeks. The other group will receive only pembrolizumab.

In December 2023, study sites in Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Australia, Denmark, Taiwan, and Turkey started seeking the trial’s 614 participants. Overall survival over approximately 4 years is the primary endpoint; QoL is a secondary endpoint. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with KRAS G12C mutations. Individuals with this type of lung cancer may be interested in a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental oral KRAS G12C inhibitor called LY3537982 boosts the effectiveness of standard treatment and patients can tolerate the combination. Currently approved KRAS G12C inhibitors sotorasib (Lumakras, Lumykras) and adagrasib (Krazati) are indicated for second-line treatment; this trial may lead to a first-line approval for newcomer LY3537982.

The trial has three parts: dose optimization, safety, and efficacy. During dose optimization, each participant will take one of two oral doses of LY3537982 and receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. In the safety phase, all participants will receive oral LY3537982 at the chosen dose plus standard therapy of 3-times-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum therapy (cisplatin or carboplatin). In the experimental phase, for up to about 1 year, participants will receive one of these four options: Pembrolizumab plus LY3537982, pembrolizumab plus a placebo, standard therapy plus LY3537982, or standard therapy plus a placebo.

The study, which is planning to recruit 1016 participants, opened across 16 US states and 12 countries worldwide in December 2023. Sites in 11 more US states, the District of Columbia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, and 11 more European countries are gearing up. Adverse events and progression-free survival are the primary endpoints. Overall survival over approximately 3 years and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Unresectable, untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous NSCLC with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) mutations. People with this diagnosis who have HER2 mutations instead of KRAS G12C mutations can participate in a phase 3 study comparing an investigational oral first-line treatment with standard IV therapy. The drug in this study, zongertinib, is a HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

For up to approximately 4 years, one group of participants will take oral zongertinib only, and the other individuals will receive IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum agent (cisplatin or carboplatin). Study sites in California, Missouri, South Carolina, Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore opened in January ready to welcome 270 participants. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. Overall survival over 53 months and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Completely resected stage IIB, IIIA, or select IIIB, PD-L1–positive NSCLC. Adults with this type of lung cancer who have received adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy may be eligible for a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study to assess whether two immune checkpoint inhibitors are better than one at delaying cancer recurrence. In this trial, tiragolumab will be added to the approved PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq).

A recent study, however, found that tiragolumab did not confer an additional benefit when added to atezolizumab, carboplatin, and etoposide in untreated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive IV atezolizumab and tiragolumab, while the other people will receive a placebo instead of tiragolumab. Centers in California, Georgia, Illinois, New Mexico, Australia, China, South Korea, and Taiwan started recruiting for the trial’s 1150 participants in March 2024. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 15 years and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Previously treated metastatic or non-operable non-squamous NSCLC. Adults in this position who have received no more than one platinum-based chemotherapy and one anti–PD-L1 drug are sought for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing second-line standard docetaxel with experimental antibody-drug conjugate sigvotatug vedotin. Patients who have tumors with certain treatable genomic alterations must have received at least one drug targeted to that alteration, as well as a platinum-based agent.

Approximately half the participants will receive sigvotatug vedotin by IV every 2 weeks, and the other half will receive IV docetaxel every 3 weeks. The study opened in March across 13 US states, France, Hungary, Poland, and Spain seeking 600 people eligible to participate. The primary outcomes are overall survival over approximately 5 years and objective response rate. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Several new studies in lung cancer have opened their doors recently. Is one of your patients eligible to participate?

Resected stage II, IIIA, or IIIB with nodal involvement non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with this type of cancer can join a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study assessing whether an investigational drug called V940 added to pembrolizumab (Keytruda) delays cancer recurrence better than pembrolizumab alone.

V940 is an individualized neoantigen therapy designed to generate T-cell antitumor responses targeted to a patient’s specific mutation profile.

V940 plus pembrolizumab showed a trend toward longer recurrence-free survival vs pembrolizumab alone in a recent phase 2 study in melanoma (hazard ratio, 0.561; P = .053).

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive intramuscular injections of V940 every 3 weeks plus intravenous (IV) pembrolizumab every 6 weeks for up to approximately 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity, whichever happens first. The other people in the trial will be on the same schedule, with a placebo replacing V940.

Centers in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, and six other countries started recruiting for the trial’s 868 participants in December 2023. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 12 years and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic NSCLC with a programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–tumor proportion score of > 50%. Adults in this clinical situation are eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial to determine whether an experimental antibody-drug conjugate called MK-2870 added to standard pembrolizumab prolongs survival.

MK-2870 delivers a cytotoxin to cancer cells by binding to trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, known to promote tumor cell growth and metastasis. For up to 2 years, half of participants will receive MK-2870 by IV every 2 weeks plus IV pembrolizumab every 6 weeks. The other group will receive only pembrolizumab.

In December 2023, study sites in Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Australia, Denmark, Taiwan, and Turkey started seeking the trial’s 614 participants. Overall survival over approximately 4 years is the primary endpoint; QoL is a secondary endpoint. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with KRAS G12C mutations. Individuals with this type of lung cancer may be interested in a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental oral KRAS G12C inhibitor called LY3537982 boosts the effectiveness of standard treatment and patients can tolerate the combination. Currently approved KRAS G12C inhibitors sotorasib (Lumakras, Lumykras) and adagrasib (Krazati) are indicated for second-line treatment; this trial may lead to a first-line approval for newcomer LY3537982.

The trial has three parts: dose optimization, safety, and efficacy. During dose optimization, each participant will take one of two oral doses of LY3537982 and receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. In the safety phase, all participants will receive oral LY3537982 at the chosen dose plus standard therapy of 3-times-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum therapy (cisplatin or carboplatin). In the experimental phase, for up to about 1 year, participants will receive one of these four options: Pembrolizumab plus LY3537982, pembrolizumab plus a placebo, standard therapy plus LY3537982, or standard therapy plus a placebo.

The study, which is planning to recruit 1016 participants, opened across 16 US states and 12 countries worldwide in December 2023. Sites in 11 more US states, the District of Columbia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, and 11 more European countries are gearing up. Adverse events and progression-free survival are the primary endpoints. Overall survival over approximately 3 years and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Unresectable, untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous NSCLC with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) mutations. People with this diagnosis who have HER2 mutations instead of KRAS G12C mutations can participate in a phase 3 study comparing an investigational oral first-line treatment with standard IV therapy. The drug in this study, zongertinib, is a HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

For up to approximately 4 years, one group of participants will take oral zongertinib only, and the other individuals will receive IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum agent (cisplatin or carboplatin). Study sites in California, Missouri, South Carolina, Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore opened in January ready to welcome 270 participants. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. Overall survival over 53 months and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Completely resected stage IIB, IIIA, or select IIIB, PD-L1–positive NSCLC. Adults with this type of lung cancer who have received adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy may be eligible for a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study to assess whether two immune checkpoint inhibitors are better than one at delaying cancer recurrence. In this trial, tiragolumab will be added to the approved PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq).

A recent study, however, found that tiragolumab did not confer an additional benefit when added to atezolizumab, carboplatin, and etoposide in untreated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive IV atezolizumab and tiragolumab, while the other people will receive a placebo instead of tiragolumab. Centers in California, Georgia, Illinois, New Mexico, Australia, China, South Korea, and Taiwan started recruiting for the trial’s 1150 participants in March 2024. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 15 years and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Previously treated metastatic or non-operable non-squamous NSCLC. Adults in this position who have received no more than one platinum-based chemotherapy and one anti–PD-L1 drug are sought for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing second-line standard docetaxel with experimental antibody-drug conjugate sigvotatug vedotin. Patients who have tumors with certain treatable genomic alterations must have received at least one drug targeted to that alteration, as well as a platinum-based agent.

Approximately half the participants will receive sigvotatug vedotin by IV every 2 weeks, and the other half will receive IV docetaxel every 3 weeks. The study opened in March across 13 US states, France, Hungary, Poland, and Spain seeking 600 people eligible to participate. The primary outcomes are overall survival over approximately 5 years and objective response rate. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Several new studies in lung cancer have opened their doors recently. Is one of your patients eligible to participate?

Resected stage II, IIIA, or IIIB with nodal involvement non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with this type of cancer can join a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study assessing whether an investigational drug called V940 added to pembrolizumab (Keytruda) delays cancer recurrence better than pembrolizumab alone.

V940 is an individualized neoantigen therapy designed to generate T-cell antitumor responses targeted to a patient’s specific mutation profile.

V940 plus pembrolizumab showed a trend toward longer recurrence-free survival vs pembrolizumab alone in a recent phase 2 study in melanoma (hazard ratio, 0.561; P = .053).

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive intramuscular injections of V940 every 3 weeks plus intravenous (IV) pembrolizumab every 6 weeks for up to approximately 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity, whichever happens first. The other people in the trial will be on the same schedule, with a placebo replacing V940.

Centers in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, and six other countries started recruiting for the trial’s 868 participants in December 2023. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 12 years and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic NSCLC with a programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–tumor proportion score of > 50%. Adults in this clinical situation are eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial to determine whether an experimental antibody-drug conjugate called MK-2870 added to standard pembrolizumab prolongs survival.

MK-2870 delivers a cytotoxin to cancer cells by binding to trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, known to promote tumor cell growth and metastasis. For up to 2 years, half of participants will receive MK-2870 by IV every 2 weeks plus IV pembrolizumab every 6 weeks. The other group will receive only pembrolizumab.

In December 2023, study sites in Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Australia, Denmark, Taiwan, and Turkey started seeking the trial’s 614 participants. Overall survival over approximately 4 years is the primary endpoint; QoL is a secondary endpoint. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with KRAS G12C mutations. Individuals with this type of lung cancer may be interested in a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental oral KRAS G12C inhibitor called LY3537982 boosts the effectiveness of standard treatment and patients can tolerate the combination. Currently approved KRAS G12C inhibitors sotorasib (Lumakras, Lumykras) and adagrasib (Krazati) are indicated for second-line treatment; this trial may lead to a first-line approval for newcomer LY3537982.

The trial has three parts: dose optimization, safety, and efficacy. During dose optimization, each participant will take one of two oral doses of LY3537982 and receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. In the safety phase, all participants will receive oral LY3537982 at the chosen dose plus standard therapy of 3-times-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum therapy (cisplatin or carboplatin). In the experimental phase, for up to about 1 year, participants will receive one of these four options: Pembrolizumab plus LY3537982, pembrolizumab plus a placebo, standard therapy plus LY3537982, or standard therapy plus a placebo.

The study, which is planning to recruit 1016 participants, opened across 16 US states and 12 countries worldwide in December 2023. Sites in 11 more US states, the District of Columbia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, and 11 more European countries are gearing up. Adverse events and progression-free survival are the primary endpoints. Overall survival over approximately 3 years and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Unresectable, untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous NSCLC with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) mutations. People with this diagnosis who have HER2 mutations instead of KRAS G12C mutations can participate in a phase 3 study comparing an investigational oral first-line treatment with standard IV therapy. The drug in this study, zongertinib, is a HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

For up to approximately 4 years, one group of participants will take oral zongertinib only, and the other individuals will receive IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum agent (cisplatin or carboplatin). Study sites in California, Missouri, South Carolina, Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore opened in January ready to welcome 270 participants. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. Overall survival over 53 months and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Completely resected stage IIB, IIIA, or select IIIB, PD-L1–positive NSCLC. Adults with this type of lung cancer who have received adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy may be eligible for a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study to assess whether two immune checkpoint inhibitors are better than one at delaying cancer recurrence. In this trial, tiragolumab will be added to the approved PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq).

A recent study, however, found that tiragolumab did not confer an additional benefit when added to atezolizumab, carboplatin, and etoposide in untreated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive IV atezolizumab and tiragolumab, while the other people will receive a placebo instead of tiragolumab. Centers in California, Georgia, Illinois, New Mexico, Australia, China, South Korea, and Taiwan started recruiting for the trial’s 1150 participants in March 2024. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 15 years and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Previously treated metastatic or non-operable non-squamous NSCLC. Adults in this position who have received no more than one platinum-based chemotherapy and one anti–PD-L1 drug are sought for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing second-line standard docetaxel with experimental antibody-drug conjugate sigvotatug vedotin. Patients who have tumors with certain treatable genomic alterations must have received at least one drug targeted to that alteration, as well as a platinum-based agent.

Approximately half the participants will receive sigvotatug vedotin by IV every 2 weeks, and the other half will receive IV docetaxel every 3 weeks. The study opened in March across 13 US states, France, Hungary, Poland, and Spain seeking 600 people eligible to participate. The primary outcomes are overall survival over approximately 5 years and objective response rate. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced the conclusion of a program that provided billions in early Medicare payments to those affected by the Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group cyberattack last winter. The Accelerated and Advance Payment program, which began in early March to assist hospitals and practices facing significant reimbursement delays, will stop accepting applications after July 12, 2024.

CMS reported that the program advanced more than $2.55 billion in Medicare payments to > 4200 Part A providers, including hospitals, and more than $717.18 million in payments to Part B suppliers such as physicians, nonphysician practitioners, and durable medical equipment suppliers.

According to CMS, the Medicare billing system is now functioning properly, and 96% of the early payments have been recovered. The advances were to represent ≤ 30 days of typical claims payments in a 3-month period of 2023, with full repayment expected within 90 days through “automatic recoupment from Medicare claims” — no extensions allowed.

The agency took a victory lap regarding its response. “In the face of one of the most widespread cyberattacks on the US health care industry, CMS promptly took action to get providers and suppliers access to the funds they needed to continue providing patients with vital care,” CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement. “Our efforts helped minimize the disruptive fallout from this incident, and we will remain vigilant to be ready to address future events.”

Ongoing Concerns from Health Care Organizations

Ben Teicher, an American Hospital Association spokesman, said that the organization hopes that CMS will be responsive if there’s more need for action after the advance payment program expires. The organization represents about 5000 hospitals, health care systems, and other providers.

“Our members report that the aftereffects of this event will likely be felt throughout the remainder of the year,” he said. According to Teicher, hospitals remain concerned about their ability to process claims and appeal denials, the safety of reconnecting to cyber services, and access to information needed to bill patients and reconcile payments.

In addition, hospitals are concerned about “financial support to mitigate the considerable costs incurred as a result of the cyberattack,” he said.

Charlene MacDonald, executive vice-president of public affairs at the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents more than 1000 for-profit hospitals, sent a statement to this news organization that said some providers “are still feeling the effects of care denials and delays caused by insurer inaction.

“We appreciate that the Administration acted within its authority to support providers during this unprecedented crisis and blunt these devastating impacts, especially because a vast majority of managed care companies failed to step up to the plate,” she said. “It is now time to shift our focus to holding plans accountable for using tactics to delay and deny needed patient care.”

Cyberattack Impact and Response

The ransom-based cyberattack against Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group targeted an electronic data interchange clearing house processing payer reimbursement systems, disrupting cash flows at hospitals and medical practices, and affecting patient access to prescriptions and life-saving therapy.

Change Healthcare — part of the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Optum — processes half of all medical claims, according to a Department of Justice lawsuit. The American Hospital Association described the cyberattack as “the most significant and consequential incident of its kind” in US history.

By late March, UnitedHealth Group said nearly all medical and pharmacy claims were processing properly, while a deputy secretary of the US Department of Health & Human Services told clinicians that officials were focusing on the last group of clinicians who were facing cash-flow problems.

Still, a senior advisor with CMS told providers at that time that “we have heard from so many providers over the last several weeks who are really struggling to make ends meet right now or who are worried that they will not be able to make payroll in the weeks to come.”

Randy Dotinga is a freelance health/medical reporter and board member of the Association of Health Care Journalists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced the conclusion of a program that provided billions in early Medicare payments to those affected by the Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group cyberattack last winter. The Accelerated and Advance Payment program, which began in early March to assist hospitals and practices facing significant reimbursement delays, will stop accepting applications after July 12, 2024.

CMS reported that the program advanced more than $2.55 billion in Medicare payments to > 4200 Part A providers, including hospitals, and more than $717.18 million in payments to Part B suppliers such as physicians, nonphysician practitioners, and durable medical equipment suppliers.

According to CMS, the Medicare billing system is now functioning properly, and 96% of the early payments have been recovered. The advances were to represent ≤ 30 days of typical claims payments in a 3-month period of 2023, with full repayment expected within 90 days through “automatic recoupment from Medicare claims” — no extensions allowed.

The agency took a victory lap regarding its response. “In the face of one of the most widespread cyberattacks on the US health care industry, CMS promptly took action to get providers and suppliers access to the funds they needed to continue providing patients with vital care,” CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement. “Our efforts helped minimize the disruptive fallout from this incident, and we will remain vigilant to be ready to address future events.”

Ongoing Concerns from Health Care Organizations

Ben Teicher, an American Hospital Association spokesman, said that the organization hopes that CMS will be responsive if there’s more need for action after the advance payment program expires. The organization represents about 5000 hospitals, health care systems, and other providers.

“Our members report that the aftereffects of this event will likely be felt throughout the remainder of the year,” he said. According to Teicher, hospitals remain concerned about their ability to process claims and appeal denials, the safety of reconnecting to cyber services, and access to information needed to bill patients and reconcile payments.

In addition, hospitals are concerned about “financial support to mitigate the considerable costs incurred as a result of the cyberattack,” he said.

Charlene MacDonald, executive vice-president of public affairs at the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents more than 1000 for-profit hospitals, sent a statement to this news organization that said some providers “are still feeling the effects of care denials and delays caused by insurer inaction.

“We appreciate that the Administration acted within its authority to support providers during this unprecedented crisis and blunt these devastating impacts, especially because a vast majority of managed care companies failed to step up to the plate,” she said. “It is now time to shift our focus to holding plans accountable for using tactics to delay and deny needed patient care.”

Cyberattack Impact and Response

The ransom-based cyberattack against Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group targeted an electronic data interchange clearing house processing payer reimbursement systems, disrupting cash flows at hospitals and medical practices, and affecting patient access to prescriptions and life-saving therapy.

Change Healthcare — part of the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Optum — processes half of all medical claims, according to a Department of Justice lawsuit. The American Hospital Association described the cyberattack as “the most significant and consequential incident of its kind” in US history.

By late March, UnitedHealth Group said nearly all medical and pharmacy claims were processing properly, while a deputy secretary of the US Department of Health & Human Services told clinicians that officials were focusing on the last group of clinicians who were facing cash-flow problems.

Still, a senior advisor with CMS told providers at that time that “we have heard from so many providers over the last several weeks who are really struggling to make ends meet right now or who are worried that they will not be able to make payroll in the weeks to come.”

Randy Dotinga is a freelance health/medical reporter and board member of the Association of Health Care Journalists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced the conclusion of a program that provided billions in early Medicare payments to those affected by the Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group cyberattack last winter. The Accelerated and Advance Payment program, which began in early March to assist hospitals and practices facing significant reimbursement delays, will stop accepting applications after July 12, 2024.

CMS reported that the program advanced more than $2.55 billion in Medicare payments to > 4200 Part A providers, including hospitals, and more than $717.18 million in payments to Part B suppliers such as physicians, nonphysician practitioners, and durable medical equipment suppliers.

According to CMS, the Medicare billing system is now functioning properly, and 96% of the early payments have been recovered. The advances were to represent ≤ 30 days of typical claims payments in a 3-month period of 2023, with full repayment expected within 90 days through “automatic recoupment from Medicare claims” — no extensions allowed.

The agency took a victory lap regarding its response. “In the face of one of the most widespread cyberattacks on the US health care industry, CMS promptly took action to get providers and suppliers access to the funds they needed to continue providing patients with vital care,” CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement. “Our efforts helped minimize the disruptive fallout from this incident, and we will remain vigilant to be ready to address future events.”

Ongoing Concerns from Health Care Organizations

Ben Teicher, an American Hospital Association spokesman, said that the organization hopes that CMS will be responsive if there’s more need for action after the advance payment program expires. The organization represents about 5000 hospitals, health care systems, and other providers.

“Our members report that the aftereffects of this event will likely be felt throughout the remainder of the year,” he said. According to Teicher, hospitals remain concerned about their ability to process claims and appeal denials, the safety of reconnecting to cyber services, and access to information needed to bill patients and reconcile payments.

In addition, hospitals are concerned about “financial support to mitigate the considerable costs incurred as a result of the cyberattack,” he said.

Charlene MacDonald, executive vice-president of public affairs at the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents more than 1000 for-profit hospitals, sent a statement to this news organization that said some providers “are still feeling the effects of care denials and delays caused by insurer inaction.

“We appreciate that the Administration acted within its authority to support providers during this unprecedented crisis and blunt these devastating impacts, especially because a vast majority of managed care companies failed to step up to the plate,” she said. “It is now time to shift our focus to holding plans accountable for using tactics to delay and deny needed patient care.”

Cyberattack Impact and Response

The ransom-based cyberattack against Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group targeted an electronic data interchange clearing house processing payer reimbursement systems, disrupting cash flows at hospitals and medical practices, and affecting patient access to prescriptions and life-saving therapy.

Change Healthcare — part of the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Optum — processes half of all medical claims, according to a Department of Justice lawsuit. The American Hospital Association described the cyberattack as “the most significant and consequential incident of its kind” in US history.

By late March, UnitedHealth Group said nearly all medical and pharmacy claims were processing properly, while a deputy secretary of the US Department of Health & Human Services told clinicians that officials were focusing on the last group of clinicians who were facing cash-flow problems.

Still, a senior advisor with CMS told providers at that time that “we have heard from so many providers over the last several weeks who are really struggling to make ends meet right now or who are worried that they will not be able to make payroll in the weeks to come.”

Randy Dotinga is a freelance health/medical reporter and board member of the Association of Health Care Journalists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals. 

Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
 

Open Access Defined

Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us? 

Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions. 

The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.

This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately. 

Then copyright is retained, in the case of NIH employees, for example, by the government or by the journals themselves. The two elements of open access, I think, are immediate access to the material and the fact that it’s published with a Creative Commons license. 

Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.

If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated? 

Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.

That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education. 

For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later. 

In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
 

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published. 

Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own. 

With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please. 

Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you. 

Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access. 

That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on. 

Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on. 

Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish? 
 

Predatory Journals

Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals. 

The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript. 

Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore. 

There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals. 

One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?

If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list. 

I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals. 

I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals. 
 

Impact Factor

Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number. 

Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal. 

It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level. 

Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense. 

This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions. 

I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?” 

There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice. 

If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on. 

I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers. 

Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed? 

Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them. 

That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.

Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it. 

Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish. 

There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that? 

Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician. 

Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research. 

We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications. 

Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers. 

The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology. 

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up? 

Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
 

Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals. 

Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
 

Open Access Defined

Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us? 

Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions. 

The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.

This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately. 

Then copyright is retained, in the case of NIH employees, for example, by the government or by the journals themselves. The two elements of open access, I think, are immediate access to the material and the fact that it’s published with a Creative Commons license. 

Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.

If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated? 

Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.

That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education. 

For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later. 

In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
 

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published. 

Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own. 

With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please. 

Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you. 

Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access. 

That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on. 

Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on. 

Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish? 
 

Predatory Journals

Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals. 

The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript. 

Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore. 

There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals. 

One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?

If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list. 

I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals. 

I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals. 
 

Impact Factor

Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number. 

Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal. 

It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level. 

Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense. 

This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions. 

I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?” 

There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice. 

If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on. 

I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers. 

Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed? 

Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them. 

That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.

Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it. 

Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish. 

There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that? 

Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician. 

Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research. 

We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications. 

Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers. 

The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology. 

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up? 

Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
 

Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals. 

Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
 

Open Access Defined

Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us? 

Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions. 

The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.

This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately. 

Then copyright is retained, in the case of NIH employees, for example, by the government or by the journals themselves. The two elements of open access, I think, are immediate access to the material and the fact that it’s published with a Creative Commons license. 

Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.

If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated? 

Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.

That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education. 

For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later. 

In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
 

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published. 

Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own. 

With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please. 

Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you. 

Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access. 

That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on. 

Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on. 

Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish? 
 

Predatory Journals

Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals. 

The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript. 

Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore. 

There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals. 

One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?

If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list. 

I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals. 

I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals. 
 

Impact Factor

Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number. 

Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal. 

It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level. 

Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense. 

This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions. 

I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?” 

There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice. 

If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on. 

I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers. 

Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed? 

Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them. 

That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.

Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it. 

Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish. 

There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that? 

Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician. 

Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research. 

We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications. 

Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers. 

The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology. 

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up? 

Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
 

Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to adagrasib (Krazati, Mirati Therapeutics) with cetuximab for certain patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer (CRC).

More specifically, the highly selective and potent small-molecule KRAS G12C inhibitor is now indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C–mutated CRC — as determined by an FDA-approved test — who previously received fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and, if eligible, a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, according to an FDA press release.

The agent is the first KRAS inhibitor approved for CRC. Adagrasib was previously granted accelerated approval for KRAS G12C–mutated non–small cell lung cancer, based on findings from the KRYSTAL-12 trial.

The CRC approval was based on findings from the KRYSTAL-1 multicenter, single-arm expansion cohort trial, which reported an overall response rate of 34% among 94 enrolled patients. 

All responses were partial responses, and the median duration of response was 5.8 months, with 31% of responding patients experiencing a duration of response of at least 6 months.

Patients received 600 mg of adagrasib twice daily plus cetuximab administered in either a biweekly 500 mg/m² dose or an initial dose of 400 mg/m² followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m². Those who discontinued adagrasib also had to discontinue cetuximab, but adagrasib could be continued if cetuximab was discontinued.

The recommended adagrasib dose is 600 mg given orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, according to the prescribing information. 

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of treated patients included rash, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, hepatotoxicity, headache, dry skin, abdominal pain, decreased appetite, edema, anemia, cough, dizziness, constipation, and peripheral neuropathy.

“Patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer have historically faced poor prognoses and remain in need of additional treatment options,” Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, stated earlier this year in a press release announcing the FDA’s decision to accept the drug application for priority review.

“Although KRAS had previously been considered ‘undruggable,’ these data from KRYSTAL-1 reinforce the potential benefit of adagrasib for these specific patients,” Dr. Kopetz said in the statement from Bristol Myers Squibb, which acquired Mirati Therapeutics in 2023.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to adagrasib (Krazati, Mirati Therapeutics) with cetuximab for certain patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer (CRC).

More specifically, the highly selective and potent small-molecule KRAS G12C inhibitor is now indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C–mutated CRC — as determined by an FDA-approved test — who previously received fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and, if eligible, a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, according to an FDA press release.

The agent is the first KRAS inhibitor approved for CRC. Adagrasib was previously granted accelerated approval for KRAS G12C–mutated non–small cell lung cancer, based on findings from the KRYSTAL-12 trial.

The CRC approval was based on findings from the KRYSTAL-1 multicenter, single-arm expansion cohort trial, which reported an overall response rate of 34% among 94 enrolled patients. 

All responses were partial responses, and the median duration of response was 5.8 months, with 31% of responding patients experiencing a duration of response of at least 6 months.

Patients received 600 mg of adagrasib twice daily plus cetuximab administered in either a biweekly 500 mg/m² dose or an initial dose of 400 mg/m² followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m². Those who discontinued adagrasib also had to discontinue cetuximab, but adagrasib could be continued if cetuximab was discontinued.

The recommended adagrasib dose is 600 mg given orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, according to the prescribing information. 

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of treated patients included rash, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, hepatotoxicity, headache, dry skin, abdominal pain, decreased appetite, edema, anemia, cough, dizziness, constipation, and peripheral neuropathy.

“Patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer have historically faced poor prognoses and remain in need of additional treatment options,” Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, stated earlier this year in a press release announcing the FDA’s decision to accept the drug application for priority review.

“Although KRAS had previously been considered ‘undruggable,’ these data from KRYSTAL-1 reinforce the potential benefit of adagrasib for these specific patients,” Dr. Kopetz said in the statement from Bristol Myers Squibb, which acquired Mirati Therapeutics in 2023.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to adagrasib (Krazati, Mirati Therapeutics) with cetuximab for certain patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer (CRC).

More specifically, the highly selective and potent small-molecule KRAS G12C inhibitor is now indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C–mutated CRC — as determined by an FDA-approved test — who previously received fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and, if eligible, a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, according to an FDA press release.

The agent is the first KRAS inhibitor approved for CRC. Adagrasib was previously granted accelerated approval for KRAS G12C–mutated non–small cell lung cancer, based on findings from the KRYSTAL-12 trial.

The CRC approval was based on findings from the KRYSTAL-1 multicenter, single-arm expansion cohort trial, which reported an overall response rate of 34% among 94 enrolled patients. 

All responses were partial responses, and the median duration of response was 5.8 months, with 31% of responding patients experiencing a duration of response of at least 6 months.

Patients received 600 mg of adagrasib twice daily plus cetuximab administered in either a biweekly 500 mg/m² dose or an initial dose of 400 mg/m² followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m². Those who discontinued adagrasib also had to discontinue cetuximab, but adagrasib could be continued if cetuximab was discontinued.

The recommended adagrasib dose is 600 mg given orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, according to the prescribing information. 

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of treated patients included rash, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, hepatotoxicity, headache, dry skin, abdominal pain, decreased appetite, edema, anemia, cough, dizziness, constipation, and peripheral neuropathy.

“Patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer have historically faced poor prognoses and remain in need of additional treatment options,” Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, stated earlier this year in a press release announcing the FDA’s decision to accept the drug application for priority review.

“Although KRAS had previously been considered ‘undruggable,’ these data from KRYSTAL-1 reinforce the potential benefit of adagrasib for these specific patients,” Dr. Kopetz said in the statement from Bristol Myers Squibb, which acquired Mirati Therapeutics in 2023.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Men with immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4)-related disease exhibit significantly lower serum lipase levels and a greater likelihood of organ involvement than women, highlighting significant sex-dependent differences in disease manifestations.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 328 patients (69% men) diagnosed with IgG4-related disease at the Massachusetts General Hospital – Rheumatology Clinic, Boston, who met the American College of Rheumatology–European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ACR-EULAR) classification criteria between January 2008 and May 2023.
• Among the 328 patients, 69% were men and 31% were women, with a significant male-to-female ratio of 2.2:1.0. Men were typically older at diagnosis (median age, 63.7 vs 58.2 years).
• Data on serum lipase levels, renal involvement, and other clinical and laboratory parameters were collected.

TAKEAWAY:

• Men had higher baseline ACR-EULAR scores, indicating more severe disease (median score of 35.0 vs 29.5; P = .0010).
• Male patients demonstrated a median baseline serum lipase concentration of 24.5 U/L, significantly lower than the 33.5 U/L observed in women.
• Pancreatic (50% vs 26%) or renal (36% vs 18%) involvement was more common in men.
• Men exhibited higher IgG4 levels (P = .0050) and active B-cell responses in the blood (P = .0095).

IN PRACTICE:

According to the authors, this work confirms “the impression of an important sex disparity among patients with IgG4-related disease, with most patients being male, and male patients demonstrating strong tendencies toward more severe disease than female patients.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Isha Jha, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It was published online on May 30, 2024, in The Lancet Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective design may limit the ability to establish causality between sex differences and IgG4-related disease manifestations. A relatively small percentage of patients were assessed before receiving any immunosuppressive treatment, potentially influencing the observed clinical parameters.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Some authors declared financial ties outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Men with immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4)-related disease exhibit significantly lower serum lipase levels and a greater likelihood of organ involvement than women, highlighting significant sex-dependent differences in disease manifestations.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 328 patients (69% men) diagnosed with IgG4-related disease at the Massachusetts General Hospital – Rheumatology Clinic, Boston, who met the American College of Rheumatology–European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ACR-EULAR) classification criteria between January 2008 and May 2023.
• Among the 328 patients, 69% were men and 31% were women, with a significant male-to-female ratio of 2.2:1.0. Men were typically older at diagnosis (median age, 63.7 vs 58.2 years).
• Data on serum lipase levels, renal involvement, and other clinical and laboratory parameters were collected.

TAKEAWAY:

• Men had higher baseline ACR-EULAR scores, indicating more severe disease (median score of 35.0 vs 29.5; P = .0010).
• Male patients demonstrated a median baseline serum lipase concentration of 24.5 U/L, significantly lower than the 33.5 U/L observed in women.
• Pancreatic (50% vs 26%) or renal (36% vs 18%) involvement was more common in men.
• Men exhibited higher IgG4 levels (P = .0050) and active B-cell responses in the blood (P = .0095).

IN PRACTICE:

According to the authors, this work confirms “the impression of an important sex disparity among patients with IgG4-related disease, with most patients being male, and male patients demonstrating strong tendencies toward more severe disease than female patients.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Isha Jha, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It was published online on May 30, 2024, in The Lancet Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective design may limit the ability to establish causality between sex differences and IgG4-related disease manifestations. A relatively small percentage of patients were assessed before receiving any immunosuppressive treatment, potentially influencing the observed clinical parameters.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Some authors declared financial ties outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Men with immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4)-related disease exhibit significantly lower serum lipase levels and a greater likelihood of organ involvement than women, highlighting significant sex-dependent differences in disease manifestations.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 328 patients (69% men) diagnosed with IgG4-related disease at the Massachusetts General Hospital – Rheumatology Clinic, Boston, who met the American College of Rheumatology–European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ACR-EULAR) classification criteria between January 2008 and May 2023.
• Among the 328 patients, 69% were men and 31% were women, with a significant male-to-female ratio of 2.2:1.0. Men were typically older at diagnosis (median age, 63.7 vs 58.2 years).
• Data on serum lipase levels, renal involvement, and other clinical and laboratory parameters were collected.

TAKEAWAY:

• Men had higher baseline ACR-EULAR scores, indicating more severe disease (median score of 35.0 vs 29.5; P = .0010).
• Male patients demonstrated a median baseline serum lipase concentration of 24.5 U/L, significantly lower than the 33.5 U/L observed in women.
• Pancreatic (50% vs 26%) or renal (36% vs 18%) involvement was more common in men.
• Men exhibited higher IgG4 levels (P = .0050) and active B-cell responses in the blood (P = .0095).

IN PRACTICE:

According to the authors, this work confirms “the impression of an important sex disparity among patients with IgG4-related disease, with most patients being male, and male patients demonstrating strong tendencies toward more severe disease than female patients.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Isha Jha, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It was published online on May 30, 2024, in The Lancet Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective design may limit the ability to establish causality between sex differences and IgG4-related disease manifestations. A relatively small percentage of patients were assessed before receiving any immunosuppressive treatment, potentially influencing the observed clinical parameters.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Some authors declared financial ties outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Akira Endo, PhD, the Japanese microbiologist and biochemist known as the father of statins, died at the age of 90 on June 5. His research led to the discovery and rise of a class of drugs that revolutionized the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. This scientific journey began over half a century ago.

Inspired by Alexander Fleming

Born into a family of farmers in northern Japan, Dr. Endo was fascinated by natural sciences from a young age and showed a particular interest in fungi and molds. At the age of 10, he already knew he wanted to become a scientist.

He studied in Japan and the United States, conducting research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. He was struck by the high number of elderly and overweight individuals in the United States and realized the importance of developing a drug to combat cholesterol. It was upon his return to Japan, when he joined the Sankyo laboratory, that the development of statins began.

Inspired by Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin in the mold Penicillium, he hypothesized that fungi could produce antibiotics inhibiting 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase, the enzyme that produces cholesterol precursors.

After a year of research on nearly 3800 strains, his team found a known substance, citrinin, that strongly inhibited HMG-CoA reductase and lowered serum cholesterol levels in rats. The research was halted because of its toxicity to the rodents’ kidneys. “Nevertheless, the experience with citrinin gave us hope and courage to quickly discover much more effective active substances,” said Dr. Endo in an article dedicated to the discovery of statins.
 

First Statin Discovered

In the summer of 1972, researchers discovered a second active culture broth, Penicillium citrinum Pen-51, which was isolated from a sample of rice collected in a grain store in Kyoto.

In July 1973, they isolated three active metabolites from this mold, one of which was compactin, which had structural similarities to HMG-CoA, the substrate of the HMG-CoA reductase reaction.

In 1976, they published two articles reporting the discovery and characterization of compactin (mevastatin), the first statin.
 

Several Setbacks

Unfortunately, when Sankyo biologists assessed the effectiveness of compactin by giving rats a diet supplemented with compactin for 7 days, no reduction in serum cholesterol was observed.

Only later did an unpublished study show that the statin significantly decreased plasma cholesterol after a month of treatment in laying hens. The hypocholesterolemic effects of compactin were then demonstrated in dogs and monkeys.

However, researchers faced a second challenge in April 1977. Microcrystalline structures were detected in the liver cells of rats that had been fed extremely high amounts of compactin (over 500 mg/kg per day for 5 weeks). Initially deemed toxic, the structures were ultimately found to be nontoxic.

A phase 2 trial began in the summer of 1979 with very encouraging preliminary results, but in August 1980, clinical development of compactin was halted, as the drug was suspected of causing lymphomas in dogs given very high doses: 100 or 200 mg/kg per day for 2 years.

This suspicion also led to the termination of trials on another statin, the closely related lovastatin, which was discovered simultaneously from different fungi by the Merck laboratory and Dr. Endo in February 1979.
 

First Statin Marketed

Subsequently, dramatic reductions in cholesterol levels observed in patients prompted Merck to conduct large-scale clinical trials of lovastatin in high-risk patients and long-term toxicity studies in dogs in 1984.

It was confirmed that the drug significantly reduced cholesterol levels and was well tolerated. No tumors were detected.

Lovastatin received approval from the Food and Drug Administration to become the first marketed statin in September 1987.

Dr. Endo received numerous awards for his work, including the Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research in 2008 and the Outstanding Achievement Award from the International Atherosclerosis Society in 2009.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Akira Endo, PhD, the Japanese microbiologist and biochemist known as the father of statins, died at the age of 90 on June 5. His research led to the discovery and rise of a class of drugs that revolutionized the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. This scientific journey began over half a century ago.

Inspired by Alexander Fleming

Born into a family of farmers in northern Japan, Dr. Endo was fascinated by natural sciences from a young age and showed a particular interest in fungi and molds. At the age of 10, he already knew he wanted to become a scientist.

He studied in Japan and the United States, conducting research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. He was struck by the high number of elderly and overweight individuals in the United States and realized the importance of developing a drug to combat cholesterol. It was upon his return to Japan, when he joined the Sankyo laboratory, that the development of statins began.

Inspired by Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin in the mold Penicillium, he hypothesized that fungi could produce antibiotics inhibiting 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase, the enzyme that produces cholesterol precursors.

After a year of research on nearly 3800 strains, his team found a known substance, citrinin, that strongly inhibited HMG-CoA reductase and lowered serum cholesterol levels in rats. The research was halted because of its toxicity to the rodents’ kidneys. “Nevertheless, the experience with citrinin gave us hope and courage to quickly discover much more effective active substances,” said Dr. Endo in an article dedicated to the discovery of statins.
 

First Statin Discovered

In the summer of 1972, researchers discovered a second active culture broth, Penicillium citrinum Pen-51, which was isolated from a sample of rice collected in a grain store in Kyoto.

In July 1973, they isolated three active metabolites from this mold, one of which was compactin, which had structural similarities to HMG-CoA, the substrate of the HMG-CoA reductase reaction.

In 1976, they published two articles reporting the discovery and characterization of compactin (mevastatin), the first statin.
 

Several Setbacks

Unfortunately, when Sankyo biologists assessed the effectiveness of compactin by giving rats a diet supplemented with compactin for 7 days, no reduction in serum cholesterol was observed.

Only later did an unpublished study show that the statin significantly decreased plasma cholesterol after a month of treatment in laying hens. The hypocholesterolemic effects of compactin were then demonstrated in dogs and monkeys.

However, researchers faced a second challenge in April 1977. Microcrystalline structures were detected in the liver cells of rats that had been fed extremely high amounts of compactin (over 500 mg/kg per day for 5 weeks). Initially deemed toxic, the structures were ultimately found to be nontoxic.

A phase 2 trial began in the summer of 1979 with very encouraging preliminary results, but in August 1980, clinical development of compactin was halted, as the drug was suspected of causing lymphomas in dogs given very high doses: 100 or 200 mg/kg per day for 2 years.

This suspicion also led to the termination of trials on another statin, the closely related lovastatin, which was discovered simultaneously from different fungi by the Merck laboratory and Dr. Endo in February 1979.
 

First Statin Marketed

Subsequently, dramatic reductions in cholesterol levels observed in patients prompted Merck to conduct large-scale clinical trials of lovastatin in high-risk patients and long-term toxicity studies in dogs in 1984.

It was confirmed that the drug significantly reduced cholesterol levels and was well tolerated. No tumors were detected.

Lovastatin received approval from the Food and Drug Administration to become the first marketed statin in September 1987.

Dr. Endo received numerous awards for his work, including the Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research in 2008 and the Outstanding Achievement Award from the International Atherosclerosis Society in 2009.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Akira Endo, PhD, the Japanese microbiologist and biochemist known as the father of statins, died at the age of 90 on June 5. His research led to the discovery and rise of a class of drugs that revolutionized the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. This scientific journey began over half a century ago.

Inspired by Alexander Fleming

Born into a family of farmers in northern Japan, Dr. Endo was fascinated by natural sciences from a young age and showed a particular interest in fungi and molds. At the age of 10, he already knew he wanted to become a scientist.

He studied in Japan and the United States, conducting research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. He was struck by the high number of elderly and overweight individuals in the United States and realized the importance of developing a drug to combat cholesterol. It was upon his return to Japan, when he joined the Sankyo laboratory, that the development of statins began.

Inspired by Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin in the mold Penicillium, he hypothesized that fungi could produce antibiotics inhibiting 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase, the enzyme that produces cholesterol precursors.

After a year of research on nearly 3800 strains, his team found a known substance, citrinin, that strongly inhibited HMG-CoA reductase and lowered serum cholesterol levels in rats. The research was halted because of its toxicity to the rodents’ kidneys. “Nevertheless, the experience with citrinin gave us hope and courage to quickly discover much more effective active substances,” said Dr. Endo in an article dedicated to the discovery of statins.
 

First Statin Discovered

In the summer of 1972, researchers discovered a second active culture broth, Penicillium citrinum Pen-51, which was isolated from a sample of rice collected in a grain store in Kyoto.

In July 1973, they isolated three active metabolites from this mold, one of which was compactin, which had structural similarities to HMG-CoA, the substrate of the HMG-CoA reductase reaction.

In 1976, they published two articles reporting the discovery and characterization of compactin (mevastatin), the first statin.
 

Several Setbacks

Unfortunately, when Sankyo biologists assessed the effectiveness of compactin by giving rats a diet supplemented with compactin for 7 days, no reduction in serum cholesterol was observed.

Only later did an unpublished study show that the statin significantly decreased plasma cholesterol after a month of treatment in laying hens. The hypocholesterolemic effects of compactin were then demonstrated in dogs and monkeys.

However, researchers faced a second challenge in April 1977. Microcrystalline structures were detected in the liver cells of rats that had been fed extremely high amounts of compactin (over 500 mg/kg per day for 5 weeks). Initially deemed toxic, the structures were ultimately found to be nontoxic.

A phase 2 trial began in the summer of 1979 with very encouraging preliminary results, but in August 1980, clinical development of compactin was halted, as the drug was suspected of causing lymphomas in dogs given very high doses: 100 or 200 mg/kg per day for 2 years.

This suspicion also led to the termination of trials on another statin, the closely related lovastatin, which was discovered simultaneously from different fungi by the Merck laboratory and Dr. Endo in February 1979.
 

First Statin Marketed

Subsequently, dramatic reductions in cholesterol levels observed in patients prompted Merck to conduct large-scale clinical trials of lovastatin in high-risk patients and long-term toxicity studies in dogs in 1984.

It was confirmed that the drug significantly reduced cholesterol levels and was well tolerated. No tumors were detected.

Lovastatin received approval from the Food and Drug Administration to become the first marketed statin in September 1987.

Dr. Endo received numerous awards for his work, including the Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research in 2008 and the Outstanding Achievement Award from the International Atherosclerosis Society in 2009.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite their best efforts, 80% of people who lose weight regain it and many end up heavier within 5 years. Why? Our bodies fight back, revving up hunger while slowing metabolism after weight loss. In ongoing obesity discussions, ghrelin is in the spotlight as the “hunger hormone” playing a crucial role in driving appetite and facilitating weight gain. 

Weight loss interventions, such as diet or gastric bypass surgery, may trigger an increase in ghrelin levels, potentially fueling long-term weight gain. Consequently, ghrelin remains a focal point of research into innovative antiobesity treatments. 

Ghrelin, a hormone produced in the stomach, is often called the “hunger hormone.” Ghrelin is a circulating orexigenic gut hormone with growth hormone–releasing activity. In the intricate balance of energy, central and peripheral peptides such as ghrelin, leptin, adiponectin, and insulin play crucial roles. They regulate hunger, fullness, and metabolic rates, shaping our body weight outcomes. 

Since the discovery of ghrelin, in 1999, research in mice and people has focused on its effect on regulating appetite and implications for long-term weight control. When hunger strikes, ghrelin levels surge, sending signals to the brain that ramp up the appetite. Following a meal, ghrelin decreases, indicating fullness. 

Studies have found that people who were injected with subcutaneous ghrelin experienced a 46% increase in hunger and ate 28% more at their next meal than those who didn’t receive a ghrelin injection.

We might expect high levels of ghrelin in individuals with obesity, but this is not the case. In fact, ghrelin levels are typically lower in individuals with obesity than in leaner individuals. This finding might seem to contradict the idea that obesity is due to high levels of the hunger hormone. 

Excess weight could increase sensitivity to ghrelin, where more receptors lead to higher hunger stimulation with less ghrelin. Beyond hunger, ghrelin can also lead us to eat for comfort, as when stressed or anxious. Ghrelin and synthetic ghrelin mimetics increase body weight and fat mass by activating receptors in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus (Müller et al.; Bany Bakar et al.). There, it also activates the brain’s reward pathways, making us crave food even when we are not hungry. This connection between ghrelin and emotional eating can contribute to stress-induced obesity. 

In my clinical practice, I have seen individuals gain maximum weight when they are under more stress and are sleep-deprived. This is because ghrelin levels increased in these scenarios. This elevation of ghrelin in high-stress, low-sleep situations affects weight gain in women during the postpartum period and menopause. 

Evidence also suggests that certain foods affect ghrelin levels. After a person eats carbohydrates, their ghrelin levels initially decrease quickly, but this is followed by a rise in ghrelin, leading them to become hungry again. In contrast, protein intake helps suppress ghrelin levels for longer. Hence, we advise patients to increase protein intake while reducing their carb intake, or to always eat protein along with carbs.

It makes sense that when individuals with obesity lose weight by fasting or caloric restriction and try to maintain that weight loss, their bodies tend to produce more ghrelin. This effect might explain why people who lose weight often find it hard to keep it off: Rising ghrelin levels after weight loss might drive them to eat more and regain weight. 

Two prominent weight loss surgeries, sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), have opposite effects on ghrelin levels, reflecting their distinct mechanisms for weight loss. SG involves removal of the gastric fundus, where ghrelin is produced, resulting in a significant decrease in ghrelin levels; RYGB operates through malabsorption without directly affecting ghrelin production. Despite these differing approaches, both techniques demonstrate remarkable weight loss efficacy. Research comparing the two procedures reveals that SG leads to decreased fasting plasma ghrelin levels, whereas RYGB prompts an increase, highlighting the additional appetite-reducing mechanism of SG through ghrelin suppression. This contrast underscores the intricate role of ghrelin in appetite regulation and suggests that its manipulation can significantly influence weight loss outcomes.

With the effect of ghrelin in stimulating appetite being established, other studies have explored the relationship between ghrelin and insulin resistance. A meta-analysis by researchers at Qingdao University, Qingdao, China, found that circulating ghrelin levels were negatively correlated with insulin resistance in individuals with obesity and normal fasting glucose levels. The findings suggest that the role of ghrelin in obesity might extend beyond appetite regulation to influence metabolic pathways and that ghrelin may be a marker for predicting obesity.

Researchers are exploring potential therapeutic targets focusing on ghrelin modulation. Although selective neutralization of ghrelin has not yielded consistent results in rodent models, the interplay between ghrelin and LEAP2— a hormone that attaches to the same brain receptors — could be an area of interest for future obesity treatments.

Could ghrelin be the key to tackling obesity? Blocking ghrelin pharmacologically might be a strategy to keep weight off after weight loss, and it could help prevent the typical rebound effect seen with diets and withdrawal of medications. Considering the high rates of weight regain after diet-induced weight loss and withdrawal of weight loss medications, targeting ghrelin might be the missing link in long-term obesity treatment. It could be a valuable approach to improving long-term outcomes for obesity. However, these blockers might have significant side effects, given that ghrelin affects not only hunger but also the brain’s reward and pleasure centers. Therefore, caution will be needed in developing such medications owing to their potential impact on mood and mental health.

With ghrelin playing roles in hunger, reward pathways, and energy regulation, understanding this hormone is crucial in the fight against obesity. Stay tuned for future research that could shed light on the underlying mechanisms at play and hopefully results in clinical action steps.

Dimpi Desai, MD, is a professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Gerontology, and Metabolism, Stanford University, Stanford, California, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ashni Dharia, MD, is a resident in the Department of Internal Medicine, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite their best efforts, 80% of people who lose weight regain it and many end up heavier within 5 years. Why? Our bodies fight back, revving up hunger while slowing metabolism after weight loss. In ongoing obesity discussions, ghrelin is in the spotlight as the “hunger hormone” playing a crucial role in driving appetite and facilitating weight gain. 

Weight loss interventions, such as diet or gastric bypass surgery, may trigger an increase in ghrelin levels, potentially fueling long-term weight gain. Consequently, ghrelin remains a focal point of research into innovative antiobesity treatments. 

Ghrelin, a hormone produced in the stomach, is often called the “hunger hormone.” Ghrelin is a circulating orexigenic gut hormone with growth hormone–releasing activity. In the intricate balance of energy, central and peripheral peptides such as ghrelin, leptin, adiponectin, and insulin play crucial roles. They regulate hunger, fullness, and metabolic rates, shaping our body weight outcomes. 

Since the discovery of ghrelin, in 1999, research in mice and people has focused on its effect on regulating appetite and implications for long-term weight control. When hunger strikes, ghrelin levels surge, sending signals to the brain that ramp up the appetite. Following a meal, ghrelin decreases, indicating fullness. 

Studies have found that people who were injected with subcutaneous ghrelin experienced a 46% increase in hunger and ate 28% more at their next meal than those who didn’t receive a ghrelin injection.

We might expect high levels of ghrelin in individuals with obesity, but this is not the case. In fact, ghrelin levels are typically lower in individuals with obesity than in leaner individuals. This finding might seem to contradict the idea that obesity is due to high levels of the hunger hormone. 

Excess weight could increase sensitivity to ghrelin, where more receptors lead to higher hunger stimulation with less ghrelin. Beyond hunger, ghrelin can also lead us to eat for comfort, as when stressed or anxious. Ghrelin and synthetic ghrelin mimetics increase body weight and fat mass by activating receptors in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus (Müller et al.; Bany Bakar et al.). There, it also activates the brain’s reward pathways, making us crave food even when we are not hungry. This connection between ghrelin and emotional eating can contribute to stress-induced obesity. 

In my clinical practice, I have seen individuals gain maximum weight when they are under more stress and are sleep-deprived. This is because ghrelin levels increased in these scenarios. This elevation of ghrelin in high-stress, low-sleep situations affects weight gain in women during the postpartum period and menopause. 

Evidence also suggests that certain foods affect ghrelin levels. After a person eats carbohydrates, their ghrelin levels initially decrease quickly, but this is followed by a rise in ghrelin, leading them to become hungry again. In contrast, protein intake helps suppress ghrelin levels for longer. Hence, we advise patients to increase protein intake while reducing their carb intake, or to always eat protein along with carbs.

It makes sense that when individuals with obesity lose weight by fasting or caloric restriction and try to maintain that weight loss, their bodies tend to produce more ghrelin. This effect might explain why people who lose weight often find it hard to keep it off: Rising ghrelin levels after weight loss might drive them to eat more and regain weight. 

Two prominent weight loss surgeries, sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), have opposite effects on ghrelin levels, reflecting their distinct mechanisms for weight loss. SG involves removal of the gastric fundus, where ghrelin is produced, resulting in a significant decrease in ghrelin levels; RYGB operates through malabsorption without directly affecting ghrelin production. Despite these differing approaches, both techniques demonstrate remarkable weight loss efficacy. Research comparing the two procedures reveals that SG leads to decreased fasting plasma ghrelin levels, whereas RYGB prompts an increase, highlighting the additional appetite-reducing mechanism of SG through ghrelin suppression. This contrast underscores the intricate role of ghrelin in appetite regulation and suggests that its manipulation can significantly influence weight loss outcomes.

With the effect of ghrelin in stimulating appetite being established, other studies have explored the relationship between ghrelin and insulin resistance. A meta-analysis by researchers at Qingdao University, Qingdao, China, found that circulating ghrelin levels were negatively correlated with insulin resistance in individuals with obesity and normal fasting glucose levels. The findings suggest that the role of ghrelin in obesity might extend beyond appetite regulation to influence metabolic pathways and that ghrelin may be a marker for predicting obesity.

Researchers are exploring potential therapeutic targets focusing on ghrelin modulation. Although selective neutralization of ghrelin has not yielded consistent results in rodent models, the interplay between ghrelin and LEAP2— a hormone that attaches to the same brain receptors — could be an area of interest for future obesity treatments.

Could ghrelin be the key to tackling obesity? Blocking ghrelin pharmacologically might be a strategy to keep weight off after weight loss, and it could help prevent the typical rebound effect seen with diets and withdrawal of medications. Considering the high rates of weight regain after diet-induced weight loss and withdrawal of weight loss medications, targeting ghrelin might be the missing link in long-term obesity treatment. It could be a valuable approach to improving long-term outcomes for obesity. However, these blockers might have significant side effects, given that ghrelin affects not only hunger but also the brain’s reward and pleasure centers. Therefore, caution will be needed in developing such medications owing to their potential impact on mood and mental health.

With ghrelin playing roles in hunger, reward pathways, and energy regulation, understanding this hormone is crucial in the fight against obesity. Stay tuned for future research that could shed light on the underlying mechanisms at play and hopefully results in clinical action steps.

Dimpi Desai, MD, is a professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Gerontology, and Metabolism, Stanford University, Stanford, California, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ashni Dharia, MD, is a resident in the Department of Internal Medicine, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite their best efforts, 80% of people who lose weight regain it and many end up heavier within 5 years. Why? Our bodies fight back, revving up hunger while slowing metabolism after weight loss. In ongoing obesity discussions, ghrelin is in the spotlight as the “hunger hormone” playing a crucial role in driving appetite and facilitating weight gain. 

Weight loss interventions, such as diet or gastric bypass surgery, may trigger an increase in ghrelin levels, potentially fueling long-term weight gain. Consequently, ghrelin remains a focal point of research into innovative antiobesity treatments. 

Ghrelin, a hormone produced in the stomach, is often called the “hunger hormone.” Ghrelin is a circulating orexigenic gut hormone with growth hormone–releasing activity. In the intricate balance of energy, central and peripheral peptides such as ghrelin, leptin, adiponectin, and insulin play crucial roles. They regulate hunger, fullness, and metabolic rates, shaping our body weight outcomes. 

Since the discovery of ghrelin, in 1999, research in mice and people has focused on its effect on regulating appetite and implications for long-term weight control. When hunger strikes, ghrelin levels surge, sending signals to the brain that ramp up the appetite. Following a meal, ghrelin decreases, indicating fullness. 

Studies have found that people who were injected with subcutaneous ghrelin experienced a 46% increase in hunger and ate 28% more at their next meal than those who didn’t receive a ghrelin injection.

We might expect high levels of ghrelin in individuals with obesity, but this is not the case. In fact, ghrelin levels are typically lower in individuals with obesity than in leaner individuals. This finding might seem to contradict the idea that obesity is due to high levels of the hunger hormone. 

Excess weight could increase sensitivity to ghrelin, where more receptors lead to higher hunger stimulation with less ghrelin. Beyond hunger, ghrelin can also lead us to eat for comfort, as when stressed or anxious. Ghrelin and synthetic ghrelin mimetics increase body weight and fat mass by activating receptors in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus (Müller et al.; Bany Bakar et al.). There, it also activates the brain’s reward pathways, making us crave food even when we are not hungry. This connection between ghrelin and emotional eating can contribute to stress-induced obesity. 

In my clinical practice, I have seen individuals gain maximum weight when they are under more stress and are sleep-deprived. This is because ghrelin levels increased in these scenarios. This elevation of ghrelin in high-stress, low-sleep situations affects weight gain in women during the postpartum period and menopause. 

Evidence also suggests that certain foods affect ghrelin levels. After a person eats carbohydrates, their ghrelin levels initially decrease quickly, but this is followed by a rise in ghrelin, leading them to become hungry again. In contrast, protein intake helps suppress ghrelin levels for longer. Hence, we advise patients to increase protein intake while reducing their carb intake, or to always eat protein along with carbs.

It makes sense that when individuals with obesity lose weight by fasting or caloric restriction and try to maintain that weight loss, their bodies tend to produce more ghrelin. This effect might explain why people who lose weight often find it hard to keep it off: Rising ghrelin levels after weight loss might drive them to eat more and regain weight. 

Two prominent weight loss surgeries, sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), have opposite effects on ghrelin levels, reflecting their distinct mechanisms for weight loss. SG involves removal of the gastric fundus, where ghrelin is produced, resulting in a significant decrease in ghrelin levels; RYGB operates through malabsorption without directly affecting ghrelin production. Despite these differing approaches, both techniques demonstrate remarkable weight loss efficacy. Research comparing the two procedures reveals that SG leads to decreased fasting plasma ghrelin levels, whereas RYGB prompts an increase, highlighting the additional appetite-reducing mechanism of SG through ghrelin suppression. This contrast underscores the intricate role of ghrelin in appetite regulation and suggests that its manipulation can significantly influence weight loss outcomes.

With the effect of ghrelin in stimulating appetite being established, other studies have explored the relationship between ghrelin and insulin resistance. A meta-analysis by researchers at Qingdao University, Qingdao, China, found that circulating ghrelin levels were negatively correlated with insulin resistance in individuals with obesity and normal fasting glucose levels. The findings suggest that the role of ghrelin in obesity might extend beyond appetite regulation to influence metabolic pathways and that ghrelin may be a marker for predicting obesity.

Researchers are exploring potential therapeutic targets focusing on ghrelin modulation. Although selective neutralization of ghrelin has not yielded consistent results in rodent models, the interplay between ghrelin and LEAP2— a hormone that attaches to the same brain receptors — could be an area of interest for future obesity treatments.

Could ghrelin be the key to tackling obesity? Blocking ghrelin pharmacologically might be a strategy to keep weight off after weight loss, and it could help prevent the typical rebound effect seen with diets and withdrawal of medications. Considering the high rates of weight regain after diet-induced weight loss and withdrawal of weight loss medications, targeting ghrelin might be the missing link in long-term obesity treatment. It could be a valuable approach to improving long-term outcomes for obesity. However, these blockers might have significant side effects, given that ghrelin affects not only hunger but also the brain’s reward and pleasure centers. Therefore, caution will be needed in developing such medications owing to their potential impact on mood and mental health.

With ghrelin playing roles in hunger, reward pathways, and energy regulation, understanding this hormone is crucial in the fight against obesity. Stay tuned for future research that could shed light on the underlying mechanisms at play and hopefully results in clinical action steps.

Dimpi Desai, MD, is a professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Gerontology, and Metabolism, Stanford University, Stanford, California, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ashni Dharia, MD, is a resident in the Department of Internal Medicine, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLA. — The diabetes and weight loss drug tirzepatide (Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes; Zepbound for obesity) was so effective at reducing sleep disruptions in patients with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) that 40%-50% no longer needed to use a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device, according to two new studies.

Tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, also lowered C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure. And patients taking the medication lost 18%-20% of their body weight. 

The SURMOUNT-OSA studies “mark a significant milestone in the treatment of OSA, offering a promising new therapeutic option that addresses both respiratory and metabolic complications,” said lead author Atul Malhotra, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of sleep medicine at UC San Diego Health. 

The two double-blind, randomized, controlled trials in patients with obesity and moderate to severe OSA were conducted at 60 sites in nine countries. The results were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

OSA affects 1 billion people worldwide and 30 million American adults, many of whom are undiagnosed. Obesity is a common risk factor. According to the ADA, 40% of those with obesity have OSA and 70% of those with OSA have obesity. 

CPAP is an effective and the most-used intervention for OSA, but many patients refuse to use the device, stop using it, or cannot use it. Should tirzepatide eventually gain Food and Drug Administration approval for OSA, it would be the first drug approved for the condition.

“This new drug treatment offers a more accessible alternative for individuals who cannot tolerate or adhere to existing therapies,” said Dr. Malhotra.
 

Huge Reduction in Episodes, Severity

For the two studies, patients were enrolled who had moderate to severe OSA, defined as more than 15 events per hour (using the apnea-hypopnea index [AHI]) and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater. Those not using a CPAP device were enrolled in study 1, and those using a CPAP device were enrolled in study 2. 

Participants received either the maximum tolerated dose of tirzepatide (10 or 15 mg by once-weekly injection) or placebo for 1 year. In study 1, 114 individuals received tirzepatide and 120 received placebo. For study 2, 119 patients received tirzepatide and 114 received placebo. All participants received regular lifestyle counseling sessions about nutrition and were instructed to reduce food intake by 500 kcal/day and to engage in at least 150 min/week of physical activity.

Enrollment was limited to 70% men to ensure adequate representation of women.

At baseline, 65%-70% of participants had severe OSA, with more than 30 events/hour on the AHI scale and a mean of 51.5 events/hour.

By 1 year, patients taking tirzepatide had 27-30 fewer events/hour, compared with 4-6 fewer events/hour for those taking placebo.

Up to half of those who received tirzepatide in both trials had less than 5 events/hour or 5-14 AHI events/hour and an Epworth Sleepiness Scale score of 10 or less. Those thresholds “represent a level at which CPAP therapy may not be recommended,” wrote the authors.

Patients in the tirzepatide group also had a decrease in systolic blood pressure from baseline of 9.7 mm Hg in study 1 and 7.6 mm Hg in study 2 at week 48.

The most common adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, which occurred in approximately a quarter of patients taking tirzepatide. There were two adjudicated-confirmed cases of acute pancreatitis in those taking tirzepatide in study 2. 

Patients who received tirzepatide also reported fewer daytime and nighttime disturbances, as measured using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Form scale for Sleep-Related Impairment and Sleep Disturbance.
 

Tirzepatide Plus CPAP Are Best

Writing in an accompanying editorial, Sanjay R. Patel, MD, noted that, although clinical guidelines have recommended that weight loss strategies be incorporated as part of OSA treatment, “the integration of obesity management into the approaches to care for obstructive sleep apnea has lagged.”

As many as half of patients abandon CPAP therapy within 3 years, wrote Dr. Patel, who is professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and medical director of the UPMC Comprehensive Sleep Disorders program. “An effective medication to treat obesity is thus an obvious avenue to pursue.”

Dr. Patel noted the large reductions in the number of events on the AHI scale. He wrote that the improvement in systolic blood pressure “was substantially larger than effects seen with CPAP therapy alone and indicate that tirzepatide may be an attractive option for those patients who seek to reduce their cardiovascular risk.”

Dr. Patel raised concerns about whether patients outside of a trial would stick with therapy, noting studies have shown high rates of discontinuation of GLP-1 receptor agonists.

And, he wrote, “racial disparities in the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists among patients with diabetes arouse concern that the addition of tirzepatide as a treatment option for obstructive sleep apnea without directly addressing policies relative to coverage of care will only further exacerbate already pervasive disparities in clinical care for obstructive sleep apnea.”

Commenting on the study during the presentation of the results, Louis Aronne, MD, said he believes the trials demonstrate “the treatment of obesity with tirzepatide plus CPAP is really the optimal treatment for obstructive sleep apnea and obesity-related cardiometabolic risks.” Dr. Aronne is the Sanford I. Weill professor of metabolic research at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City.

Dr. Aronne added there is still much to learn. It is still not clear whether tirzepatide had an independent effect in the OSA trial — as has been seen in other studies where the drug clearly reduced cardiovascular risk — or whether the positive results were primarily caused by weight loss.

“I believe that over time we’ll see that this particular effect in sleep apnea is related to weight,” he said. 

The study was supported by Eli Lilly. Dr. Malhotra has reported being a paid consultant for Lilly and ZOLL Medical and a cofounder of Healcisio. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

ORLANDO, FLA. — The diabetes and weight loss drug tirzepatide (Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes; Zepbound for obesity) was so effective at reducing sleep disruptions in patients with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) that 40%-50% no longer needed to use a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device, according to two new studies.

Tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, also lowered C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure. And patients taking the medication lost 18%-20% of their body weight. 

The SURMOUNT-OSA studies “mark a significant milestone in the treatment of OSA, offering a promising new therapeutic option that addresses both respiratory and metabolic complications,” said lead author Atul Malhotra, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of sleep medicine at UC San Diego Health. 

The two double-blind, randomized, controlled trials in patients with obesity and moderate to severe OSA were conducted at 60 sites in nine countries. The results were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

OSA affects 1 billion people worldwide and 30 million American adults, many of whom are undiagnosed. Obesity is a common risk factor. According to the ADA, 40% of those with obesity have OSA and 70% of those with OSA have obesity. 

CPAP is an effective and the most-used intervention for OSA, but many patients refuse to use the device, stop using it, or cannot use it. Should tirzepatide eventually gain Food and Drug Administration approval for OSA, it would be the first drug approved for the condition.

“This new drug treatment offers a more accessible alternative for individuals who cannot tolerate or adhere to existing therapies,” said Dr. Malhotra.
 

Huge Reduction in Episodes, Severity

For the two studies, patients were enrolled who had moderate to severe OSA, defined as more than 15 events per hour (using the apnea-hypopnea index [AHI]) and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater. Those not using a CPAP device were enrolled in study 1, and those using a CPAP device were enrolled in study 2. 

Participants received either the maximum tolerated dose of tirzepatide (10 or 15 mg by once-weekly injection) or placebo for 1 year. In study 1, 114 individuals received tirzepatide and 120 received placebo. For study 2, 119 patients received tirzepatide and 114 received placebo. All participants received regular lifestyle counseling sessions about nutrition and were instructed to reduce food intake by 500 kcal/day and to engage in at least 150 min/week of physical activity.

Enrollment was limited to 70% men to ensure adequate representation of women.

At baseline, 65%-70% of participants had severe OSA, with more than 30 events/hour on the AHI scale and a mean of 51.5 events/hour.

By 1 year, patients taking tirzepatide had 27-30 fewer events/hour, compared with 4-6 fewer events/hour for those taking placebo.

Up to half of those who received tirzepatide in both trials had less than 5 events/hour or 5-14 AHI events/hour and an Epworth Sleepiness Scale score of 10 or less. Those thresholds “represent a level at which CPAP therapy may not be recommended,” wrote the authors.

Patients in the tirzepatide group also had a decrease in systolic blood pressure from baseline of 9.7 mm Hg in study 1 and 7.6 mm Hg in study 2 at week 48.

The most common adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, which occurred in approximately a quarter of patients taking tirzepatide. There were two adjudicated-confirmed cases of acute pancreatitis in those taking tirzepatide in study 2. 

Patients who received tirzepatide also reported fewer daytime and nighttime disturbances, as measured using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Form scale for Sleep-Related Impairment and Sleep Disturbance.
 

Tirzepatide Plus CPAP Are Best

Writing in an accompanying editorial, Sanjay R. Patel, MD, noted that, although clinical guidelines have recommended that weight loss strategies be incorporated as part of OSA treatment, “the integration of obesity management into the approaches to care for obstructive sleep apnea has lagged.”

As many as half of patients abandon CPAP therapy within 3 years, wrote Dr. Patel, who is professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and medical director of the UPMC Comprehensive Sleep Disorders program. “An effective medication to treat obesity is thus an obvious avenue to pursue.”

Dr. Patel noted the large reductions in the number of events on the AHI scale. He wrote that the improvement in systolic blood pressure “was substantially larger than effects seen with CPAP therapy alone and indicate that tirzepatide may be an attractive option for those patients who seek to reduce their cardiovascular risk.”

Dr. Patel raised concerns about whether patients outside of a trial would stick with therapy, noting studies have shown high rates of discontinuation of GLP-1 receptor agonists.

And, he wrote, “racial disparities in the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists among patients with diabetes arouse concern that the addition of tirzepatide as a treatment option for obstructive sleep apnea without directly addressing policies relative to coverage of care will only further exacerbate already pervasive disparities in clinical care for obstructive sleep apnea.”

Commenting on the study during the presentation of the results, Louis Aronne, MD, said he believes the trials demonstrate “the treatment of obesity with tirzepatide plus CPAP is really the optimal treatment for obstructive sleep apnea and obesity-related cardiometabolic risks.” Dr. Aronne is the Sanford I. Weill professor of metabolic research at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City.

Dr. Aronne added there is still much to learn. It is still not clear whether tirzepatide had an independent effect in the OSA trial — as has been seen in other studies where the drug clearly reduced cardiovascular risk — or whether the positive results were primarily caused by weight loss.

“I believe that over time we’ll see that this particular effect in sleep apnea is related to weight,” he said. 

The study was supported by Eli Lilly. Dr. Malhotra has reported being a paid consultant for Lilly and ZOLL Medical and a cofounder of Healcisio. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

ORLANDO, FLA. — The diabetes and weight loss drug tirzepatide (Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes; Zepbound for obesity) was so effective at reducing sleep disruptions in patients with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) that 40%-50% no longer needed to use a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device, according to two new studies.

Tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, also lowered C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure. And patients taking the medication lost 18%-20% of their body weight. 

The SURMOUNT-OSA studies “mark a significant milestone in the treatment of OSA, offering a promising new therapeutic option that addresses both respiratory and metabolic complications,” said lead author Atul Malhotra, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of sleep medicine at UC San Diego Health. 

The two double-blind, randomized, controlled trials in patients with obesity and moderate to severe OSA were conducted at 60 sites in nine countries. The results were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

OSA affects 1 billion people worldwide and 30 million American adults, many of whom are undiagnosed. Obesity is a common risk factor. According to the ADA, 40% of those with obesity have OSA and 70% of those with OSA have obesity. 

CPAP is an effective and the most-used intervention for OSA, but many patients refuse to use the device, stop using it, or cannot use it. Should tirzepatide eventually gain Food and Drug Administration approval for OSA, it would be the first drug approved for the condition.

“This new drug treatment offers a more accessible alternative for individuals who cannot tolerate or adhere to existing therapies,” said Dr. Malhotra.
 

Huge Reduction in Episodes, Severity

For the two studies, patients were enrolled who had moderate to severe OSA, defined as more than 15 events per hour (using the apnea-hypopnea index [AHI]) and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater. Those not using a CPAP device were enrolled in study 1, and those using a CPAP device were enrolled in study 2. 

Participants received either the maximum tolerated dose of tirzepatide (10 or 15 mg by once-weekly injection) or placebo for 1 year. In study 1, 114 individuals received tirzepatide and 120 received placebo. For study 2, 119 patients received tirzepatide and 114 received placebo. All participants received regular lifestyle counseling sessions about nutrition and were instructed to reduce food intake by 500 kcal/day and to engage in at least 150 min/week of physical activity.

Enrollment was limited to 70% men to ensure adequate representation of women.

At baseline, 65%-70% of participants had severe OSA, with more than 30 events/hour on the AHI scale and a mean of 51.5 events/hour.

By 1 year, patients taking tirzepatide had 27-30 fewer events/hour, compared with 4-6 fewer events/hour for those taking placebo.

Up to half of those who received tirzepatide in both trials had less than 5 events/hour or 5-14 AHI events/hour and an Epworth Sleepiness Scale score of 10 or less. Those thresholds “represent a level at which CPAP therapy may not be recommended,” wrote the authors.

Patients in the tirzepatide group also had a decrease in systolic blood pressure from baseline of 9.7 mm Hg in study 1 and 7.6 mm Hg in study 2 at week 48.

The most common adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, which occurred in approximately a quarter of patients taking tirzepatide. There were two adjudicated-confirmed cases of acute pancreatitis in those taking tirzepatide in study 2. 

Patients who received tirzepatide also reported fewer daytime and nighttime disturbances, as measured using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Form scale for Sleep-Related Impairment and Sleep Disturbance.
 

Tirzepatide Plus CPAP Are Best

Writing in an accompanying editorial, Sanjay R. Patel, MD, noted that, although clinical guidelines have recommended that weight loss strategies be incorporated as part of OSA treatment, “the integration of obesity management into the approaches to care for obstructive sleep apnea has lagged.”

As many as half of patients abandon CPAP therapy within 3 years, wrote Dr. Patel, who is professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and medical director of the UPMC Comprehensive Sleep Disorders program. “An effective medication to treat obesity is thus an obvious avenue to pursue.”

Dr. Patel noted the large reductions in the number of events on the AHI scale. He wrote that the improvement in systolic blood pressure “was substantially larger than effects seen with CPAP therapy alone and indicate that tirzepatide may be an attractive option for those patients who seek to reduce their cardiovascular risk.”

Dr. Patel raised concerns about whether patients outside of a trial would stick with therapy, noting studies have shown high rates of discontinuation of GLP-1 receptor agonists.

And, he wrote, “racial disparities in the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists among patients with diabetes arouse concern that the addition of tirzepatide as a treatment option for obstructive sleep apnea without directly addressing policies relative to coverage of care will only further exacerbate already pervasive disparities in clinical care for obstructive sleep apnea.”

Commenting on the study during the presentation of the results, Louis Aronne, MD, said he believes the trials demonstrate “the treatment of obesity with tirzepatide plus CPAP is really the optimal treatment for obstructive sleep apnea and obesity-related cardiometabolic risks.” Dr. Aronne is the Sanford I. Weill professor of metabolic research at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City.

Dr. Aronne added there is still much to learn. It is still not clear whether tirzepatide had an independent effect in the OSA trial — as has been seen in other studies where the drug clearly reduced cardiovascular risk — or whether the positive results were primarily caused by weight loss.

“I believe that over time we’ll see that this particular effect in sleep apnea is related to weight,” he said. 

The study was supported by Eli Lilly. Dr. Malhotra has reported being a paid consultant for Lilly and ZOLL Medical and a cofounder of Healcisio. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

While Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are marketed as providing more generous benefits than traditional Medicare (TM), differences in the financial burden between beneficiaries switching to MA and staying with TM, are minimal, a longitudinal cohort analysis found.

In fact, according to a study by Sungchul Park, PhD, a health economist at Korea University in Seoul, and colleagues, the estimated annual out-of-pocket spending when switching to MA was $168 higher than staying in TM. That amounted to a 10.5% relative increase based on baseline out-of-pocket spending of $1597 annually among switchers, ranging widely, however, from a $133 decrease to a $469 increase. And for some, MA enrollment was associated with a higher likelihood of catastrophic financial burden.

“Our findings contrast with the notion that MA’s apparently more generous health insurance benefits lead to financial savings for enrollees,” Dr. Park and associates wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

The study

The analysis looked at costs for 7054 TM stayers and 1544 TM-to-MA switchers from the 2014-2020 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, focusing on a cohort in which 18% of TM-covered individuals in year 1 switched to MA in year 2.

Comparative financial outcome measures included individual healthcare costs (out-of-pocket spending/cost sharing), financial burden (high/catastrophic), and subjective financial hardship (difficulty paying medical bills).

Although the overall out-of-pocket differences for MA were minimal and amounted to less than 1% of total healthcare expenses, MA was associated with a greater financial burden in vulnerable, especially in low-income populations. For every 100 beneficiaries with family incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level, one to six more switchers faced a catastrophic financial burden, with their out-of-pocket costs consuming more than 40% of household income in the year after switching.

The gap between the perception of lower costs and reality may be caused by a substantially heavier cost-sharing burden for certain services in MA plans, Dr. Park and associates pointed out. While MA enrollees generally paid less in some studies than the Part A hospital deductible for TM for inpatient stays of 3 days, they were more likely to face higher cost sharing for stays exceeding 7 days

Furthermore, whereas TM covers home health services without cost sharing, some MA plans have copayments. In addition, out-of-network health services can cost more. MA enrollees paid an average of $9 more for mental health services than for other in-network services and often encountered limited access to in-network providers. According to a 2021 study, only 18.2% of mental health professionals, 34.4% of cardiologists, 50.0% of psychiatrists, and 57.9% of primary care providers were included in MA networks,

An accompanying editorial noted that private MA plans will reap $83 billion in overpayments from U.S. taxpayers this year, according to Congress’s Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

And as the data from Dr. Park and colleagues reveal, switchers don’t get much financial protection, according to primary care physician and healthcare researcher Steffi J. Woolhandler, MD, MPH, and internist David U. Himmelstein, MD, both of City University of New York at Hunter College in New York City.

“Medicare Advantage looks good when you’re healthy and don’t need much care. But when you need coverage, it often fails, leaving you with big bills and narrow choices for care,” Dr. Woolhandler said in an interview.

So how do these findings square with insurers’ hard-sell claims and enrollees’ perceptions that MA cuts out-of-pocket costs? “The likeliest explanation is that MA insurers have structured their benefits to advantage low-cost (that is, profitable) enrollees and disadvantage those requiring expensive care,” the editorial commentators wrote. For beneficiaries on inexpensive medications, MA plans would be a financial win. “But for patients requiring expensive chemotherapies, the 20% coinsurance that most MA plans charge could be financially ruinous.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, David A. Lipschutz, JD, LLB, associate director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Washington, DC, called the study an important one that provides more evidence that significant overpayments to MA plans don’t translate to better financial protections for plan enrollees, particularly lower-income individuals. “While there has been some recent movement to hold plans more accountable for providing necessary care, much more impactful action by policymakers is required to mitigate the harms of the growing privatization of the Medicare program,” he said. “MA overpayments could be redistributed to traditional Medicare in order to enrich all Medicare beneficiaries instead of just insurance companies.”

This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea. Dr. Park disclosed no competing interests. One study coauthor reported support from government and not-for-profit research-funding bodies. Editorialists Dr. Woolhandler and Dr. Himmelstein had no competing interests to declare. Dr. Lipschutz disclosed Medicare advocacy work.

While Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are marketed as providing more generous benefits than traditional Medicare (TM), differences in the financial burden between beneficiaries switching to MA and staying with TM, are minimal, a longitudinal cohort analysis found.

In fact, according to a study by Sungchul Park, PhD, a health economist at Korea University in Seoul, and colleagues, the estimated annual out-of-pocket spending when switching to MA was $168 higher than staying in TM. That amounted to a 10.5% relative increase based on baseline out-of-pocket spending of $1597 annually among switchers, ranging widely, however, from a $133 decrease to a $469 increase. And for some, MA enrollment was associated with a higher likelihood of catastrophic financial burden.

“Our findings contrast with the notion that MA’s apparently more generous health insurance benefits lead to financial savings for enrollees,” Dr. Park and associates wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

The study

The analysis looked at costs for 7054 TM stayers and 1544 TM-to-MA switchers from the 2014-2020 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, focusing on a cohort in which 18% of TM-covered individuals in year 1 switched to MA in year 2.

Comparative financial outcome measures included individual healthcare costs (out-of-pocket spending/cost sharing), financial burden (high/catastrophic), and subjective financial hardship (difficulty paying medical bills).

Although the overall out-of-pocket differences for MA were minimal and amounted to less than 1% of total healthcare expenses, MA was associated with a greater financial burden in vulnerable, especially in low-income populations. For every 100 beneficiaries with family incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level, one to six more switchers faced a catastrophic financial burden, with their out-of-pocket costs consuming more than 40% of household income in the year after switching.

The gap between the perception of lower costs and reality may be caused by a substantially heavier cost-sharing burden for certain services in MA plans, Dr. Park and associates pointed out. While MA enrollees generally paid less in some studies than the Part A hospital deductible for TM for inpatient stays of 3 days, they were more likely to face higher cost sharing for stays exceeding 7 days

Furthermore, whereas TM covers home health services without cost sharing, some MA plans have copayments. In addition, out-of-network health services can cost more. MA enrollees paid an average of $9 more for mental health services than for other in-network services and often encountered limited access to in-network providers. According to a 2021 study, only 18.2% of mental health professionals, 34.4% of cardiologists, 50.0% of psychiatrists, and 57.9% of primary care providers were included in MA networks,

An accompanying editorial noted that private MA plans will reap $83 billion in overpayments from U.S. taxpayers this year, according to Congress’s Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

And as the data from Dr. Park and colleagues reveal, switchers don’t get much financial protection, according to primary care physician and healthcare researcher Steffi J. Woolhandler, MD, MPH, and internist David U. Himmelstein, MD, both of City University of New York at Hunter College in New York City.

“Medicare Advantage looks good when you’re healthy and don’t need much care. But when you need coverage, it often fails, leaving you with big bills and narrow choices for care,” Dr. Woolhandler said in an interview.

So how do these findings square with insurers’ hard-sell claims and enrollees’ perceptions that MA cuts out-of-pocket costs? “The likeliest explanation is that MA insurers have structured their benefits to advantage low-cost (that is, profitable) enrollees and disadvantage those requiring expensive care,” the editorial commentators wrote. For beneficiaries on inexpensive medications, MA plans would be a financial win. “But for patients requiring expensive chemotherapies, the 20% coinsurance that most MA plans charge could be financially ruinous.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, David A. Lipschutz, JD, LLB, associate director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Washington, DC, called the study an important one that provides more evidence that significant overpayments to MA plans don’t translate to better financial protections for plan enrollees, particularly lower-income individuals. “While there has been some recent movement to hold plans more accountable for providing necessary care, much more impactful action by policymakers is required to mitigate the harms of the growing privatization of the Medicare program,” he said. “MA overpayments could be redistributed to traditional Medicare in order to enrich all Medicare beneficiaries instead of just insurance companies.”

This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea. Dr. Park disclosed no competing interests. One study coauthor reported support from government and not-for-profit research-funding bodies. Editorialists Dr. Woolhandler and Dr. Himmelstein had no competing interests to declare. Dr. Lipschutz disclosed Medicare advocacy work.

While Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are marketed as providing more generous benefits than traditional Medicare (TM), differences in the financial burden between beneficiaries switching to MA and staying with TM, are minimal, a longitudinal cohort analysis found.

In fact, according to a study by Sungchul Park, PhD, a health economist at Korea University in Seoul, and colleagues, the estimated annual out-of-pocket spending when switching to MA was $168 higher than staying in TM. That amounted to a 10.5% relative increase based on baseline out-of-pocket spending of $1597 annually among switchers, ranging widely, however, from a $133 decrease to a $469 increase. And for some, MA enrollment was associated with a higher likelihood of catastrophic financial burden.

“Our findings contrast with the notion that MA’s apparently more generous health insurance benefits lead to financial savings for enrollees,” Dr. Park and associates wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

The study

The analysis looked at costs for 7054 TM stayers and 1544 TM-to-MA switchers from the 2014-2020 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, focusing on a cohort in which 18% of TM-covered individuals in year 1 switched to MA in year 2.

Comparative financial outcome measures included individual healthcare costs (out-of-pocket spending/cost sharing), financial burden (high/catastrophic), and subjective financial hardship (difficulty paying medical bills).

Although the overall out-of-pocket differences for MA were minimal and amounted to less than 1% of total healthcare expenses, MA was associated with a greater financial burden in vulnerable, especially in low-income populations. For every 100 beneficiaries with family incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level, one to six more switchers faced a catastrophic financial burden, with their out-of-pocket costs consuming more than 40% of household income in the year after switching.

The gap between the perception of lower costs and reality may be caused by a substantially heavier cost-sharing burden for certain services in MA plans, Dr. Park and associates pointed out. While MA enrollees generally paid less in some studies than the Part A hospital deductible for TM for inpatient stays of 3 days, they were more likely to face higher cost sharing for stays exceeding 7 days

Furthermore, whereas TM covers home health services without cost sharing, some MA plans have copayments. In addition, out-of-network health services can cost more. MA enrollees paid an average of $9 more for mental health services than for other in-network services and often encountered limited access to in-network providers. According to a 2021 study, only 18.2% of mental health professionals, 34.4% of cardiologists, 50.0% of psychiatrists, and 57.9% of primary care providers were included in MA networks,

An accompanying editorial noted that private MA plans will reap $83 billion in overpayments from U.S. taxpayers this year, according to Congress’s Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

And as the data from Dr. Park and colleagues reveal, switchers don’t get much financial protection, according to primary care physician and healthcare researcher Steffi J. Woolhandler, MD, MPH, and internist David U. Himmelstein, MD, both of City University of New York at Hunter College in New York City.

“Medicare Advantage looks good when you’re healthy and don’t need much care. But when you need coverage, it often fails, leaving you with big bills and narrow choices for care,” Dr. Woolhandler said in an interview.

So how do these findings square with insurers’ hard-sell claims and enrollees’ perceptions that MA cuts out-of-pocket costs? “The likeliest explanation is that MA insurers have structured their benefits to advantage low-cost (that is, profitable) enrollees and disadvantage those requiring expensive care,” the editorial commentators wrote. For beneficiaries on inexpensive medications, MA plans would be a financial win. “But for patients requiring expensive chemotherapies, the 20% coinsurance that most MA plans charge could be financially ruinous.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, David A. Lipschutz, JD, LLB, associate director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Washington, DC, called the study an important one that provides more evidence that significant overpayments to MA plans don’t translate to better financial protections for plan enrollees, particularly lower-income individuals. “While there has been some recent movement to hold plans more accountable for providing necessary care, much more impactful action by policymakers is required to mitigate the harms of the growing privatization of the Medicare program,” he said. “MA overpayments could be redistributed to traditional Medicare in order to enrich all Medicare beneficiaries instead of just insurance companies.”

This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea. Dr. Park disclosed no competing interests. One study coauthor reported support from government and not-for-profit research-funding bodies. Editorialists Dr. Woolhandler and Dr. Himmelstein had no competing interests to declare. Dr. Lipschutz disclosed Medicare advocacy work.