Clinical Endocrinology News

NEW ORLEANS — Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis may not be receiving all the recommended tests to rule out secondary causes of bone loss prior to treatment initiation, new research found.

In a single-center chart review of 150 postmenopausal women who had been diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis, most had received a complete blood cell count, basic metabolic panel, thyroid screening, and vitamin D testing. However, one in four had not been tested for a parathyroid hormone (PTH) level, and in nearly two thirds, a 24-hour urine calcium collection had not been ordered.

Overall, less than a third had received the complete workup for secondary osteoporosis causes as recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the Endocrine Society.

“An appropriate evaluation for secondary causes of osteoporosis is essential because it impacts different treatment options and modalities. We discovered low rates of complete testing for secondary causes of osteoporosis in our patient population prior to treatment initiation,” said Kajol Manglani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, and colleagues, in a poster at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) annual meeting held on May 9-12, 2024.

First author Sheetal Bulchandani, MD, said in an interview, “It depends a lot on clinical judgment, but there are certain things that everybody with osteoporosis should be evaluated for. We looked for the things that all the guidelines recommend.”

Studies have suggested that up to 30% of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis have secondary causes, noted Dr. Bulchandani, who conducted the study as a postdoctoral fellow with colleagues at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital and is now in private endocrine practice in Petersburg, Virginia.

“It’s important not to assume that every woman who walks in with osteoporosis has postmenopausal osteoporosis. I think it would be appropriate to at least discuss with the patients what would warrant certain kinds of clinical workup. … If you don’t figure out if there is an underlying cause, you may end up using an unnecessary medication,” Dr. Bulchandani said.
 

Are You Missing Something Treatable?

For example, she said, if the patient has underlying hyperparathyroidism and is treated with osteoporosis medications, “you might not see the desired or expected outcome in their bone density.”

Asked to comment, Rachel Pessah-Pollack, MD, clinical associate professor at the Holman Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at New York University School of Medicine, New York City, told this news organization, “Certainly, if you have patients who have osteoporosis, it’s important to take a good history and consider secondary causes of bone loss because you may find a treatable etiology that actually can improve their bone density without even starting on a medication.”

Dr. Pessah-Pollack, who was an author of the 2020 AACE/American College of Endocrinology 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoporosis, said a 24-hour urine calcium collection, not a spot calcium check, is “super important because you’re looking to see if there’s any evidence of hypercalciuria or malabsorption that may be associated with higher rates of bone loss. … These may be a little more cumbersome and harder to get patients to do and more logistics to arrange. But clearly, if you pick up hypercalciuria, that is a potentially treatable etiology and can improve bone density as well.”

Another example, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said, is “if they have a low serum calcium level and high PTH, that would be a real reason to look for celiac disease. By not getting that PTH level, you may be missing that potential diagnosis. There is a wide range of additional causes of osteoporosis ranging from common conditions such as hyperthyroidism to rare conditions such as Cushing disease.”
 

Differences in Ordering Found Across Specialties

The 150 postmenopausal women were all receiving treatment with either alendronate, denosumab, or zoledronic acid. Their average age was 64.7 years, and 63% were seeing an endocrinologist.

Complete workups as per AACE and Endocrine Society guidelines had been performed in just 28% of those who saw an endocrinologist and 12.5% of patients seen by a rheumatologist, in contrast to 84% of those who saw the head of the hospital’s fracture prevention program.

Overall, across all specialties, just 28.67% had the complete recommended workup for secondary osteoporosis causes.

The most missed test was a 24-hour urine calcium collection, ordered for just 38% of the patients, while PTH was ordered for 73% and phosphorus for 80%. The rest were more commonly ordered: Thyroid-stimulating hormone level for 92.7%, complete blood cell count for 91.3%, basic metabolic panel for 100%, and vitamin D level for 96%.

The high rate of vitamin D testing is noteworthy, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said. “The fact that 96% of women are having vitamin D levels checked as part of an osteoporosis evaluation means that everybody’s aware about vitamin D deficiency, and people want to know what their vitamin D levels are. … That’s good because we want to identify vitamin D deficiency in our osteoporosis patients.”

But the low rate of complete secondary screening even by endocrinologists is concerning. “I look at this study as an opportunity for education that we can reinforce the importance of a secondary evaluation for our osteoporosis patients and really tailor which additional tests should be ordered for the individual patient,” Dr. Pessah-Pollack said.

In the poster, Dr. Bulchandani and colleagues wrote, “Further intervention will be aimed to ensure physicians undertake adequate evaluation before considering further treatment directions.” Possibilities that have been discussed include electronic health record alerts and educational materials for primary care providers, she told this news organization.

Dr. Manglani and Dr. Bulchandani had no disclosures. Dr. Pessah-Pollack is an advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS — Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis may not be receiving all the recommended tests to rule out secondary causes of bone loss prior to treatment initiation, new research found.

In a single-center chart review of 150 postmenopausal women who had been diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis, most had received a complete blood cell count, basic metabolic panel, thyroid screening, and vitamin D testing. However, one in four had not been tested for a parathyroid hormone (PTH) level, and in nearly two thirds, a 24-hour urine calcium collection had not been ordered.

Overall, less than a third had received the complete workup for secondary osteoporosis causes as recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the Endocrine Society.

“An appropriate evaluation for secondary causes of osteoporosis is essential because it impacts different treatment options and modalities. We discovered low rates of complete testing for secondary causes of osteoporosis in our patient population prior to treatment initiation,” said Kajol Manglani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, and colleagues, in a poster at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) annual meeting held on May 9-12, 2024.

First author Sheetal Bulchandani, MD, said in an interview, “It depends a lot on clinical judgment, but there are certain things that everybody with osteoporosis should be evaluated for. We looked for the things that all the guidelines recommend.”

Studies have suggested that up to 30% of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis have secondary causes, noted Dr. Bulchandani, who conducted the study as a postdoctoral fellow with colleagues at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital and is now in private endocrine practice in Petersburg, Virginia.

“It’s important not to assume that every woman who walks in with osteoporosis has postmenopausal osteoporosis. I think it would be appropriate to at least discuss with the patients what would warrant certain kinds of clinical workup. … If you don’t figure out if there is an underlying cause, you may end up using an unnecessary medication,” Dr. Bulchandani said.
 

Are You Missing Something Treatable?

For example, she said, if the patient has underlying hyperparathyroidism and is treated with osteoporosis medications, “you might not see the desired or expected outcome in their bone density.”

Asked to comment, Rachel Pessah-Pollack, MD, clinical associate professor at the Holman Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at New York University School of Medicine, New York City, told this news organization, “Certainly, if you have patients who have osteoporosis, it’s important to take a good history and consider secondary causes of bone loss because you may find a treatable etiology that actually can improve their bone density without even starting on a medication.”

Dr. Pessah-Pollack, who was an author of the 2020 AACE/American College of Endocrinology 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoporosis, said a 24-hour urine calcium collection, not a spot calcium check, is “super important because you’re looking to see if there’s any evidence of hypercalciuria or malabsorption that may be associated with higher rates of bone loss. … These may be a little more cumbersome and harder to get patients to do and more logistics to arrange. But clearly, if you pick up hypercalciuria, that is a potentially treatable etiology and can improve bone density as well.”

Another example, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said, is “if they have a low serum calcium level and high PTH, that would be a real reason to look for celiac disease. By not getting that PTH level, you may be missing that potential diagnosis. There is a wide range of additional causes of osteoporosis ranging from common conditions such as hyperthyroidism to rare conditions such as Cushing disease.”
 

Differences in Ordering Found Across Specialties

The 150 postmenopausal women were all receiving treatment with either alendronate, denosumab, or zoledronic acid. Their average age was 64.7 years, and 63% were seeing an endocrinologist.

Complete workups as per AACE and Endocrine Society guidelines had been performed in just 28% of those who saw an endocrinologist and 12.5% of patients seen by a rheumatologist, in contrast to 84% of those who saw the head of the hospital’s fracture prevention program.

Overall, across all specialties, just 28.67% had the complete recommended workup for secondary osteoporosis causes.

The most missed test was a 24-hour urine calcium collection, ordered for just 38% of the patients, while PTH was ordered for 73% and phosphorus for 80%. The rest were more commonly ordered: Thyroid-stimulating hormone level for 92.7%, complete blood cell count for 91.3%, basic metabolic panel for 100%, and vitamin D level for 96%.

The high rate of vitamin D testing is noteworthy, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said. “The fact that 96% of women are having vitamin D levels checked as part of an osteoporosis evaluation means that everybody’s aware about vitamin D deficiency, and people want to know what their vitamin D levels are. … That’s good because we want to identify vitamin D deficiency in our osteoporosis patients.”

But the low rate of complete secondary screening even by endocrinologists is concerning. “I look at this study as an opportunity for education that we can reinforce the importance of a secondary evaluation for our osteoporosis patients and really tailor which additional tests should be ordered for the individual patient,” Dr. Pessah-Pollack said.

In the poster, Dr. Bulchandani and colleagues wrote, “Further intervention will be aimed to ensure physicians undertake adequate evaluation before considering further treatment directions.” Possibilities that have been discussed include electronic health record alerts and educational materials for primary care providers, she told this news organization.

Dr. Manglani and Dr. Bulchandani had no disclosures. Dr. Pessah-Pollack is an advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS — Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis may not be receiving all the recommended tests to rule out secondary causes of bone loss prior to treatment initiation, new research found.

In a single-center chart review of 150 postmenopausal women who had been diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis, most had received a complete blood cell count, basic metabolic panel, thyroid screening, and vitamin D testing. However, one in four had not been tested for a parathyroid hormone (PTH) level, and in nearly two thirds, a 24-hour urine calcium collection had not been ordered.

Overall, less than a third had received the complete workup for secondary osteoporosis causes as recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the Endocrine Society.

“An appropriate evaluation for secondary causes of osteoporosis is essential because it impacts different treatment options and modalities. We discovered low rates of complete testing for secondary causes of osteoporosis in our patient population prior to treatment initiation,” said Kajol Manglani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, and colleagues, in a poster at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) annual meeting held on May 9-12, 2024.

First author Sheetal Bulchandani, MD, said in an interview, “It depends a lot on clinical judgment, but there are certain things that everybody with osteoporosis should be evaluated for. We looked for the things that all the guidelines recommend.”

Studies have suggested that up to 30% of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis have secondary causes, noted Dr. Bulchandani, who conducted the study as a postdoctoral fellow with colleagues at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital and is now in private endocrine practice in Petersburg, Virginia.

“It’s important not to assume that every woman who walks in with osteoporosis has postmenopausal osteoporosis. I think it would be appropriate to at least discuss with the patients what would warrant certain kinds of clinical workup. … If you don’t figure out if there is an underlying cause, you may end up using an unnecessary medication,” Dr. Bulchandani said.
 

Are You Missing Something Treatable?

For example, she said, if the patient has underlying hyperparathyroidism and is treated with osteoporosis medications, “you might not see the desired or expected outcome in their bone density.”

Asked to comment, Rachel Pessah-Pollack, MD, clinical associate professor at the Holman Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at New York University School of Medicine, New York City, told this news organization, “Certainly, if you have patients who have osteoporosis, it’s important to take a good history and consider secondary causes of bone loss because you may find a treatable etiology that actually can improve their bone density without even starting on a medication.”

Dr. Pessah-Pollack, who was an author of the 2020 AACE/American College of Endocrinology 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoporosis, said a 24-hour urine calcium collection, not a spot calcium check, is “super important because you’re looking to see if there’s any evidence of hypercalciuria or malabsorption that may be associated with higher rates of bone loss. … These may be a little more cumbersome and harder to get patients to do and more logistics to arrange. But clearly, if you pick up hypercalciuria, that is a potentially treatable etiology and can improve bone density as well.”

Another example, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said, is “if they have a low serum calcium level and high PTH, that would be a real reason to look for celiac disease. By not getting that PTH level, you may be missing that potential diagnosis. There is a wide range of additional causes of osteoporosis ranging from common conditions such as hyperthyroidism to rare conditions such as Cushing disease.”
 

Differences in Ordering Found Across Specialties

The 150 postmenopausal women were all receiving treatment with either alendronate, denosumab, or zoledronic acid. Their average age was 64.7 years, and 63% were seeing an endocrinologist.

Complete workups as per AACE and Endocrine Society guidelines had been performed in just 28% of those who saw an endocrinologist and 12.5% of patients seen by a rheumatologist, in contrast to 84% of those who saw the head of the hospital’s fracture prevention program.

Overall, across all specialties, just 28.67% had the complete recommended workup for secondary osteoporosis causes.

The most missed test was a 24-hour urine calcium collection, ordered for just 38% of the patients, while PTH was ordered for 73% and phosphorus for 80%. The rest were more commonly ordered: Thyroid-stimulating hormone level for 92.7%, complete blood cell count for 91.3%, basic metabolic panel for 100%, and vitamin D level for 96%.

The high rate of vitamin D testing is noteworthy, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said. “The fact that 96% of women are having vitamin D levels checked as part of an osteoporosis evaluation means that everybody’s aware about vitamin D deficiency, and people want to know what their vitamin D levels are. … That’s good because we want to identify vitamin D deficiency in our osteoporosis patients.”

But the low rate of complete secondary screening even by endocrinologists is concerning. “I look at this study as an opportunity for education that we can reinforce the importance of a secondary evaluation for our osteoporosis patients and really tailor which additional tests should be ordered for the individual patient,” Dr. Pessah-Pollack said.

In the poster, Dr. Bulchandani and colleagues wrote, “Further intervention will be aimed to ensure physicians undertake adequate evaluation before considering further treatment directions.” Possibilities that have been discussed include electronic health record alerts and educational materials for primary care providers, she told this news organization.

Dr. Manglani and Dr. Bulchandani had no disclosures. Dr. Pessah-Pollack is an advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A commercially available test for 40 genetic variants that identifies people with the “hungry gut” obesity phenotype can predict who will respond most to semaglutide for weight management, new evidence reveals.

METHODOLOGY:

• A machine learning genetic risk score can identify people with the hungry gut obesity phenotype, which has been found to be associated with greater weight loss with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) liraglutide and exenatide. 
• For this study, researchers calculated the genetic risk score for 84 adults undergoing weight loss interventions at Mayo Clinic who were prescribed the GLP-1 RA semaglutide.
• Study participants were classified as the obesity phenotype hungry gut positive (n = 51) or hungry gut negative (n = 33).
• The researchers measured total body weight loss at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and assessed the ability of the score to predict the response to semaglutide (defined as ≥ 5% of total body weight loss measured at 12 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• At 3 and 6 months, there were no significant differences in weight loss between the hungry gut positive and hungry gut negative groups.
• By 9 months, participants in the positive group lost 14.4% of their total body weight compared with 10.3% in case of participants in the negative group (P = .045).
• After a total of 12 months, the positive group lost 19.5% of their total body weight compared with 10.0% in case of participants in the negative group (P = .01).
• When used to predict the response to semaglutide, the area under the curve for the machine-learning genetic risk score was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.57-0.94; P = .04).

IN PRACTICE:

We can now tell with confidence who is going to respond to semaglutide, said Andres Acosta, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic. “For nonresponders, we can think about other interventions or medications that we have available.”

SOURCE:

This study was presented on May 20, 2024, at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) (Abstract 638).

LIMITATIONS:

Further prospective studies are needed to assess the validity of the test in a more diverse population and with different weight loss interventions.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a partnership between Mayo Clinic and Phenomix Sciences. Dr. Acosta is a cofounder of Phenomix Sciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A commercially available test for 40 genetic variants that identifies people with the “hungry gut” obesity phenotype can predict who will respond most to semaglutide for weight management, new evidence reveals.

METHODOLOGY:

• A machine learning genetic risk score can identify people with the hungry gut obesity phenotype, which has been found to be associated with greater weight loss with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) liraglutide and exenatide. 
• For this study, researchers calculated the genetic risk score for 84 adults undergoing weight loss interventions at Mayo Clinic who were prescribed the GLP-1 RA semaglutide.
• Study participants were classified as the obesity phenotype hungry gut positive (n = 51) or hungry gut negative (n = 33).
• The researchers measured total body weight loss at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and assessed the ability of the score to predict the response to semaglutide (defined as ≥ 5% of total body weight loss measured at 12 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• At 3 and 6 months, there were no significant differences in weight loss between the hungry gut positive and hungry gut negative groups.
• By 9 months, participants in the positive group lost 14.4% of their total body weight compared with 10.3% in case of participants in the negative group (P = .045).
• After a total of 12 months, the positive group lost 19.5% of their total body weight compared with 10.0% in case of participants in the negative group (P = .01).
• When used to predict the response to semaglutide, the area under the curve for the machine-learning genetic risk score was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.57-0.94; P = .04).

IN PRACTICE:

We can now tell with confidence who is going to respond to semaglutide, said Andres Acosta, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic. “For nonresponders, we can think about other interventions or medications that we have available.”

SOURCE:

This study was presented on May 20, 2024, at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) (Abstract 638).

LIMITATIONS:

Further prospective studies are needed to assess the validity of the test in a more diverse population and with different weight loss interventions.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a partnership between Mayo Clinic and Phenomix Sciences. Dr. Acosta is a cofounder of Phenomix Sciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A commercially available test for 40 genetic variants that identifies people with the “hungry gut” obesity phenotype can predict who will respond most to semaglutide for weight management, new evidence reveals.

METHODOLOGY:

• A machine learning genetic risk score can identify people with the hungry gut obesity phenotype, which has been found to be associated with greater weight loss with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) liraglutide and exenatide. 
• For this study, researchers calculated the genetic risk score for 84 adults undergoing weight loss interventions at Mayo Clinic who were prescribed the GLP-1 RA semaglutide.
• Study participants were classified as the obesity phenotype hungry gut positive (n = 51) or hungry gut negative (n = 33).
• The researchers measured total body weight loss at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and assessed the ability of the score to predict the response to semaglutide (defined as ≥ 5% of total body weight loss measured at 12 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• At 3 and 6 months, there were no significant differences in weight loss between the hungry gut positive and hungry gut negative groups.
• By 9 months, participants in the positive group lost 14.4% of their total body weight compared with 10.3% in case of participants in the negative group (P = .045).
• After a total of 12 months, the positive group lost 19.5% of their total body weight compared with 10.0% in case of participants in the negative group (P = .01).
• When used to predict the response to semaglutide, the area under the curve for the machine-learning genetic risk score was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.57-0.94; P = .04).

IN PRACTICE:

We can now tell with confidence who is going to respond to semaglutide, said Andres Acosta, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic. “For nonresponders, we can think about other interventions or medications that we have available.”

SOURCE:

This study was presented on May 20, 2024, at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) (Abstract 638).

LIMITATIONS:

Further prospective studies are needed to assess the validity of the test in a more diverse population and with different weight loss interventions.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a partnership between Mayo Clinic and Phenomix Sciences. Dr. Acosta is a cofounder of Phenomix Sciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The next frontier in cancer detection could be the humble urine test.

Emerging science suggests that the body’s “liquid gold” could be particularly useful for liquid biopsies, offering a convenient, pain-free, and cost-effective way to spot otherwise hard-to-detect cancers.

“The search for cancer biomarkers that can be detected in urine could provide an enormous step forward to decrease cancer patient mortality,” said Kenneth R. Shroyer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, who studies cancer biomarkers.

Physicians have long known that urine can reveal a lot about our health — that’s why urinalysis has been part of medicine for 6000 years. Urine tests can detect diabetes, pregnancy, drug use, and urinary or kidney conditions.

But other conditions leave clues in urine, too, and cancer may be one of the most promising. “Urine testing could detect biomarkers of early-stage cancers, not only from local but also distant sites,” Dr. Shroyer said. It could also help flag recurrence in cancer survivors who have undergone treatment.

Granted, cancer biomarkers in urine are not nearly as widely studied as those in the blood, Dr. Shroyer noted. But a new wave of urine tests suggests research is gaining pace.

“The recent availability of high-throughput screening technologies has enabled researchers to investigate cancer from a top-down, comprehensive approach,” said Pak Kin Wong, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, and surgery at The Pennsylvania State University. “We are starting to understand the rich information that can be obtained from urine.”

Urine is mostly water (about 95%) and urea, a metabolic byproduct that imparts that signature yellow color (about 2%). The other 3% is a mix of waste products, minerals, and other compounds the kidneys removed from the blood. Even in trace amounts, these substances say a lot.

Among them are “exfoliated cancer cells, cell-free DNA, hormones, and the urine microbiota — the collection of microbes in our urinary tract system,” Dr. Wong said.

“It is highly promising to be one of the major biological fluids used for screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring treatment efficiency in the era of precision medicine,” Dr. Wong said.

How Urine Testing Could Reveal Cancer

Still, as exciting as the prospect is, there’s a lot to consider in the hunt for cancer biomarkers in urine. These biomarkers must be able to pass through the renal nephrons (filtering units), remain stable in urine, and have high-level sensitivity, Dr. Shroyer said. They should also have high specificity for cancer vs benign conditions and be expressed at early stages, before the primary tumor has spread.

“At this stage, few circulating biomarkers have been found that are both sensitive and specific for early-stage disease,” said Dr. Shroyer.

But there are a few promising examples under investigation in humans:

Prostate cancer. Researchers at the University of Michigan have developed a urine test that detects high-grade prostate cancer more accurately than existing tests, including PHI, SelectMDx, 4Kscore, EPI, MPS, and IsoPSA.

The MyProstateScore 2.0 (MPS2) test, which looks for 18 genes associated with high-grade tumors, could reduce unnecessary biopsies in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels, according to a paper published in JAMA Oncology.

It makes sense. The prostate gland secretes fluid that becomes part of the semen, traces of which enter urine. After a digital rectal exam, even more prostate fluid enters the urine. If a patient has prostate cancer, genetic material from the cancer cells will infiltrate the urine.

In the MPS2 test, researchers used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in urine. “The technology used for COVID PCR is essentially the same as the PCR used to detect transcripts associated with high-grade prostate cancer in urine,” said study author Arul Chinnaiyan, MD, PhD, director of the Michigan Center for Translational Pathology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “In the case of the MPS2 test, we are doing PCR on 18 genes simultaneously on urine samples.”

A statistical model uses levels of that genetic material to predict the risk for high-grade disease, helping doctors decide what to do next. At 95% sensitivity, the MPS2 model could eliminate 35%-45% of unnecessary biopsies, compared with 15%-30% for the other tests, and reduce repeat biopsies by 46%-51%, compared with 9%-21% for the other tests.

Head and neck cancer. In a paper published in JCI Insight, researchers described a test that finds ultra-short fragments of DNA in urine to enable early detection of head and neck cancers caused by human papillomavirus.

“Our data show that a relatively small volume of urine (30-60 mL) gives overall detection results comparable to a tube of blood,” said study author Muneesh Tewari, MD, PhD, professor of hematology and oncology at the University of Michigan .

A larger volume of urine could potentially “make cancer detection even more sensitive than blood,” Dr. Tewari said, “allowing cancers to be detected at the earliest stages when they are more curable.”

The team used a technique called droplet digital PCR to detect DNA fragments that are “ultra-short” (less than 50 base pairs long) and usually missed by conventional PCR testing. This transrenal cell-free tumor DNA, which travels from the tumor into the bloodstream, is broken down small enough to pass through the kidneys and into the urine. But the fragments are still long enough to carry information about the tumor’s genetic signature.

This test could spot cancer before a tumor grows big enough — about a centimeter wide and carrying a billion cells — to spot on a CT scan or other imaging test. “When we are instead detecting fragments of DNA released from a tumor,” said Dr. Tewari, “our testing methods are very sensitive and can detect DNA in urine that came from just 5-10 cells in a tumor that died and released their DNA into the blood, which then made its way into the urine.”

Pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is one of the deadliest cancers, largely because it is diagnosed so late. A urine panel now in clinical trials could help doctors diagnose the cancer before it has spread so more people can have the tumor surgically removed, improving prognosis.

Using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test, a common lab method that detects antibodies and other proteins, the team measured expression levels for three genes (LYVE1, REG1B, and TFF1) in urine samples collected from people up to 5 years before they were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The researchers combined this result with patients’ urinary creatinine levels, a common component of existing urinalysis, and their age to develop a risk score.

This score performed similarly to an existing blood test, CA19-9, in predicting patients’ risk for pancreatic cancer up to 1 year before diagnosis. When combined with CA19-9, the urinary panel helped spot cancer up to 2 years before diagnosis.

According to a paper in the International Journal of Cancer, “the urine panel and affiliated PancRISK are currently being validated in a prospective clinical study (UroPanc).” If all goes well, they could be implemented in clinical practice in a few years as a “noninvasive stratification tool” to identify patients for further testing, speeding up diagnosis, and saving lives.

Limitations and Promises

Each cancer type is different, and more research is needed to map out which substances in urine predict which cancers and to develop tests for mass adoption. “There are medical and technological hurdles to the large-scale implementation of urine analysis for complex diseases such as cancer,” said Dr. Wong.

One possibility: Scientists and clinicians could collaborate and use artificial intelligence techniques to combine urine test results with other data.

“It is likely that future diagnostics may combine urine with other biological samples such as feces and saliva, among others,” said Dr. Wong. “This is especially true when novel data science and machine learning techniques can integrate comprehensive data from patients that span genetic, proteomic, metabolic, microbiomic, and even behavioral data to evaluate a patient’s condition.”

One thing that excites Dr. Tewari about urine-based cancer testing: “We think it could be especially impactful for patients living in rural areas or other areas with less access to healthcare services,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The next frontier in cancer detection could be the humble urine test.

Emerging science suggests that the body’s “liquid gold” could be particularly useful for liquid biopsies, offering a convenient, pain-free, and cost-effective way to spot otherwise hard-to-detect cancers.

“The search for cancer biomarkers that can be detected in urine could provide an enormous step forward to decrease cancer patient mortality,” said Kenneth R. Shroyer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, who studies cancer biomarkers.

Physicians have long known that urine can reveal a lot about our health — that’s why urinalysis has been part of medicine for 6000 years. Urine tests can detect diabetes, pregnancy, drug use, and urinary or kidney conditions.

But other conditions leave clues in urine, too, and cancer may be one of the most promising. “Urine testing could detect biomarkers of early-stage cancers, not only from local but also distant sites,” Dr. Shroyer said. It could also help flag recurrence in cancer survivors who have undergone treatment.

Granted, cancer biomarkers in urine are not nearly as widely studied as those in the blood, Dr. Shroyer noted. But a new wave of urine tests suggests research is gaining pace.

“The recent availability of high-throughput screening technologies has enabled researchers to investigate cancer from a top-down, comprehensive approach,” said Pak Kin Wong, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, and surgery at The Pennsylvania State University. “We are starting to understand the rich information that can be obtained from urine.”

Urine is mostly water (about 95%) and urea, a metabolic byproduct that imparts that signature yellow color (about 2%). The other 3% is a mix of waste products, minerals, and other compounds the kidneys removed from the blood. Even in trace amounts, these substances say a lot.

Among them are “exfoliated cancer cells, cell-free DNA, hormones, and the urine microbiota — the collection of microbes in our urinary tract system,” Dr. Wong said.

“It is highly promising to be one of the major biological fluids used for screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring treatment efficiency in the era of precision medicine,” Dr. Wong said.

How Urine Testing Could Reveal Cancer

Still, as exciting as the prospect is, there’s a lot to consider in the hunt for cancer biomarkers in urine. These biomarkers must be able to pass through the renal nephrons (filtering units), remain stable in urine, and have high-level sensitivity, Dr. Shroyer said. They should also have high specificity for cancer vs benign conditions and be expressed at early stages, before the primary tumor has spread.

“At this stage, few circulating biomarkers have been found that are both sensitive and specific for early-stage disease,” said Dr. Shroyer.

But there are a few promising examples under investigation in humans:

Prostate cancer. Researchers at the University of Michigan have developed a urine test that detects high-grade prostate cancer more accurately than existing tests, including PHI, SelectMDx, 4Kscore, EPI, MPS, and IsoPSA.

The MyProstateScore 2.0 (MPS2) test, which looks for 18 genes associated with high-grade tumors, could reduce unnecessary biopsies in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels, according to a paper published in JAMA Oncology.

It makes sense. The prostate gland secretes fluid that becomes part of the semen, traces of which enter urine. After a digital rectal exam, even more prostate fluid enters the urine. If a patient has prostate cancer, genetic material from the cancer cells will infiltrate the urine.

In the MPS2 test, researchers used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in urine. “The technology used for COVID PCR is essentially the same as the PCR used to detect transcripts associated with high-grade prostate cancer in urine,” said study author Arul Chinnaiyan, MD, PhD, director of the Michigan Center for Translational Pathology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “In the case of the MPS2 test, we are doing PCR on 18 genes simultaneously on urine samples.”

A statistical model uses levels of that genetic material to predict the risk for high-grade disease, helping doctors decide what to do next. At 95% sensitivity, the MPS2 model could eliminate 35%-45% of unnecessary biopsies, compared with 15%-30% for the other tests, and reduce repeat biopsies by 46%-51%, compared with 9%-21% for the other tests.

Head and neck cancer. In a paper published in JCI Insight, researchers described a test that finds ultra-short fragments of DNA in urine to enable early detection of head and neck cancers caused by human papillomavirus.

“Our data show that a relatively small volume of urine (30-60 mL) gives overall detection results comparable to a tube of blood,” said study author Muneesh Tewari, MD, PhD, professor of hematology and oncology at the University of Michigan .

A larger volume of urine could potentially “make cancer detection even more sensitive than blood,” Dr. Tewari said, “allowing cancers to be detected at the earliest stages when they are more curable.”

The team used a technique called droplet digital PCR to detect DNA fragments that are “ultra-short” (less than 50 base pairs long) and usually missed by conventional PCR testing. This transrenal cell-free tumor DNA, which travels from the tumor into the bloodstream, is broken down small enough to pass through the kidneys and into the urine. But the fragments are still long enough to carry information about the tumor’s genetic signature.

This test could spot cancer before a tumor grows big enough — about a centimeter wide and carrying a billion cells — to spot on a CT scan or other imaging test. “When we are instead detecting fragments of DNA released from a tumor,” said Dr. Tewari, “our testing methods are very sensitive and can detect DNA in urine that came from just 5-10 cells in a tumor that died and released their DNA into the blood, which then made its way into the urine.”

Pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is one of the deadliest cancers, largely because it is diagnosed so late. A urine panel now in clinical trials could help doctors diagnose the cancer before it has spread so more people can have the tumor surgically removed, improving prognosis.

Using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test, a common lab method that detects antibodies and other proteins, the team measured expression levels for three genes (LYVE1, REG1B, and TFF1) in urine samples collected from people up to 5 years before they were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The researchers combined this result with patients’ urinary creatinine levels, a common component of existing urinalysis, and their age to develop a risk score.

This score performed similarly to an existing blood test, CA19-9, in predicting patients’ risk for pancreatic cancer up to 1 year before diagnosis. When combined with CA19-9, the urinary panel helped spot cancer up to 2 years before diagnosis.

According to a paper in the International Journal of Cancer, “the urine panel and affiliated PancRISK are currently being validated in a prospective clinical study (UroPanc).” If all goes well, they could be implemented in clinical practice in a few years as a “noninvasive stratification tool” to identify patients for further testing, speeding up diagnosis, and saving lives.

Limitations and Promises

Each cancer type is different, and more research is needed to map out which substances in urine predict which cancers and to develop tests for mass adoption. “There are medical and technological hurdles to the large-scale implementation of urine analysis for complex diseases such as cancer,” said Dr. Wong.

One possibility: Scientists and clinicians could collaborate and use artificial intelligence techniques to combine urine test results with other data.

“It is likely that future diagnostics may combine urine with other biological samples such as feces and saliva, among others,” said Dr. Wong. “This is especially true when novel data science and machine learning techniques can integrate comprehensive data from patients that span genetic, proteomic, metabolic, microbiomic, and even behavioral data to evaluate a patient’s condition.”

One thing that excites Dr. Tewari about urine-based cancer testing: “We think it could be especially impactful for patients living in rural areas or other areas with less access to healthcare services,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The next frontier in cancer detection could be the humble urine test.

Emerging science suggests that the body’s “liquid gold” could be particularly useful for liquid biopsies, offering a convenient, pain-free, and cost-effective way to spot otherwise hard-to-detect cancers.

“The search for cancer biomarkers that can be detected in urine could provide an enormous step forward to decrease cancer patient mortality,” said Kenneth R. Shroyer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, who studies cancer biomarkers.

Physicians have long known that urine can reveal a lot about our health — that’s why urinalysis has been part of medicine for 6000 years. Urine tests can detect diabetes, pregnancy, drug use, and urinary or kidney conditions.

But other conditions leave clues in urine, too, and cancer may be one of the most promising. “Urine testing could detect biomarkers of early-stage cancers, not only from local but also distant sites,” Dr. Shroyer said. It could also help flag recurrence in cancer survivors who have undergone treatment.

Granted, cancer biomarkers in urine are not nearly as widely studied as those in the blood, Dr. Shroyer noted. But a new wave of urine tests suggests research is gaining pace.

“The recent availability of high-throughput screening technologies has enabled researchers to investigate cancer from a top-down, comprehensive approach,” said Pak Kin Wong, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, and surgery at The Pennsylvania State University. “We are starting to understand the rich information that can be obtained from urine.”

Urine is mostly water (about 95%) and urea, a metabolic byproduct that imparts that signature yellow color (about 2%). The other 3% is a mix of waste products, minerals, and other compounds the kidneys removed from the blood. Even in trace amounts, these substances say a lot.

Among them are “exfoliated cancer cells, cell-free DNA, hormones, and the urine microbiota — the collection of microbes in our urinary tract system,” Dr. Wong said.

“It is highly promising to be one of the major biological fluids used for screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring treatment efficiency in the era of precision medicine,” Dr. Wong said.

How Urine Testing Could Reveal Cancer

Still, as exciting as the prospect is, there’s a lot to consider in the hunt for cancer biomarkers in urine. These biomarkers must be able to pass through the renal nephrons (filtering units), remain stable in urine, and have high-level sensitivity, Dr. Shroyer said. They should also have high specificity for cancer vs benign conditions and be expressed at early stages, before the primary tumor has spread.

“At this stage, few circulating biomarkers have been found that are both sensitive and specific for early-stage disease,” said Dr. Shroyer.

But there are a few promising examples under investigation in humans:

Prostate cancer. Researchers at the University of Michigan have developed a urine test that detects high-grade prostate cancer more accurately than existing tests, including PHI, SelectMDx, 4Kscore, EPI, MPS, and IsoPSA.

The MyProstateScore 2.0 (MPS2) test, which looks for 18 genes associated with high-grade tumors, could reduce unnecessary biopsies in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels, according to a paper published in JAMA Oncology.

It makes sense. The prostate gland secretes fluid that becomes part of the semen, traces of which enter urine. After a digital rectal exam, even more prostate fluid enters the urine. If a patient has prostate cancer, genetic material from the cancer cells will infiltrate the urine.

In the MPS2 test, researchers used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in urine. “The technology used for COVID PCR is essentially the same as the PCR used to detect transcripts associated with high-grade prostate cancer in urine,” said study author Arul Chinnaiyan, MD, PhD, director of the Michigan Center for Translational Pathology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “In the case of the MPS2 test, we are doing PCR on 18 genes simultaneously on urine samples.”

A statistical model uses levels of that genetic material to predict the risk for high-grade disease, helping doctors decide what to do next. At 95% sensitivity, the MPS2 model could eliminate 35%-45% of unnecessary biopsies, compared with 15%-30% for the other tests, and reduce repeat biopsies by 46%-51%, compared with 9%-21% for the other tests.

Head and neck cancer. In a paper published in JCI Insight, researchers described a test that finds ultra-short fragments of DNA in urine to enable early detection of head and neck cancers caused by human papillomavirus.

“Our data show that a relatively small volume of urine (30-60 mL) gives overall detection results comparable to a tube of blood,” said study author Muneesh Tewari, MD, PhD, professor of hematology and oncology at the University of Michigan .

A larger volume of urine could potentially “make cancer detection even more sensitive than blood,” Dr. Tewari said, “allowing cancers to be detected at the earliest stages when they are more curable.”

The team used a technique called droplet digital PCR to detect DNA fragments that are “ultra-short” (less than 50 base pairs long) and usually missed by conventional PCR testing. This transrenal cell-free tumor DNA, which travels from the tumor into the bloodstream, is broken down small enough to pass through the kidneys and into the urine. But the fragments are still long enough to carry information about the tumor’s genetic signature.

This test could spot cancer before a tumor grows big enough — about a centimeter wide and carrying a billion cells — to spot on a CT scan or other imaging test. “When we are instead detecting fragments of DNA released from a tumor,” said Dr. Tewari, “our testing methods are very sensitive and can detect DNA in urine that came from just 5-10 cells in a tumor that died and released their DNA into the blood, which then made its way into the urine.”

Pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is one of the deadliest cancers, largely because it is diagnosed so late. A urine panel now in clinical trials could help doctors diagnose the cancer before it has spread so more people can have the tumor surgically removed, improving prognosis.

Using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test, a common lab method that detects antibodies and other proteins, the team measured expression levels for three genes (LYVE1, REG1B, and TFF1) in urine samples collected from people up to 5 years before they were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The researchers combined this result with patients’ urinary creatinine levels, a common component of existing urinalysis, and their age to develop a risk score.

This score performed similarly to an existing blood test, CA19-9, in predicting patients’ risk for pancreatic cancer up to 1 year before diagnosis. When combined with CA19-9, the urinary panel helped spot cancer up to 2 years before diagnosis.

According to a paper in the International Journal of Cancer, “the urine panel and affiliated PancRISK are currently being validated in a prospective clinical study (UroPanc).” If all goes well, they could be implemented in clinical practice in a few years as a “noninvasive stratification tool” to identify patients for further testing, speeding up diagnosis, and saving lives.

Limitations and Promises

Each cancer type is different, and more research is needed to map out which substances in urine predict which cancers and to develop tests for mass adoption. “There are medical and technological hurdles to the large-scale implementation of urine analysis for complex diseases such as cancer,” said Dr. Wong.

One possibility: Scientists and clinicians could collaborate and use artificial intelligence techniques to combine urine test results with other data.

“It is likely that future diagnostics may combine urine with other biological samples such as feces and saliva, among others,” said Dr. Wong. “This is especially true when novel data science and machine learning techniques can integrate comprehensive data from patients that span genetic, proteomic, metabolic, microbiomic, and even behavioral data to evaluate a patient’s condition.”

One thing that excites Dr. Tewari about urine-based cancer testing: “We think it could be especially impactful for patients living in rural areas or other areas with less access to healthcare services,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Various food additive emulsifiers, including total carrageenans, carrageenan gum, tripotassium phosphate, sodium citrate, and guar gum, can increase the risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), showed a recent study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Food emulsifiers, which are extensively used to enhance the texture and improve the shelf life of various ultraprocessed food items, have been shown to increase the risk for cardiovascular disease and cancer.
• In this study, the dietary intake data of 104,139 adults (79.2% women; mean age, 42.7 years) enrolled in the French NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort study from May 2009 to April 2023 were assessed for 24 hours on 3 nonconsecutive days at inclusion and every 6 months thereafter to determine the risk for T2D.
• The dietary records of participants, which were linked to food composition databases, were used to quantify the food additive intake.
• T2D cases were identified using a multisource approach encompassing self-reports, health questionnaires, national health insurance system databases, and/or mortality registries.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a mean follow-up period of 6.8 years, 1056 incident cases of T2D were reported.
• Almost all (99.7%) participants were exposed to at least one food additive emulsifier, with the main contributors being ultraprocessed fruits and vegetables (18.5%), cakes and biscuits (14.7%), and dairy products (10.0%).
• The intake of the following emulsifiers increased the risk for T2D:
• Total carrageenans and carrageenan gum (3% increased risk per increment of 100 mg/d; P < .001)
• Tripotassium phosphate (15% increased risk per increment of 500 mg/d; P = .023)
• Acetyl tartaric acid esters of monoglycerides and diglycerides of fatty acids (4% increased risk per increment of 100 mg/d; P = .042)
• Sodium citrate (4% increased risk per increment of 500 mg/d; P = .008)
• Guar gum (11% increased risk per increment of 500 mg/d; P < .0001)
• Gum arabic (3% increased risk per increment of 1000 mg/d; P = .013)
• Xanthan gum (8% increased risk per increment of 500 mg/d; P = .013)

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying commentary, experts postulated that “findings from this and other studies could prompt regulatory agencies and policymakers to reconsider the rules governing the use of emulsifiers and other additives by the food industry such as setting limits and requiring better disclosure of food additive contents to help consumers make more informed choices.”

SOURCE:

Clara Salame, PhD, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord and Université Paris Cité, INSERM, INRAE, CNAM, Center of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics, Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team, Paris, France, led this study, which was published online in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study is not sufficient to establish causality relationships. There may have been measurement errors in emulsifier exposure, particularly in products exempted from labeling requirements. This cohort’s demographics, which included a higher percentage of women and a health-conscious population, may affect the generalizability of the study’s findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from the European Research Council, and the NutriNet-Santé study was supported by many public institutions such as the Ministère de la Santé, Santé publique France, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Various food additive emulsifiers, including total carrageenans, carrageenan gum, tripotassium phosphate, sodium citrate, and guar gum, can increase the risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), showed a recent study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Food emulsifiers, which are extensively used to enhance the texture and improve the shelf life of various ultraprocessed food items, have been shown to increase the risk for cardiovascular disease and cancer.
• In this study, the dietary intake data of 104,139 adults (79.2% women; mean age, 42.7 years) enrolled in the French NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort study from May 2009 to April 2023 were assessed for 24 hours on 3 nonconsecutive days at inclusion and every 6 months thereafter to determine the risk for T2D.
• The dietary records of participants, which were linked to food composition databases, were used to quantify the food additive intake.
• T2D cases were identified using a multisource approach encompassing self-reports, health questionnaires, national health insurance system databases, and/or mortality registries.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a mean follow-up period of 6.8 years, 1056 incident cases of T2D were reported.
• Almost all (99.7%) participants were exposed to at least one food additive emulsifier, with the main contributors being ultraprocessed fruits and vegetables (18.5%), cakes and biscuits (14.7%), and dairy products (10.0%).
• The intake of the following emulsifiers increased the risk for T2D:
• Total carrageenans and carrageenan gum (3% increased risk per increment of 100 mg/d; P < .001)
• Tripotassium phosphate (15% increased risk per increment of 500 mg/d; P = .023)
• Acetyl tartaric acid esters of monoglycerides and diglycerides of fatty acids (4% increased risk per increment of 100 mg/d; P = .042)
• Sodium citrate (4% increased risk per increment of 500 mg/d; P = .008)
• Guar gum (11% increased risk per increment of 500 mg/d; P < .0001)
• Gum arabic (3% increased risk per increment of 1000 mg/d; P = .013)
• Xanthan gum (8% increased risk per increment of 500 mg/d; P = .013)

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying commentary, experts postulated that “findings from this and other studies could prompt regulatory agencies and policymakers to reconsider the rules governing the use of emulsifiers and other additives by the food industry such as setting limits and requiring better disclosure of food additive contents to help consumers make more informed choices.”

SOURCE:

Clara Salame, PhD, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord and Université Paris Cité, INSERM, INRAE, CNAM, Center of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics, Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team, Paris, France, led this study, which was published online in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study is not sufficient to establish causality relationships. There may have been measurement errors in emulsifier exposure, particularly in products exempted from labeling requirements. This cohort’s demographics, which included a higher percentage of women and a health-conscious population, may affect the generalizability of the study’s findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from the European Research Council, and the NutriNet-Santé study was supported by many public institutions such as the Ministère de la Santé, Santé publique France, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Various food additive emulsifiers, including total carrageenans, carrageenan gum, tripotassium phosphate, sodium citrate, and guar gum, can increase the risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), showed a recent study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Food emulsifiers, which are extensively used to enhance the texture and improve the shelf life of various ultraprocessed food items, have been shown to increase the risk for cardiovascular disease and cancer.
• In this study, the dietary intake data of 104,139 adults (79.2% women; mean age, 42.7 years) enrolled in the French NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort study from May 2009 to April 2023 were assessed for 24 hours on 3 nonconsecutive days at inclusion and every 6 months thereafter to determine the risk for T2D.
• The dietary records of participants, which were linked to food composition databases, were used to quantify the food additive intake.
• T2D cases were identified using a multisource approach encompassing self-reports, health questionnaires, national health insurance system databases, and/or mortality registries.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a mean follow-up period of 6.8 years, 1056 incident cases of T2D were reported.
• Almost all (99.7%) participants were exposed to at least one food additive emulsifier, with the main contributors being ultraprocessed fruits and vegetables (18.5%), cakes and biscuits (14.7%), and dairy products (10.0%).
• The intake of the following emulsifiers increased the risk for T2D:
• Total carrageenans and carrageenan gum (3% increased risk per increment of 100 mg/d; P < .001)
• Tripotassium phosphate (15% increased risk per increment of 500 mg/d; P = .023)
• Acetyl tartaric acid esters of monoglycerides and diglycerides of fatty acids (4% increased risk per increment of 100 mg/d; P = .042)
• Sodium citrate (4% increased risk per increment of 500 mg/d; P = .008)
• Guar gum (11% increased risk per increment of 500 mg/d; P < .0001)
• Gum arabic (3% increased risk per increment of 1000 mg/d; P = .013)
• Xanthan gum (8% increased risk per increment of 500 mg/d; P = .013)

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying commentary, experts postulated that “findings from this and other studies could prompt regulatory agencies and policymakers to reconsider the rules governing the use of emulsifiers and other additives by the food industry such as setting limits and requiring better disclosure of food additive contents to help consumers make more informed choices.”

SOURCE:

Clara Salame, PhD, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord and Université Paris Cité, INSERM, INRAE, CNAM, Center of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics, Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team, Paris, France, led this study, which was published online in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study is not sufficient to establish causality relationships. There may have been measurement errors in emulsifier exposure, particularly in products exempted from labeling requirements. This cohort’s demographics, which included a higher percentage of women and a health-conscious population, may affect the generalizability of the study’s findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from the European Research Council, and the NutriNet-Santé study was supported by many public institutions such as the Ministère de la Santé, Santé publique France, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Eli Lilly has announced positive phase 3 top-line results for its once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) in insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes and those who require multiple daily insulin injections.

The new data come from the company’s QWINT-2 and QWINT-4 phase 3 clinical trials. In both, efsitora was noninferior to daily basal insulin in lowering A1c. The comparator was once-daily degludec in QUINT-2 and glargine in QUINT-4.

These results come days before the once-weekly competitor, Novo Nordisk’s insulin icodec, will be discussed by the US Food and Drug Administration’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee. On May 24, 2024, the panel will review safety and efficacy of icodec for the proposed indication of improving glycemic control in adults with diabetes.
 

Hypoglycemia and Affordability Are Concerns

Asked to comment, Anne L. Peters, MD, director of the University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes, Los Angeles, told this news organization that she’s “cautiously optimistic” about once-weekly insulin. “I honestly think it’s going to have an important role in diabetes. … And I’m looking forward to learning how it’s going to help my patients.”

However, Dr. Peters also said she’s concerned about the possible risk for hypoglycemia with long-acting insulin, particularly in patients with variable schedules. “The real fear they have and I have is hypoglycemia. That being said, I think that it will be great for some patients where hypoglycemia is less of a concern, and they’re in a more stable environment. … I think there are patients who will really benefit but I have to figure out who those patients are.”

Dr. Peters, who takes care of many low-income patients, also pointed out that once approved, these newer insulins may not be affordable for those who could most benefit from them in terms of improved adherence. Insurance plans may not cover them initially, especially given that the data thus far show noninferiority, not superiority, to daily basal. “The patients in whom I would like to use it most are the patients who have the most trouble with social determinants of health and other issues. I really think it could really make a difference for them, but it won’t get there for a while.”

And, she noted, titrating doses of once-weekly insulin will likely come with a learning curve. “Having spent a lifetime adjusting basal insulin on a daily basis to suddenly do it on a weekly basis, as a diabetologist I’m going to have to get used to what that feels like.”
 

Topline Data Show Noninferiority to Daily Basal Insulin

In QWINT-2, efficacy and safety of once-weekly efsitora was compared with those of once-daily insulin degludec for 52 weeks. Study participants were all new to using insulin, but some were using glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists.

The treat-to-target trial met its primary noninferiority endpoint for hemoglobin A1c reduction at week 52. A1c values were lowered by 1.34 percentage points with efsitora compared with 1.26 for insulin degludec, resulting in non–significantly different A1c values of 6.87% and 6.95%, respectively.

In QWINT-4, efficacy and safety of once-weekly efsitora was compared with those of daily insulin glargine for 26 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes who had previously been treated with basal insulin and at least two injections of premeal insulin per day. Participants were randomized to receive efsitora once weekly or insulin glargine once daily, and both groups used lispro before meals.

This trial also met its primary endpoint, with both reducing A1c by 1.07 percentage points at 26 weeks, resulting in levels of 7.12% and 7.11%, respectively.

The full results for QWINT-2 will be presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting this September.

Dr. Peters served on the advisory board for Abbott Diabetes Care; Becton Dickinson; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Livongo; Medscape Medical News; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novo Nordisk; Omada Health; OptumHealth; Sanofi; and Zafgen. She received research support from Dexcom, MannKind Corporation, and Astra Zeneca and served as a member of a speakers bureau for Novo Nordisk.

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

Eli Lilly has announced positive phase 3 top-line results for its once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) in insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes and those who require multiple daily insulin injections.

The new data come from the company’s QWINT-2 and QWINT-4 phase 3 clinical trials. In both, efsitora was noninferior to daily basal insulin in lowering A1c. The comparator was once-daily degludec in QUINT-2 and glargine in QUINT-4.

These results come days before the once-weekly competitor, Novo Nordisk’s insulin icodec, will be discussed by the US Food and Drug Administration’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee. On May 24, 2024, the panel will review safety and efficacy of icodec for the proposed indication of improving glycemic control in adults with diabetes.
 

Hypoglycemia and Affordability Are Concerns

Asked to comment, Anne L. Peters, MD, director of the University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes, Los Angeles, told this news organization that she’s “cautiously optimistic” about once-weekly insulin. “I honestly think it’s going to have an important role in diabetes. … And I’m looking forward to learning how it’s going to help my patients.”

However, Dr. Peters also said she’s concerned about the possible risk for hypoglycemia with long-acting insulin, particularly in patients with variable schedules. “The real fear they have and I have is hypoglycemia. That being said, I think that it will be great for some patients where hypoglycemia is less of a concern, and they’re in a more stable environment. … I think there are patients who will really benefit but I have to figure out who those patients are.”

Dr. Peters, who takes care of many low-income patients, also pointed out that once approved, these newer insulins may not be affordable for those who could most benefit from them in terms of improved adherence. Insurance plans may not cover them initially, especially given that the data thus far show noninferiority, not superiority, to daily basal. “The patients in whom I would like to use it most are the patients who have the most trouble with social determinants of health and other issues. I really think it could really make a difference for them, but it won’t get there for a while.”

And, she noted, titrating doses of once-weekly insulin will likely come with a learning curve. “Having spent a lifetime adjusting basal insulin on a daily basis to suddenly do it on a weekly basis, as a diabetologist I’m going to have to get used to what that feels like.”
 

Topline Data Show Noninferiority to Daily Basal Insulin

In QWINT-2, efficacy and safety of once-weekly efsitora was compared with those of once-daily insulin degludec for 52 weeks. Study participants were all new to using insulin, but some were using glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists.

The treat-to-target trial met its primary noninferiority endpoint for hemoglobin A1c reduction at week 52. A1c values were lowered by 1.34 percentage points with efsitora compared with 1.26 for insulin degludec, resulting in non–significantly different A1c values of 6.87% and 6.95%, respectively.

In QWINT-4, efficacy and safety of once-weekly efsitora was compared with those of daily insulin glargine for 26 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes who had previously been treated with basal insulin and at least two injections of premeal insulin per day. Participants were randomized to receive efsitora once weekly or insulin glargine once daily, and both groups used lispro before meals.

This trial also met its primary endpoint, with both reducing A1c by 1.07 percentage points at 26 weeks, resulting in levels of 7.12% and 7.11%, respectively.

The full results for QWINT-2 will be presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting this September.

Dr. Peters served on the advisory board for Abbott Diabetes Care; Becton Dickinson; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Livongo; Medscape Medical News; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novo Nordisk; Omada Health; OptumHealth; Sanofi; and Zafgen. She received research support from Dexcom, MannKind Corporation, and Astra Zeneca and served as a member of a speakers bureau for Novo Nordisk.

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

Eli Lilly has announced positive phase 3 top-line results for its once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) in insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes and those who require multiple daily insulin injections.

The new data come from the company’s QWINT-2 and QWINT-4 phase 3 clinical trials. In both, efsitora was noninferior to daily basal insulin in lowering A1c. The comparator was once-daily degludec in QUINT-2 and glargine in QUINT-4.

These results come days before the once-weekly competitor, Novo Nordisk’s insulin icodec, will be discussed by the US Food and Drug Administration’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee. On May 24, 2024, the panel will review safety and efficacy of icodec for the proposed indication of improving glycemic control in adults with diabetes.
 

Hypoglycemia and Affordability Are Concerns

Asked to comment, Anne L. Peters, MD, director of the University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes, Los Angeles, told this news organization that she’s “cautiously optimistic” about once-weekly insulin. “I honestly think it’s going to have an important role in diabetes. … And I’m looking forward to learning how it’s going to help my patients.”

However, Dr. Peters also said she’s concerned about the possible risk for hypoglycemia with long-acting insulin, particularly in patients with variable schedules. “The real fear they have and I have is hypoglycemia. That being said, I think that it will be great for some patients where hypoglycemia is less of a concern, and they’re in a more stable environment. … I think there are patients who will really benefit but I have to figure out who those patients are.”

Dr. Peters, who takes care of many low-income patients, also pointed out that once approved, these newer insulins may not be affordable for those who could most benefit from them in terms of improved adherence. Insurance plans may not cover them initially, especially given that the data thus far show noninferiority, not superiority, to daily basal. “The patients in whom I would like to use it most are the patients who have the most trouble with social determinants of health and other issues. I really think it could really make a difference for them, but it won’t get there for a while.”

And, she noted, titrating doses of once-weekly insulin will likely come with a learning curve. “Having spent a lifetime adjusting basal insulin on a daily basis to suddenly do it on a weekly basis, as a diabetologist I’m going to have to get used to what that feels like.”
 

Topline Data Show Noninferiority to Daily Basal Insulin

In QWINT-2, efficacy and safety of once-weekly efsitora was compared with those of once-daily insulin degludec for 52 weeks. Study participants were all new to using insulin, but some were using glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists.

The treat-to-target trial met its primary noninferiority endpoint for hemoglobin A1c reduction at week 52. A1c values were lowered by 1.34 percentage points with efsitora compared with 1.26 for insulin degludec, resulting in non–significantly different A1c values of 6.87% and 6.95%, respectively.

In QWINT-4, efficacy and safety of once-weekly efsitora was compared with those of daily insulin glargine for 26 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes who had previously been treated with basal insulin and at least two injections of premeal insulin per day. Participants were randomized to receive efsitora once weekly or insulin glargine once daily, and both groups used lispro before meals.

This trial also met its primary endpoint, with both reducing A1c by 1.07 percentage points at 26 weeks, resulting in levels of 7.12% and 7.11%, respectively.

The full results for QWINT-2 will be presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting this September.

Dr. Peters served on the advisory board for Abbott Diabetes Care; Becton Dickinson; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Livongo; Medscape Medical News; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novo Nordisk; Omada Health; OptumHealth; Sanofi; and Zafgen. She received research support from Dexcom, MannKind Corporation, and Astra Zeneca and served as a member of a speakers bureau for Novo Nordisk.

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

Tell someone you’re a doctor, and the reaction is often: “You must be rich.” But physicians who are just finishing medical school or are in their early careers might feel far from it. The average medical school debt is more than $200,000, with total debts including undergrad climbing well north of $250,000.

That leaves house-hunting physicians in a predicament. A key factor for lending institutions is the “debt to income” ratio, a calculation which indicates if you already have too much debt to pay your mortgage. That single equation could eliminate you from lenders’ mortgage requirements.

But young doctors are also in a unique situation. Yes, they carry above-average levels of debt, but they are on a path to substantial income in future years. That’s where the physician mortgage loan (PML) becomes a useful option. 

What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?

A PML is designed to help physicians access mortgages despite large amounts of debt. They are also sometimes available to dentists, veterinarians, podiatrists, and others, according to Stephen Chang, MD, a radiologist, and a managing director at Acts Financial Advisors in McLean, Virginia.

The key features, according to James M. Dahle, MD, an emergency physician and founder of The White Coat Investor, include:

• No required down payment, which is typically 20% with a conventional loan.
• No private mortgage insurance (PMI). This is often a requirement of traditional loans, designed to protect the lender if the buyer misses payments. PMLs don’t involve PMI even if you don’t put down 20%.
• No pay stubs. With a conventional loan, pay stubs are often required to prove income level and reliability. PMLs will often allow an employment contract in place of those. 
• Different consideration of the student loan burden.

Those are the upsides, of course, but there may be downsides. Dr. Dahle said a PML might involve slightly higher rates and fees than a conventional mortgage does but not always.

Who Is Best Suited for a Physician Mortgage Loan?

Financial advisers caution that everyone should first consider their full financial picture before applying for a mortgage, PML or otherwise. “If you don’t have the money saved for a down payment, one can ask if you are financially prepared to purchase a home,” says Cobin Soelberg, MD, an anesthesiologist and owner of Greeley Wealth Management, a financial planning firm serving physician families in Bend, Oregon. 

If your savings are slim, you might need to build those accounts further before pursuing home ownership and the expenses that come along with it.

Your credit score can contribute to the equation. “With any loan product, we always recommend working to optimize your personal credit score as soon as possible before applying for a loan,” said Mark P. Eid, MD, a dermatologist and co–managing director (with Dr. Chang) at Act Financial Advisors. “Once you get into the high 700s, you’ve typically qualified for the best interest rates, so while that perfect 850 is nice to achieve, it’s by no means necessary.”

Also, assess your reasons for purchasing a home and whether it will fit your lifestyle in the coming years. “The main reason that [my wife and I] wanted to buy a home was for stability,” said Jordan Frey, MD, founder of The Prudent Plastic Surgeon. “After living in apartments for years, we wanted a place that was truly our own. We definitely felt disappointed and frustrated when worrying that our student debt may limit our ability to do this.”

Like many physicians, Dr. Frey had taken on a huge amount of debt, to the tune of half a million dollars in student loans and credit card debt when he finished training in 2020. The question Dr. Frey and his wife wrestled with was: “How much debt should we take on in addition to what we already have?”

What Are the Risks? What’s in the Fine Print?

The eased limitations of PMLs come with potential pitfalls, and physicians should not imagine that they have unlimited buying power.

“Many physicians buy more expensive or bigger houses than they need simply because banks are willing to lend physicians money,” Dr. Soelberg warns. “So, the doctor gets locked into a large mortgage and cannot build wealth, save for retirement, and repay their student loans.” 

As you shop around, beware of omissions and scams. When meeting with lenders, Dr. Frey recalled that some didn’t even present PMLs as an option, and others presented them with unfavorable terms. He was careful to look for disadvantages hidden in the fine print, such as a potential “big hike in the rate a year later.” 

But sometimes, a scam is not outright deception but is more like temptation. So it’s important to have your own best interests in mind without relying on lenders’ advice. 

“When we were shopping around, some mortgage lenders would [offer] $1.5 million, and we thought ‘that makes no sense,’ ” said Dr. Frey. “[Physicians] have big future income, which makes us attractive to these lenders. No one in their right mind would give a mortgage like this to anyone else. They aren’t worried about whether it’s a smart decision for you or not.” 

What Other Red Flags Should You Look Out for?

Dr. Frey recommends medical professionals beware of these red flags when shopping for PMLs:

• A request for any type of collateral, including your medical practice
• A rate that is much higher than others
• A lender is pushing you to borrow a higher amount than you’re comfortable with 
• A lender attempts to influence your decision about the size of your down payment

Remember, if you are choosing an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), your rate will recalibrate on the basis of the market’s rates — for better or worse. This means that your payment might be higher or lower, taking current interest rates into account, based on the market.

Looking back, Dr. Frey said he might reconsider his decision to use a 10-year ARM. He and his wife chose it because the rate was low at the time, and they planned to pay off the mortgage quickly or move before it went up. But the uncertainty added an element of pressure. 

How Can PMLs Contribute to Overall Financial Health?

Dr. Frey says his physician mortgage was “a huge advantage,” allowing him and his wife to put 0% down on their home without PMI. But most importantly, it fit within their overall financial plan, which included investing. “The money that we would have potentially used for a down payment, we used to buy a rental property, which then got us more income,” he says. 

Of course, buying a rental property is not the only path to financial health and freedom. Many people approach a home as an investment that will eventually become fully their own. Others might put that down payment toward building a safety net of savings accounts. 

Used strategically and intentionally, PMLs can put you on a more predictable financial path. And with less money stress, buying a home can be an exciting milestone as you plan your future and put down roots in a community.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tell someone you’re a doctor, and the reaction is often: “You must be rich.” But physicians who are just finishing medical school or are in their early careers might feel far from it. The average medical school debt is more than $200,000, with total debts including undergrad climbing well north of $250,000.

That leaves house-hunting physicians in a predicament. A key factor for lending institutions is the “debt to income” ratio, a calculation which indicates if you already have too much debt to pay your mortgage. That single equation could eliminate you from lenders’ mortgage requirements.

But young doctors are also in a unique situation. Yes, they carry above-average levels of debt, but they are on a path to substantial income in future years. That’s where the physician mortgage loan (PML) becomes a useful option. 

What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?

A PML is designed to help physicians access mortgages despite large amounts of debt. They are also sometimes available to dentists, veterinarians, podiatrists, and others, according to Stephen Chang, MD, a radiologist, and a managing director at Acts Financial Advisors in McLean, Virginia.

The key features, according to James M. Dahle, MD, an emergency physician and founder of The White Coat Investor, include:

• No required down payment, which is typically 20% with a conventional loan.
• No private mortgage insurance (PMI). This is often a requirement of traditional loans, designed to protect the lender if the buyer misses payments. PMLs don’t involve PMI even if you don’t put down 20%.
• No pay stubs. With a conventional loan, pay stubs are often required to prove income level and reliability. PMLs will often allow an employment contract in place of those. 
• Different consideration of the student loan burden.

Those are the upsides, of course, but there may be downsides. Dr. Dahle said a PML might involve slightly higher rates and fees than a conventional mortgage does but not always.

Who Is Best Suited for a Physician Mortgage Loan?

Financial advisers caution that everyone should first consider their full financial picture before applying for a mortgage, PML or otherwise. “If you don’t have the money saved for a down payment, one can ask if you are financially prepared to purchase a home,” says Cobin Soelberg, MD, an anesthesiologist and owner of Greeley Wealth Management, a financial planning firm serving physician families in Bend, Oregon. 

If your savings are slim, you might need to build those accounts further before pursuing home ownership and the expenses that come along with it.

Your credit score can contribute to the equation. “With any loan product, we always recommend working to optimize your personal credit score as soon as possible before applying for a loan,” said Mark P. Eid, MD, a dermatologist and co–managing director (with Dr. Chang) at Act Financial Advisors. “Once you get into the high 700s, you’ve typically qualified for the best interest rates, so while that perfect 850 is nice to achieve, it’s by no means necessary.”

Also, assess your reasons for purchasing a home and whether it will fit your lifestyle in the coming years. “The main reason that [my wife and I] wanted to buy a home was for stability,” said Jordan Frey, MD, founder of The Prudent Plastic Surgeon. “After living in apartments for years, we wanted a place that was truly our own. We definitely felt disappointed and frustrated when worrying that our student debt may limit our ability to do this.”

Like many physicians, Dr. Frey had taken on a huge amount of debt, to the tune of half a million dollars in student loans and credit card debt when he finished training in 2020. The question Dr. Frey and his wife wrestled with was: “How much debt should we take on in addition to what we already have?”

What Are the Risks? What’s in the Fine Print?

The eased limitations of PMLs come with potential pitfalls, and physicians should not imagine that they have unlimited buying power.

“Many physicians buy more expensive or bigger houses than they need simply because banks are willing to lend physicians money,” Dr. Soelberg warns. “So, the doctor gets locked into a large mortgage and cannot build wealth, save for retirement, and repay their student loans.” 

As you shop around, beware of omissions and scams. When meeting with lenders, Dr. Frey recalled that some didn’t even present PMLs as an option, and others presented them with unfavorable terms. He was careful to look for disadvantages hidden in the fine print, such as a potential “big hike in the rate a year later.” 

But sometimes, a scam is not outright deception but is more like temptation. So it’s important to have your own best interests in mind without relying on lenders’ advice. 

“When we were shopping around, some mortgage lenders would [offer] $1.5 million, and we thought ‘that makes no sense,’ ” said Dr. Frey. “[Physicians] have big future income, which makes us attractive to these lenders. No one in their right mind would give a mortgage like this to anyone else. They aren’t worried about whether it’s a smart decision for you or not.” 

What Other Red Flags Should You Look Out for?

Dr. Frey recommends medical professionals beware of these red flags when shopping for PMLs:

• A request for any type of collateral, including your medical practice
• A rate that is much higher than others
• A lender is pushing you to borrow a higher amount than you’re comfortable with 
• A lender attempts to influence your decision about the size of your down payment

Remember, if you are choosing an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), your rate will recalibrate on the basis of the market’s rates — for better or worse. This means that your payment might be higher or lower, taking current interest rates into account, based on the market.

Looking back, Dr. Frey said he might reconsider his decision to use a 10-year ARM. He and his wife chose it because the rate was low at the time, and they planned to pay off the mortgage quickly or move before it went up. But the uncertainty added an element of pressure. 

How Can PMLs Contribute to Overall Financial Health?

Dr. Frey says his physician mortgage was “a huge advantage,” allowing him and his wife to put 0% down on their home without PMI. But most importantly, it fit within their overall financial plan, which included investing. “The money that we would have potentially used for a down payment, we used to buy a rental property, which then got us more income,” he says. 

Of course, buying a rental property is not the only path to financial health and freedom. Many people approach a home as an investment that will eventually become fully their own. Others might put that down payment toward building a safety net of savings accounts. 

Used strategically and intentionally, PMLs can put you on a more predictable financial path. And with less money stress, buying a home can be an exciting milestone as you plan your future and put down roots in a community.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tell someone you’re a doctor, and the reaction is often: “You must be rich.” But physicians who are just finishing medical school or are in their early careers might feel far from it. The average medical school debt is more than $200,000, with total debts including undergrad climbing well north of $250,000.

That leaves house-hunting physicians in a predicament. A key factor for lending institutions is the “debt to income” ratio, a calculation which indicates if you already have too much debt to pay your mortgage. That single equation could eliminate you from lenders’ mortgage requirements.

But young doctors are also in a unique situation. Yes, they carry above-average levels of debt, but they are on a path to substantial income in future years. That’s where the physician mortgage loan (PML) becomes a useful option. 

What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?

A PML is designed to help physicians access mortgages despite large amounts of debt. They are also sometimes available to dentists, veterinarians, podiatrists, and others, according to Stephen Chang, MD, a radiologist, and a managing director at Acts Financial Advisors in McLean, Virginia.

The key features, according to James M. Dahle, MD, an emergency physician and founder of The White Coat Investor, include:

• No required down payment, which is typically 20% with a conventional loan.
• No private mortgage insurance (PMI). This is often a requirement of traditional loans, designed to protect the lender if the buyer misses payments. PMLs don’t involve PMI even if you don’t put down 20%.
• No pay stubs. With a conventional loan, pay stubs are often required to prove income level and reliability. PMLs will often allow an employment contract in place of those. 
• Different consideration of the student loan burden.

Those are the upsides, of course, but there may be downsides. Dr. Dahle said a PML might involve slightly higher rates and fees than a conventional mortgage does but not always.

Who Is Best Suited for a Physician Mortgage Loan?

Financial advisers caution that everyone should first consider their full financial picture before applying for a mortgage, PML or otherwise. “If you don’t have the money saved for a down payment, one can ask if you are financially prepared to purchase a home,” says Cobin Soelberg, MD, an anesthesiologist and owner of Greeley Wealth Management, a financial planning firm serving physician families in Bend, Oregon. 

If your savings are slim, you might need to build those accounts further before pursuing home ownership and the expenses that come along with it.

Your credit score can contribute to the equation. “With any loan product, we always recommend working to optimize your personal credit score as soon as possible before applying for a loan,” said Mark P. Eid, MD, a dermatologist and co–managing director (with Dr. Chang) at Act Financial Advisors. “Once you get into the high 700s, you’ve typically qualified for the best interest rates, so while that perfect 850 is nice to achieve, it’s by no means necessary.”

Also, assess your reasons for purchasing a home and whether it will fit your lifestyle in the coming years. “The main reason that [my wife and I] wanted to buy a home was for stability,” said Jordan Frey, MD, founder of The Prudent Plastic Surgeon. “After living in apartments for years, we wanted a place that was truly our own. We definitely felt disappointed and frustrated when worrying that our student debt may limit our ability to do this.”

Like many physicians, Dr. Frey had taken on a huge amount of debt, to the tune of half a million dollars in student loans and credit card debt when he finished training in 2020. The question Dr. Frey and his wife wrestled with was: “How much debt should we take on in addition to what we already have?”

What Are the Risks? What’s in the Fine Print?

The eased limitations of PMLs come with potential pitfalls, and physicians should not imagine that they have unlimited buying power.

“Many physicians buy more expensive or bigger houses than they need simply because banks are willing to lend physicians money,” Dr. Soelberg warns. “So, the doctor gets locked into a large mortgage and cannot build wealth, save for retirement, and repay their student loans.” 

As you shop around, beware of omissions and scams. When meeting with lenders, Dr. Frey recalled that some didn’t even present PMLs as an option, and others presented them with unfavorable terms. He was careful to look for disadvantages hidden in the fine print, such as a potential “big hike in the rate a year later.” 

But sometimes, a scam is not outright deception but is more like temptation. So it’s important to have your own best interests in mind without relying on lenders’ advice. 

“When we were shopping around, some mortgage lenders would [offer] $1.5 million, and we thought ‘that makes no sense,’ ” said Dr. Frey. “[Physicians] have big future income, which makes us attractive to these lenders. No one in their right mind would give a mortgage like this to anyone else. They aren’t worried about whether it’s a smart decision for you or not.” 

What Other Red Flags Should You Look Out for?

Dr. Frey recommends medical professionals beware of these red flags when shopping for PMLs:

• A request for any type of collateral, including your medical practice
• A rate that is much higher than others
• A lender is pushing you to borrow a higher amount than you’re comfortable with 
• A lender attempts to influence your decision about the size of your down payment

Remember, if you are choosing an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), your rate will recalibrate on the basis of the market’s rates — for better or worse. This means that your payment might be higher or lower, taking current interest rates into account, based on the market.

Looking back, Dr. Frey said he might reconsider his decision to use a 10-year ARM. He and his wife chose it because the rate was low at the time, and they planned to pay off the mortgage quickly or move before it went up. But the uncertainty added an element of pressure. 

How Can PMLs Contribute to Overall Financial Health?

Dr. Frey says his physician mortgage was “a huge advantage,” allowing him and his wife to put 0% down on their home without PMI. But most importantly, it fit within their overall financial plan, which included investing. “The money that we would have potentially used for a down payment, we used to buy a rental property, which then got us more income,” he says. 

Of course, buying a rental property is not the only path to financial health and freedom. Many people approach a home as an investment that will eventually become fully their own. Others might put that down payment toward building a safety net of savings accounts. 

Used strategically and intentionally, PMLs can put you on a more predictable financial path. And with less money stress, buying a home can be an exciting milestone as you plan your future and put down roots in a community.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now. The introduction of the PA Licensure Compact (PA Compact) marks a long-awaited and significant step forward for the PA community.

In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.

How the PA Compact Works

The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.

The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.

How the PA Compact Helps

The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.

PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.

One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.

A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.

Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont. 

If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now. The introduction of the PA Licensure Compact (PA Compact) marks a long-awaited and significant step forward for the PA community.

In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.

How the PA Compact Works

The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.

The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.

How the PA Compact Helps

The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.

PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.

One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.

A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.

Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont. 

If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now. The introduction of the PA Licensure Compact (PA Compact) marks a long-awaited and significant step forward for the PA community.

In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.

How the PA Compact Works

The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.

The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.

How the PA Compact Helps

The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.

PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.

One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.

A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.

Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont. 

If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

VENICE, ITALY — Obesity as defined by adiposity measures corresponds to a lower body mass index (BMI) cutoff (≥ 27) in men and women of middle age or older than does the widely used conventional obesity threshold of ≥ 30, shows a study performed in Italy.

Presenting at this year’s European Congress on Obesity (ECO), researchers from the University of Rome Tor Vergata and University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, and Beirut Arab University, Lebanon, conducted the study to compare the validity of the traditional World Health Organization (WHO) BMI threshold for obesity classification (≥ 30) vs adiposity levels as an alternative measure in middle-aged and older Italians. 

Marwan El Ghoch, PhD, a professor in the Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neuroscience, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, presented the findings as a poster (GC4.152). “If you classify obesity with only BMI and without consideration of body composition, then this will not be enough. I believe BMI can be considered as a screening starting point, but we need to understand the body composition of fat and muscle too,” he said.

“We recommend this new cutoff point be applied in clinical settings when screening individuals for obesity in Italy,” El Ghoch asserted.

BMI Limitations Misses Body Composition 

If obesity is a chronic disease defined as excessive accumulation of body fat and leading to increased risk for disease, disability, and mortality, then “the identification of obesity based on body fat measurements is the most reliable method,” but he acknowledged that measuring this is not readily available in most clinical settings, and as such, “simple BMI has a place,” Dr. El Ghoch said.

“Use of BMI has its limitations, for example, it does not distinguish between body composition compartments — so between muscle and fat mass, nor does it detect changes across the lifespan of an individual [for example, the shift to more fat and less muscle with age] and it varies by ethnicity,” he pointed out. 

This led El Ghoch to ask whether using BMI as a threshold for obesity was suitable for all age groups. 

The researchers included 4800 participants of mixed gender aged 40-80 years of age. Based on the WHO’s BMI classification, 1087 people had normal body weight, 1826 had overweight, and 1887 had obesity. The participants were then categorized by adiposity status on the basis of the total body fat percentage as measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and obesity was predicted by statistical analysis.

The analysis found that around 38% of men and 41% of women had a BMI ≥ 30 based on conventional BMI criteria, indicating obesity. However, when assessed according to body fat percentage, around 71% of the men and 64% of the women were determined to have obesity. 

Dr. El Ghoch and his colleagues calculated that a lower BMI cutoff of around 27 for obesity in people older than 40 years may be more appropriate than the existing BMI threshold of 30. 

The researchers noted some limitations of their work, including that it was a single-center, cross-sectional observational study conducted in one area of Italy. In addition, they did not account for possible confounders, such as dietary habits, and physical activity patterns, and sleep health, all of which can increase the likelihood of obesity and may interact with age-related differences. 

Missing a Significant Proportion of the Population at Risk for Obesity-Related Diseases

In an interview, Luca Busetto, MD, obesity specialist and research assistant at the Center for the Study and the Integrated Treatment of the Obesity, University of Padova, Italy, and local ECO president, commented on the study and the issue of BMI as a measure and threshold. “I think the problem we face with a classic cutoff using BMI is that we miss a significant group of people who have BMI less than 30 but have a high fat mass,” he said, adding, “but these people have the same risk of developing chronic diseases as those people with higher BMI. If they have a bad fat distribution, then their risk of complications is even higher. 

“Dr El Ghoch’s study underlines the lack of treatment for this significant part of the population,” he remarked. “We also need to use waist circumference and waist-to-height [ratio] as additional measures in this population.” 

Dr. Busetto also presented a population-based study at ECO that included over 400,000 people with a follow-up of 8 years. “We found the risk of developing obesity complications, including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis, and cardiovascular disease, is not only dependent on BMI but [also] dependent on your waist-to-height ratio,” he said, highlighting that “some of these complications are only predicted by the waist-to-height ratio and not by your BMI — in particular cardiovascular diseases.

“I honestly think any screening process today needs to include both BMI and waist-to-height ratio. Having a DXA scan is great in a specialist setting, but routinely we need a measure that is valid in every office in every country and small town.”

Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King›s College London, United Kingdom, also remarked that understanding the changes in fat and lean mass proportions and distribution in middle years will affect health in later life, and importantly from a clinical perspective, it is a time where there is still some opportunity to intervene. 

Reflecting further on how it underscores the limitations of BMI in misclassifying people as having obesity or not, Rubino asked, “Importantly, does this make a difference to health and longevity? Really, we need an active measure of adiposity first, and then even if we do say someone has obesity — so excess adiposity — then does this translate into illness, because [excess adiposity] does not translate into disease for every individual?

“Any measure we use as a diagnostic criterion needs to reflect the ongoing disease in an individual, not only the risk of future disease — because not every person experiences this. As a doctor, we deal with the individual and how the diagnosis of disease relates to the individual in a clinic now, as well as the risk of tomorrow,” he concluded. 

Dr. El Ghoch declares no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rubino disclosed that he has received research grants from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson. He has undertaken paid consultancy work for GI Dynamics and received honoraria for lectures from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Johnson & Johnson. He is a member of the data safety monitoring board for GT Metabolic Solutions and has provided scientific advice to Keyron, MetaDeq, GHP Scientific, and ViBo Health for no remuneration. Dr. Busetto discloses relationships with Burno Farmaceutici, Novo Nordisk, PronoKal, Rhythm, and Therascience. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VENICE, ITALY — Obesity as defined by adiposity measures corresponds to a lower body mass index (BMI) cutoff (≥ 27) in men and women of middle age or older than does the widely used conventional obesity threshold of ≥ 30, shows a study performed in Italy.

Presenting at this year’s European Congress on Obesity (ECO), researchers from the University of Rome Tor Vergata and University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, and Beirut Arab University, Lebanon, conducted the study to compare the validity of the traditional World Health Organization (WHO) BMI threshold for obesity classification (≥ 30) vs adiposity levels as an alternative measure in middle-aged and older Italians. 

Marwan El Ghoch, PhD, a professor in the Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neuroscience, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, presented the findings as a poster (GC4.152). “If you classify obesity with only BMI and without consideration of body composition, then this will not be enough. I believe BMI can be considered as a screening starting point, but we need to understand the body composition of fat and muscle too,” he said.

“We recommend this new cutoff point be applied in clinical settings when screening individuals for obesity in Italy,” El Ghoch asserted.

BMI Limitations Misses Body Composition 

If obesity is a chronic disease defined as excessive accumulation of body fat and leading to increased risk for disease, disability, and mortality, then “the identification of obesity based on body fat measurements is the most reliable method,” but he acknowledged that measuring this is not readily available in most clinical settings, and as such, “simple BMI has a place,” Dr. El Ghoch said.

“Use of BMI has its limitations, for example, it does not distinguish between body composition compartments — so between muscle and fat mass, nor does it detect changes across the lifespan of an individual [for example, the shift to more fat and less muscle with age] and it varies by ethnicity,” he pointed out. 

This led El Ghoch to ask whether using BMI as a threshold for obesity was suitable for all age groups. 

The researchers included 4800 participants of mixed gender aged 40-80 years of age. Based on the WHO’s BMI classification, 1087 people had normal body weight, 1826 had overweight, and 1887 had obesity. The participants were then categorized by adiposity status on the basis of the total body fat percentage as measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and obesity was predicted by statistical analysis.

The analysis found that around 38% of men and 41% of women had a BMI ≥ 30 based on conventional BMI criteria, indicating obesity. However, when assessed according to body fat percentage, around 71% of the men and 64% of the women were determined to have obesity. 

Dr. El Ghoch and his colleagues calculated that a lower BMI cutoff of around 27 for obesity in people older than 40 years may be more appropriate than the existing BMI threshold of 30. 

The researchers noted some limitations of their work, including that it was a single-center, cross-sectional observational study conducted in one area of Italy. In addition, they did not account for possible confounders, such as dietary habits, and physical activity patterns, and sleep health, all of which can increase the likelihood of obesity and may interact with age-related differences. 

Missing a Significant Proportion of the Population at Risk for Obesity-Related Diseases

In an interview, Luca Busetto, MD, obesity specialist and research assistant at the Center for the Study and the Integrated Treatment of the Obesity, University of Padova, Italy, and local ECO president, commented on the study and the issue of BMI as a measure and threshold. “I think the problem we face with a classic cutoff using BMI is that we miss a significant group of people who have BMI less than 30 but have a high fat mass,” he said, adding, “but these people have the same risk of developing chronic diseases as those people with higher BMI. If they have a bad fat distribution, then their risk of complications is even higher. 

“Dr El Ghoch’s study underlines the lack of treatment for this significant part of the population,” he remarked. “We also need to use waist circumference and waist-to-height [ratio] as additional measures in this population.” 

Dr. Busetto also presented a population-based study at ECO that included over 400,000 people with a follow-up of 8 years. “We found the risk of developing obesity complications, including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis, and cardiovascular disease, is not only dependent on BMI but [also] dependent on your waist-to-height ratio,” he said, highlighting that “some of these complications are only predicted by the waist-to-height ratio and not by your BMI — in particular cardiovascular diseases.

“I honestly think any screening process today needs to include both BMI and waist-to-height ratio. Having a DXA scan is great in a specialist setting, but routinely we need a measure that is valid in every office in every country and small town.”

Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King›s College London, United Kingdom, also remarked that understanding the changes in fat and lean mass proportions and distribution in middle years will affect health in later life, and importantly from a clinical perspective, it is a time where there is still some opportunity to intervene. 

Reflecting further on how it underscores the limitations of BMI in misclassifying people as having obesity or not, Rubino asked, “Importantly, does this make a difference to health and longevity? Really, we need an active measure of adiposity first, and then even if we do say someone has obesity — so excess adiposity — then does this translate into illness, because [excess adiposity] does not translate into disease for every individual?

“Any measure we use as a diagnostic criterion needs to reflect the ongoing disease in an individual, not only the risk of future disease — because not every person experiences this. As a doctor, we deal with the individual and how the diagnosis of disease relates to the individual in a clinic now, as well as the risk of tomorrow,” he concluded. 

Dr. El Ghoch declares no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rubino disclosed that he has received research grants from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson. He has undertaken paid consultancy work for GI Dynamics and received honoraria for lectures from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Johnson & Johnson. He is a member of the data safety monitoring board for GT Metabolic Solutions and has provided scientific advice to Keyron, MetaDeq, GHP Scientific, and ViBo Health for no remuneration. Dr. Busetto discloses relationships with Burno Farmaceutici, Novo Nordisk, PronoKal, Rhythm, and Therascience. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VENICE, ITALY — Obesity as defined by adiposity measures corresponds to a lower body mass index (BMI) cutoff (≥ 27) in men and women of middle age or older than does the widely used conventional obesity threshold of ≥ 30, shows a study performed in Italy.

Presenting at this year’s European Congress on Obesity (ECO), researchers from the University of Rome Tor Vergata and University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, and Beirut Arab University, Lebanon, conducted the study to compare the validity of the traditional World Health Organization (WHO) BMI threshold for obesity classification (≥ 30) vs adiposity levels as an alternative measure in middle-aged and older Italians. 

Marwan El Ghoch, PhD, a professor in the Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neuroscience, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, presented the findings as a poster (GC4.152). “If you classify obesity with only BMI and without consideration of body composition, then this will not be enough. I believe BMI can be considered as a screening starting point, but we need to understand the body composition of fat and muscle too,” he said.

“We recommend this new cutoff point be applied in clinical settings when screening individuals for obesity in Italy,” El Ghoch asserted.

BMI Limitations Misses Body Composition 

If obesity is a chronic disease defined as excessive accumulation of body fat and leading to increased risk for disease, disability, and mortality, then “the identification of obesity based on body fat measurements is the most reliable method,” but he acknowledged that measuring this is not readily available in most clinical settings, and as such, “simple BMI has a place,” Dr. El Ghoch said.

“Use of BMI has its limitations, for example, it does not distinguish between body composition compartments — so between muscle and fat mass, nor does it detect changes across the lifespan of an individual [for example, the shift to more fat and less muscle with age] and it varies by ethnicity,” he pointed out. 

This led El Ghoch to ask whether using BMI as a threshold for obesity was suitable for all age groups. 

The researchers included 4800 participants of mixed gender aged 40-80 years of age. Based on the WHO’s BMI classification, 1087 people had normal body weight, 1826 had overweight, and 1887 had obesity. The participants were then categorized by adiposity status on the basis of the total body fat percentage as measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and obesity was predicted by statistical analysis.

The analysis found that around 38% of men and 41% of women had a BMI ≥ 30 based on conventional BMI criteria, indicating obesity. However, when assessed according to body fat percentage, around 71% of the men and 64% of the women were determined to have obesity. 

Dr. El Ghoch and his colleagues calculated that a lower BMI cutoff of around 27 for obesity in people older than 40 years may be more appropriate than the existing BMI threshold of 30. 

The researchers noted some limitations of their work, including that it was a single-center, cross-sectional observational study conducted in one area of Italy. In addition, they did not account for possible confounders, such as dietary habits, and physical activity patterns, and sleep health, all of which can increase the likelihood of obesity and may interact with age-related differences. 

Missing a Significant Proportion of the Population at Risk for Obesity-Related Diseases

In an interview, Luca Busetto, MD, obesity specialist and research assistant at the Center for the Study and the Integrated Treatment of the Obesity, University of Padova, Italy, and local ECO president, commented on the study and the issue of BMI as a measure and threshold. “I think the problem we face with a classic cutoff using BMI is that we miss a significant group of people who have BMI less than 30 but have a high fat mass,” he said, adding, “but these people have the same risk of developing chronic diseases as those people with higher BMI. If they have a bad fat distribution, then their risk of complications is even higher. 

“Dr El Ghoch’s study underlines the lack of treatment for this significant part of the population,” he remarked. “We also need to use waist circumference and waist-to-height [ratio] as additional measures in this population.” 

Dr. Busetto also presented a population-based study at ECO that included over 400,000 people with a follow-up of 8 years. “We found the risk of developing obesity complications, including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis, and cardiovascular disease, is not only dependent on BMI but [also] dependent on your waist-to-height ratio,” he said, highlighting that “some of these complications are only predicted by the waist-to-height ratio and not by your BMI — in particular cardiovascular diseases.

“I honestly think any screening process today needs to include both BMI and waist-to-height ratio. Having a DXA scan is great in a specialist setting, but routinely we need a measure that is valid in every office in every country and small town.”

Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King›s College London, United Kingdom, also remarked that understanding the changes in fat and lean mass proportions and distribution in middle years will affect health in later life, and importantly from a clinical perspective, it is a time where there is still some opportunity to intervene. 

Reflecting further on how it underscores the limitations of BMI in misclassifying people as having obesity or not, Rubino asked, “Importantly, does this make a difference to health and longevity? Really, we need an active measure of adiposity first, and then even if we do say someone has obesity — so excess adiposity — then does this translate into illness, because [excess adiposity] does not translate into disease for every individual?

“Any measure we use as a diagnostic criterion needs to reflect the ongoing disease in an individual, not only the risk of future disease — because not every person experiences this. As a doctor, we deal with the individual and how the diagnosis of disease relates to the individual in a clinic now, as well as the risk of tomorrow,” he concluded. 

Dr. El Ghoch declares no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rubino disclosed that he has received research grants from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson. He has undertaken paid consultancy work for GI Dynamics and received honoraria for lectures from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Johnson & Johnson. He is a member of the data safety monitoring board for GT Metabolic Solutions and has provided scientific advice to Keyron, MetaDeq, GHP Scientific, and ViBo Health for no remuneration. Dr. Busetto discloses relationships with Burno Farmaceutici, Novo Nordisk, PronoKal, Rhythm, and Therascience. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.