Family Practice News

The number of drug overdose deaths involving illegally manufactured fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (IMFs) dropped in the United States during the latter portion of 2023. But a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that an increase in overdoses involving the potent fentanyl analog carfentanil threatens to undo that progress.

Overdose deaths from carfentanil rose by more than 700% in the past year, increasing from 29 between January and June 2023 to 238 in that same period in 2024. 

Carfentanil is used as a tranquilizing agent for elephants and other large mammals and is 100 times more potent than fentanyl. Just 2 mg can be lethal to humans, and a carfentanil-related overdose can require more than three shots of naloxone to reverse.

Prior to this resurgence of carfentanil, the drug “had largely disappeared after carfentanil-involved overdose death outbreaks in 2016-2017,” study authors noted, when carfentanil overdose deaths topped 1200, other data showed.

“Educational and response efforts that can rapidly adapt to the potential for increased distribution of drugs more potent than fentanyl, such as carfentanil, are needed and might avert or mitigate new increases in overdose deaths,” the authors wrote.

The findings were published online in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

 

Carfentanil May Stall Overdose Decline

IMFs such as carfentanil were first detected in the United States illegal drug supply in 2013. A little more than a decade later, IMFs have replaced heroin as the most common opioid in the United States.

The introduction of IMFs led to a sharp rise in overdose deaths, but provisional data suggest these fatalities are on the decline. A recent re-emergence of carfentanil could stall that downward trend.

To investigate further, researchers used data from the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System to analyze detection of IMFs and carfentanil between January 2021 and June 2024. 

The database houses information on drug overdoses obtained from death certificates, coroner and medical examiner reports, and postmortem toxicology reports from 49 states and the District of Columbia.

From January 2021 to December 2023, more than 251,000 people died from drug overdoses with unintentional and undetermined intent, 75% of which involved IMFs. 

IMF-linked deaths peaked at 16,814 in the second quarter of 2023, then declined by nearly 16% to 14,299 deaths by the end of that year.

Investigators could only speculate on the reasons for the decline in overdoses. It is possible that drug users are mixing fentanyl with other drugs, such as xylazine, which may reduce the danger of fatal overdose. It’s also possible that overdose prevention programs are partially responsible for the decline.

“Continued and expanded implementation of these programs, including naloxone distribution and increasing access to treatments for substance use disorders, might result in sustained and continued declines in drug overdose deaths,” they wrote.

 

Regional Differences

When researchers analyzed the results by region, they found that IMFs were detected in 81.5% of overdose deaths in the Northeast, 75% in the Midwest, and 75% in the Southern regions during the study period. These percentages were relatively stable until summer 2023, when declines in IMF-linked overdoses were noteworthy.

Specifically, deaths caused by IMFs decreased 11% in the Northeast (8245 to 7323), 16% in the Midwest (7160 to 6008), and 10.5% in the South (13,492 to 12,077).

In the West, however, overdoses linked to IMFs increased by 66.5% between 2021 and the second quarter of 2024. 

The researchers speculated that the surge in the western United States could be caused by fentanyl entering the drug markets in that region later than in other areas, “likely because of challenges of mixing fentanyl into the black tar heroin that was more common in the West,” they wrote.

The findings suggested that, despite overall declines in overdose deaths reported nationwide, “recent sharp increases in overdose deaths with carfentanil detected, although rare, highlight the ever-changing illegal drug supply and threaten progress in reducing overdose deaths.” 

The report authors encouraged expanding education programs for the public about the dangers of carfentanil and other IMFs, as well as harm reduction strategies, including using fentanyl test strips or drug-checking services.

No study funding information was available. There were no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of drug overdose deaths involving illegally manufactured fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (IMFs) dropped in the United States during the latter portion of 2023. But a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that an increase in overdoses involving the potent fentanyl analog carfentanil threatens to undo that progress.

Overdose deaths from carfentanil rose by more than 700% in the past year, increasing from 29 between January and June 2023 to 238 in that same period in 2024. 

Carfentanil is used as a tranquilizing agent for elephants and other large mammals and is 100 times more potent than fentanyl. Just 2 mg can be lethal to humans, and a carfentanil-related overdose can require more than three shots of naloxone to reverse.

Prior to this resurgence of carfentanil, the drug “had largely disappeared after carfentanil-involved overdose death outbreaks in 2016-2017,” study authors noted, when carfentanil overdose deaths topped 1200, other data showed.

“Educational and response efforts that can rapidly adapt to the potential for increased distribution of drugs more potent than fentanyl, such as carfentanil, are needed and might avert or mitigate new increases in overdose deaths,” the authors wrote.

The findings were published online in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

 

Carfentanil May Stall Overdose Decline

IMFs such as carfentanil were first detected in the United States illegal drug supply in 2013. A little more than a decade later, IMFs have replaced heroin as the most common opioid in the United States.

The introduction of IMFs led to a sharp rise in overdose deaths, but provisional data suggest these fatalities are on the decline. A recent re-emergence of carfentanil could stall that downward trend.

To investigate further, researchers used data from the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System to analyze detection of IMFs and carfentanil between January 2021 and June 2024. 

The database houses information on drug overdoses obtained from death certificates, coroner and medical examiner reports, and postmortem toxicology reports from 49 states and the District of Columbia.

From January 2021 to December 2023, more than 251,000 people died from drug overdoses with unintentional and undetermined intent, 75% of which involved IMFs. 

IMF-linked deaths peaked at 16,814 in the second quarter of 2023, then declined by nearly 16% to 14,299 deaths by the end of that year.

Investigators could only speculate on the reasons for the decline in overdoses. It is possible that drug users are mixing fentanyl with other drugs, such as xylazine, which may reduce the danger of fatal overdose. It’s also possible that overdose prevention programs are partially responsible for the decline.

“Continued and expanded implementation of these programs, including naloxone distribution and increasing access to treatments for substance use disorders, might result in sustained and continued declines in drug overdose deaths,” they wrote.

 

Regional Differences

When researchers analyzed the results by region, they found that IMFs were detected in 81.5% of overdose deaths in the Northeast, 75% in the Midwest, and 75% in the Southern regions during the study period. These percentages were relatively stable until summer 2023, when declines in IMF-linked overdoses were noteworthy.

Specifically, deaths caused by IMFs decreased 11% in the Northeast (8245 to 7323), 16% in the Midwest (7160 to 6008), and 10.5% in the South (13,492 to 12,077).

In the West, however, overdoses linked to IMFs increased by 66.5% between 2021 and the second quarter of 2024. 

The researchers speculated that the surge in the western United States could be caused by fentanyl entering the drug markets in that region later than in other areas, “likely because of challenges of mixing fentanyl into the black tar heroin that was more common in the West,” they wrote.

The findings suggested that, despite overall declines in overdose deaths reported nationwide, “recent sharp increases in overdose deaths with carfentanil detected, although rare, highlight the ever-changing illegal drug supply and threaten progress in reducing overdose deaths.” 

The report authors encouraged expanding education programs for the public about the dangers of carfentanil and other IMFs, as well as harm reduction strategies, including using fentanyl test strips or drug-checking services.

No study funding information was available. There were no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of drug overdose deaths involving illegally manufactured fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (IMFs) dropped in the United States during the latter portion of 2023. But a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that an increase in overdoses involving the potent fentanyl analog carfentanil threatens to undo that progress.

Overdose deaths from carfentanil rose by more than 700% in the past year, increasing from 29 between January and June 2023 to 238 in that same period in 2024. 

Carfentanil is used as a tranquilizing agent for elephants and other large mammals and is 100 times more potent than fentanyl. Just 2 mg can be lethal to humans, and a carfentanil-related overdose can require more than three shots of naloxone to reverse.

Prior to this resurgence of carfentanil, the drug “had largely disappeared after carfentanil-involved overdose death outbreaks in 2016-2017,” study authors noted, when carfentanil overdose deaths topped 1200, other data showed.

“Educational and response efforts that can rapidly adapt to the potential for increased distribution of drugs more potent than fentanyl, such as carfentanil, are needed and might avert or mitigate new increases in overdose deaths,” the authors wrote.

The findings were published online in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

 

Carfentanil May Stall Overdose Decline

IMFs such as carfentanil were first detected in the United States illegal drug supply in 2013. A little more than a decade later, IMFs have replaced heroin as the most common opioid in the United States.

The introduction of IMFs led to a sharp rise in overdose deaths, but provisional data suggest these fatalities are on the decline. A recent re-emergence of carfentanil could stall that downward trend.

To investigate further, researchers used data from the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System to analyze detection of IMFs and carfentanil between January 2021 and June 2024. 

The database houses information on drug overdoses obtained from death certificates, coroner and medical examiner reports, and postmortem toxicology reports from 49 states and the District of Columbia.

From January 2021 to December 2023, more than 251,000 people died from drug overdoses with unintentional and undetermined intent, 75% of which involved IMFs. 

IMF-linked deaths peaked at 16,814 in the second quarter of 2023, then declined by nearly 16% to 14,299 deaths by the end of that year.

Investigators could only speculate on the reasons for the decline in overdoses. It is possible that drug users are mixing fentanyl with other drugs, such as xylazine, which may reduce the danger of fatal overdose. It’s also possible that overdose prevention programs are partially responsible for the decline.

“Continued and expanded implementation of these programs, including naloxone distribution and increasing access to treatments for substance use disorders, might result in sustained and continued declines in drug overdose deaths,” they wrote.

 

Regional Differences

When researchers analyzed the results by region, they found that IMFs were detected in 81.5% of overdose deaths in the Northeast, 75% in the Midwest, and 75% in the Southern regions during the study period. These percentages were relatively stable until summer 2023, when declines in IMF-linked overdoses were noteworthy.

Specifically, deaths caused by IMFs decreased 11% in the Northeast (8245 to 7323), 16% in the Midwest (7160 to 6008), and 10.5% in the South (13,492 to 12,077).

In the West, however, overdoses linked to IMFs increased by 66.5% between 2021 and the second quarter of 2024. 

The researchers speculated that the surge in the western United States could be caused by fentanyl entering the drug markets in that region later than in other areas, “likely because of challenges of mixing fentanyl into the black tar heroin that was more common in the West,” they wrote.

The findings suggested that, despite overall declines in overdose deaths reported nationwide, “recent sharp increases in overdose deaths with carfentanil detected, although rare, highlight the ever-changing illegal drug supply and threaten progress in reducing overdose deaths.” 

The report authors encouraged expanding education programs for the public about the dangers of carfentanil and other IMFs, as well as harm reduction strategies, including using fentanyl test strips or drug-checking services.

No study funding information was available. There were no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I would like to briefly talk about a very interesting paper and one that probably has about as much to inform the doctor-patient relationship as any paper you can think of. 

The title itself gives you a little bit of that answer before I even discuss the outcome. The paper is “The Benefits of Quitting Smoking at Different Ages,” recently published in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

I’m not going to even begin to attempt to explore the statistics of the analysis, but I think the conclusions are both fascinating and important. I will read the first sentence of the results and then just comment on some of the others because there’s just so much data here and I really want to focus on the punchline. 

The results section said that, compared with people who never smoked, those who smoke currently, aged 35, 45, 55, 65, or 75, (those were all the groups they looked at), and who have smoked throughout adulthood until that age will lose an average of 9.1, 8.3, 7.3, 5.9, and 4.4 years of life, respectively — obviously, it’s a lot — if they continue to smoke for the rest of their lives. 

If somebody is smoking at age 35 and they continue to smoke, they could lose 9 years of life on average. We know that. It’s terrible. That’s why people should never smoke. Period. End of story. There’s no social value. There’s no health value of smoking. It’s a deadly recreational activity for multiple illnesses, and obviously, cancer is prominent among them.

Here’s the conclusion of the paper that I think is interesting. That doctor, whether it’s a primary care doctor, an oncologist, an ob/gyn, or a family doctor, is seeing Mr Smith or Mrs Jones in the office today, whether they know that patient well or not very well, and they’re still smoking. However, if the person we’re describing here quits smoking at these ages, how much life do they add back, compared with if they continued?

They may say: “Oh, I’ve been smoking all my life. What difference does it make? The die is cast.” Wrong! If you’ve been smoking your whole adult life — so let’s just say that you started at age 18, age 20, age 15, or even age 12 — but you quit smoking at the age of 35, you’re going to add 8 years of life on average. If you quit smoking when you’re 65, having smoked your whole adult life, you will add 1.7 years of life. That’s 1.7 years to be with your family, to be with your grandchildren, and enjoy life. If you ask, “Oh, what difference does it make?” It makes a big difference. 

I’ll share another statistic and I’ll be done. I think this is really an interesting one. The chances of gaining at least a year of life among those who quit smoking at the age of 65 was 23.4%. There is a 1 out of 4 chance that you’re going to live an additional year if you stop at age 65. Even if you stop smoking at age 75, you have a 14% chance of living at least an additional year longer than you would have if you didn’t stop smoking. 

There is much to think about here, much to consider, and much to discuss potentially with patients.

Dr. Markman is Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix. He reported conflicts of interest with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I would like to briefly talk about a very interesting paper and one that probably has about as much to inform the doctor-patient relationship as any paper you can think of. 

The title itself gives you a little bit of that answer before I even discuss the outcome. The paper is “The Benefits of Quitting Smoking at Different Ages,” recently published in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

I’m not going to even begin to attempt to explore the statistics of the analysis, but I think the conclusions are both fascinating and important. I will read the first sentence of the results and then just comment on some of the others because there’s just so much data here and I really want to focus on the punchline. 

The results section said that, compared with people who never smoked, those who smoke currently, aged 35, 45, 55, 65, or 75, (those were all the groups they looked at), and who have smoked throughout adulthood until that age will lose an average of 9.1, 8.3, 7.3, 5.9, and 4.4 years of life, respectively — obviously, it’s a lot — if they continue to smoke for the rest of their lives. 

If somebody is smoking at age 35 and they continue to smoke, they could lose 9 years of life on average. We know that. It’s terrible. That’s why people should never smoke. Period. End of story. There’s no social value. There’s no health value of smoking. It’s a deadly recreational activity for multiple illnesses, and obviously, cancer is prominent among them.

Here’s the conclusion of the paper that I think is interesting. That doctor, whether it’s a primary care doctor, an oncologist, an ob/gyn, or a family doctor, is seeing Mr Smith or Mrs Jones in the office today, whether they know that patient well or not very well, and they’re still smoking. However, if the person we’re describing here quits smoking at these ages, how much life do they add back, compared with if they continued?

They may say: “Oh, I’ve been smoking all my life. What difference does it make? The die is cast.” Wrong! If you’ve been smoking your whole adult life — so let’s just say that you started at age 18, age 20, age 15, or even age 12 — but you quit smoking at the age of 35, you’re going to add 8 years of life on average. If you quit smoking when you’re 65, having smoked your whole adult life, you will add 1.7 years of life. That’s 1.7 years to be with your family, to be with your grandchildren, and enjoy life. If you ask, “Oh, what difference does it make?” It makes a big difference. 

I’ll share another statistic and I’ll be done. I think this is really an interesting one. The chances of gaining at least a year of life among those who quit smoking at the age of 65 was 23.4%. There is a 1 out of 4 chance that you’re going to live an additional year if you stop at age 65. Even if you stop smoking at age 75, you have a 14% chance of living at least an additional year longer than you would have if you didn’t stop smoking. 

There is much to think about here, much to consider, and much to discuss potentially with patients.

Dr. Markman is Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix. He reported conflicts of interest with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I would like to briefly talk about a very interesting paper and one that probably has about as much to inform the doctor-patient relationship as any paper you can think of. 

The title itself gives you a little bit of that answer before I even discuss the outcome. The paper is “The Benefits of Quitting Smoking at Different Ages,” recently published in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

I’m not going to even begin to attempt to explore the statistics of the analysis, but I think the conclusions are both fascinating and important. I will read the first sentence of the results and then just comment on some of the others because there’s just so much data here and I really want to focus on the punchline. 

The results section said that, compared with people who never smoked, those who smoke currently, aged 35, 45, 55, 65, or 75, (those were all the groups they looked at), and who have smoked throughout adulthood until that age will lose an average of 9.1, 8.3, 7.3, 5.9, and 4.4 years of life, respectively — obviously, it’s a lot — if they continue to smoke for the rest of their lives. 

If somebody is smoking at age 35 and they continue to smoke, they could lose 9 years of life on average. We know that. It’s terrible. That’s why people should never smoke. Period. End of story. There’s no social value. There’s no health value of smoking. It’s a deadly recreational activity for multiple illnesses, and obviously, cancer is prominent among them.

Here’s the conclusion of the paper that I think is interesting. That doctor, whether it’s a primary care doctor, an oncologist, an ob/gyn, or a family doctor, is seeing Mr Smith or Mrs Jones in the office today, whether they know that patient well or not very well, and they’re still smoking. However, if the person we’re describing here quits smoking at these ages, how much life do they add back, compared with if they continued?

They may say: “Oh, I’ve been smoking all my life. What difference does it make? The die is cast.” Wrong! If you’ve been smoking your whole adult life — so let’s just say that you started at age 18, age 20, age 15, or even age 12 — but you quit smoking at the age of 35, you’re going to add 8 years of life on average. If you quit smoking when you’re 65, having smoked your whole adult life, you will add 1.7 years of life. That’s 1.7 years to be with your family, to be with your grandchildren, and enjoy life. If you ask, “Oh, what difference does it make?” It makes a big difference. 

I’ll share another statistic and I’ll be done. I think this is really an interesting one. The chances of gaining at least a year of life among those who quit smoking at the age of 65 was 23.4%. There is a 1 out of 4 chance that you’re going to live an additional year if you stop at age 65. Even if you stop smoking at age 75, you have a 14% chance of living at least an additional year longer than you would have if you didn’t stop smoking. 

There is much to think about here, much to consider, and much to discuss potentially with patients.

Dr. Markman is Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix. He reported conflicts of interest with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

TOPLINE:

A new telephone-based program implemented in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) demonstrates effectiveness in reducing unhealthy alcohol use among diverse adult patients screened using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers implemented a screening and team-based telephonic program within a large FQHC system in Texas in which adult patients were routinely screened using AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C) questions.
• The team-based, telecare-centered program was designed to follow-up positive screening results with full AUDIT assessments and to provide a two-session brief intervention for all patients. Patients with AUDIT scores ≥ 12 received the brief intervention along with a referral for additional support or an assessment for pharmacotherapy prescription.
• The researchers screened 3959 patients between March 2021 and May 2023, of whom 412 patients with positive results were successfully contacted and had their AUDIT completed (mean age, 46 years; 32% women; 86% Hispanic/Latino; 65% preferred Spanish).
• Of these, 29 patients had full AUDIT scores ranging from 0 to 3, 252 had scores between 4 and 12, and 131 had scores > 12.
• Follow-up AUDIT assessments conducted at 3-6 months were completed for 251 patients (26% women; 90% Hispanic/Latino), and those with AUDIT scores ≥ 12 were offered additional treatment options, including telecare services, in-person appointments with the addiction medicine clinic, and/or pharmacotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the patients with an initial AUDIT score > 12, 19 received pharmacotherapy and 13 had at least one appointment with the addiction medicine service.
• For patients who completed the initial and final follow-ups, the mean change in AUDIT score was −4.1 (95% CI, −3.4 to −4.7).
• Spanish-speaking patients demonstrated a greater reduction in AUDIT scores than English-speaking patients.
• The mean reduction in the AUDIT score at the 3- to 6-month follow-up was larger in those with initial AUDIT scores > 12 than in those with initial AUDIT scores ≤ 12 (7.99 vs 2.25).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our intervention was delivered outside of traditional office visits and did not disrupt clinic flow or add burden to the practice’s providers, who already face significant challenges in serving this high-needs population,” the authors wrote. “We believe this program offers a template for delivering evidence-based, equitable preventive care for unhealthy alcohol use in a diverse patient population.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Michael Pignone, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. It was published online in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of systematic tracking for the unsuccessful attempts at establishing contact limited the understanding of the variations in screening positivity and the subsequent engagement in the program. Program staffing and constraints in the budget limited the ability to reach all potentially interested participants. The absence of a control group made it difficult to attribute the observed reductions in the AUDIT scores solely to the intervention. The data on follow-up were collected from only 61% participants, raising the possibility that those who were not reached may have had different outcomes than those who were successfully contacted.

DISCLOSURES:

The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas provided funding for this program. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new telephone-based program implemented in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) demonstrates effectiveness in reducing unhealthy alcohol use among diverse adult patients screened using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers implemented a screening and team-based telephonic program within a large FQHC system in Texas in which adult patients were routinely screened using AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C) questions.
• The team-based, telecare-centered program was designed to follow-up positive screening results with full AUDIT assessments and to provide a two-session brief intervention for all patients. Patients with AUDIT scores ≥ 12 received the brief intervention along with a referral for additional support or an assessment for pharmacotherapy prescription.
• The researchers screened 3959 patients between March 2021 and May 2023, of whom 412 patients with positive results were successfully contacted and had their AUDIT completed (mean age, 46 years; 32% women; 86% Hispanic/Latino; 65% preferred Spanish).
• Of these, 29 patients had full AUDIT scores ranging from 0 to 3, 252 had scores between 4 and 12, and 131 had scores > 12.
• Follow-up AUDIT assessments conducted at 3-6 months were completed for 251 patients (26% women; 90% Hispanic/Latino), and those with AUDIT scores ≥ 12 were offered additional treatment options, including telecare services, in-person appointments with the addiction medicine clinic, and/or pharmacotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the patients with an initial AUDIT score > 12, 19 received pharmacotherapy and 13 had at least one appointment with the addiction medicine service.
• For patients who completed the initial and final follow-ups, the mean change in AUDIT score was −4.1 (95% CI, −3.4 to −4.7).
• Spanish-speaking patients demonstrated a greater reduction in AUDIT scores than English-speaking patients.
• The mean reduction in the AUDIT score at the 3- to 6-month follow-up was larger in those with initial AUDIT scores > 12 than in those with initial AUDIT scores ≤ 12 (7.99 vs 2.25).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our intervention was delivered outside of traditional office visits and did not disrupt clinic flow or add burden to the practice’s providers, who already face significant challenges in serving this high-needs population,” the authors wrote. “We believe this program offers a template for delivering evidence-based, equitable preventive care for unhealthy alcohol use in a diverse patient population.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Michael Pignone, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. It was published online in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of systematic tracking for the unsuccessful attempts at establishing contact limited the understanding of the variations in screening positivity and the subsequent engagement in the program. Program staffing and constraints in the budget limited the ability to reach all potentially interested participants. The absence of a control group made it difficult to attribute the observed reductions in the AUDIT scores solely to the intervention. The data on follow-up were collected from only 61% participants, raising the possibility that those who were not reached may have had different outcomes than those who were successfully contacted.

DISCLOSURES:

The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas provided funding for this program. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new telephone-based program implemented in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) demonstrates effectiveness in reducing unhealthy alcohol use among diverse adult patients screened using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers implemented a screening and team-based telephonic program within a large FQHC system in Texas in which adult patients were routinely screened using AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C) questions.
• The team-based, telecare-centered program was designed to follow-up positive screening results with full AUDIT assessments and to provide a two-session brief intervention for all patients. Patients with AUDIT scores ≥ 12 received the brief intervention along with a referral for additional support or an assessment for pharmacotherapy prescription.
• The researchers screened 3959 patients between March 2021 and May 2023, of whom 412 patients with positive results were successfully contacted and had their AUDIT completed (mean age, 46 years; 32% women; 86% Hispanic/Latino; 65% preferred Spanish).
• Of these, 29 patients had full AUDIT scores ranging from 0 to 3, 252 had scores between 4 and 12, and 131 had scores > 12.
• Follow-up AUDIT assessments conducted at 3-6 months were completed for 251 patients (26% women; 90% Hispanic/Latino), and those with AUDIT scores ≥ 12 were offered additional treatment options, including telecare services, in-person appointments with the addiction medicine clinic, and/or pharmacotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the patients with an initial AUDIT score > 12, 19 received pharmacotherapy and 13 had at least one appointment with the addiction medicine service.
• For patients who completed the initial and final follow-ups, the mean change in AUDIT score was −4.1 (95% CI, −3.4 to −4.7).
• Spanish-speaking patients demonstrated a greater reduction in AUDIT scores than English-speaking patients.
• The mean reduction in the AUDIT score at the 3- to 6-month follow-up was larger in those with initial AUDIT scores > 12 than in those with initial AUDIT scores ≤ 12 (7.99 vs 2.25).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our intervention was delivered outside of traditional office visits and did not disrupt clinic flow or add burden to the practice’s providers, who already face significant challenges in serving this high-needs population,” the authors wrote. “We believe this program offers a template for delivering evidence-based, equitable preventive care for unhealthy alcohol use in a diverse patient population.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Michael Pignone, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. It was published online in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of systematic tracking for the unsuccessful attempts at establishing contact limited the understanding of the variations in screening positivity and the subsequent engagement in the program. Program staffing and constraints in the budget limited the ability to reach all potentially interested participants. The absence of a control group made it difficult to attribute the observed reductions in the AUDIT scores solely to the intervention. The data on follow-up were collected from only 61% participants, raising the possibility that those who were not reached may have had different outcomes than those who were successfully contacted.

DISCLOSURES:

The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas provided funding for this program. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ustekinumab-stba (Steqeyma) as a biosimilar to the interleukin-12 and -23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of adults with active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and for both children aged ≥ 6 years and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or active psoriatic arthritis.

This is the seventh ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The biosimilar, developed by Celltrion, has a license entry date in February 2025 as part of the settlement and license agreement with the manufacturer of the reference biologic, Johnson & Johnson.

Ustekinumab-stba will be available in two formulations: A subcutaneous injection in two strengths — a 45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/1 mL solution in a single-dose, prefilled syringe — and an intravenous infusion of a 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) solution in a single-dose vial.

“The approval of Steqeyma reflects Celltrion’s continued investment in providing treatment options to patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis,” said Thomas Nusbickel, Chief Commercial Officer at Celltrion USA, Jersey City, New Jersey, in a press release.

The FDA has previously approved the company’s adalimumab biosimilar Yuflyma and its infliximab biosimilar Zymfentra.

The full prescribing information for ustekinumab-stba is available here.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ustekinumab-stba (Steqeyma) as a biosimilar to the interleukin-12 and -23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of adults with active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and for both children aged ≥ 6 years and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or active psoriatic arthritis.

This is the seventh ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The biosimilar, developed by Celltrion, has a license entry date in February 2025 as part of the settlement and license agreement with the manufacturer of the reference biologic, Johnson & Johnson.

Ustekinumab-stba will be available in two formulations: A subcutaneous injection in two strengths — a 45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/1 mL solution in a single-dose, prefilled syringe — and an intravenous infusion of a 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) solution in a single-dose vial.

“The approval of Steqeyma reflects Celltrion’s continued investment in providing treatment options to patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis,” said Thomas Nusbickel, Chief Commercial Officer at Celltrion USA, Jersey City, New Jersey, in a press release.

The FDA has previously approved the company’s adalimumab biosimilar Yuflyma and its infliximab biosimilar Zymfentra.

The full prescribing information for ustekinumab-stba is available here.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ustekinumab-stba (Steqeyma) as a biosimilar to the interleukin-12 and -23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of adults with active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and for both children aged ≥ 6 years and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or active psoriatic arthritis.

This is the seventh ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The biosimilar, developed by Celltrion, has a license entry date in February 2025 as part of the settlement and license agreement with the manufacturer of the reference biologic, Johnson & Johnson.

Ustekinumab-stba will be available in two formulations: A subcutaneous injection in two strengths — a 45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/1 mL solution in a single-dose, prefilled syringe — and an intravenous infusion of a 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) solution in a single-dose vial.

“The approval of Steqeyma reflects Celltrion’s continued investment in providing treatment options to patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis,” said Thomas Nusbickel, Chief Commercial Officer at Celltrion USA, Jersey City, New Jersey, in a press release.

The FDA has previously approved the company’s adalimumab biosimilar Yuflyma and its infliximab biosimilar Zymfentra.

The full prescribing information for ustekinumab-stba is available here.

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

OVIEDO, SPAIN – In April 2023, the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Center (NPC) became aware of a case involving an infant who developed progressive hair growth on their back, legs, and thighs (hypertrichosis) over the course of 2 months. During an interview with the family, it was revealed that the infant’s father had been using 5% topical minoxidil to treat androgenic alopecia, and he had taken a leave of absence from work to care for his child. After the medication was discontinued, the infant’s symptoms fully regressed. Specialists from the NPC presented the case at the 13th Spanish Pharmacovigilance Congress in November 2024.

A review of similar cases reported in the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System database identified six additional cases with the same characteristics, all involving infants whose caregivers were using minoxidil. Four more cases were found through the European pharmacovigilance database EudraVigilance and a review of scientific literature, bringing the total to 11 cases.

According to the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Bulletin, these cases are concerning as they highlight the exposure of vulnerable infants to a medication not indicated for their age group. Additionally, the condition can cause significant stress for the families of the affected children.

 

Mechanism of Transmission Unclear

The exact mechanism by which caregivers transfer minoxidil to infants is not fully understood. In the newly identified cases, specialists suspect the drug was transmitted through direct or indirect contact. Accidental ingestion is also a possibility if the infant’s hands touched treated areas on the caregiver’s skin and were then brought to the mouth.

The NPC explained that infants’ skin is more permeable because of the thinner stratum corneum and a higher surface area/body weight ratio, making them more susceptible to absorbing topically applied medications.

 

Regulatory Changes and Precautions

In light of these findings, the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee concluded that, starting in October 2024, product information for medications containing minoxidil should be updated. Specifically, new information must be added to the package insert warning about the risk for hypertrichosis in infants following accidental exposure to minoxidil.

The NPC emphasizes the importance of caregivers being aware of the risks associated with topical medications like minoxidil. Recommended precautions include thoroughly washing hands after applying the product and covering treated areas to prevent direct contact with infants’ skin.

Healthcare professionals should also be aware of this risk and consider it when diagnosing hypertrichosis in infants. Recognizing the connection can prevent unnecessary testing for the infant and alleviate stress for the family.

This story was translated from Univadis Spain using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

OVIEDO, SPAIN – In April 2023, the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Center (NPC) became aware of a case involving an infant who developed progressive hair growth on their back, legs, and thighs (hypertrichosis) over the course of 2 months. During an interview with the family, it was revealed that the infant’s father had been using 5% topical minoxidil to treat androgenic alopecia, and he had taken a leave of absence from work to care for his child. After the medication was discontinued, the infant’s symptoms fully regressed. Specialists from the NPC presented the case at the 13th Spanish Pharmacovigilance Congress in November 2024.

A review of similar cases reported in the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System database identified six additional cases with the same characteristics, all involving infants whose caregivers were using minoxidil. Four more cases were found through the European pharmacovigilance database EudraVigilance and a review of scientific literature, bringing the total to 11 cases.

According to the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Bulletin, these cases are concerning as they highlight the exposure of vulnerable infants to a medication not indicated for their age group. Additionally, the condition can cause significant stress for the families of the affected children.

 

Mechanism of Transmission Unclear

The exact mechanism by which caregivers transfer minoxidil to infants is not fully understood. In the newly identified cases, specialists suspect the drug was transmitted through direct or indirect contact. Accidental ingestion is also a possibility if the infant’s hands touched treated areas on the caregiver’s skin and were then brought to the mouth.

The NPC explained that infants’ skin is more permeable because of the thinner stratum corneum and a higher surface area/body weight ratio, making them more susceptible to absorbing topically applied medications.

 

Regulatory Changes and Precautions

In light of these findings, the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee concluded that, starting in October 2024, product information for medications containing minoxidil should be updated. Specifically, new information must be added to the package insert warning about the risk for hypertrichosis in infants following accidental exposure to minoxidil.

The NPC emphasizes the importance of caregivers being aware of the risks associated with topical medications like minoxidil. Recommended precautions include thoroughly washing hands after applying the product and covering treated areas to prevent direct contact with infants’ skin.

Healthcare professionals should also be aware of this risk and consider it when diagnosing hypertrichosis in infants. Recognizing the connection can prevent unnecessary testing for the infant and alleviate stress for the family.

This story was translated from Univadis Spain using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

OVIEDO, SPAIN – In April 2023, the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Center (NPC) became aware of a case involving an infant who developed progressive hair growth on their back, legs, and thighs (hypertrichosis) over the course of 2 months. During an interview with the family, it was revealed that the infant’s father had been using 5% topical minoxidil to treat androgenic alopecia, and he had taken a leave of absence from work to care for his child. After the medication was discontinued, the infant’s symptoms fully regressed. Specialists from the NPC presented the case at the 13th Spanish Pharmacovigilance Congress in November 2024.

A review of similar cases reported in the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System database identified six additional cases with the same characteristics, all involving infants whose caregivers were using minoxidil. Four more cases were found through the European pharmacovigilance database EudraVigilance and a review of scientific literature, bringing the total to 11 cases.

According to the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Bulletin, these cases are concerning as they highlight the exposure of vulnerable infants to a medication not indicated for their age group. Additionally, the condition can cause significant stress for the families of the affected children.

 

Mechanism of Transmission Unclear

The exact mechanism by which caregivers transfer minoxidil to infants is not fully understood. In the newly identified cases, specialists suspect the drug was transmitted through direct or indirect contact. Accidental ingestion is also a possibility if the infant’s hands touched treated areas on the caregiver’s skin and were then brought to the mouth.

The NPC explained that infants’ skin is more permeable because of the thinner stratum corneum and a higher surface area/body weight ratio, making them more susceptible to absorbing topically applied medications.

 

Regulatory Changes and Precautions

In light of these findings, the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee concluded that, starting in October 2024, product information for medications containing minoxidil should be updated. Specifically, new information must be added to the package insert warning about the risk for hypertrichosis in infants following accidental exposure to minoxidil.

The NPC emphasizes the importance of caregivers being aware of the risks associated with topical medications like minoxidil. Recommended precautions include thoroughly washing hands after applying the product and covering treated areas to prevent direct contact with infants’ skin.

Healthcare professionals should also be aware of this risk and consider it when diagnosing hypertrichosis in infants. Recognizing the connection can prevent unnecessary testing for the infant and alleviate stress for the family.

This story was translated from Univadis Spain using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Oh, insurance claim denials. When patient care or treatment is warranted by a specific diagnosis, I wish insurers would just reimburse it without any hassle. That’s not reality. Let’s talk about insurance claim denials, how they’re rising and harming patient care, and what we can do about it. That’s kind of complicated.

Rising Trend in Claim Denials and Financial Impact

First, denials are increasing. Experian Health surveyed provider revenue cycle leaders— that’s a fancy term for people who manage billing and insurance claims — and 75% said that denials are increasing. This is up from 42% a few years ago. Those surveyed also said that reimbursement times and errors in claims are also increasing, and changes in policy are happening more frequently. This all adds to the problem. 

Aside from being time-consuming and annoying, claim denials take a toll on hospitals and patients. One analysis, which made headlines everywhere, showed that hospitals and health systems spent nearly $20 billion in 2022 trying to repeal overturned claims. This analysis was done by Premier, a health insurance performance company.

 

Breakdown of Denial Rates and Costs

Let’s do some quick whiteboard math. Health insurance companies get about 3 billion claims per year. According to surveys, about 15% of those claims are denied, so that leaves us with 450 million denied claims. Hospitals spend, on average, $43.84 per denied claim in administrative fees trying to get them overturned.

That’s about $19.7 billion spent on claim denials. Here’s the gut punch: Around 54% of those claims are ultimately paid, so that leaves us with $10.7 billion that we definitely should have saved. 

 

Common Reasons for Denials

Let’s take a look at major causes and what’s going on. 

Insurance denial rates are all over the place. It depends on state and plan. According to one analysis, the average for in-network claim denials across some states was 4% to 5%. It was 40% in Mississippi. According to HealthCare.gov, in 2021, around 17% of in-network claims were denied. 

The most common reasons were excluded services, a lack of referral or preauthorization, or a medical treatment not being deemed necessary. Then there’s the black box of “other,” just some arbitrary reason to make a claim denial. 

Many times, these denials are done by an algorithm, not by individual people. 

What’s more, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, were more likely to deny claims than public options. 

When broken down, the problem was higher among employer-sponsored and marketplace insurance, and less so with Medicare and Medicaid. 

 

Impact on Patient Care

Many consumers don’t truly understand what their health insurance covers and what’s going to be out of pocket, and many people don’t know that they have appeal rights. They don’t know who to call for help either. 

The ACA set up Consumer Assistance Programs (CAPs), which are designed to help people navigate health insurance problems. By law, private insurers have to share data with CAPs. Yet, only 3% of people who had trouble with health insurance claims called a CAP for help.

We all know some of the downstream effects of this problem. Patients may skip or delay treatments if they can’t get insurance to cover it or it’s too expensive. When post-acute care, such as transfer to a skilled nursing facility or rehab center, isn’t covered and we’re trying to discharge patients from the hospital, hospital stays become lengthened, which means they’re more expensive, and this comes with its own set of complications.

 

How Can We Address This?

I’m genuinely curious about what you all have done to efficiently address this problem. I’m looking at this publication from the American Health Information Management Association about major reasons for denial. We’ve already talked about a lack of preauthorization or procedures not being covered, but there are also reasons such as missing or incorrect information, duplicate claims, and not filing within the appropriate time.

Also, if treatments or procedures are bundled, they can’t be filed separately. 

Preventing all of this would take a large effort. Healthcare systems would have to have a dedicated team, who would understand all the major reasons for denials, identify common patterns, and then fill everything out with accurate information, with referrals, with preauthorizations, high-specificity codes, and the correct modifiers — and do all of this within the filing deadline every time. 

You would need physicians on board, but also people from IT, finance, compliance, case management, registration, and probably a bunch of other people who are already stretched too thin. 

Perhaps our government can do more to hold insurers accountable and make sure plans, such as Medicare Advantage, are holding up their end of the public health bargain.

It’s an uphill $20 billion battle, but I’m optimistic. What about you? What’s your unfiltered take on claim denials? What more can we be doing?

Dr. Patel is a clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; pediatric hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York City, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He reported a conflict of interest with Medumo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Oh, insurance claim denials. When patient care or treatment is warranted by a specific diagnosis, I wish insurers would just reimburse it without any hassle. That’s not reality. Let’s talk about insurance claim denials, how they’re rising and harming patient care, and what we can do about it. That’s kind of complicated.

Rising Trend in Claim Denials and Financial Impact

First, denials are increasing. Experian Health surveyed provider revenue cycle leaders— that’s a fancy term for people who manage billing and insurance claims — and 75% said that denials are increasing. This is up from 42% a few years ago. Those surveyed also said that reimbursement times and errors in claims are also increasing, and changes in policy are happening more frequently. This all adds to the problem. 

Aside from being time-consuming and annoying, claim denials take a toll on hospitals and patients. One analysis, which made headlines everywhere, showed that hospitals and health systems spent nearly $20 billion in 2022 trying to repeal overturned claims. This analysis was done by Premier, a health insurance performance company.

 

Breakdown of Denial Rates and Costs

Let’s do some quick whiteboard math. Health insurance companies get about 3 billion claims per year. According to surveys, about 15% of those claims are denied, so that leaves us with 450 million denied claims. Hospitals spend, on average, $43.84 per denied claim in administrative fees trying to get them overturned.

That’s about $19.7 billion spent on claim denials. Here’s the gut punch: Around 54% of those claims are ultimately paid, so that leaves us with $10.7 billion that we definitely should have saved. 

 

Common Reasons for Denials

Let’s take a look at major causes and what’s going on. 

Insurance denial rates are all over the place. It depends on state and plan. According to one analysis, the average for in-network claim denials across some states was 4% to 5%. It was 40% in Mississippi. According to HealthCare.gov, in 2021, around 17% of in-network claims were denied. 

The most common reasons were excluded services, a lack of referral or preauthorization, or a medical treatment not being deemed necessary. Then there’s the black box of “other,” just some arbitrary reason to make a claim denial. 

Many times, these denials are done by an algorithm, not by individual people. 

What’s more, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, were more likely to deny claims than public options. 

When broken down, the problem was higher among employer-sponsored and marketplace insurance, and less so with Medicare and Medicaid. 

 

Impact on Patient Care

Many consumers don’t truly understand what their health insurance covers and what’s going to be out of pocket, and many people don’t know that they have appeal rights. They don’t know who to call for help either. 

The ACA set up Consumer Assistance Programs (CAPs), which are designed to help people navigate health insurance problems. By law, private insurers have to share data with CAPs. Yet, only 3% of people who had trouble with health insurance claims called a CAP for help.

We all know some of the downstream effects of this problem. Patients may skip or delay treatments if they can’t get insurance to cover it or it’s too expensive. When post-acute care, such as transfer to a skilled nursing facility or rehab center, isn’t covered and we’re trying to discharge patients from the hospital, hospital stays become lengthened, which means they’re more expensive, and this comes with its own set of complications.

 

How Can We Address This?

I’m genuinely curious about what you all have done to efficiently address this problem. I’m looking at this publication from the American Health Information Management Association about major reasons for denial. We’ve already talked about a lack of preauthorization or procedures not being covered, but there are also reasons such as missing or incorrect information, duplicate claims, and not filing within the appropriate time.

Also, if treatments or procedures are bundled, they can’t be filed separately. 

Preventing all of this would take a large effort. Healthcare systems would have to have a dedicated team, who would understand all the major reasons for denials, identify common patterns, and then fill everything out with accurate information, with referrals, with preauthorizations, high-specificity codes, and the correct modifiers — and do all of this within the filing deadline every time. 

You would need physicians on board, but also people from IT, finance, compliance, case management, registration, and probably a bunch of other people who are already stretched too thin. 

Perhaps our government can do more to hold insurers accountable and make sure plans, such as Medicare Advantage, are holding up their end of the public health bargain.

It’s an uphill $20 billion battle, but I’m optimistic. What about you? What’s your unfiltered take on claim denials? What more can we be doing?

Dr. Patel is a clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; pediatric hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York City, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He reported a conflict of interest with Medumo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Oh, insurance claim denials. When patient care or treatment is warranted by a specific diagnosis, I wish insurers would just reimburse it without any hassle. That’s not reality. Let’s talk about insurance claim denials, how they’re rising and harming patient care, and what we can do about it. That’s kind of complicated.

Rising Trend in Claim Denials and Financial Impact

First, denials are increasing. Experian Health surveyed provider revenue cycle leaders— that’s a fancy term for people who manage billing and insurance claims — and 75% said that denials are increasing. This is up from 42% a few years ago. Those surveyed also said that reimbursement times and errors in claims are also increasing, and changes in policy are happening more frequently. This all adds to the problem. 

Aside from being time-consuming and annoying, claim denials take a toll on hospitals and patients. One analysis, which made headlines everywhere, showed that hospitals and health systems spent nearly $20 billion in 2022 trying to repeal overturned claims. This analysis was done by Premier, a health insurance performance company.

 

Breakdown of Denial Rates and Costs

Let’s do some quick whiteboard math. Health insurance companies get about 3 billion claims per year. According to surveys, about 15% of those claims are denied, so that leaves us with 450 million denied claims. Hospitals spend, on average, $43.84 per denied claim in administrative fees trying to get them overturned.

That’s about $19.7 billion spent on claim denials. Here’s the gut punch: Around 54% of those claims are ultimately paid, so that leaves us with $10.7 billion that we definitely should have saved. 

 

Common Reasons for Denials

Let’s take a look at major causes and what’s going on. 

Insurance denial rates are all over the place. It depends on state and plan. According to one analysis, the average for in-network claim denials across some states was 4% to 5%. It was 40% in Mississippi. According to HealthCare.gov, in 2021, around 17% of in-network claims were denied. 

The most common reasons were excluded services, a lack of referral or preauthorization, or a medical treatment not being deemed necessary. Then there’s the black box of “other,” just some arbitrary reason to make a claim denial. 

Many times, these denials are done by an algorithm, not by individual people. 

What’s more, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, were more likely to deny claims than public options. 

When broken down, the problem was higher among employer-sponsored and marketplace insurance, and less so with Medicare and Medicaid. 

 

Impact on Patient Care

Many consumers don’t truly understand what their health insurance covers and what’s going to be out of pocket, and many people don’t know that they have appeal rights. They don’t know who to call for help either. 

The ACA set up Consumer Assistance Programs (CAPs), which are designed to help people navigate health insurance problems. By law, private insurers have to share data with CAPs. Yet, only 3% of people who had trouble with health insurance claims called a CAP for help.

We all know some of the downstream effects of this problem. Patients may skip or delay treatments if they can’t get insurance to cover it or it’s too expensive. When post-acute care, such as transfer to a skilled nursing facility or rehab center, isn’t covered and we’re trying to discharge patients from the hospital, hospital stays become lengthened, which means they’re more expensive, and this comes with its own set of complications.

 

How Can We Address This?

I’m genuinely curious about what you all have done to efficiently address this problem. I’m looking at this publication from the American Health Information Management Association about major reasons for denial. We’ve already talked about a lack of preauthorization or procedures not being covered, but there are also reasons such as missing or incorrect information, duplicate claims, and not filing within the appropriate time.

Also, if treatments or procedures are bundled, they can’t be filed separately. 

Preventing all of this would take a large effort. Healthcare systems would have to have a dedicated team, who would understand all the major reasons for denials, identify common patterns, and then fill everything out with accurate information, with referrals, with preauthorizations, high-specificity codes, and the correct modifiers — and do all of this within the filing deadline every time. 

You would need physicians on board, but also people from IT, finance, compliance, case management, registration, and probably a bunch of other people who are already stretched too thin. 

Perhaps our government can do more to hold insurers accountable and make sure plans, such as Medicare Advantage, are holding up their end of the public health bargain.

It’s an uphill $20 billion battle, but I’m optimistic. What about you? What’s your unfiltered take on claim denials? What more can we be doing?

Dr. Patel is a clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; pediatric hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York City, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He reported a conflict of interest with Medumo.

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

Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a tickborne disease commonly called “red meat allergy,” is a serious, potentially life-threatening allergy to the carbohydrate alpha-gal. The alpha-gal carbohydrate is found in most mammals, though it is not in humans, apes, or old-world monkeys. People with AGS can have allergic reactions when they consume mammalian meat, dairy products, or other products derived from mammals. People often live with this disease for years before receiving a correct diagnosis, greatly impacting their quality of life. The number of suspected cases is also rising. 

More than 110,000 suspected AGS cases were identified between 2010 and 2022, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report.¹ However, because the diagnosis requires a positive test and a clinical exam and some people may not get tested, as many as 450,000 people might be affected by AGS in the United States. Additionally, a CDC survey found that nearly half (42%) of US healthcare providers had never heard of AGS.² Among those who had, less than one third (29%) knew how to diagnose the condition. 

Here are 5 things clinicians need to know about AGS.

 

1. People can develop AGS after being bitten by a tick, primarily the lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum), in the United States.

In the United States, AGS is primarily associated with the bite of a lone star tick, but other kinds of ticks have not been ruled out. The majority of suspected AGS cases in the United States were reported in parts of Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia. The lone star tick is widely distributed with established populations in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

While AGS is associated with tick bites, more research is needed to understand the role ticks play in starting this condition, and why certain people develop AGS. Anyone can develop AGS, but most cases have been reported in adults. 

Know how to recognize the symptoms of AGS and be prepared to test, diagnose, and manage AGS, particularly in states where lone star ticks are found. 

 

2. Tick bites are only one risk factor for developing AGS. 

Many people are bitten by lone star ticks and will never develop AGS. Scientists are exploring the connection between other risk factors and developing AGS. A recent study has shown that people diagnosed with AGS may be more likely to have a family member who was also diagnosed with AGS, have another food allergy, have an allergy to stinging or biting insects, or have A or O blood types.³ 

Research has also shown that environmental risk factors could contribute to developing AGS,⁴ like living in an area with lone star ticks, remembering finding a tick on themselves, recalling multiple tick bites, living near a wooded forest, spending more time outside, or living in areas with deer, such as larger properties, wooded forests, and properties with shrubs and brush. 

Ask your patient questions about other allergies and history of recent tick bites or outdoor exposure to help determine if testing for AGS is appropriate.

 

3. Symptoms of AGS are consistently inconsistent.

There is a spectrum of how sensitive AGS patients are to alpha-gal, and reactions are often different from person to person, which can make it difficult to diagnose. The first allergic reaction to AGS typically occurs between 1-6 months after a tick bite. Symptoms commonly appear 2-6 hours after being in contact with products containing alpha-gal, like red meat (beef, pork, lamb, venison, rabbit, or other meat from mammals), dairy, and some medications. Symptoms can range from mild to severe and include hives or itchy rash; swelling of the lips, throat, tongue, or eyelids; gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea; heartburn or indigestion; cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing; dizziness or a drop in blood pressure; or anaphylaxis.

Consider AGS if a patient reports waking up in the middle of the night with allergic symptoms after eating alpha-gal containing products for dinner, if allergic reactions are delayed, or if a patient has anaphylaxis of unknown cause, adult-onset allergy, or allergic symptoms and reports a recent tick bite. 

 

4. Diagnosing AGS requires a combination of a blood test and a physical exam.

Diagnosing AGS requires a detailed patient history, physical exam, and a blood test to detect specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies specific to alpha-gal (alpha-gal sIgE). Tests for alpha-gal sIgE antibodies are available at several large commercial laboratories and some academic institutions. Skin tests to identify reactions to allergens like pork or beef may also be used to inform AGS diagnosis. However, a positive alpha-gal sIgE test or skin test does not mean a person has AGS. Many people, particularly those who live in regions with lone star ticks, have positive alpha-gal specific IgE tests without having AGS. 

Consider the test results along with your patient’s symptoms and risk factors.

 

5. There is no treatment for AGS, but people can take prevention steps and AGS can be managed.

People can protect themselves and their family from AGS by preventing tick bites. Encourage your patients to use an Environmental Protection Agency–registered insect repellent outdoors, wear permethrin-treated clothing, and conduct thorough tick checks after outdoor activities. 

Once a person is no longer exposed to alpha-gal containing products, they should no longer experience symptoms. People with AGS should also proactively prevent tick bites. Tick bites can trigger or reactivate AGS.

For patients who have AGS, help manage their symptoms and identify alpha-gal containing products to avoid.

Dr. Kersh is Chief of the Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, and disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

CDC resources:

About Alpha-gal Syndrome | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

Clinical Testing and Diagnosis for Alpha-gal Syndrome | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

Clinical Resources | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

References 

Thompson JM et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:815-820. 

Carpenter A et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:809-814. Taylor ML et al. Ann Allergy, Asthma & Immunol. 2024 Jun;132(6):759.e2-764.e2. Kersh GJ et al. Ann Allergy, Asthma & Immunol. 2023 Apr;130(4):472-478.

Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a tickborne disease commonly called “red meat allergy,” is a serious, potentially life-threatening allergy to the carbohydrate alpha-gal. The alpha-gal carbohydrate is found in most mammals, though it is not in humans, apes, or old-world monkeys. People with AGS can have allergic reactions when they consume mammalian meat, dairy products, or other products derived from mammals. People often live with this disease for years before receiving a correct diagnosis, greatly impacting their quality of life. The number of suspected cases is also rising. 

More than 110,000 suspected AGS cases were identified between 2010 and 2022, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report.¹ However, because the diagnosis requires a positive test and a clinical exam and some people may not get tested, as many as 450,000 people might be affected by AGS in the United States. Additionally, a CDC survey found that nearly half (42%) of US healthcare providers had never heard of AGS.² Among those who had, less than one third (29%) knew how to diagnose the condition. 

Here are 5 things clinicians need to know about AGS.

 

1. People can develop AGS after being bitten by a tick, primarily the lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum), in the United States.

In the United States, AGS is primarily associated with the bite of a lone star tick, but other kinds of ticks have not been ruled out. The majority of suspected AGS cases in the United States were reported in parts of Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia. The lone star tick is widely distributed with established populations in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

While AGS is associated with tick bites, more research is needed to understand the role ticks play in starting this condition, and why certain people develop AGS. Anyone can develop AGS, but most cases have been reported in adults. 

Know how to recognize the symptoms of AGS and be prepared to test, diagnose, and manage AGS, particularly in states where lone star ticks are found. 

 

2. Tick bites are only one risk factor for developing AGS. 

Many people are bitten by lone star ticks and will never develop AGS. Scientists are exploring the connection between other risk factors and developing AGS. A recent study has shown that people diagnosed with AGS may be more likely to have a family member who was also diagnosed with AGS, have another food allergy, have an allergy to stinging or biting insects, or have A or O blood types.³ 

Research has also shown that environmental risk factors could contribute to developing AGS,⁴ like living in an area with lone star ticks, remembering finding a tick on themselves, recalling multiple tick bites, living near a wooded forest, spending more time outside, or living in areas with deer, such as larger properties, wooded forests, and properties with shrubs and brush. 

Ask your patient questions about other allergies and history of recent tick bites or outdoor exposure to help determine if testing for AGS is appropriate.

 

3. Symptoms of AGS are consistently inconsistent.

There is a spectrum of how sensitive AGS patients are to alpha-gal, and reactions are often different from person to person, which can make it difficult to diagnose. The first allergic reaction to AGS typically occurs between 1-6 months after a tick bite. Symptoms commonly appear 2-6 hours after being in contact with products containing alpha-gal, like red meat (beef, pork, lamb, venison, rabbit, or other meat from mammals), dairy, and some medications. Symptoms can range from mild to severe and include hives or itchy rash; swelling of the lips, throat, tongue, or eyelids; gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea; heartburn or indigestion; cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing; dizziness or a drop in blood pressure; or anaphylaxis.

Consider AGS if a patient reports waking up in the middle of the night with allergic symptoms after eating alpha-gal containing products for dinner, if allergic reactions are delayed, or if a patient has anaphylaxis of unknown cause, adult-onset allergy, or allergic symptoms and reports a recent tick bite. 

 

4. Diagnosing AGS requires a combination of a blood test and a physical exam.

Diagnosing AGS requires a detailed patient history, physical exam, and a blood test to detect specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies specific to alpha-gal (alpha-gal sIgE). Tests for alpha-gal sIgE antibodies are available at several large commercial laboratories and some academic institutions. Skin tests to identify reactions to allergens like pork or beef may also be used to inform AGS diagnosis. However, a positive alpha-gal sIgE test or skin test does not mean a person has AGS. Many people, particularly those who live in regions with lone star ticks, have positive alpha-gal specific IgE tests without having AGS. 

Consider the test results along with your patient’s symptoms and risk factors.

 

5. There is no treatment for AGS, but people can take prevention steps and AGS can be managed.

People can protect themselves and their family from AGS by preventing tick bites. Encourage your patients to use an Environmental Protection Agency–registered insect repellent outdoors, wear permethrin-treated clothing, and conduct thorough tick checks after outdoor activities. 

Once a person is no longer exposed to alpha-gal containing products, they should no longer experience symptoms. People with AGS should also proactively prevent tick bites. Tick bites can trigger or reactivate AGS.

For patients who have AGS, help manage their symptoms and identify alpha-gal containing products to avoid.

Dr. Kersh is Chief of the Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, and disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

CDC resources:

About Alpha-gal Syndrome | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

Clinical Testing and Diagnosis for Alpha-gal Syndrome | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

Clinical Resources | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

References 

Thompson JM et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:815-820. 

Carpenter A et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:809-814. Taylor ML et al. Ann Allergy, Asthma & Immunol. 2024 Jun;132(6):759.e2-764.e2. Kersh GJ et al. Ann Allergy, Asthma & Immunol. 2023 Apr;130(4):472-478.

Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a tickborne disease commonly called “red meat allergy,” is a serious, potentially life-threatening allergy to the carbohydrate alpha-gal. The alpha-gal carbohydrate is found in most mammals, though it is not in humans, apes, or old-world monkeys. People with AGS can have allergic reactions when they consume mammalian meat, dairy products, or other products derived from mammals. People often live with this disease for years before receiving a correct diagnosis, greatly impacting their quality of life. The number of suspected cases is also rising. 

More than 110,000 suspected AGS cases were identified between 2010 and 2022, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report.¹ However, because the diagnosis requires a positive test and a clinical exam and some people may not get tested, as many as 450,000 people might be affected by AGS in the United States. Additionally, a CDC survey found that nearly half (42%) of US healthcare providers had never heard of AGS.² Among those who had, less than one third (29%) knew how to diagnose the condition. 

Here are 5 things clinicians need to know about AGS.

 

1. People can develop AGS after being bitten by a tick, primarily the lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum), in the United States.

In the United States, AGS is primarily associated with the bite of a lone star tick, but other kinds of ticks have not been ruled out. The majority of suspected AGS cases in the United States were reported in parts of Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia. The lone star tick is widely distributed with established populations in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

While AGS is associated with tick bites, more research is needed to understand the role ticks play in starting this condition, and why certain people develop AGS. Anyone can develop AGS, but most cases have been reported in adults. 

Know how to recognize the symptoms of AGS and be prepared to test, diagnose, and manage AGS, particularly in states where lone star ticks are found. 

 

2. Tick bites are only one risk factor for developing AGS. 

Many people are bitten by lone star ticks and will never develop AGS. Scientists are exploring the connection between other risk factors and developing AGS. A recent study has shown that people diagnosed with AGS may be more likely to have a family member who was also diagnosed with AGS, have another food allergy, have an allergy to stinging or biting insects, or have A or O blood types.³ 

Research has also shown that environmental risk factors could contribute to developing AGS,⁴ like living in an area with lone star ticks, remembering finding a tick on themselves, recalling multiple tick bites, living near a wooded forest, spending more time outside, or living in areas with deer, such as larger properties, wooded forests, and properties with shrubs and brush. 

Ask your patient questions about other allergies and history of recent tick bites or outdoor exposure to help determine if testing for AGS is appropriate.

 

3. Symptoms of AGS are consistently inconsistent.

There is a spectrum of how sensitive AGS patients are to alpha-gal, and reactions are often different from person to person, which can make it difficult to diagnose. The first allergic reaction to AGS typically occurs between 1-6 months after a tick bite. Symptoms commonly appear 2-6 hours after being in contact with products containing alpha-gal, like red meat (beef, pork, lamb, venison, rabbit, or other meat from mammals), dairy, and some medications. Symptoms can range from mild to severe and include hives or itchy rash; swelling of the lips, throat, tongue, or eyelids; gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea; heartburn or indigestion; cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing; dizziness or a drop in blood pressure; or anaphylaxis.

Consider AGS if a patient reports waking up in the middle of the night with allergic symptoms after eating alpha-gal containing products for dinner, if allergic reactions are delayed, or if a patient has anaphylaxis of unknown cause, adult-onset allergy, or allergic symptoms and reports a recent tick bite. 

 

4. Diagnosing AGS requires a combination of a blood test and a physical exam.

Diagnosing AGS requires a detailed patient history, physical exam, and a blood test to detect specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies specific to alpha-gal (alpha-gal sIgE). Tests for alpha-gal sIgE antibodies are available at several large commercial laboratories and some academic institutions. Skin tests to identify reactions to allergens like pork or beef may also be used to inform AGS diagnosis. However, a positive alpha-gal sIgE test or skin test does not mean a person has AGS. Many people, particularly those who live in regions with lone star ticks, have positive alpha-gal specific IgE tests without having AGS. 

Consider the test results along with your patient’s symptoms and risk factors.

 

5. There is no treatment for AGS, but people can take prevention steps and AGS can be managed.

People can protect themselves and their family from AGS by preventing tick bites. Encourage your patients to use an Environmental Protection Agency–registered insect repellent outdoors, wear permethrin-treated clothing, and conduct thorough tick checks after outdoor activities. 

Once a person is no longer exposed to alpha-gal containing products, they should no longer experience symptoms. People with AGS should also proactively prevent tick bites. Tick bites can trigger or reactivate AGS.

For patients who have AGS, help manage their symptoms and identify alpha-gal containing products to avoid.

Dr. Kersh is Chief of the Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, and disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

CDC resources:

About Alpha-gal Syndrome | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

Clinical Testing and Diagnosis for Alpha-gal Syndrome | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

Clinical Resources | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

References 

Thompson JM et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:815-820. 

Carpenter A et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:809-814. Taylor ML et al. Ann Allergy, Asthma & Immunol. 2024 Jun;132(6):759.e2-764.e2. Kersh GJ et al. Ann Allergy, Asthma & Immunol. 2023 Apr;130(4):472-478.

Evidence is mounting that new therapies already used to treat gut diseases, type 2 diabetes, and obesity may help people with alcohol use disorder (AUD).

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, first used to treat diabetes and now widely used for weight loss, and fecal microbiota transplants (FMTs), used to treat diseases such as recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, are advancing in clinical trials as potential options for treating AUD.

 

AUD Affects 28.9 Million People in the United States

In 2023, 28.9 million people aged 12 years or older in the United States had AUD (10.2% of the people in this age group). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three medical therapies: Acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram to help keep people with the disorder from returning to heavy drinking. Acamprosate’s mechanism of action is not clear, but it is thought to modulate and normalize alcohol-related changes in brain activity, thereby reducing withdrawal symptoms. Naltrexone blocks opioid receptors to reduce alcohol cravings. Disulfiram causes a toxic physical reaction when mixed with alcohol.

Some with AUD also benefit from behavioral therapies and support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous. But for others, nothing has worked, and that’s part of the reason Lorenzo Leggio, MD, PhD, a scientist in the field of alcohol addiction with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), told this news organization that this is the “most exciting moment” for AUD treatment in his more than 2 decades of research in this area.

 

GLP-1 Agonists Showing Consistent Results

GLP-1 receptor agonists work by modulating the brain’s reward pathways, including the areas that regulate cravings and motivation.

“By dampening the reward signals associated with alcohol consumption, GLP-1 agonists may reduce cravings and heavy drinking episodes,” Fares Qeadan, PhD, MS, associate professor of biostatistics in the Department of Public Health Sciences at Loyola University Chicago in Illinois, told this news organization.

“The unique aspect of GLP-1 agonists is their ability to target both metabolic and reward systems in the brain,” he said. While naltrexone or acamprosate blocks the effects of alcohol or reduces withdrawal symptoms, “GLP-1 agonists approach addiction through a broader mechanism, potentially addressing underlying factors that contribute to cravings and compulsive behaviors,” he said.

As part of a study published in October in Addiction, Qeadan’s team found that people with AUD who were prescribed GLP-1 agonists had a 50% lower rate of severe intoxication than those who were not prescribed those medications.

“While this is observational and not yet definitive, it highlights the potential of these drugs to complement existing treatments for AUD,” he said.

Another study, a nationwide cohort study published in JAMA Psychiatry, found that using the GLP-1 receptor agonists semaglutide and liraglutide was linked to a lower risk for AUD-related hospitalizations than traditional AUD medications.

A systematic review, published last month in eClinical Medicine, concluded that, though there is little high-quality evidence demonstrating the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on alcohol use, “subgroup analysis from two [randomized, controlled trials] and supporting data from four observational studies suggest that GLP-1 [receptor agonists] may reduce alcohol consumption and improve outcomes in some individuals.”

Studying individual differences in response may have implications for personalized medicine, Qeadan said, as treatments could be tailored to those most likely to benefit, such as people with both metabolic dysfunction and AUD.

“These medications may offer hope for patients who struggle with addiction and have not responded to traditional therapies,” Qeadan said.

 

Exploring FMT as AUD Treatment

FMT is also a new research focus for treating AUD. Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, a gastroenterologist and liver specialist at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, is leading the Intestinal Microbiota Transplant in Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease (IMPACT) trial.

AUD has been linked with gut microbial alterations that worsen with cirrhosis. Research has shown that alcohol consumption changes the diversity of bacteria and can lead to bacterial overgrowth and progression of alcohol-associated liver disease.

FMT has been effective in rebalancing gut bacteria by transferring healthy stool from screened donors into patients who have developed an overgrowth of harmful bacteria. In the IMPACT trial, participants, who have not previously received traditional treatment for AUD or for whom treatment has not worked, are randomized either to the oral treatment capsule, which contains freeze-dried stool from a donor with healthy gut bacteria, or placebo.

The trial, sponsored by the NIH, is halfway through its target enrollment of 80.

In a previous smaller, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study, also led by Bajaj and published in Hepatology, 9 of the 10 volunteers who had severe AUD and cirrhosis experienced fewer alcohol cravings and had lower consumption after 15 days. Only three of the placebo participants saw similar improvements. Those who received the microbiota transplant also had fewer AUD-related events over 6 months.

Bajaj said that, if trials show FMT is safe and effective, he envisions the treatment as one tool in a multidisciplinary, integrated clinic that would include a hepatologist and mental health clinicians.

One benefit of the FMT treatment approach is it is given once or twice only, rather than administered regularly.

 

Current Treatments Work, But More are Needed

Leggio, who is clinical director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Intramural Research Program, said: “We know that alcohol use disorder, and addiction in general, is a brain disease. We also know that the brain does not work in isolation. The brain is constantly interacting with the rest of the body, including with the gut.”

Leggio said it’s important to note that the three FDA-approved medications do work for alcohol addiction. He said they work as well as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depression and beta-blockers for chronic heart failure.

But there are only three, and they don’t work for everyone, he noted. Those are among the reasons developing new treatments is important. New treatments could be used as an alternative or in combination with already approved treatments.

FMT is in “the very early stages” of trials testing its use for AUD, Leggio noted, adding that the studies by Bajaj’s team are among the very few addressing gut dysbiosis in AUD, and all have involved small numbers of patients. “It’s promising. It’s intriguing. It’s exciting. But we are just at the beginning.”

 

Results Consistent Across Species, Labs

GLP-1 agonists are further along in trials but still not ready for prescribing for AUD, Leggio said. The positive results have been consistent across species, different labs, and different research teams around the world.

Researchers have also explored through electronic health record emulation trials whether people already taking GLP-1 agonists for diabetes or obesity drink less alcohol compared with matched cohorts not taking GLP-1s. “They consistently show that the people who are on GLP-1s drink less,” he said.

“[Emulation trials] don’t replace the need for randomized controlled trials, Leggio noted. Leggio’s team is currently working on a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial studying GLP-1s in relation to AUD.

 

New Directions 20-Year Highlight

This whole line of research represents “new hope” and has many implications, Leggio said. “I have been in this business for 20-plus years, and I think this is themost exciting moment when we have a very promising target in GLP-1s.”

Regardless of efficacy, he said, the focus on GLP-1 agonists and FMT for AUD has people talking more about addiction and the brain-body connection rather than assuming AUD is a result of poor choices and “bad behavior.”

The momentum of new treatments could also lead to patients and physicians having conversations about existing treatments.

“Hopefully, this momentum will help us destigmatize addiction, and by destigmatizing addiction, there will be an uptick in use of currently approved medications,” Leggio said.

Qeadan, Bajaj, and Leggio reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Evidence is mounting that new therapies already used to treat gut diseases, type 2 diabetes, and obesity may help people with alcohol use disorder (AUD).

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, first used to treat diabetes and now widely used for weight loss, and fecal microbiota transplants (FMTs), used to treat diseases such as recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, are advancing in clinical trials as potential options for treating AUD.

 

AUD Affects 28.9 Million People in the United States

In 2023, 28.9 million people aged 12 years or older in the United States had AUD (10.2% of the people in this age group). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three medical therapies: Acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram to help keep people with the disorder from returning to heavy drinking. Acamprosate’s mechanism of action is not clear, but it is thought to modulate and normalize alcohol-related changes in brain activity, thereby reducing withdrawal symptoms. Naltrexone blocks opioid receptors to reduce alcohol cravings. Disulfiram causes a toxic physical reaction when mixed with alcohol.

Some with AUD also benefit from behavioral therapies and support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous. But for others, nothing has worked, and that’s part of the reason Lorenzo Leggio, MD, PhD, a scientist in the field of alcohol addiction with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), told this news organization that this is the “most exciting moment” for AUD treatment in his more than 2 decades of research in this area.

 

GLP-1 Agonists Showing Consistent Results

GLP-1 receptor agonists work by modulating the brain’s reward pathways, including the areas that regulate cravings and motivation.

“By dampening the reward signals associated with alcohol consumption, GLP-1 agonists may reduce cravings and heavy drinking episodes,” Fares Qeadan, PhD, MS, associate professor of biostatistics in the Department of Public Health Sciences at Loyola University Chicago in Illinois, told this news organization.

“The unique aspect of GLP-1 agonists is their ability to target both metabolic and reward systems in the brain,” he said. While naltrexone or acamprosate blocks the effects of alcohol or reduces withdrawal symptoms, “GLP-1 agonists approach addiction through a broader mechanism, potentially addressing underlying factors that contribute to cravings and compulsive behaviors,” he said.

As part of a study published in October in Addiction, Qeadan’s team found that people with AUD who were prescribed GLP-1 agonists had a 50% lower rate of severe intoxication than those who were not prescribed those medications.

“While this is observational and not yet definitive, it highlights the potential of these drugs to complement existing treatments for AUD,” he said.

Another study, a nationwide cohort study published in JAMA Psychiatry, found that using the GLP-1 receptor agonists semaglutide and liraglutide was linked to a lower risk for AUD-related hospitalizations than traditional AUD medications.

A systematic review, published last month in eClinical Medicine, concluded that, though there is little high-quality evidence demonstrating the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on alcohol use, “subgroup analysis from two [randomized, controlled trials] and supporting data from four observational studies suggest that GLP-1 [receptor agonists] may reduce alcohol consumption and improve outcomes in some individuals.”

Studying individual differences in response may have implications for personalized medicine, Qeadan said, as treatments could be tailored to those most likely to benefit, such as people with both metabolic dysfunction and AUD.

“These medications may offer hope for patients who struggle with addiction and have not responded to traditional therapies,” Qeadan said.

 

Exploring FMT as AUD Treatment

FMT is also a new research focus for treating AUD. Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, a gastroenterologist and liver specialist at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, is leading the Intestinal Microbiota Transplant in Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease (IMPACT) trial.

AUD has been linked with gut microbial alterations that worsen with cirrhosis. Research has shown that alcohol consumption changes the diversity of bacteria and can lead to bacterial overgrowth and progression of alcohol-associated liver disease.

FMT has been effective in rebalancing gut bacteria by transferring healthy stool from screened donors into patients who have developed an overgrowth of harmful bacteria. In the IMPACT trial, participants, who have not previously received traditional treatment for AUD or for whom treatment has not worked, are randomized either to the oral treatment capsule, which contains freeze-dried stool from a donor with healthy gut bacteria, or placebo.

The trial, sponsored by the NIH, is halfway through its target enrollment of 80.

In a previous smaller, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study, also led by Bajaj and published in Hepatology, 9 of the 10 volunteers who had severe AUD and cirrhosis experienced fewer alcohol cravings and had lower consumption after 15 days. Only three of the placebo participants saw similar improvements. Those who received the microbiota transplant also had fewer AUD-related events over 6 months.

Bajaj said that, if trials show FMT is safe and effective, he envisions the treatment as one tool in a multidisciplinary, integrated clinic that would include a hepatologist and mental health clinicians.

One benefit of the FMT treatment approach is it is given once or twice only, rather than administered regularly.

 

Current Treatments Work, But More are Needed

Leggio, who is clinical director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Intramural Research Program, said: “We know that alcohol use disorder, and addiction in general, is a brain disease. We also know that the brain does not work in isolation. The brain is constantly interacting with the rest of the body, including with the gut.”

Leggio said it’s important to note that the three FDA-approved medications do work for alcohol addiction. He said they work as well as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depression and beta-blockers for chronic heart failure.

But there are only three, and they don’t work for everyone, he noted. Those are among the reasons developing new treatments is important. New treatments could be used as an alternative or in combination with already approved treatments.

FMT is in “the very early stages” of trials testing its use for AUD, Leggio noted, adding that the studies by Bajaj’s team are among the very few addressing gut dysbiosis in AUD, and all have involved small numbers of patients. “It’s promising. It’s intriguing. It’s exciting. But we are just at the beginning.”

 

Results Consistent Across Species, Labs

GLP-1 agonists are further along in trials but still not ready for prescribing for AUD, Leggio said. The positive results have been consistent across species, different labs, and different research teams around the world.

Researchers have also explored through electronic health record emulation trials whether people already taking GLP-1 agonists for diabetes or obesity drink less alcohol compared with matched cohorts not taking GLP-1s. “They consistently show that the people who are on GLP-1s drink less,” he said.

“[Emulation trials] don’t replace the need for randomized controlled trials, Leggio noted. Leggio’s team is currently working on a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial studying GLP-1s in relation to AUD.

 

New Directions 20-Year Highlight

This whole line of research represents “new hope” and has many implications, Leggio said. “I have been in this business for 20-plus years, and I think this is themost exciting moment when we have a very promising target in GLP-1s.”

Regardless of efficacy, he said, the focus on GLP-1 agonists and FMT for AUD has people talking more about addiction and the brain-body connection rather than assuming AUD is a result of poor choices and “bad behavior.”

The momentum of new treatments could also lead to patients and physicians having conversations about existing treatments.

“Hopefully, this momentum will help us destigmatize addiction, and by destigmatizing addiction, there will be an uptick in use of currently approved medications,” Leggio said.

Qeadan, Bajaj, and Leggio reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Evidence is mounting that new therapies already used to treat gut diseases, type 2 diabetes, and obesity may help people with alcohol use disorder (AUD).

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, first used to treat diabetes and now widely used for weight loss, and fecal microbiota transplants (FMTs), used to treat diseases such as recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, are advancing in clinical trials as potential options for treating AUD.

 

AUD Affects 28.9 Million People in the United States

In 2023, 28.9 million people aged 12 years or older in the United States had AUD (10.2% of the people in this age group). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three medical therapies: Acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram to help keep people with the disorder from returning to heavy drinking. Acamprosate’s mechanism of action is not clear, but it is thought to modulate and normalize alcohol-related changes in brain activity, thereby reducing withdrawal symptoms. Naltrexone blocks opioid receptors to reduce alcohol cravings. Disulfiram causes a toxic physical reaction when mixed with alcohol.

Some with AUD also benefit from behavioral therapies and support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous. But for others, nothing has worked, and that’s part of the reason Lorenzo Leggio, MD, PhD, a scientist in the field of alcohol addiction with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), told this news organization that this is the “most exciting moment” for AUD treatment in his more than 2 decades of research in this area.

 

GLP-1 Agonists Showing Consistent Results

GLP-1 receptor agonists work by modulating the brain’s reward pathways, including the areas that regulate cravings and motivation.

“By dampening the reward signals associated with alcohol consumption, GLP-1 agonists may reduce cravings and heavy drinking episodes,” Fares Qeadan, PhD, MS, associate professor of biostatistics in the Department of Public Health Sciences at Loyola University Chicago in Illinois, told this news organization.

“The unique aspect of GLP-1 agonists is their ability to target both metabolic and reward systems in the brain,” he said. While naltrexone or acamprosate blocks the effects of alcohol or reduces withdrawal symptoms, “GLP-1 agonists approach addiction through a broader mechanism, potentially addressing underlying factors that contribute to cravings and compulsive behaviors,” he said.

As part of a study published in October in Addiction, Qeadan’s team found that people with AUD who were prescribed GLP-1 agonists had a 50% lower rate of severe intoxication than those who were not prescribed those medications.

“While this is observational and not yet definitive, it highlights the potential of these drugs to complement existing treatments for AUD,” he said.

Another study, a nationwide cohort study published in JAMA Psychiatry, found that using the GLP-1 receptor agonists semaglutide and liraglutide was linked to a lower risk for AUD-related hospitalizations than traditional AUD medications.

A systematic review, published last month in eClinical Medicine, concluded that, though there is little high-quality evidence demonstrating the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on alcohol use, “subgroup analysis from two [randomized, controlled trials] and supporting data from four observational studies suggest that GLP-1 [receptor agonists] may reduce alcohol consumption and improve outcomes in some individuals.”

Studying individual differences in response may have implications for personalized medicine, Qeadan said, as treatments could be tailored to those most likely to benefit, such as people with both metabolic dysfunction and AUD.

“These medications may offer hope for patients who struggle with addiction and have not responded to traditional therapies,” Qeadan said.

 

Exploring FMT as AUD Treatment

FMT is also a new research focus for treating AUD. Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, a gastroenterologist and liver specialist at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, is leading the Intestinal Microbiota Transplant in Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease (IMPACT) trial.

AUD has been linked with gut microbial alterations that worsen with cirrhosis. Research has shown that alcohol consumption changes the diversity of bacteria and can lead to bacterial overgrowth and progression of alcohol-associated liver disease.

FMT has been effective in rebalancing gut bacteria by transferring healthy stool from screened donors into patients who have developed an overgrowth of harmful bacteria. In the IMPACT trial, participants, who have not previously received traditional treatment for AUD or for whom treatment has not worked, are randomized either to the oral treatment capsule, which contains freeze-dried stool from a donor with healthy gut bacteria, or placebo.

The trial, sponsored by the NIH, is halfway through its target enrollment of 80.

In a previous smaller, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study, also led by Bajaj and published in Hepatology, 9 of the 10 volunteers who had severe AUD and cirrhosis experienced fewer alcohol cravings and had lower consumption after 15 days. Only three of the placebo participants saw similar improvements. Those who received the microbiota transplant also had fewer AUD-related events over 6 months.

Bajaj said that, if trials show FMT is safe and effective, he envisions the treatment as one tool in a multidisciplinary, integrated clinic that would include a hepatologist and mental health clinicians.

One benefit of the FMT treatment approach is it is given once or twice only, rather than administered regularly.

 

Current Treatments Work, But More are Needed

Leggio, who is clinical director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Intramural Research Program, said: “We know that alcohol use disorder, and addiction in general, is a brain disease. We also know that the brain does not work in isolation. The brain is constantly interacting with the rest of the body, including with the gut.”

Leggio said it’s important to note that the three FDA-approved medications do work for alcohol addiction. He said they work as well as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depression and beta-blockers for chronic heart failure.

But there are only three, and they don’t work for everyone, he noted. Those are among the reasons developing new treatments is important. New treatments could be used as an alternative or in combination with already approved treatments.

FMT is in “the very early stages” of trials testing its use for AUD, Leggio noted, adding that the studies by Bajaj’s team are among the very few addressing gut dysbiosis in AUD, and all have involved small numbers of patients. “It’s promising. It’s intriguing. It’s exciting. But we are just at the beginning.”

 

Results Consistent Across Species, Labs

GLP-1 agonists are further along in trials but still not ready for prescribing for AUD, Leggio said. The positive results have been consistent across species, different labs, and different research teams around the world.

Researchers have also explored through electronic health record emulation trials whether people already taking GLP-1 agonists for diabetes or obesity drink less alcohol compared with matched cohorts not taking GLP-1s. “They consistently show that the people who are on GLP-1s drink less,” he said.

“[Emulation trials] don’t replace the need for randomized controlled trials, Leggio noted. Leggio’s team is currently working on a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial studying GLP-1s in relation to AUD.

 

New Directions 20-Year Highlight

This whole line of research represents “new hope” and has many implications, Leggio said. “I have been in this business for 20-plus years, and I think this is themost exciting moment when we have a very promising target in GLP-1s.”

Regardless of efficacy, he said, the focus on GLP-1 agonists and FMT for AUD has people talking more about addiction and the brain-body connection rather than assuming AUD is a result of poor choices and “bad behavior.”

The momentum of new treatments could also lead to patients and physicians having conversations about existing treatments.

“Hopefully, this momentum will help us destigmatize addiction, and by destigmatizing addiction, there will be an uptick in use of currently approved medications,” Leggio said.

Qeadan, Bajaj, and Leggio reported no relevant financial relationships.

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