Federal Practitioner

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the obesity prevalence in America was 41.9% between 2017 and 2020. Just 10 years ago, no state had an obesity prevalence above 35%.

Over the past 3 years, many patients gained weight during the COVID-19 pandemic as a result of adopting more sedentary lifestyles, staying at home, avoiding the gym owing to the potential for respiratory spread, and working remotely. For a long time, patients were avoiding attending social events and, as a result, were walking much less.

Today, gastroenterologists are hearing more of their patients ask for help with weight loss. Therefore, we wanted to provide a helpful guide with 10 recommendations for gastroenterologists and other physicians to help patients with obesity realize their goal of achieving weight loss.
 

1. Embracing the GLP-1 Revolution, With Some Caveats

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have become a popular treatment for type 2 diabetes and weight loss. These medications, which are given as an injection either weekly or daily depending on the type, have helped patients achieve weight loss with tremendous success.

They work by stimulating the body to produce insulin, which in turn lowers blood sugar. GLP-1 receptor agonists also slow peristalsis and the movement of food from the stomach into the small bowel, which allows patients to eat less by feeling fuller for longer and decreasing hunger.

Two GLP-1 receptor agonists are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for weight loss in patients without diabetes: liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy). There are also lower-dose versions of these active ingredients with the trade names Ozempic and Victoza, designed to help patients with diabetes achieve better glucose and A1c control. In November 2023, the FDA approved a new medication called tirzepatide (Zepbound), which is a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) plus GLP-1 receptor agonist.

This is a very exciting time for the management of type 2 diabetes and weight loss. Gastroenterologists can work with endocrinologists and primary care physicians to help patients choose appropriate weight loss medications.

However, gastroenterologists should also be aware of common GLP-1 receptor agonist side effects, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and — in severe cases — hypoglycemia. These medications can also cause pancreatitis, acute kidney injury, worsening diabetes-related retinopathy, tachycardia, headaches, indigestion, gastroparesis, bowel obstruction, or ileus. We don’t use these medications in patients with a family or personal history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia. Consider avoiding their use as well in patients with a personal history of pancreatitis.

Recently, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) suggested holding off on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to elective endoscopy procedures owing to case reports of aspiration. Gastroenterologists and anesthesiologists are working together to make esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy as safe as possible in patients taking these treatments.

According to the ASA recommendations, GLP-1 receptor agonists that are given at a daily dose should be held on the day of their procedure. Weekly-dose versions are supposed to be held for 1 week prior to colonoscopy or EGD. During EGD procedures, I also recommend keeping the head of the bed at a 45° angle to help prevent aspiration even further.

Gastroenterologists are eagerly awaiting additional studies to determine whether holding GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to endoscopy is really necessary. But for now, we recommend following the ASA guidelines.
 

2. Substituting Out Sugary Drinks

Gastroenterologists and primary care physicians constantly advise their patients to avoid consuming sugary drinks, such as soda, fruit juices, calorie-laden coffee drinks, sweetened tea, hot chocolate, and, of course, alcohol. Many of our patients drink three to six of these sugary drinks a day.

As a gastroenterologist, it’s important to counsel our overweight patients and obtain an accurate history about their daily and weekly consumption of excess calories.

Recommend substituting sugary drinks with water, unsweetened tea (either hot or cold), and coffee.

To prevent constipation, encourage patients to drink at least eight 8-ounce glasses of fluid per day. Drinking water, tea, and coffee can also help keep patients feeling fuller for longer and avoid those tempting snacks.
 

3. Adopting the Right Diet

Every day, I encourage my patients to avoid eating fried fatty foods and processed meats. We also advise patients to avoid junk food filled with carbohydrates and salt.

Instead, patients should try to eat a piece of fruit or some vegetables with every single meal, which keeps patients feeling fuller for longer, prevents diverticulitis from forming, and can even help prevent colon cancer.

Making small dietary changes can dramatically reduce daily calorie consumption, which adds up over time and can help patients lose weight in a safe way.

Meal prepping for the week ahead, perhaps on a Sunday, is a very simple way to eat more nutritious foods instead of constantly getting takeout and fast food.

Many of our patients have also successfully lost weight through intermittent fasting, although I recommend working with a nutritionist on this one.

A Mediterranean diet is also a great option.
 

4. Getting Active

I encourage patients to take daily walks, swim, play sports, take fitness classes, do yoga or Pilates, and use weights at a gym.

Exercise burns calories, which is great for our hearts, prevents hepatic steatosis, and helps relieve stress. Exercise also stimulates peristalsis, which can help our constipated patients achieve more regular bowel movements.

There are a few other things to keep in mind in this area. Try to avoid strenuous exercise right after eating, because this will help prevent both heartburn and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
 

5. Reducing Stomach Volume With a Gastric Balloon

A gastric balloon procedure is a temporary obesity treatment that helps patients lose weight by reducing the volume of the stomach so that they feel full more easily. This can be accomplished endoscopically through the mouth without the need for surgery.

Basically, a deflated balloon is placed through the mouth using an endoscope and advanced into the stomach by a gastroenterologist or surgeon. The balloon is inflated with salt water and can remain in the stomach for 6 months before it is removed.

This procedure can help patients feel full and consequently eat less, thereby leading to gradual and safe weight loss.
 

6. Using the Accordion Procedure

An endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty procedure, sometimes called an accordion procedure, is used for patients with a body mass index ≥ 30 when diet and exercise alone have failed. An EGD tube is equipped with small stitching instruments that are used to reduce the size of the stomach.

This procedure has less complications than open or laparoscopic surgery and can be reversed.
 

7. Injecting Botulinum Toxin

Another technique is having the gastroenterologist inject botulinum toxin into the stomach wall. This works by relaxing the stomach propulsion muscles, which delays gastric emptying so that patients feel fuller longer and more easily.

This approach is good for achieving moderate weight loss of approximately 5%-10% of body weight. It works best in combination with a good diet and exercise. The effects of the botulinum toxin can last for 3 months, and the procedure can be repeated every 6 months.
 

8. Adjusting Certain Lifestyle Factors

Gastroenterologists should also counsel our patients about exercise, stress management, and the importance of sleep to prevent overeating. Self-care is extremely important for patients. Walk, swim, lift weights, and play sports; I personally love basketball and tennis.

I also recommend allocating enough time for sleep each night. At least 7-9 hours of sleep is ideal. Good sleep hygiene can help keep a stable schedule. Create a comfortable bedroom that is free of disruptions like TV watching or playing on your phone or computer.

Gastroenterologists can provide simple instructions to their patients on how to achieve this. For example, unplug from electronics 30-60 minutes prior to sleep. Try also to avoid eating late at night, which will help patients prevent GERD and heartburn symptoms too.
 

9. Considering Orlistat as an Option

Orlistat is an oral over-the-counter lipase inhibitor that inhibits fat absorption in the intestines. This drug can interfere with the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K. Therefore, it’s important to take a multivitamin 2 hours before or 2 hours after taking orlistat.

However, orlistat can cause steatorrhea, so it’s often not our first choice.
 

10. Working With Dietitians

I highly recommend that gastroenterologists regularly refer patients to a registered dietitian for medical nutrition therapy. Dietitians help patients establish nutritional goals with calorie limits. I find that many of my patients like the nutritional counseling the dietitians provide, and this can even be done via telemedicine.

A dietitian will examine a patient’s eating habits and help them set weight loss goals that are both realistic and achievable. Having a dietitian motivate a patient through several clinic visits is important for success. A dietitian can plan how many calories a patient should consume in a day while maintaining food, protein, and vitamin intake.

With this therapy, many patients are able to lose approximately 1-1.5 pounds each week. A dietitian can help keep patients accountable for their weight loss goals. I encourage my patients to use their dietitian as a weight loss teacher and a coach who can personalize a diet plan that tastes great.

Some of our patients also have overlapping gastrointestinal issues, such as celiac disease or irritable bowel syndrome. Dietitians can also formulate diets that are great for these other diagnoses too.

There are also apps available on our phones to help with diet and weight loss.
 

Having a Difficult Conversation to Prevent Long-Term Disease

It’s important for gastroenterologists to work with patients to achieve weight loss. Addressing obesity is sometimes a difficult topic to bring up with patients, but it’s nonetheless very important.

Together, we can help treat obesity plus improve and prevent hepatic steatosis, metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH). The estimated global prevalence of MASLD is 32% in adults, so gastroenterologists and hepatologists are working together to try to treat obesity and to prevent long-term liver disease.
 

Dr. Levy is a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago. In 2017, Levy, a previous Fulbright Fellow in France, also started a gastroenterology clinic for refugees resettling in Chicago. His clinical projects focus on the development of  colorectal cancer  screening campaigns. Levy, who recently gave a TEDx Talk about building health education campaigns using music and concerts, organizes Tune It Up: A Concert To Raise Colorectal Cancer Awareness with the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). He frequently publishes on a variety of gastroenterology topics and serves on ACG’s Public Relations Committee and FDA-Related Matters Committee. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the obesity prevalence in America was 41.9% between 2017 and 2020. Just 10 years ago, no state had an obesity prevalence above 35%.

Over the past 3 years, many patients gained weight during the COVID-19 pandemic as a result of adopting more sedentary lifestyles, staying at home, avoiding the gym owing to the potential for respiratory spread, and working remotely. For a long time, patients were avoiding attending social events and, as a result, were walking much less.

Today, gastroenterologists are hearing more of their patients ask for help with weight loss. Therefore, we wanted to provide a helpful guide with 10 recommendations for gastroenterologists and other physicians to help patients with obesity realize their goal of achieving weight loss.
 

1. Embracing the GLP-1 Revolution, With Some Caveats

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have become a popular treatment for type 2 diabetes and weight loss. These medications, which are given as an injection either weekly or daily depending on the type, have helped patients achieve weight loss with tremendous success.

They work by stimulating the body to produce insulin, which in turn lowers blood sugar. GLP-1 receptor agonists also slow peristalsis and the movement of food from the stomach into the small bowel, which allows patients to eat less by feeling fuller for longer and decreasing hunger.

Two GLP-1 receptor agonists are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for weight loss in patients without diabetes: liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy). There are also lower-dose versions of these active ingredients with the trade names Ozempic and Victoza, designed to help patients with diabetes achieve better glucose and A1c control. In November 2023, the FDA approved a new medication called tirzepatide (Zepbound), which is a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) plus GLP-1 receptor agonist.

This is a very exciting time for the management of type 2 diabetes and weight loss. Gastroenterologists can work with endocrinologists and primary care physicians to help patients choose appropriate weight loss medications.

However, gastroenterologists should also be aware of common GLP-1 receptor agonist side effects, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and — in severe cases — hypoglycemia. These medications can also cause pancreatitis, acute kidney injury, worsening diabetes-related retinopathy, tachycardia, headaches, indigestion, gastroparesis, bowel obstruction, or ileus. We don’t use these medications in patients with a family or personal history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia. Consider avoiding their use as well in patients with a personal history of pancreatitis.

Recently, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) suggested holding off on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to elective endoscopy procedures owing to case reports of aspiration. Gastroenterologists and anesthesiologists are working together to make esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy as safe as possible in patients taking these treatments.

According to the ASA recommendations, GLP-1 receptor agonists that are given at a daily dose should be held on the day of their procedure. Weekly-dose versions are supposed to be held for 1 week prior to colonoscopy or EGD. During EGD procedures, I also recommend keeping the head of the bed at a 45° angle to help prevent aspiration even further.

Gastroenterologists are eagerly awaiting additional studies to determine whether holding GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to endoscopy is really necessary. But for now, we recommend following the ASA guidelines.
 

2. Substituting Out Sugary Drinks

Gastroenterologists and primary care physicians constantly advise their patients to avoid consuming sugary drinks, such as soda, fruit juices, calorie-laden coffee drinks, sweetened tea, hot chocolate, and, of course, alcohol. Many of our patients drink three to six of these sugary drinks a day.

As a gastroenterologist, it’s important to counsel our overweight patients and obtain an accurate history about their daily and weekly consumption of excess calories.

Recommend substituting sugary drinks with water, unsweetened tea (either hot or cold), and coffee.

To prevent constipation, encourage patients to drink at least eight 8-ounce glasses of fluid per day. Drinking water, tea, and coffee can also help keep patients feeling fuller for longer and avoid those tempting snacks.
 

3. Adopting the Right Diet

Every day, I encourage my patients to avoid eating fried fatty foods and processed meats. We also advise patients to avoid junk food filled with carbohydrates and salt.

Instead, patients should try to eat a piece of fruit or some vegetables with every single meal, which keeps patients feeling fuller for longer, prevents diverticulitis from forming, and can even help prevent colon cancer.

Making small dietary changes can dramatically reduce daily calorie consumption, which adds up over time and can help patients lose weight in a safe way.

Meal prepping for the week ahead, perhaps on a Sunday, is a very simple way to eat more nutritious foods instead of constantly getting takeout and fast food.

Many of our patients have also successfully lost weight through intermittent fasting, although I recommend working with a nutritionist on this one.

A Mediterranean diet is also a great option.
 

4. Getting Active

I encourage patients to take daily walks, swim, play sports, take fitness classes, do yoga or Pilates, and use weights at a gym.

Exercise burns calories, which is great for our hearts, prevents hepatic steatosis, and helps relieve stress. Exercise also stimulates peristalsis, which can help our constipated patients achieve more regular bowel movements.

There are a few other things to keep in mind in this area. Try to avoid strenuous exercise right after eating, because this will help prevent both heartburn and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
 

5. Reducing Stomach Volume With a Gastric Balloon

A gastric balloon procedure is a temporary obesity treatment that helps patients lose weight by reducing the volume of the stomach so that they feel full more easily. This can be accomplished endoscopically through the mouth without the need for surgery.

Basically, a deflated balloon is placed through the mouth using an endoscope and advanced into the stomach by a gastroenterologist or surgeon. The balloon is inflated with salt water and can remain in the stomach for 6 months before it is removed.

This procedure can help patients feel full and consequently eat less, thereby leading to gradual and safe weight loss.
 

6. Using the Accordion Procedure

An endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty procedure, sometimes called an accordion procedure, is used for patients with a body mass index ≥ 30 when diet and exercise alone have failed. An EGD tube is equipped with small stitching instruments that are used to reduce the size of the stomach.

This procedure has less complications than open or laparoscopic surgery and can be reversed.
 

7. Injecting Botulinum Toxin

Another technique is having the gastroenterologist inject botulinum toxin into the stomach wall. This works by relaxing the stomach propulsion muscles, which delays gastric emptying so that patients feel fuller longer and more easily.

This approach is good for achieving moderate weight loss of approximately 5%-10% of body weight. It works best in combination with a good diet and exercise. The effects of the botulinum toxin can last for 3 months, and the procedure can be repeated every 6 months.
 

8. Adjusting Certain Lifestyle Factors

Gastroenterologists should also counsel our patients about exercise, stress management, and the importance of sleep to prevent overeating. Self-care is extremely important for patients. Walk, swim, lift weights, and play sports; I personally love basketball and tennis.

I also recommend allocating enough time for sleep each night. At least 7-9 hours of sleep is ideal. Good sleep hygiene can help keep a stable schedule. Create a comfortable bedroom that is free of disruptions like TV watching or playing on your phone or computer.

Gastroenterologists can provide simple instructions to their patients on how to achieve this. For example, unplug from electronics 30-60 minutes prior to sleep. Try also to avoid eating late at night, which will help patients prevent GERD and heartburn symptoms too.
 

9. Considering Orlistat as an Option

Orlistat is an oral over-the-counter lipase inhibitor that inhibits fat absorption in the intestines. This drug can interfere with the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K. Therefore, it’s important to take a multivitamin 2 hours before or 2 hours after taking orlistat.

However, orlistat can cause steatorrhea, so it’s often not our first choice.
 

10. Working With Dietitians

I highly recommend that gastroenterologists regularly refer patients to a registered dietitian for medical nutrition therapy. Dietitians help patients establish nutritional goals with calorie limits. I find that many of my patients like the nutritional counseling the dietitians provide, and this can even be done via telemedicine.

A dietitian will examine a patient’s eating habits and help them set weight loss goals that are both realistic and achievable. Having a dietitian motivate a patient through several clinic visits is important for success. A dietitian can plan how many calories a patient should consume in a day while maintaining food, protein, and vitamin intake.

With this therapy, many patients are able to lose approximately 1-1.5 pounds each week. A dietitian can help keep patients accountable for their weight loss goals. I encourage my patients to use their dietitian as a weight loss teacher and a coach who can personalize a diet plan that tastes great.

Some of our patients also have overlapping gastrointestinal issues, such as celiac disease or irritable bowel syndrome. Dietitians can also formulate diets that are great for these other diagnoses too.

There are also apps available on our phones to help with diet and weight loss.
 

Having a Difficult Conversation to Prevent Long-Term Disease

It’s important for gastroenterologists to work with patients to achieve weight loss. Addressing obesity is sometimes a difficult topic to bring up with patients, but it’s nonetheless very important.

Together, we can help treat obesity plus improve and prevent hepatic steatosis, metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH). The estimated global prevalence of MASLD is 32% in adults, so gastroenterologists and hepatologists are working together to try to treat obesity and to prevent long-term liver disease.
 

Dr. Levy is a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago. In 2017, Levy, a previous Fulbright Fellow in France, also started a gastroenterology clinic for refugees resettling in Chicago. His clinical projects focus on the development of  colorectal cancer  screening campaigns. Levy, who recently gave a TEDx Talk about building health education campaigns using music and concerts, organizes Tune It Up: A Concert To Raise Colorectal Cancer Awareness with the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). He frequently publishes on a variety of gastroenterology topics and serves on ACG’s Public Relations Committee and FDA-Related Matters Committee. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the obesity prevalence in America was 41.9% between 2017 and 2020. Just 10 years ago, no state had an obesity prevalence above 35%.

Over the past 3 years, many patients gained weight during the COVID-19 pandemic as a result of adopting more sedentary lifestyles, staying at home, avoiding the gym owing to the potential for respiratory spread, and working remotely. For a long time, patients were avoiding attending social events and, as a result, were walking much less.

Today, gastroenterologists are hearing more of their patients ask for help with weight loss. Therefore, we wanted to provide a helpful guide with 10 recommendations for gastroenterologists and other physicians to help patients with obesity realize their goal of achieving weight loss.
 

1. Embracing the GLP-1 Revolution, With Some Caveats

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have become a popular treatment for type 2 diabetes and weight loss. These medications, which are given as an injection either weekly or daily depending on the type, have helped patients achieve weight loss with tremendous success.

They work by stimulating the body to produce insulin, which in turn lowers blood sugar. GLP-1 receptor agonists also slow peristalsis and the movement of food from the stomach into the small bowel, which allows patients to eat less by feeling fuller for longer and decreasing hunger.

Two GLP-1 receptor agonists are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for weight loss in patients without diabetes: liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy). There are also lower-dose versions of these active ingredients with the trade names Ozempic and Victoza, designed to help patients with diabetes achieve better glucose and A1c control. In November 2023, the FDA approved a new medication called tirzepatide (Zepbound), which is a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) plus GLP-1 receptor agonist.

This is a very exciting time for the management of type 2 diabetes and weight loss. Gastroenterologists can work with endocrinologists and primary care physicians to help patients choose appropriate weight loss medications.

However, gastroenterologists should also be aware of common GLP-1 receptor agonist side effects, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and — in severe cases — hypoglycemia. These medications can also cause pancreatitis, acute kidney injury, worsening diabetes-related retinopathy, tachycardia, headaches, indigestion, gastroparesis, bowel obstruction, or ileus. We don’t use these medications in patients with a family or personal history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia. Consider avoiding their use as well in patients with a personal history of pancreatitis.

Recently, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) suggested holding off on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to elective endoscopy procedures owing to case reports of aspiration. Gastroenterologists and anesthesiologists are working together to make esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy as safe as possible in patients taking these treatments.

According to the ASA recommendations, GLP-1 receptor agonists that are given at a daily dose should be held on the day of their procedure. Weekly-dose versions are supposed to be held for 1 week prior to colonoscopy or EGD. During EGD procedures, I also recommend keeping the head of the bed at a 45° angle to help prevent aspiration even further.

Gastroenterologists are eagerly awaiting additional studies to determine whether holding GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to endoscopy is really necessary. But for now, we recommend following the ASA guidelines.
 

2. Substituting Out Sugary Drinks

Gastroenterologists and primary care physicians constantly advise their patients to avoid consuming sugary drinks, such as soda, fruit juices, calorie-laden coffee drinks, sweetened tea, hot chocolate, and, of course, alcohol. Many of our patients drink three to six of these sugary drinks a day.

As a gastroenterologist, it’s important to counsel our overweight patients and obtain an accurate history about their daily and weekly consumption of excess calories.

Recommend substituting sugary drinks with water, unsweetened tea (either hot or cold), and coffee.

To prevent constipation, encourage patients to drink at least eight 8-ounce glasses of fluid per day. Drinking water, tea, and coffee can also help keep patients feeling fuller for longer and avoid those tempting snacks.
 

3. Adopting the Right Diet

Every day, I encourage my patients to avoid eating fried fatty foods and processed meats. We also advise patients to avoid junk food filled with carbohydrates and salt.

Instead, patients should try to eat a piece of fruit or some vegetables with every single meal, which keeps patients feeling fuller for longer, prevents diverticulitis from forming, and can even help prevent colon cancer.

Making small dietary changes can dramatically reduce daily calorie consumption, which adds up over time and can help patients lose weight in a safe way.

Meal prepping for the week ahead, perhaps on a Sunday, is a very simple way to eat more nutritious foods instead of constantly getting takeout and fast food.

Many of our patients have also successfully lost weight through intermittent fasting, although I recommend working with a nutritionist on this one.

A Mediterranean diet is also a great option.
 

4. Getting Active

I encourage patients to take daily walks, swim, play sports, take fitness classes, do yoga or Pilates, and use weights at a gym.

Exercise burns calories, which is great for our hearts, prevents hepatic steatosis, and helps relieve stress. Exercise also stimulates peristalsis, which can help our constipated patients achieve more regular bowel movements.

There are a few other things to keep in mind in this area. Try to avoid strenuous exercise right after eating, because this will help prevent both heartburn and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
 

5. Reducing Stomach Volume With a Gastric Balloon

A gastric balloon procedure is a temporary obesity treatment that helps patients lose weight by reducing the volume of the stomach so that they feel full more easily. This can be accomplished endoscopically through the mouth without the need for surgery.

Basically, a deflated balloon is placed through the mouth using an endoscope and advanced into the stomach by a gastroenterologist or surgeon. The balloon is inflated with salt water and can remain in the stomach for 6 months before it is removed.

This procedure can help patients feel full and consequently eat less, thereby leading to gradual and safe weight loss.
 

6. Using the Accordion Procedure

An endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty procedure, sometimes called an accordion procedure, is used for patients with a body mass index ≥ 30 when diet and exercise alone have failed. An EGD tube is equipped with small stitching instruments that are used to reduce the size of the stomach.

This procedure has less complications than open or laparoscopic surgery and can be reversed.
 

7. Injecting Botulinum Toxin

Another technique is having the gastroenterologist inject botulinum toxin into the stomach wall. This works by relaxing the stomach propulsion muscles, which delays gastric emptying so that patients feel fuller longer and more easily.

This approach is good for achieving moderate weight loss of approximately 5%-10% of body weight. It works best in combination with a good diet and exercise. The effects of the botulinum toxin can last for 3 months, and the procedure can be repeated every 6 months.
 

8. Adjusting Certain Lifestyle Factors

Gastroenterologists should also counsel our patients about exercise, stress management, and the importance of sleep to prevent overeating. Self-care is extremely important for patients. Walk, swim, lift weights, and play sports; I personally love basketball and tennis.

I also recommend allocating enough time for sleep each night. At least 7-9 hours of sleep is ideal. Good sleep hygiene can help keep a stable schedule. Create a comfortable bedroom that is free of disruptions like TV watching or playing on your phone or computer.

Gastroenterologists can provide simple instructions to their patients on how to achieve this. For example, unplug from electronics 30-60 minutes prior to sleep. Try also to avoid eating late at night, which will help patients prevent GERD and heartburn symptoms too.
 

9. Considering Orlistat as an Option

Orlistat is an oral over-the-counter lipase inhibitor that inhibits fat absorption in the intestines. This drug can interfere with the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K. Therefore, it’s important to take a multivitamin 2 hours before or 2 hours after taking orlistat.

However, orlistat can cause steatorrhea, so it’s often not our first choice.
 

10. Working With Dietitians

I highly recommend that gastroenterologists regularly refer patients to a registered dietitian for medical nutrition therapy. Dietitians help patients establish nutritional goals with calorie limits. I find that many of my patients like the nutritional counseling the dietitians provide, and this can even be done via telemedicine.

A dietitian will examine a patient’s eating habits and help them set weight loss goals that are both realistic and achievable. Having a dietitian motivate a patient through several clinic visits is important for success. A dietitian can plan how many calories a patient should consume in a day while maintaining food, protein, and vitamin intake.

With this therapy, many patients are able to lose approximately 1-1.5 pounds each week. A dietitian can help keep patients accountable for their weight loss goals. I encourage my patients to use their dietitian as a weight loss teacher and a coach who can personalize a diet plan that tastes great.

Some of our patients also have overlapping gastrointestinal issues, such as celiac disease or irritable bowel syndrome. Dietitians can also formulate diets that are great for these other diagnoses too.

There are also apps available on our phones to help with diet and weight loss.
 

Having a Difficult Conversation to Prevent Long-Term Disease

It’s important for gastroenterologists to work with patients to achieve weight loss. Addressing obesity is sometimes a difficult topic to bring up with patients, but it’s nonetheless very important.

Together, we can help treat obesity plus improve and prevent hepatic steatosis, metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH). The estimated global prevalence of MASLD is 32% in adults, so gastroenterologists and hepatologists are working together to try to treat obesity and to prevent long-term liver disease.
 

Dr. Levy is a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago. In 2017, Levy, a previous Fulbright Fellow in France, also started a gastroenterology clinic for refugees resettling in Chicago. His clinical projects focus on the development of  colorectal cancer  screening campaigns. Levy, who recently gave a TEDx Talk about building health education campaigns using music and concerts, organizes Tune It Up: A Concert To Raise Colorectal Cancer Awareness with the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). He frequently publishes on a variety of gastroenterology topics and serves on ACG’s Public Relations Committee and FDA-Related Matters Committee. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, excluding those at high prostate cancer risk, testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) showed low rates of adverse prostate events, including cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Uncertainty and concern exist about a link between prostate cancer risk and testosterone levels. Most professional society guidelines recommend against TRT in men with a history of or an increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-Term Vascular Events and Efficacy Response in Hypogonadal Men  included 5204 men (ages 45-80, 17% Black, 80% White), randomly assigned to receive testosterone gel or placebo.
• Men with a history of cardiovascular disease or increased cardiovascular risk were evaluated to exclude those at increased prostate cancer risk (fasting testosterone < 300 ng/dL, ≥ 1 hypogonadal symptoms).
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was high-grade prostate cancer incidence (Gleason score, ≥ 4 + 3).
• Secondary endpoints were incidences of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 14,304 person-years of follow-up, high-grade prostate cancer incidence did not differ significantly between the TRT and placebo (0.19% vs 0.12%; P = .51) groups.
• The incidences of prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms were also similar between the groups.
• TRT did not lead to an increase in lower urinary tract symptoms.
• The increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels was higher in the TRT group than in the placebo group (P < .001). However, the between-group difference did not widen after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

For “clinicians and patients who are considering testosterone replacement therapy for hypogonadism,” wrote the authors, “the study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, led the study. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

• The study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer or higher PSA values or those without confirmed hypogonadism.
• Although the TRAVERSE study was longer than many contemporary trials, carcinogens may require many years to induce malignant neoplasms.
• The trial’s structured evaluation of men after PSA testing did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests, which could affect the decision to perform a biopsy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corp, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Mr. Bhasin and two coauthors declared receiving grants, consulting and personal fees, and other ties with pharmaceutical and device companies and other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, excluding those at high prostate cancer risk, testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) showed low rates of adverse prostate events, including cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Uncertainty and concern exist about a link between prostate cancer risk and testosterone levels. Most professional society guidelines recommend against TRT in men with a history of or an increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-Term Vascular Events and Efficacy Response in Hypogonadal Men  included 5204 men (ages 45-80, 17% Black, 80% White), randomly assigned to receive testosterone gel or placebo.
• Men with a history of cardiovascular disease or increased cardiovascular risk were evaluated to exclude those at increased prostate cancer risk (fasting testosterone < 300 ng/dL, ≥ 1 hypogonadal symptoms).
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was high-grade prostate cancer incidence (Gleason score, ≥ 4 + 3).
• Secondary endpoints were incidences of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 14,304 person-years of follow-up, high-grade prostate cancer incidence did not differ significantly between the TRT and placebo (0.19% vs 0.12%; P = .51) groups.
• The incidences of prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms were also similar between the groups.
• TRT did not lead to an increase in lower urinary tract symptoms.
• The increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels was higher in the TRT group than in the placebo group (P < .001). However, the between-group difference did not widen after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

For “clinicians and patients who are considering testosterone replacement therapy for hypogonadism,” wrote the authors, “the study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, led the study. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

• The study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer or higher PSA values or those without confirmed hypogonadism.
• Although the TRAVERSE study was longer than many contemporary trials, carcinogens may require many years to induce malignant neoplasms.
• The trial’s structured evaluation of men after PSA testing did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests, which could affect the decision to perform a biopsy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corp, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Mr. Bhasin and two coauthors declared receiving grants, consulting and personal fees, and other ties with pharmaceutical and device companies and other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, excluding those at high prostate cancer risk, testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) showed low rates of adverse prostate events, including cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Uncertainty and concern exist about a link between prostate cancer risk and testosterone levels. Most professional society guidelines recommend against TRT in men with a history of or an increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-Term Vascular Events and Efficacy Response in Hypogonadal Men  included 5204 men (ages 45-80, 17% Black, 80% White), randomly assigned to receive testosterone gel or placebo.
• Men with a history of cardiovascular disease or increased cardiovascular risk were evaluated to exclude those at increased prostate cancer risk (fasting testosterone < 300 ng/dL, ≥ 1 hypogonadal symptoms).
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was high-grade prostate cancer incidence (Gleason score, ≥ 4 + 3).
• Secondary endpoints were incidences of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 14,304 person-years of follow-up, high-grade prostate cancer incidence did not differ significantly between the TRT and placebo (0.19% vs 0.12%; P = .51) groups.
• The incidences of prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms were also similar between the groups.
• TRT did not lead to an increase in lower urinary tract symptoms.
• The increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels was higher in the TRT group than in the placebo group (P < .001). However, the between-group difference did not widen after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

For “clinicians and patients who are considering testosterone replacement therapy for hypogonadism,” wrote the authors, “the study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, led the study. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

• The study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer or higher PSA values or those without confirmed hypogonadism.
• Although the TRAVERSE study was longer than many contemporary trials, carcinogens may require many years to induce malignant neoplasms.
• The trial’s structured evaluation of men after PSA testing did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests, which could affect the decision to perform a biopsy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corp, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Mr. Bhasin and two coauthors declared receiving grants, consulting and personal fees, and other ties with pharmaceutical and device companies and other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has published draft recommendations that 6-year-olds with obesity be lectured to about diet and exercise.

Never mind that there are no reproducible or scalable studies demonstrating durable and clinically meaningful benefits of this for adults let alone children. Never mind that children are not household decision-makers on matters of grocery shopping, cooking, or exercise. Never mind the corollary that many children so lectured who fail to see an impact on their weight will perceive that as their own personal failures. And of course, never mind that we’re privileged to be in an era with safe, effective, pharmacotherapeutic options for obesity. No. We must teach children it’s their fault if they’re fat. Because ultimately that’s what many of them will learn.

That’s not to say there’s no room for counseling. But with children as young as 6, that counseling should be delivered exclusively to their parents and caregivers. That counseling should focus as much if not more so on the impact of weight bias and the biological basis of obesity rather than diet and exercise, while explicitly teaching parents the means to discuss nutrition without risking their children feeling worse about themselves, increasing the risk for conflict over changes, or heightening their children’s chance of developing eating disorders or maladaptive relationships with food.

But back to the USPSTF’s actual recommendation for those 6 years old and up. They’re recommending “at least” 26 hours of lectures over a year-long interprofessional intervention. Putting aside the reality that this isn’t scalable time-wise or cost-wise to reach even a fraction of the roughly 15 million US children with obesity, there is also the issue of service provision. Because when it comes to obesity, if the intervention is purely educational, even if you want to believe there is a syllabus out there that would have a dramatic impact, its impact will vary wildly depending on the skill and approach of the service providers. This inconvenient truth is also the one that makes it impossible to meaningfully compare program outcomes even when they share the same content.

The USPSTF’s draft recommendations also explicitly avoid what the American Academy of Pediatrics has rightly embraced: the use where appropriate of medications or surgery. While opponents of the use of pharmacotherapy for childhood obesity tend to point to a lack of long-term data as rationale for its denial, something that the USPSTF has done, again, we have long-term data demonstrating a lack of scalable, clinically meaningful efficacy for service only based programs.

Childhood obesity is a flood and its ongoing current is relentless. Given its tremendous impact, especially at its extremes, on both physical and mental health, this is yet another example of systemic weight bias in action — it’s as if the USPSTF is recommending a swimming lesson–only approach while actively fearmongering, despite an absence of plausible mechanistic risk, about the long-term use of life jackets.

Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Freedhoff has disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has published draft recommendations that 6-year-olds with obesity be lectured to about diet and exercise.

Never mind that there are no reproducible or scalable studies demonstrating durable and clinically meaningful benefits of this for adults let alone children. Never mind that children are not household decision-makers on matters of grocery shopping, cooking, or exercise. Never mind the corollary that many children so lectured who fail to see an impact on their weight will perceive that as their own personal failures. And of course, never mind that we’re privileged to be in an era with safe, effective, pharmacotherapeutic options for obesity. No. We must teach children it’s their fault if they’re fat. Because ultimately that’s what many of them will learn.

That’s not to say there’s no room for counseling. But with children as young as 6, that counseling should be delivered exclusively to their parents and caregivers. That counseling should focus as much if not more so on the impact of weight bias and the biological basis of obesity rather than diet and exercise, while explicitly teaching parents the means to discuss nutrition without risking their children feeling worse about themselves, increasing the risk for conflict over changes, or heightening their children’s chance of developing eating disorders or maladaptive relationships with food.

But back to the USPSTF’s actual recommendation for those 6 years old and up. They’re recommending “at least” 26 hours of lectures over a year-long interprofessional intervention. Putting aside the reality that this isn’t scalable time-wise or cost-wise to reach even a fraction of the roughly 15 million US children with obesity, there is also the issue of service provision. Because when it comes to obesity, if the intervention is purely educational, even if you want to believe there is a syllabus out there that would have a dramatic impact, its impact will vary wildly depending on the skill and approach of the service providers. This inconvenient truth is also the one that makes it impossible to meaningfully compare program outcomes even when they share the same content.

The USPSTF’s draft recommendations also explicitly avoid what the American Academy of Pediatrics has rightly embraced: the use where appropriate of medications or surgery. While opponents of the use of pharmacotherapy for childhood obesity tend to point to a lack of long-term data as rationale for its denial, something that the USPSTF has done, again, we have long-term data demonstrating a lack of scalable, clinically meaningful efficacy for service only based programs.

Childhood obesity is a flood and its ongoing current is relentless. Given its tremendous impact, especially at its extremes, on both physical and mental health, this is yet another example of systemic weight bias in action — it’s as if the USPSTF is recommending a swimming lesson–only approach while actively fearmongering, despite an absence of plausible mechanistic risk, about the long-term use of life jackets.

Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Freedhoff has disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has published draft recommendations that 6-year-olds with obesity be lectured to about diet and exercise.

Never mind that there are no reproducible or scalable studies demonstrating durable and clinically meaningful benefits of this for adults let alone children. Never mind that children are not household decision-makers on matters of grocery shopping, cooking, or exercise. Never mind the corollary that many children so lectured who fail to see an impact on their weight will perceive that as their own personal failures. And of course, never mind that we’re privileged to be in an era with safe, effective, pharmacotherapeutic options for obesity. No. We must teach children it’s their fault if they’re fat. Because ultimately that’s what many of them will learn.

That’s not to say there’s no room for counseling. But with children as young as 6, that counseling should be delivered exclusively to their parents and caregivers. That counseling should focus as much if not more so on the impact of weight bias and the biological basis of obesity rather than diet and exercise, while explicitly teaching parents the means to discuss nutrition without risking their children feeling worse about themselves, increasing the risk for conflict over changes, or heightening their children’s chance of developing eating disorders or maladaptive relationships with food.

But back to the USPSTF’s actual recommendation for those 6 years old and up. They’re recommending “at least” 26 hours of lectures over a year-long interprofessional intervention. Putting aside the reality that this isn’t scalable time-wise or cost-wise to reach even a fraction of the roughly 15 million US children with obesity, there is also the issue of service provision. Because when it comes to obesity, if the intervention is purely educational, even if you want to believe there is a syllabus out there that would have a dramatic impact, its impact will vary wildly depending on the skill and approach of the service providers. This inconvenient truth is also the one that makes it impossible to meaningfully compare program outcomes even when they share the same content.

The USPSTF’s draft recommendations also explicitly avoid what the American Academy of Pediatrics has rightly embraced: the use where appropriate of medications or surgery. While opponents of the use of pharmacotherapy for childhood obesity tend to point to a lack of long-term data as rationale for its denial, something that the USPSTF has done, again, we have long-term data demonstrating a lack of scalable, clinically meaningful efficacy for service only based programs.

Childhood obesity is a flood and its ongoing current is relentless. Given its tremendous impact, especially at its extremes, on both physical and mental health, this is yet another example of systemic weight bias in action — it’s as if the USPSTF is recommending a swimming lesson–only approach while actively fearmongering, despite an absence of plausible mechanistic risk, about the long-term use of life jackets.

Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Freedhoff has disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer fare better with standard preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery than with primary surgery and adjuvant chemoradiation, demonstrating better disease-free survival and lower recurrence rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• The standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiation followed by surgery, which is known to reduce the likelihood of local recurrence; however, it is also linked to adverse effects including  and bowel/sexual dysfunction.
• A previous trial found that preoperative MRI could delineate tumor involvement of the mesorectal fascia (MRF).
• This Chinese, noninferiority trial tested whether patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with MRI-predicted negative MRF can skip preoperative chemoradiation.
• The study included 275 patients with T3-4aN0 or T1-4aN1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma, an inferior tumor edge 6-12 cm from the anal verge, and gross primary or nodal disease > 1 mm from the MRF — all based on preoperative MRI.
• Patients in the intervention group, 140, were assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with  followed by capecitabine/ started 4 weeks after surgery) and the remaining 135 to upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemo/chemoradiation when there was tumor within 1 mm of circumferential margins.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of 34.6 months, there were six (4.4%) local recurrences in the intervention group and none in the control group.
• In the intention-to-treat population, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.8% in the intervention group vs 85.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76).
• In the per protocol dataset, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.1% in the primary surgery group vs 86.6% in the preoperative chemoradiation group — a difference of −5.4% (HR, 2.02), prompting the researchers to stop the trial early.

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial was shut down earlier due to an excessive number of [disease-free survival] and local recurrence events observed in the interventional group of primary surgery. Based on our findings, in [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients with high risk though negative MRF, primary surgery would potentially compromise their [disease-free survival] rates. Therefore, primary surgery is an inferior strategy, compared to preoperative [chemoradiation] followed by surgery, and cannot be recommended for [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients in clinical practice,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jun Li, MD, Department of Colorectal Surgery and Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China, was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample size will result in compromises in stratified randomization and lower the power for survival analysis. A relatively high proportion of patients (n = 32) crossed over from the neoadjuvant (chemoradiation) group to the primary surgery group. Follow-up time was relatively short, with only 43% of patients completing 3 years of follow-up.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer fare better with standard preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery than with primary surgery and adjuvant chemoradiation, demonstrating better disease-free survival and lower recurrence rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• The standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiation followed by surgery, which is known to reduce the likelihood of local recurrence; however, it is also linked to adverse effects including  and bowel/sexual dysfunction.
• A previous trial found that preoperative MRI could delineate tumor involvement of the mesorectal fascia (MRF).
• This Chinese, noninferiority trial tested whether patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with MRI-predicted negative MRF can skip preoperative chemoradiation.
• The study included 275 patients with T3-4aN0 or T1-4aN1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma, an inferior tumor edge 6-12 cm from the anal verge, and gross primary or nodal disease > 1 mm from the MRF — all based on preoperative MRI.
• Patients in the intervention group, 140, were assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with  followed by capecitabine/ started 4 weeks after surgery) and the remaining 135 to upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemo/chemoradiation when there was tumor within 1 mm of circumferential margins.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of 34.6 months, there were six (4.4%) local recurrences in the intervention group and none in the control group.
• In the intention-to-treat population, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.8% in the intervention group vs 85.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76).
• In the per protocol dataset, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.1% in the primary surgery group vs 86.6% in the preoperative chemoradiation group — a difference of −5.4% (HR, 2.02), prompting the researchers to stop the trial early.

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial was shut down earlier due to an excessive number of [disease-free survival] and local recurrence events observed in the interventional group of primary surgery. Based on our findings, in [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients with high risk though negative MRF, primary surgery would potentially compromise their [disease-free survival] rates. Therefore, primary surgery is an inferior strategy, compared to preoperative [chemoradiation] followed by surgery, and cannot be recommended for [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients in clinical practice,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jun Li, MD, Department of Colorectal Surgery and Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China, was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample size will result in compromises in stratified randomization and lower the power for survival analysis. A relatively high proportion of patients (n = 32) crossed over from the neoadjuvant (chemoradiation) group to the primary surgery group. Follow-up time was relatively short, with only 43% of patients completing 3 years of follow-up.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer fare better with standard preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery than with primary surgery and adjuvant chemoradiation, demonstrating better disease-free survival and lower recurrence rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• The standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiation followed by surgery, which is known to reduce the likelihood of local recurrence; however, it is also linked to adverse effects including  and bowel/sexual dysfunction.
• A previous trial found that preoperative MRI could delineate tumor involvement of the mesorectal fascia (MRF).
• This Chinese, noninferiority trial tested whether patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with MRI-predicted negative MRF can skip preoperative chemoradiation.
• The study included 275 patients with T3-4aN0 or T1-4aN1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma, an inferior tumor edge 6-12 cm from the anal verge, and gross primary or nodal disease > 1 mm from the MRF — all based on preoperative MRI.
• Patients in the intervention group, 140, were assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with  followed by capecitabine/ started 4 weeks after surgery) and the remaining 135 to upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemo/chemoradiation when there was tumor within 1 mm of circumferential margins.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of 34.6 months, there were six (4.4%) local recurrences in the intervention group and none in the control group.
• In the intention-to-treat population, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.8% in the intervention group vs 85.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76).
• In the per protocol dataset, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.1% in the primary surgery group vs 86.6% in the preoperative chemoradiation group — a difference of −5.4% (HR, 2.02), prompting the researchers to stop the trial early.

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial was shut down earlier due to an excessive number of [disease-free survival] and local recurrence events observed in the interventional group of primary surgery. Based on our findings, in [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients with high risk though negative MRF, primary surgery would potentially compromise their [disease-free survival] rates. Therefore, primary surgery is an inferior strategy, compared to preoperative [chemoradiation] followed by surgery, and cannot be recommended for [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients in clinical practice,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jun Li, MD, Department of Colorectal Surgery and Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China, was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample size will result in compromises in stratified randomization and lower the power for survival analysis. A relatively high proportion of patients (n = 32) crossed over from the neoadjuvant (chemoradiation) group to the primary surgery group. Follow-up time was relatively short, with only 43% of patients completing 3 years of follow-up.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.

There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.

Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
 

Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate

Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.

There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.

First, we can consider using mucosal exposure techniques in our colonoscopies. These techniques incorporate the use of a hood, cap, or device that faces the mucosal folds on withdrawal from the cecum. This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.

In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).

There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.

There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
 

Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute

Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.

A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.

Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.

APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
 

Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors

Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.

Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.

When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.

I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
 

Best Practices in Bowel Preparations

The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.

I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.

The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
 

Resection Considerations

There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.

There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.

The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.

Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.

We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.

When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.

There are two other considerations regarding resection.

The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.

The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.

In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.

There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.

Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
 

Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate

Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.

There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.

First, we can consider using mucosal exposure techniques in our colonoscopies. These techniques incorporate the use of a hood, cap, or device that faces the mucosal folds on withdrawal from the cecum. This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.

In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).

There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.

There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
 

Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute

Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.

A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.

Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.

APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
 

Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors

Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.

Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.

When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.

I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
 

Best Practices in Bowel Preparations

The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.

I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.

The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
 

Resection Considerations

There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.

There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.

The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.

Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.

We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.

When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.

There are two other considerations regarding resection.

The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.

The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.

In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.

There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.

Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.