Investing in research is the only way we will identify new diagnostics and treatments. However, at this time of unparalleled scientific and clinical opportunity, promising early stage investigators are leaving the field because of the instability of federal research funding.

Fortunately, the AGA Research Foundation has a proven track record of funding young investigators whose work advances the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. The AGA Research Foundation provides a key source of funding at a critical juncture in a talented investigator’s career.

Help the AGA build a community of investigators through the AGA Research Foundation.

Your donation to the AGA Research Foundation can fund future success stories by keeping young scientists working to advance our understanding of digestive diseases.

Donate today to help protect the GI research pipeline. Make a tax-deductible donation at www.foundation.gastro.org.

Investing in research is the only way we will identify new diagnostics and treatments. However, at this time of unparalleled scientific and clinical opportunity, promising early stage investigators are leaving the field because of the instability of federal research funding.

Fortunately, the AGA Research Foundation has a proven track record of funding young investigators whose work advances the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. The AGA Research Foundation provides a key source of funding at a critical juncture in a talented investigator’s career.

Help the AGA build a community of investigators through the AGA Research Foundation.

Your donation to the AGA Research Foundation can fund future success stories by keeping young scientists working to advance our understanding of digestive diseases.

Donate today to help protect the GI research pipeline. Make a tax-deductible donation at www.foundation.gastro.org.

Investing in research is the only way we will identify new diagnostics and treatments. However, at this time of unparalleled scientific and clinical opportunity, promising early stage investigators are leaving the field because of the instability of federal research funding.

Fortunately, the AGA Research Foundation has a proven track record of funding young investigators whose work advances the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. The AGA Research Foundation provides a key source of funding at a critical juncture in a talented investigator’s career.

Help the AGA build a community of investigators through the AGA Research Foundation.

Your donation to the AGA Research Foundation can fund future success stories by keeping young scientists working to advance our understanding of digestive diseases.

Donate today to help protect the GI research pipeline. Make a tax-deductible donation at www.foundation.gastro.org.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. We had a great discussion on Parkinson’s Disease for Primary Care with Dr. Albert Hung. Paul, this was something that really made me nervous. I didn’t have a lot of comfort with it. But he taught us a lot of tips about how to recognize Parkinson’s.

I hadn’t been as aware of the premotor symptoms: constipation, hyposmia (loss of sense of smell), and rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder. If patients have those early on and they aren’t explained by other things (especially the REM sleep behavior disorder), you should really key in because those patients are at risk of developing Parkinson’s years down the line. Those symptoms could present first, which just kind of blew my mind.

What tips do you have about how to recognize Parkinson’s? Do you want to talk about the physical exam?

Paul N. Williams, MD: You know I love the physical exam stuff, so I’m happy to talk about that.

Dr. Watto: He also told us about some red flags.

Dr. Williams: This was a really fascinating point because we typically think if a patient’s symptoms are related to a drug exposure – in this case, drug-induced parkinsonism – we can just stop the medication and the symptoms will disappear in a couple of days as the drug leaves the system. But as it turns out, it might take much longer. A mistake that Dr Hung often sees is that the clinician stops the possibly offending agent, but when they don’t see an immediate relief of symptoms, they assume the drug wasn’t causing them. You really have to give the patient a fair shot off the medication to experience recovery because those symptoms can last weeks or even months after the drug is discontinued.

Dr. Watto: Dr Hung looks at the patient’s problem list and asks whether is there any reason this patient might have been exposed to one of these medications?

We’re not going to get too much into specific Parkinson’s treatment, but I was glad to hear that exercise actually improves mobility and may even have some neuroprotective effects. He mentioned ongoing trials looking at that. We always love an excuse to tell patients that they should be moving around more and being physically active.

Dr. Williams: That was one of the more shocking things I learned, that exercise might actually be good for you. That will deeply inform my practice. Many of the treatments that we use for Parkinson’s only address symptoms. They don’t address progression or fix anything, but exercise can help with that.

Dr. Watto: Paul, the last question I wanted to ask you is about our role in primary care. Patients with Parkinson’s have autonomic symptoms. They have neurocognitive symptoms. What is our role in that as primary care physicians?

Dr. Williams: Myriad symptoms can accompany Parkinson’s, and we have experience with most of them. We should all feel fairly comfortable dealing with constipation, which can be a very bothersome symptom. And we can use our full arsenal for symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and even apathy – the anhedonia, which apparently can be the predominant feature. We do have the tools to address these problems.

This might be a situation where we might reach for bupropion or a tricyclic antidepressant, which might not be your initial choice for a patient with a possibly annoying mood disorder. But for someone with Parkinson’s disease, this actually may be very helpful. We know how to manage a lot of the symptoms that come along with Parkinson’s that are not just the motor symptoms, and we should take ownership of those things.

Dr. Watto: You can hear the rest of this podcast here. This has been another episode of The Curbsiders bringing you a little knowledge food for your brain hole. Until next time, I’ve been Dr Matthew Frank Watto.

Dr. Williams: And I’m Dr Paul Nelson Williams.

Dr. Watto is a clinical assistant professor, department of medicine, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, at Temple University, Philadelphia. Neither Dr. Watto nor Dr. Williams reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. We had a great discussion on Parkinson’s Disease for Primary Care with Dr. Albert Hung. Paul, this was something that really made me nervous. I didn’t have a lot of comfort with it. But he taught us a lot of tips about how to recognize Parkinson’s.

I hadn’t been as aware of the premotor symptoms: constipation, hyposmia (loss of sense of smell), and rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder. If patients have those early on and they aren’t explained by other things (especially the REM sleep behavior disorder), you should really key in because those patients are at risk of developing Parkinson’s years down the line. Those symptoms could present first, which just kind of blew my mind.

What tips do you have about how to recognize Parkinson’s? Do you want to talk about the physical exam?

Paul N. Williams, MD: You know I love the physical exam stuff, so I’m happy to talk about that.

Dr. Watto: He also told us about some red flags.

Dr. Williams: This was a really fascinating point because we typically think if a patient’s symptoms are related to a drug exposure – in this case, drug-induced parkinsonism – we can just stop the medication and the symptoms will disappear in a couple of days as the drug leaves the system. But as it turns out, it might take much longer. A mistake that Dr Hung often sees is that the clinician stops the possibly offending agent, but when they don’t see an immediate relief of symptoms, they assume the drug wasn’t causing them. You really have to give the patient a fair shot off the medication to experience recovery because those symptoms can last weeks or even months after the drug is discontinued.

Dr. Watto: Dr Hung looks at the patient’s problem list and asks whether is there any reason this patient might have been exposed to one of these medications?

We’re not going to get too much into specific Parkinson’s treatment, but I was glad to hear that exercise actually improves mobility and may even have some neuroprotective effects. He mentioned ongoing trials looking at that. We always love an excuse to tell patients that they should be moving around more and being physically active.

Dr. Williams: That was one of the more shocking things I learned, that exercise might actually be good for you. That will deeply inform my practice. Many of the treatments that we use for Parkinson’s only address symptoms. They don’t address progression or fix anything, but exercise can help with that.

Dr. Watto: Paul, the last question I wanted to ask you is about our role in primary care. Patients with Parkinson’s have autonomic symptoms. They have neurocognitive symptoms. What is our role in that as primary care physicians?

Dr. Williams: Myriad symptoms can accompany Parkinson’s, and we have experience with most of them. We should all feel fairly comfortable dealing with constipation, which can be a very bothersome symptom. And we can use our full arsenal for symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and even apathy – the anhedonia, which apparently can be the predominant feature. We do have the tools to address these problems.

This might be a situation where we might reach for bupropion or a tricyclic antidepressant, which might not be your initial choice for a patient with a possibly annoying mood disorder. But for someone with Parkinson’s disease, this actually may be very helpful. We know how to manage a lot of the symptoms that come along with Parkinson’s that are not just the motor symptoms, and we should take ownership of those things.

Dr. Watto: You can hear the rest of this podcast here. This has been another episode of The Curbsiders bringing you a little knowledge food for your brain hole. Until next time, I’ve been Dr Matthew Frank Watto.

Dr. Williams: And I’m Dr Paul Nelson Williams.

Dr. Watto is a clinical assistant professor, department of medicine, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, at Temple University, Philadelphia. Neither Dr. Watto nor Dr. Williams reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. We had a great discussion on Parkinson’s Disease for Primary Care with Dr. Albert Hung. Paul, this was something that really made me nervous. I didn’t have a lot of comfort with it. But he taught us a lot of tips about how to recognize Parkinson’s.

I hadn’t been as aware of the premotor symptoms: constipation, hyposmia (loss of sense of smell), and rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder. If patients have those early on and they aren’t explained by other things (especially the REM sleep behavior disorder), you should really key in because those patients are at risk of developing Parkinson’s years down the line. Those symptoms could present first, which just kind of blew my mind.

What tips do you have about how to recognize Parkinson’s? Do you want to talk about the physical exam?

Paul N. Williams, MD: You know I love the physical exam stuff, so I’m happy to talk about that.

Dr. Watto: He also told us about some red flags.

Dr. Williams: This was a really fascinating point because we typically think if a patient’s symptoms are related to a drug exposure – in this case, drug-induced parkinsonism – we can just stop the medication and the symptoms will disappear in a couple of days as the drug leaves the system. But as it turns out, it might take much longer. A mistake that Dr Hung often sees is that the clinician stops the possibly offending agent, but when they don’t see an immediate relief of symptoms, they assume the drug wasn’t causing them. You really have to give the patient a fair shot off the medication to experience recovery because those symptoms can last weeks or even months after the drug is discontinued.

Dr. Watto: Dr Hung looks at the patient’s problem list and asks whether is there any reason this patient might have been exposed to one of these medications?

We’re not going to get too much into specific Parkinson’s treatment, but I was glad to hear that exercise actually improves mobility and may even have some neuroprotective effects. He mentioned ongoing trials looking at that. We always love an excuse to tell patients that they should be moving around more and being physically active.

Dr. Williams: That was one of the more shocking things I learned, that exercise might actually be good for you. That will deeply inform my practice. Many of the treatments that we use for Parkinson’s only address symptoms. They don’t address progression or fix anything, but exercise can help with that.

Dr. Watto: Paul, the last question I wanted to ask you is about our role in primary care. Patients with Parkinson’s have autonomic symptoms. They have neurocognitive symptoms. What is our role in that as primary care physicians?

Dr. Williams: Myriad symptoms can accompany Parkinson’s, and we have experience with most of them. We should all feel fairly comfortable dealing with constipation, which can be a very bothersome symptom. And we can use our full arsenal for symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and even apathy – the anhedonia, which apparently can be the predominant feature. We do have the tools to address these problems.

This might be a situation where we might reach for bupropion or a tricyclic antidepressant, which might not be your initial choice for a patient with a possibly annoying mood disorder. But for someone with Parkinson’s disease, this actually may be very helpful. We know how to manage a lot of the symptoms that come along with Parkinson’s that are not just the motor symptoms, and we should take ownership of those things.

Dr. Watto: You can hear the rest of this podcast here. This has been another episode of The Curbsiders bringing you a little knowledge food for your brain hole. Until next time, I’ve been Dr Matthew Frank Watto.

Dr. Williams: And I’m Dr Paul Nelson Williams.

Dr. Watto is a clinical assistant professor, department of medicine, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, at Temple University, Philadelphia. Neither Dr. Watto nor Dr. Williams reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Reforming prior authorization polices to reduce red tape for physicians and help patients get the care they need in a timely manner is the AGA’s number one policy priority as it impacts every gastroenterologist regardless of practice setting. We have seen an increase in prior authorization policies from every major insurer. The most recent prior authorization program to impact gastroenterologists was announced by UnitedHealthcare (UHC) in March for implementation on June 1, 2023 and will require prior authorization for most colonoscopy and upper GI endoscopy procedures with the exception of screening colonoscopy.¹ This policy is a step back at a time when payers should be developing innovative policies in collaboration with health care providers to improve patient care.

UHC’s GI prior authorization policy

AGA met with UHC in March to discuss their plan to require prior authorization for most GI endoscopy procedures. We stressed how this change will cause care delays for high-risk individuals, deter patients from undergoing medically recommended procedures, exacerbate existing sociodemographic disparities in care and outcomes, and add unnecessary paperwork burden to physicians who have mounting rates of burnout.

Linda Lee, MD, medical director of endoscopy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, recently spoke of the impact this policy will have on gastroenterologists and their patients. “We all know that requiring prior authorizations really only leads to more bureaucracy within the insurance company, as well as within each health care provider’s practice, because we need people to fill out these prior authorization forms, waste time trying to get through to their 1-800 number to speak with someone who has no clinical knowledge, then be told we need to speak with someone else who actually does have some medical knowledge about why these procedures are necessary.”

However, Dr. Lee stressed that “most importantly, this will lead to poorer patient care with delays in care as we are struggling to wade through the morass of prior authorization while patients are bleeding, not able to swallow, vomiting, and more while waiting for their insurance company to approve their potentially life-saving procedures.”

We were particularly troubled that UHC announced this policy during Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, given the need to screen more Americans for colorectal cancer which remains the nation’s number two cancer killer. The UHC program would require a PA on surveillance colonoscopy for those patients who have previously had polyps removed and are at a higher risk for developing colorectal cancer.

“We know that patients with high-risk adenomas or advanced sessile serrated lesions have a higher risk of developing colorectal cancer and timely access to the necessary surveillance colonoscopy is critical,” said David Lieberman, MD, past president of the AGA and chair of the AGA Executive Committee on the Screening Continuum.   

AGA plans to meet with UHC again to ask them to reconsider this policy, but we need your advocacy now to tell United how this will impact you and your patients.
 

How you can help stop UHC’s prior authorization program

Write to UHC: Tell UHC how this policy would impact you and your patients. Contact their CEO using our customizable letter² that outlines the impact of United’s GI endoscopy prior authorization program on gastroenterologists and their patients available on the AGA Advocacy Action Center.

Use social media: Tag United (@UHC) on Twitter and tell them how this burdensome program will cause delays for high-risk individuals, deter patients from seeking treatment, and exacerbate existing disparities in care, all while saddling physicians with even more paperwork. Once you’ve tweeted, tag your colleagues and encourage them to get involved.
 

AGA is working to reform prior authorization

The AGA has supported federal legislation that would streamline prior authorization processes in Medicare Advantage (MA), the private insurance plans that contract with the Medicare program, given the explosion of these policies over the past several years. The Improving Seniors Timely Access to Care Act, bipartisan, bicameral legislation, would reduce prior authorization burdens by:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization (ePA) program and require MA plans to adopt ePA capabilities.
• Requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a list of items and services eligible for real-time decisions under an MA ePA program.
• Standardizing and streamlining the prior authorization process for routinely approved items and services.
• Ensuring prior authorization requests are reviewed by qualified medical personnel.
• Increasing transparency around MA prior authorization requirements and their use.
• Protecting beneficiaries from any disruptions in care due to prior authorization requirements as they transition between MA plans.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has also recognized the impact that prior authorization is having on physician wellness and how it is contributing to physician burnout. The agency recently proposed implementing many of the provisions that are outlined in the legislation, and AGA has expressed our support for moving forward with many of their proposals.

Earlier this year, Shivan Mehta, MD, MPH, met with CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, to express AGA’s support for prior authorization reform and discussed how it impacts how patients with chronic conditions like inflammatory bowel disease maintain continuity of care. He also stressed how prior authorization further exacerbates health inequities since it creates an additional barrier to care when barriers already exist.

AGA is taking a multi-pronged approach to advocating for prior authorization reform and reducing paperwork through legislative advocacy, regulatory advocacy with the CMS, and payer advocacy. We can’t do this alone. Join our AGA Advocacy Center³ and get involved in our AGA Congressional Advocates Program.⁴The authors have no conflicts to declare.
 

References

1. UnitedHealthcare (2023 Mar 01) New requirements for gastroenterology services.

2. American Gastroenterological Association (n.d.) AGA Advocacy Action Center. Tell United to Stop New Prior Auth Requirements!

3. American Gastroenterological Association (n.d.) AGA Advocacy Action Center. Advocacy & Policy. Get Involved.

4. American Gastroenterological Association (n.d.) AGA Congressional Advocates Program.

Reforming prior authorization polices to reduce red tape for physicians and help patients get the care they need in a timely manner is the AGA’s number one policy priority as it impacts every gastroenterologist regardless of practice setting. We have seen an increase in prior authorization policies from every major insurer. The most recent prior authorization program to impact gastroenterologists was announced by UnitedHealthcare (UHC) in March for implementation on June 1, 2023 and will require prior authorization for most colonoscopy and upper GI endoscopy procedures with the exception of screening colonoscopy.¹ This policy is a step back at a time when payers should be developing innovative policies in collaboration with health care providers to improve patient care.

UHC’s GI prior authorization policy

AGA met with UHC in March to discuss their plan to require prior authorization for most GI endoscopy procedures. We stressed how this change will cause care delays for high-risk individuals, deter patients from undergoing medically recommended procedures, exacerbate existing sociodemographic disparities in care and outcomes, and add unnecessary paperwork burden to physicians who have mounting rates of burnout.

Linda Lee, MD, medical director of endoscopy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, recently spoke of the impact this policy will have on gastroenterologists and their patients. “We all know that requiring prior authorizations really only leads to more bureaucracy within the insurance company, as well as within each health care provider’s practice, because we need people to fill out these prior authorization forms, waste time trying to get through to their 1-800 number to speak with someone who has no clinical knowledge, then be told we need to speak with someone else who actually does have some medical knowledge about why these procedures are necessary.”

However, Dr. Lee stressed that “most importantly, this will lead to poorer patient care with delays in care as we are struggling to wade through the morass of prior authorization while patients are bleeding, not able to swallow, vomiting, and more while waiting for their insurance company to approve their potentially life-saving procedures.”

We were particularly troubled that UHC announced this policy during Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, given the need to screen more Americans for colorectal cancer which remains the nation’s number two cancer killer. The UHC program would require a PA on surveillance colonoscopy for those patients who have previously had polyps removed and are at a higher risk for developing colorectal cancer.

“We know that patients with high-risk adenomas or advanced sessile serrated lesions have a higher risk of developing colorectal cancer and timely access to the necessary surveillance colonoscopy is critical,” said David Lieberman, MD, past president of the AGA and chair of the AGA Executive Committee on the Screening Continuum.   

AGA plans to meet with UHC again to ask them to reconsider this policy, but we need your advocacy now to tell United how this will impact you and your patients.
 

How you can help stop UHC’s prior authorization program

Write to UHC: Tell UHC how this policy would impact you and your patients. Contact their CEO using our customizable letter² that outlines the impact of United’s GI endoscopy prior authorization program on gastroenterologists and their patients available on the AGA Advocacy Action Center.

Use social media: Tag United (@UHC) on Twitter and tell them how this burdensome program will cause delays for high-risk individuals, deter patients from seeking treatment, and exacerbate existing disparities in care, all while saddling physicians with even more paperwork. Once you’ve tweeted, tag your colleagues and encourage them to get involved.
 

AGA is working to reform prior authorization

The AGA has supported federal legislation that would streamline prior authorization processes in Medicare Advantage (MA), the private insurance plans that contract with the Medicare program, given the explosion of these policies over the past several years. The Improving Seniors Timely Access to Care Act, bipartisan, bicameral legislation, would reduce prior authorization burdens by:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization (ePA) program and require MA plans to adopt ePA capabilities.
• Requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a list of items and services eligible for real-time decisions under an MA ePA program.
• Standardizing and streamlining the prior authorization process for routinely approved items and services.
• Ensuring prior authorization requests are reviewed by qualified medical personnel.
• Increasing transparency around MA prior authorization requirements and their use.
• Protecting beneficiaries from any disruptions in care due to prior authorization requirements as they transition between MA plans.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has also recognized the impact that prior authorization is having on physician wellness and how it is contributing to physician burnout. The agency recently proposed implementing many of the provisions that are outlined in the legislation, and AGA has expressed our support for moving forward with many of their proposals.

Earlier this year, Shivan Mehta, MD, MPH, met with CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, to express AGA’s support for prior authorization reform and discussed how it impacts how patients with chronic conditions like inflammatory bowel disease maintain continuity of care. He also stressed how prior authorization further exacerbates health inequities since it creates an additional barrier to care when barriers already exist.

AGA is taking a multi-pronged approach to advocating for prior authorization reform and reducing paperwork through legislative advocacy, regulatory advocacy with the CMS, and payer advocacy. We can’t do this alone. Join our AGA Advocacy Center³ and get involved in our AGA Congressional Advocates Program.⁴The authors have no conflicts to declare.
 

References

1. UnitedHealthcare (2023 Mar 01) New requirements for gastroenterology services.

2. American Gastroenterological Association (n.d.) AGA Advocacy Action Center. Tell United to Stop New Prior Auth Requirements!

3. American Gastroenterological Association (n.d.) AGA Advocacy Action Center. Advocacy & Policy. Get Involved.

4. American Gastroenterological Association (n.d.) AGA Congressional Advocates Program.

Reforming prior authorization polices to reduce red tape for physicians and help patients get the care they need in a timely manner is the AGA’s number one policy priority as it impacts every gastroenterologist regardless of practice setting. We have seen an increase in prior authorization policies from every major insurer. The most recent prior authorization program to impact gastroenterologists was announced by UnitedHealthcare (UHC) in March for implementation on June 1, 2023 and will require prior authorization for most colonoscopy and upper GI endoscopy procedures with the exception of screening colonoscopy.¹ This policy is a step back at a time when payers should be developing innovative policies in collaboration with health care providers to improve patient care.

UHC’s GI prior authorization policy

AGA met with UHC in March to discuss their plan to require prior authorization for most GI endoscopy procedures. We stressed how this change will cause care delays for high-risk individuals, deter patients from undergoing medically recommended procedures, exacerbate existing sociodemographic disparities in care and outcomes, and add unnecessary paperwork burden to physicians who have mounting rates of burnout.

Linda Lee, MD, medical director of endoscopy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, recently spoke of the impact this policy will have on gastroenterologists and their patients. “We all know that requiring prior authorizations really only leads to more bureaucracy within the insurance company, as well as within each health care provider’s practice, because we need people to fill out these prior authorization forms, waste time trying to get through to their 1-800 number to speak with someone who has no clinical knowledge, then be told we need to speak with someone else who actually does have some medical knowledge about why these procedures are necessary.”

However, Dr. Lee stressed that “most importantly, this will lead to poorer patient care with delays in care as we are struggling to wade through the morass of prior authorization while patients are bleeding, not able to swallow, vomiting, and more while waiting for their insurance company to approve their potentially life-saving procedures.”

We were particularly troubled that UHC announced this policy during Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, given the need to screen more Americans for colorectal cancer which remains the nation’s number two cancer killer. The UHC program would require a PA on surveillance colonoscopy for those patients who have previously had polyps removed and are at a higher risk for developing colorectal cancer.

“We know that patients with high-risk adenomas or advanced sessile serrated lesions have a higher risk of developing colorectal cancer and timely access to the necessary surveillance colonoscopy is critical,” said David Lieberman, MD, past president of the AGA and chair of the AGA Executive Committee on the Screening Continuum.   

AGA plans to meet with UHC again to ask them to reconsider this policy, but we need your advocacy now to tell United how this will impact you and your patients.
 

How you can help stop UHC’s prior authorization program

Write to UHC: Tell UHC how this policy would impact you and your patients. Contact their CEO using our customizable letter² that outlines the impact of United’s GI endoscopy prior authorization program on gastroenterologists and their patients available on the AGA Advocacy Action Center.

Use social media: Tag United (@UHC) on Twitter and tell them how this burdensome program will cause delays for high-risk individuals, deter patients from seeking treatment, and exacerbate existing disparities in care, all while saddling physicians with even more paperwork. Once you’ve tweeted, tag your colleagues and encourage them to get involved.
 

AGA is working to reform prior authorization

The AGA has supported federal legislation that would streamline prior authorization processes in Medicare Advantage (MA), the private insurance plans that contract with the Medicare program, given the explosion of these policies over the past several years. The Improving Seniors Timely Access to Care Act, bipartisan, bicameral legislation, would reduce prior authorization burdens by:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization (ePA) program and require MA plans to adopt ePA capabilities.
• Requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a list of items and services eligible for real-time decisions under an MA ePA program.
• Standardizing and streamlining the prior authorization process for routinely approved items and services.
• Ensuring prior authorization requests are reviewed by qualified medical personnel.
• Increasing transparency around MA prior authorization requirements and their use.
• Protecting beneficiaries from any disruptions in care due to prior authorization requirements as they transition between MA plans.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has also recognized the impact that prior authorization is having on physician wellness and how it is contributing to physician burnout. The agency recently proposed implementing many of the provisions that are outlined in the legislation, and AGA has expressed our support for moving forward with many of their proposals.

Earlier this year, Shivan Mehta, MD, MPH, met with CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, to express AGA’s support for prior authorization reform and discussed how it impacts how patients with chronic conditions like inflammatory bowel disease maintain continuity of care. He also stressed how prior authorization further exacerbates health inequities since it creates an additional barrier to care when barriers already exist.

AGA is taking a multi-pronged approach to advocating for prior authorization reform and reducing paperwork through legislative advocacy, regulatory advocacy with the CMS, and payer advocacy. We can’t do this alone. Join our AGA Advocacy Center³ and get involved in our AGA Congressional Advocates Program.⁴The authors have no conflicts to declare.
 

References

1. UnitedHealthcare (2023 Mar 01) New requirements for gastroenterology services.

2. American Gastroenterological Association (n.d.) AGA Advocacy Action Center. Tell United to Stop New Prior Auth Requirements!

3. American Gastroenterological Association (n.d.) AGA Advocacy Action Center. Advocacy & Policy. Get Involved.

4. American Gastroenterological Association (n.d.) AGA Congressional Advocates Program.

A round heart, or left ventricle sphericity, predicted cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a deep learning analysis of MRI images from close to 39,000 participants in the UK Biobank, a new study shows.

An increase of 1 standard deviation in the sphericity index (short axis length/long axis length) was associated with a 47% increased incidence of cardiomyopathy and a 20% increased incidence of AFib, independent of clinical factors and traditional MRI measures.

Furthermore, a genetic analysis suggested a shared architecture between sphericity and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, pointing to NICM as a possible causal factor for left ventricle sphericity among individuals with normal LV size and function.

“Physicians have known the heart gets rounder after heart attacks and as we get older,” David Ouyang, MD, a cardiologist in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and a researcher in the division of artificial intelligence in medicine, said in an interview. “We wanted to see if this sphericity is prognostic of future disease even in healthy individuals.”

Although it is too early to recommend heart shape assessment in healthy asymptomatic people, he said, “physicians should be extra careful and think about treatments when they notice a patient’s heart is particularly round.”

The study was published online March 29 in the journal Med.
 

Sphericity index key

The investigators hypothesized that there is variation in LV sphericity within the spectrum of normal LV chamber size and systolic function, and that such variation might be a marker of cardiac risk with genetic influences.

To test this hypothesis, they used automated deep-learning segmentation of cardiac MRI data to estimate and analyze the sphericity index in a cohort of 38,897 individuals participating in the UK Biobank.

After adjustment for age at MRI and sex, an increased sphericity index was associated with an increased risk for cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio, 1.57), AFib (HR, 1.35), and heart failure (HR, 1.37).

No significant association was seen with cardiac arrest.

The team then stratified the cohort into quintiles and compared the top 20%, middle 60%, and bottom 20%. The relationship between the sphericity index and risk extended across the distribution; individuals with higher than median sphericity had increased disease incidence, and those with lower than median sphericity had decreased incidence.

Overall, a single standard deviation in the sphericity index was associated with increased risk of cardiomyopathy (HR, 1.47) and of AFib (HR, 1.20), independent of clinical factors and usual MRI measurements.

In a minimally adjusted model, the sphericity index was a predictor of incident cardiomyopathy, AFib, and heart failure.

Adjustment for clinical factors partially attenuated the heart failure association; additional adjustment for MRI measurements fully attenuated that association and partially attenuated the association with AFib.

However, in all adjusted models, the association with cardiomyopathy showed little attenuation.

Furthermore, the team identified four loci associated with sphericity at genomewide significance – PLN, ANGPT1, PDZRN3, and HLA DR/DQ – and Mendelian randomization supported NICM as a cause of LV sphericity.
 

Looking ahead

“While conventional imaging metrics have significant diagnostic and prognostic value, some of these measurements have been adopted out of convenience or tradition,” the authors noted. “By representing a specific multidimensional remodeling phenotype, sphericity has emerged as a distinct morphologic trait with features not adequately captured by conventional measurements.

“We expect that the search space of potential imaging measurements is vast, and we have only begun to scratch at the surface of disease associations.”

Indeed, Dr. Ouyang said his group is “trying to evaluate the sphericity in echocardiograms or heart ultrasounds, which are more common and cheaper than MRI.”

“The main caveat is translating the information directly to patient care,” Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician-in-chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said in an interview. “Near-term yield could include using the spherical calculation in routine MRI of the heart, and based on the findings, following patients more closely if there is an abnormal shape. Or performing an MRI and targeted gene testing if there is a family history of cardiomyopathy or [of] an abnormal shape of the heart.”

“Validation of the findings and large-scale evaluation of the genes identified, and how they interact with patient and environmental factors, will be very important,” he added.

Nevertheless, “the study was well done and may serve as a foundation for future research,” Dr. Becker said. “The investigators used several powerful tools, including MRI, genomics, and [artificial intelligence] to draw their conclusions. This is precisely the way that ‘big data’ should be used – in a complementary fashion.”

The study authors and Dr. Becker reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A round heart, or left ventricle sphericity, predicted cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a deep learning analysis of MRI images from close to 39,000 participants in the UK Biobank, a new study shows.

An increase of 1 standard deviation in the sphericity index (short axis length/long axis length) was associated with a 47% increased incidence of cardiomyopathy and a 20% increased incidence of AFib, independent of clinical factors and traditional MRI measures.

Furthermore, a genetic analysis suggested a shared architecture between sphericity and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, pointing to NICM as a possible causal factor for left ventricle sphericity among individuals with normal LV size and function.

“Physicians have known the heart gets rounder after heart attacks and as we get older,” David Ouyang, MD, a cardiologist in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and a researcher in the division of artificial intelligence in medicine, said in an interview. “We wanted to see if this sphericity is prognostic of future disease even in healthy individuals.”

Although it is too early to recommend heart shape assessment in healthy asymptomatic people, he said, “physicians should be extra careful and think about treatments when they notice a patient’s heart is particularly round.”

The study was published online March 29 in the journal Med.
 

Sphericity index key

The investigators hypothesized that there is variation in LV sphericity within the spectrum of normal LV chamber size and systolic function, and that such variation might be a marker of cardiac risk with genetic influences.

To test this hypothesis, they used automated deep-learning segmentation of cardiac MRI data to estimate and analyze the sphericity index in a cohort of 38,897 individuals participating in the UK Biobank.

After adjustment for age at MRI and sex, an increased sphericity index was associated with an increased risk for cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio, 1.57), AFib (HR, 1.35), and heart failure (HR, 1.37).

No significant association was seen with cardiac arrest.

The team then stratified the cohort into quintiles and compared the top 20%, middle 60%, and bottom 20%. The relationship between the sphericity index and risk extended across the distribution; individuals with higher than median sphericity had increased disease incidence, and those with lower than median sphericity had decreased incidence.

Overall, a single standard deviation in the sphericity index was associated with increased risk of cardiomyopathy (HR, 1.47) and of AFib (HR, 1.20), independent of clinical factors and usual MRI measurements.

In a minimally adjusted model, the sphericity index was a predictor of incident cardiomyopathy, AFib, and heart failure.

Adjustment for clinical factors partially attenuated the heart failure association; additional adjustment for MRI measurements fully attenuated that association and partially attenuated the association with AFib.

However, in all adjusted models, the association with cardiomyopathy showed little attenuation.

Furthermore, the team identified four loci associated with sphericity at genomewide significance – PLN, ANGPT1, PDZRN3, and HLA DR/DQ – and Mendelian randomization supported NICM as a cause of LV sphericity.
 

Looking ahead

“While conventional imaging metrics have significant diagnostic and prognostic value, some of these measurements have been adopted out of convenience or tradition,” the authors noted. “By representing a specific multidimensional remodeling phenotype, sphericity has emerged as a distinct morphologic trait with features not adequately captured by conventional measurements.

“We expect that the search space of potential imaging measurements is vast, and we have only begun to scratch at the surface of disease associations.”

Indeed, Dr. Ouyang said his group is “trying to evaluate the sphericity in echocardiograms or heart ultrasounds, which are more common and cheaper than MRI.”

“The main caveat is translating the information directly to patient care,” Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician-in-chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said in an interview. “Near-term yield could include using the spherical calculation in routine MRI of the heart, and based on the findings, following patients more closely if there is an abnormal shape. Or performing an MRI and targeted gene testing if there is a family history of cardiomyopathy or [of] an abnormal shape of the heart.”

“Validation of the findings and large-scale evaluation of the genes identified, and how they interact with patient and environmental factors, will be very important,” he added.

Nevertheless, “the study was well done and may serve as a foundation for future research,” Dr. Becker said. “The investigators used several powerful tools, including MRI, genomics, and [artificial intelligence] to draw their conclusions. This is precisely the way that ‘big data’ should be used – in a complementary fashion.”

The study authors and Dr. Becker reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A round heart, or left ventricle sphericity, predicted cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a deep learning analysis of MRI images from close to 39,000 participants in the UK Biobank, a new study shows.

An increase of 1 standard deviation in the sphericity index (short axis length/long axis length) was associated with a 47% increased incidence of cardiomyopathy and a 20% increased incidence of AFib, independent of clinical factors and traditional MRI measures.

Furthermore, a genetic analysis suggested a shared architecture between sphericity and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, pointing to NICM as a possible causal factor for left ventricle sphericity among individuals with normal LV size and function.

“Physicians have known the heart gets rounder after heart attacks and as we get older,” David Ouyang, MD, a cardiologist in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and a researcher in the division of artificial intelligence in medicine, said in an interview. “We wanted to see if this sphericity is prognostic of future disease even in healthy individuals.”

Although it is too early to recommend heart shape assessment in healthy asymptomatic people, he said, “physicians should be extra careful and think about treatments when they notice a patient’s heart is particularly round.”

The study was published online March 29 in the journal Med.
 

Sphericity index key

The investigators hypothesized that there is variation in LV sphericity within the spectrum of normal LV chamber size and systolic function, and that such variation might be a marker of cardiac risk with genetic influences.

To test this hypothesis, they used automated deep-learning segmentation of cardiac MRI data to estimate and analyze the sphericity index in a cohort of 38,897 individuals participating in the UK Biobank.

After adjustment for age at MRI and sex, an increased sphericity index was associated with an increased risk for cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio, 1.57), AFib (HR, 1.35), and heart failure (HR, 1.37).

No significant association was seen with cardiac arrest.

The team then stratified the cohort into quintiles and compared the top 20%, middle 60%, and bottom 20%. The relationship between the sphericity index and risk extended across the distribution; individuals with higher than median sphericity had increased disease incidence, and those with lower than median sphericity had decreased incidence.

Overall, a single standard deviation in the sphericity index was associated with increased risk of cardiomyopathy (HR, 1.47) and of AFib (HR, 1.20), independent of clinical factors and usual MRI measurements.

In a minimally adjusted model, the sphericity index was a predictor of incident cardiomyopathy, AFib, and heart failure.

Adjustment for clinical factors partially attenuated the heart failure association; additional adjustment for MRI measurements fully attenuated that association and partially attenuated the association with AFib.

However, in all adjusted models, the association with cardiomyopathy showed little attenuation.

Furthermore, the team identified four loci associated with sphericity at genomewide significance – PLN, ANGPT1, PDZRN3, and HLA DR/DQ – and Mendelian randomization supported NICM as a cause of LV sphericity.
 

Looking ahead

“While conventional imaging metrics have significant diagnostic and prognostic value, some of these measurements have been adopted out of convenience or tradition,” the authors noted. “By representing a specific multidimensional remodeling phenotype, sphericity has emerged as a distinct morphologic trait with features not adequately captured by conventional measurements.

“We expect that the search space of potential imaging measurements is vast, and we have only begun to scratch at the surface of disease associations.”

Indeed, Dr. Ouyang said his group is “trying to evaluate the sphericity in echocardiograms or heart ultrasounds, which are more common and cheaper than MRI.”

“The main caveat is translating the information directly to patient care,” Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician-in-chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said in an interview. “Near-term yield could include using the spherical calculation in routine MRI of the heart, and based on the findings, following patients more closely if there is an abnormal shape. Or performing an MRI and targeted gene testing if there is a family history of cardiomyopathy or [of] an abnormal shape of the heart.”

“Validation of the findings and large-scale evaluation of the genes identified, and how they interact with patient and environmental factors, will be very important,” he added.

Nevertheless, “the study was well done and may serve as a foundation for future research,” Dr. Becker said. “The investigators used several powerful tools, including MRI, genomics, and [artificial intelligence] to draw their conclusions. This is precisely the way that ‘big data’ should be used – in a complementary fashion.”

The study authors and Dr. Becker reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has decided to withdraw approval of Makena and generic versions of the drug, the agency announced April 6.

The medication was approved in 2011 to reduce the risk for preterm birth in women who had previously experienced spontaneous preterm birth. The treatment had been approved under an accelerated pathway that required another trial to confirm clinical benefit.

A postmarketing study did not show clinical benefit, however, and the agency proposed withdrawing the drug, hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, in 2020. The drug’s sponsor requested a hearing on the decision, and that meeting was held in October 2022.

The FDA commissioner and chief scientist subsequently reviewed submitted reports, comments, and transcripts, and made the decision to withdraw the drug.

“Effective today, Makena and its generics are no longer approved and cannot lawfully be distributed in interstate commerce,” the agency said.

“It is tragic that the scientific research and medical communities have not yet found a treatment shown to be effective in preventing preterm birth and improving neonatal outcomes – particularly in light of the fact that this serious condition has a disparate impact on communities of color, especially Black women,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a statement.

Risks associated with the drug include thromboembolic disorders, allergic reactions, decreased glucose tolerance, and fluid retention, regulators have noted. The agency acknowledged that some supplies of the product have already been distributed. Patients with questions should talk to their health care provider, the FDA advised.

The Food and Drug Administration has decided to withdraw approval of Makena and generic versions of the drug, the agency announced April 6.

The medication was approved in 2011 to reduce the risk for preterm birth in women who had previously experienced spontaneous preterm birth. The treatment had been approved under an accelerated pathway that required another trial to confirm clinical benefit.

A postmarketing study did not show clinical benefit, however, and the agency proposed withdrawing the drug, hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, in 2020. The drug’s sponsor requested a hearing on the decision, and that meeting was held in October 2022.

The FDA commissioner and chief scientist subsequently reviewed submitted reports, comments, and transcripts, and made the decision to withdraw the drug.

“Effective today, Makena and its generics are no longer approved and cannot lawfully be distributed in interstate commerce,” the agency said.

“It is tragic that the scientific research and medical communities have not yet found a treatment shown to be effective in preventing preterm birth and improving neonatal outcomes – particularly in light of the fact that this serious condition has a disparate impact on communities of color, especially Black women,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a statement.

Risks associated with the drug include thromboembolic disorders, allergic reactions, decreased glucose tolerance, and fluid retention, regulators have noted. The agency acknowledged that some supplies of the product have already been distributed. Patients with questions should talk to their health care provider, the FDA advised.

The Food and Drug Administration has decided to withdraw approval of Makena and generic versions of the drug, the agency announced April 6.

The medication was approved in 2011 to reduce the risk for preterm birth in women who had previously experienced spontaneous preterm birth. The treatment had been approved under an accelerated pathway that required another trial to confirm clinical benefit.

A postmarketing study did not show clinical benefit, however, and the agency proposed withdrawing the drug, hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, in 2020. The drug’s sponsor requested a hearing on the decision, and that meeting was held in October 2022.

The FDA commissioner and chief scientist subsequently reviewed submitted reports, comments, and transcripts, and made the decision to withdraw the drug.

“Effective today, Makena and its generics are no longer approved and cannot lawfully be distributed in interstate commerce,” the agency said.

“It is tragic that the scientific research and medical communities have not yet found a treatment shown to be effective in preventing preterm birth and improving neonatal outcomes – particularly in light of the fact that this serious condition has a disparate impact on communities of color, especially Black women,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a statement.

Risks associated with the drug include thromboembolic disorders, allergic reactions, decreased glucose tolerance, and fluid retention, regulators have noted. The agency acknowledged that some supplies of the product have already been distributed. Patients with questions should talk to their health care provider, the FDA advised.

Over the past 30 years, more than 80 new systemic therapies for cancer have been approved, and many patients diagnosed with localized disease have benefited with improved progression-free and overall survival. The same can be said for some – but by no means all – patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis, a new study indicates.

“Our results show that the survival of patients with de novo metastatic cancer improved slowly over 30 years but that these gains were typically modest and unevenly distributed among cancers,” comment the authors, led by Marianne Luyendijk, MSc, from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The retrospective study compared survival data of patients with de novo metastatic disease diagnosed from 1989 through 1993 with those of patients diagnosed from 2014 to 2018.

The results show that 5-year survival increased by 15% or more among patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors; neuroendocrine tumors; melanoma; and cancers of the prostate, breast, thyroid, and testes.

For patients with other cancers, however, the gains in survival were more modest. For example, over the study period, 5-year survival of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer increased by only 6%, a disappointing finding, given the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy during the most recent period, the authors note.

In contrast, there was a 16% improvement in long-term survival of patients with metastatic melanoma, likely owing to the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

The data also showed differences over time in the proportion of patients diagnosed with de novo metastatic disease; some cancers, such as NSCLC and small cell lung cancer, were more frequently diagnosed at late stages in the more recent era, possibly owing to increased screening and the use of technology such as FDG-PET imaging.

On the other end of the spectrum, cancers of the prostate, rectum, uterine cervix, breast, gallbladder, and bile ducts were more likely to be caught at an earlier stage during later years of the study period.

The authors say that among the possible explanations for a less than robust reduction over time in metastatic disease is that new drugs do not always translate into improved survival. They cite a 2017 study showing that among 53 new cancer drugs approved by U.S., European, or Australian drug regulators, fewer than half improved overall survival by at least 3 months, and an additional 26% offered survival advantages that were either shorter than 3 months or of unknown benefit.

“This may also explain why the 1- and 5-year survival rates of some cancers have changed little in the last 30 years,” they write. “Nevertheless, even minor benefits in survival or other outcomes (for example, quality of life) may represent progress in treating patients with metastatic cancer.”

The investigators recommend that to improve understanding of the effect of new therapies on survival of metastatic disease, cancer registries include data on therapies used beyond the first line, as well as comorbidities and quality-of-life measures.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Ms. Luyendijk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several co-authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

Over the past 30 years, more than 80 new systemic therapies for cancer have been approved, and many patients diagnosed with localized disease have benefited with improved progression-free and overall survival. The same can be said for some – but by no means all – patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis, a new study indicates.

“Our results show that the survival of patients with de novo metastatic cancer improved slowly over 30 years but that these gains were typically modest and unevenly distributed among cancers,” comment the authors, led by Marianne Luyendijk, MSc, from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The retrospective study compared survival data of patients with de novo metastatic disease diagnosed from 1989 through 1993 with those of patients diagnosed from 2014 to 2018.

The results show that 5-year survival increased by 15% or more among patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors; neuroendocrine tumors; melanoma; and cancers of the prostate, breast, thyroid, and testes.

For patients with other cancers, however, the gains in survival were more modest. For example, over the study period, 5-year survival of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer increased by only 6%, a disappointing finding, given the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy during the most recent period, the authors note.

In contrast, there was a 16% improvement in long-term survival of patients with metastatic melanoma, likely owing to the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

The data also showed differences over time in the proportion of patients diagnosed with de novo metastatic disease; some cancers, such as NSCLC and small cell lung cancer, were more frequently diagnosed at late stages in the more recent era, possibly owing to increased screening and the use of technology such as FDG-PET imaging.

On the other end of the spectrum, cancers of the prostate, rectum, uterine cervix, breast, gallbladder, and bile ducts were more likely to be caught at an earlier stage during later years of the study period.

The authors say that among the possible explanations for a less than robust reduction over time in metastatic disease is that new drugs do not always translate into improved survival. They cite a 2017 study showing that among 53 new cancer drugs approved by U.S., European, or Australian drug regulators, fewer than half improved overall survival by at least 3 months, and an additional 26% offered survival advantages that were either shorter than 3 months or of unknown benefit.

“This may also explain why the 1- and 5-year survival rates of some cancers have changed little in the last 30 years,” they write. “Nevertheless, even minor benefits in survival or other outcomes (for example, quality of life) may represent progress in treating patients with metastatic cancer.”

The investigators recommend that to improve understanding of the effect of new therapies on survival of metastatic disease, cancer registries include data on therapies used beyond the first line, as well as comorbidities and quality-of-life measures.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Ms. Luyendijk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several co-authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

Over the past 30 years, more than 80 new systemic therapies for cancer have been approved, and many patients diagnosed with localized disease have benefited with improved progression-free and overall survival. The same can be said for some – but by no means all – patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis, a new study indicates.

“Our results show that the survival of patients with de novo metastatic cancer improved slowly over 30 years but that these gains were typically modest and unevenly distributed among cancers,” comment the authors, led by Marianne Luyendijk, MSc, from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The retrospective study compared survival data of patients with de novo metastatic disease diagnosed from 1989 through 1993 with those of patients diagnosed from 2014 to 2018.

The results show that 5-year survival increased by 15% or more among patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors; neuroendocrine tumors; melanoma; and cancers of the prostate, breast, thyroid, and testes.

For patients with other cancers, however, the gains in survival were more modest. For example, over the study period, 5-year survival of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer increased by only 6%, a disappointing finding, given the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy during the most recent period, the authors note.

In contrast, there was a 16% improvement in long-term survival of patients with metastatic melanoma, likely owing to the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

The data also showed differences over time in the proportion of patients diagnosed with de novo metastatic disease; some cancers, such as NSCLC and small cell lung cancer, were more frequently diagnosed at late stages in the more recent era, possibly owing to increased screening and the use of technology such as FDG-PET imaging.

On the other end of the spectrum, cancers of the prostate, rectum, uterine cervix, breast, gallbladder, and bile ducts were more likely to be caught at an earlier stage during later years of the study period.

The authors say that among the possible explanations for a less than robust reduction over time in metastatic disease is that new drugs do not always translate into improved survival. They cite a 2017 study showing that among 53 new cancer drugs approved by U.S., European, or Australian drug regulators, fewer than half improved overall survival by at least 3 months, and an additional 26% offered survival advantages that were either shorter than 3 months or of unknown benefit.

“This may also explain why the 1- and 5-year survival rates of some cancers have changed little in the last 30 years,” they write. “Nevertheless, even minor benefits in survival or other outcomes (for example, quality of life) may represent progress in treating patients with metastatic cancer.”

The investigators recommend that to improve understanding of the effect of new therapies on survival of metastatic disease, cancer registries include data on therapies used beyond the first line, as well as comorbidities and quality-of-life measures.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Ms. Luyendijk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several co-authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

Compared with infants who were not exposed to COVID-19 in the womb, those who were exposed had a lower weight and body mass index at birth, but greater weight gain, during the first year of life, in a new analysis.

This “exaggerated growth pattern observed among infants with COVID-19 exposure may in some cases be a catch-up response to a prenatal growth deficit,” Mollie W. Ockene and colleagues wrote in a report published recently in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

But given that lower birth weight and accelerated postnatal weight gain are risk factors for cardiometabolic disease, the findings “raise concern” about whether children born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 go on to develop obesity, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease, senior coauthors Andrea G. Edlow, MD, and Lindsay T. Fourman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

Further studies in larger numbers of patients with longer follow-up and detailed assessments are needed, the researchers said, but this points to “a potentially increased cardiometabolic disease risk for the large global population of children with in utero COVID-19 exposure.”

It will be “important for clinicians caring for children with in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 to be aware of this history,” Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “and to view the child’s growth trajectory and metabolic risk factors in a holistic context that includes this prenatal infection exposure.”
 

COVID-19 vaccination important during and prior to pregnancy

The study also underscores the importance of primary prevention of COVID-19 among women who are contemplating pregnancy or who are already pregnant, the researchers noted, “including the need for widespread implementation of protective measures such as indoor masking and COVID-19 vaccination and boosting during or prior to pregnancy.”

Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “Given the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on historically marginalized populations, adverse health outcomes following in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 may threaten to widen existing disparities in child health.”

On the other hand, although “COVID-19 vaccination rates lagged behind in minority populations following the initial vaccine rollout,” they noted, “these differences have fortunately narrowed over time, particularly for Hispanic individuals, though they do still persist in the Black population,” according to a recent report.
 

BMI trajectories during first year of life

In utero exposure to COVID-19 has been linked to fetal/neonatal morbidity and mortality, including stillbirth, preterm birth, preeclampsia, and gestational hypertension, but less is known about infant outcomes during the first year of life.

The researchers aimed to compare weight, length, and BMI trajectories over the first year of life in infants with, versus without, in utero exposure to COVID-19.

They identified 149 infants with in utero exposure to COVID-19 and 127 unexposed infants; all were born between March 30, 2020, and May 30, 2021, to mothers who participated in the Mass General Brigham COVID-19 Perinatal Biorepository.

The study excluded infants whose mothers received the vaccine (n = 5) or who had unclear vaccination status during pregnancy (n = 4) to reduce sample heterogeneity.

At the time of the study, few women had received the COVID-19 vaccine because vaccines were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in December 2020 and the CDC recommended them for all pregnant women much later, in August 2021.

The researchers examined the weight, length, and BMI of the infants at birth, and at 2, 6, and 12 months, standardized using World Health Organization (WHO) growth charts.

Compared with mothers who did not have COVID-19 during pregnancy, those who had COVID-19 were younger (mean age, 32 vs. 34 years) and had a higher earliest BMI during pregnancy (29 vs. 26 kg/m²) and greater parity (previous births, excluding the index pregnancy, 1.2 vs. 0.9), and they were more likely to be Hispanic or Black and less likely to have private insurance.

Compared with infants exposed to COVID-19 in utero, infants who were not exposed were more likely to be male (47% vs. 55%).

Both infant groups were equally likely to be breastfed (90%).

Compared with the unexposed infants, infants born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 had lower BMI z-scores at birth (effect size, −0.35; P = .03) and greater gain in BMI z-scores from birth to 12 months (effect size, 0.53; P = .03), but they had similar length at birth and over 12 months, after adjustment for maternal age at delivery, ethnicity, parity, insurance status, and earliest BMI during pregnancy, as well as infant sex, date of birth, and if applicable, history of breastfeeding.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, Harvard Nutrition Obesity Research Center, Boston Area Diabetes Endocrinology Research Centers, American Heart Association, and Simons Foundation. Ms. Ockene has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edlow has reported being a consultant for Mirvie and receiving research funding from Merck outside the study. Dr. Fourman has reported serving as a consultant and receiving grant funding to her institution from Amryt outside the study. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

Compared with infants who were not exposed to COVID-19 in the womb, those who were exposed had a lower weight and body mass index at birth, but greater weight gain, during the first year of life, in a new analysis.

This “exaggerated growth pattern observed among infants with COVID-19 exposure may in some cases be a catch-up response to a prenatal growth deficit,” Mollie W. Ockene and colleagues wrote in a report published recently in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

But given that lower birth weight and accelerated postnatal weight gain are risk factors for cardiometabolic disease, the findings “raise concern” about whether children born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 go on to develop obesity, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease, senior coauthors Andrea G. Edlow, MD, and Lindsay T. Fourman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

Further studies in larger numbers of patients with longer follow-up and detailed assessments are needed, the researchers said, but this points to “a potentially increased cardiometabolic disease risk for the large global population of children with in utero COVID-19 exposure.”

It will be “important for clinicians caring for children with in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 to be aware of this history,” Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “and to view the child’s growth trajectory and metabolic risk factors in a holistic context that includes this prenatal infection exposure.”
 

COVID-19 vaccination important during and prior to pregnancy

The study also underscores the importance of primary prevention of COVID-19 among women who are contemplating pregnancy or who are already pregnant, the researchers noted, “including the need for widespread implementation of protective measures such as indoor masking and COVID-19 vaccination and boosting during or prior to pregnancy.”

Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “Given the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on historically marginalized populations, adverse health outcomes following in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 may threaten to widen existing disparities in child health.”

On the other hand, although “COVID-19 vaccination rates lagged behind in minority populations following the initial vaccine rollout,” they noted, “these differences have fortunately narrowed over time, particularly for Hispanic individuals, though they do still persist in the Black population,” according to a recent report.
 

BMI trajectories during first year of life

In utero exposure to COVID-19 has been linked to fetal/neonatal morbidity and mortality, including stillbirth, preterm birth, preeclampsia, and gestational hypertension, but less is known about infant outcomes during the first year of life.

The researchers aimed to compare weight, length, and BMI trajectories over the first year of life in infants with, versus without, in utero exposure to COVID-19.

They identified 149 infants with in utero exposure to COVID-19 and 127 unexposed infants; all were born between March 30, 2020, and May 30, 2021, to mothers who participated in the Mass General Brigham COVID-19 Perinatal Biorepository.

The study excluded infants whose mothers received the vaccine (n = 5) or who had unclear vaccination status during pregnancy (n = 4) to reduce sample heterogeneity.

At the time of the study, few women had received the COVID-19 vaccine because vaccines were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in December 2020 and the CDC recommended them for all pregnant women much later, in August 2021.

The researchers examined the weight, length, and BMI of the infants at birth, and at 2, 6, and 12 months, standardized using World Health Organization (WHO) growth charts.

Compared with mothers who did not have COVID-19 during pregnancy, those who had COVID-19 were younger (mean age, 32 vs. 34 years) and had a higher earliest BMI during pregnancy (29 vs. 26 kg/m²) and greater parity (previous births, excluding the index pregnancy, 1.2 vs. 0.9), and they were more likely to be Hispanic or Black and less likely to have private insurance.

Compared with infants exposed to COVID-19 in utero, infants who were not exposed were more likely to be male (47% vs. 55%).

Both infant groups were equally likely to be breastfed (90%).

Compared with the unexposed infants, infants born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 had lower BMI z-scores at birth (effect size, −0.35; P = .03) and greater gain in BMI z-scores from birth to 12 months (effect size, 0.53; P = .03), but they had similar length at birth and over 12 months, after adjustment for maternal age at delivery, ethnicity, parity, insurance status, and earliest BMI during pregnancy, as well as infant sex, date of birth, and if applicable, history of breastfeeding.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, Harvard Nutrition Obesity Research Center, Boston Area Diabetes Endocrinology Research Centers, American Heart Association, and Simons Foundation. Ms. Ockene has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edlow has reported being a consultant for Mirvie and receiving research funding from Merck outside the study. Dr. Fourman has reported serving as a consultant and receiving grant funding to her institution from Amryt outside the study. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

Compared with infants who were not exposed to COVID-19 in the womb, those who were exposed had a lower weight and body mass index at birth, but greater weight gain, during the first year of life, in a new analysis.

This “exaggerated growth pattern observed among infants with COVID-19 exposure may in some cases be a catch-up response to a prenatal growth deficit,” Mollie W. Ockene and colleagues wrote in a report published recently in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

But given that lower birth weight and accelerated postnatal weight gain are risk factors for cardiometabolic disease, the findings “raise concern” about whether children born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 go on to develop obesity, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease, senior coauthors Andrea G. Edlow, MD, and Lindsay T. Fourman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

Further studies in larger numbers of patients with longer follow-up and detailed assessments are needed, the researchers said, but this points to “a potentially increased cardiometabolic disease risk for the large global population of children with in utero COVID-19 exposure.”

It will be “important for clinicians caring for children with in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 to be aware of this history,” Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “and to view the child’s growth trajectory and metabolic risk factors in a holistic context that includes this prenatal infection exposure.”
 

COVID-19 vaccination important during and prior to pregnancy

The study also underscores the importance of primary prevention of COVID-19 among women who are contemplating pregnancy or who are already pregnant, the researchers noted, “including the need for widespread implementation of protective measures such as indoor masking and COVID-19 vaccination and boosting during or prior to pregnancy.”

Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “Given the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on historically marginalized populations, adverse health outcomes following in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 may threaten to widen existing disparities in child health.”

On the other hand, although “COVID-19 vaccination rates lagged behind in minority populations following the initial vaccine rollout,” they noted, “these differences have fortunately narrowed over time, particularly for Hispanic individuals, though they do still persist in the Black population,” according to a recent report.
 

BMI trajectories during first year of life

In utero exposure to COVID-19 has been linked to fetal/neonatal morbidity and mortality, including stillbirth, preterm birth, preeclampsia, and gestational hypertension, but less is known about infant outcomes during the first year of life.

The researchers aimed to compare weight, length, and BMI trajectories over the first year of life in infants with, versus without, in utero exposure to COVID-19.

They identified 149 infants with in utero exposure to COVID-19 and 127 unexposed infants; all were born between March 30, 2020, and May 30, 2021, to mothers who participated in the Mass General Brigham COVID-19 Perinatal Biorepository.

The study excluded infants whose mothers received the vaccine (n = 5) or who had unclear vaccination status during pregnancy (n = 4) to reduce sample heterogeneity.

At the time of the study, few women had received the COVID-19 vaccine because vaccines were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in December 2020 and the CDC recommended them for all pregnant women much later, in August 2021.

The researchers examined the weight, length, and BMI of the infants at birth, and at 2, 6, and 12 months, standardized using World Health Organization (WHO) growth charts.

Compared with mothers who did not have COVID-19 during pregnancy, those who had COVID-19 were younger (mean age, 32 vs. 34 years) and had a higher earliest BMI during pregnancy (29 vs. 26 kg/m²) and greater parity (previous births, excluding the index pregnancy, 1.2 vs. 0.9), and they were more likely to be Hispanic or Black and less likely to have private insurance.

Compared with infants exposed to COVID-19 in utero, infants who were not exposed were more likely to be male (47% vs. 55%).

Both infant groups were equally likely to be breastfed (90%).

Compared with the unexposed infants, infants born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 had lower BMI z-scores at birth (effect size, −0.35; P = .03) and greater gain in BMI z-scores from birth to 12 months (effect size, 0.53; P = .03), but they had similar length at birth and over 12 months, after adjustment for maternal age at delivery, ethnicity, parity, insurance status, and earliest BMI during pregnancy, as well as infant sex, date of birth, and if applicable, history of breastfeeding.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, Harvard Nutrition Obesity Research Center, Boston Area Diabetes Endocrinology Research Centers, American Heart Association, and Simons Foundation. Ms. Ockene has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edlow has reported being a consultant for Mirvie and receiving research funding from Merck outside the study. Dr. Fourman has reported serving as a consultant and receiving grant funding to her institution from Amryt outside the study. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

Anti–amyloid-beta drugs, which are used in the management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), have the potential to compromise long-term brain health by accelerating brain atrophy, a comprehensive meta-analysis of MRI data from clinical trials suggests.

Depending on the anti–amyloid-beta drug class, these agents can accelerate loss of whole brain and hippocampal volume and increase ventricular volume. This has been shown for some of the beta-secretase inhibitors and with several of the antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies, researchers noted.

“These data warrant concern, but we can’t make any firm conclusions yet. It is possible that the finding is not detrimental, but the usual interpretation of this finding is that volume changes are a surrogate for disease progression,” study investigator Scott Ayton, PhD, of the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, said in an interview.

“These data should be factored into the decisions by clinicians when they consider prescribing antiamyloid therapies. Like any side effect, clinicians should inform patients regarding the risk of brain atrophy. Patients should be actively monitored for this side effect,” Dr. Ayton said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Earlier progression from MCI to AD?

Dr. Ayton and colleagues evaluated brain volume changes in 31 clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs that demonstrated a favorable change in at least one biomarker of pathological amyloid-beta and included detailed MRI data sufficient to assess the volumetric changes in at least one brain region.

A meta-analysis on the highest dose in each trial on the hippocampus, ventricles, and whole brain showed drug-induced acceleration of volume changes that varied by anti–amyloid-beta drug class.

Secretase inhibitors accelerated atrophy in the hippocampus (mean difference –37.1 mcL; –19.6% relative to change in placebo) and whole brain (mean difference –3.3 mL; –21.8% relative to change in placebo), but not ventricles.

Conversely, monoclonal antibodies caused accelerated ventricular enlargement (mean difference +1.3 mL; +23.8% relative to change in placebo), which was driven by the subset of monoclonal antibodies that induce amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) (+2.1 mL; +38.7% relative to change in placebo). There was a “striking correlation between ventricular volume and ARIA frequency,” the investigators reported.

The effect of ARIA-inducing monoclonal antibodies on whole brain volume varied, with accelerated whole brain volume loss caused by donanemab (mean difference –4.6 mL; +23% relative to change in placebo) and lecanemab (–5.2 mL; +36.4% relative to change in placebo). This was not observed with aducanumab and bapineuzumab.

Monoclonal antibodies did not cause accelerated volume loss to the hippocampus regardless of whether they caused ARIA.

The researchers also modeled the effect of anti–amyloid-beta drugs on brain volume changes. In this analysis, participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) treated with anti–amyloid-beta drugs were projected to have a “material regression” toward brain volumes typical of AD roughly 8 months earlier than untreated peers.

The data, they note, “permit robust conclusions regarding the effect of [anti–amyloid-beta] drug classes on different brain structures, but the lack of individual patient data (which has yet to be released) limits the interpretations of our findings.”

“Questions like which brain regions are impacted by [anti–amyloid-beta] drugs and whether the volume changes are related to ARIA, plaque loss, cognitive/noncognitive outcomes, or clinical factors such as age, sex, and apoE4 genotype can and should be addressed with available data,” said Dr. Ayton.

Dr. Ayton and colleagues called on data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) for current clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs to review volumetric data to determine if patient safety is at risk, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.

In addition, they noted ethics boards that approve trials for anti–amyloid-beta drugs “should request that volume changes be actively monitored. Long-term follow-up of brain volumes should be factored into the trial designs to determine if brain atrophy is progressive, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.”

Finally, they added that drug companies that have conducted trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs should interrogate prior data on brain volume, report the findings, and release the data for researchers to investigate.

“I have been banging on about this for years,” said Dr. Ayton. “Unfortunately, my raising of this issue has not led to any response. The data are not available, and the basic questions haven’t been asked (publicly).”
 

Commendable research

In an accompanying editorial, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, with Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and David Knopman, MD, with Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Rochester, Minn., wrote that the investigators should be “commended” for their analysis. 

“The reality in 2023 is that the relevance of brain volume reductions in this therapeutic context remains uncertain,” they wrote.

“Longer periods of observation will be needed to know whether the brain volume losses continue at an accelerated rate or if they attenuate or disappear. Ultimately, it’s the clinical outcomes that matter, regardless of the MRI changes,” Barkhof and Knopman concluded.

The research was supported by funds from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council. Dr. Ayton reported being a consultant for Eisai in the past 3 years. Dr. Barkhof reported serving on the data and safety monitoring board for Prothena and the A45-AHEAD studies; being a steering committee member for Merck, Bayer, and Biogen; and being a consultant for IXICO, Roche, Celltrion, Rewind Therapeutics, and Combinostics. Dr. Knopman reported serving on the DSMB for the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Treatment Unit study; serving on a DSMB for a tau therapeutic for Biogen; being an investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Biogen, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, and the University of Southern California. He reported consulting with Roche, Samus Therapeutics, Magellan Health, BioVie, and Alzeca Biosciences.

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

Anti–amyloid-beta drugs, which are used in the management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), have the potential to compromise long-term brain health by accelerating brain atrophy, a comprehensive meta-analysis of MRI data from clinical trials suggests.

Depending on the anti–amyloid-beta drug class, these agents can accelerate loss of whole brain and hippocampal volume and increase ventricular volume. This has been shown for some of the beta-secretase inhibitors and with several of the antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies, researchers noted.

“These data warrant concern, but we can’t make any firm conclusions yet. It is possible that the finding is not detrimental, but the usual interpretation of this finding is that volume changes are a surrogate for disease progression,” study investigator Scott Ayton, PhD, of the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, said in an interview.

“These data should be factored into the decisions by clinicians when they consider prescribing antiamyloid therapies. Like any side effect, clinicians should inform patients regarding the risk of brain atrophy. Patients should be actively monitored for this side effect,” Dr. Ayton said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Earlier progression from MCI to AD?

Dr. Ayton and colleagues evaluated brain volume changes in 31 clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs that demonstrated a favorable change in at least one biomarker of pathological amyloid-beta and included detailed MRI data sufficient to assess the volumetric changes in at least one brain region.

A meta-analysis on the highest dose in each trial on the hippocampus, ventricles, and whole brain showed drug-induced acceleration of volume changes that varied by anti–amyloid-beta drug class.

Secretase inhibitors accelerated atrophy in the hippocampus (mean difference –37.1 mcL; –19.6% relative to change in placebo) and whole brain (mean difference –3.3 mL; –21.8% relative to change in placebo), but not ventricles.

Conversely, monoclonal antibodies caused accelerated ventricular enlargement (mean difference +1.3 mL; +23.8% relative to change in placebo), which was driven by the subset of monoclonal antibodies that induce amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) (+2.1 mL; +38.7% relative to change in placebo). There was a “striking correlation between ventricular volume and ARIA frequency,” the investigators reported.

The effect of ARIA-inducing monoclonal antibodies on whole brain volume varied, with accelerated whole brain volume loss caused by donanemab (mean difference –4.6 mL; +23% relative to change in placebo) and lecanemab (–5.2 mL; +36.4% relative to change in placebo). This was not observed with aducanumab and bapineuzumab.

Monoclonal antibodies did not cause accelerated volume loss to the hippocampus regardless of whether they caused ARIA.

The researchers also modeled the effect of anti–amyloid-beta drugs on brain volume changes. In this analysis, participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) treated with anti–amyloid-beta drugs were projected to have a “material regression” toward brain volumes typical of AD roughly 8 months earlier than untreated peers.

The data, they note, “permit robust conclusions regarding the effect of [anti–amyloid-beta] drug classes on different brain structures, but the lack of individual patient data (which has yet to be released) limits the interpretations of our findings.”

“Questions like which brain regions are impacted by [anti–amyloid-beta] drugs and whether the volume changes are related to ARIA, plaque loss, cognitive/noncognitive outcomes, or clinical factors such as age, sex, and apoE4 genotype can and should be addressed with available data,” said Dr. Ayton.

Dr. Ayton and colleagues called on data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) for current clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs to review volumetric data to determine if patient safety is at risk, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.

In addition, they noted ethics boards that approve trials for anti–amyloid-beta drugs “should request that volume changes be actively monitored. Long-term follow-up of brain volumes should be factored into the trial designs to determine if brain atrophy is progressive, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.”

Finally, they added that drug companies that have conducted trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs should interrogate prior data on brain volume, report the findings, and release the data for researchers to investigate.

“I have been banging on about this for years,” said Dr. Ayton. “Unfortunately, my raising of this issue has not led to any response. The data are not available, and the basic questions haven’t been asked (publicly).”
 

Commendable research

In an accompanying editorial, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, with Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and David Knopman, MD, with Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Rochester, Minn., wrote that the investigators should be “commended” for their analysis. 

“The reality in 2023 is that the relevance of brain volume reductions in this therapeutic context remains uncertain,” they wrote.

“Longer periods of observation will be needed to know whether the brain volume losses continue at an accelerated rate or if they attenuate or disappear. Ultimately, it’s the clinical outcomes that matter, regardless of the MRI changes,” Barkhof and Knopman concluded.

The research was supported by funds from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council. Dr. Ayton reported being a consultant for Eisai in the past 3 years. Dr. Barkhof reported serving on the data and safety monitoring board for Prothena and the A45-AHEAD studies; being a steering committee member for Merck, Bayer, and Biogen; and being a consultant for IXICO, Roche, Celltrion, Rewind Therapeutics, and Combinostics. Dr. Knopman reported serving on the DSMB for the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Treatment Unit study; serving on a DSMB for a tau therapeutic for Biogen; being an investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Biogen, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, and the University of Southern California. He reported consulting with Roche, Samus Therapeutics, Magellan Health, BioVie, and Alzeca Biosciences.

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

Anti–amyloid-beta drugs, which are used in the management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), have the potential to compromise long-term brain health by accelerating brain atrophy, a comprehensive meta-analysis of MRI data from clinical trials suggests.

Depending on the anti–amyloid-beta drug class, these agents can accelerate loss of whole brain and hippocampal volume and increase ventricular volume. This has been shown for some of the beta-secretase inhibitors and with several of the antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies, researchers noted.

“These data warrant concern, but we can’t make any firm conclusions yet. It is possible that the finding is not detrimental, but the usual interpretation of this finding is that volume changes are a surrogate for disease progression,” study investigator Scott Ayton, PhD, of the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, said in an interview.

“These data should be factored into the decisions by clinicians when they consider prescribing antiamyloid therapies. Like any side effect, clinicians should inform patients regarding the risk of brain atrophy. Patients should be actively monitored for this side effect,” Dr. Ayton said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Earlier progression from MCI to AD?

Dr. Ayton and colleagues evaluated brain volume changes in 31 clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs that demonstrated a favorable change in at least one biomarker of pathological amyloid-beta and included detailed MRI data sufficient to assess the volumetric changes in at least one brain region.

A meta-analysis on the highest dose in each trial on the hippocampus, ventricles, and whole brain showed drug-induced acceleration of volume changes that varied by anti–amyloid-beta drug class.

Secretase inhibitors accelerated atrophy in the hippocampus (mean difference –37.1 mcL; –19.6% relative to change in placebo) and whole brain (mean difference –3.3 mL; –21.8% relative to change in placebo), but not ventricles.

Conversely, monoclonal antibodies caused accelerated ventricular enlargement (mean difference +1.3 mL; +23.8% relative to change in placebo), which was driven by the subset of monoclonal antibodies that induce amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) (+2.1 mL; +38.7% relative to change in placebo). There was a “striking correlation between ventricular volume and ARIA frequency,” the investigators reported.

The effect of ARIA-inducing monoclonal antibodies on whole brain volume varied, with accelerated whole brain volume loss caused by donanemab (mean difference –4.6 mL; +23% relative to change in placebo) and lecanemab (–5.2 mL; +36.4% relative to change in placebo). This was not observed with aducanumab and bapineuzumab.

Monoclonal antibodies did not cause accelerated volume loss to the hippocampus regardless of whether they caused ARIA.

The researchers also modeled the effect of anti–amyloid-beta drugs on brain volume changes. In this analysis, participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) treated with anti–amyloid-beta drugs were projected to have a “material regression” toward brain volumes typical of AD roughly 8 months earlier than untreated peers.

The data, they note, “permit robust conclusions regarding the effect of [anti–amyloid-beta] drug classes on different brain structures, but the lack of individual patient data (which has yet to be released) limits the interpretations of our findings.”

“Questions like which brain regions are impacted by [anti–amyloid-beta] drugs and whether the volume changes are related to ARIA, plaque loss, cognitive/noncognitive outcomes, or clinical factors such as age, sex, and apoE4 genotype can and should be addressed with available data,” said Dr. Ayton.

Dr. Ayton and colleagues called on data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) for current clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs to review volumetric data to determine if patient safety is at risk, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.

In addition, they noted ethics boards that approve trials for anti–amyloid-beta drugs “should request that volume changes be actively monitored. Long-term follow-up of brain volumes should be factored into the trial designs to determine if brain atrophy is progressive, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.”

Finally, they added that drug companies that have conducted trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs should interrogate prior data on brain volume, report the findings, and release the data for researchers to investigate.

“I have been banging on about this for years,” said Dr. Ayton. “Unfortunately, my raising of this issue has not led to any response. The data are not available, and the basic questions haven’t been asked (publicly).”
 

Commendable research

In an accompanying editorial, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, with Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and David Knopman, MD, with Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Rochester, Minn., wrote that the investigators should be “commended” for their analysis. 

“The reality in 2023 is that the relevance of brain volume reductions in this therapeutic context remains uncertain,” they wrote.

“Longer periods of observation will be needed to know whether the brain volume losses continue at an accelerated rate or if they attenuate or disappear. Ultimately, it’s the clinical outcomes that matter, regardless of the MRI changes,” Barkhof and Knopman concluded.

The research was supported by funds from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council. Dr. Ayton reported being a consultant for Eisai in the past 3 years. Dr. Barkhof reported serving on the data and safety monitoring board for Prothena and the A45-AHEAD studies; being a steering committee member for Merck, Bayer, and Biogen; and being a consultant for IXICO, Roche, Celltrion, Rewind Therapeutics, and Combinostics. Dr. Knopman reported serving on the DSMB for the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Treatment Unit study; serving on a DSMB for a tau therapeutic for Biogen; being an investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Biogen, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, and the University of Southern California. He reported consulting with Roche, Samus Therapeutics, Magellan Health, BioVie, and Alzeca Biosciences.

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

Court cases show that physicians continually underestimate their liability in supervising nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).

Even in states that have abolished requirements that NPs be physician-supervised, physicians may still be liable by virtue of employing the NP, according to William P. Sullivan, DO, an attorney and emergency physician in Frankfort, Ill.

Indeed, the vast majority of lawsuits against NPs and PAs name the supervising physician. According to a study of claims against NPs from 2011 to 2016, 82% of the cases also named the supervising physician.

Employed or contracted physicians assigned to supervise NPs or PAs are also affected, Dr. Sullivan said. “The employed physicians’ contract with a hospital or staffing company may require them to assist in the selection, supervision, and/or training of NPs or PAs,” he said. He added that supervisory duties may also be assigned through hospital bylaws.

“The physician is usually not paid anything extra for this work and may not be given extra time to perform it,” Dr. Sullivan said. But still, he said, that physician could be named in a lawsuit and wind up bearing some responsibility for an NP’s or PA’s mistake.

In addition to facing medical malpractice suits, Dr. Sullivan said, doctors are often sanctioned by state licensure boards for improperly supervising NPs and PAs. Licensure boards often require extensive protocols for supervision of NPs and PAs.
 

Yet more states are removing supervision requirements

With the addition of Kansas and New York in 2022 and California in 2023, 27 states no longer require supervision for all or most NPs. Sixteen of those states, including New York and California, have instituted progressive practice authority that requires temporary supervision of new NPs but then removes supervision after a period of 6 months to 4 years, depending on the state, for the rest of their career.

“When it comes to NP independence, the horse is already out of the barn,” Dr. Sullivan said. “It’s unlikely that states will repeal laws granting NPs independence, and in fact, more states are likely to pass them.”

*PAs, in contrast, are well behind NPs in achieving independence, but the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) is calling to eliminate a mandated relationship with a specific physician. So far, Utah, North Dakota and Wyoming have ended physician supervision of PAs, while California and Hawaii have eliminated mandated chart review. Other states are considering eliminating physician supervision of PAs, according to the AAPA.

In states that have abolished oversight requirements for NPs, “liability can then shift to the NP when the NP is fully independent,” Cathy Klein, an advanced practice registered nurse who helped found the NP profession 50 years ago, told this news organization. “More NPs are starting their own practices, and in many cases, patients actually prefer to see an NP.”

As more NPs became more autonomous, the average payment that NPs incurred in professional liability lawsuits rose by 10.5% from 2017 to 2022, to $332,187, according to the Nurses Service Organization (NSO), a nursing malpractice insurer.

The number of malpractice judgments against autonomous NPs alone has also been rising. From 2012 to 2017, autonomous NPs’ share of all NP cases rose from 7% to 16.4%, the NSO reported.

The good news for physicians is that states’ removal of restrictions on NPs has reduced physicians’ liability to some extent. A 2017 study found that enacting less restrictive scope-of-practice laws for NPs decreased the number of payments made by physicians in NP cases by as much as 31%.

However, the top location for NP payouts remains the physician’s office, not the autonomous NP’s practice, according to the latter NSO report. Plaintiffs sue NPs’ and PAs’ supervising physicians on the basis of legal concepts, such as vicarious liability and respondeat superior. Even if the physician-employer never saw the patient, he or she can be held liable.

Court cases in which supervising physician was found liable

There are plenty of judgments against supervising or collaborating physicians when the NP or PA made the error. Typically, the doctor was faulted for paying little attention to the NP or PA he or she was supposed to supervise.

Dr. Sullivan points to a 2016 case in which a New York jury held a physician 40% liable for a $7 million judgment in a malpractice case involving a PA’s care of a patient in the emergency department. The case is Shajan v. South Nassau Community Hospital in New York.

“The patient presented with nontraumatic leg pain to his lower leg, was diagnosed by the PA with a muscle strain, and discharged without a physician evaluation,” Dr. Sullivan said. The next day, the patient visited an orthopedist who immediately diagnosed compartment syndrome, an emergent condition in which pressure builds up in an affected extremity, damaging the muscles and nerves. “The patient developed irreversible nerve damage and chronic regional pain syndrome,” he said.

A malpractice lawsuit named the PA and the emergency physician he was supposed to be reporting to. Even though the physician had never seen the patient, he had signed off on the PA’s note from a patient’s ED visit. “Testimony during the trial focused on hospital protocols that the supervising physician was supposed to take,” Dr. Sullivan said.

When doctors share fault, they frequently failed to follow the collaborative agreement with the NP or PA. In Collip v. Ratts, a 2015 Indiana case in which the patient died from a drug interaction, the doctor’s certified public accountant stated that the doctor was required to review at least 5% of the NP’s charts every week to evaluate her prescriptive practices.

The doctor admitted that he never reviewed the NP’s charts on a weekly basis. He did conduct some cursory reviews of some of the NP’s notes, and in them he noted concerns for her prescribing practices and suggested she attend a narcotics-prescribing seminar, but he did not follow up to make sure she had done this.

Sometimes the NP or PA who made the mistake may actually be dropped from the lawsuit, leaving the supervising physician fully liable. In these cases, courts reason that a fully engaged supervisor could have prevented the error. In the 2006 case of  Husak v. Siegal, the Florida Supreme Court dropped the NP from the case, ruling that the NP had provided the supervising doctor all the information he needed in order to tell her what to do for the patient.

The court noted the physician had failed to look at the chart, even though he was required to do so under his supervisory agreement with the NP. The doctor “could have made the correct diagnosis or referral had he been attentive,” the court said. Therefore, there was “no evidence of independent negligence” by the NP, even though she was the one who had made the incorrect diagnosis that harmed the patient.

When states require an autonomous NP to have a supervisory relationship with a doctor, the supervisor may be unavailable and may fail to designate a substitute. In Texas in January 2019, a 7-year-old girl died of pneumonia after being treated by an NP in an urgent care clinic. The NP had told the parents that the child could safely go home and only needed ibuprofen. The parents brought the girl back home, and she died 15 hours later. The Wattenbargers sued the NP, and the doctor’s supervision was a topic in the trial.

The supervising physician for the NP was out of the country at the time. He said that he had found a substitute, but the substitute doctor testified she had no idea she was designated to be the substitute, according to Niran Al-Agba, MD, a family physician in Silverdale, Wash., who has written on the Texas case. Dr. Al-Agba told this news organization the case appears to have been settled confidentially.
 

Different standards for expert witnesses

In many states, courts do not allow physicians to testify as expert witnesses in malpractice cases against NPs, arguing that nurses have a different set of standards than doctors have, Dr. Sullivan reported.

These states include Arkansas, Illinois, North Carolina, and New York, according to a report by SEAK Inc., an expert witness training program. The report said most other states allow physician experts in these cases, but they may still require that they have experience with the nursing standard of care.

Dr. Sullivan said some courts are whittling away at the ban on physician experts, and the ban may eventually disappear. He reported that in Oklahoma, which normally upholds the ban, a judge recently allowed a physician-expert to testify in a case involving the death of a 19-year-old woman, Alexus Ochoa, in an ED staffed by an NP. The judge reasoned that Ms. Ochoa’s parents assumed the ED was staffed by physicians and would adhere to medical standards.
 

Supervision pointers from a physician

Physicians who supervise NPs or PAs say it is important to keep track of their skills and help them sharpen their expertise. Their scope of practice and physicians’ supervisory responsibilities are included in the collaborative agreement.

Arthur Apolinario, MD, a family physician in Clinton, N.C., says his 10-physician practice, which employs six NPs and one PA, works under a collaborative agreement. “The agreement defines each person’s scope of practice. They can’t do certain procedures, such as surgery, and they need extra training before doing certain tasks alone, such as joint injection.

“You have to always figure that if there is a lawsuit against one of them, you as the supervising physician would be named,” said Dr. Apolinario, who is also president of the North Carolina Medical Society. “We try to avert mistakes by meeting regularly with our NPs and PAs and making sure they keep up to date.”
 

Collaborating with autonomous NPs

Even when NPs operate independently in states that have abolished supervision, physicians may still have some liability if they give NPs advice, Dr. Al-Agba said.

At her Washington state practice, Dr. Al-Agba shares an office with an autonomous NP. “We share overhead and a front desk, but we have separate patients,” Dr. Al-Agba said. “This arrangement works very well for both of us.”

The NP sometimes asks her for advice. When this occurs, Dr. Al-Agba said she always makes sure to see the patient first. “If you don’t actually see the patient, there could be a misunderstanding that could lead to an error,” she said.
 

Conclusion

Even though NPs now have autonomy in most states, supervising physicians may still be liable for NP malpractice by virtue of being their employers, and physicians in the remaining states are liable for NPs through state law and for PAs in virtually all the states. To determine the supervising physician’s fault, courts often study whether the physician has met the terms of the collaborative agreement.

Physicians can reduce collaborating NPs’ and PAs’ liability by properly training them, by verifying their scope of practice, by making themselves easily available for consultation, and by occasionally seeing their patients. If their NPs and PAs do commit malpractice, supervising physicians may be able to protect themselves from liability by adhering to all requirements of the collaborative agreement.

*Correction, 4/19/2023: An earlier version of this story misstated the name of the AAPA and the states that have ended physician supervision of PAs.

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

Court cases show that physicians continually underestimate their liability in supervising nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).

Even in states that have abolished requirements that NPs be physician-supervised, physicians may still be liable by virtue of employing the NP, according to William P. Sullivan, DO, an attorney and emergency physician in Frankfort, Ill.

Indeed, the vast majority of lawsuits against NPs and PAs name the supervising physician. According to a study of claims against NPs from 2011 to 2016, 82% of the cases also named the supervising physician.

Employed or contracted physicians assigned to supervise NPs or PAs are also affected, Dr. Sullivan said. “The employed physicians’ contract with a hospital or staffing company may require them to assist in the selection, supervision, and/or training of NPs or PAs,” he said. He added that supervisory duties may also be assigned through hospital bylaws.

“The physician is usually not paid anything extra for this work and may not be given extra time to perform it,” Dr. Sullivan said. But still, he said, that physician could be named in a lawsuit and wind up bearing some responsibility for an NP’s or PA’s mistake.

In addition to facing medical malpractice suits, Dr. Sullivan said, doctors are often sanctioned by state licensure boards for improperly supervising NPs and PAs. Licensure boards often require extensive protocols for supervision of NPs and PAs.
 

Yet more states are removing supervision requirements

With the addition of Kansas and New York in 2022 and California in 2023, 27 states no longer require supervision for all or most NPs. Sixteen of those states, including New York and California, have instituted progressive practice authority that requires temporary supervision of new NPs but then removes supervision after a period of 6 months to 4 years, depending on the state, for the rest of their career.

“When it comes to NP independence, the horse is already out of the barn,” Dr. Sullivan said. “It’s unlikely that states will repeal laws granting NPs independence, and in fact, more states are likely to pass them.”

*PAs, in contrast, are well behind NPs in achieving independence, but the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) is calling to eliminate a mandated relationship with a specific physician. So far, Utah, North Dakota and Wyoming have ended physician supervision of PAs, while California and Hawaii have eliminated mandated chart review. Other states are considering eliminating physician supervision of PAs, according to the AAPA.

In states that have abolished oversight requirements for NPs, “liability can then shift to the NP when the NP is fully independent,” Cathy Klein, an advanced practice registered nurse who helped found the NP profession 50 years ago, told this news organization. “More NPs are starting their own practices, and in many cases, patients actually prefer to see an NP.”

As more NPs became more autonomous, the average payment that NPs incurred in professional liability lawsuits rose by 10.5% from 2017 to 2022, to $332,187, according to the Nurses Service Organization (NSO), a nursing malpractice insurer.

The number of malpractice judgments against autonomous NPs alone has also been rising. From 2012 to 2017, autonomous NPs’ share of all NP cases rose from 7% to 16.4%, the NSO reported.

The good news for physicians is that states’ removal of restrictions on NPs has reduced physicians’ liability to some extent. A 2017 study found that enacting less restrictive scope-of-practice laws for NPs decreased the number of payments made by physicians in NP cases by as much as 31%.

However, the top location for NP payouts remains the physician’s office, not the autonomous NP’s practice, according to the latter NSO report. Plaintiffs sue NPs’ and PAs’ supervising physicians on the basis of legal concepts, such as vicarious liability and respondeat superior. Even if the physician-employer never saw the patient, he or she can be held liable.

Court cases in which supervising physician was found liable

There are plenty of judgments against supervising or collaborating physicians when the NP or PA made the error. Typically, the doctor was faulted for paying little attention to the NP or PA he or she was supposed to supervise.

Dr. Sullivan points to a 2016 case in which a New York jury held a physician 40% liable for a $7 million judgment in a malpractice case involving a PA’s care of a patient in the emergency department. The case is Shajan v. South Nassau Community Hospital in New York.

“The patient presented with nontraumatic leg pain to his lower leg, was diagnosed by the PA with a muscle strain, and discharged without a physician evaluation,” Dr. Sullivan said. The next day, the patient visited an orthopedist who immediately diagnosed compartment syndrome, an emergent condition in which pressure builds up in an affected extremity, damaging the muscles and nerves. “The patient developed irreversible nerve damage and chronic regional pain syndrome,” he said.

A malpractice lawsuit named the PA and the emergency physician he was supposed to be reporting to. Even though the physician had never seen the patient, he had signed off on the PA’s note from a patient’s ED visit. “Testimony during the trial focused on hospital protocols that the supervising physician was supposed to take,” Dr. Sullivan said.

When doctors share fault, they frequently failed to follow the collaborative agreement with the NP or PA. In Collip v. Ratts, a 2015 Indiana case in which the patient died from a drug interaction, the doctor’s certified public accountant stated that the doctor was required to review at least 5% of the NP’s charts every week to evaluate her prescriptive practices.

The doctor admitted that he never reviewed the NP’s charts on a weekly basis. He did conduct some cursory reviews of some of the NP’s notes, and in them he noted concerns for her prescribing practices and suggested she attend a narcotics-prescribing seminar, but he did not follow up to make sure she had done this.

Sometimes the NP or PA who made the mistake may actually be dropped from the lawsuit, leaving the supervising physician fully liable. In these cases, courts reason that a fully engaged supervisor could have prevented the error. In the 2006 case of  Husak v. Siegal, the Florida Supreme Court dropped the NP from the case, ruling that the NP had provided the supervising doctor all the information he needed in order to tell her what to do for the patient.

The court noted the physician had failed to look at the chart, even though he was required to do so under his supervisory agreement with the NP. The doctor “could have made the correct diagnosis or referral had he been attentive,” the court said. Therefore, there was “no evidence of independent negligence” by the NP, even though she was the one who had made the incorrect diagnosis that harmed the patient.

When states require an autonomous NP to have a supervisory relationship with a doctor, the supervisor may be unavailable and may fail to designate a substitute. In Texas in January 2019, a 7-year-old girl died of pneumonia after being treated by an NP in an urgent care clinic. The NP had told the parents that the child could safely go home and only needed ibuprofen. The parents brought the girl back home, and she died 15 hours later. The Wattenbargers sued the NP, and the doctor’s supervision was a topic in the trial.

The supervising physician for the NP was out of the country at the time. He said that he had found a substitute, but the substitute doctor testified she had no idea she was designated to be the substitute, according to Niran Al-Agba, MD, a family physician in Silverdale, Wash., who has written on the Texas case. Dr. Al-Agba told this news organization the case appears to have been settled confidentially.
 

Different standards for expert witnesses

In many states, courts do not allow physicians to testify as expert witnesses in malpractice cases against NPs, arguing that nurses have a different set of standards than doctors have, Dr. Sullivan reported.

These states include Arkansas, Illinois, North Carolina, and New York, according to a report by SEAK Inc., an expert witness training program. The report said most other states allow physician experts in these cases, but they may still require that they have experience with the nursing standard of care.

Dr. Sullivan said some courts are whittling away at the ban on physician experts, and the ban may eventually disappear. He reported that in Oklahoma, which normally upholds the ban, a judge recently allowed a physician-expert to testify in a case involving the death of a 19-year-old woman, Alexus Ochoa, in an ED staffed by an NP. The judge reasoned that Ms. Ochoa’s parents assumed the ED was staffed by physicians and would adhere to medical standards.
 

Supervision pointers from a physician

Physicians who supervise NPs or PAs say it is important to keep track of their skills and help them sharpen their expertise. Their scope of practice and physicians’ supervisory responsibilities are included in the collaborative agreement.

Arthur Apolinario, MD, a family physician in Clinton, N.C., says his 10-physician practice, which employs six NPs and one PA, works under a collaborative agreement. “The agreement defines each person’s scope of practice. They can’t do certain procedures, such as surgery, and they need extra training before doing certain tasks alone, such as joint injection.

“You have to always figure that if there is a lawsuit against one of them, you as the supervising physician would be named,” said Dr. Apolinario, who is also president of the North Carolina Medical Society. “We try to avert mistakes by meeting regularly with our NPs and PAs and making sure they keep up to date.”
 

Collaborating with autonomous NPs

Even when NPs operate independently in states that have abolished supervision, physicians may still have some liability if they give NPs advice, Dr. Al-Agba said.

At her Washington state practice, Dr. Al-Agba shares an office with an autonomous NP. “We share overhead and a front desk, but we have separate patients,” Dr. Al-Agba said. “This arrangement works very well for both of us.”

The NP sometimes asks her for advice. When this occurs, Dr. Al-Agba said she always makes sure to see the patient first. “If you don’t actually see the patient, there could be a misunderstanding that could lead to an error,” she said.
 

Conclusion

Even though NPs now have autonomy in most states, supervising physicians may still be liable for NP malpractice by virtue of being their employers, and physicians in the remaining states are liable for NPs through state law and for PAs in virtually all the states. To determine the supervising physician’s fault, courts often study whether the physician has met the terms of the collaborative agreement.

Physicians can reduce collaborating NPs’ and PAs’ liability by properly training them, by verifying their scope of practice, by making themselves easily available for consultation, and by occasionally seeing their patients. If their NPs and PAs do commit malpractice, supervising physicians may be able to protect themselves from liability by adhering to all requirements of the collaborative agreement.

*Correction, 4/19/2023: An earlier version of this story misstated the name of the AAPA and the states that have ended physician supervision of PAs.

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

Court cases show that physicians continually underestimate their liability in supervising nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).

Even in states that have abolished requirements that NPs be physician-supervised, physicians may still be liable by virtue of employing the NP, according to William P. Sullivan, DO, an attorney and emergency physician in Frankfort, Ill.

Indeed, the vast majority of lawsuits against NPs and PAs name the supervising physician. According to a study of claims against NPs from 2011 to 2016, 82% of the cases also named the supervising physician.

Employed or contracted physicians assigned to supervise NPs or PAs are also affected, Dr. Sullivan said. “The employed physicians’ contract with a hospital or staffing company may require them to assist in the selection, supervision, and/or training of NPs or PAs,” he said. He added that supervisory duties may also be assigned through hospital bylaws.

“The physician is usually not paid anything extra for this work and may not be given extra time to perform it,” Dr. Sullivan said. But still, he said, that physician could be named in a lawsuit and wind up bearing some responsibility for an NP’s or PA’s mistake.

In addition to facing medical malpractice suits, Dr. Sullivan said, doctors are often sanctioned by state licensure boards for improperly supervising NPs and PAs. Licensure boards often require extensive protocols for supervision of NPs and PAs.
 

Yet more states are removing supervision requirements

With the addition of Kansas and New York in 2022 and California in 2023, 27 states no longer require supervision for all or most NPs. Sixteen of those states, including New York and California, have instituted progressive practice authority that requires temporary supervision of new NPs but then removes supervision after a period of 6 months to 4 years, depending on the state, for the rest of their career.

“When it comes to NP independence, the horse is already out of the barn,” Dr. Sullivan said. “It’s unlikely that states will repeal laws granting NPs independence, and in fact, more states are likely to pass them.”

*PAs, in contrast, are well behind NPs in achieving independence, but the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) is calling to eliminate a mandated relationship with a specific physician. So far, Utah, North Dakota and Wyoming have ended physician supervision of PAs, while California and Hawaii have eliminated mandated chart review. Other states are considering eliminating physician supervision of PAs, according to the AAPA.

In states that have abolished oversight requirements for NPs, “liability can then shift to the NP when the NP is fully independent,” Cathy Klein, an advanced practice registered nurse who helped found the NP profession 50 years ago, told this news organization. “More NPs are starting their own practices, and in many cases, patients actually prefer to see an NP.”

As more NPs became more autonomous, the average payment that NPs incurred in professional liability lawsuits rose by 10.5% from 2017 to 2022, to $332,187, according to the Nurses Service Organization (NSO), a nursing malpractice insurer.

The number of malpractice judgments against autonomous NPs alone has also been rising. From 2012 to 2017, autonomous NPs’ share of all NP cases rose from 7% to 16.4%, the NSO reported.

The good news for physicians is that states’ removal of restrictions on NPs has reduced physicians’ liability to some extent. A 2017 study found that enacting less restrictive scope-of-practice laws for NPs decreased the number of payments made by physicians in NP cases by as much as 31%.

However, the top location for NP payouts remains the physician’s office, not the autonomous NP’s practice, according to the latter NSO report. Plaintiffs sue NPs’ and PAs’ supervising physicians on the basis of legal concepts, such as vicarious liability and respondeat superior. Even if the physician-employer never saw the patient, he or she can be held liable.

Court cases in which supervising physician was found liable

There are plenty of judgments against supervising or collaborating physicians when the NP or PA made the error. Typically, the doctor was faulted for paying little attention to the NP or PA he or she was supposed to supervise.

Dr. Sullivan points to a 2016 case in which a New York jury held a physician 40% liable for a $7 million judgment in a malpractice case involving a PA’s care of a patient in the emergency department. The case is Shajan v. South Nassau Community Hospital in New York.

“The patient presented with nontraumatic leg pain to his lower leg, was diagnosed by the PA with a muscle strain, and discharged without a physician evaluation,” Dr. Sullivan said. The next day, the patient visited an orthopedist who immediately diagnosed compartment syndrome, an emergent condition in which pressure builds up in an affected extremity, damaging the muscles and nerves. “The patient developed irreversible nerve damage and chronic regional pain syndrome,” he said.

A malpractice lawsuit named the PA and the emergency physician he was supposed to be reporting to. Even though the physician had never seen the patient, he had signed off on the PA’s note from a patient’s ED visit. “Testimony during the trial focused on hospital protocols that the supervising physician was supposed to take,” Dr. Sullivan said.

When doctors share fault, they frequently failed to follow the collaborative agreement with the NP or PA. In Collip v. Ratts, a 2015 Indiana case in which the patient died from a drug interaction, the doctor’s certified public accountant stated that the doctor was required to review at least 5% of the NP’s charts every week to evaluate her prescriptive practices.

The doctor admitted that he never reviewed the NP’s charts on a weekly basis. He did conduct some cursory reviews of some of the NP’s notes, and in them he noted concerns for her prescribing practices and suggested she attend a narcotics-prescribing seminar, but he did not follow up to make sure she had done this.

Sometimes the NP or PA who made the mistake may actually be dropped from the lawsuit, leaving the supervising physician fully liable. In these cases, courts reason that a fully engaged supervisor could have prevented the error. In the 2006 case of  Husak v. Siegal, the Florida Supreme Court dropped the NP from the case, ruling that the NP had provided the supervising doctor all the information he needed in order to tell her what to do for the patient.

The court noted the physician had failed to look at the chart, even though he was required to do so under his supervisory agreement with the NP. The doctor “could have made the correct diagnosis or referral had he been attentive,” the court said. Therefore, there was “no evidence of independent negligence” by the NP, even though she was the one who had made the incorrect diagnosis that harmed the patient.

When states require an autonomous NP to have a supervisory relationship with a doctor, the supervisor may be unavailable and may fail to designate a substitute. In Texas in January 2019, a 7-year-old girl died of pneumonia after being treated by an NP in an urgent care clinic. The NP had told the parents that the child could safely go home and only needed ibuprofen. The parents brought the girl back home, and she died 15 hours later. The Wattenbargers sued the NP, and the doctor’s supervision was a topic in the trial.

The supervising physician for the NP was out of the country at the time. He said that he had found a substitute, but the substitute doctor testified she had no idea she was designated to be the substitute, according to Niran Al-Agba, MD, a family physician in Silverdale, Wash., who has written on the Texas case. Dr. Al-Agba told this news organization the case appears to have been settled confidentially.
 

Different standards for expert witnesses

In many states, courts do not allow physicians to testify as expert witnesses in malpractice cases against NPs, arguing that nurses have a different set of standards than doctors have, Dr. Sullivan reported.

These states include Arkansas, Illinois, North Carolina, and New York, according to a report by SEAK Inc., an expert witness training program. The report said most other states allow physician experts in these cases, but they may still require that they have experience with the nursing standard of care.

Dr. Sullivan said some courts are whittling away at the ban on physician experts, and the ban may eventually disappear. He reported that in Oklahoma, which normally upholds the ban, a judge recently allowed a physician-expert to testify in a case involving the death of a 19-year-old woman, Alexus Ochoa, in an ED staffed by an NP. The judge reasoned that Ms. Ochoa’s parents assumed the ED was staffed by physicians and would adhere to medical standards.
 

Supervision pointers from a physician

Physicians who supervise NPs or PAs say it is important to keep track of their skills and help them sharpen their expertise. Their scope of practice and physicians’ supervisory responsibilities are included in the collaborative agreement.

Arthur Apolinario, MD, a family physician in Clinton, N.C., says his 10-physician practice, which employs six NPs and one PA, works under a collaborative agreement. “The agreement defines each person’s scope of practice. They can’t do certain procedures, such as surgery, and they need extra training before doing certain tasks alone, such as joint injection.

“You have to always figure that if there is a lawsuit against one of them, you as the supervising physician would be named,” said Dr. Apolinario, who is also president of the North Carolina Medical Society. “We try to avert mistakes by meeting regularly with our NPs and PAs and making sure they keep up to date.”
 

Collaborating with autonomous NPs

Even when NPs operate independently in states that have abolished supervision, physicians may still have some liability if they give NPs advice, Dr. Al-Agba said.

At her Washington state practice, Dr. Al-Agba shares an office with an autonomous NP. “We share overhead and a front desk, but we have separate patients,” Dr. Al-Agba said. “This arrangement works very well for both of us.”

The NP sometimes asks her for advice. When this occurs, Dr. Al-Agba said she always makes sure to see the patient first. “If you don’t actually see the patient, there could be a misunderstanding that could lead to an error,” she said.
 

Conclusion

Even though NPs now have autonomy in most states, supervising physicians may still be liable for NP malpractice by virtue of being their employers, and physicians in the remaining states are liable for NPs through state law and for PAs in virtually all the states. To determine the supervising physician’s fault, courts often study whether the physician has met the terms of the collaborative agreement.

Physicians can reduce collaborating NPs’ and PAs’ liability by properly training them, by verifying their scope of practice, by making themselves easily available for consultation, and by occasionally seeing their patients. If their NPs and PAs do commit malpractice, supervising physicians may be able to protect themselves from liability by adhering to all requirements of the collaborative agreement.

*Correction, 4/19/2023: An earlier version of this story misstated the name of the AAPA and the states that have ended physician supervision of PAs.

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

People who are physically active and on statins may have one less potential concern about the drugs. Despite their reputation for causing muscle injury, a study suggests statins won’t worsen the toll that sustained, moderately intensive exercise already takes on patients’ muscles.

Statin therapy in this prospective, controlled study wasn’t seen to aggravate normal muscle fatigue or pain from sustained exercise or adversely affect enzymes or other biomarkers associated with muscle injury.

The findings come from 100 individuals, of whom about two-thirds were on statins, participating in a public, 4-day, long-distance walking event held annually in the Netherlands. Results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology with Neeltje A.E. Allard, MD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, as lead author.

For all of statins’ common use in adults with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, the drugs are often blamed for causing excessive muscle pain or injury as a side effect. Yet there is a predominance of evidence to the contrary based on meta-analyses and clinical trials, suggesting that the drugs are taking the rap for many entirely unrelated muscle symptoms.

The new findings, from people ranging widely in fitness levels, suggest that “exercise of moderate intensity is feasible and safe” in statin users, that the drugs won’t exacerbate normal muscle symptoms from exercise, Dr. Allard told this news organization.

And that exercise doesn’t have to be on an unusual scale. Regular exercise in statin users can simply be consistent with broader guidelines, say 30 minutes of walking per day, she noted.

The study has such broad applicability, Dr. Allard said, because participants represented the spectrum of the thousands who signed up for the walking event, who varied in age, level of physical fitness, and number of CV risk factors. They included CV patients, the physically fit, “recreational walkers who didn’t really exercise regularly,” and “habitual nonexercisers.”

It enrolled three groups of participants in the Four Days Marches in Nijmegen, which in a typical year attracts tens of thousands of participants who walk up to 30 km, 40 km, or 50 km per day for 4 consecutive days.

They included 35 statin users who walked the event despite muscle symptoms, 34 on statins but without such symptoms, and 31 non–statin-using controls. Their mean ages ranged from 65 to 68 years.

Statin users were overwhelmingly on simvastatin or atorvastatin. The average statin therapy durations were 60 months and 96 months for those with and without symptoms, respectively.

Assessments were performed several days before the event, at baseline, and after the end of walking on days 1, 2, and 3.

Scores for muscle pain on the Brief Pain Inventory were higher at baseline for the symptomatic-on-statins group (P < .001) compared with the other two groups, and went up (P < .001) similarly across the three groups during each of the 3 days, the report notes. Fatigue scores on the Brief Fatigue Inventory followed the same pattern.

All biomarkers of muscle injury or stress were at comparable levels at baseline in the three groups and went up similarly (P < .001) with no significant differences at the end of day 3. Biomarkers included lactate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase, myoglobin, cardiac troponin I, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide.

Statin-related reductions in levels of coenzyme Q 10 (CoQ10) have been thought to exacerbate muscle injury, the authors note. But levels of CoQ10 weren’t significantly different across the three groups at any point in the study, and they did not show any significant associations with measures of muscle injury, symptoms, or fatigue.

Patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) often limit physical activity because of muscle pain or weakness, but also “concerns that exercise will exacerbate muscle injury,” an accompanying editorial notes. “Therefore, exercise, a foundation of improving and maintaining cardiometabolic health, is often avoided or limited.”

But the current study, writes Robert S. Rosenson, MD, of Mount Sinai Heart, New York, indeed suggests that “many patients who develop SAMS may engage in a moderately intensive walking program without concern for worsened muscle biomarkers or performance.”

The exercise didn’t seem to improve muscle function in symptomatic statin users, compared with the other groups over the study’s very short follow-up, Dr. Rosenson observes. But “it remains uncertain from this study whether sustained exercise in SAMS patients will effectuate improved metabolic biomarkers or exercise capacity in the long term.”

Dr. Allard is supported by a grant from the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; the other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rosenson disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, CRISPR Therapeutics, Precision BioSciences, Verve, Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, and Regeneron; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer (UpToDate); and that he holds stock in MediMergent.

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

People who are physically active and on statins may have one less potential concern about the drugs. Despite their reputation for causing muscle injury, a study suggests statins won’t worsen the toll that sustained, moderately intensive exercise already takes on patients’ muscles.

Statin therapy in this prospective, controlled study wasn’t seen to aggravate normal muscle fatigue or pain from sustained exercise or adversely affect enzymes or other biomarkers associated with muscle injury.

The findings come from 100 individuals, of whom about two-thirds were on statins, participating in a public, 4-day, long-distance walking event held annually in the Netherlands. Results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology with Neeltje A.E. Allard, MD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, as lead author.

For all of statins’ common use in adults with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, the drugs are often blamed for causing excessive muscle pain or injury as a side effect. Yet there is a predominance of evidence to the contrary based on meta-analyses and clinical trials, suggesting that the drugs are taking the rap for many entirely unrelated muscle symptoms.

The new findings, from people ranging widely in fitness levels, suggest that “exercise of moderate intensity is feasible and safe” in statin users, that the drugs won’t exacerbate normal muscle symptoms from exercise, Dr. Allard told this news organization.

And that exercise doesn’t have to be on an unusual scale. Regular exercise in statin users can simply be consistent with broader guidelines, say 30 minutes of walking per day, she noted.

The study has such broad applicability, Dr. Allard said, because participants represented the spectrum of the thousands who signed up for the walking event, who varied in age, level of physical fitness, and number of CV risk factors. They included CV patients, the physically fit, “recreational walkers who didn’t really exercise regularly,” and “habitual nonexercisers.”

It enrolled three groups of participants in the Four Days Marches in Nijmegen, which in a typical year attracts tens of thousands of participants who walk up to 30 km, 40 km, or 50 km per day for 4 consecutive days.

They included 35 statin users who walked the event despite muscle symptoms, 34 on statins but without such symptoms, and 31 non–statin-using controls. Their mean ages ranged from 65 to 68 years.

Statin users were overwhelmingly on simvastatin or atorvastatin. The average statin therapy durations were 60 months and 96 months for those with and without symptoms, respectively.

Assessments were performed several days before the event, at baseline, and after the end of walking on days 1, 2, and 3.

Scores for muscle pain on the Brief Pain Inventory were higher at baseline for the symptomatic-on-statins group (P < .001) compared with the other two groups, and went up (P < .001) similarly across the three groups during each of the 3 days, the report notes. Fatigue scores on the Brief Fatigue Inventory followed the same pattern.

All biomarkers of muscle injury or stress were at comparable levels at baseline in the three groups and went up similarly (P < .001) with no significant differences at the end of day 3. Biomarkers included lactate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase, myoglobin, cardiac troponin I, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide.

Statin-related reductions in levels of coenzyme Q 10 (CoQ10) have been thought to exacerbate muscle injury, the authors note. But levels of CoQ10 weren’t significantly different across the three groups at any point in the study, and they did not show any significant associations with measures of muscle injury, symptoms, or fatigue.

Patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) often limit physical activity because of muscle pain or weakness, but also “concerns that exercise will exacerbate muscle injury,” an accompanying editorial notes. “Therefore, exercise, a foundation of improving and maintaining cardiometabolic health, is often avoided or limited.”

But the current study, writes Robert S. Rosenson, MD, of Mount Sinai Heart, New York, indeed suggests that “many patients who develop SAMS may engage in a moderately intensive walking program without concern for worsened muscle biomarkers or performance.”

The exercise didn’t seem to improve muscle function in symptomatic statin users, compared with the other groups over the study’s very short follow-up, Dr. Rosenson observes. But “it remains uncertain from this study whether sustained exercise in SAMS patients will effectuate improved metabolic biomarkers or exercise capacity in the long term.”

Dr. Allard is supported by a grant from the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; the other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rosenson disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, CRISPR Therapeutics, Precision BioSciences, Verve, Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, and Regeneron; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer (UpToDate); and that he holds stock in MediMergent.

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

People who are physically active and on statins may have one less potential concern about the drugs. Despite their reputation for causing muscle injury, a study suggests statins won’t worsen the toll that sustained, moderately intensive exercise already takes on patients’ muscles.

Statin therapy in this prospective, controlled study wasn’t seen to aggravate normal muscle fatigue or pain from sustained exercise or adversely affect enzymes or other biomarkers associated with muscle injury.

The findings come from 100 individuals, of whom about two-thirds were on statins, participating in a public, 4-day, long-distance walking event held annually in the Netherlands. Results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology with Neeltje A.E. Allard, MD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, as lead author.

For all of statins’ common use in adults with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, the drugs are often blamed for causing excessive muscle pain or injury as a side effect. Yet there is a predominance of evidence to the contrary based on meta-analyses and clinical trials, suggesting that the drugs are taking the rap for many entirely unrelated muscle symptoms.

The new findings, from people ranging widely in fitness levels, suggest that “exercise of moderate intensity is feasible and safe” in statin users, that the drugs won’t exacerbate normal muscle symptoms from exercise, Dr. Allard told this news organization.

And that exercise doesn’t have to be on an unusual scale. Regular exercise in statin users can simply be consistent with broader guidelines, say 30 minutes of walking per day, she noted.

The study has such broad applicability, Dr. Allard said, because participants represented the spectrum of the thousands who signed up for the walking event, who varied in age, level of physical fitness, and number of CV risk factors. They included CV patients, the physically fit, “recreational walkers who didn’t really exercise regularly,” and “habitual nonexercisers.”

It enrolled three groups of participants in the Four Days Marches in Nijmegen, which in a typical year attracts tens of thousands of participants who walk up to 30 km, 40 km, or 50 km per day for 4 consecutive days.

They included 35 statin users who walked the event despite muscle symptoms, 34 on statins but without such symptoms, and 31 non–statin-using controls. Their mean ages ranged from 65 to 68 years.

Statin users were overwhelmingly on simvastatin or atorvastatin. The average statin therapy durations were 60 months and 96 months for those with and without symptoms, respectively.

Assessments were performed several days before the event, at baseline, and after the end of walking on days 1, 2, and 3.

Scores for muscle pain on the Brief Pain Inventory were higher at baseline for the symptomatic-on-statins group (P < .001) compared with the other two groups, and went up (P < .001) similarly across the three groups during each of the 3 days, the report notes. Fatigue scores on the Brief Fatigue Inventory followed the same pattern.

All biomarkers of muscle injury or stress were at comparable levels at baseline in the three groups and went up similarly (P < .001) with no significant differences at the end of day 3. Biomarkers included lactate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase, myoglobin, cardiac troponin I, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide.

Statin-related reductions in levels of coenzyme Q 10 (CoQ10) have been thought to exacerbate muscle injury, the authors note. But levels of CoQ10 weren’t significantly different across the three groups at any point in the study, and they did not show any significant associations with measures of muscle injury, symptoms, or fatigue.

Patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) often limit physical activity because of muscle pain or weakness, but also “concerns that exercise will exacerbate muscle injury,” an accompanying editorial notes. “Therefore, exercise, a foundation of improving and maintaining cardiometabolic health, is often avoided or limited.”

But the current study, writes Robert S. Rosenson, MD, of Mount Sinai Heart, New York, indeed suggests that “many patients who develop SAMS may engage in a moderately intensive walking program without concern for worsened muscle biomarkers or performance.”

The exercise didn’t seem to improve muscle function in symptomatic statin users, compared with the other groups over the study’s very short follow-up, Dr. Rosenson observes. But “it remains uncertain from this study whether sustained exercise in SAMS patients will effectuate improved metabolic biomarkers or exercise capacity in the long term.”

Dr. Allard is supported by a grant from the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; the other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rosenson disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, CRISPR Therapeutics, Precision BioSciences, Verve, Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, and Regeneron; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer (UpToDate); and that he holds stock in MediMergent.

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