Feature

As an endocrinologist, I treat many patients who have diabetes, obesity, or both. Antiobesity medications, particularly the class of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), are our first support tools when nutrition and physical activity aren’t enough. With the holidays upon us, here are five tips that I often share with my patients who are on GLP-1 RAs and similar medications.

1. Be mindful of fullness cues. 

GLP-1 RAs increase satiety; they help patients feel fuller sooner within a meal and longer in between meals. This means consuming the “usual” at a holiday gathering makes them feel as if they ate too much, and often this will result in more side effects, such as nausea and reflux.

Patient tip: A good rule of thumb is to anticipate feeling full with half of your usual portion. Start with half a plate and reassess your hunger level after finishing.

2. Distinguish between hunger and “food noise.”

Ask your patients, “Do you ever find yourself eating even when you’re not hungry?” Many people eat because of emotions (eg, stress, anxiety, happiness), social situations, or cultural expectations. This type of food consumption is what scientists call “hedonic food intake” and may be driven by the “food noise” that patients describe as persistent thoughts about food in the absence of physiologic hunger. Semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) has been found to reduce cravings, though other research has shown that emotional eating may blunt the effect of GLP-1 RAs.

Patient tip: Recognize when you might be seeking food for reasons other than hunger, and try a different way to address the cue (eg, chat with a friend or family member, go for a walk).

3. Be careful with alcohol.

GLP-1 RAs are being researched as potential treatments for alcohol use disorder. Many patients report less interest in alcohol and a lower tolerance to alcohol when they are taking a GLP-1 RA. Additionally, GLP-1 RAs may be a risk factor for pancreatitis, which can be caused by consuming too much alcohol.

Patient tip: The standard recommendation remains true: If drinking alcohol, limit to one to two servings per day, but also know that reduced intake or interest is normal when taking a GLP-1 RA.

4. Be aware of sickness vs side effects.

With holiday travel and the winter season, it is common for people to catch a cold or a stomach bug. Symptoms of common illnesses might include fatigue, loss of appetite, or diarrhea. These symptoms overlap with side effects of antiobesity medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide.

Patient tip: If you are experiencing constitutional or gastrointestinal symptoms due to illness, speak with your board-certified obesity medicine doctor, who may recommend a temporary medication adjustment to avoid excess side effects.

5. Stay strong against weight stigma.

The holiday season can be a stressful time, especially as patients are reconnecting with people who have not been a part of their health or weight loss journey. Unfortunately, weight bias and weight stigma remain rampant. Many people don’t understand the biology of obesity and refuse to accept the necessity of medical treatment. They may be surrounded by opinions, often louder and less informed.

Patient tip: Remember that obesity is a medical disease. Tell your nosy cousin that it’s a private health matter and that your decisions are your own.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed financial relationships with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As an endocrinologist, I treat many patients who have diabetes, obesity, or both. Antiobesity medications, particularly the class of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), are our first support tools when nutrition and physical activity aren’t enough. With the holidays upon us, here are five tips that I often share with my patients who are on GLP-1 RAs and similar medications.

1. Be mindful of fullness cues. 

GLP-1 RAs increase satiety; they help patients feel fuller sooner within a meal and longer in between meals. This means consuming the “usual” at a holiday gathering makes them feel as if they ate too much, and often this will result in more side effects, such as nausea and reflux.

Patient tip: A good rule of thumb is to anticipate feeling full with half of your usual portion. Start with half a plate and reassess your hunger level after finishing.

2. Distinguish between hunger and “food noise.”

Ask your patients, “Do you ever find yourself eating even when you’re not hungry?” Many people eat because of emotions (eg, stress, anxiety, happiness), social situations, or cultural expectations. This type of food consumption is what scientists call “hedonic food intake” and may be driven by the “food noise” that patients describe as persistent thoughts about food in the absence of physiologic hunger. Semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) has been found to reduce cravings, though other research has shown that emotional eating may blunt the effect of GLP-1 RAs.

Patient tip: Recognize when you might be seeking food for reasons other than hunger, and try a different way to address the cue (eg, chat with a friend or family member, go for a walk).

3. Be careful with alcohol.

GLP-1 RAs are being researched as potential treatments for alcohol use disorder. Many patients report less interest in alcohol and a lower tolerance to alcohol when they are taking a GLP-1 RA. Additionally, GLP-1 RAs may be a risk factor for pancreatitis, which can be caused by consuming too much alcohol.

Patient tip: The standard recommendation remains true: If drinking alcohol, limit to one to two servings per day, but also know that reduced intake or interest is normal when taking a GLP-1 RA.

4. Be aware of sickness vs side effects.

With holiday travel and the winter season, it is common for people to catch a cold or a stomach bug. Symptoms of common illnesses might include fatigue, loss of appetite, or diarrhea. These symptoms overlap with side effects of antiobesity medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide.

Patient tip: If you are experiencing constitutional or gastrointestinal symptoms due to illness, speak with your board-certified obesity medicine doctor, who may recommend a temporary medication adjustment to avoid excess side effects.

5. Stay strong against weight stigma.

The holiday season can be a stressful time, especially as patients are reconnecting with people who have not been a part of their health or weight loss journey. Unfortunately, weight bias and weight stigma remain rampant. Many people don’t understand the biology of obesity and refuse to accept the necessity of medical treatment. They may be surrounded by opinions, often louder and less informed.

Patient tip: Remember that obesity is a medical disease. Tell your nosy cousin that it’s a private health matter and that your decisions are your own.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed financial relationships with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As an endocrinologist, I treat many patients who have diabetes, obesity, or both. Antiobesity medications, particularly the class of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), are our first support tools when nutrition and physical activity aren’t enough. With the holidays upon us, here are five tips that I often share with my patients who are on GLP-1 RAs and similar medications.

1. Be mindful of fullness cues. 

GLP-1 RAs increase satiety; they help patients feel fuller sooner within a meal and longer in between meals. This means consuming the “usual” at a holiday gathering makes them feel as if they ate too much, and often this will result in more side effects, such as nausea and reflux.

Patient tip: A good rule of thumb is to anticipate feeling full with half of your usual portion. Start with half a plate and reassess your hunger level after finishing.

2. Distinguish between hunger and “food noise.”

Ask your patients, “Do you ever find yourself eating even when you’re not hungry?” Many people eat because of emotions (eg, stress, anxiety, happiness), social situations, or cultural expectations. This type of food consumption is what scientists call “hedonic food intake” and may be driven by the “food noise” that patients describe as persistent thoughts about food in the absence of physiologic hunger. Semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) has been found to reduce cravings, though other research has shown that emotional eating may blunt the effect of GLP-1 RAs.

Patient tip: Recognize when you might be seeking food for reasons other than hunger, and try a different way to address the cue (eg, chat with a friend or family member, go for a walk).

3. Be careful with alcohol.

GLP-1 RAs are being researched as potential treatments for alcohol use disorder. Many patients report less interest in alcohol and a lower tolerance to alcohol when they are taking a GLP-1 RA. Additionally, GLP-1 RAs may be a risk factor for pancreatitis, which can be caused by consuming too much alcohol.

Patient tip: The standard recommendation remains true: If drinking alcohol, limit to one to two servings per day, but also know that reduced intake or interest is normal when taking a GLP-1 RA.

4. Be aware of sickness vs side effects.

With holiday travel and the winter season, it is common for people to catch a cold or a stomach bug. Symptoms of common illnesses might include fatigue, loss of appetite, or diarrhea. These symptoms overlap with side effects of antiobesity medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide.

Patient tip: If you are experiencing constitutional or gastrointestinal symptoms due to illness, speak with your board-certified obesity medicine doctor, who may recommend a temporary medication adjustment to avoid excess side effects.

5. Stay strong against weight stigma.

The holiday season can be a stressful time, especially as patients are reconnecting with people who have not been a part of their health or weight loss journey. Unfortunately, weight bias and weight stigma remain rampant. Many people don’t understand the biology of obesity and refuse to accept the necessity of medical treatment. They may be surrounded by opinions, often louder and less informed.

Patient tip: Remember that obesity is a medical disease. Tell your nosy cousin that it’s a private health matter and that your decisions are your own.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed financial relationships with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Erinn Maury, MD, knew Remicade wasn’t the right drug for Patti Schulte, a patient with rheumatoid arthritis the physician saw at her Millersville, Maryland, practice. Schulte’s swollen, painful joints hadn’t responded to Enbrel or Humira, two drugs in the same class.

But the insurer insisted, so Schulte went on Remicade. It didn’t work either.

What’s more, Schulte suffered a severe allergic reaction to the infusion therapy, requiring a heavy dose of prednisone, a steroid with grave side effects if used at high doses for too long.

After 18 months, her insurer finally approved Maury’s drug of choice, Orencia. By then, Schulte’s vertebrae, weakened by prednisone, had started cracking. She was only 60.

Schulte’s story of pain, drug-hopping, and insurance meddling is all too common among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, who often cycle agonizingly through half a dozen drugs in search of one that provides a measure of relief. It’s also a story of how doctors are steered by pharmacy benefit managers — the middlemen of the drug market — as well as by insurers.

Once people with inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis reach a certain stage, the first prescription offered is typically Humira, the best-selling drug in history, and part of a class known as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or TNFis, which fail to significantly help about half of the patients who take it.

“We practice rheumatology without any help,” said Vibeke Strand, a rheumatologist and adjunct clinical professor at Stanford. She bemoaned the lack of tools available to choose the right drug while bristling at corporate intervention in the decision. “We are told by the insurer what to prescribe to the patient. After they fail methotrexate, it’s a TNF inhibitor, almost always Humira. And that’s not OK.”

If there’s a shred of hope in this story, it’s that a blood test, PrismRA, may herald an era of improved care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune conditions. But first, it must be embraced by insurers.

PrismRA employs a predictive model that combines clinical factors, blood tests, and 19 gene patterns to identify the roughly 60% of patients who are very unlikely to respond to a TNFi drug.

Over the past 25 years, drug companies have introduced five new classes of autoimmune drugs. TNFis were the first to market, starting in the late 1990s.

Some 1.3 million Americans have rheumatoid arthritis, a disease in which a person’s immune system attacks their joints, causing crippling pain and, if improperly treated, disfigurement. The newer drugs, mostly so-called biologics, are also used by some of the 25 million or more Americans with other autoimmune diseases, such as lupus, Crohn’s disease, and psoriasis. Typically costing tens of thousands of dollars annually, the drugs are prescribed after a patient fails to respond to older, cheaper drugs like methotrexate.

Until recently, rheumatologists have had few ways to predict which of the new drugs would work best on which patients. Often, “it’s a coin flip whether I prescribe drug A or B,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, a rheumatology professor at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

Yet about 90% of the patients who are given one of these advanced drugs start on a TNFi, although there’s often no reason to think a TNFi will work better than another type.

Under these puzzling circumstances, it’s often the insurer rather than the doctor who chooses the patient’s drug. Insurers lean toward TNFis such as adalimumab, commonly sold as brand name Humira, in part because they get large rebates from manufacturers for using them. Although the size of such payments is a trade secret, AbbVie is said to be offering rebates to insurers of up to 60% of Humira’s price. That has enabled it to control 98.5% of the US adalimumab market, even though it has eight biosimilar competitors.

PrismRA’s developer, Scipher Medicine, has provided more than 26,000 test results, rarely covered by insurance. But on October 15, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid began reimbursing for the test, and its use is expected to rise. At least two other companies are developing drug-matching tests for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Although critics say PrismRA is not always useful, it is likely to be the first in a series of diagnostics anticipated over the next decade that could reduce the time that patients with autoimmune disease suffer on the wrong drug.

Academics, small biotechs, and large pharmaceutical companies are investing in methods to distinguish the biological pathways involved in these diseases and the best way to treat each one. This approach, called precision medicine, has existed for years in cancer medicine, in which it’s routine to test the genetics of patients’ tumors to determine the appropriate drug treatment.

“You wouldn’t give Herceptin to a breast cancer patient without knowing whether her tumor was HER2-positive,” said Costantino Pitzalis, MD, a rheumatology professor at the William Harvey Research Institute in London, England. He was speaking before a well-attended session at an American College of Rheumatology conference in San Diego in November. “Why do we not use biopsies or seek molecular markers in rheumatoid arthritis?”

It’s not only patients and doctors who have a stake in which drugs work best for a given person.

When Remicade failed and Schulte waited for the insurer to approve Orencia, she insisted on keeping her job as an accountant. But as her prednisone-related spinal problems worsened, Schulte was forced to retire, go on Medicaid, and seek disability, something she had always sworn to avoid.

Now taxpayers, rather than the insurer, are covering Schulte’s medical bills, Dr. Maury noted.

Precision medicine hasn’t seemed like a priority for large makers of autoimmune drugs, which presumably have some knowledge of which patients are most likely to benefit from their drugs, because they have tested and sold millions of doses over the years. By offering rebate incentives to insurers, companies like AbbVie, which makes Humira, can guarantee theirs are the drugs of choice with insurers.

“If you were AbbVie,” Dr. Curtis said, “why would you ever want to publish data showing who’s not going to do well on your drug, if, in the absence of the test, everyone will start with your drug first?”

What Testing Could Do

Medicare and commercial insurers haven’t yet set a price for PrismRA, but it could save insurers thousands of dollars a year for each patient it helps, according to Krishna Patel, PharmD, Scipher’s associate director of medical affairs.

“If the test cost $750, I still only need it once, and it costs less than a month of whatever drug is not going to work very well for you,” said Dr. Curtis, a coauthor of some studies of the test. “The economics of a biomarker that’s anything but worthless is pretty favorable because our biologics and targeted drugs are so expensive.”

Patients are enthusiastic about the test because so many have had to take TNFis that didn’t work. Many insurers require patients to try a second TNFi and sometimes a third.

Jen Weaver, a patient advocate and mother of three, got little benefit from hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, and Orencia, a non-TNFi biologic therapy, before finding some relief in another, Actemra. But she was taken off that drug when her white blood cells plunged, and the next three drugs she tried — all TNFis — caused allergic reactions, culminating with an outbreak of pus-filled sores. Another drug, Otezla, eventually seemed to help heal the sores, and she’s been stable on it since in combination with methotrexate, Ms. Weaver said.

“What is needed is to substantially shorten this trial-and-error period for patients,” said Shilpa Venkatachalam, PhD, herself a patient and the director of research operations at the Global Healthy Living Foundation. “There’s a lot of anxiety and frustration, weeks in pain wondering whether a drug is going to work for you and what to do if it doesn’t.” A survey by her group found that 91% of patients worried their medications would stop working. And there is evidence that the longer it takes to resolve arthritis symptoms, the less chance they will ever stop.

How insurers will respond to the availability of tests isn’t clear, partly because the arrival of new biosimilar drugs — essentially generic versions — is making TNFis cheaper for insurance plans. While Humira still dominates, AbbVie has increased rebates to insurers, in effect lowering its cost. Lower prices make the PrismRA test less appealing to insurers because widespread use of the test could cut TNFi prescriptions by up to a third.

However, rheumatologist John B. Boone, MD, in Louisville, Kentucky, found to his surprise that insurers mostly accepted alternative prescriptions for 41 patients whom the test showed unlikely to respond to TNFis as part of a clinical trial. Dr. Boone receives consulting fees from Scipher.

Although the test didn’t guarantee good outcomes, he said, the few patients given TNFis despite the test results almost all did poorly on that regimen.

Scientists from AbbVie, which makes several rheumatology drugs in addition to Humira, presented a study at the San Diego conference examining biomarkers that might show which patients would respond to Rinvoq, a new immune-suppressing drug in a class known as the JAK inhibitors. When asked about its use of precision medicine, AbbVie declined to comment.

Over two decades, Humira has been a blockbuster drug for AbbVie. The company sold more than $3.5 billion worth of Humira in the third quarter of 2023, 36% less than a year ago. Sales of Rinvoq, which AbbVie is marketing as a treatment for patients failed by Humira and its class, jumped 60% to $1.1 billion.

What Patients Want

Shannan O’Hara-Levi, a 38-year-old in Monroe, New York, has been on scores of drugs and supplements since being diagnosed with juvenile arthritis at age 3. She’s been nauseated, fatigued, and short of breath and has suffered allergic reactions, but she says the worst part of it was finding a drug that worked and then losing access because of insurance. This happened shortly after she gave birth to a daughter in 2022 and then endured intense joint pain.

“If I could take a blood test that tells me not to waste months or years of my life — absolutely,” she said. “If I could have started my current drug last fall and saved many months of not being able to engage with my baby on the floor — absolutely.”
 

This article originally appeared on KFFHealthNews.org. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Erinn Maury, MD, knew Remicade wasn’t the right drug for Patti Schulte, a patient with rheumatoid arthritis the physician saw at her Millersville, Maryland, practice. Schulte’s swollen, painful joints hadn’t responded to Enbrel or Humira, two drugs in the same class.

But the insurer insisted, so Schulte went on Remicade. It didn’t work either.

What’s more, Schulte suffered a severe allergic reaction to the infusion therapy, requiring a heavy dose of prednisone, a steroid with grave side effects if used at high doses for too long.

After 18 months, her insurer finally approved Maury’s drug of choice, Orencia. By then, Schulte’s vertebrae, weakened by prednisone, had started cracking. She was only 60.

Schulte’s story of pain, drug-hopping, and insurance meddling is all too common among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, who often cycle agonizingly through half a dozen drugs in search of one that provides a measure of relief. It’s also a story of how doctors are steered by pharmacy benefit managers — the middlemen of the drug market — as well as by insurers.

Once people with inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis reach a certain stage, the first prescription offered is typically Humira, the best-selling drug in history, and part of a class known as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or TNFis, which fail to significantly help about half of the patients who take it.

“We practice rheumatology without any help,” said Vibeke Strand, a rheumatologist and adjunct clinical professor at Stanford. She bemoaned the lack of tools available to choose the right drug while bristling at corporate intervention in the decision. “We are told by the insurer what to prescribe to the patient. After they fail methotrexate, it’s a TNF inhibitor, almost always Humira. And that’s not OK.”

If there’s a shred of hope in this story, it’s that a blood test, PrismRA, may herald an era of improved care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune conditions. But first, it must be embraced by insurers.

PrismRA employs a predictive model that combines clinical factors, blood tests, and 19 gene patterns to identify the roughly 60% of patients who are very unlikely to respond to a TNFi drug.

Over the past 25 years, drug companies have introduced five new classes of autoimmune drugs. TNFis were the first to market, starting in the late 1990s.

Some 1.3 million Americans have rheumatoid arthritis, a disease in which a person’s immune system attacks their joints, causing crippling pain and, if improperly treated, disfigurement. The newer drugs, mostly so-called biologics, are also used by some of the 25 million or more Americans with other autoimmune diseases, such as lupus, Crohn’s disease, and psoriasis. Typically costing tens of thousands of dollars annually, the drugs are prescribed after a patient fails to respond to older, cheaper drugs like methotrexate.

Until recently, rheumatologists have had few ways to predict which of the new drugs would work best on which patients. Often, “it’s a coin flip whether I prescribe drug A or B,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, a rheumatology professor at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

Yet about 90% of the patients who are given one of these advanced drugs start on a TNFi, although there’s often no reason to think a TNFi will work better than another type.

Under these puzzling circumstances, it’s often the insurer rather than the doctor who chooses the patient’s drug. Insurers lean toward TNFis such as adalimumab, commonly sold as brand name Humira, in part because they get large rebates from manufacturers for using them. Although the size of such payments is a trade secret, AbbVie is said to be offering rebates to insurers of up to 60% of Humira’s price. That has enabled it to control 98.5% of the US adalimumab market, even though it has eight biosimilar competitors.

PrismRA’s developer, Scipher Medicine, has provided more than 26,000 test results, rarely covered by insurance. But on October 15, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid began reimbursing for the test, and its use is expected to rise. At least two other companies are developing drug-matching tests for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Although critics say PrismRA is not always useful, it is likely to be the first in a series of diagnostics anticipated over the next decade that could reduce the time that patients with autoimmune disease suffer on the wrong drug.

Academics, small biotechs, and large pharmaceutical companies are investing in methods to distinguish the biological pathways involved in these diseases and the best way to treat each one. This approach, called precision medicine, has existed for years in cancer medicine, in which it’s routine to test the genetics of patients’ tumors to determine the appropriate drug treatment.

“You wouldn’t give Herceptin to a breast cancer patient without knowing whether her tumor was HER2-positive,” said Costantino Pitzalis, MD, a rheumatology professor at the William Harvey Research Institute in London, England. He was speaking before a well-attended session at an American College of Rheumatology conference in San Diego in November. “Why do we not use biopsies or seek molecular markers in rheumatoid arthritis?”

It’s not only patients and doctors who have a stake in which drugs work best for a given person.

When Remicade failed and Schulte waited for the insurer to approve Orencia, she insisted on keeping her job as an accountant. But as her prednisone-related spinal problems worsened, Schulte was forced to retire, go on Medicaid, and seek disability, something she had always sworn to avoid.

Now taxpayers, rather than the insurer, are covering Schulte’s medical bills, Dr. Maury noted.

Precision medicine hasn’t seemed like a priority for large makers of autoimmune drugs, which presumably have some knowledge of which patients are most likely to benefit from their drugs, because they have tested and sold millions of doses over the years. By offering rebate incentives to insurers, companies like AbbVie, which makes Humira, can guarantee theirs are the drugs of choice with insurers.

“If you were AbbVie,” Dr. Curtis said, “why would you ever want to publish data showing who’s not going to do well on your drug, if, in the absence of the test, everyone will start with your drug first?”

What Testing Could Do

Medicare and commercial insurers haven’t yet set a price for PrismRA, but it could save insurers thousands of dollars a year for each patient it helps, according to Krishna Patel, PharmD, Scipher’s associate director of medical affairs.

“If the test cost $750, I still only need it once, and it costs less than a month of whatever drug is not going to work very well for you,” said Dr. Curtis, a coauthor of some studies of the test. “The economics of a biomarker that’s anything but worthless is pretty favorable because our biologics and targeted drugs are so expensive.”

Patients are enthusiastic about the test because so many have had to take TNFis that didn’t work. Many insurers require patients to try a second TNFi and sometimes a third.

Jen Weaver, a patient advocate and mother of three, got little benefit from hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, and Orencia, a non-TNFi biologic therapy, before finding some relief in another, Actemra. But she was taken off that drug when her white blood cells plunged, and the next three drugs she tried — all TNFis — caused allergic reactions, culminating with an outbreak of pus-filled sores. Another drug, Otezla, eventually seemed to help heal the sores, and she’s been stable on it since in combination with methotrexate, Ms. Weaver said.

“What is needed is to substantially shorten this trial-and-error period for patients,” said Shilpa Venkatachalam, PhD, herself a patient and the director of research operations at the Global Healthy Living Foundation. “There’s a lot of anxiety and frustration, weeks in pain wondering whether a drug is going to work for you and what to do if it doesn’t.” A survey by her group found that 91% of patients worried their medications would stop working. And there is evidence that the longer it takes to resolve arthritis symptoms, the less chance they will ever stop.

How insurers will respond to the availability of tests isn’t clear, partly because the arrival of new biosimilar drugs — essentially generic versions — is making TNFis cheaper for insurance plans. While Humira still dominates, AbbVie has increased rebates to insurers, in effect lowering its cost. Lower prices make the PrismRA test less appealing to insurers because widespread use of the test could cut TNFi prescriptions by up to a third.

However, rheumatologist John B. Boone, MD, in Louisville, Kentucky, found to his surprise that insurers mostly accepted alternative prescriptions for 41 patients whom the test showed unlikely to respond to TNFis as part of a clinical trial. Dr. Boone receives consulting fees from Scipher.

Although the test didn’t guarantee good outcomes, he said, the few patients given TNFis despite the test results almost all did poorly on that regimen.

Scientists from AbbVie, which makes several rheumatology drugs in addition to Humira, presented a study at the San Diego conference examining biomarkers that might show which patients would respond to Rinvoq, a new immune-suppressing drug in a class known as the JAK inhibitors. When asked about its use of precision medicine, AbbVie declined to comment.

Over two decades, Humira has been a blockbuster drug for AbbVie. The company sold more than $3.5 billion worth of Humira in the third quarter of 2023, 36% less than a year ago. Sales of Rinvoq, which AbbVie is marketing as a treatment for patients failed by Humira and its class, jumped 60% to $1.1 billion.

What Patients Want

Shannan O’Hara-Levi, a 38-year-old in Monroe, New York, has been on scores of drugs and supplements since being diagnosed with juvenile arthritis at age 3. She’s been nauseated, fatigued, and short of breath and has suffered allergic reactions, but she says the worst part of it was finding a drug that worked and then losing access because of insurance. This happened shortly after she gave birth to a daughter in 2022 and then endured intense joint pain.

“If I could take a blood test that tells me not to waste months or years of my life — absolutely,” she said. “If I could have started my current drug last fall and saved many months of not being able to engage with my baby on the floor — absolutely.”
 

This article originally appeared on KFFHealthNews.org. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Erinn Maury, MD, knew Remicade wasn’t the right drug for Patti Schulte, a patient with rheumatoid arthritis the physician saw at her Millersville, Maryland, practice. Schulte’s swollen, painful joints hadn’t responded to Enbrel or Humira, two drugs in the same class.

But the insurer insisted, so Schulte went on Remicade. It didn’t work either.

What’s more, Schulte suffered a severe allergic reaction to the infusion therapy, requiring a heavy dose of prednisone, a steroid with grave side effects if used at high doses for too long.

After 18 months, her insurer finally approved Maury’s drug of choice, Orencia. By then, Schulte’s vertebrae, weakened by prednisone, had started cracking. She was only 60.

Schulte’s story of pain, drug-hopping, and insurance meddling is all too common among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, who often cycle agonizingly through half a dozen drugs in search of one that provides a measure of relief. It’s also a story of how doctors are steered by pharmacy benefit managers — the middlemen of the drug market — as well as by insurers.

Once people with inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis reach a certain stage, the first prescription offered is typically Humira, the best-selling drug in history, and part of a class known as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or TNFis, which fail to significantly help about half of the patients who take it.

“We practice rheumatology without any help,” said Vibeke Strand, a rheumatologist and adjunct clinical professor at Stanford. She bemoaned the lack of tools available to choose the right drug while bristling at corporate intervention in the decision. “We are told by the insurer what to prescribe to the patient. After they fail methotrexate, it’s a TNF inhibitor, almost always Humira. And that’s not OK.”

If there’s a shred of hope in this story, it’s that a blood test, PrismRA, may herald an era of improved care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune conditions. But first, it must be embraced by insurers.

PrismRA employs a predictive model that combines clinical factors, blood tests, and 19 gene patterns to identify the roughly 60% of patients who are very unlikely to respond to a TNFi drug.

Over the past 25 years, drug companies have introduced five new classes of autoimmune drugs. TNFis were the first to market, starting in the late 1990s.

Some 1.3 million Americans have rheumatoid arthritis, a disease in which a person’s immune system attacks their joints, causing crippling pain and, if improperly treated, disfigurement. The newer drugs, mostly so-called biologics, are also used by some of the 25 million or more Americans with other autoimmune diseases, such as lupus, Crohn’s disease, and psoriasis. Typically costing tens of thousands of dollars annually, the drugs are prescribed after a patient fails to respond to older, cheaper drugs like methotrexate.

Until recently, rheumatologists have had few ways to predict which of the new drugs would work best on which patients. Often, “it’s a coin flip whether I prescribe drug A or B,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, a rheumatology professor at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

Yet about 90% of the patients who are given one of these advanced drugs start on a TNFi, although there’s often no reason to think a TNFi will work better than another type.

Under these puzzling circumstances, it’s often the insurer rather than the doctor who chooses the patient’s drug. Insurers lean toward TNFis such as adalimumab, commonly sold as brand name Humira, in part because they get large rebates from manufacturers for using them. Although the size of such payments is a trade secret, AbbVie is said to be offering rebates to insurers of up to 60% of Humira’s price. That has enabled it to control 98.5% of the US adalimumab market, even though it has eight biosimilar competitors.

PrismRA’s developer, Scipher Medicine, has provided more than 26,000 test results, rarely covered by insurance. But on October 15, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid began reimbursing for the test, and its use is expected to rise. At least two other companies are developing drug-matching tests for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Although critics say PrismRA is not always useful, it is likely to be the first in a series of diagnostics anticipated over the next decade that could reduce the time that patients with autoimmune disease suffer on the wrong drug.

Academics, small biotechs, and large pharmaceutical companies are investing in methods to distinguish the biological pathways involved in these diseases and the best way to treat each one. This approach, called precision medicine, has existed for years in cancer medicine, in which it’s routine to test the genetics of patients’ tumors to determine the appropriate drug treatment.

“You wouldn’t give Herceptin to a breast cancer patient without knowing whether her tumor was HER2-positive,” said Costantino Pitzalis, MD, a rheumatology professor at the William Harvey Research Institute in London, England. He was speaking before a well-attended session at an American College of Rheumatology conference in San Diego in November. “Why do we not use biopsies or seek molecular markers in rheumatoid arthritis?”

It’s not only patients and doctors who have a stake in which drugs work best for a given person.

When Remicade failed and Schulte waited for the insurer to approve Orencia, she insisted on keeping her job as an accountant. But as her prednisone-related spinal problems worsened, Schulte was forced to retire, go on Medicaid, and seek disability, something she had always sworn to avoid.

Now taxpayers, rather than the insurer, are covering Schulte’s medical bills, Dr. Maury noted.

Precision medicine hasn’t seemed like a priority for large makers of autoimmune drugs, which presumably have some knowledge of which patients are most likely to benefit from their drugs, because they have tested and sold millions of doses over the years. By offering rebate incentives to insurers, companies like AbbVie, which makes Humira, can guarantee theirs are the drugs of choice with insurers.

“If you were AbbVie,” Dr. Curtis said, “why would you ever want to publish data showing who’s not going to do well on your drug, if, in the absence of the test, everyone will start with your drug first?”

What Testing Could Do

Medicare and commercial insurers haven’t yet set a price for PrismRA, but it could save insurers thousands of dollars a year for each patient it helps, according to Krishna Patel, PharmD, Scipher’s associate director of medical affairs.

“If the test cost $750, I still only need it once, and it costs less than a month of whatever drug is not going to work very well for you,” said Dr. Curtis, a coauthor of some studies of the test. “The economics of a biomarker that’s anything but worthless is pretty favorable because our biologics and targeted drugs are so expensive.”

Patients are enthusiastic about the test because so many have had to take TNFis that didn’t work. Many insurers require patients to try a second TNFi and sometimes a third.

Jen Weaver, a patient advocate and mother of three, got little benefit from hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, and Orencia, a non-TNFi biologic therapy, before finding some relief in another, Actemra. But she was taken off that drug when her white blood cells plunged, and the next three drugs she tried — all TNFis — caused allergic reactions, culminating with an outbreak of pus-filled sores. Another drug, Otezla, eventually seemed to help heal the sores, and she’s been stable on it since in combination with methotrexate, Ms. Weaver said.

“What is needed is to substantially shorten this trial-and-error period for patients,” said Shilpa Venkatachalam, PhD, herself a patient and the director of research operations at the Global Healthy Living Foundation. “There’s a lot of anxiety and frustration, weeks in pain wondering whether a drug is going to work for you and what to do if it doesn’t.” A survey by her group found that 91% of patients worried their medications would stop working. And there is evidence that the longer it takes to resolve arthritis symptoms, the less chance they will ever stop.

How insurers will respond to the availability of tests isn’t clear, partly because the arrival of new biosimilar drugs — essentially generic versions — is making TNFis cheaper for insurance plans. While Humira still dominates, AbbVie has increased rebates to insurers, in effect lowering its cost. Lower prices make the PrismRA test less appealing to insurers because widespread use of the test could cut TNFi prescriptions by up to a third.

However, rheumatologist John B. Boone, MD, in Louisville, Kentucky, found to his surprise that insurers mostly accepted alternative prescriptions for 41 patients whom the test showed unlikely to respond to TNFis as part of a clinical trial. Dr. Boone receives consulting fees from Scipher.

Although the test didn’t guarantee good outcomes, he said, the few patients given TNFis despite the test results almost all did poorly on that regimen.

Scientists from AbbVie, which makes several rheumatology drugs in addition to Humira, presented a study at the San Diego conference examining biomarkers that might show which patients would respond to Rinvoq, a new immune-suppressing drug in a class known as the JAK inhibitors. When asked about its use of precision medicine, AbbVie declined to comment.

Over two decades, Humira has been a blockbuster drug for AbbVie. The company sold more than $3.5 billion worth of Humira in the third quarter of 2023, 36% less than a year ago. Sales of Rinvoq, which AbbVie is marketing as a treatment for patients failed by Humira and its class, jumped 60% to $1.1 billion.

What Patients Want

Shannan O’Hara-Levi, a 38-year-old in Monroe, New York, has been on scores of drugs and supplements since being diagnosed with juvenile arthritis at age 3. She’s been nauseated, fatigued, and short of breath and has suffered allergic reactions, but she says the worst part of it was finding a drug that worked and then losing access because of insurance. This happened shortly after she gave birth to a daughter in 2022 and then endured intense joint pain.

“If I could take a blood test that tells me not to waste months or years of my life — absolutely,” she said. “If I could have started my current drug last fall and saved many months of not being able to engage with my baby on the floor — absolutely.”
 

This article originally appeared on KFFHealthNews.org. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

The smartphone and smartwatch have spun off multiple apps and platforms for remotely monitoring a host of disease states, including pulmonary diseases and sleep disorders, but, as with any emergent technology, pitfalls come along with the promise and potential.

Meanwhile, technology to remotely monitor respiratory diseases is advancing into other modalities. In recent months, researchers have reported on an artificial intelligence–aided home stethoscope to monitor asthma exacerbations and an ingestible electronic capsule, which has shown some facility for continuous, remote monitoring of sleep apnea and opioid induced respiratory depression.

American College of Chest Physicians

“Smartphones and wearable technology in health care are here to stay,” Mariam Louis, MD, pulmonologist and sleep medicine physician at the University of Florida Health and chair of the nonrespiratory sleep section of the Sleep Medicine Network with the American College of Chest Physicians, said in an interview.

“It is an exciting field, as it encourages patients to be actively involved in their medical care and can potentially offer more real-time feedback regarding the patient’s medical conditions,” she said. “There are currently many apps that are being used to monitor sleep and other diseases. However, the technology is still rudimentary, and much more research is needed to see if these apps are accurate and dependable.”

Studies in the past few months have reported on the accuracy of 18 wearable sleep-tracker devices, finding they overestimated sleep duration by 19 minutes on average (Sleep. 2023 Nov 8. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsad288). Researchers in the United States also recently reported on the first human trial of an ingestible pill for monitoring sleep apnea that sends data to a receiving device up to six feet away (Device. 2023 Nov 17. doi: 10.1016/j.device.2023.100125), and a group in Poland reported than an AI-aided home stethoscope provided reliable information on asthma exacerbations in 149 patients (Ann Fam Med. 2023;21:517-25).

Targeting Challenges With Polysomnography

All of these technologies aim to overcome challenges with traditional devices, such as polysomnography (PSG) for evaluating sleep. Jaques Reifman, PhD, a senior research scientist at the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command in Fort Detrick, Maryland, led the study of 18 wearable sleep trackers. “Both polysomnography and sleep tracking devices in a sense are attempting to reach the same goal: they’re trying to estimate certain sleep parameters,” Dr. Reifman said in an interview.

U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command

“But they use very different signals,” he added, noting that PSG uses electroencephalography (EEG) to measure electrical signals in the skull whereas most sleep trackers used an accelerometer to measure body movement. “As your wrist moves around, it determines if you are moving or not,” Dr. Reifman said.

“Each of them have their plusses and minuses,” he added. PSG, while it’s considered the gold standard for measuring sleep, isn’t a consumer product. “It generally requires a very sophisticated data acquisition system; they are laden with motion artifacts and you have to have software to remove them before you analyze the data,” Dr. Reifman said. “They generally require an expert to interpret the results, although lately there are a few AI-based algorithms that you can provide the EEG signals to and it does score those stages for you”

Sleep trackers, on the other hand, are consumer products. “They can be used outside the lab, and you can use them to record for long periods of time, which is not really possible with PSG,” Dr. Reifman said. “They are low cost, they are easy to use, small size, and folks have developed algorithms that can directly tell the consumer you slept seven hours last night.

“In that sense, they’re comfortable to use as opposed to using an almost-like shower cap with the EEG and face sensors as part of the PSG montage.”

However, what sleep trackers offer in convenience, they lack in accuracy. “There are things they just cannot do based on the limitations of the signals that they use,” Dr. Reifman said.

The study was actually a meta-analysis of 14 different studies that evaluated 18 different sleep-tracking devices in 364 patients. The meta-analysis found wide variability in accuracy between devices; for example, a 75-minute overestimation of sleep with one device and a one-minute overestimation with another.

And different studies reported variations with the same tracker or different models of a tracker. The Fitbit Charge 2, for example, was found to underestimate sleep by 12 minutes in one study and overestimate sleep by 9 minutes in another, while the Fitbit HR Charge was found to overestimate sleep by 52 minutes in a third study.

The meta-analysis found while sleep trackers have high sensitivity (>90%), they had a relatively low specificity (<50%), Dr. Reifman noted.

“Because they are mainly based on the acceleration of your wrist, if you are laying down in bed and motionless after a few minutes the device is going to think you’re asleep when in reality you’re just motionless, daydreaming or trying to go to sleep but not sleeping, so the specificity to sleep is not that high,” he said.

These types of devices still have obstacles to overcome before they’re more widely used, Dr. Louis said. “All of these technologies are proprietary,” she said. “As such, little is known about the algorithms used to come up with the diagnosis or other conclusions. In addition, the majority of the data cannot be analyzed independently by the providers, limiting some of the usage of these devices for now.”

 

Early Study of Ingestible Capsule

To overcome some of those challenges with collecting data from wearables, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and West Virginia University have worked with Celero Systems to develop a pill-sized capsule the patient swallows and which then collects vitals data from inside the gastrointestinal tract. The first in-human study evaluated the device, called the vitals-monitoring (VM) pill, in 10 patients. The study reported the data captured by the pill aligned with that gathered with standard sleep metrics and that it could detect sleep apnea episodes.

The study described the pill as a wireless device that uses a custom configuration of four off-the shelf integrated circuits — a microcontroller, accelerometer, memory component and radio signal — and electronic sensors for ballistic measurements from within the GI tract. The accelerometer measures movement of the abdomen during breathing.

Ingestible devices have actually been around for a couple of decades. The most common, the PillCam, is mostly used by gastroenterologists to capture images of the small intestine.

In the VM pill study, 3 of the 10 human volunteers had a diagnosis of either central or obstructive sleep apnea and wore a continuous positive airway pressure device during the study. The patients also had PSG. The study found that the heart rate accuracy of the VM pill was within 2.5 beats per minute of the PSG measure. The study found no significant difference in the ability of the VM pill to accurately measure respiratory rate with or without CPAP.

Since study completion, the device has been evaluated in another 10 patients, Ben Pless, CEO of Celero Systems, the company developing the VM pill and a coauthor of the study, said in an interview. All patients passed the capsule without any adverse events, he said.

Celero Systems

The capsule carries the advantages of an implantable device without the surgery, Mr. Pless said. “In addition to the product being inside body, it is very good at measuring core temperature and, of course, there are diurnal variations in core temperature,” he said. “Even though this was not in the paper, we found the combination of  monitoring respiration and core temperature is a very powerful way to do sleep staging in a completely unobtrusive and discrete way.”

The first study evaluated the overnight use of the VM pill, but future studies will evaluate longer duration of the device, first up to a week and then extending out to a month, with the goal of collecting data through the entire duration, Mr. Pless said.

“If you want to do ongoing monitoring for events that may have a low incidence, for example COPD exacerbations or some asthma which does not occur every day and you want to do long-term monitoring, an ingestible format where you ultimately take one capsule and you’re monitored for a month in a completely unobtrusive way would be a great way to do patient monitoring,” he said.

This platform could also collect multinight data for sleep studies, he added.

“While this is an exciting technology, there is much more to diagnosing sleep apnea than just heart rate and breathing,” Dr. Louis said. “During a sleep study, we look at oxygen levels, snoring, and many other variables.”

 
 

AI-Aided Stethoscope

The AI-aided stethoscope demonstrated an ability to collect reliable information on asthma exacerbations, the study in Poland found. “The parameters provided are effective for children, especially those younger than 5 years of age,” the study authors wrote.

The study enrolled patients of various ages with asthma, using the AI-aided stethoscope to monitor asthma-related physiologic parameters at home for six months. The stethoscope recorded auscultatory sounds from standard chest point and sent them to a dedicated mobile phone application in which an AI module automatically analyzed the recordings and displayed the results. The researchers trained the AI module using more than 10,000 recordings of respiratory sounds.

The study showed that a host of parameters — wheezes, rhonchi, coarse and fine crackles, heart rate, respiratory rate and inspiration-to-expiration duration ration — measured with the AI-aided stethoscope can detect asthma exacerbations without the need for obtaining peak expiratory flow measurements. It also showed a potential to make asthma diagnosis more straightforward in younger children.

“As we learn more and refine these technologies, we will be able to offer more patient centered and precise medicine to our patients, tailored specifically to their needs,” Dr. Louis said. “AI will certainly play a part in the future.”

Dr. Louis and Dr. Reifman have no relevant relationships to disclose. Mr. Pless is CEO of Celero Systems, a privately held company in Lincoln, Mass.

The smartphone and smartwatch have spun off multiple apps and platforms for remotely monitoring a host of disease states, including pulmonary diseases and sleep disorders, but, as with any emergent technology, pitfalls come along with the promise and potential.

Meanwhile, technology to remotely monitor respiratory diseases is advancing into other modalities. In recent months, researchers have reported on an artificial intelligence–aided home stethoscope to monitor asthma exacerbations and an ingestible electronic capsule, which has shown some facility for continuous, remote monitoring of sleep apnea and opioid induced respiratory depression.

American College of Chest Physicians

“Smartphones and wearable technology in health care are here to stay,” Mariam Louis, MD, pulmonologist and sleep medicine physician at the University of Florida Health and chair of the nonrespiratory sleep section of the Sleep Medicine Network with the American College of Chest Physicians, said in an interview.

“It is an exciting field, as it encourages patients to be actively involved in their medical care and can potentially offer more real-time feedback regarding the patient’s medical conditions,” she said. “There are currently many apps that are being used to monitor sleep and other diseases. However, the technology is still rudimentary, and much more research is needed to see if these apps are accurate and dependable.”

Studies in the past few months have reported on the accuracy of 18 wearable sleep-tracker devices, finding they overestimated sleep duration by 19 minutes on average (Sleep. 2023 Nov 8. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsad288). Researchers in the United States also recently reported on the first human trial of an ingestible pill for monitoring sleep apnea that sends data to a receiving device up to six feet away (Device. 2023 Nov 17. doi: 10.1016/j.device.2023.100125), and a group in Poland reported than an AI-aided home stethoscope provided reliable information on asthma exacerbations in 149 patients (Ann Fam Med. 2023;21:517-25).

Targeting Challenges With Polysomnography

All of these technologies aim to overcome challenges with traditional devices, such as polysomnography (PSG) for evaluating sleep. Jaques Reifman, PhD, a senior research scientist at the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command in Fort Detrick, Maryland, led the study of 18 wearable sleep trackers. “Both polysomnography and sleep tracking devices in a sense are attempting to reach the same goal: they’re trying to estimate certain sleep parameters,” Dr. Reifman said in an interview.

U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command

“But they use very different signals,” he added, noting that PSG uses electroencephalography (EEG) to measure electrical signals in the skull whereas most sleep trackers used an accelerometer to measure body movement. “As your wrist moves around, it determines if you are moving or not,” Dr. Reifman said.

“Each of them have their plusses and minuses,” he added. PSG, while it’s considered the gold standard for measuring sleep, isn’t a consumer product. “It generally requires a very sophisticated data acquisition system; they are laden with motion artifacts and you have to have software to remove them before you analyze the data,” Dr. Reifman said. “They generally require an expert to interpret the results, although lately there are a few AI-based algorithms that you can provide the EEG signals to and it does score those stages for you”

Sleep trackers, on the other hand, are consumer products. “They can be used outside the lab, and you can use them to record for long periods of time, which is not really possible with PSG,” Dr. Reifman said. “They are low cost, they are easy to use, small size, and folks have developed algorithms that can directly tell the consumer you slept seven hours last night.

“In that sense, they’re comfortable to use as opposed to using an almost-like shower cap with the EEG and face sensors as part of the PSG montage.”

However, what sleep trackers offer in convenience, they lack in accuracy. “There are things they just cannot do based on the limitations of the signals that they use,” Dr. Reifman said.

The study was actually a meta-analysis of 14 different studies that evaluated 18 different sleep-tracking devices in 364 patients. The meta-analysis found wide variability in accuracy between devices; for example, a 75-minute overestimation of sleep with one device and a one-minute overestimation with another.

And different studies reported variations with the same tracker or different models of a tracker. The Fitbit Charge 2, for example, was found to underestimate sleep by 12 minutes in one study and overestimate sleep by 9 minutes in another, while the Fitbit HR Charge was found to overestimate sleep by 52 minutes in a third study.

The meta-analysis found while sleep trackers have high sensitivity (>90%), they had a relatively low specificity (<50%), Dr. Reifman noted.

“Because they are mainly based on the acceleration of your wrist, if you are laying down in bed and motionless after a few minutes the device is going to think you’re asleep when in reality you’re just motionless, daydreaming or trying to go to sleep but not sleeping, so the specificity to sleep is not that high,” he said.

These types of devices still have obstacles to overcome before they’re more widely used, Dr. Louis said. “All of these technologies are proprietary,” she said. “As such, little is known about the algorithms used to come up with the diagnosis or other conclusions. In addition, the majority of the data cannot be analyzed independently by the providers, limiting some of the usage of these devices for now.”

 

Early Study of Ingestible Capsule

To overcome some of those challenges with collecting data from wearables, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and West Virginia University have worked with Celero Systems to develop a pill-sized capsule the patient swallows and which then collects vitals data from inside the gastrointestinal tract. The first in-human study evaluated the device, called the vitals-monitoring (VM) pill, in 10 patients. The study reported the data captured by the pill aligned with that gathered with standard sleep metrics and that it could detect sleep apnea episodes.

The study described the pill as a wireless device that uses a custom configuration of four off-the shelf integrated circuits — a microcontroller, accelerometer, memory component and radio signal — and electronic sensors for ballistic measurements from within the GI tract. The accelerometer measures movement of the abdomen during breathing.

Ingestible devices have actually been around for a couple of decades. The most common, the PillCam, is mostly used by gastroenterologists to capture images of the small intestine.

In the VM pill study, 3 of the 10 human volunteers had a diagnosis of either central or obstructive sleep apnea and wore a continuous positive airway pressure device during the study. The patients also had PSG. The study found that the heart rate accuracy of the VM pill was within 2.5 beats per minute of the PSG measure. The study found no significant difference in the ability of the VM pill to accurately measure respiratory rate with or without CPAP.

Since study completion, the device has been evaluated in another 10 patients, Ben Pless, CEO of Celero Systems, the company developing the VM pill and a coauthor of the study, said in an interview. All patients passed the capsule without any adverse events, he said.

Celero Systems

The capsule carries the advantages of an implantable device without the surgery, Mr. Pless said. “In addition to the product being inside body, it is very good at measuring core temperature and, of course, there are diurnal variations in core temperature,” he said. “Even though this was not in the paper, we found the combination of  monitoring respiration and core temperature is a very powerful way to do sleep staging in a completely unobtrusive and discrete way.”

The first study evaluated the overnight use of the VM pill, but future studies will evaluate longer duration of the device, first up to a week and then extending out to a month, with the goal of collecting data through the entire duration, Mr. Pless said.

“If you want to do ongoing monitoring for events that may have a low incidence, for example COPD exacerbations or some asthma which does not occur every day and you want to do long-term monitoring, an ingestible format where you ultimately take one capsule and you’re monitored for a month in a completely unobtrusive way would be a great way to do patient monitoring,” he said.

This platform could also collect multinight data for sleep studies, he added.

“While this is an exciting technology, there is much more to diagnosing sleep apnea than just heart rate and breathing,” Dr. Louis said. “During a sleep study, we look at oxygen levels, snoring, and many other variables.”

 
 

AI-Aided Stethoscope

The AI-aided stethoscope demonstrated an ability to collect reliable information on asthma exacerbations, the study in Poland found. “The parameters provided are effective for children, especially those younger than 5 years of age,” the study authors wrote.

The study enrolled patients of various ages with asthma, using the AI-aided stethoscope to monitor asthma-related physiologic parameters at home for six months. The stethoscope recorded auscultatory sounds from standard chest point and sent them to a dedicated mobile phone application in which an AI module automatically analyzed the recordings and displayed the results. The researchers trained the AI module using more than 10,000 recordings of respiratory sounds.

The study showed that a host of parameters — wheezes, rhonchi, coarse and fine crackles, heart rate, respiratory rate and inspiration-to-expiration duration ration — measured with the AI-aided stethoscope can detect asthma exacerbations without the need for obtaining peak expiratory flow measurements. It also showed a potential to make asthma diagnosis more straightforward in younger children.

“As we learn more and refine these technologies, we will be able to offer more patient centered and precise medicine to our patients, tailored specifically to their needs,” Dr. Louis said. “AI will certainly play a part in the future.”

Dr. Louis and Dr. Reifman have no relevant relationships to disclose. Mr. Pless is CEO of Celero Systems, a privately held company in Lincoln, Mass.

The smartphone and smartwatch have spun off multiple apps and platforms for remotely monitoring a host of disease states, including pulmonary diseases and sleep disorders, but, as with any emergent technology, pitfalls come along with the promise and potential.

Meanwhile, technology to remotely monitor respiratory diseases is advancing into other modalities. In recent months, researchers have reported on an artificial intelligence–aided home stethoscope to monitor asthma exacerbations and an ingestible electronic capsule, which has shown some facility for continuous, remote monitoring of sleep apnea and opioid induced respiratory depression.

American College of Chest Physicians

“Smartphones and wearable technology in health care are here to stay,” Mariam Louis, MD, pulmonologist and sleep medicine physician at the University of Florida Health and chair of the nonrespiratory sleep section of the Sleep Medicine Network with the American College of Chest Physicians, said in an interview.

“It is an exciting field, as it encourages patients to be actively involved in their medical care and can potentially offer more real-time feedback regarding the patient’s medical conditions,” she said. “There are currently many apps that are being used to monitor sleep and other diseases. However, the technology is still rudimentary, and much more research is needed to see if these apps are accurate and dependable.”

Studies in the past few months have reported on the accuracy of 18 wearable sleep-tracker devices, finding they overestimated sleep duration by 19 minutes on average (Sleep. 2023 Nov 8. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsad288). Researchers in the United States also recently reported on the first human trial of an ingestible pill for monitoring sleep apnea that sends data to a receiving device up to six feet away (Device. 2023 Nov 17. doi: 10.1016/j.device.2023.100125), and a group in Poland reported than an AI-aided home stethoscope provided reliable information on asthma exacerbations in 149 patients (Ann Fam Med. 2023;21:517-25).

Targeting Challenges With Polysomnography

All of these technologies aim to overcome challenges with traditional devices, such as polysomnography (PSG) for evaluating sleep. Jaques Reifman, PhD, a senior research scientist at the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command in Fort Detrick, Maryland, led the study of 18 wearable sleep trackers. “Both polysomnography and sleep tracking devices in a sense are attempting to reach the same goal: they’re trying to estimate certain sleep parameters,” Dr. Reifman said in an interview.

U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command

“But they use very different signals,” he added, noting that PSG uses electroencephalography (EEG) to measure electrical signals in the skull whereas most sleep trackers used an accelerometer to measure body movement. “As your wrist moves around, it determines if you are moving or not,” Dr. Reifman said.

“Each of them have their plusses and minuses,” he added. PSG, while it’s considered the gold standard for measuring sleep, isn’t a consumer product. “It generally requires a very sophisticated data acquisition system; they are laden with motion artifacts and you have to have software to remove them before you analyze the data,” Dr. Reifman said. “They generally require an expert to interpret the results, although lately there are a few AI-based algorithms that you can provide the EEG signals to and it does score those stages for you”

Sleep trackers, on the other hand, are consumer products. “They can be used outside the lab, and you can use them to record for long periods of time, which is not really possible with PSG,” Dr. Reifman said. “They are low cost, they are easy to use, small size, and folks have developed algorithms that can directly tell the consumer you slept seven hours last night.

“In that sense, they’re comfortable to use as opposed to using an almost-like shower cap with the EEG and face sensors as part of the PSG montage.”

However, what sleep trackers offer in convenience, they lack in accuracy. “There are things they just cannot do based on the limitations of the signals that they use,” Dr. Reifman said.

The study was actually a meta-analysis of 14 different studies that evaluated 18 different sleep-tracking devices in 364 patients. The meta-analysis found wide variability in accuracy between devices; for example, a 75-minute overestimation of sleep with one device and a one-minute overestimation with another.

And different studies reported variations with the same tracker or different models of a tracker. The Fitbit Charge 2, for example, was found to underestimate sleep by 12 minutes in one study and overestimate sleep by 9 minutes in another, while the Fitbit HR Charge was found to overestimate sleep by 52 minutes in a third study.

The meta-analysis found while sleep trackers have high sensitivity (>90%), they had a relatively low specificity (<50%), Dr. Reifman noted.

“Because they are mainly based on the acceleration of your wrist, if you are laying down in bed and motionless after a few minutes the device is going to think you’re asleep when in reality you’re just motionless, daydreaming or trying to go to sleep but not sleeping, so the specificity to sleep is not that high,” he said.

These types of devices still have obstacles to overcome before they’re more widely used, Dr. Louis said. “All of these technologies are proprietary,” she said. “As such, little is known about the algorithms used to come up with the diagnosis or other conclusions. In addition, the majority of the data cannot be analyzed independently by the providers, limiting some of the usage of these devices for now.”

 

Early Study of Ingestible Capsule

To overcome some of those challenges with collecting data from wearables, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and West Virginia University have worked with Celero Systems to develop a pill-sized capsule the patient swallows and which then collects vitals data from inside the gastrointestinal tract. The first in-human study evaluated the device, called the vitals-monitoring (VM) pill, in 10 patients. The study reported the data captured by the pill aligned with that gathered with standard sleep metrics and that it could detect sleep apnea episodes.

The study described the pill as a wireless device that uses a custom configuration of four off-the shelf integrated circuits — a microcontroller, accelerometer, memory component and radio signal — and electronic sensors for ballistic measurements from within the GI tract. The accelerometer measures movement of the abdomen during breathing.

Ingestible devices have actually been around for a couple of decades. The most common, the PillCam, is mostly used by gastroenterologists to capture images of the small intestine.

In the VM pill study, 3 of the 10 human volunteers had a diagnosis of either central or obstructive sleep apnea and wore a continuous positive airway pressure device during the study. The patients also had PSG. The study found that the heart rate accuracy of the VM pill was within 2.5 beats per minute of the PSG measure. The study found no significant difference in the ability of the VM pill to accurately measure respiratory rate with or without CPAP.

Since study completion, the device has been evaluated in another 10 patients, Ben Pless, CEO of Celero Systems, the company developing the VM pill and a coauthor of the study, said in an interview. All patients passed the capsule without any adverse events, he said.

Celero Systems

The capsule carries the advantages of an implantable device without the surgery, Mr. Pless said. “In addition to the product being inside body, it is very good at measuring core temperature and, of course, there are diurnal variations in core temperature,” he said. “Even though this was not in the paper, we found the combination of  monitoring respiration and core temperature is a very powerful way to do sleep staging in a completely unobtrusive and discrete way.”

The first study evaluated the overnight use of the VM pill, but future studies will evaluate longer duration of the device, first up to a week and then extending out to a month, with the goal of collecting data through the entire duration, Mr. Pless said.

“If you want to do ongoing monitoring for events that may have a low incidence, for example COPD exacerbations or some asthma which does not occur every day and you want to do long-term monitoring, an ingestible format where you ultimately take one capsule and you’re monitored for a month in a completely unobtrusive way would be a great way to do patient monitoring,” he said.

This platform could also collect multinight data for sleep studies, he added.

“While this is an exciting technology, there is much more to diagnosing sleep apnea than just heart rate and breathing,” Dr. Louis said. “During a sleep study, we look at oxygen levels, snoring, and many other variables.”

 
 

AI-Aided Stethoscope

The AI-aided stethoscope demonstrated an ability to collect reliable information on asthma exacerbations, the study in Poland found. “The parameters provided are effective for children, especially those younger than 5 years of age,” the study authors wrote.

The study enrolled patients of various ages with asthma, using the AI-aided stethoscope to monitor asthma-related physiologic parameters at home for six months. The stethoscope recorded auscultatory sounds from standard chest point and sent them to a dedicated mobile phone application in which an AI module automatically analyzed the recordings and displayed the results. The researchers trained the AI module using more than 10,000 recordings of respiratory sounds.

The study showed that a host of parameters — wheezes, rhonchi, coarse and fine crackles, heart rate, respiratory rate and inspiration-to-expiration duration ration — measured with the AI-aided stethoscope can detect asthma exacerbations without the need for obtaining peak expiratory flow measurements. It also showed a potential to make asthma diagnosis more straightforward in younger children.

“As we learn more and refine these technologies, we will be able to offer more patient centered and precise medicine to our patients, tailored specifically to their needs,” Dr. Louis said. “AI will certainly play a part in the future.”

Dr. Louis and Dr. Reifman have no relevant relationships to disclose. Mr. Pless is CEO of Celero Systems, a privately held company in Lincoln, Mass.

Human microbiome research has progressed in leaps and bounds over the past decades, from pivotal studies begun in the 1970s to the launch of the Human Microbiome Project in 2007. Breakthroughs have laid the groundwork for more recent clinical applications, such as fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), and advanced techniques to explore new therapeutic pathways. Yet the “microbiome revolution” is just getting started, according to professor Martin J. Blaser, MD, one of the field’s pioneers.

The ongoing research and clinical trials into the microbiome’s link to the major causes of death in the United States hold the promise of interventions that manipulate the microbiome to prevent, slow, or perhaps even cure these conditions, says Dr. Blaser, who holds the Henry Rutgers Chair of the Human Microbiome and is director of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr. Blaser is the author of Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues, serves as chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and is a member of the scientific advisory board of the biotech startup Micronoma.

In this interview, which has been condensed and edited for clarity, Dr. Blaser discusses where we’re at now and where he sees the microbiome field evolving in the coming years.

Highlighting the Most Promising Applications

Which recent studies on the link between the human microbiome and disease have you found particularly promising?

There have been a number of studies, including our own, focusing on the gut-kidney axis. The gut microbiome produces, or detoxifies, metabolites that are toxic to the kidney: for example, those involved in the formation of kidney stones and in the worsening of uremia. 

Altering the microbiome to reduce the uremic toxins and the nidus for stone formation is a very promising field of research. 

What other disease states may be amenable to microbiome-based interventions?

There are diseases that are caused by known genetic mutations. Yet, for nearly all of them, there is great variation in clinical outcomes, which might be classed as genes multiplied by environment interactions. 

It seems likely to me that microbiome variation could account for some proportion of those differences for some genetic diseases. 

It’s now well established that altering the microbiome with FMT is a successful intervention for recurrent  Clostridioides difficile  infections. What do you see as the next disease states where FMT could prove successful?

If you go to ClinicalTrials.gov, you will find that that there are 471 trials registered using FMT. This is across a broad range of illnesses, including metabolic, immunological, autoimmune, inflammatory, degenerative, and neoplastic diseases. 

Which will be the next condition showing marked efficacy is anyone’s guess. That is why we must do clinical trials to assess what works and what does not, regardless of specific illness. 

The donor’s microbiome appears to be vital to engraftment success, with “superdonors” even being identified. What factors do you think primarily influence microbiome engraftment?

There is an emerging science about this question, driven in part by classical ecological theory. 

Right now, we are using FMT as if one size fits all. But this probably would not provide optimal treatment for all. Just as we type blood donors and recipients before the blood transfusion, one could easily imagine a parallel kind of procedure. 

Are there any diseases where it’s just too far-fetched to think altering the microbiome could make a difference?

The link between the microbiome and human health is so pervasive that there are few conditions that are out of the realm of possibility. It really is a frontier. 

Not that the microbiome causes everything, but by understanding and manipulating the microbiome, we could at least palliate, or slow down, particular pathologic processes. 

For all the major causes of death in the United States — cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and neurogenerative diseases, diabetes, and lung, liver, and kidney diseases — there is ongoing investigation of the microbiome. A greater promise would be to prevent or cure these illnesses. 

Predicting the Next Stages of the ‘Microbiome Revolution’

Do you believe we are at a turning point with the microbiome in terms of being able to manipulate or engineer it?

The microbiome is a scientific frontier that has an impact across the biosphere. It is a broad frontier involving human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, and the environment. Knowledge is increasing incrementally, as expected. 

Are we at the point yet where doctors should be incorporating microbiome-related lifestyle changes for people with or at risk for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or other chronic conditions?

Although we are still in the early stages of the “microbiome revolution,” which I first wrote about in EMBO Reports  in 2006 and then again in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in 2014, I think important advances for all of these conditions are coming our way in the next 5-10 years. 

How are prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics being used to shape the microbiome?

This is a very important and active area in clinical investigation, which needs to be ramped up. 

Tens of millions of people are using probiotics and prebiotics every day for vague indications, and which have only infrequently been tested in robust clinical trials. So, there is a disconnect between what’s being claimed with the bulk of the probiotics at present and what we’ll actually know in the future. 

How do you think the microbiome will stack up to other factors influencing health, such as genetics, exercise, and nutrition?

All are important, but unlike genetics, the microbiome is tractable, like diet and exercise. 

It is essentially impossible to change one’s genome, but that might become more likely before too long. However, we can easily change someone’s microbiome through dietary means, for example. Once we know the ground rules, there will be many options. Right now, it is mostly one-offs, but as the scientific basis broadens, much more will be possible. 

In the future, do you think we’ll be able to look at a person’s microbiome and tell what his or her risk of developing disease is, similar to the way we use gene panels now?

Yes, but we will need scientific advances to teach us what are the important biomarkers in general and in particular people. This will be one area of precision medicine. 

Lessons From Decades at the Forefront

You’ve been involved in this research for over 30 years, and the majority has focused on the human microbiome and its role in disease. When did it become apparent to you that this research had unique therapeutic promise?

From the very start, there was always the potential to harness the microbiome to improve human health. In fact, I wrote a perspective in PNAS on that theme in 2010. 

The key is to understand the biology of the microbiome, and from the scientific study comes new preventives and new treatments. Right now, there are many “probiotic” products on the market. Probiotics have a great future, but most of what is out there has not been rigorously tested for effectiveness. 

Was there a particular series of studies that occurred before the launch of the Human Microbiome Project and brought us to the current era?

The studies in the 1970s-1980s by Carl Woese using 16S rRNA genes to understand phylogeny and evolution opened up the field of DNA sequencing to consider bacterial evolution and issues of ancestry. 

A key subject of your research and the focus of your book is antibiotic-resistant bacteria. What did this work teach you about describing the science of antibiotic resistance to the general public?

People don’t care very much about antibiotic resistance. They think that affects other people, mostly. In contrast, they care about their own health and their children’s health. 

The more that the data show that using antibiotics can be harmful to health in some circumstances, the more that use will diminish. We need more transparency about benefits and costs. 

Are there any common misconceptions about the microbiome that you hear from the general public, or even clinicians, that you would like to see greater efforts to dispel?

The public and the medical profession are in love with probiotics, buying them by the tens of millions. But as stated before, they are very diverse and mostly untested for efficacy. 

The next step is to test specific formulations to see which ones work, and for whom, and which ones don’t. That would be a big advance. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Human microbiome research has progressed in leaps and bounds over the past decades, from pivotal studies begun in the 1970s to the launch of the Human Microbiome Project in 2007. Breakthroughs have laid the groundwork for more recent clinical applications, such as fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), and advanced techniques to explore new therapeutic pathways. Yet the “microbiome revolution” is just getting started, according to professor Martin J. Blaser, MD, one of the field’s pioneers.

The ongoing research and clinical trials into the microbiome’s link to the major causes of death in the United States hold the promise of interventions that manipulate the microbiome to prevent, slow, or perhaps even cure these conditions, says Dr. Blaser, who holds the Henry Rutgers Chair of the Human Microbiome and is director of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr. Blaser is the author of Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues, serves as chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and is a member of the scientific advisory board of the biotech startup Micronoma.

In this interview, which has been condensed and edited for clarity, Dr. Blaser discusses where we’re at now and where he sees the microbiome field evolving in the coming years.

Highlighting the Most Promising Applications

Which recent studies on the link between the human microbiome and disease have you found particularly promising?

There have been a number of studies, including our own, focusing on the gut-kidney axis. The gut microbiome produces, or detoxifies, metabolites that are toxic to the kidney: for example, those involved in the formation of kidney stones and in the worsening of uremia. 

Altering the microbiome to reduce the uremic toxins and the nidus for stone formation is a very promising field of research. 

What other disease states may be amenable to microbiome-based interventions?

There are diseases that are caused by known genetic mutations. Yet, for nearly all of them, there is great variation in clinical outcomes, which might be classed as genes multiplied by environment interactions. 

It seems likely to me that microbiome variation could account for some proportion of those differences for some genetic diseases. 

It’s now well established that altering the microbiome with FMT is a successful intervention for recurrent  Clostridioides difficile  infections. What do you see as the next disease states where FMT could prove successful?

If you go to ClinicalTrials.gov, you will find that that there are 471 trials registered using FMT. This is across a broad range of illnesses, including metabolic, immunological, autoimmune, inflammatory, degenerative, and neoplastic diseases. 

Which will be the next condition showing marked efficacy is anyone’s guess. That is why we must do clinical trials to assess what works and what does not, regardless of specific illness. 

The donor’s microbiome appears to be vital to engraftment success, with “superdonors” even being identified. What factors do you think primarily influence microbiome engraftment?

There is an emerging science about this question, driven in part by classical ecological theory. 

Right now, we are using FMT as if one size fits all. But this probably would not provide optimal treatment for all. Just as we type blood donors and recipients before the blood transfusion, one could easily imagine a parallel kind of procedure. 

Are there any diseases where it’s just too far-fetched to think altering the microbiome could make a difference?

The link between the microbiome and human health is so pervasive that there are few conditions that are out of the realm of possibility. It really is a frontier. 

Not that the microbiome causes everything, but by understanding and manipulating the microbiome, we could at least palliate, or slow down, particular pathologic processes. 

For all the major causes of death in the United States — cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and neurogenerative diseases, diabetes, and lung, liver, and kidney diseases — there is ongoing investigation of the microbiome. A greater promise would be to prevent or cure these illnesses. 

Predicting the Next Stages of the ‘Microbiome Revolution’

Do you believe we are at a turning point with the microbiome in terms of being able to manipulate or engineer it?

The microbiome is a scientific frontier that has an impact across the biosphere. It is a broad frontier involving human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, and the environment. Knowledge is increasing incrementally, as expected. 

Are we at the point yet where doctors should be incorporating microbiome-related lifestyle changes for people with or at risk for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or other chronic conditions?

Although we are still in the early stages of the “microbiome revolution,” which I first wrote about in EMBO Reports  in 2006 and then again in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in 2014, I think important advances for all of these conditions are coming our way in the next 5-10 years. 

How are prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics being used to shape the microbiome?

This is a very important and active area in clinical investigation, which needs to be ramped up. 

Tens of millions of people are using probiotics and prebiotics every day for vague indications, and which have only infrequently been tested in robust clinical trials. So, there is a disconnect between what’s being claimed with the bulk of the probiotics at present and what we’ll actually know in the future. 

How do you think the microbiome will stack up to other factors influencing health, such as genetics, exercise, and nutrition?

All are important, but unlike genetics, the microbiome is tractable, like diet and exercise. 

It is essentially impossible to change one’s genome, but that might become more likely before too long. However, we can easily change someone’s microbiome through dietary means, for example. Once we know the ground rules, there will be many options. Right now, it is mostly one-offs, but as the scientific basis broadens, much more will be possible. 

In the future, do you think we’ll be able to look at a person’s microbiome and tell what his or her risk of developing disease is, similar to the way we use gene panels now?

Yes, but we will need scientific advances to teach us what are the important biomarkers in general and in particular people. This will be one area of precision medicine. 

Lessons From Decades at the Forefront

You’ve been involved in this research for over 30 years, and the majority has focused on the human microbiome and its role in disease. When did it become apparent to you that this research had unique therapeutic promise?

From the very start, there was always the potential to harness the microbiome to improve human health. In fact, I wrote a perspective in PNAS on that theme in 2010. 

The key is to understand the biology of the microbiome, and from the scientific study comes new preventives and new treatments. Right now, there are many “probiotic” products on the market. Probiotics have a great future, but most of what is out there has not been rigorously tested for effectiveness. 

Was there a particular series of studies that occurred before the launch of the Human Microbiome Project and brought us to the current era?

The studies in the 1970s-1980s by Carl Woese using 16S rRNA genes to understand phylogeny and evolution opened up the field of DNA sequencing to consider bacterial evolution and issues of ancestry. 

A key subject of your research and the focus of your book is antibiotic-resistant bacteria. What did this work teach you about describing the science of antibiotic resistance to the general public?

People don’t care very much about antibiotic resistance. They think that affects other people, mostly. In contrast, they care about their own health and their children’s health. 

The more that the data show that using antibiotics can be harmful to health in some circumstances, the more that use will diminish. We need more transparency about benefits and costs. 

Are there any common misconceptions about the microbiome that you hear from the general public, or even clinicians, that you would like to see greater efforts to dispel?

The public and the medical profession are in love with probiotics, buying them by the tens of millions. But as stated before, they are very diverse and mostly untested for efficacy. 

The next step is to test specific formulations to see which ones work, and for whom, and which ones don’t. That would be a big advance. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Human microbiome research has progressed in leaps and bounds over the past decades, from pivotal studies begun in the 1970s to the launch of the Human Microbiome Project in 2007. Breakthroughs have laid the groundwork for more recent clinical applications, such as fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), and advanced techniques to explore new therapeutic pathways. Yet the “microbiome revolution” is just getting started, according to professor Martin J. Blaser, MD, one of the field’s pioneers.

The ongoing research and clinical trials into the microbiome’s link to the major causes of death in the United States hold the promise of interventions that manipulate the microbiome to prevent, slow, or perhaps even cure these conditions, says Dr. Blaser, who holds the Henry Rutgers Chair of the Human Microbiome and is director of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr. Blaser is the author of Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues, serves as chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and is a member of the scientific advisory board of the biotech startup Micronoma.

In this interview, which has been condensed and edited for clarity, Dr. Blaser discusses where we’re at now and where he sees the microbiome field evolving in the coming years.

Highlighting the Most Promising Applications

Which recent studies on the link between the human microbiome and disease have you found particularly promising?

There have been a number of studies, including our own, focusing on the gut-kidney axis. The gut microbiome produces, or detoxifies, metabolites that are toxic to the kidney: for example, those involved in the formation of kidney stones and in the worsening of uremia. 

Altering the microbiome to reduce the uremic toxins and the nidus for stone formation is a very promising field of research. 

What other disease states may be amenable to microbiome-based interventions?

There are diseases that are caused by known genetic mutations. Yet, for nearly all of them, there is great variation in clinical outcomes, which might be classed as genes multiplied by environment interactions. 

It seems likely to me that microbiome variation could account for some proportion of those differences for some genetic diseases. 

It’s now well established that altering the microbiome with FMT is a successful intervention for recurrent  Clostridioides difficile  infections. What do you see as the next disease states where FMT could prove successful?

If you go to ClinicalTrials.gov, you will find that that there are 471 trials registered using FMT. This is across a broad range of illnesses, including metabolic, immunological, autoimmune, inflammatory, degenerative, and neoplastic diseases. 

Which will be the next condition showing marked efficacy is anyone’s guess. That is why we must do clinical trials to assess what works and what does not, regardless of specific illness. 

The donor’s microbiome appears to be vital to engraftment success, with “superdonors” even being identified. What factors do you think primarily influence microbiome engraftment?

There is an emerging science about this question, driven in part by classical ecological theory. 

Right now, we are using FMT as if one size fits all. But this probably would not provide optimal treatment for all. Just as we type blood donors and recipients before the blood transfusion, one could easily imagine a parallel kind of procedure. 

Are there any diseases where it’s just too far-fetched to think altering the microbiome could make a difference?

The link between the microbiome and human health is so pervasive that there are few conditions that are out of the realm of possibility. It really is a frontier. 

Not that the microbiome causes everything, but by understanding and manipulating the microbiome, we could at least palliate, or slow down, particular pathologic processes. 

For all the major causes of death in the United States — cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and neurogenerative diseases, diabetes, and lung, liver, and kidney diseases — there is ongoing investigation of the microbiome. A greater promise would be to prevent or cure these illnesses. 

Predicting the Next Stages of the ‘Microbiome Revolution’

Do you believe we are at a turning point with the microbiome in terms of being able to manipulate or engineer it?

The microbiome is a scientific frontier that has an impact across the biosphere. It is a broad frontier involving human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, and the environment. Knowledge is increasing incrementally, as expected. 

Are we at the point yet where doctors should be incorporating microbiome-related lifestyle changes for people with or at risk for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or other chronic conditions?

Although we are still in the early stages of the “microbiome revolution,” which I first wrote about in EMBO Reports  in 2006 and then again in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in 2014, I think important advances for all of these conditions are coming our way in the next 5-10 years. 

How are prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics being used to shape the microbiome?

This is a very important and active area in clinical investigation, which needs to be ramped up. 

Tens of millions of people are using probiotics and prebiotics every day for vague indications, and which have only infrequently been tested in robust clinical trials. So, there is a disconnect between what’s being claimed with the bulk of the probiotics at present and what we’ll actually know in the future. 

How do you think the microbiome will stack up to other factors influencing health, such as genetics, exercise, and nutrition?

All are important, but unlike genetics, the microbiome is tractable, like diet and exercise. 

It is essentially impossible to change one’s genome, but that might become more likely before too long. However, we can easily change someone’s microbiome through dietary means, for example. Once we know the ground rules, there will be many options. Right now, it is mostly one-offs, but as the scientific basis broadens, much more will be possible. 

In the future, do you think we’ll be able to look at a person’s microbiome and tell what his or her risk of developing disease is, similar to the way we use gene panels now?

Yes, but we will need scientific advances to teach us what are the important biomarkers in general and in particular people. This will be one area of precision medicine. 

Lessons From Decades at the Forefront

You’ve been involved in this research for over 30 years, and the majority has focused on the human microbiome and its role in disease. When did it become apparent to you that this research had unique therapeutic promise?

From the very start, there was always the potential to harness the microbiome to improve human health. In fact, I wrote a perspective in PNAS on that theme in 2010. 

The key is to understand the biology of the microbiome, and from the scientific study comes new preventives and new treatments. Right now, there are many “probiotic” products on the market. Probiotics have a great future, but most of what is out there has not been rigorously tested for effectiveness. 

Was there a particular series of studies that occurred before the launch of the Human Microbiome Project and brought us to the current era?

The studies in the 1970s-1980s by Carl Woese using 16S rRNA genes to understand phylogeny and evolution opened up the field of DNA sequencing to consider bacterial evolution and issues of ancestry. 

A key subject of your research and the focus of your book is antibiotic-resistant bacteria. What did this work teach you about describing the science of antibiotic resistance to the general public?

People don’t care very much about antibiotic resistance. They think that affects other people, mostly. In contrast, they care about their own health and their children’s health. 

The more that the data show that using antibiotics can be harmful to health in some circumstances, the more that use will diminish. We need more transparency about benefits and costs. 

Are there any common misconceptions about the microbiome that you hear from the general public, or even clinicians, that you would like to see greater efforts to dispel?

The public and the medical profession are in love with probiotics, buying them by the tens of millions. But as stated before, they are very diverse and mostly untested for efficacy. 

The next step is to test specific formulations to see which ones work, and for whom, and which ones don’t. That would be a big advance. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with psoriatic disease have significantly higher risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality than does the general population, yet research consistently paints what dermatologist Joel M. Gelfand, MD, calls an “abysmal” picture: Only a minority of patients with psoriatic disease know about their increased risks, only a minority of dermatologists and rheumatologists screen for cardiovascular risk factors like lipid levels and blood pressure, and only a minority of patients diagnosed with hyperlipidemia are adequately treated with statin therapy.

In the literature and at medical meetings, Dr. Gelfand and others who have studied cardiovascular disease (CVD) comorbidity and physician practices have been urging dermatologists and rheumatologists to play a more consistent and active role in primary cardiovascular prevention for patients with psoriatic disease, who are up to 50% more likely than patients without it to develop CVD and who tend to have atherosclerosis at earlier ages.

According to the 2019 joint American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)–National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) guidelines for managing psoriasis “with awareness and attention to comorbidities,” this means not only ensuring that all patients with psoriasis receive standard CV risk assessment (screening for hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia), but also recognizing that patients who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy — or who have psoriasis involving > 10% of body surface area — may benefit from earlier and more frequent screening.

CV risk and premature mortality rises with the severity of skin disease, and patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are believed to have risk levels similar to patients with moderate-severe psoriasis, cardiologist Michael S. Garshick, MD, director of the cardio-rheumatology program at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

NYU Langone

Dr. Barbieri

In many cases, dermatologists and rheumatologists may be the primary providers for patients with psoriatic disease. So, “the question is, how can the dermatologist or rheumatologist use their interactions as a touchpoint to improve the patient’s well-being?” Dr. Barbieri said in an interview.

For the dermatologist, educating patients about the higher CVD risk fits well into conversations about “how there may be inflammation inside the body as well as in the skin,” he said. “Talk about cardiovascular risk just as you talk about PsA risk.” Both specialists, he added, can incorporate blood pressure readings and look for opportunities to measure lipid levels and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). These labs can easily be integrated into a biologic work-up.

“The hard part — and this needs to be individualized — is how do you want to handle [abnormal readings]? Do you want to take on a lot of the ownership and calculate [10-year CVD] risk scores and then counsel patients accordingly?” Dr. Barbieri said. “Or do you want to try to refer, and encourage them to work with their PCP? There a high-touch version and a low-touch version of how you can turn screening into action, into a care plan.”


 

Beyond traditional risk elevation, the primary care hand-off

Rheumatologists “in general may be more apt to screen for cardiovascular disease” as a result of their internal medicine residency training, and “we’re generally more comfortable prescribing ... if we need to,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and director of the Penn Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic.

Penn Medicine

Referral to a preventive cardiologist for management of abnormal lab results or ongoing monitoring and prevention is ideal, but when hand-offs to primary care physicians are made — the more common scenario — education is important. “A common problem is that there is underrecognition of the cardiovascular risk being elevated in our patients,” she said, above and beyond risk posed by traditional risk factors such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, and obesity, all of which have been shown to occur more frequently in patients with psoriatic disease than in the general population.

Morsa Images/DigitalVision/Getty Images

‘Patients trust us’

Dr. Gelfand has been at the forefront of research on psoriasis and heart disease. A study he coauthored in 2006, for instance, documented an independent risk of MI, with adjusted relative risks of 1.29 and 3.10 for a 30-year-old patient with mild or severe disease, respectively, and higher risks for a 60-year-old. In 2010, he and coinvestigators found that severe psoriasis was an independent risk factor for CV mortality (HR, 1.57) after adjusting for age, sex, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

Today, along with Dr. Barbieri, Dr. Ogdie, and others, he is studying the feasibility and efficacy of a proposed national, “centralized care coordinator” model of care whereby dermatologists and rheumatologists would educate the patient, order lipid and HbA1c measurements as medically appropriate, and then refer patients as needed to a care coordinator. The care coordinator would calculate a 10-year CVD risk score and counsel the patient on possible next steps.

In a pilot study of 85 patients at four sites, 92% of patients followed through on their physician’s recommendations to have labs drawn, and 86% indicated the model was acceptable and feasible. A total of 27% of patients had “newly identified, previously undiagnosed, elevated cardiovascular disease risk,” and exploratory effectiveness results indicated a successful reduction in predicted CVD risk in patients who started statins, Dr. Gelfand reported at the NPF meeting.

With funding from the NPF, a larger, single-arm, pragmatic “CP3” trial (NCT05908240) is enrolling 525 patients with psoriasis at 10-20 academic and nonacademic dermatology sites across the United States to further test the model. The primary endpoint will be the change in LDL cholesterol measured at 6 months among people with a 10-year risk ≥5%. Secondary endpoints will cover improvement in disease severity and quality of life, behavior modification, patient experience, and other issues.

“We have only 10-15 minutes [with patients] ... a care coordinator who is empathetic and understanding and [informed] could make a big difference,” Dr. Gelfand said at the NPF meeting. If findings are positive, the model would be tested in rheumatology sites as well. The hope, he said, is that the NPF would be able to fund an in-house care coordinator(s) for the long-term.

Notably, a patient survey conducted as part of exploratory research leading up to the care coordinator project showed that patients trust their dermatologist or rheumatologist for CVD education and screening. Among 160 patients with psoriasis and 162 patients with PsA, 76% and 90% agreed that “I would like it if my dermatologist/rheumatologist educated me about my risk of heart disease,” and 60% and 75%, respectively, agree that “it would be convenient for me to have my cholesterol checked by my dermatologist/rheumatologist.”

“Patients trust us,” Dr. Gelfand said at the NPF meeting. “And the pilot study shows us that patients are motivated.”
 

Taking an individualized, holistic, longitudinal approach

“Sometimes you do have to triage bit,” Dr. Gelfand said in an interview. “For a young person with normal body weight who doesn’t smoke and has mild psoriasis, one could just educate and advise that they see their primary care physician” for monitoring.

“But for the same patient who is obese, maybe smokes, and doesn’t have a primary care physician, I’d order labs,” he said. “You don’t want a patient walking out the door with an [undiagnosed] LDL of 160 or hypertension.”

Age is also an important consideration, as excess CVD risk associated with autoimmune diseases like psoriasis rises with age, Dr. Gelfand said during a seminar on psoriasis and PsA held at NYU Langone in December. For a young person, typically, “I need to focus on education and lifestyle … setting them on a healthy lifestyle trajectory,” he said. “Once they get to 40, from 40 to 75 or so, that’s a sweet spot for medical intervention to lower cardiovascular risk.”

Even at older ages, however, lipid management is not the be-all and end-all, he said in the interview. “We have to be holistic.”

One advantage of having highly successful therapies for psoriasis, and to a lesser extent PsA, is the time that becomes available during follow-up visits — once disease is under control — to “focus on other things,” he said. Waiting until disease is under control to discuss diet, exercise, or smoking, for instance, makes sense anyway, he said. “You don’t want to overwhelm patients with too much to do at once.”

Indeed, said dermatologist Robert E. Kalb, MD, of the Buffalo Medical Group in Buffalo, NY, “patients have an open mind [about discussing cardiovascular disease risk], but it is not high on their radar. Most of them just want to get their skin clear.” (Dr. Kalb participated in the care coordinator pilot study, and said in an interview that since its completion, he has been more routinely ordering relevant labs.)

Rheumatologists are less fortunate with highly successful therapies, but “over the continuum of care, we do have time in office visits” to discuss issues like smoking, exercise, and lifestyle, Dr. Ogdie said. “I think of each of those pieces as part of our job.”

In the future, as researchers learn more about the impact of psoriasis and PsA treatments on CVD risk, it may be possible to tailor treatments or to prescribe treatments knowing that the therapies could reduce risk. Observational and epidemiologic data suggest that tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor therapy over 3 years reduces the risk of MI, and that patients whose psoriasis is treated have reduced aortic inflammation, improved myocardial strain, and reduced coronary plaque burden, Dr. Garshick said at the NPF meeting.

“But when we look at the randomized controlled trials, they’re actually inconclusive that targeting inflammation in psoriatic disease reduces surrogates of cardiovascular disease,” he said. Dr. Garshick’s own research focuses on platelet and endothelial biology in psoriasis.

Dr. Barbieri reported he had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Garshick reported consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kiniksa, Horizon Therapeutics, and Agepha. Dr. Ogdie reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB. Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies.

Patients with psoriatic disease have significantly higher risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality than does the general population, yet research consistently paints what dermatologist Joel M. Gelfand, MD, calls an “abysmal” picture: Only a minority of patients with psoriatic disease know about their increased risks, only a minority of dermatologists and rheumatologists screen for cardiovascular risk factors like lipid levels and blood pressure, and only a minority of patients diagnosed with hyperlipidemia are adequately treated with statin therapy.

In the literature and at medical meetings, Dr. Gelfand and others who have studied cardiovascular disease (CVD) comorbidity and physician practices have been urging dermatologists and rheumatologists to play a more consistent and active role in primary cardiovascular prevention for patients with psoriatic disease, who are up to 50% more likely than patients without it to develop CVD and who tend to have atherosclerosis at earlier ages.

According to the 2019 joint American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)–National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) guidelines for managing psoriasis “with awareness and attention to comorbidities,” this means not only ensuring that all patients with psoriasis receive standard CV risk assessment (screening for hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia), but also recognizing that patients who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy — or who have psoriasis involving > 10% of body surface area — may benefit from earlier and more frequent screening.

CV risk and premature mortality rises with the severity of skin disease, and patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are believed to have risk levels similar to patients with moderate-severe psoriasis, cardiologist Michael S. Garshick, MD, director of the cardio-rheumatology program at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

NYU Langone

Dr. Barbieri

In many cases, dermatologists and rheumatologists may be the primary providers for patients with psoriatic disease. So, “the question is, how can the dermatologist or rheumatologist use their interactions as a touchpoint to improve the patient’s well-being?” Dr. Barbieri said in an interview.

For the dermatologist, educating patients about the higher CVD risk fits well into conversations about “how there may be inflammation inside the body as well as in the skin,” he said. “Talk about cardiovascular risk just as you talk about PsA risk.” Both specialists, he added, can incorporate blood pressure readings and look for opportunities to measure lipid levels and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). These labs can easily be integrated into a biologic work-up.

“The hard part — and this needs to be individualized — is how do you want to handle [abnormal readings]? Do you want to take on a lot of the ownership and calculate [10-year CVD] risk scores and then counsel patients accordingly?” Dr. Barbieri said. “Or do you want to try to refer, and encourage them to work with their PCP? There a high-touch version and a low-touch version of how you can turn screening into action, into a care plan.”


 

Beyond traditional risk elevation, the primary care hand-off

Rheumatologists “in general may be more apt to screen for cardiovascular disease” as a result of their internal medicine residency training, and “we’re generally more comfortable prescribing ... if we need to,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and director of the Penn Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic.

Penn Medicine

Referral to a preventive cardiologist for management of abnormal lab results or ongoing monitoring and prevention is ideal, but when hand-offs to primary care physicians are made — the more common scenario — education is important. “A common problem is that there is underrecognition of the cardiovascular risk being elevated in our patients,” she said, above and beyond risk posed by traditional risk factors such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, and obesity, all of which have been shown to occur more frequently in patients with psoriatic disease than in the general population.

Morsa Images/DigitalVision/Getty Images

‘Patients trust us’

Dr. Gelfand has been at the forefront of research on psoriasis and heart disease. A study he coauthored in 2006, for instance, documented an independent risk of MI, with adjusted relative risks of 1.29 and 3.10 for a 30-year-old patient with mild or severe disease, respectively, and higher risks for a 60-year-old. In 2010, he and coinvestigators found that severe psoriasis was an independent risk factor for CV mortality (HR, 1.57) after adjusting for age, sex, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

Today, along with Dr. Barbieri, Dr. Ogdie, and others, he is studying the feasibility and efficacy of a proposed national, “centralized care coordinator” model of care whereby dermatologists and rheumatologists would educate the patient, order lipid and HbA1c measurements as medically appropriate, and then refer patients as needed to a care coordinator. The care coordinator would calculate a 10-year CVD risk score and counsel the patient on possible next steps.

In a pilot study of 85 patients at four sites, 92% of patients followed through on their physician’s recommendations to have labs drawn, and 86% indicated the model was acceptable and feasible. A total of 27% of patients had “newly identified, previously undiagnosed, elevated cardiovascular disease risk,” and exploratory effectiveness results indicated a successful reduction in predicted CVD risk in patients who started statins, Dr. Gelfand reported at the NPF meeting.

With funding from the NPF, a larger, single-arm, pragmatic “CP3” trial (NCT05908240) is enrolling 525 patients with psoriasis at 10-20 academic and nonacademic dermatology sites across the United States to further test the model. The primary endpoint will be the change in LDL cholesterol measured at 6 months among people with a 10-year risk ≥5%. Secondary endpoints will cover improvement in disease severity and quality of life, behavior modification, patient experience, and other issues.

“We have only 10-15 minutes [with patients] ... a care coordinator who is empathetic and understanding and [informed] could make a big difference,” Dr. Gelfand said at the NPF meeting. If findings are positive, the model would be tested in rheumatology sites as well. The hope, he said, is that the NPF would be able to fund an in-house care coordinator(s) for the long-term.

Notably, a patient survey conducted as part of exploratory research leading up to the care coordinator project showed that patients trust their dermatologist or rheumatologist for CVD education and screening. Among 160 patients with psoriasis and 162 patients with PsA, 76% and 90% agreed that “I would like it if my dermatologist/rheumatologist educated me about my risk of heart disease,” and 60% and 75%, respectively, agree that “it would be convenient for me to have my cholesterol checked by my dermatologist/rheumatologist.”

“Patients trust us,” Dr. Gelfand said at the NPF meeting. “And the pilot study shows us that patients are motivated.”
 

Taking an individualized, holistic, longitudinal approach

“Sometimes you do have to triage bit,” Dr. Gelfand said in an interview. “For a young person with normal body weight who doesn’t smoke and has mild psoriasis, one could just educate and advise that they see their primary care physician” for monitoring.

“But for the same patient who is obese, maybe smokes, and doesn’t have a primary care physician, I’d order labs,” he said. “You don’t want a patient walking out the door with an [undiagnosed] LDL of 160 or hypertension.”

Age is also an important consideration, as excess CVD risk associated with autoimmune diseases like psoriasis rises with age, Dr. Gelfand said during a seminar on psoriasis and PsA held at NYU Langone in December. For a young person, typically, “I need to focus on education and lifestyle … setting them on a healthy lifestyle trajectory,” he said. “Once they get to 40, from 40 to 75 or so, that’s a sweet spot for medical intervention to lower cardiovascular risk.”

Even at older ages, however, lipid management is not the be-all and end-all, he said in the interview. “We have to be holistic.”

One advantage of having highly successful therapies for psoriasis, and to a lesser extent PsA, is the time that becomes available during follow-up visits — once disease is under control — to “focus on other things,” he said. Waiting until disease is under control to discuss diet, exercise, or smoking, for instance, makes sense anyway, he said. “You don’t want to overwhelm patients with too much to do at once.”

Indeed, said dermatologist Robert E. Kalb, MD, of the Buffalo Medical Group in Buffalo, NY, “patients have an open mind [about discussing cardiovascular disease risk], but it is not high on their radar. Most of them just want to get their skin clear.” (Dr. Kalb participated in the care coordinator pilot study, and said in an interview that since its completion, he has been more routinely ordering relevant labs.)

Rheumatologists are less fortunate with highly successful therapies, but “over the continuum of care, we do have time in office visits” to discuss issues like smoking, exercise, and lifestyle, Dr. Ogdie said. “I think of each of those pieces as part of our job.”

In the future, as researchers learn more about the impact of psoriasis and PsA treatments on CVD risk, it may be possible to tailor treatments or to prescribe treatments knowing that the therapies could reduce risk. Observational and epidemiologic data suggest that tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor therapy over 3 years reduces the risk of MI, and that patients whose psoriasis is treated have reduced aortic inflammation, improved myocardial strain, and reduced coronary plaque burden, Dr. Garshick said at the NPF meeting.

“But when we look at the randomized controlled trials, they’re actually inconclusive that targeting inflammation in psoriatic disease reduces surrogates of cardiovascular disease,” he said. Dr. Garshick’s own research focuses on platelet and endothelial biology in psoriasis.

Dr. Barbieri reported he had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Garshick reported consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kiniksa, Horizon Therapeutics, and Agepha. Dr. Ogdie reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB. Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies.

Patients with psoriatic disease have significantly higher risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality than does the general population, yet research consistently paints what dermatologist Joel M. Gelfand, MD, calls an “abysmal” picture: Only a minority of patients with psoriatic disease know about their increased risks, only a minority of dermatologists and rheumatologists screen for cardiovascular risk factors like lipid levels and blood pressure, and only a minority of patients diagnosed with hyperlipidemia are adequately treated with statin therapy.

In the literature and at medical meetings, Dr. Gelfand and others who have studied cardiovascular disease (CVD) comorbidity and physician practices have been urging dermatologists and rheumatologists to play a more consistent and active role in primary cardiovascular prevention for patients with psoriatic disease, who are up to 50% more likely than patients without it to develop CVD and who tend to have atherosclerosis at earlier ages.

According to the 2019 joint American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)–National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) guidelines for managing psoriasis “with awareness and attention to comorbidities,” this means not only ensuring that all patients with psoriasis receive standard CV risk assessment (screening for hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia), but also recognizing that patients who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy — or who have psoriasis involving > 10% of body surface area — may benefit from earlier and more frequent screening.

CV risk and premature mortality rises with the severity of skin disease, and patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are believed to have risk levels similar to patients with moderate-severe psoriasis, cardiologist Michael S. Garshick, MD, director of the cardio-rheumatology program at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

NYU Langone

Dr. Barbieri

In many cases, dermatologists and rheumatologists may be the primary providers for patients with psoriatic disease. So, “the question is, how can the dermatologist or rheumatologist use their interactions as a touchpoint to improve the patient’s well-being?” Dr. Barbieri said in an interview.

For the dermatologist, educating patients about the higher CVD risk fits well into conversations about “how there may be inflammation inside the body as well as in the skin,” he said. “Talk about cardiovascular risk just as you talk about PsA risk.” Both specialists, he added, can incorporate blood pressure readings and look for opportunities to measure lipid levels and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). These labs can easily be integrated into a biologic work-up.

“The hard part — and this needs to be individualized — is how do you want to handle [abnormal readings]? Do you want to take on a lot of the ownership and calculate [10-year CVD] risk scores and then counsel patients accordingly?” Dr. Barbieri said. “Or do you want to try to refer, and encourage them to work with their PCP? There a high-touch version and a low-touch version of how you can turn screening into action, into a care plan.”


 

Beyond traditional risk elevation, the primary care hand-off

Rheumatologists “in general may be more apt to screen for cardiovascular disease” as a result of their internal medicine residency training, and “we’re generally more comfortable prescribing ... if we need to,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and director of the Penn Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic.

Penn Medicine

Referral to a preventive cardiologist for management of abnormal lab results or ongoing monitoring and prevention is ideal, but when hand-offs to primary care physicians are made — the more common scenario — education is important. “A common problem is that there is underrecognition of the cardiovascular risk being elevated in our patients,” she said, above and beyond risk posed by traditional risk factors such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, and obesity, all of which have been shown to occur more frequently in patients with psoriatic disease than in the general population.

Morsa Images/DigitalVision/Getty Images

‘Patients trust us’

Dr. Gelfand has been at the forefront of research on psoriasis and heart disease. A study he coauthored in 2006, for instance, documented an independent risk of MI, with adjusted relative risks of 1.29 and 3.10 for a 30-year-old patient with mild or severe disease, respectively, and higher risks for a 60-year-old. In 2010, he and coinvestigators found that severe psoriasis was an independent risk factor for CV mortality (HR, 1.57) after adjusting for age, sex, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

Today, along with Dr. Barbieri, Dr. Ogdie, and others, he is studying the feasibility and efficacy of a proposed national, “centralized care coordinator” model of care whereby dermatologists and rheumatologists would educate the patient, order lipid and HbA1c measurements as medically appropriate, and then refer patients as needed to a care coordinator. The care coordinator would calculate a 10-year CVD risk score and counsel the patient on possible next steps.

In a pilot study of 85 patients at four sites, 92% of patients followed through on their physician’s recommendations to have labs drawn, and 86% indicated the model was acceptable and feasible. A total of 27% of patients had “newly identified, previously undiagnosed, elevated cardiovascular disease risk,” and exploratory effectiveness results indicated a successful reduction in predicted CVD risk in patients who started statins, Dr. Gelfand reported at the NPF meeting.

With funding from the NPF, a larger, single-arm, pragmatic “CP3” trial (NCT05908240) is enrolling 525 patients with psoriasis at 10-20 academic and nonacademic dermatology sites across the United States to further test the model. The primary endpoint will be the change in LDL cholesterol measured at 6 months among people with a 10-year risk ≥5%. Secondary endpoints will cover improvement in disease severity and quality of life, behavior modification, patient experience, and other issues.

“We have only 10-15 minutes [with patients] ... a care coordinator who is empathetic and understanding and [informed] could make a big difference,” Dr. Gelfand said at the NPF meeting. If findings are positive, the model would be tested in rheumatology sites as well. The hope, he said, is that the NPF would be able to fund an in-house care coordinator(s) for the long-term.

Notably, a patient survey conducted as part of exploratory research leading up to the care coordinator project showed that patients trust their dermatologist or rheumatologist for CVD education and screening. Among 160 patients with psoriasis and 162 patients with PsA, 76% and 90% agreed that “I would like it if my dermatologist/rheumatologist educated me about my risk of heart disease,” and 60% and 75%, respectively, agree that “it would be convenient for me to have my cholesterol checked by my dermatologist/rheumatologist.”

“Patients trust us,” Dr. Gelfand said at the NPF meeting. “And the pilot study shows us that patients are motivated.”
 

Taking an individualized, holistic, longitudinal approach

“Sometimes you do have to triage bit,” Dr. Gelfand said in an interview. “For a young person with normal body weight who doesn’t smoke and has mild psoriasis, one could just educate and advise that they see their primary care physician” for monitoring.

“But for the same patient who is obese, maybe smokes, and doesn’t have a primary care physician, I’d order labs,” he said. “You don’t want a patient walking out the door with an [undiagnosed] LDL of 160 or hypertension.”

Age is also an important consideration, as excess CVD risk associated with autoimmune diseases like psoriasis rises with age, Dr. Gelfand said during a seminar on psoriasis and PsA held at NYU Langone in December. For a young person, typically, “I need to focus on education and lifestyle … setting them on a healthy lifestyle trajectory,” he said. “Once they get to 40, from 40 to 75 or so, that’s a sweet spot for medical intervention to lower cardiovascular risk.”

Even at older ages, however, lipid management is not the be-all and end-all, he said in the interview. “We have to be holistic.”

One advantage of having highly successful therapies for psoriasis, and to a lesser extent PsA, is the time that becomes available during follow-up visits — once disease is under control — to “focus on other things,” he said. Waiting until disease is under control to discuss diet, exercise, or smoking, for instance, makes sense anyway, he said. “You don’t want to overwhelm patients with too much to do at once.”

Indeed, said dermatologist Robert E. Kalb, MD, of the Buffalo Medical Group in Buffalo, NY, “patients have an open mind [about discussing cardiovascular disease risk], but it is not high on their radar. Most of them just want to get their skin clear.” (Dr. Kalb participated in the care coordinator pilot study, and said in an interview that since its completion, he has been more routinely ordering relevant labs.)

Rheumatologists are less fortunate with highly successful therapies, but “over the continuum of care, we do have time in office visits” to discuss issues like smoking, exercise, and lifestyle, Dr. Ogdie said. “I think of each of those pieces as part of our job.”

In the future, as researchers learn more about the impact of psoriasis and PsA treatments on CVD risk, it may be possible to tailor treatments or to prescribe treatments knowing that the therapies could reduce risk. Observational and epidemiologic data suggest that tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor therapy over 3 years reduces the risk of MI, and that patients whose psoriasis is treated have reduced aortic inflammation, improved myocardial strain, and reduced coronary plaque burden, Dr. Garshick said at the NPF meeting.

“But when we look at the randomized controlled trials, they’re actually inconclusive that targeting inflammation in psoriatic disease reduces surrogates of cardiovascular disease,” he said. Dr. Garshick’s own research focuses on platelet and endothelial biology in psoriasis.

Dr. Barbieri reported he had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Garshick reported consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kiniksa, Horizon Therapeutics, and Agepha. Dr. Ogdie reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB. Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies.

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For much of his life, 32-year-old Michael Smith had a war going on in his head.

After a big meal, he knew he should be full. But an inexplicable hunger would drive him to pick up the fork again. 

Cravings for fried chicken or gummy bears overwhelmed him, fueling late-night DoorDash orders that — despite their bounty of fat and sugar — never satisfied him.

He recalls waking up on the couch, half-eaten takeout in his lap, feeling sluggish and out of control. 

“It was like I was food drunk,” recalls Smith, who lives in Boston. “I had a moment I looked at myself in the mirror. I was around 380 pounds, and I said, ‘OK, something has got to give.’ “ 

Smith is among the 42% of U.S. adults living with obesity, a misunderstood and stubbornly hard-to-manage condition that doctors have only recently begun to call a disease. Its root causes have been debated for decades, with studies suggesting everything from genes to lifestyle to a shifting food supply loaded with carbohydrates and ultra-processed foods. Solutions have long targeted self-discipline and a simple “eat less, move more” strategy with remarkably grim results. 

Those who successfully slim down tend to gain back 50% of that weight within 2 years, and 80% within 5 years. Meanwhile, the obesity epidemic marches on.

But a new frontier of brain-based therapies — from GLP-1 agonist drugs thought to act on reward and appetite centers to deep brain stimulation aimed at resetting neural circuits — has kindled hope among patients like Smith and the doctors who treat them. The treatments, and theories behind them, are not without controversy. They’re expensive, have side effects, and, critics contend, pull focus from diet and exercise. 

But most agree that in the battle against obesity, one crucial organ has been overlooked.

“Obesity, in almost all circumstances, is most likely a disorder of the brain,” said Casey Halpern, MD, associate professor of neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania. “What these individuals need is not simply more willpower, but the therapeutic equivalent of an electrician that can make right these connections inside their brain.”

A Break in the Machine

Throughout the day, the machine that is our brain is constantly humming in the background, taking in subtle signals from our gut, hormones, and environment to determine when we’re hungry, how food makes us feel, and whether we are taking in enough energy, or expending too much, to survive.

“We like to think that we have control over what we eat, but the brain is also integrating all of these factors that we don’t fully understand in ways that shape our decisions,” said Kevin Hall, PhD, an obesity researcher with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. “I liken it to holding your breath. I can do that for a period of time, and I have some conscious control. But eventually, physiology wins out.”

Mounting evidence suggests that in people with obesity, something in the machine is broken.

One seminal 2001 study in The Lancet suggested that, like people addicted to cocaine or alcohol, they lack receptors to the feel-good brain chemical dopamine and overeat in pursuit of the pleasure they lack. 

A recent study, not yet published, from Dr. Hall’s lab drew a slightly different conclusion, suggesting that people with obesity actually have too much dopamine, filling up those receptors so the pleasure spike from eating doesn’t feel like much.

“It’s kind of like trying to shout in a noisy room. You’re going to have to shout louder to have the same effect,” said Dr. Hall.

Gut-brain pathways that tell us we’re full may also be impaired.

In another study, Yale researchers tube-fed 500 calories of sugar or fat directly into the stomachs of 28 lean people and 30 people with obesity. Then they observed brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

In lean people, about 30 regions of the brain quieted after the meal, including parts of the striatum (associated with cravings).

In those with obesity, the brain barely responded at all. 

“In my clinic, patients will often say ‘I just finished my dinner, but it doesn’t feel like it,’” said senior author Mireille Serlie, MD, PhD, an obesity researcher at the Yale School of Medicine. “It may be that this nutrient-sensing interaction between the gut and the brain is less pronounced or comes too late for them after the meal.”

Dr. Halpern recently identified a brain circuit linking a memory center (hippocampus) to an appetite control region (hypothalamus). In people with obesity and binge eating disorder, the circuit appears jammed. This may cause them to, in a sense, forget they just ate.

“Some of their eating episodes are almost dissociative — they’re not realizing how much they are eating and can’t keep track of it,” he said.

Another brain system works to maintain longer-term homeostasis — or weight stability. Like a set thermostat, it kicks on to trigger hunger and fatigue when it senses we’re low on fat.

The hormone leptin, found in fat cells, sends signals to the hypothalamus to let it know how much energy we have on board.

“If leptin levels go up, it signals the brain that you have too much fat and you should eat less to return to the starting point,” said Rockefeller University geneticist Jeffrey Friedman, MD, PhD, who discovered the hormone in 1994. “If you have too little fat and leptin is low, that will stimulate appetite to return you to the starting point.”

In people with obesity, he said, the thermostat — or set point the body seeks to maintain — is too high.

All this raises a crucial question: How do these circuits and pathways malfunction in the first place?

What Breaks the Brain?

Genes, scientists agree, play a role. 

Studies show that genetics underlie as much as 75% of people’s differences in body mass index (BMI), with certain gene combinations raising obesity risk in particular environments. 

While hundreds of genes are believed to have a small effect, about a dozen single genes are thought to have a large effect. (Notably, most influence brain function.) For instance, about 6% of people with severe obesity since childhood have mutations in a gene called MC4R (melanocortin 4 receptor), which influences leptin signaling.

Still, genetics alone cannot account for the explosion in obesity in the U.S. over the last 50 years, says epidemiologist Deirdre Tobias, ScD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

At the population level, “our genes don’t change that much in less than a generation,” she said.

But our food supply has.

Ultra-processed foods — those containing hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrup, flavoring agents, emulsifiers, and other manufactured ingredients — now make up about 60% of the food supply.

“The evidence is fairly consistent indicating that there’s something about these foods that is possibly causing obesity,” said Tobias. 

In one telling 2019 study, Dr. Hall and his colleagues brought 20 men and women into a study center to live for a month and tightly controlled their food intake and activity. One group was provided with meals with 80% of calories from ultra-processed food. The other was given meals with no processed food. 

The three daily meals provided had the same calories, sugars, fats, fiber, and carbohydrates, and people were told to eat as much as they wanted.

Those on the ultra-processed diet ate about 500 calories more per day, ate faster, and gained weight. Those on the unprocessed diet lost weight.

“This is a stark example of how, when you can change the food environment, you cause really remarkable changes in food intake without people even being aware that they are overeating,” said Dr. Hall. 

Just what it is about these relatively novel foods that may trigger overeating is unclear. It could be the crunch, the lack of water content, the engineered balance of sugar/salt/fat, their easy-to-devour texture, or something else. 

Some research suggests that the foods may interfere with gut-brain signaling that tells the brain you’re full. 

“Evidence is amassing that the nutritional content of processed foods is not accurately conveyed to the brain,” Dana M. Small, PhD, a neuroscientist at Yale, wrote in a recent perspective paper in Science. 

Even more concerning: Some animal studies suggest processed foods reprogram the brain to dislike healthy foods.

And once these brain changes are made, they are hard to reverse.

“The problem is, our brain is not wired for this,” said Dr. Halpern. “We are not evolved to eat the food we are eating, so our brain adapts, but it adapts in a negative way that puts us at risk.”

That’s why changing the food environment via public policy must be part of the solution in combating obesity, Dr. Tobias said.

A New Era of Brain-Based Solutions

In the spring of 2021, after years of trying and failing to lose weight via the “move more, eat less” model, Michael Smith began to take a medication called Vyvanse. The drug was approved in 2008 for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but since it also influences levels of the hormones dopamine and norepinephrine to reduce cravings, it is now frequently prescribed for binge eating disorder.

“That was pretty much how I got rid of my first 60 to 70 pounds,” Smith said.

A few months later, after he hit a plateau, he had surgery to shrink the size of his stomach — a decision he now second-guesses. 

While it kept him from overeating for a time, the fried chicken and gummy bear cravings returned a few months later.

His doctor, Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, put him on a second medication: semaglutide, or Wegovy, the weekly shot approved for weight loss in 2021. It works, in part, by mimicking glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), a key gut hormone that lets your brain know you are full. 

The weight began to fall off again.

Smith’s success story is just one of many that Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine doctor-scientist at Harvard, has heard in her office in recent years.

“I do not believe these drugs are a panacea,” she said. “There are nonresponders, and those are the patients I take off the medication. But for the high-responders, and there are many of them, they are telling me, ‘Oh my gosh. For the first time in my life, I am not constantly thinking about eating. My life has changed.’” 

A Multi-Pronged Approach

Dr. Halpern, at Penn, has also been hearing success stories.

In recent years, he has placed permanent electrodes in the brains of three people with grade III, or severe, obesity and binge eating disorder. 

All had tried exercise, dieting, support groups, medication, and weight loss surgery to no avail.

The electrodes modulate an area in the center of the brain called the nucleus accumbens, which in mice studies has been shown to reduce cravings when stimulated.

Thus far, all three are seeing promising results.

“It’s not like I don’t think about food at all,” one of them, Robyn Baldwin, told The New York Times. “But I’m no longer a craving person.”

Dr. Halpern is now extending the trial to more patients and hopes to ultimately include other areas of the brain, including those that involve memory.

He imagines a day when people with severe obesity, who have failed conventional treatments, can walk into a clinic and have their brain circuits assessed to see which ones may be misfiring.

Many might find relief with noninvasive brain stimulation, like transcranial magnetic stimulation (already in use for depression). Others might need a more extreme approach, like the deep brain stimulation, or DBS, therapy Dr. Halpern used.

“Obviously, DBS is hard to scale, so it would have to be reserved for the most severe patients,” he said.

Still, not everyone believes brain-based drugs and surgeries are the answer. 

David Ludwig, MD, PhD, a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, played a key role in the discovery of GLP-1 and acknowledges that “of course” the brain influences body composition. But to him, explaining obesity as a disease of the brain oversimplifies it, discounting metabolic factors such as a tendency to store too much fat.

He noted that it’s hard to get drug companies, or any agencies, to fund large clinical trials on simple things like low-carbohydrate diets or exercise programs.

“We need all the tools we can get in the battle against the obesity epidemic, and new technologies are worth exploring,” he said. “However, the success of these drugs should not lead us to deprioritize diet and lifestyle interventions.” 

Dr. Stanford, who has received consulting fees from Wegovy, believes the future of treatment lies in a multi-pronged approach, with surgery, medication, and lifestyle changes coalescing in a lasting, but fragile, remission.

“Unfortunately, there is no cure for obesity,” said Dr. Stanford, whose patients often have setbacks and must try new strategies. “There are treatments that work for a while, but they are constantly pushing up against this origin in the brain.”

Smith says understanding this has been a big part of his success.

He is now a leaner and healthier 5-foot-6 and 204 pounds. In addition to taking his medication, he walks to work, goes to the gym twice a week, limits his portions, and tries to reframe the way he thinks about food, viewing it as fuel rather than an indulgence.

Sometimes, when he looks in the mirror, he is reminded of his 380-pound self, and it scares him. He doesn’t want to go back there. He’s confident now that he won’t have to.

“There is this misconception out there that you just need to put the fork down, but I’m learning it’s more complicated than that,” he said. “I intend to treat this as the illness that it is and do what I need to combat it so I’m able to keep this new reality I have built for myself.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

For much of his life, 32-year-old Michael Smith had a war going on in his head.

After a big meal, he knew he should be full. But an inexplicable hunger would drive him to pick up the fork again. 

Cravings for fried chicken or gummy bears overwhelmed him, fueling late-night DoorDash orders that — despite their bounty of fat and sugar — never satisfied him.

He recalls waking up on the couch, half-eaten takeout in his lap, feeling sluggish and out of control. 

“It was like I was food drunk,” recalls Smith, who lives in Boston. “I had a moment I looked at myself in the mirror. I was around 380 pounds, and I said, ‘OK, something has got to give.’ “ 

Smith is among the 42% of U.S. adults living with obesity, a misunderstood and stubbornly hard-to-manage condition that doctors have only recently begun to call a disease. Its root causes have been debated for decades, with studies suggesting everything from genes to lifestyle to a shifting food supply loaded with carbohydrates and ultra-processed foods. Solutions have long targeted self-discipline and a simple “eat less, move more” strategy with remarkably grim results. 

Those who successfully slim down tend to gain back 50% of that weight within 2 years, and 80% within 5 years. Meanwhile, the obesity epidemic marches on.

But a new frontier of brain-based therapies — from GLP-1 agonist drugs thought to act on reward and appetite centers to deep brain stimulation aimed at resetting neural circuits — has kindled hope among patients like Smith and the doctors who treat them. The treatments, and theories behind them, are not without controversy. They’re expensive, have side effects, and, critics contend, pull focus from diet and exercise. 

But most agree that in the battle against obesity, one crucial organ has been overlooked.

“Obesity, in almost all circumstances, is most likely a disorder of the brain,” said Casey Halpern, MD, associate professor of neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania. “What these individuals need is not simply more willpower, but the therapeutic equivalent of an electrician that can make right these connections inside their brain.”

A Break in the Machine

Throughout the day, the machine that is our brain is constantly humming in the background, taking in subtle signals from our gut, hormones, and environment to determine when we’re hungry, how food makes us feel, and whether we are taking in enough energy, or expending too much, to survive.

“We like to think that we have control over what we eat, but the brain is also integrating all of these factors that we don’t fully understand in ways that shape our decisions,” said Kevin Hall, PhD, an obesity researcher with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. “I liken it to holding your breath. I can do that for a period of time, and I have some conscious control. But eventually, physiology wins out.”

Mounting evidence suggests that in people with obesity, something in the machine is broken.

One seminal 2001 study in The Lancet suggested that, like people addicted to cocaine or alcohol, they lack receptors to the feel-good brain chemical dopamine and overeat in pursuit of the pleasure they lack. 

A recent study, not yet published, from Dr. Hall’s lab drew a slightly different conclusion, suggesting that people with obesity actually have too much dopamine, filling up those receptors so the pleasure spike from eating doesn’t feel like much.

“It’s kind of like trying to shout in a noisy room. You’re going to have to shout louder to have the same effect,” said Dr. Hall.

Gut-brain pathways that tell us we’re full may also be impaired.

In another study, Yale researchers tube-fed 500 calories of sugar or fat directly into the stomachs of 28 lean people and 30 people with obesity. Then they observed brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

In lean people, about 30 regions of the brain quieted after the meal, including parts of the striatum (associated with cravings).

In those with obesity, the brain barely responded at all. 

“In my clinic, patients will often say ‘I just finished my dinner, but it doesn’t feel like it,’” said senior author Mireille Serlie, MD, PhD, an obesity researcher at the Yale School of Medicine. “It may be that this nutrient-sensing interaction between the gut and the brain is less pronounced or comes too late for them after the meal.”

Dr. Halpern recently identified a brain circuit linking a memory center (hippocampus) to an appetite control region (hypothalamus). In people with obesity and binge eating disorder, the circuit appears jammed. This may cause them to, in a sense, forget they just ate.

“Some of their eating episodes are almost dissociative — they’re not realizing how much they are eating and can’t keep track of it,” he said.

Another brain system works to maintain longer-term homeostasis — or weight stability. Like a set thermostat, it kicks on to trigger hunger and fatigue when it senses we’re low on fat.

The hormone leptin, found in fat cells, sends signals to the hypothalamus to let it know how much energy we have on board.

“If leptin levels go up, it signals the brain that you have too much fat and you should eat less to return to the starting point,” said Rockefeller University geneticist Jeffrey Friedman, MD, PhD, who discovered the hormone in 1994. “If you have too little fat and leptin is low, that will stimulate appetite to return you to the starting point.”

In people with obesity, he said, the thermostat — or set point the body seeks to maintain — is too high.

All this raises a crucial question: How do these circuits and pathways malfunction in the first place?

What Breaks the Brain?

Genes, scientists agree, play a role. 

Studies show that genetics underlie as much as 75% of people’s differences in body mass index (BMI), with certain gene combinations raising obesity risk in particular environments. 

While hundreds of genes are believed to have a small effect, about a dozen single genes are thought to have a large effect. (Notably, most influence brain function.) For instance, about 6% of people with severe obesity since childhood have mutations in a gene called MC4R (melanocortin 4 receptor), which influences leptin signaling.

Still, genetics alone cannot account for the explosion in obesity in the U.S. over the last 50 years, says epidemiologist Deirdre Tobias, ScD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

At the population level, “our genes don’t change that much in less than a generation,” she said.

But our food supply has.

Ultra-processed foods — those containing hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrup, flavoring agents, emulsifiers, and other manufactured ingredients — now make up about 60% of the food supply.

“The evidence is fairly consistent indicating that there’s something about these foods that is possibly causing obesity,” said Tobias. 

In one telling 2019 study, Dr. Hall and his colleagues brought 20 men and women into a study center to live for a month and tightly controlled their food intake and activity. One group was provided with meals with 80% of calories from ultra-processed food. The other was given meals with no processed food. 

The three daily meals provided had the same calories, sugars, fats, fiber, and carbohydrates, and people were told to eat as much as they wanted.

Those on the ultra-processed diet ate about 500 calories more per day, ate faster, and gained weight. Those on the unprocessed diet lost weight.

“This is a stark example of how, when you can change the food environment, you cause really remarkable changes in food intake without people even being aware that they are overeating,” said Dr. Hall. 

Just what it is about these relatively novel foods that may trigger overeating is unclear. It could be the crunch, the lack of water content, the engineered balance of sugar/salt/fat, their easy-to-devour texture, or something else. 

Some research suggests that the foods may interfere with gut-brain signaling that tells the brain you’re full. 

“Evidence is amassing that the nutritional content of processed foods is not accurately conveyed to the brain,” Dana M. Small, PhD, a neuroscientist at Yale, wrote in a recent perspective paper in Science. 

Even more concerning: Some animal studies suggest processed foods reprogram the brain to dislike healthy foods.

And once these brain changes are made, they are hard to reverse.

“The problem is, our brain is not wired for this,” said Dr. Halpern. “We are not evolved to eat the food we are eating, so our brain adapts, but it adapts in a negative way that puts us at risk.”

That’s why changing the food environment via public policy must be part of the solution in combating obesity, Dr. Tobias said.

A New Era of Brain-Based Solutions

In the spring of 2021, after years of trying and failing to lose weight via the “move more, eat less” model, Michael Smith began to take a medication called Vyvanse. The drug was approved in 2008 for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but since it also influences levels of the hormones dopamine and norepinephrine to reduce cravings, it is now frequently prescribed for binge eating disorder.

“That was pretty much how I got rid of my first 60 to 70 pounds,” Smith said.

A few months later, after he hit a plateau, he had surgery to shrink the size of his stomach — a decision he now second-guesses. 

While it kept him from overeating for a time, the fried chicken and gummy bear cravings returned a few months later.

His doctor, Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, put him on a second medication: semaglutide, or Wegovy, the weekly shot approved for weight loss in 2021. It works, in part, by mimicking glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), a key gut hormone that lets your brain know you are full. 

The weight began to fall off again.

Smith’s success story is just one of many that Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine doctor-scientist at Harvard, has heard in her office in recent years.

“I do not believe these drugs are a panacea,” she said. “There are nonresponders, and those are the patients I take off the medication. But for the high-responders, and there are many of them, they are telling me, ‘Oh my gosh. For the first time in my life, I am not constantly thinking about eating. My life has changed.’” 

A Multi-Pronged Approach

Dr. Halpern, at Penn, has also been hearing success stories.

In recent years, he has placed permanent electrodes in the brains of three people with grade III, or severe, obesity and binge eating disorder. 

All had tried exercise, dieting, support groups, medication, and weight loss surgery to no avail.

The electrodes modulate an area in the center of the brain called the nucleus accumbens, which in mice studies has been shown to reduce cravings when stimulated.

Thus far, all three are seeing promising results.

“It’s not like I don’t think about food at all,” one of them, Robyn Baldwin, told The New York Times. “But I’m no longer a craving person.”

Dr. Halpern is now extending the trial to more patients and hopes to ultimately include other areas of the brain, including those that involve memory.

He imagines a day when people with severe obesity, who have failed conventional treatments, can walk into a clinic and have their brain circuits assessed to see which ones may be misfiring.

Many might find relief with noninvasive brain stimulation, like transcranial magnetic stimulation (already in use for depression). Others might need a more extreme approach, like the deep brain stimulation, or DBS, therapy Dr. Halpern used.

“Obviously, DBS is hard to scale, so it would have to be reserved for the most severe patients,” he said.

Still, not everyone believes brain-based drugs and surgeries are the answer. 

David Ludwig, MD, PhD, a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, played a key role in the discovery of GLP-1 and acknowledges that “of course” the brain influences body composition. But to him, explaining obesity as a disease of the brain oversimplifies it, discounting metabolic factors such as a tendency to store too much fat.

He noted that it’s hard to get drug companies, or any agencies, to fund large clinical trials on simple things like low-carbohydrate diets or exercise programs.

“We need all the tools we can get in the battle against the obesity epidemic, and new technologies are worth exploring,” he said. “However, the success of these drugs should not lead us to deprioritize diet and lifestyle interventions.” 

Dr. Stanford, who has received consulting fees from Wegovy, believes the future of treatment lies in a multi-pronged approach, with surgery, medication, and lifestyle changes coalescing in a lasting, but fragile, remission.

“Unfortunately, there is no cure for obesity,” said Dr. Stanford, whose patients often have setbacks and must try new strategies. “There are treatments that work for a while, but they are constantly pushing up against this origin in the brain.”

Smith says understanding this has been a big part of his success.

He is now a leaner and healthier 5-foot-6 and 204 pounds. In addition to taking his medication, he walks to work, goes to the gym twice a week, limits his portions, and tries to reframe the way he thinks about food, viewing it as fuel rather than an indulgence.

Sometimes, when he looks in the mirror, he is reminded of his 380-pound self, and it scares him. He doesn’t want to go back there. He’s confident now that he won’t have to.

“There is this misconception out there that you just need to put the fork down, but I’m learning it’s more complicated than that,” he said. “I intend to treat this as the illness that it is and do what I need to combat it so I’m able to keep this new reality I have built for myself.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

For much of his life, 32-year-old Michael Smith had a war going on in his head.

After a big meal, he knew he should be full. But an inexplicable hunger would drive him to pick up the fork again. 

Cravings for fried chicken or gummy bears overwhelmed him, fueling late-night DoorDash orders that — despite their bounty of fat and sugar — never satisfied him.

He recalls waking up on the couch, half-eaten takeout in his lap, feeling sluggish and out of control. 

“It was like I was food drunk,” recalls Smith, who lives in Boston. “I had a moment I looked at myself in the mirror. I was around 380 pounds, and I said, ‘OK, something has got to give.’ “ 

Smith is among the 42% of U.S. adults living with obesity, a misunderstood and stubbornly hard-to-manage condition that doctors have only recently begun to call a disease. Its root causes have been debated for decades, with studies suggesting everything from genes to lifestyle to a shifting food supply loaded with carbohydrates and ultra-processed foods. Solutions have long targeted self-discipline and a simple “eat less, move more” strategy with remarkably grim results. 

Those who successfully slim down tend to gain back 50% of that weight within 2 years, and 80% within 5 years. Meanwhile, the obesity epidemic marches on.

But a new frontier of brain-based therapies — from GLP-1 agonist drugs thought to act on reward and appetite centers to deep brain stimulation aimed at resetting neural circuits — has kindled hope among patients like Smith and the doctors who treat them. The treatments, and theories behind them, are not without controversy. They’re expensive, have side effects, and, critics contend, pull focus from diet and exercise. 

But most agree that in the battle against obesity, one crucial organ has been overlooked.

“Obesity, in almost all circumstances, is most likely a disorder of the brain,” said Casey Halpern, MD, associate professor of neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania. “What these individuals need is not simply more willpower, but the therapeutic equivalent of an electrician that can make right these connections inside their brain.”

A Break in the Machine

Throughout the day, the machine that is our brain is constantly humming in the background, taking in subtle signals from our gut, hormones, and environment to determine when we’re hungry, how food makes us feel, and whether we are taking in enough energy, or expending too much, to survive.

“We like to think that we have control over what we eat, but the brain is also integrating all of these factors that we don’t fully understand in ways that shape our decisions,” said Kevin Hall, PhD, an obesity researcher with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. “I liken it to holding your breath. I can do that for a period of time, and I have some conscious control. But eventually, physiology wins out.”

Mounting evidence suggests that in people with obesity, something in the machine is broken.

One seminal 2001 study in The Lancet suggested that, like people addicted to cocaine or alcohol, they lack receptors to the feel-good brain chemical dopamine and overeat in pursuit of the pleasure they lack. 

A recent study, not yet published, from Dr. Hall’s lab drew a slightly different conclusion, suggesting that people with obesity actually have too much dopamine, filling up those receptors so the pleasure spike from eating doesn’t feel like much.

“It’s kind of like trying to shout in a noisy room. You’re going to have to shout louder to have the same effect,” said Dr. Hall.

Gut-brain pathways that tell us we’re full may also be impaired.

In another study, Yale researchers tube-fed 500 calories of sugar or fat directly into the stomachs of 28 lean people and 30 people with obesity. Then they observed brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

In lean people, about 30 regions of the brain quieted after the meal, including parts of the striatum (associated with cravings).

In those with obesity, the brain barely responded at all. 

“In my clinic, patients will often say ‘I just finished my dinner, but it doesn’t feel like it,’” said senior author Mireille Serlie, MD, PhD, an obesity researcher at the Yale School of Medicine. “It may be that this nutrient-sensing interaction between the gut and the brain is less pronounced or comes too late for them after the meal.”

Dr. Halpern recently identified a brain circuit linking a memory center (hippocampus) to an appetite control region (hypothalamus). In people with obesity and binge eating disorder, the circuit appears jammed. This may cause them to, in a sense, forget they just ate.

“Some of their eating episodes are almost dissociative — they’re not realizing how much they are eating and can’t keep track of it,” he said.

Another brain system works to maintain longer-term homeostasis — or weight stability. Like a set thermostat, it kicks on to trigger hunger and fatigue when it senses we’re low on fat.

The hormone leptin, found in fat cells, sends signals to the hypothalamus to let it know how much energy we have on board.

“If leptin levels go up, it signals the brain that you have too much fat and you should eat less to return to the starting point,” said Rockefeller University geneticist Jeffrey Friedman, MD, PhD, who discovered the hormone in 1994. “If you have too little fat and leptin is low, that will stimulate appetite to return you to the starting point.”

In people with obesity, he said, the thermostat — or set point the body seeks to maintain — is too high.

All this raises a crucial question: How do these circuits and pathways malfunction in the first place?

What Breaks the Brain?

Genes, scientists agree, play a role. 

Studies show that genetics underlie as much as 75% of people’s differences in body mass index (BMI), with certain gene combinations raising obesity risk in particular environments. 

While hundreds of genes are believed to have a small effect, about a dozen single genes are thought to have a large effect. (Notably, most influence brain function.) For instance, about 6% of people with severe obesity since childhood have mutations in a gene called MC4R (melanocortin 4 receptor), which influences leptin signaling.

Still, genetics alone cannot account for the explosion in obesity in the U.S. over the last 50 years, says epidemiologist Deirdre Tobias, ScD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

At the population level, “our genes don’t change that much in less than a generation,” she said.

But our food supply has.

Ultra-processed foods — those containing hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrup, flavoring agents, emulsifiers, and other manufactured ingredients — now make up about 60% of the food supply.

“The evidence is fairly consistent indicating that there’s something about these foods that is possibly causing obesity,” said Tobias. 

In one telling 2019 study, Dr. Hall and his colleagues brought 20 men and women into a study center to live for a month and tightly controlled their food intake and activity. One group was provided with meals with 80% of calories from ultra-processed food. The other was given meals with no processed food. 

The three daily meals provided had the same calories, sugars, fats, fiber, and carbohydrates, and people were told to eat as much as they wanted.

Those on the ultra-processed diet ate about 500 calories more per day, ate faster, and gained weight. Those on the unprocessed diet lost weight.

“This is a stark example of how, when you can change the food environment, you cause really remarkable changes in food intake without people even being aware that they are overeating,” said Dr. Hall. 

Just what it is about these relatively novel foods that may trigger overeating is unclear. It could be the crunch, the lack of water content, the engineered balance of sugar/salt/fat, their easy-to-devour texture, or something else. 

Some research suggests that the foods may interfere with gut-brain signaling that tells the brain you’re full. 

“Evidence is amassing that the nutritional content of processed foods is not accurately conveyed to the brain,” Dana M. Small, PhD, a neuroscientist at Yale, wrote in a recent perspective paper in Science. 

Even more concerning: Some animal studies suggest processed foods reprogram the brain to dislike healthy foods.

And once these brain changes are made, they are hard to reverse.

“The problem is, our brain is not wired for this,” said Dr. Halpern. “We are not evolved to eat the food we are eating, so our brain adapts, but it adapts in a negative way that puts us at risk.”

That’s why changing the food environment via public policy must be part of the solution in combating obesity, Dr. Tobias said.

A New Era of Brain-Based Solutions

In the spring of 2021, after years of trying and failing to lose weight via the “move more, eat less” model, Michael Smith began to take a medication called Vyvanse. The drug was approved in 2008 for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but since it also influences levels of the hormones dopamine and norepinephrine to reduce cravings, it is now frequently prescribed for binge eating disorder.

“That was pretty much how I got rid of my first 60 to 70 pounds,” Smith said.

A few months later, after he hit a plateau, he had surgery to shrink the size of his stomach — a decision he now second-guesses. 

While it kept him from overeating for a time, the fried chicken and gummy bear cravings returned a few months later.

His doctor, Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, put him on a second medication: semaglutide, or Wegovy, the weekly shot approved for weight loss in 2021. It works, in part, by mimicking glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), a key gut hormone that lets your brain know you are full. 

The weight began to fall off again.

Smith’s success story is just one of many that Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine doctor-scientist at Harvard, has heard in her office in recent years.

“I do not believe these drugs are a panacea,” she said. “There are nonresponders, and those are the patients I take off the medication. But for the high-responders, and there are many of them, they are telling me, ‘Oh my gosh. For the first time in my life, I am not constantly thinking about eating. My life has changed.’” 

A Multi-Pronged Approach

Dr. Halpern, at Penn, has also been hearing success stories.

In recent years, he has placed permanent electrodes in the brains of three people with grade III, or severe, obesity and binge eating disorder. 

All had tried exercise, dieting, support groups, medication, and weight loss surgery to no avail.

The electrodes modulate an area in the center of the brain called the nucleus accumbens, which in mice studies has been shown to reduce cravings when stimulated.

Thus far, all three are seeing promising results.

“It’s not like I don’t think about food at all,” one of them, Robyn Baldwin, told The New York Times. “But I’m no longer a craving person.”

Dr. Halpern is now extending the trial to more patients and hopes to ultimately include other areas of the brain, including those that involve memory.

He imagines a day when people with severe obesity, who have failed conventional treatments, can walk into a clinic and have their brain circuits assessed to see which ones may be misfiring.

Many might find relief with noninvasive brain stimulation, like transcranial magnetic stimulation (already in use for depression). Others might need a more extreme approach, like the deep brain stimulation, or DBS, therapy Dr. Halpern used.

“Obviously, DBS is hard to scale, so it would have to be reserved for the most severe patients,” he said.

Still, not everyone believes brain-based drugs and surgeries are the answer. 

David Ludwig, MD, PhD, a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, played a key role in the discovery of GLP-1 and acknowledges that “of course” the brain influences body composition. But to him, explaining obesity as a disease of the brain oversimplifies it, discounting metabolic factors such as a tendency to store too much fat.

He noted that it’s hard to get drug companies, or any agencies, to fund large clinical trials on simple things like low-carbohydrate diets or exercise programs.

“We need all the tools we can get in the battle against the obesity epidemic, and new technologies are worth exploring,” he said. “However, the success of these drugs should not lead us to deprioritize diet and lifestyle interventions.” 

Dr. Stanford, who has received consulting fees from Wegovy, believes the future of treatment lies in a multi-pronged approach, with surgery, medication, and lifestyle changes coalescing in a lasting, but fragile, remission.

“Unfortunately, there is no cure for obesity,” said Dr. Stanford, whose patients often have setbacks and must try new strategies. “There are treatments that work for a while, but they are constantly pushing up against this origin in the brain.”

Smith says understanding this has been a big part of his success.

He is now a leaner and healthier 5-foot-6 and 204 pounds. In addition to taking his medication, he walks to work, goes to the gym twice a week, limits his portions, and tries to reframe the way he thinks about food, viewing it as fuel rather than an indulgence.

Sometimes, when he looks in the mirror, he is reminded of his 380-pound self, and it scares him. He doesn’t want to go back there. He’s confident now that he won’t have to.

“There is this misconception out there that you just need to put the fork down, but I’m learning it’s more complicated than that,” he said. “I intend to treat this as the illness that it is and do what I need to combat it so I’m able to keep this new reality I have built for myself.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

The positive results from the SELECT trial for the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) were hailed as ushering in a “new era for patients with obesity.” In the trial of overweight and obese patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes, semaglutide showed meaningful reductions in cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with placebo.

“I definitely see increasing adoption of GLP-1 RAs by cardiologists and expect the number to increase now that the data support its use in secondary prevention,” said Nicole L. Lohr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Board of Governors, and Mary G. Waters, chair of cardiovascular medicine at UAB, Birmingham.

But many cardiologists are more hesitant. “I think there’s going to be an increasing urgency for cardiologists to start prescribing these drugs, but I don’t think the comfort to do so is that widespread at this point,” said American Heart Association (AHA) volunteer Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore and chair of the AHA’s recent presidential advisory on cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health.

“Weight loss hasn’t been a central focus in our practice until recently, with the advent of these more powerful agents. There’s a need for more education around not only the use of these agents, but also around initiating weight loss discussions in a nonjudgmental way that reflects the complexity of obesity as a condition with multifactorial causes.”

The process will take time and may be similar to what happened with statins, he suggests. “Statins started in the endocrinology space, but as their cardiovascular benefits became more clear, they were increasingly adopted by cardiologists, primary care physicians, and others.”

Eugene Yang, MD, chair of the ACC Prevention of CVD Council and codirector of UW Medicine’s Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program in Seattle, agrees that GLP-1 uptake by cardiologists will likely be slow. “It’s a bit premature to start prescribing right away,” he said. “Semaglutide hasn’t been approved for secondary prevention at this point, and until it’s approved specifically for that indication, I don’t think many cardiologists will prescribe it.”
 

Side Effects ‘Concerning’

Beyond the requisite approval, Dr. Yang is concerned about side effects such as gastroparesis, severe nausea, and vomiting. “I’m not sure cardiologists are going to feel comfortable helping patients deal with these effects.”

Because GLP-1 RAs are already being used widely in primary care, he says, “I personally would work in collaboration with either my primary care colleagues or with endocrinologists.”

Ambarish Pandey, MD, an associate professor of internal medicine (cardiology) and medical director of the heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, is already prescribing semaglutide to patients with HFpEF and obesity. “In terms of side effects, I just tell patients what to expect,” he says.

Dr. Pandey prepares patients for appetite reduction, early satiety and fullness, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and other gastrointestinal symptoms. “Then I start low and slowly titrate to achieve enough weight loss. If they’re having adverse effects on a higher dose, I use a lower dose.”

The approach is working well for most patients, he says. “Obviously there’s some initial getting used to the drug, but once that has happened, patients like it because they see improvements in their exercise capacity and quality of life.”

But GLP-1 RAs are also associated with increased heart rate, which “is never good news,” notes Howard Weintraub, MD, a professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and clinical director of the NYU Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease. At least some of the elevation may be masked by beta-blocker use, he suggests. “The mechanism is not well elucidated, but it is something we’re going to need to keep an eye on, because we don’t want to get ambushed.”
 

Cost, Access ‘Significant Barriers’

All the cardiologists this news organization spoke with agreed that cost and access will be significant barriers to widespread prescribing, at least for now.

“Prescribing for individuals at very high cardiovascular risk will probably give a reasonable amount of bang for your buck. But individuals with more adverse social determinants of health, who are more likely to have challenges with obesity and related complications, are also least likely to be able to pay the exorbitant costs out of pocket. So, this is also an important health equity issue,” Dr. Ndumele says.

Furthermore, he adds, where GLP-1 RAs will fit for those with a lower absolute CVD risk “is still a clear question.”

“Access comes two ways,” Dr. Weintraub says. “One is the supply, which continues to be an issue. You can’t sell the drug if you don’t have it.”

The other access route is the insurance companies. “Will they throw down a gauntlet and make cardiologists prove that a patient failed other obesity drugs before they can prescribe a GLP-1 RA? Some of the old obesity drugs are not only unpleasant to use, but they’re ineffective and may have bad cardiac signals.”

If the new drugs are approved for secondary prevention, patients will want them and doctors will want them, he says. The demand will be “huge,” and it’s not clear how it will be handled.

Dr. Pandey agrees that getting the drug without “good insurance” to cover the cost is a big challenge. “ As more of these drugs become available, hopefully the cost will come down, and hopefully access will grow as companies are able to scale up production.”
 

Add-On or Substitute?

Anticipating approval, Dr. Yang says it’s not yet clear where the GLP-1 RAs stand among the various available cardiovascular therapies.

“Based on the results of SELECT, one could argue that maybe it’s more important to get the weight down and reduce blood pressure versus adding another cholesterol-lowering medication, for example, especially if a patient is already on a statin and ezetimibe. But maybe their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is not exactly below the threshold of the current guideline. And maybe they’re overweight or prediabetic, and they can lose 10% or 15% of their body weight with a GLP-1 RA. You may have to pick and choose.”

That said, he adds, “Who’s going to be able to afford all of this? Some patients would be taking a PCSK9 inhibitor, bempedoic acid because their lipids are not optimized, then a GLP-1 receptor. Right there, we’re talking about at least $2000 a month for those three medications. That’s not feasible.”

“This is one of the things I’ve worried about, given all the drugs some of our patients are on,” Dr. Weintraub says. “The data on cholesterol-lowering drugs are so monumental, it’s hard to say you can do without it. The same is true of blood pressure-lowering medication. So to my mind, a GLP-1 RA is going to have to be an add-on.”

“The only good news is that unlike in the heart failure arena, patients are not paying for other drugs on top of it,” he says. “Statins, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and beta-blockers are all generic; they’re not going to leave a huge hole in the patient’s pocket when the donut hole [Medicare payment gap] comes around. So in this case, if the GLP-1 RAs get included, which I hope they will, the added cost may not be that horrible.”
 

What About Lifestyle Changes?

Everyone agreed that the drugs are not a substitute for lifestyle changes.

“I have seen many patients who take these medications reach plateaus, and when discontinued, gain back the weight. I counsel patients to view the medication as an aid and not necessarily a magic wand,” Dr. Lohr says.

Dr. Ndumele agrees. “I advocate a lifestyle-first approach,” he says. “I imagine there will be busy clinicians who will prescribe medications as a first line, but that’s not going to be our most effective approach.”

The major challenge to such an approach, he says, is that lifestyle support has to be ongoing. “It’s not the kind of thing that just happens in a yearly doctor’s visit appointment, and it’s been under-supported in most coverage and reimbursement strategies.”

In his clinical practice, which includes ongoing support for lifestyle changes, Dr. Ndumele is seeing far greater weight loss than was shown in SELECT. “I think there’s a real benefit to having the two approaches come together,” he says.

Dr. Yang also favors an emphasis on lifestyle. “The success rate of a lifestyle approach may be low, but that doesn’t change the importance of it. We need to figure out better ways to do it.” Leveraging technology is one way, he suggests, such as cellphone reminders to walk more or alerts to tell you when to sleep.

“I also encourage patients to monitor their own blood pressure, and they do.” Dr. Yang acknowledges that his patient population is highly educated with access to resources to purchase the technological devices. However, he adds, “if the clinician is negative, and doesn’t really believe these interventions will work, the patient can sense that, and then they won’t work.” It’s up to the clinician to promote the importance of these lifestyle changes in order to be successful. Is it discouraging at times? Yes. But don’t let the patient know.”

Dr. Pandey approaches the issue differently. “Our healthcare system is such that patients don’t get to see us that often, so I think we should start the lifestyle intervention, but also start the medication at the same time, in parallel, because we don’t have time to take a stepwise approach.”

“Lifestyle interventions are better received if patients see positive improvements, and the medication actually induces a positive improvement,” he says. He is concerned that if a lifestyle first approach doesn’t work “that can affect the willingness to try future therapies. And we don’t want to lose like 6 or 8 months just trying lifestyle when they could have benefited from the weight-loss medication, as well.”

Dr. Lohr, Dr. Ndumele, and Dr. Yang report no conflicts of interest. Dr. Weintraub reports being an investigator in the SELECT trial and a consultant for NovoNordisk. Dr. Pandey reports receiving research support from the National Institutes of Health; grant funding from Applied Therapeutics and Gilead Sciences; honoraria outside of the present study as an advisor/consultant for Tricog Health Inc, Lilly USA, Rivus, Cytokinetics, Roche Diagnostics, Axon therapies, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Science 37 Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Merck, Sarfez Pharmaceuticals, Emmi Solutions; and has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and serving as a consultant for Palomarin Inc. with stocks compensation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The positive results from the SELECT trial for the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) were hailed as ushering in a “new era for patients with obesity.” In the trial of overweight and obese patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes, semaglutide showed meaningful reductions in cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with placebo.

“I definitely see increasing adoption of GLP-1 RAs by cardiologists and expect the number to increase now that the data support its use in secondary prevention,” said Nicole L. Lohr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Board of Governors, and Mary G. Waters, chair of cardiovascular medicine at UAB, Birmingham.

But many cardiologists are more hesitant. “I think there’s going to be an increasing urgency for cardiologists to start prescribing these drugs, but I don’t think the comfort to do so is that widespread at this point,” said American Heart Association (AHA) volunteer Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore and chair of the AHA’s recent presidential advisory on cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health.

“Weight loss hasn’t been a central focus in our practice until recently, with the advent of these more powerful agents. There’s a need for more education around not only the use of these agents, but also around initiating weight loss discussions in a nonjudgmental way that reflects the complexity of obesity as a condition with multifactorial causes.”

The process will take time and may be similar to what happened with statins, he suggests. “Statins started in the endocrinology space, but as their cardiovascular benefits became more clear, they were increasingly adopted by cardiologists, primary care physicians, and others.”

Eugene Yang, MD, chair of the ACC Prevention of CVD Council and codirector of UW Medicine’s Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program in Seattle, agrees that GLP-1 uptake by cardiologists will likely be slow. “It’s a bit premature to start prescribing right away,” he said. “Semaglutide hasn’t been approved for secondary prevention at this point, and until it’s approved specifically for that indication, I don’t think many cardiologists will prescribe it.”
 

Side Effects ‘Concerning’

Beyond the requisite approval, Dr. Yang is concerned about side effects such as gastroparesis, severe nausea, and vomiting. “I’m not sure cardiologists are going to feel comfortable helping patients deal with these effects.”

Because GLP-1 RAs are already being used widely in primary care, he says, “I personally would work in collaboration with either my primary care colleagues or with endocrinologists.”

Ambarish Pandey, MD, an associate professor of internal medicine (cardiology) and medical director of the heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, is already prescribing semaglutide to patients with HFpEF and obesity. “In terms of side effects, I just tell patients what to expect,” he says.

Dr. Pandey prepares patients for appetite reduction, early satiety and fullness, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and other gastrointestinal symptoms. “Then I start low and slowly titrate to achieve enough weight loss. If they’re having adverse effects on a higher dose, I use a lower dose.”

The approach is working well for most patients, he says. “Obviously there’s some initial getting used to the drug, but once that has happened, patients like it because they see improvements in their exercise capacity and quality of life.”

But GLP-1 RAs are also associated with increased heart rate, which “is never good news,” notes Howard Weintraub, MD, a professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and clinical director of the NYU Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease. At least some of the elevation may be masked by beta-blocker use, he suggests. “The mechanism is not well elucidated, but it is something we’re going to need to keep an eye on, because we don’t want to get ambushed.”
 

Cost, Access ‘Significant Barriers’

All the cardiologists this news organization spoke with agreed that cost and access will be significant barriers to widespread prescribing, at least for now.

“Prescribing for individuals at very high cardiovascular risk will probably give a reasonable amount of bang for your buck. But individuals with more adverse social determinants of health, who are more likely to have challenges with obesity and related complications, are also least likely to be able to pay the exorbitant costs out of pocket. So, this is also an important health equity issue,” Dr. Ndumele says.

Furthermore, he adds, where GLP-1 RAs will fit for those with a lower absolute CVD risk “is still a clear question.”

“Access comes two ways,” Dr. Weintraub says. “One is the supply, which continues to be an issue. You can’t sell the drug if you don’t have it.”

The other access route is the insurance companies. “Will they throw down a gauntlet and make cardiologists prove that a patient failed other obesity drugs before they can prescribe a GLP-1 RA? Some of the old obesity drugs are not only unpleasant to use, but they’re ineffective and may have bad cardiac signals.”

If the new drugs are approved for secondary prevention, patients will want them and doctors will want them, he says. The demand will be “huge,” and it’s not clear how it will be handled.

Dr. Pandey agrees that getting the drug without “good insurance” to cover the cost is a big challenge. “ As more of these drugs become available, hopefully the cost will come down, and hopefully access will grow as companies are able to scale up production.”
 

Add-On or Substitute?

Anticipating approval, Dr. Yang says it’s not yet clear where the GLP-1 RAs stand among the various available cardiovascular therapies.

“Based on the results of SELECT, one could argue that maybe it’s more important to get the weight down and reduce blood pressure versus adding another cholesterol-lowering medication, for example, especially if a patient is already on a statin and ezetimibe. But maybe their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is not exactly below the threshold of the current guideline. And maybe they’re overweight or prediabetic, and they can lose 10% or 15% of their body weight with a GLP-1 RA. You may have to pick and choose.”

That said, he adds, “Who’s going to be able to afford all of this? Some patients would be taking a PCSK9 inhibitor, bempedoic acid because their lipids are not optimized, then a GLP-1 receptor. Right there, we’re talking about at least $2000 a month for those three medications. That’s not feasible.”

“This is one of the things I’ve worried about, given all the drugs some of our patients are on,” Dr. Weintraub says. “The data on cholesterol-lowering drugs are so monumental, it’s hard to say you can do without it. The same is true of blood pressure-lowering medication. So to my mind, a GLP-1 RA is going to have to be an add-on.”

“The only good news is that unlike in the heart failure arena, patients are not paying for other drugs on top of it,” he says. “Statins, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and beta-blockers are all generic; they’re not going to leave a huge hole in the patient’s pocket when the donut hole [Medicare payment gap] comes around. So in this case, if the GLP-1 RAs get included, which I hope they will, the added cost may not be that horrible.”
 

What About Lifestyle Changes?

Everyone agreed that the drugs are not a substitute for lifestyle changes.

“I have seen many patients who take these medications reach plateaus, and when discontinued, gain back the weight. I counsel patients to view the medication as an aid and not necessarily a magic wand,” Dr. Lohr says.

Dr. Ndumele agrees. “I advocate a lifestyle-first approach,” he says. “I imagine there will be busy clinicians who will prescribe medications as a first line, but that’s not going to be our most effective approach.”

The major challenge to such an approach, he says, is that lifestyle support has to be ongoing. “It’s not the kind of thing that just happens in a yearly doctor’s visit appointment, and it’s been under-supported in most coverage and reimbursement strategies.”

In his clinical practice, which includes ongoing support for lifestyle changes, Dr. Ndumele is seeing far greater weight loss than was shown in SELECT. “I think there’s a real benefit to having the two approaches come together,” he says.

Dr. Yang also favors an emphasis on lifestyle. “The success rate of a lifestyle approach may be low, but that doesn’t change the importance of it. We need to figure out better ways to do it.” Leveraging technology is one way, he suggests, such as cellphone reminders to walk more or alerts to tell you when to sleep.

“I also encourage patients to monitor their own blood pressure, and they do.” Dr. Yang acknowledges that his patient population is highly educated with access to resources to purchase the technological devices. However, he adds, “if the clinician is negative, and doesn’t really believe these interventions will work, the patient can sense that, and then they won’t work.” It’s up to the clinician to promote the importance of these lifestyle changes in order to be successful. Is it discouraging at times? Yes. But don’t let the patient know.”

Dr. Pandey approaches the issue differently. “Our healthcare system is such that patients don’t get to see us that often, so I think we should start the lifestyle intervention, but also start the medication at the same time, in parallel, because we don’t have time to take a stepwise approach.”

“Lifestyle interventions are better received if patients see positive improvements, and the medication actually induces a positive improvement,” he says. He is concerned that if a lifestyle first approach doesn’t work “that can affect the willingness to try future therapies. And we don’t want to lose like 6 or 8 months just trying lifestyle when they could have benefited from the weight-loss medication, as well.”

Dr. Lohr, Dr. Ndumele, and Dr. Yang report no conflicts of interest. Dr. Weintraub reports being an investigator in the SELECT trial and a consultant for NovoNordisk. Dr. Pandey reports receiving research support from the National Institutes of Health; grant funding from Applied Therapeutics and Gilead Sciences; honoraria outside of the present study as an advisor/consultant for Tricog Health Inc, Lilly USA, Rivus, Cytokinetics, Roche Diagnostics, Axon therapies, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Science 37 Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Merck, Sarfez Pharmaceuticals, Emmi Solutions; and has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and serving as a consultant for Palomarin Inc. with stocks compensation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The positive results from the SELECT trial for the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) were hailed as ushering in a “new era for patients with obesity.” In the trial of overweight and obese patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes, semaglutide showed meaningful reductions in cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with placebo.

“I definitely see increasing adoption of GLP-1 RAs by cardiologists and expect the number to increase now that the data support its use in secondary prevention,” said Nicole L. Lohr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Board of Governors, and Mary G. Waters, chair of cardiovascular medicine at UAB, Birmingham.

But many cardiologists are more hesitant. “I think there’s going to be an increasing urgency for cardiologists to start prescribing these drugs, but I don’t think the comfort to do so is that widespread at this point,” said American Heart Association (AHA) volunteer Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore and chair of the AHA’s recent presidential advisory on cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health.

“Weight loss hasn’t been a central focus in our practice until recently, with the advent of these more powerful agents. There’s a need for more education around not only the use of these agents, but also around initiating weight loss discussions in a nonjudgmental way that reflects the complexity of obesity as a condition with multifactorial causes.”

The process will take time and may be similar to what happened with statins, he suggests. “Statins started in the endocrinology space, but as their cardiovascular benefits became more clear, they were increasingly adopted by cardiologists, primary care physicians, and others.”

Eugene Yang, MD, chair of the ACC Prevention of CVD Council and codirector of UW Medicine’s Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program in Seattle, agrees that GLP-1 uptake by cardiologists will likely be slow. “It’s a bit premature to start prescribing right away,” he said. “Semaglutide hasn’t been approved for secondary prevention at this point, and until it’s approved specifically for that indication, I don’t think many cardiologists will prescribe it.”
 

Side Effects ‘Concerning’

Beyond the requisite approval, Dr. Yang is concerned about side effects such as gastroparesis, severe nausea, and vomiting. “I’m not sure cardiologists are going to feel comfortable helping patients deal with these effects.”

Because GLP-1 RAs are already being used widely in primary care, he says, “I personally would work in collaboration with either my primary care colleagues or with endocrinologists.”

Ambarish Pandey, MD, an associate professor of internal medicine (cardiology) and medical director of the heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, is already prescribing semaglutide to patients with HFpEF and obesity. “In terms of side effects, I just tell patients what to expect,” he says.

Dr. Pandey prepares patients for appetite reduction, early satiety and fullness, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and other gastrointestinal symptoms. “Then I start low and slowly titrate to achieve enough weight loss. If they’re having adverse effects on a higher dose, I use a lower dose.”

The approach is working well for most patients, he says. “Obviously there’s some initial getting used to the drug, but once that has happened, patients like it because they see improvements in their exercise capacity and quality of life.”

But GLP-1 RAs are also associated with increased heart rate, which “is never good news,” notes Howard Weintraub, MD, a professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and clinical director of the NYU Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease. At least some of the elevation may be masked by beta-blocker use, he suggests. “The mechanism is not well elucidated, but it is something we’re going to need to keep an eye on, because we don’t want to get ambushed.”
 

Cost, Access ‘Significant Barriers’

All the cardiologists this news organization spoke with agreed that cost and access will be significant barriers to widespread prescribing, at least for now.

“Prescribing for individuals at very high cardiovascular risk will probably give a reasonable amount of bang for your buck. But individuals with more adverse social determinants of health, who are more likely to have challenges with obesity and related complications, are also least likely to be able to pay the exorbitant costs out of pocket. So, this is also an important health equity issue,” Dr. Ndumele says.

Furthermore, he adds, where GLP-1 RAs will fit for those with a lower absolute CVD risk “is still a clear question.”

“Access comes two ways,” Dr. Weintraub says. “One is the supply, which continues to be an issue. You can’t sell the drug if you don’t have it.”

The other access route is the insurance companies. “Will they throw down a gauntlet and make cardiologists prove that a patient failed other obesity drugs before they can prescribe a GLP-1 RA? Some of the old obesity drugs are not only unpleasant to use, but they’re ineffective and may have bad cardiac signals.”

If the new drugs are approved for secondary prevention, patients will want them and doctors will want them, he says. The demand will be “huge,” and it’s not clear how it will be handled.

Dr. Pandey agrees that getting the drug without “good insurance” to cover the cost is a big challenge. “ As more of these drugs become available, hopefully the cost will come down, and hopefully access will grow as companies are able to scale up production.”
 

Add-On or Substitute?

Anticipating approval, Dr. Yang says it’s not yet clear where the GLP-1 RAs stand among the various available cardiovascular therapies.

“Based on the results of SELECT, one could argue that maybe it’s more important to get the weight down and reduce blood pressure versus adding another cholesterol-lowering medication, for example, especially if a patient is already on a statin and ezetimibe. But maybe their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is not exactly below the threshold of the current guideline. And maybe they’re overweight or prediabetic, and they can lose 10% or 15% of their body weight with a GLP-1 RA. You may have to pick and choose.”

That said, he adds, “Who’s going to be able to afford all of this? Some patients would be taking a PCSK9 inhibitor, bempedoic acid because their lipids are not optimized, then a GLP-1 receptor. Right there, we’re talking about at least $2000 a month for those three medications. That’s not feasible.”

“This is one of the things I’ve worried about, given all the drugs some of our patients are on,” Dr. Weintraub says. “The data on cholesterol-lowering drugs are so monumental, it’s hard to say you can do without it. The same is true of blood pressure-lowering medication. So to my mind, a GLP-1 RA is going to have to be an add-on.”

“The only good news is that unlike in the heart failure arena, patients are not paying for other drugs on top of it,” he says. “Statins, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and beta-blockers are all generic; they’re not going to leave a huge hole in the patient’s pocket when the donut hole [Medicare payment gap] comes around. So in this case, if the GLP-1 RAs get included, which I hope they will, the added cost may not be that horrible.”
 

What About Lifestyle Changes?

Everyone agreed that the drugs are not a substitute for lifestyle changes.

“I have seen many patients who take these medications reach plateaus, and when discontinued, gain back the weight. I counsel patients to view the medication as an aid and not necessarily a magic wand,” Dr. Lohr says.

Dr. Ndumele agrees. “I advocate a lifestyle-first approach,” he says. “I imagine there will be busy clinicians who will prescribe medications as a first line, but that’s not going to be our most effective approach.”

The major challenge to such an approach, he says, is that lifestyle support has to be ongoing. “It’s not the kind of thing that just happens in a yearly doctor’s visit appointment, and it’s been under-supported in most coverage and reimbursement strategies.”

In his clinical practice, which includes ongoing support for lifestyle changes, Dr. Ndumele is seeing far greater weight loss than was shown in SELECT. “I think there’s a real benefit to having the two approaches come together,” he says.

Dr. Yang also favors an emphasis on lifestyle. “The success rate of a lifestyle approach may be low, but that doesn’t change the importance of it. We need to figure out better ways to do it.” Leveraging technology is one way, he suggests, such as cellphone reminders to walk more or alerts to tell you when to sleep.

“I also encourage patients to monitor their own blood pressure, and they do.” Dr. Yang acknowledges that his patient population is highly educated with access to resources to purchase the technological devices. However, he adds, “if the clinician is negative, and doesn’t really believe these interventions will work, the patient can sense that, and then they won’t work.” It’s up to the clinician to promote the importance of these lifestyle changes in order to be successful. Is it discouraging at times? Yes. But don’t let the patient know.”

Dr. Pandey approaches the issue differently. “Our healthcare system is such that patients don’t get to see us that often, so I think we should start the lifestyle intervention, but also start the medication at the same time, in parallel, because we don’t have time to take a stepwise approach.”

“Lifestyle interventions are better received if patients see positive improvements, and the medication actually induces a positive improvement,” he says. He is concerned that if a lifestyle first approach doesn’t work “that can affect the willingness to try future therapies. And we don’t want to lose like 6 or 8 months just trying lifestyle when they could have benefited from the weight-loss medication, as well.”

Dr. Lohr, Dr. Ndumele, and Dr. Yang report no conflicts of interest. Dr. Weintraub reports being an investigator in the SELECT trial and a consultant for NovoNordisk. Dr. Pandey reports receiving research support from the National Institutes of Health; grant funding from Applied Therapeutics and Gilead Sciences; honoraria outside of the present study as an advisor/consultant for Tricog Health Inc, Lilly USA, Rivus, Cytokinetics, Roche Diagnostics, Axon therapies, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Science 37 Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Merck, Sarfez Pharmaceuticals, Emmi Solutions; and has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and serving as a consultant for Palomarin Inc. with stocks compensation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Changes in tissue thickness in the back of the eye can correlate with worsening or improvement of renal problems and could help predict who will have worsening of kidney function, a new analysis report finds. 

The research, published in the journal Nature Communications, is the first to show an association between chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the thickness of the retinal and choroidal layers in the back of the eye as measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT), a noninvasive imaging technology commonly used to evaluate eye diseases such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic eye disease, and retinal detachments.

“These are common scans that people get at the opticians and now in many hospitals,” said Neeraj Dhaun, MD, PhD, a professor of nephrology at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. (Opticians in the United Kingdom are the equivalent of optometrists in North America.) 
 

CKD Severity Equals Thinner Retinas

“We scanned the back of eye of healthy people as well as patients with various types and degrees of kidney disease, and we found that two layers in the back of eye, the retina and the choroid, were thinner in patients with kidney disease compared to people who are healthy, and that the extent of this thinning predicts whether kidney function would decline going forward over a period of 2 or 3 years,” Dr. Dhaun, the corresponding author of the new paper, said.

The publication is a report of four different studies. The first study measured OCT metrics in 112 patients with CKD, 92 patients with a functional kidney transplant, and 86 control volunteers. The researchers found the retina was 5% thinner in patients with CKD than in healthy controls. They also found that patients with CKD had reduced macular volume: 8.44 ± .44 mm³ vs 8.73 ± .36 mm³ (P < .001). The choroid was also found to be thinner at each of three macular locations measured in patients with CKD vs control volunteers. At baseline, CKD and transplant patients had significantly lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 55 ± 27 and 55 ± 24 mL/min/1.73 m² compared with control volunteers at 97 ± 14 mL/min/1.73 m².

The second study reported on OCT measurements and kidney histologic injury in 50 patients who had a kidney biopsy within 30 days of their OCT. It found that choroidal thinning at all three macular locations was independently associated with more extensive kidney scarring. 

The third study focused on 25 patients with kidney failure who had a kidney transplant. Their eGFR improved from 8 ± 3 to 58 ± 21 mL/min/1.73 m² in the first week after the transplant. The choroid in these patients thickened about 5% at 1 week and by about 10% at 1 month posttransplant. OCT of 22 kidney donors showed thickening of the choroid a week after nephrectomy before a tendency to thinning over the next year.

The fourth study found that for patients with stable CKD, every 1 mm3 decrease in macular volume correlated to an increased odds of a decline in eGFR by more than 10% at 1 year (2.48; 95% CI, 1.26-5.08; P = .01) and by more than 20% at 2 years (3.75; 95% CI, 1.26-5.08; P = .004).
 

Exploring the Kidney-Eye Connection 

The potential explanation for the correlation between retinal and choroidal thickness and kidney function is unclear, Dr. Dhaun said. 

“We don’t know the exact mechanisms, and these are difficult to define from studies in patients, which is why we are doing more work in animal models of kidney disease to see if we can establish the pathways that lead to the changes in the eye,” he said. 

“However,” Dr. Dhaun added, “what we do know is that kidney disease affects the whole body. For example, kidney disease can lead to high blood pressure and heart disease, as well as diseases in the brain, and it is these effects of kidney disease on the body as whole that we are probably picking up in the back of the eye.” 

OCT has the potential to make the monitoring of patients with CKD and kidney transplant more convenient than it is now, Dr. Dhaun said. “These scanners are available in the community, and what would be ideal at some point in the future is to be able to do a patient’s kidney health check in the community potentially incorporating OCT scanning alongside blood-pressure monitoring and other healthcare measures,” he said.

“The findings provide an exciting example of how noninvasive retinal imaging using OCT can provide quantitative biomarkers of systemic disease,” Amir Kashani, MD, PhD, the Boone Pickens Professor of Ophthalmology and Biomedical Engineering at the Wilmer Eye Institute of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, told this news organization. “It is striking that their findings demonstrate some potential of reversible changes in choroidal perfusion after kidney transplantation.”

The finding that choroidal thickness changes in CKD are at least partly reversible with kidney transplantation is a revelation, Dr. Kashani said, and may point to a greater role for ophthalmologists in managing systemic disease. 

“Ophthalmologists can and should use their unique experience and understanding of the eye to help monitor and manage systemic conditions in collaboration with our medicine colleagues,” he said. “There are many systemic diseases that can impact the eye and ophthalmologist are uniquely positioned to help interpret those findings.”

Dr. Kashani noted that a particular strength of the report was the comparison of choroidal measurements in patients who had kidney transplantation and those that had a nephrectomy. “The consistent direction of changes in these two groups suggests the study findings are real and meaningful,” he said.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Dhaun and co-authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kashani disclosed a financial relationship with Carl Zeiss Meditec.

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

Changes in tissue thickness in the back of the eye can correlate with worsening or improvement of renal problems and could help predict who will have worsening of kidney function, a new analysis report finds. 

The research, published in the journal Nature Communications, is the first to show an association between chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the thickness of the retinal and choroidal layers in the back of the eye as measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT), a noninvasive imaging technology commonly used to evaluate eye diseases such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic eye disease, and retinal detachments.

“These are common scans that people get at the opticians and now in many hospitals,” said Neeraj Dhaun, MD, PhD, a professor of nephrology at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. (Opticians in the United Kingdom are the equivalent of optometrists in North America.) 
 

CKD Severity Equals Thinner Retinas

“We scanned the back of eye of healthy people as well as patients with various types and degrees of kidney disease, and we found that two layers in the back of eye, the retina and the choroid, were thinner in patients with kidney disease compared to people who are healthy, and that the extent of this thinning predicts whether kidney function would decline going forward over a period of 2 or 3 years,” Dr. Dhaun, the corresponding author of the new paper, said.

The publication is a report of four different studies. The first study measured OCT metrics in 112 patients with CKD, 92 patients with a functional kidney transplant, and 86 control volunteers. The researchers found the retina was 5% thinner in patients with CKD than in healthy controls. They also found that patients with CKD had reduced macular volume: 8.44 ± .44 mm³ vs 8.73 ± .36 mm³ (P < .001). The choroid was also found to be thinner at each of three macular locations measured in patients with CKD vs control volunteers. At baseline, CKD and transplant patients had significantly lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 55 ± 27 and 55 ± 24 mL/min/1.73 m² compared with control volunteers at 97 ± 14 mL/min/1.73 m².

The second study reported on OCT measurements and kidney histologic injury in 50 patients who had a kidney biopsy within 30 days of their OCT. It found that choroidal thinning at all three macular locations was independently associated with more extensive kidney scarring. 

The third study focused on 25 patients with kidney failure who had a kidney transplant. Their eGFR improved from 8 ± 3 to 58 ± 21 mL/min/1.73 m² in the first week after the transplant. The choroid in these patients thickened about 5% at 1 week and by about 10% at 1 month posttransplant. OCT of 22 kidney donors showed thickening of the choroid a week after nephrectomy before a tendency to thinning over the next year.

The fourth study found that for patients with stable CKD, every 1 mm3 decrease in macular volume correlated to an increased odds of a decline in eGFR by more than 10% at 1 year (2.48; 95% CI, 1.26-5.08; P = .01) and by more than 20% at 2 years (3.75; 95% CI, 1.26-5.08; P = .004).
 

Exploring the Kidney-Eye Connection 

The potential explanation for the correlation between retinal and choroidal thickness and kidney function is unclear, Dr. Dhaun said. 

“We don’t know the exact mechanisms, and these are difficult to define from studies in patients, which is why we are doing more work in animal models of kidney disease to see if we can establish the pathways that lead to the changes in the eye,” he said. 

“However,” Dr. Dhaun added, “what we do know is that kidney disease affects the whole body. For example, kidney disease can lead to high blood pressure and heart disease, as well as diseases in the brain, and it is these effects of kidney disease on the body as whole that we are probably picking up in the back of the eye.” 

OCT has the potential to make the monitoring of patients with CKD and kidney transplant more convenient than it is now, Dr. Dhaun said. “These scanners are available in the community, and what would be ideal at some point in the future is to be able to do a patient’s kidney health check in the community potentially incorporating OCT scanning alongside blood-pressure monitoring and other healthcare measures,” he said.

“The findings provide an exciting example of how noninvasive retinal imaging using OCT can provide quantitative biomarkers of systemic disease,” Amir Kashani, MD, PhD, the Boone Pickens Professor of Ophthalmology and Biomedical Engineering at the Wilmer Eye Institute of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, told this news organization. “It is striking that their findings demonstrate some potential of reversible changes in choroidal perfusion after kidney transplantation.”

The finding that choroidal thickness changes in CKD are at least partly reversible with kidney transplantation is a revelation, Dr. Kashani said, and may point to a greater role for ophthalmologists in managing systemic disease. 

“Ophthalmologists can and should use their unique experience and understanding of the eye to help monitor and manage systemic conditions in collaboration with our medicine colleagues,” he said. “There are many systemic diseases that can impact the eye and ophthalmologist are uniquely positioned to help interpret those findings.”

Dr. Kashani noted that a particular strength of the report was the comparison of choroidal measurements in patients who had kidney transplantation and those that had a nephrectomy. “The consistent direction of changes in these two groups suggests the study findings are real and meaningful,” he said.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Dhaun and co-authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kashani disclosed a financial relationship with Carl Zeiss Meditec.

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

Changes in tissue thickness in the back of the eye can correlate with worsening or improvement of renal problems and could help predict who will have worsening of kidney function, a new analysis report finds. 

The research, published in the journal Nature Communications, is the first to show an association between chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the thickness of the retinal and choroidal layers in the back of the eye as measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT), a noninvasive imaging technology commonly used to evaluate eye diseases such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic eye disease, and retinal detachments.

“These are common scans that people get at the opticians and now in many hospitals,” said Neeraj Dhaun, MD, PhD, a professor of nephrology at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. (Opticians in the United Kingdom are the equivalent of optometrists in North America.) 
 

CKD Severity Equals Thinner Retinas

“We scanned the back of eye of healthy people as well as patients with various types and degrees of kidney disease, and we found that two layers in the back of eye, the retina and the choroid, were thinner in patients with kidney disease compared to people who are healthy, and that the extent of this thinning predicts whether kidney function would decline going forward over a period of 2 or 3 years,” Dr. Dhaun, the corresponding author of the new paper, said.

The publication is a report of four different studies. The first study measured OCT metrics in 112 patients with CKD, 92 patients with a functional kidney transplant, and 86 control volunteers. The researchers found the retina was 5% thinner in patients with CKD than in healthy controls. They also found that patients with CKD had reduced macular volume: 8.44 ± .44 mm³ vs 8.73 ± .36 mm³ (P < .001). The choroid was also found to be thinner at each of three macular locations measured in patients with CKD vs control volunteers. At baseline, CKD and transplant patients had significantly lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 55 ± 27 and 55 ± 24 mL/min/1.73 m² compared with control volunteers at 97 ± 14 mL/min/1.73 m².

The second study reported on OCT measurements and kidney histologic injury in 50 patients who had a kidney biopsy within 30 days of their OCT. It found that choroidal thinning at all three macular locations was independently associated with more extensive kidney scarring. 

The third study focused on 25 patients with kidney failure who had a kidney transplant. Their eGFR improved from 8 ± 3 to 58 ± 21 mL/min/1.73 m² in the first week after the transplant. The choroid in these patients thickened about 5% at 1 week and by about 10% at 1 month posttransplant. OCT of 22 kidney donors showed thickening of the choroid a week after nephrectomy before a tendency to thinning over the next year.

The fourth study found that for patients with stable CKD, every 1 mm3 decrease in macular volume correlated to an increased odds of a decline in eGFR by more than 10% at 1 year (2.48; 95% CI, 1.26-5.08; P = .01) and by more than 20% at 2 years (3.75; 95% CI, 1.26-5.08; P = .004).
 

Exploring the Kidney-Eye Connection 

The potential explanation for the correlation between retinal and choroidal thickness and kidney function is unclear, Dr. Dhaun said. 

“We don’t know the exact mechanisms, and these are difficult to define from studies in patients, which is why we are doing more work in animal models of kidney disease to see if we can establish the pathways that lead to the changes in the eye,” he said. 

“However,” Dr. Dhaun added, “what we do know is that kidney disease affects the whole body. For example, kidney disease can lead to high blood pressure and heart disease, as well as diseases in the brain, and it is these effects of kidney disease on the body as whole that we are probably picking up in the back of the eye.” 

OCT has the potential to make the monitoring of patients with CKD and kidney transplant more convenient than it is now, Dr. Dhaun said. “These scanners are available in the community, and what would be ideal at some point in the future is to be able to do a patient’s kidney health check in the community potentially incorporating OCT scanning alongside blood-pressure monitoring and other healthcare measures,” he said.

“The findings provide an exciting example of how noninvasive retinal imaging using OCT can provide quantitative biomarkers of systemic disease,” Amir Kashani, MD, PhD, the Boone Pickens Professor of Ophthalmology and Biomedical Engineering at the Wilmer Eye Institute of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, told this news organization. “It is striking that their findings demonstrate some potential of reversible changes in choroidal perfusion after kidney transplantation.”

The finding that choroidal thickness changes in CKD are at least partly reversible with kidney transplantation is a revelation, Dr. Kashani said, and may point to a greater role for ophthalmologists in managing systemic disease. 

“Ophthalmologists can and should use their unique experience and understanding of the eye to help monitor and manage systemic conditions in collaboration with our medicine colleagues,” he said. “There are many systemic diseases that can impact the eye and ophthalmologist are uniquely positioned to help interpret those findings.”

Dr. Kashani noted that a particular strength of the report was the comparison of choroidal measurements in patients who had kidney transplantation and those that had a nephrectomy. “The consistent direction of changes in these two groups suggests the study findings are real and meaningful,” he said.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Dhaun and co-authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kashani disclosed a financial relationship with Carl Zeiss Meditec.

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