Feature

The highly anticipated Alzheimer’s drug lecanemab was granted accelerated approval status on Jan. 6 by the FDA, offering hope where there has been little for patients and their families affected by the devastating disease.

More than 6 million people in the United States live with Alzheimer’s.

It’s not a cure, but the drug, given intravenously every 2 weeks, has shown moderate positive effects in clinical trials in slowing early-stage disease.

But many are wary. As explained in an editorial in the journal The Lancet, “The Alzheimer’s disease community has become accustomed to false hope, disappointment, and controversy.”

Some worry about lecanemab’s safety as some people in clinical trials experienced serious side effects of bleeding and swelling in the brain. Scientists recently attributed a third death to lecanemab, brand name Leqembi, though the drugmaker disputed the medication was the cause.

So what should patients and their families make of this news? Here we answer some of the top questions surrounding the drug.
 

What does the FDA action mean?

The FDA granted accelerated approval to Leqembi after it showed positive trial results in slowing the progression of early-stage disease.

The FDA can grant accelerated approval for drugs that treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need while drugs continue to be studied in larger trials.

With the FDA approval in hand, doctors can now prescribe the medication.

Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, the Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, says that with the FDA’s move, ramping up manufacturing – and eventually nationwide distribution and implementation – will take some time.

“Ask your doctor about availability,” she says. “The main issue is that, without insurance and Medicare coverage of this class of treatments, access for those who could benefit from the newly approved treatment will only be available to those who can pay out-of-pocket. Without coverage, people simply won’t be able to get the treatment.”

The Washington Post reports that with accelerated approval, drugmaker Eisai is expected to immediately apply for full FDA approval, which wouldn’t be likely to come before later this year. Full approval could help clear the path for Medicare coverage of the drug.
 

Potential benefit?

Those who got Leqembi in a clinical trial for 18 months experienced 27% less decline in memory and thinking relative to the group who got a placebo. It also reduced amyloid in the brain, the sticky protein that builds up in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s and is considered a hallmark of the disease.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, says, “It’s the first phase 3 study in our field of a disease-modifying drug where the clinical efficacy was very clear.”
 

Concerns about side effects

The drug has raised safety concerns as it has been linked with certain serious adverse events, including brain swelling and bleeding. In the trial, 14% of patients who received the drug experienced side effects that included brain swelling and bleeding, compared with about 11% in the placebo group.

Scientists have reportedly linked three deaths during the clinical trial to lecanemab, though it is unclear whether it caused the deaths.

Dr. Fillit notes that the first two people who died were on blood thinners when they received lecanemab.

“There are things about the use of the drug in the real world that we need to work out, especially in the context of people with comorbidities,” he says.

The third death is a little different, Dr. Fillit says. The patient, who had a stroke, showed signs of vasculitis, or inflammation of the blood vessels.

“We don’t know exactly what happened, but we do know it was very, very rare” among the people involved in the trials, he says.

Dr. Edelmayer says that the most common reported side effects during the trials were infusion-related reactions, headache, and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). According to the FDA, these abnormalities “are known to occur with antibodies of this class. ARIA usually does not have symptoms, although serious and life-threatening events rarely may occur.”

The FDA has added these as warnings to the drug’s label, describing the possible infusion-related reactions as flu-like symptoms, nausea, vomiting, and changes in blood pressure.
 

How much will it cost?

Eisai says that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.

In a draft report released in December, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said a price ranging from $8,500 to $20,600 a year would make the drug cost-effective. While the group has no authority to set prices, many large health insurers consider its reports when they negotiate prices and some drugmakers take into account ICER’s recommendations when setting prices.

An editorial in The Lancet last month warns that the cost will likely be “prohibitive” for low- and middle-income countries and many health systems don’t have the infrastructure for a widespread rollout.
 

Will Medicare cover it?

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which runs Medicare, which covers most people with Alzheimer’s, has indicated it won’t broadly cover amyloid-lowering drugs until the drug gets full U.S. approval based on clinical benefits, as opposed to accelerated approval.

That means people would have to pay thousands out of pocket at first to get it.

The CMS decision effectively denies Medicare coverage of fast-tracked FDA-approved medications for Alzheimer’s disease unless the person is enrolled in an approved clinical trial.

On Dec. 19, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request asking CMS to remove the trial-only requirement and provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s treatments.

CMS says in a statement issued after the announcement: “Because Eisai’s product, lecanemab, was granted accelerated approval by the FDA, it falls under CMS’s existing national coverage determination. CMS is examining available information and may reconsider its current coverage based on this review.”

“If lecanemab subsequently receives traditional FDA approval, CMS would provide broader coverage,” the statement says.
 

Who benefits most from this drug?

Lecanemab is a treatment for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease who have amyloid in their brain. This means people with other types of dementia, or those in the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease, are not likely to improve with this drug.

Who makes lecanemab?  

Japan-based Eisai is developing the drug, a monoclonal antibody, in collaboration with the U.S. company Biogen.

What’s the Alzheimer’s Association’s view?

The association urged accelerated FDA approval. In a statement, it says it “welcomes and is further encouraged” by the clinical trial results.

It says data published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms lecanemab “can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease.”

“We are energized at the progress we are seeing in the research pipeline. The science is telling us that although antiamyloid treatments are not a cure – they are not going to be the end of treating Alzheimer’s – they are certainly the beginning,” Dr. Edelmayer says.
 

Are there alternatives?

The FDA gave accelerated approval to Biogen to produce another drug for Alzheimer’s, Aduhelm (aducanemab), in 2021, but the move was controversial as the drug’s effectiveness was widely questioned. It has since largely been pulled from the market.

Aduhelm had been the first approved early-stage Alzheimer’s treatment since 2003.

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

The highly anticipated Alzheimer’s drug lecanemab was granted accelerated approval status on Jan. 6 by the FDA, offering hope where there has been little for patients and their families affected by the devastating disease.

More than 6 million people in the United States live with Alzheimer’s.

It’s not a cure, but the drug, given intravenously every 2 weeks, has shown moderate positive effects in clinical trials in slowing early-stage disease.

But many are wary. As explained in an editorial in the journal The Lancet, “The Alzheimer’s disease community has become accustomed to false hope, disappointment, and controversy.”

Some worry about lecanemab’s safety as some people in clinical trials experienced serious side effects of bleeding and swelling in the brain. Scientists recently attributed a third death to lecanemab, brand name Leqembi, though the drugmaker disputed the medication was the cause.

So what should patients and their families make of this news? Here we answer some of the top questions surrounding the drug.
 

What does the FDA action mean?

The FDA granted accelerated approval to Leqembi after it showed positive trial results in slowing the progression of early-stage disease.

The FDA can grant accelerated approval for drugs that treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need while drugs continue to be studied in larger trials.

With the FDA approval in hand, doctors can now prescribe the medication.

Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, the Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, says that with the FDA’s move, ramping up manufacturing – and eventually nationwide distribution and implementation – will take some time.

“Ask your doctor about availability,” she says. “The main issue is that, without insurance and Medicare coverage of this class of treatments, access for those who could benefit from the newly approved treatment will only be available to those who can pay out-of-pocket. Without coverage, people simply won’t be able to get the treatment.”

The Washington Post reports that with accelerated approval, drugmaker Eisai is expected to immediately apply for full FDA approval, which wouldn’t be likely to come before later this year. Full approval could help clear the path for Medicare coverage of the drug.
 

Potential benefit?

Those who got Leqembi in a clinical trial for 18 months experienced 27% less decline in memory and thinking relative to the group who got a placebo. It also reduced amyloid in the brain, the sticky protein that builds up in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s and is considered a hallmark of the disease.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, says, “It’s the first phase 3 study in our field of a disease-modifying drug where the clinical efficacy was very clear.”
 

Concerns about side effects

The drug has raised safety concerns as it has been linked with certain serious adverse events, including brain swelling and bleeding. In the trial, 14% of patients who received the drug experienced side effects that included brain swelling and bleeding, compared with about 11% in the placebo group.

Scientists have reportedly linked three deaths during the clinical trial to lecanemab, though it is unclear whether it caused the deaths.

Dr. Fillit notes that the first two people who died were on blood thinners when they received lecanemab.

“There are things about the use of the drug in the real world that we need to work out, especially in the context of people with comorbidities,” he says.

The third death is a little different, Dr. Fillit says. The patient, who had a stroke, showed signs of vasculitis, or inflammation of the blood vessels.

“We don’t know exactly what happened, but we do know it was very, very rare” among the people involved in the trials, he says.

Dr. Edelmayer says that the most common reported side effects during the trials were infusion-related reactions, headache, and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). According to the FDA, these abnormalities “are known to occur with antibodies of this class. ARIA usually does not have symptoms, although serious and life-threatening events rarely may occur.”

The FDA has added these as warnings to the drug’s label, describing the possible infusion-related reactions as flu-like symptoms, nausea, vomiting, and changes in blood pressure.
 

How much will it cost?

Eisai says that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.

In a draft report released in December, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said a price ranging from $8,500 to $20,600 a year would make the drug cost-effective. While the group has no authority to set prices, many large health insurers consider its reports when they negotiate prices and some drugmakers take into account ICER’s recommendations when setting prices.

An editorial in The Lancet last month warns that the cost will likely be “prohibitive” for low- and middle-income countries and many health systems don’t have the infrastructure for a widespread rollout.
 

Will Medicare cover it?

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which runs Medicare, which covers most people with Alzheimer’s, has indicated it won’t broadly cover amyloid-lowering drugs until the drug gets full U.S. approval based on clinical benefits, as opposed to accelerated approval.

That means people would have to pay thousands out of pocket at first to get it.

The CMS decision effectively denies Medicare coverage of fast-tracked FDA-approved medications for Alzheimer’s disease unless the person is enrolled in an approved clinical trial.

On Dec. 19, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request asking CMS to remove the trial-only requirement and provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s treatments.

CMS says in a statement issued after the announcement: “Because Eisai’s product, lecanemab, was granted accelerated approval by the FDA, it falls under CMS’s existing national coverage determination. CMS is examining available information and may reconsider its current coverage based on this review.”

“If lecanemab subsequently receives traditional FDA approval, CMS would provide broader coverage,” the statement says.
 

Who benefits most from this drug?

Lecanemab is a treatment for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease who have amyloid in their brain. This means people with other types of dementia, or those in the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease, are not likely to improve with this drug.

Who makes lecanemab?  

Japan-based Eisai is developing the drug, a monoclonal antibody, in collaboration with the U.S. company Biogen.

What’s the Alzheimer’s Association’s view?

The association urged accelerated FDA approval. In a statement, it says it “welcomes and is further encouraged” by the clinical trial results.

It says data published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms lecanemab “can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease.”

“We are energized at the progress we are seeing in the research pipeline. The science is telling us that although antiamyloid treatments are not a cure – they are not going to be the end of treating Alzheimer’s – they are certainly the beginning,” Dr. Edelmayer says.
 

Are there alternatives?

The FDA gave accelerated approval to Biogen to produce another drug for Alzheimer’s, Aduhelm (aducanemab), in 2021, but the move was controversial as the drug’s effectiveness was widely questioned. It has since largely been pulled from the market.

Aduhelm had been the first approved early-stage Alzheimer’s treatment since 2003.

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

The highly anticipated Alzheimer’s drug lecanemab was granted accelerated approval status on Jan. 6 by the FDA, offering hope where there has been little for patients and their families affected by the devastating disease.

More than 6 million people in the United States live with Alzheimer’s.

It’s not a cure, but the drug, given intravenously every 2 weeks, has shown moderate positive effects in clinical trials in slowing early-stage disease.

But many are wary. As explained in an editorial in the journal The Lancet, “The Alzheimer’s disease community has become accustomed to false hope, disappointment, and controversy.”

Some worry about lecanemab’s safety as some people in clinical trials experienced serious side effects of bleeding and swelling in the brain. Scientists recently attributed a third death to lecanemab, brand name Leqembi, though the drugmaker disputed the medication was the cause.

So what should patients and their families make of this news? Here we answer some of the top questions surrounding the drug.
 

What does the FDA action mean?

The FDA granted accelerated approval to Leqembi after it showed positive trial results in slowing the progression of early-stage disease.

The FDA can grant accelerated approval for drugs that treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need while drugs continue to be studied in larger trials.

With the FDA approval in hand, doctors can now prescribe the medication.

Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, the Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, says that with the FDA’s move, ramping up manufacturing – and eventually nationwide distribution and implementation – will take some time.

“Ask your doctor about availability,” she says. “The main issue is that, without insurance and Medicare coverage of this class of treatments, access for those who could benefit from the newly approved treatment will only be available to those who can pay out-of-pocket. Without coverage, people simply won’t be able to get the treatment.”

The Washington Post reports that with accelerated approval, drugmaker Eisai is expected to immediately apply for full FDA approval, which wouldn’t be likely to come before later this year. Full approval could help clear the path for Medicare coverage of the drug.
 

Potential benefit?

Those who got Leqembi in a clinical trial for 18 months experienced 27% less decline in memory and thinking relative to the group who got a placebo. It also reduced amyloid in the brain, the sticky protein that builds up in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s and is considered a hallmark of the disease.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, says, “It’s the first phase 3 study in our field of a disease-modifying drug where the clinical efficacy was very clear.”
 

Concerns about side effects

The drug has raised safety concerns as it has been linked with certain serious adverse events, including brain swelling and bleeding. In the trial, 14% of patients who received the drug experienced side effects that included brain swelling and bleeding, compared with about 11% in the placebo group.

Scientists have reportedly linked three deaths during the clinical trial to lecanemab, though it is unclear whether it caused the deaths.

Dr. Fillit notes that the first two people who died were on blood thinners when they received lecanemab.

“There are things about the use of the drug in the real world that we need to work out, especially in the context of people with comorbidities,” he says.

The third death is a little different, Dr. Fillit says. The patient, who had a stroke, showed signs of vasculitis, or inflammation of the blood vessels.

“We don’t know exactly what happened, but we do know it was very, very rare” among the people involved in the trials, he says.

Dr. Edelmayer says that the most common reported side effects during the trials were infusion-related reactions, headache, and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). According to the FDA, these abnormalities “are known to occur with antibodies of this class. ARIA usually does not have symptoms, although serious and life-threatening events rarely may occur.”

The FDA has added these as warnings to the drug’s label, describing the possible infusion-related reactions as flu-like symptoms, nausea, vomiting, and changes in blood pressure.
 

How much will it cost?

Eisai says that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.

In a draft report released in December, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said a price ranging from $8,500 to $20,600 a year would make the drug cost-effective. While the group has no authority to set prices, many large health insurers consider its reports when they negotiate prices and some drugmakers take into account ICER’s recommendations when setting prices.

An editorial in The Lancet last month warns that the cost will likely be “prohibitive” for low- and middle-income countries and many health systems don’t have the infrastructure for a widespread rollout.
 

Will Medicare cover it?

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which runs Medicare, which covers most people with Alzheimer’s, has indicated it won’t broadly cover amyloid-lowering drugs until the drug gets full U.S. approval based on clinical benefits, as opposed to accelerated approval.

That means people would have to pay thousands out of pocket at first to get it.

The CMS decision effectively denies Medicare coverage of fast-tracked FDA-approved medications for Alzheimer’s disease unless the person is enrolled in an approved clinical trial.

On Dec. 19, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request asking CMS to remove the trial-only requirement and provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s treatments.

CMS says in a statement issued after the announcement: “Because Eisai’s product, lecanemab, was granted accelerated approval by the FDA, it falls under CMS’s existing national coverage determination. CMS is examining available information and may reconsider its current coverage based on this review.”

“If lecanemab subsequently receives traditional FDA approval, CMS would provide broader coverage,” the statement says.
 

Who benefits most from this drug?

Lecanemab is a treatment for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease who have amyloid in their brain. This means people with other types of dementia, or those in the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease, are not likely to improve with this drug.

Who makes lecanemab?  

Japan-based Eisai is developing the drug, a monoclonal antibody, in collaboration with the U.S. company Biogen.

What’s the Alzheimer’s Association’s view?

The association urged accelerated FDA approval. In a statement, it says it “welcomes and is further encouraged” by the clinical trial results.

It says data published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms lecanemab “can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease.”

“We are energized at the progress we are seeing in the research pipeline. The science is telling us that although antiamyloid treatments are not a cure – they are not going to be the end of treating Alzheimer’s – they are certainly the beginning,” Dr. Edelmayer says.
 

Are there alternatives?

The FDA gave accelerated approval to Biogen to produce another drug for Alzheimer’s, Aduhelm (aducanemab), in 2021, but the move was controversial as the drug’s effectiveness was widely questioned. It has since largely been pulled from the market.

Aduhelm had been the first approved early-stage Alzheimer’s treatment since 2003.

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

Primary care providers should treat obesity in children and adolescents aggressively including with medication and weight-loss surgery rather than rely on “watchful waiting” and hope the problem solves itself. That’s the upshot of new guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The authors of the guidelines also encourage primary care doctors to collaborate with other medical professionals to treat the comorbidities often linked to obesity, rather than take on the entire challenge themselves.

“It’s impossible to treat obesity within the four walls of the clinic. That’s one thing I have learned,” Ihuoma Eneli, MD, associate director of the AAP Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight, told this news organization. For example, a primary care doctor could partner with a gastroenterologist when treating a child who has nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, added Dr. Eneli, a professor of pediatrics at the Ohio State University, Columbus, who helped write the recommendations.

The new document updates 2007 recommendations from AAP about treating children and adolescents who are overweight or obese. The earlier statement focused on behavioral modification and healthy eating behaviors and paid less attention to weight-lowering medications or bariatric surgery for young people. That document did not offer specific advice to health care providers about how to address childhood overweight or obesity.

The 2023 guidelines recommend that pediatricians offer anyone aged 12 years and older with obesity – defined as a body mass index (BMI) at the 95th percentile or higher – the option of receiving weight-loss medications in addition to ongoing support for lifestyle modifications, such as exercising more and eating healthier foods.

The same approach holds for bariatric surgery once children reach age 13, and AAP stressed that no physician should ever stigmatize children or imply that they are to blame for their weight.

AAP did not receive any industry funding to develop the guidelines.

As children reach the threshold BMI levels, physicians should conduct complete physicals and order blood tests to get a fuller picture of the patients’ health.

These are the first guidelines from AAP aimed at giving pediatricians and other primary care providers concrete guidance for managing overweight and obesity in younger patients.

“Obesity is a complex, chronic disease, and that’s a frame shift here,” said Sandra S. Hassink, MD, leader of the guideline group and director of the AAP Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight.

Dr. Hassink compared obesity to asthma, another chronic disease that merits prompt attention and ongoing treatment. A physician would never let a child with asthma go untreated until their breathing problems are so severe that they turn blue, Dr. Hassink said; similarly, physicians should treat obesity in young people promptly and over time.

While some aspects of treating overweight and obesity are the same for children and adults, Dr. Hassink noted distinct differences. “Every child is embedded in a family and extended support structure,” Dr. Hassink said, which means that any obesity management technique needs the buy-in and support of the child’s family too.

AAP’s new advice reflects current understanding that excess weight or obesity in children is a result of biological and social factors, such as living in a food desert or experiencing the effects of structural racism.

The guidelines synthesize the results of hundreds of studies about the best way to treat excess weight in young people. If multiple studies were of high quality and all reached similar conclusions, they received an “A.” Less robust but still informative studies rated a “B.” In aggregate, the guideline about weight-lowering medication is based on “B” evidence that could shift with further research.

The authors recommend that clinicians calculate a child’s BMI beginning at age 2 years, with particular attention to those at the 85th percentile or higher for their age and sex (which would be defined as overweight), at the 95th percentile or higher (obesity), or at the 120th percentile and higher (severe obesity). Clinicians also should monitor blood pressure and cholesterol in their patients with overweight or obesity, particularly once they reach age 10.

Starting at age 6, providers should interview patients and their families about what would motivate them to lose weight, then tailor interventions to those factors rather than just make a blanket declaration that weight loss is necessary. This step should be coupled with intensive support – ideally, at least 26 hours of face-to-face support over the course of a year, although more is better – about effective exercise and dietary habits that result in weight loss.

The intensive support model should remain in place throughout childhood and adolescence and should be coupled with referrals for weight-loss medications or bariatric surgeries as needed once children reach age 12 or 13. Those age cutoffs are based on current evidence as to when weight-loss medications or surgery becomes effective, Dr. Hassink said, and could be shifted to lower ages if that’s what new evidence shows.

“Intensive health behavioral and lifestyle treatment is the base of all other treatment extensions,” Dr. Eneli said.

Young patients who needed weight-lowering medication used to have fewer options, according to Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, the Minnesota American Legion and Auxiliary Chair in Children’s Health at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

.No longer.

Dr. Kelly was not involved in drafting the guidelines but was the lead investigator for trials of liraglutide (Saxenda), which in 2020 received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for treating obesity in adolescents. In 2022, the agency approved phentermine and topiramate extended-release capsules (Qsymia) for long-term weight management for patients aged 12 years and older, along with a once-weekly injection of semaglutide (Wegovy) patients in this age group. There are no weight-lowering medications for children younger than 12, Dr. Kelly said.

“Obesity is not a lifestyle problem. A lot of it is driven by the underlying biology,” Dr. Kelly said. “Really, what these medicines do is make it easier for people to make the right lifestyle choices by pushing back against the biology.”

For example, a drug can make people feel full for longer or disrupt chemical pathways that result in craving certain foods. Dr. Kelly emphasized that these drugs do not give license for people to eat as much as they want.

As for bariatric surgery, the new guidelines adhere closely to those in a 2019 AAP statement that bariatric surgery is safe and effective in pediatric settings. This is gratifying to Kirk W. Reichard, MD, MBA, a lead author of the 2019 article and director of the bariatric surgery program at Nemours Children’s Health.

Even if the information isn’t new as of 2023, Dr. Reichard said, AAP’s imprimatur could cause some eligible families to consider bariatric surgery when they may not have done so before.

Dr. Eneli, Dr. Hassink, and Dr. Reichard reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Kelly has relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Vivus.

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

Primary care providers should treat obesity in children and adolescents aggressively including with medication and weight-loss surgery rather than rely on “watchful waiting” and hope the problem solves itself. That’s the upshot of new guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The authors of the guidelines also encourage primary care doctors to collaborate with other medical professionals to treat the comorbidities often linked to obesity, rather than take on the entire challenge themselves.

“It’s impossible to treat obesity within the four walls of the clinic. That’s one thing I have learned,” Ihuoma Eneli, MD, associate director of the AAP Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight, told this news organization. For example, a primary care doctor could partner with a gastroenterologist when treating a child who has nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, added Dr. Eneli, a professor of pediatrics at the Ohio State University, Columbus, who helped write the recommendations.

The new document updates 2007 recommendations from AAP about treating children and adolescents who are overweight or obese. The earlier statement focused on behavioral modification and healthy eating behaviors and paid less attention to weight-lowering medications or bariatric surgery for young people. That document did not offer specific advice to health care providers about how to address childhood overweight or obesity.

The 2023 guidelines recommend that pediatricians offer anyone aged 12 years and older with obesity – defined as a body mass index (BMI) at the 95th percentile or higher – the option of receiving weight-loss medications in addition to ongoing support for lifestyle modifications, such as exercising more and eating healthier foods.

The same approach holds for bariatric surgery once children reach age 13, and AAP stressed that no physician should ever stigmatize children or imply that they are to blame for their weight.

AAP did not receive any industry funding to develop the guidelines.

As children reach the threshold BMI levels, physicians should conduct complete physicals and order blood tests to get a fuller picture of the patients’ health.

These are the first guidelines from AAP aimed at giving pediatricians and other primary care providers concrete guidance for managing overweight and obesity in younger patients.

“Obesity is a complex, chronic disease, and that’s a frame shift here,” said Sandra S. Hassink, MD, leader of the guideline group and director of the AAP Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight.

Dr. Hassink compared obesity to asthma, another chronic disease that merits prompt attention and ongoing treatment. A physician would never let a child with asthma go untreated until their breathing problems are so severe that they turn blue, Dr. Hassink said; similarly, physicians should treat obesity in young people promptly and over time.

While some aspects of treating overweight and obesity are the same for children and adults, Dr. Hassink noted distinct differences. “Every child is embedded in a family and extended support structure,” Dr. Hassink said, which means that any obesity management technique needs the buy-in and support of the child’s family too.

AAP’s new advice reflects current understanding that excess weight or obesity in children is a result of biological and social factors, such as living in a food desert or experiencing the effects of structural racism.

The guidelines synthesize the results of hundreds of studies about the best way to treat excess weight in young people. If multiple studies were of high quality and all reached similar conclusions, they received an “A.” Less robust but still informative studies rated a “B.” In aggregate, the guideline about weight-lowering medication is based on “B” evidence that could shift with further research.

The authors recommend that clinicians calculate a child’s BMI beginning at age 2 years, with particular attention to those at the 85th percentile or higher for their age and sex (which would be defined as overweight), at the 95th percentile or higher (obesity), or at the 120th percentile and higher (severe obesity). Clinicians also should monitor blood pressure and cholesterol in their patients with overweight or obesity, particularly once they reach age 10.

Starting at age 6, providers should interview patients and their families about what would motivate them to lose weight, then tailor interventions to those factors rather than just make a blanket declaration that weight loss is necessary. This step should be coupled with intensive support – ideally, at least 26 hours of face-to-face support over the course of a year, although more is better – about effective exercise and dietary habits that result in weight loss.

The intensive support model should remain in place throughout childhood and adolescence and should be coupled with referrals for weight-loss medications or bariatric surgeries as needed once children reach age 12 or 13. Those age cutoffs are based on current evidence as to when weight-loss medications or surgery becomes effective, Dr. Hassink said, and could be shifted to lower ages if that’s what new evidence shows.

“Intensive health behavioral and lifestyle treatment is the base of all other treatment extensions,” Dr. Eneli said.

Young patients who needed weight-lowering medication used to have fewer options, according to Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, the Minnesota American Legion and Auxiliary Chair in Children’s Health at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

.No longer.

Dr. Kelly was not involved in drafting the guidelines but was the lead investigator for trials of liraglutide (Saxenda), which in 2020 received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for treating obesity in adolescents. In 2022, the agency approved phentermine and topiramate extended-release capsules (Qsymia) for long-term weight management for patients aged 12 years and older, along with a once-weekly injection of semaglutide (Wegovy) patients in this age group. There are no weight-lowering medications for children younger than 12, Dr. Kelly said.

“Obesity is not a lifestyle problem. A lot of it is driven by the underlying biology,” Dr. Kelly said. “Really, what these medicines do is make it easier for people to make the right lifestyle choices by pushing back against the biology.”

For example, a drug can make people feel full for longer or disrupt chemical pathways that result in craving certain foods. Dr. Kelly emphasized that these drugs do not give license for people to eat as much as they want.

As for bariatric surgery, the new guidelines adhere closely to those in a 2019 AAP statement that bariatric surgery is safe and effective in pediatric settings. This is gratifying to Kirk W. Reichard, MD, MBA, a lead author of the 2019 article and director of the bariatric surgery program at Nemours Children’s Health.

Even if the information isn’t new as of 2023, Dr. Reichard said, AAP’s imprimatur could cause some eligible families to consider bariatric surgery when they may not have done so before.

Dr. Eneli, Dr. Hassink, and Dr. Reichard reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Kelly has relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Vivus.

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

Primary care providers should treat obesity in children and adolescents aggressively including with medication and weight-loss surgery rather than rely on “watchful waiting” and hope the problem solves itself. That’s the upshot of new guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The authors of the guidelines also encourage primary care doctors to collaborate with other medical professionals to treat the comorbidities often linked to obesity, rather than take on the entire challenge themselves.

“It’s impossible to treat obesity within the four walls of the clinic. That’s one thing I have learned,” Ihuoma Eneli, MD, associate director of the AAP Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight, told this news organization. For example, a primary care doctor could partner with a gastroenterologist when treating a child who has nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, added Dr. Eneli, a professor of pediatrics at the Ohio State University, Columbus, who helped write the recommendations.

The new document updates 2007 recommendations from AAP about treating children and adolescents who are overweight or obese. The earlier statement focused on behavioral modification and healthy eating behaviors and paid less attention to weight-lowering medications or bariatric surgery for young people. That document did not offer specific advice to health care providers about how to address childhood overweight or obesity.

The 2023 guidelines recommend that pediatricians offer anyone aged 12 years and older with obesity – defined as a body mass index (BMI) at the 95th percentile or higher – the option of receiving weight-loss medications in addition to ongoing support for lifestyle modifications, such as exercising more and eating healthier foods.

The same approach holds for bariatric surgery once children reach age 13, and AAP stressed that no physician should ever stigmatize children or imply that they are to blame for their weight.

AAP did not receive any industry funding to develop the guidelines.

As children reach the threshold BMI levels, physicians should conduct complete physicals and order blood tests to get a fuller picture of the patients’ health.

These are the first guidelines from AAP aimed at giving pediatricians and other primary care providers concrete guidance for managing overweight and obesity in younger patients.

“Obesity is a complex, chronic disease, and that’s a frame shift here,” said Sandra S. Hassink, MD, leader of the guideline group and director of the AAP Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight.

Dr. Hassink compared obesity to asthma, another chronic disease that merits prompt attention and ongoing treatment. A physician would never let a child with asthma go untreated until their breathing problems are so severe that they turn blue, Dr. Hassink said; similarly, physicians should treat obesity in young people promptly and over time.

While some aspects of treating overweight and obesity are the same for children and adults, Dr. Hassink noted distinct differences. “Every child is embedded in a family and extended support structure,” Dr. Hassink said, which means that any obesity management technique needs the buy-in and support of the child’s family too.

AAP’s new advice reflects current understanding that excess weight or obesity in children is a result of biological and social factors, such as living in a food desert or experiencing the effects of structural racism.

The guidelines synthesize the results of hundreds of studies about the best way to treat excess weight in young people. If multiple studies were of high quality and all reached similar conclusions, they received an “A.” Less robust but still informative studies rated a “B.” In aggregate, the guideline about weight-lowering medication is based on “B” evidence that could shift with further research.

The authors recommend that clinicians calculate a child’s BMI beginning at age 2 years, with particular attention to those at the 85th percentile or higher for their age and sex (which would be defined as overweight), at the 95th percentile or higher (obesity), or at the 120th percentile and higher (severe obesity). Clinicians also should monitor blood pressure and cholesterol in their patients with overweight or obesity, particularly once they reach age 10.

Starting at age 6, providers should interview patients and their families about what would motivate them to lose weight, then tailor interventions to those factors rather than just make a blanket declaration that weight loss is necessary. This step should be coupled with intensive support – ideally, at least 26 hours of face-to-face support over the course of a year, although more is better – about effective exercise and dietary habits that result in weight loss.

The intensive support model should remain in place throughout childhood and adolescence and should be coupled with referrals for weight-loss medications or bariatric surgeries as needed once children reach age 12 or 13. Those age cutoffs are based on current evidence as to when weight-loss medications or surgery becomes effective, Dr. Hassink said, and could be shifted to lower ages if that’s what new evidence shows.

“Intensive health behavioral and lifestyle treatment is the base of all other treatment extensions,” Dr. Eneli said.

Young patients who needed weight-lowering medication used to have fewer options, according to Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, the Minnesota American Legion and Auxiliary Chair in Children’s Health at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

.No longer.

Dr. Kelly was not involved in drafting the guidelines but was the lead investigator for trials of liraglutide (Saxenda), which in 2020 received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for treating obesity in adolescents. In 2022, the agency approved phentermine and topiramate extended-release capsules (Qsymia) for long-term weight management for patients aged 12 years and older, along with a once-weekly injection of semaglutide (Wegovy) patients in this age group. There are no weight-lowering medications for children younger than 12, Dr. Kelly said.

“Obesity is not a lifestyle problem. A lot of it is driven by the underlying biology,” Dr. Kelly said. “Really, what these medicines do is make it easier for people to make the right lifestyle choices by pushing back against the biology.”

For example, a drug can make people feel full for longer or disrupt chemical pathways that result in craving certain foods. Dr. Kelly emphasized that these drugs do not give license for people to eat as much as they want.

As for bariatric surgery, the new guidelines adhere closely to those in a 2019 AAP statement that bariatric surgery is safe and effective in pediatric settings. This is gratifying to Kirk W. Reichard, MD, MBA, a lead author of the 2019 article and director of the bariatric surgery program at Nemours Children’s Health.

Even if the information isn’t new as of 2023, Dr. Reichard said, AAP’s imprimatur could cause some eligible families to consider bariatric surgery when they may not have done so before.

Dr. Eneli, Dr. Hassink, and Dr. Reichard reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Kelly has relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Vivus.

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

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

Readjudication of mortality data from the FOURIER trial suggests a higher risk for cardiovascular death with evolocumab (Repatha) among patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease than originally reported for the first-in-class PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor.

The Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) investigators launched this review in 2018, citing “significant inconsistencies and misreporting” between information in death narratives in the trial’s clinical study report (CSR) and the 2017 New England Journal of Medicine publication of the primary trial results.

“After readjudication, deaths of cardiac origin were numerically higher in the evolocumab group than in the placebo group in the FOURIER trial, suggesting possible cardiac harm,” the researchers conclude in the new report published online in BMJ Open. “At the time the trial was terminated early, a non-significantly higher risk of cardiovascular mortality was observed with evolocumab, which was numerically greater in our adjudication.

“Our findings indicate that complete restoration of all clinical outcomes from the FOURIER trial is required,” they wrote. “Meanwhile, clinicians should be skeptical about benefits vs harms of prescribing evolocumab for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

Asked to comment on the reanalysis, FOURIER lead investigator Marc Sabatine, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Lewis Dexter distinguished chair in cardiovascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said: “It’s hard to call this science. I think it lacks all scientific rigor and is fundamentally flawed and, because their process was flawed, it has led them to erroneous conclusions.”

Reached for comment, Sanjay Kaul, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, who was not involved with either study, said: “If I were to describe this in one sentence, I would say much ado about nothing. A tempest in a teapot.”
 

Evaluating hard outcomes

The Food and Drug Administration approved evolocumab in 2015 for lowering LDL cholesterol levels, but without results from any trial evaluating hard outcomes.

As previously reported in 2017, FOURIER showed that adding evolocumab to high-intensity statins slashed LDL cholesterol by 59% and was associated with a 15% reduction in the primary composite cardiovascular events endpoint, compared with placebo, but numerically more all-cause and CV mortality.

The NEJM data analysis reported the risk for cardiovascular mortality was 5% (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.25), whereas the new review found a still nonsignificant 20% relative risk (R95% CI, 0.95-1.51).

Cardiac deaths were also numerically higher in the evolocumab group (113 vs. 88), corresponding to a 28% higher relative risk (95% CI, 0.97-1.69). Vascular deaths were similar at 37 in both groups (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.63-1.58).

For 360 of the 870 deaths, the cause of death adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee differs from that identified by the local clinical investigators in the CSR death narrative, the authors said.

The RIAT investigators found 11 more deaths from myocardial infarction in the evolocumab group (36 vs. 25 in NEJM) and 3 fewer deaths in the placebo group (27 vs. 30). In addition, their review indicated that deaths as a result of cardiac failure in the evolocumab group were almost double those in the placebo group, at 31 versus 16, respectively.
 

An ‘obvious disconnect’

Thomas L. Perry, MD, a coauthor of the BMJ Open paper and a general internist in the department of anesthesiology, pharmacology, and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview that the team repeatedly sought information from the FOURIER investigators but never received a response.

They petitioned and received the FOURIER CSR from the European Medicines Agency and Health Canada and made a similar request with the FDA but were told in October 2019 it would take up to 7 years to release the information. Case report forms were also requested but not received from all three agencies.

Dr. Perry noted that no autopsies were performed in the trial, a claim Dr. Sabatine rejected, and that their review of the death narratives in the CSR found 91 deaths classified by the local investigator as “undetermined” but subsequently adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee as “sudden cardiac” deaths without any documented evidence to support the change.

At his request, Dr. Perry said they included two case examples (figures 1 and 2) in the BMJ Open paper of the “obvious disconnect” in death endpoints. Both of these were identified by the local investigator as a myocardial infarction but later “misreported” according to Dr. Perry, as a sudden cardiac death and noncardiovascular death (trauma), respectively.

“What’s so important about this is not only that it throws into doubt the reliability of what the people at Harvard and elsewhere reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017, but also raises a question about any other large study like this where you rely on supposedly ethical local investigators to run the trial well and to report accurately what happens to people,” Dr. Perry said in an interview.

Although he never prescribed evolocumab after the initial results were published, Dr. Perry said he’s even less convinced of a benefit now. “Basically, I don’t believe that they are telling us the facts. I have no reason to say there’s an element of deliberately misleading us. I think it’s sloppiness, incompetence, laziness.”

Dr. Perry also favors readjudication of the mortality data in the ODYSSEY trial, which showed an all-cause mortality benefit with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent).
 

The ‘full picture’

Dr. Sabatine explained that when a patient had a cardiovascular event, including a death, it triggered the collection of a full dossier containing all available source documents, such as discharge summaries, laboratory and imaging data, and autopsy reports, that were independently reviewed by two board certified physicians blinded to treatment. To suggest, as the RIAT investigators have, that no autopsies were performed is “obviously ridiculous and wrong.”

In contrast, he said the new analysis was post hoc, involved unblinded individuals, and relied on serious adverse event narratives, which include a small text box that must be filled out with the site’s initial impression of the case and sent within 24 hours of the event.

Further, when the FOURIER investigators pulled the dossiers for the two more egregious examples cited in the paper, they found that the first patient died in his sleep at home. “The investigator then just said, ‘oh, I assume it’s an MI,’ but there’s no biochemical data, there’s no ECGs, there’s nothing to make the diagnosis of MI. So that’s why that is a sudden cardiac death per the FDA definition,” Dr. Sabatine said.

When the FOURIER investigators reviewed the full dossier for the second case example, they found the patient had slipped in his kitchen at home, sustained a serious head trauma, was brought into the emergency department, and died.

“That’s why we rely on the source documents. That gives the full picture,” he said. The FDA also reviewed the death narratives.

“They comment, ironically, that they were surprised at the inconsistencies between the investigator-reported causes of death and the central events committee-adjudicated ones, making it sound like something nefarious has happened. But that’s the whole point of adjudication, right? That you have a central events committee that reviews and then classifies based on all the data,” Dr. Sabatine said.

Dr. Sabatine said he sees no reason to reevaluate the ODYSSEY mortality data and that the RIAT analysis should not change the overall interpretation of FOURIER.

“I think this is in fact a disservice to the medical community because it’s not real science,” he said. “It’s just sensationalism and sends the wrong message. But I completely stand by the results that we published, as the FDA has.”

Dr. Kaul also thought the new analysis doesn’t materially change the overall benefit–risk balance. He observed that there isn’t a major difference between the reanalysis and the original evaluation. Total mortality was similar and, for cardiovascular deaths, the original NEJM paper lists 251 for evolocumab versus 240 for placebo and the reanalysis lists 150 versus 125, respectively.

Undetermined deaths were 144 for evolocumab and 164 for placebo in the reanalysis. “The conservative approach is to count them as presumed cardiovascular deaths,” Dr. Kaul said. “So, if you do the math and add those undetermined as cardiovascular deaths, we get a total of 294 (150 + 144) versus 289 (125 + 164). That’s five excess deaths with evolocumab.”
 

Open access

Although the RIAT group has called for the public release of the FOURIER data, commercial and legal issues will complicate that process, Steven Grover, MD, professor of medicine and director of the comprehensive health improvement program at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. Amgen is back in court over patent protection, filing an appeal with the Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts in a protracted battle, Reuters reported.

“One thing that’s for sure after they’ve raised questions about the results of this study [is that] somebody needs to take a good hard look at the adjudicated results,” said Dr. Grover, who coauthored several iterations of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society dyslipidemia guidelines, including the latest in 2021.

“I think the thing that got so many of us back in 2017 when the study was first published is the mortality data stuck out like a sore thumb,” he said in an interview. “It didn’t have to be statistically significant, but it did need to move in the same direction as the nonfatal coronary events. That’s what we’ve seen happen time and again and, in this case, it was going in the opposite direction.”

Dr. Sabatine said he doesn’t know whether the data will be released but that the FOURIER trialists plan to submit a rebuttal to BMJ Open to the RIAT analysis, which has caused a stir on CardioTwitter. “Now that people live with tweets of information, it necessitates then dispelling the misinformation that comes out. So yes, we will draft a rebuttal pointing out all the flaws in this analysis.”

Dr. Kaul commented that the FDA’s response not to provide the data was “rather curious” and that Dr. Sabatine and colleagues had the opportunity to address the RIAT group’s concerns, but the paper notes they did not even bother to respond. “You can’t be holier than thou in medicine. You have to treat every question with respect and humility and can’t be dismissive. ... He could have nipped the evil in the bud, so to speak.”

The study was funded by a grant from the University of Maryland, Baltimore. The authors, Dr. Kaul, and Dr. Grover reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Readjudication of mortality data from the FOURIER trial suggests a higher risk for cardiovascular death with evolocumab (Repatha) among patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease than originally reported for the first-in-class PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor.

The Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) investigators launched this review in 2018, citing “significant inconsistencies and misreporting” between information in death narratives in the trial’s clinical study report (CSR) and the 2017 New England Journal of Medicine publication of the primary trial results.

“After readjudication, deaths of cardiac origin were numerically higher in the evolocumab group than in the placebo group in the FOURIER trial, suggesting possible cardiac harm,” the researchers conclude in the new report published online in BMJ Open. “At the time the trial was terminated early, a non-significantly higher risk of cardiovascular mortality was observed with evolocumab, which was numerically greater in our adjudication.

“Our findings indicate that complete restoration of all clinical outcomes from the FOURIER trial is required,” they wrote. “Meanwhile, clinicians should be skeptical about benefits vs harms of prescribing evolocumab for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

Asked to comment on the reanalysis, FOURIER lead investigator Marc Sabatine, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Lewis Dexter distinguished chair in cardiovascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said: “It’s hard to call this science. I think it lacks all scientific rigor and is fundamentally flawed and, because their process was flawed, it has led them to erroneous conclusions.”

Reached for comment, Sanjay Kaul, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, who was not involved with either study, said: “If I were to describe this in one sentence, I would say much ado about nothing. A tempest in a teapot.”
 

Evaluating hard outcomes

The Food and Drug Administration approved evolocumab in 2015 for lowering LDL cholesterol levels, but without results from any trial evaluating hard outcomes.

As previously reported in 2017, FOURIER showed that adding evolocumab to high-intensity statins slashed LDL cholesterol by 59% and was associated with a 15% reduction in the primary composite cardiovascular events endpoint, compared with placebo, but numerically more all-cause and CV mortality.

The NEJM data analysis reported the risk for cardiovascular mortality was 5% (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.25), whereas the new review found a still nonsignificant 20% relative risk (R95% CI, 0.95-1.51).

Cardiac deaths were also numerically higher in the evolocumab group (113 vs. 88), corresponding to a 28% higher relative risk (95% CI, 0.97-1.69). Vascular deaths were similar at 37 in both groups (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.63-1.58).

For 360 of the 870 deaths, the cause of death adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee differs from that identified by the local clinical investigators in the CSR death narrative, the authors said.

The RIAT investigators found 11 more deaths from myocardial infarction in the evolocumab group (36 vs. 25 in NEJM) and 3 fewer deaths in the placebo group (27 vs. 30). In addition, their review indicated that deaths as a result of cardiac failure in the evolocumab group were almost double those in the placebo group, at 31 versus 16, respectively.
 

An ‘obvious disconnect’

Thomas L. Perry, MD, a coauthor of the BMJ Open paper and a general internist in the department of anesthesiology, pharmacology, and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview that the team repeatedly sought information from the FOURIER investigators but never received a response.

They petitioned and received the FOURIER CSR from the European Medicines Agency and Health Canada and made a similar request with the FDA but were told in October 2019 it would take up to 7 years to release the information. Case report forms were also requested but not received from all three agencies.

Dr. Perry noted that no autopsies were performed in the trial, a claim Dr. Sabatine rejected, and that their review of the death narratives in the CSR found 91 deaths classified by the local investigator as “undetermined” but subsequently adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee as “sudden cardiac” deaths without any documented evidence to support the change.

At his request, Dr. Perry said they included two case examples (figures 1 and 2) in the BMJ Open paper of the “obvious disconnect” in death endpoints. Both of these were identified by the local investigator as a myocardial infarction but later “misreported” according to Dr. Perry, as a sudden cardiac death and noncardiovascular death (trauma), respectively.

“What’s so important about this is not only that it throws into doubt the reliability of what the people at Harvard and elsewhere reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017, but also raises a question about any other large study like this where you rely on supposedly ethical local investigators to run the trial well and to report accurately what happens to people,” Dr. Perry said in an interview.

Although he never prescribed evolocumab after the initial results were published, Dr. Perry said he’s even less convinced of a benefit now. “Basically, I don’t believe that they are telling us the facts. I have no reason to say there’s an element of deliberately misleading us. I think it’s sloppiness, incompetence, laziness.”

Dr. Perry also favors readjudication of the mortality data in the ODYSSEY trial, which showed an all-cause mortality benefit with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent).
 

The ‘full picture’

Dr. Sabatine explained that when a patient had a cardiovascular event, including a death, it triggered the collection of a full dossier containing all available source documents, such as discharge summaries, laboratory and imaging data, and autopsy reports, that were independently reviewed by two board certified physicians blinded to treatment. To suggest, as the RIAT investigators have, that no autopsies were performed is “obviously ridiculous and wrong.”

In contrast, he said the new analysis was post hoc, involved unblinded individuals, and relied on serious adverse event narratives, which include a small text box that must be filled out with the site’s initial impression of the case and sent within 24 hours of the event.

Further, when the FOURIER investigators pulled the dossiers for the two more egregious examples cited in the paper, they found that the first patient died in his sleep at home. “The investigator then just said, ‘oh, I assume it’s an MI,’ but there’s no biochemical data, there’s no ECGs, there’s nothing to make the diagnosis of MI. So that’s why that is a sudden cardiac death per the FDA definition,” Dr. Sabatine said.

When the FOURIER investigators reviewed the full dossier for the second case example, they found the patient had slipped in his kitchen at home, sustained a serious head trauma, was brought into the emergency department, and died.

“That’s why we rely on the source documents. That gives the full picture,” he said. The FDA also reviewed the death narratives.

“They comment, ironically, that they were surprised at the inconsistencies between the investigator-reported causes of death and the central events committee-adjudicated ones, making it sound like something nefarious has happened. But that’s the whole point of adjudication, right? That you have a central events committee that reviews and then classifies based on all the data,” Dr. Sabatine said.

Dr. Sabatine said he sees no reason to reevaluate the ODYSSEY mortality data and that the RIAT analysis should not change the overall interpretation of FOURIER.

“I think this is in fact a disservice to the medical community because it’s not real science,” he said. “It’s just sensationalism and sends the wrong message. But I completely stand by the results that we published, as the FDA has.”

Dr. Kaul also thought the new analysis doesn’t materially change the overall benefit–risk balance. He observed that there isn’t a major difference between the reanalysis and the original evaluation. Total mortality was similar and, for cardiovascular deaths, the original NEJM paper lists 251 for evolocumab versus 240 for placebo and the reanalysis lists 150 versus 125, respectively.

Undetermined deaths were 144 for evolocumab and 164 for placebo in the reanalysis. “The conservative approach is to count them as presumed cardiovascular deaths,” Dr. Kaul said. “So, if you do the math and add those undetermined as cardiovascular deaths, we get a total of 294 (150 + 144) versus 289 (125 + 164). That’s five excess deaths with evolocumab.”
 

Open access

Although the RIAT group has called for the public release of the FOURIER data, commercial and legal issues will complicate that process, Steven Grover, MD, professor of medicine and director of the comprehensive health improvement program at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. Amgen is back in court over patent protection, filing an appeal with the Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts in a protracted battle, Reuters reported.

“One thing that’s for sure after they’ve raised questions about the results of this study [is that] somebody needs to take a good hard look at the adjudicated results,” said Dr. Grover, who coauthored several iterations of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society dyslipidemia guidelines, including the latest in 2021.

“I think the thing that got so many of us back in 2017 when the study was first published is the mortality data stuck out like a sore thumb,” he said in an interview. “It didn’t have to be statistically significant, but it did need to move in the same direction as the nonfatal coronary events. That’s what we’ve seen happen time and again and, in this case, it was going in the opposite direction.”

Dr. Sabatine said he doesn’t know whether the data will be released but that the FOURIER trialists plan to submit a rebuttal to BMJ Open to the RIAT analysis, which has caused a stir on CardioTwitter. “Now that people live with tweets of information, it necessitates then dispelling the misinformation that comes out. So yes, we will draft a rebuttal pointing out all the flaws in this analysis.”

Dr. Kaul commented that the FDA’s response not to provide the data was “rather curious” and that Dr. Sabatine and colleagues had the opportunity to address the RIAT group’s concerns, but the paper notes they did not even bother to respond. “You can’t be holier than thou in medicine. You have to treat every question with respect and humility and can’t be dismissive. ... He could have nipped the evil in the bud, so to speak.”

The study was funded by a grant from the University of Maryland, Baltimore. The authors, Dr. Kaul, and Dr. Grover reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Readjudication of mortality data from the FOURIER trial suggests a higher risk for cardiovascular death with evolocumab (Repatha) among patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease than originally reported for the first-in-class PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor.

The Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) investigators launched this review in 2018, citing “significant inconsistencies and misreporting” between information in death narratives in the trial’s clinical study report (CSR) and the 2017 New England Journal of Medicine publication of the primary trial results.

“After readjudication, deaths of cardiac origin were numerically higher in the evolocumab group than in the placebo group in the FOURIER trial, suggesting possible cardiac harm,” the researchers conclude in the new report published online in BMJ Open. “At the time the trial was terminated early, a non-significantly higher risk of cardiovascular mortality was observed with evolocumab, which was numerically greater in our adjudication.

“Our findings indicate that complete restoration of all clinical outcomes from the FOURIER trial is required,” they wrote. “Meanwhile, clinicians should be skeptical about benefits vs harms of prescribing evolocumab for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

Asked to comment on the reanalysis, FOURIER lead investigator Marc Sabatine, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Lewis Dexter distinguished chair in cardiovascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said: “It’s hard to call this science. I think it lacks all scientific rigor and is fundamentally flawed and, because their process was flawed, it has led them to erroneous conclusions.”

Reached for comment, Sanjay Kaul, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, who was not involved with either study, said: “If I were to describe this in one sentence, I would say much ado about nothing. A tempest in a teapot.”
 

Evaluating hard outcomes

The Food and Drug Administration approved evolocumab in 2015 for lowering LDL cholesterol levels, but without results from any trial evaluating hard outcomes.

As previously reported in 2017, FOURIER showed that adding evolocumab to high-intensity statins slashed LDL cholesterol by 59% and was associated with a 15% reduction in the primary composite cardiovascular events endpoint, compared with placebo, but numerically more all-cause and CV mortality.

The NEJM data analysis reported the risk for cardiovascular mortality was 5% (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.25), whereas the new review found a still nonsignificant 20% relative risk (R95% CI, 0.95-1.51).

Cardiac deaths were also numerically higher in the evolocumab group (113 vs. 88), corresponding to a 28% higher relative risk (95% CI, 0.97-1.69). Vascular deaths were similar at 37 in both groups (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.63-1.58).

For 360 of the 870 deaths, the cause of death adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee differs from that identified by the local clinical investigators in the CSR death narrative, the authors said.

The RIAT investigators found 11 more deaths from myocardial infarction in the evolocumab group (36 vs. 25 in NEJM) and 3 fewer deaths in the placebo group (27 vs. 30). In addition, their review indicated that deaths as a result of cardiac failure in the evolocumab group were almost double those in the placebo group, at 31 versus 16, respectively.
 

An ‘obvious disconnect’

Thomas L. Perry, MD, a coauthor of the BMJ Open paper and a general internist in the department of anesthesiology, pharmacology, and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview that the team repeatedly sought information from the FOURIER investigators but never received a response.

They petitioned and received the FOURIER CSR from the European Medicines Agency and Health Canada and made a similar request with the FDA but were told in October 2019 it would take up to 7 years to release the information. Case report forms were also requested but not received from all three agencies.

Dr. Perry noted that no autopsies were performed in the trial, a claim Dr. Sabatine rejected, and that their review of the death narratives in the CSR found 91 deaths classified by the local investigator as “undetermined” but subsequently adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee as “sudden cardiac” deaths without any documented evidence to support the change.

At his request, Dr. Perry said they included two case examples (figures 1 and 2) in the BMJ Open paper of the “obvious disconnect” in death endpoints. Both of these were identified by the local investigator as a myocardial infarction but later “misreported” according to Dr. Perry, as a sudden cardiac death and noncardiovascular death (trauma), respectively.

“What’s so important about this is not only that it throws into doubt the reliability of what the people at Harvard and elsewhere reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017, but also raises a question about any other large study like this where you rely on supposedly ethical local investigators to run the trial well and to report accurately what happens to people,” Dr. Perry said in an interview.

Although he never prescribed evolocumab after the initial results were published, Dr. Perry said he’s even less convinced of a benefit now. “Basically, I don’t believe that they are telling us the facts. I have no reason to say there’s an element of deliberately misleading us. I think it’s sloppiness, incompetence, laziness.”

Dr. Perry also favors readjudication of the mortality data in the ODYSSEY trial, which showed an all-cause mortality benefit with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent).
 

The ‘full picture’

Dr. Sabatine explained that when a patient had a cardiovascular event, including a death, it triggered the collection of a full dossier containing all available source documents, such as discharge summaries, laboratory and imaging data, and autopsy reports, that were independently reviewed by two board certified physicians blinded to treatment. To suggest, as the RIAT investigators have, that no autopsies were performed is “obviously ridiculous and wrong.”

In contrast, he said the new analysis was post hoc, involved unblinded individuals, and relied on serious adverse event narratives, which include a small text box that must be filled out with the site’s initial impression of the case and sent within 24 hours of the event.

Further, when the FOURIER investigators pulled the dossiers for the two more egregious examples cited in the paper, they found that the first patient died in his sleep at home. “The investigator then just said, ‘oh, I assume it’s an MI,’ but there’s no biochemical data, there’s no ECGs, there’s nothing to make the diagnosis of MI. So that’s why that is a sudden cardiac death per the FDA definition,” Dr. Sabatine said.

When the FOURIER investigators reviewed the full dossier for the second case example, they found the patient had slipped in his kitchen at home, sustained a serious head trauma, was brought into the emergency department, and died.

“That’s why we rely on the source documents. That gives the full picture,” he said. The FDA also reviewed the death narratives.

“They comment, ironically, that they were surprised at the inconsistencies between the investigator-reported causes of death and the central events committee-adjudicated ones, making it sound like something nefarious has happened. But that’s the whole point of adjudication, right? That you have a central events committee that reviews and then classifies based on all the data,” Dr. Sabatine said.

Dr. Sabatine said he sees no reason to reevaluate the ODYSSEY mortality data and that the RIAT analysis should not change the overall interpretation of FOURIER.

“I think this is in fact a disservice to the medical community because it’s not real science,” he said. “It’s just sensationalism and sends the wrong message. But I completely stand by the results that we published, as the FDA has.”

Dr. Kaul also thought the new analysis doesn’t materially change the overall benefit–risk balance. He observed that there isn’t a major difference between the reanalysis and the original evaluation. Total mortality was similar and, for cardiovascular deaths, the original NEJM paper lists 251 for evolocumab versus 240 for placebo and the reanalysis lists 150 versus 125, respectively.

Undetermined deaths were 144 for evolocumab and 164 for placebo in the reanalysis. “The conservative approach is to count them as presumed cardiovascular deaths,” Dr. Kaul said. “So, if you do the math and add those undetermined as cardiovascular deaths, we get a total of 294 (150 + 144) versus 289 (125 + 164). That’s five excess deaths with evolocumab.”
 

Open access

Although the RIAT group has called for the public release of the FOURIER data, commercial and legal issues will complicate that process, Steven Grover, MD, professor of medicine and director of the comprehensive health improvement program at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. Amgen is back in court over patent protection, filing an appeal with the Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts in a protracted battle, Reuters reported.

“One thing that’s for sure after they’ve raised questions about the results of this study [is that] somebody needs to take a good hard look at the adjudicated results,” said Dr. Grover, who coauthored several iterations of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society dyslipidemia guidelines, including the latest in 2021.

“I think the thing that got so many of us back in 2017 when the study was first published is the mortality data stuck out like a sore thumb,” he said in an interview. “It didn’t have to be statistically significant, but it did need to move in the same direction as the nonfatal coronary events. That’s what we’ve seen happen time and again and, in this case, it was going in the opposite direction.”

Dr. Sabatine said he doesn’t know whether the data will be released but that the FOURIER trialists plan to submit a rebuttal to BMJ Open to the RIAT analysis, which has caused a stir on CardioTwitter. “Now that people live with tweets of information, it necessitates then dispelling the misinformation that comes out. So yes, we will draft a rebuttal pointing out all the flaws in this analysis.”

Dr. Kaul commented that the FDA’s response not to provide the data was “rather curious” and that Dr. Sabatine and colleagues had the opportunity to address the RIAT group’s concerns, but the paper notes they did not even bother to respond. “You can’t be holier than thou in medicine. You have to treat every question with respect and humility and can’t be dismissive. ... He could have nipped the evil in the bud, so to speak.”

The study was funded by a grant from the University of Maryland, Baltimore. The authors, Dr. Kaul, and Dr. Grover reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Participation in the first 2 years of Maryland’s Advanced Primary Care Program (MDPCP) was associated with better COVID-19 outcomes compared with a matched group not involved with the program, new data indicate.

The better outcomes were seen in higher vaccination rates and fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from the disease, according to study authors, led by Emily Gruber, MBA, MPH, with the Maryland Primary Care Program, Maryland Department of Health in Baltimore.

The results were published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study population was divided into MDPCP participants (n = 208,146) and a matched cohort (n = 37,203) of beneficiaries not attributed to MDPCP practices but who met eligibility criteria for study participation from Jan. 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2021.
 

More vaccinations, more antibody treatments

Researchers broke down the comparisons of better outcomes: 84.47% of MDPCP beneficiaries were fully vaccinated vs. 77.93% of nonparticipating beneficiaries (P less than .001). COVID-19–positive program beneficiaries also received monoclonal antibody treatment more often (8.45% vs. 6.11%; P less than .001).

Plus, program participants received more care via telehealth (62.95% vs. 54.53%; P less than .001) compared with those not participating.

Regarding secondary outcomes, MDPCP beneficiaries had lower rates of COVID cases (6.55% vs. 7.09%; P less than .001), lower rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations (1.81% vs. 2.06%; P = .001), and lower rates of death due to COVID-19 (0.56% vs. 0.77%; P less than .001).
 

Program components

Enrollment in the MDPCP is voluntary, and primary care practices can apply each year to be part of the program.

The model integrates primary care and public health in the pandemic response. It was created by the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

It expands the role of primary care to include services such as expanded care management, integrated behavioral health, data-driven care, and screenings and referrals to address social needs.

Coauthor Howard Haft, MD, MMM, with the Maryland Department of Public Health, said in an interview that among the most important factors in the program’s success were giving providers vaccines to distribute and then giving providers data on how many patients are vaccinated, and who’s not vaccinated but at high risk, and how those rates compare to other practices.

As to whether this could be a widespread model, Dr. Haft said, “It’s highly replicable.”

“Every state in the nation overall has all of these resources. It’s a matter of having the operational and political will to put those resources together. Almost every state has the technological ability to use their health information exchange to help tie pieces together.”
 

Vaccines and testing made available to providers

Making ample vaccines and testing available to providers in their offices helped patients get those services in a place they trust, Dr. Haft said.

The model also included a payment system for providers that included a significant amount of non–visit-based payments when many locations were closed in the height of the pandemic.

“That helped financially,” as did providing free telehealth platforms to practices with training on how to use them, Dr. Haft said.
 

‘Innovative and important’

Renu Tipirneni, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan and at the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor, said Maryland is out front putting into practice what practices nationwide aspire to do – coordinating physical and mental health and social needs and integrating primary and public health. Dr. Tipirneni, who was not involved with the study, said she was impressed the researchers were able to show statistically significant improvement with COVID-19 outcomes in the first 2 years.

“In terms of health outcomes, we often have to wait longer to see good outcomes,” she said. “It’s a really innovative and important model.”

She said states can learn from each other and this model is an example.

Integrating primary care and public health and addressing social needs may be the biggest challenges for states, she said, as those realms typically have been siloed.

“But they may be the key components to achieving these outcomes,” she said.
 

Take-home message

The most important benefit of the program is that data suggest it saves lives, according to Dr. Haft. While the actual difference between COVID deaths in the program and nonprogram groups was small, multiplying that savings across the nation shows substantial potential benefit, he explained.

“At a time when we were losing lives at an unconscionable rate, we were able to make a difference in saving lives,” Dr. Haft said.

Authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

The study received financial support from the Maryland Department of Health.

Dr. Tiperneni is helping evaluate Michigan’s Medicaid contract.
 

Participation in the first 2 years of Maryland’s Advanced Primary Care Program (MDPCP) was associated with better COVID-19 outcomes compared with a matched group not involved with the program, new data indicate.

The better outcomes were seen in higher vaccination rates and fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from the disease, according to study authors, led by Emily Gruber, MBA, MPH, with the Maryland Primary Care Program, Maryland Department of Health in Baltimore.

The results were published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study population was divided into MDPCP participants (n = 208,146) and a matched cohort (n = 37,203) of beneficiaries not attributed to MDPCP practices but who met eligibility criteria for study participation from Jan. 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2021.
 

More vaccinations, more antibody treatments

Researchers broke down the comparisons of better outcomes: 84.47% of MDPCP beneficiaries were fully vaccinated vs. 77.93% of nonparticipating beneficiaries (P less than .001). COVID-19–positive program beneficiaries also received monoclonal antibody treatment more often (8.45% vs. 6.11%; P less than .001).

Plus, program participants received more care via telehealth (62.95% vs. 54.53%; P less than .001) compared with those not participating.

Regarding secondary outcomes, MDPCP beneficiaries had lower rates of COVID cases (6.55% vs. 7.09%; P less than .001), lower rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations (1.81% vs. 2.06%; P = .001), and lower rates of death due to COVID-19 (0.56% vs. 0.77%; P less than .001).
 

Program components

Enrollment in the MDPCP is voluntary, and primary care practices can apply each year to be part of the program.

The model integrates primary care and public health in the pandemic response. It was created by the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

It expands the role of primary care to include services such as expanded care management, integrated behavioral health, data-driven care, and screenings and referrals to address social needs.

Coauthor Howard Haft, MD, MMM, with the Maryland Department of Public Health, said in an interview that among the most important factors in the program’s success were giving providers vaccines to distribute and then giving providers data on how many patients are vaccinated, and who’s not vaccinated but at high risk, and how those rates compare to other practices.

As to whether this could be a widespread model, Dr. Haft said, “It’s highly replicable.”

“Every state in the nation overall has all of these resources. It’s a matter of having the operational and political will to put those resources together. Almost every state has the technological ability to use their health information exchange to help tie pieces together.”
 

Vaccines and testing made available to providers

Making ample vaccines and testing available to providers in their offices helped patients get those services in a place they trust, Dr. Haft said.

The model also included a payment system for providers that included a significant amount of non–visit-based payments when many locations were closed in the height of the pandemic.

“That helped financially,” as did providing free telehealth platforms to practices with training on how to use them, Dr. Haft said.
 

‘Innovative and important’

Renu Tipirneni, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan and at the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor, said Maryland is out front putting into practice what practices nationwide aspire to do – coordinating physical and mental health and social needs and integrating primary and public health. Dr. Tipirneni, who was not involved with the study, said she was impressed the researchers were able to show statistically significant improvement with COVID-19 outcomes in the first 2 years.

“In terms of health outcomes, we often have to wait longer to see good outcomes,” she said. “It’s a really innovative and important model.”

She said states can learn from each other and this model is an example.

Integrating primary care and public health and addressing social needs may be the biggest challenges for states, she said, as those realms typically have been siloed.

“But they may be the key components to achieving these outcomes,” she said.
 

Take-home message

The most important benefit of the program is that data suggest it saves lives, according to Dr. Haft. While the actual difference between COVID deaths in the program and nonprogram groups was small, multiplying that savings across the nation shows substantial potential benefit, he explained.

“At a time when we were losing lives at an unconscionable rate, we were able to make a difference in saving lives,” Dr. Haft said.

Authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

The study received financial support from the Maryland Department of Health.

Dr. Tiperneni is helping evaluate Michigan’s Medicaid contract.
 

Participation in the first 2 years of Maryland’s Advanced Primary Care Program (MDPCP) was associated with better COVID-19 outcomes compared with a matched group not involved with the program, new data indicate.

The better outcomes were seen in higher vaccination rates and fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from the disease, according to study authors, led by Emily Gruber, MBA, MPH, with the Maryland Primary Care Program, Maryland Department of Health in Baltimore.

The results were published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study population was divided into MDPCP participants (n = 208,146) and a matched cohort (n = 37,203) of beneficiaries not attributed to MDPCP practices but who met eligibility criteria for study participation from Jan. 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2021.
 

More vaccinations, more antibody treatments

Researchers broke down the comparisons of better outcomes: 84.47% of MDPCP beneficiaries were fully vaccinated vs. 77.93% of nonparticipating beneficiaries (P less than .001). COVID-19–positive program beneficiaries also received monoclonal antibody treatment more often (8.45% vs. 6.11%; P less than .001).

Plus, program participants received more care via telehealth (62.95% vs. 54.53%; P less than .001) compared with those not participating.

Regarding secondary outcomes, MDPCP beneficiaries had lower rates of COVID cases (6.55% vs. 7.09%; P less than .001), lower rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations (1.81% vs. 2.06%; P = .001), and lower rates of death due to COVID-19 (0.56% vs. 0.77%; P less than .001).
 

Program components

Enrollment in the MDPCP is voluntary, and primary care practices can apply each year to be part of the program.

The model integrates primary care and public health in the pandemic response. It was created by the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

It expands the role of primary care to include services such as expanded care management, integrated behavioral health, data-driven care, and screenings and referrals to address social needs.

Coauthor Howard Haft, MD, MMM, with the Maryland Department of Public Health, said in an interview that among the most important factors in the program’s success were giving providers vaccines to distribute and then giving providers data on how many patients are vaccinated, and who’s not vaccinated but at high risk, and how those rates compare to other practices.

As to whether this could be a widespread model, Dr. Haft said, “It’s highly replicable.”

“Every state in the nation overall has all of these resources. It’s a matter of having the operational and political will to put those resources together. Almost every state has the technological ability to use their health information exchange to help tie pieces together.”
 

Vaccines and testing made available to providers

Making ample vaccines and testing available to providers in their offices helped patients get those services in a place they trust, Dr. Haft said.

The model also included a payment system for providers that included a significant amount of non–visit-based payments when many locations were closed in the height of the pandemic.

“That helped financially,” as did providing free telehealth platforms to practices with training on how to use them, Dr. Haft said.
 

‘Innovative and important’

Renu Tipirneni, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan and at the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor, said Maryland is out front putting into practice what practices nationwide aspire to do – coordinating physical and mental health and social needs and integrating primary and public health. Dr. Tipirneni, who was not involved with the study, said she was impressed the researchers were able to show statistically significant improvement with COVID-19 outcomes in the first 2 years.

“In terms of health outcomes, we often have to wait longer to see good outcomes,” she said. “It’s a really innovative and important model.”

She said states can learn from each other and this model is an example.

Integrating primary care and public health and addressing social needs may be the biggest challenges for states, she said, as those realms typically have been siloed.

“But they may be the key components to achieving these outcomes,” she said.
 

Take-home message

The most important benefit of the program is that data suggest it saves lives, according to Dr. Haft. While the actual difference between COVID deaths in the program and nonprogram groups was small, multiplying that savings across the nation shows substantial potential benefit, he explained.

“At a time when we were losing lives at an unconscionable rate, we were able to make a difference in saving lives,” Dr. Haft said.

Authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

The study received financial support from the Maryland Department of Health.

Dr. Tiperneni is helping evaluate Michigan’s Medicaid contract.
 

Doug Flora, MD, knows the value of early cancer detection because it helped him survive kidney cancer 5 years ago. But as a medical oncologist and hematologist, and the executive medical director of oncology services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare in Edgewood, Ky., he also knows that a new era of early cancer detection testing poses big challenges for his network of six hospitals and 169 specialty and primary care offices throughout Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana.

Multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are finally a reality and could be a potential game changer because they can screen for the possibility of up to 50 different cancers in asymptomatic individuals with one blood draw. They represent one of the fastest growing segments in medical diagnostics with a projected value of $2.77 billion by 2030, according to the market research firm Grand View Research.

These tests are different from traditional liquid biopsies, which are designed to identify actionable gene mutations to help inform treatment decisions of patients already diagnosed with cancer. Instead, MCED tests work to detect fragments of circulating free DNA that have been shed by tumors and released into the bloodstream. Detecting these cancer signals could indicate that an individual has cancer well before they ever develop symptoms.

For some cancer types, particularly those commonly diagnosed at advanced stages or those without general population screening tests, MCED testing could have a significant impact.

In its new report, Grand View Research highlights nine “prominent players” active in the MCED market; of these, two have been granted breakthrough device designation by the Food and Drug Administration: OverC MCDBT by Burning Rock on Jan. 3, 2023, and Galleri by Grail in 2019. Galleri was launched in June 2021 and can be obtained with a prescription at a cost of $949.

Yet, while patients are asking for these tests and primary care physicians are prescribing them, oncologists are grappling with how to manage the first patients whose tests tell them they may have cancer.

Ordering the tests may seem straightforward, but in reality, it is not. In fact, they are so new that most health systems have no internal guidelines for physicians. Guidelines would address when the tests should be prescribed, and whether a patient should undergo more testing or be referred to an oncologist.
 

Clinical trials underway

There are currently at least 17 clinical trials underway to investigate the performance and clinical utility of MCED tests. Six of these involve Grail, including NHS-Galleri, the largest study to date of 140,000 participants in the United Kingdom where participants will be followed for 3 years with annual visits at 12 and 24 months. And, the National Cancer Institute is spearheading a clinical trial of its own, according to a search of ClinicalTrials.gov.

In September 2022, Grail presented findings from its pivotal PATHFINDER study at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology. Researchers reported that cancer signals were detected in 1.4% (92) of 6,621 participants enrolled in the study. Of the 92, 35 people were diagnosed with 36 cancers: 19 were solid tumors (2 oropharyngeal, 5 breast, l liver, 1 intrahepatic bile duct, 2 colon/rectum, 2 prostate, 1 lung, 1 pancreas, 1 small intestine, 1 uterus, 1 ovary and 1 bone) and 17 hematologic cancers (1 plasma cell myeloma/disorders, 2 lymphoid leukemia, 2 Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, and 12 lymphoma).

Almost half of newly diagnosed cases were cancers in stage 1 or 2. Of stage 1 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. Of stage 2 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. All other cancers were in stage 3 and 4 or were listed as recurrent or no stage. Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, chair of the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who presented the results from PATHFINDER at ESMO, reported that, of all diagnosed cancers, only breast, colon/rectum, prostate, and lung have established screening protocols.

The findings were so striking that the meeting scientific co-chair, Fabrice André, MD, PhD, told ESMO the oncology field must prepare for an onslaught of new patients.

“Within the next 5 years, we will need more doctors, surgeons and nurses with more diagnostic and treatment infrastructures to care for the rising number of people who will be identified by multicancer early detection tests,” said Dr. André, who is director of research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, and future president of ESMO (2025-2026). “We need to involve all stakeholders in deciding new pathways of care. We need to agree who will be tested and when and where tests will be carried out, and to anticipate the changes that will happen as a result of these tests.”

But first, he urged, the need for comparative trials “across all types of cancer to find out if having an early detection test affects morbidity and mortality. We also need to know how the tests benefit patients, and how to discuss the results with them,” Dr. André said.
 

Demand may burden health systems

Dr. Flora suggested that companies like Grail are rushing their product to market without conducting long-term sizable clinical trials.

“These diagnostic companies are a billion dollar publicly traded or venture capital-funded companies that are losing millions of dollars a quarter as they’re scaling up these tests. So, there is some pressure on the sales forces ... to start moving product long before the science has met our lowest areas for entry,” Dr. Flora said. “They are aggressively marketing to a primary care audience that knows nothing about MCEDs. It’s a sales-driven development solving a problem we all believe is real, but we don’t know if it actually solves the problem.”

There are many unanswered questions, he said. Among these include whether the tests do indeed extend survival. “What they’re suggesting – that is if the blood test detects it – that we’re going to save your life. That’s not yet been proven. This is where the providers are pushing back against these industry types to say: ‘This is the wild west right now.’ It’s very irresponsible to go out there and try to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of product to doctors who have never studied genetics,” Dr. Flora said.

Grail’s chief medical officer Jeff Venstrom, MD, however, said physicians don’t need a background in genetic testing to order or interpret Galleri because it’s not a genetic test. Genetic tests look for genetic variants associated with cancer risk, which Galleri does not. MCED tests rely on genomic profiling to identify alterations in tumors.

“Maybe there’s still confusion in the market, which is common for new technologies when they’re initially launched. This is not a 23andMe test. We do not report germline mutations that have implications for cancer risk. We’re using this blood sample to test for the presence or absence of a cancer signal. The test result is very clear and simple: One area of the report says ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ It is a binary result that says if a signal is detected or not. The second provides additional information around where that signal could be coming from,” he said.

Galleri could fill a huge unmet need in cancer prevention, Dr. Venstrom said. Not only could it detect cancer at an earlier stage, but it could serve as a screening tool for cancers like pancreatic cancer in which screening is not available.

The test is not intended to replace standard of care screening, he said. The ordering provider should have a conversation with the patient about overall cancer risk. “Are you smoking? What’s your risk of obesity-associated cancers? Do you have a family history of cancer? I think this should all be in the context of a good conversation around preventative care,” he said.
 

Planning and prep in Boston

In Boston, Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist who specializes in gastrointestinal cancers, agreed that MCED testing has forced her team at the Mass General Cancer Center global cancer care program to think outside of the box.

“We’re a major academic center and it’s not easy [because] this is all uncharted territory,” she said. “We all recognize there are more tests coming, and they are here to stay. As a health system, we have to be ready to manage not only the tests, but patient anxieties, and all the complexities that come with it. We just don’t know yet how to best navigate.”

Although Dr. Parikh’s center has set up a working group tasked with organizing an outpatient clinic for patients with positive MCED tests, the current system is haphazard.

“Right now, it gets bounced around between people,” she explained. “Sometimes, patients are getting referred to the oncology team rather than the primary care team to try to sort out where the cancer signal is coming from, that is, if it’s not immediately obvious. No one really knows who should be the right person to own it,” Dr. Parikh said. While the test is supposed to give tissue-specific results, “it’s not perfect” and sometimes imaging and other work-ups are needed to locate the source of the signa.

“A group of four or five oncologists get looped in and then we’re trying to sort it out on a case-by-case basis, but understanding that with more and more tests coming, that kind of ad hoc approach isn’t going to be sufficient. We need a happy medium between the primary care and the disease specific oncologist, someone who can kind of help think through the diagnostic workup until they have a cancer diagnosis to get them to the right place,” Dr. Parikh said.

Dr. Venstrom said Grail is committed to providing support to clinicians in these situations. “We’re doing everything we can with our medical education forums. We have this pretty intense and extensive postpositive suite of resources,” he explained. “Some of our doctors on staff call the ordering provider within 24 hours just to clarify if there are any questions or confusion from the report. For example, if it suggests the signal is coming from the lung, we provide additional support around additional workups.”
 

Out-of-pocket test may widen disparities in care

With the exception of a few health insurance companies that have committed to covering some of the cost for the test, Galleri is an out-of-pocket expense.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledged that broad insurance coverage for the Galleri test remains a hurdle, although “we’ve secured coverage for a handful of companies of self-insured employers and forward-thinking insurers.” This includes partnerships with Point32Health, and Alignment Health, among others, he said.

There is also growing support among more than 400 cancer organizations for the Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act to accelerate coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. “We are constantly trying to understand the evidence that’s needed for payors to make sure that we get the broadest access possible for this test,” he said.
 

The first positive test result

Back at St. Elizabeth Healthcare where they’ve only seen one positive MCED test result thus far, Dr. Flora is more concerned about patients giving informed consent before they even get the test. “When the reps started hammering our primary care doctors, we sent communiques throughout the system saying that we would very much like to regulate this to make sure that before our patients receive accidental harm, that they at least have a conversation with somebody who understands the test,” he explained.

All 15 patients who requested the test at the hospital were first required to discuss the implications with a genetic counselor who is part of the system. “We are really pro–cancer screening,” he said, but added his hospital is “not pumped” about the Galleri test. “We’re being very cautious about overstatements made by sales guys to our primary care doctors, so we’re letting our own precision medicine people handle it.”

There’s a similar system in place at Community Health Network, a nonprofit health system with nine hospitals and 1,300 employee providers throughout Central Indiana. Patrick McGill, MD, a primary care physician and chief analytics officer for the network says they have streamlined patients with positive tests through their high-risk oncology clinic. “They don’t go straight to a medical oncologist which I know some systems are struggling with,” he said. “They get additional testing, whether it’s imaging they might need or other lab testing. We’ve had a few lung positives, and a few leukemia positives which might go straight to medical oncology. I think we had one breast that was positive so she got additional breast imaging.”

Through its foundation, CHN will offer 2,000 tests free of charge. “We decided to take cost off the table with this funding,” Dr. McGill said. “A lot of health systems I talk to are always concerned that insurance doesn’t cover it and it’s cost prohibitive. Is it creating additional disparities because only people who can afford it can get the test?”

Dr. Schrag serves as an uncompensated advisor for Grail. Previously, while with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, she received research funding from Grail.

Doug Flora, MD, knows the value of early cancer detection because it helped him survive kidney cancer 5 years ago. But as a medical oncologist and hematologist, and the executive medical director of oncology services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare in Edgewood, Ky., he also knows that a new era of early cancer detection testing poses big challenges for his network of six hospitals and 169 specialty and primary care offices throughout Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana.

Multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are finally a reality and could be a potential game changer because they can screen for the possibility of up to 50 different cancers in asymptomatic individuals with one blood draw. They represent one of the fastest growing segments in medical diagnostics with a projected value of $2.77 billion by 2030, according to the market research firm Grand View Research.

These tests are different from traditional liquid biopsies, which are designed to identify actionable gene mutations to help inform treatment decisions of patients already diagnosed with cancer. Instead, MCED tests work to detect fragments of circulating free DNA that have been shed by tumors and released into the bloodstream. Detecting these cancer signals could indicate that an individual has cancer well before they ever develop symptoms.

For some cancer types, particularly those commonly diagnosed at advanced stages or those without general population screening tests, MCED testing could have a significant impact.

In its new report, Grand View Research highlights nine “prominent players” active in the MCED market; of these, two have been granted breakthrough device designation by the Food and Drug Administration: OverC MCDBT by Burning Rock on Jan. 3, 2023, and Galleri by Grail in 2019. Galleri was launched in June 2021 and can be obtained with a prescription at a cost of $949.

Yet, while patients are asking for these tests and primary care physicians are prescribing them, oncologists are grappling with how to manage the first patients whose tests tell them they may have cancer.

Ordering the tests may seem straightforward, but in reality, it is not. In fact, they are so new that most health systems have no internal guidelines for physicians. Guidelines would address when the tests should be prescribed, and whether a patient should undergo more testing or be referred to an oncologist.
 

Clinical trials underway

There are currently at least 17 clinical trials underway to investigate the performance and clinical utility of MCED tests. Six of these involve Grail, including NHS-Galleri, the largest study to date of 140,000 participants in the United Kingdom where participants will be followed for 3 years with annual visits at 12 and 24 months. And, the National Cancer Institute is spearheading a clinical trial of its own, according to a search of ClinicalTrials.gov.

In September 2022, Grail presented findings from its pivotal PATHFINDER study at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology. Researchers reported that cancer signals were detected in 1.4% (92) of 6,621 participants enrolled in the study. Of the 92, 35 people were diagnosed with 36 cancers: 19 were solid tumors (2 oropharyngeal, 5 breast, l liver, 1 intrahepatic bile duct, 2 colon/rectum, 2 prostate, 1 lung, 1 pancreas, 1 small intestine, 1 uterus, 1 ovary and 1 bone) and 17 hematologic cancers (1 plasma cell myeloma/disorders, 2 lymphoid leukemia, 2 Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, and 12 lymphoma).

Almost half of newly diagnosed cases were cancers in stage 1 or 2. Of stage 1 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. Of stage 2 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. All other cancers were in stage 3 and 4 or were listed as recurrent or no stage. Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, chair of the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who presented the results from PATHFINDER at ESMO, reported that, of all diagnosed cancers, only breast, colon/rectum, prostate, and lung have established screening protocols.

The findings were so striking that the meeting scientific co-chair, Fabrice André, MD, PhD, told ESMO the oncology field must prepare for an onslaught of new patients.

“Within the next 5 years, we will need more doctors, surgeons and nurses with more diagnostic and treatment infrastructures to care for the rising number of people who will be identified by multicancer early detection tests,” said Dr. André, who is director of research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, and future president of ESMO (2025-2026). “We need to involve all stakeholders in deciding new pathways of care. We need to agree who will be tested and when and where tests will be carried out, and to anticipate the changes that will happen as a result of these tests.”

But first, he urged, the need for comparative trials “across all types of cancer to find out if having an early detection test affects morbidity and mortality. We also need to know how the tests benefit patients, and how to discuss the results with them,” Dr. André said.
 

Demand may burden health systems

Dr. Flora suggested that companies like Grail are rushing their product to market without conducting long-term sizable clinical trials.

“These diagnostic companies are a billion dollar publicly traded or venture capital-funded companies that are losing millions of dollars a quarter as they’re scaling up these tests. So, there is some pressure on the sales forces ... to start moving product long before the science has met our lowest areas for entry,” Dr. Flora said. “They are aggressively marketing to a primary care audience that knows nothing about MCEDs. It’s a sales-driven development solving a problem we all believe is real, but we don’t know if it actually solves the problem.”

There are many unanswered questions, he said. Among these include whether the tests do indeed extend survival. “What they’re suggesting – that is if the blood test detects it – that we’re going to save your life. That’s not yet been proven. This is where the providers are pushing back against these industry types to say: ‘This is the wild west right now.’ It’s very irresponsible to go out there and try to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of product to doctors who have never studied genetics,” Dr. Flora said.

Grail’s chief medical officer Jeff Venstrom, MD, however, said physicians don’t need a background in genetic testing to order or interpret Galleri because it’s not a genetic test. Genetic tests look for genetic variants associated with cancer risk, which Galleri does not. MCED tests rely on genomic profiling to identify alterations in tumors.

“Maybe there’s still confusion in the market, which is common for new technologies when they’re initially launched. This is not a 23andMe test. We do not report germline mutations that have implications for cancer risk. We’re using this blood sample to test for the presence or absence of a cancer signal. The test result is very clear and simple: One area of the report says ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ It is a binary result that says if a signal is detected or not. The second provides additional information around where that signal could be coming from,” he said.

Galleri could fill a huge unmet need in cancer prevention, Dr. Venstrom said. Not only could it detect cancer at an earlier stage, but it could serve as a screening tool for cancers like pancreatic cancer in which screening is not available.

The test is not intended to replace standard of care screening, he said. The ordering provider should have a conversation with the patient about overall cancer risk. “Are you smoking? What’s your risk of obesity-associated cancers? Do you have a family history of cancer? I think this should all be in the context of a good conversation around preventative care,” he said.
 

Planning and prep in Boston

In Boston, Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist who specializes in gastrointestinal cancers, agreed that MCED testing has forced her team at the Mass General Cancer Center global cancer care program to think outside of the box.

“We’re a major academic center and it’s not easy [because] this is all uncharted territory,” she said. “We all recognize there are more tests coming, and they are here to stay. As a health system, we have to be ready to manage not only the tests, but patient anxieties, and all the complexities that come with it. We just don’t know yet how to best navigate.”

Although Dr. Parikh’s center has set up a working group tasked with organizing an outpatient clinic for patients with positive MCED tests, the current system is haphazard.

“Right now, it gets bounced around between people,” she explained. “Sometimes, patients are getting referred to the oncology team rather than the primary care team to try to sort out where the cancer signal is coming from, that is, if it’s not immediately obvious. No one really knows who should be the right person to own it,” Dr. Parikh said. While the test is supposed to give tissue-specific results, “it’s not perfect” and sometimes imaging and other work-ups are needed to locate the source of the signa.

“A group of four or five oncologists get looped in and then we’re trying to sort it out on a case-by-case basis, but understanding that with more and more tests coming, that kind of ad hoc approach isn’t going to be sufficient. We need a happy medium between the primary care and the disease specific oncologist, someone who can kind of help think through the diagnostic workup until they have a cancer diagnosis to get them to the right place,” Dr. Parikh said.

Dr. Venstrom said Grail is committed to providing support to clinicians in these situations. “We’re doing everything we can with our medical education forums. We have this pretty intense and extensive postpositive suite of resources,” he explained. “Some of our doctors on staff call the ordering provider within 24 hours just to clarify if there are any questions or confusion from the report. For example, if it suggests the signal is coming from the lung, we provide additional support around additional workups.”
 

Out-of-pocket test may widen disparities in care

With the exception of a few health insurance companies that have committed to covering some of the cost for the test, Galleri is an out-of-pocket expense.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledged that broad insurance coverage for the Galleri test remains a hurdle, although “we’ve secured coverage for a handful of companies of self-insured employers and forward-thinking insurers.” This includes partnerships with Point32Health, and Alignment Health, among others, he said.

There is also growing support among more than 400 cancer organizations for the Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act to accelerate coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. “We are constantly trying to understand the evidence that’s needed for payors to make sure that we get the broadest access possible for this test,” he said.
 

The first positive test result

Back at St. Elizabeth Healthcare where they’ve only seen one positive MCED test result thus far, Dr. Flora is more concerned about patients giving informed consent before they even get the test. “When the reps started hammering our primary care doctors, we sent communiques throughout the system saying that we would very much like to regulate this to make sure that before our patients receive accidental harm, that they at least have a conversation with somebody who understands the test,” he explained.

All 15 patients who requested the test at the hospital were first required to discuss the implications with a genetic counselor who is part of the system. “We are really pro–cancer screening,” he said, but added his hospital is “not pumped” about the Galleri test. “We’re being very cautious about overstatements made by sales guys to our primary care doctors, so we’re letting our own precision medicine people handle it.”

There’s a similar system in place at Community Health Network, a nonprofit health system with nine hospitals and 1,300 employee providers throughout Central Indiana. Patrick McGill, MD, a primary care physician and chief analytics officer for the network says they have streamlined patients with positive tests through their high-risk oncology clinic. “They don’t go straight to a medical oncologist which I know some systems are struggling with,” he said. “They get additional testing, whether it’s imaging they might need or other lab testing. We’ve had a few lung positives, and a few leukemia positives which might go straight to medical oncology. I think we had one breast that was positive so she got additional breast imaging.”

Through its foundation, CHN will offer 2,000 tests free of charge. “We decided to take cost off the table with this funding,” Dr. McGill said. “A lot of health systems I talk to are always concerned that insurance doesn’t cover it and it’s cost prohibitive. Is it creating additional disparities because only people who can afford it can get the test?”

Dr. Schrag serves as an uncompensated advisor for Grail. Previously, while with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, she received research funding from Grail.

Doug Flora, MD, knows the value of early cancer detection because it helped him survive kidney cancer 5 years ago. But as a medical oncologist and hematologist, and the executive medical director of oncology services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare in Edgewood, Ky., he also knows that a new era of early cancer detection testing poses big challenges for his network of six hospitals and 169 specialty and primary care offices throughout Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana.

Multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are finally a reality and could be a potential game changer because they can screen for the possibility of up to 50 different cancers in asymptomatic individuals with one blood draw. They represent one of the fastest growing segments in medical diagnostics with a projected value of $2.77 billion by 2030, according to the market research firm Grand View Research.

These tests are different from traditional liquid biopsies, which are designed to identify actionable gene mutations to help inform treatment decisions of patients already diagnosed with cancer. Instead, MCED tests work to detect fragments of circulating free DNA that have been shed by tumors and released into the bloodstream. Detecting these cancer signals could indicate that an individual has cancer well before they ever develop symptoms.

For some cancer types, particularly those commonly diagnosed at advanced stages or those without general population screening tests, MCED testing could have a significant impact.

In its new report, Grand View Research highlights nine “prominent players” active in the MCED market; of these, two have been granted breakthrough device designation by the Food and Drug Administration: OverC MCDBT by Burning Rock on Jan. 3, 2023, and Galleri by Grail in 2019. Galleri was launched in June 2021 and can be obtained with a prescription at a cost of $949.

Yet, while patients are asking for these tests and primary care physicians are prescribing them, oncologists are grappling with how to manage the first patients whose tests tell them they may have cancer.

Ordering the tests may seem straightforward, but in reality, it is not. In fact, they are so new that most health systems have no internal guidelines for physicians. Guidelines would address when the tests should be prescribed, and whether a patient should undergo more testing or be referred to an oncologist.
 

Clinical trials underway

There are currently at least 17 clinical trials underway to investigate the performance and clinical utility of MCED tests. Six of these involve Grail, including NHS-Galleri, the largest study to date of 140,000 participants in the United Kingdom where participants will be followed for 3 years with annual visits at 12 and 24 months. And, the National Cancer Institute is spearheading a clinical trial of its own, according to a search of ClinicalTrials.gov.

In September 2022, Grail presented findings from its pivotal PATHFINDER study at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology. Researchers reported that cancer signals were detected in 1.4% (92) of 6,621 participants enrolled in the study. Of the 92, 35 people were diagnosed with 36 cancers: 19 were solid tumors (2 oropharyngeal, 5 breast, l liver, 1 intrahepatic bile duct, 2 colon/rectum, 2 prostate, 1 lung, 1 pancreas, 1 small intestine, 1 uterus, 1 ovary and 1 bone) and 17 hematologic cancers (1 plasma cell myeloma/disorders, 2 lymphoid leukemia, 2 Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, and 12 lymphoma).

Almost half of newly diagnosed cases were cancers in stage 1 or 2. Of stage 1 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. Of stage 2 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. All other cancers were in stage 3 and 4 or were listed as recurrent or no stage. Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, chair of the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who presented the results from PATHFINDER at ESMO, reported that, of all diagnosed cancers, only breast, colon/rectum, prostate, and lung have established screening protocols.

The findings were so striking that the meeting scientific co-chair, Fabrice André, MD, PhD, told ESMO the oncology field must prepare for an onslaught of new patients.

“Within the next 5 years, we will need more doctors, surgeons and nurses with more diagnostic and treatment infrastructures to care for the rising number of people who will be identified by multicancer early detection tests,” said Dr. André, who is director of research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, and future president of ESMO (2025-2026). “We need to involve all stakeholders in deciding new pathways of care. We need to agree who will be tested and when and where tests will be carried out, and to anticipate the changes that will happen as a result of these tests.”

But first, he urged, the need for comparative trials “across all types of cancer to find out if having an early detection test affects morbidity and mortality. We also need to know how the tests benefit patients, and how to discuss the results with them,” Dr. André said.
 

Demand may burden health systems

Dr. Flora suggested that companies like Grail are rushing their product to market without conducting long-term sizable clinical trials.

“These diagnostic companies are a billion dollar publicly traded or venture capital-funded companies that are losing millions of dollars a quarter as they’re scaling up these tests. So, there is some pressure on the sales forces ... to start moving product long before the science has met our lowest areas for entry,” Dr. Flora said. “They are aggressively marketing to a primary care audience that knows nothing about MCEDs. It’s a sales-driven development solving a problem we all believe is real, but we don’t know if it actually solves the problem.”

There are many unanswered questions, he said. Among these include whether the tests do indeed extend survival. “What they’re suggesting – that is if the blood test detects it – that we’re going to save your life. That’s not yet been proven. This is where the providers are pushing back against these industry types to say: ‘This is the wild west right now.’ It’s very irresponsible to go out there and try to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of product to doctors who have never studied genetics,” Dr. Flora said.

Grail’s chief medical officer Jeff Venstrom, MD, however, said physicians don’t need a background in genetic testing to order or interpret Galleri because it’s not a genetic test. Genetic tests look for genetic variants associated with cancer risk, which Galleri does not. MCED tests rely on genomic profiling to identify alterations in tumors.

“Maybe there’s still confusion in the market, which is common for new technologies when they’re initially launched. This is not a 23andMe test. We do not report germline mutations that have implications for cancer risk. We’re using this blood sample to test for the presence or absence of a cancer signal. The test result is very clear and simple: One area of the report says ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ It is a binary result that says if a signal is detected or not. The second provides additional information around where that signal could be coming from,” he said.

Galleri could fill a huge unmet need in cancer prevention, Dr. Venstrom said. Not only could it detect cancer at an earlier stage, but it could serve as a screening tool for cancers like pancreatic cancer in which screening is not available.

The test is not intended to replace standard of care screening, he said. The ordering provider should have a conversation with the patient about overall cancer risk. “Are you smoking? What’s your risk of obesity-associated cancers? Do you have a family history of cancer? I think this should all be in the context of a good conversation around preventative care,” he said.
 

Planning and prep in Boston

In Boston, Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist who specializes in gastrointestinal cancers, agreed that MCED testing has forced her team at the Mass General Cancer Center global cancer care program to think outside of the box.

“We’re a major academic center and it’s not easy [because] this is all uncharted territory,” she said. “We all recognize there are more tests coming, and they are here to stay. As a health system, we have to be ready to manage not only the tests, but patient anxieties, and all the complexities that come with it. We just don’t know yet how to best navigate.”

Although Dr. Parikh’s center has set up a working group tasked with organizing an outpatient clinic for patients with positive MCED tests, the current system is haphazard.

“Right now, it gets bounced around between people,” she explained. “Sometimes, patients are getting referred to the oncology team rather than the primary care team to try to sort out where the cancer signal is coming from, that is, if it’s not immediately obvious. No one really knows who should be the right person to own it,” Dr. Parikh said. While the test is supposed to give tissue-specific results, “it’s not perfect” and sometimes imaging and other work-ups are needed to locate the source of the signa.

“A group of four or five oncologists get looped in and then we’re trying to sort it out on a case-by-case basis, but understanding that with more and more tests coming, that kind of ad hoc approach isn’t going to be sufficient. We need a happy medium between the primary care and the disease specific oncologist, someone who can kind of help think through the diagnostic workup until they have a cancer diagnosis to get them to the right place,” Dr. Parikh said.

Dr. Venstrom said Grail is committed to providing support to clinicians in these situations. “We’re doing everything we can with our medical education forums. We have this pretty intense and extensive postpositive suite of resources,” he explained. “Some of our doctors on staff call the ordering provider within 24 hours just to clarify if there are any questions or confusion from the report. For example, if it suggests the signal is coming from the lung, we provide additional support around additional workups.”
 

Out-of-pocket test may widen disparities in care

With the exception of a few health insurance companies that have committed to covering some of the cost for the test, Galleri is an out-of-pocket expense.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledged that broad insurance coverage for the Galleri test remains a hurdle, although “we’ve secured coverage for a handful of companies of self-insured employers and forward-thinking insurers.” This includes partnerships with Point32Health, and Alignment Health, among others, he said.

There is also growing support among more than 400 cancer organizations for the Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act to accelerate coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. “We are constantly trying to understand the evidence that’s needed for payors to make sure that we get the broadest access possible for this test,” he said.
 

The first positive test result

Back at St. Elizabeth Healthcare where they’ve only seen one positive MCED test result thus far, Dr. Flora is more concerned about patients giving informed consent before they even get the test. “When the reps started hammering our primary care doctors, we sent communiques throughout the system saying that we would very much like to regulate this to make sure that before our patients receive accidental harm, that they at least have a conversation with somebody who understands the test,” he explained.

All 15 patients who requested the test at the hospital were first required to discuss the implications with a genetic counselor who is part of the system. “We are really pro–cancer screening,” he said, but added his hospital is “not pumped” about the Galleri test. “We’re being very cautious about overstatements made by sales guys to our primary care doctors, so we’re letting our own precision medicine people handle it.”

There’s a similar system in place at Community Health Network, a nonprofit health system with nine hospitals and 1,300 employee providers throughout Central Indiana. Patrick McGill, MD, a primary care physician and chief analytics officer for the network says they have streamlined patients with positive tests through their high-risk oncology clinic. “They don’t go straight to a medical oncologist which I know some systems are struggling with,” he said. “They get additional testing, whether it’s imaging they might need or other lab testing. We’ve had a few lung positives, and a few leukemia positives which might go straight to medical oncology. I think we had one breast that was positive so she got additional breast imaging.”

Through its foundation, CHN will offer 2,000 tests free of charge. “We decided to take cost off the table with this funding,” Dr. McGill said. “A lot of health systems I talk to are always concerned that insurance doesn’t cover it and it’s cost prohibitive. Is it creating additional disparities because only people who can afford it can get the test?”

Dr. Schrag serves as an uncompensated advisor for Grail. Previously, while with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, she received research funding from Grail.

Medicare beneficiaries will pay no more than $35 a month for insulin in 2023, while ongoing work will be needed to ensure that everyone in the United States with diabetes who needs insulin can afford it.

As of Jan. 1, 2023, the new provision tucked into the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Biden in August 2022, means that beneficiaries who take insulin via pen or syringe, covered under Medicare part D (prescription drugs), fall under the $35/month co-pay cap.

On July 1, 2023, the same out-of-pocket limit will also apply to those who take insulin via pump, which falls under Medicare part B (durable medical equipment).  

The bill originally included the co-pay cap for people with private insurance as well, but that was stripped out as part of the reconciliation process and didn’t garner the necessary 60 Senate votes to keep it in prior to passage.  

However, since 2019, 22 U.S. states have passed their own co-pay caps for people with state-regulated private insurance, ranging from $25 to $100 for a 30-day supply. A few states also cap the cost of diabetes devices as well.

Moreover, federal legislation could still address co-pay caps for people with private insurance, as well as include provisions to help those without insurance to afford insulin, Niels Knutson, director of government relations for the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, told this news organization.

“There’s a whole menu of ideas on how to address the issue of insulin affordability. Most pathways to solving this on the federal level will require 60 votes in the Senate. There is universal recognition that this is a problem. The challenge becomes: is everybody on the same page for how to fix it,” Mr. Knutson said.

JDRF is supporting the bipartisan Improving Needed Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now (INSULIN) Act, introduced in June 2022 by U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who co-chair the Senate Diabetes Caucus. The bill includes a co-pay cap and also provisions to encourage insulin manufacturers to reduce their list prices.

“The bill is unique in that it adds a pathway to reduce the cost of insulin for everybody, regardless of whether they have insurance or not ... We see the Insulin Act as being the best path forward and the most viable path to have the biggest impact for the most people,” Mr. Knutson explained.

At the same time, JDRF is also supporting a nonprofit pharmaceutical company called Civica, which plans to bring biosimilar versions of the insulin analogs glargine, lispro, and aspart to the U.S. market by 2024 at a cost of no more than $30 for a vial and $50 for a box of prefilled pens. The state of California is expected to partner with Civica as well.

“This is just another access point for insulin, especially for folks who are uninsured, that would make a big impact,” Mr. Knutson said.

Other entities that have announced intentions to bring lower-cost insulin to the United States market include the Korean firm Undbio and billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban, through his company Cost Plus Drugs.

“Insulin is such a clear and present crisis that we need to address,” Mr. Knutson said. “You’re seeing this problem being recognized and solutions from all different angles coming at it.”

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

Medicare beneficiaries will pay no more than $35 a month for insulin in 2023, while ongoing work will be needed to ensure that everyone in the United States with diabetes who needs insulin can afford it.

As of Jan. 1, 2023, the new provision tucked into the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Biden in August 2022, means that beneficiaries who take insulin via pen or syringe, covered under Medicare part D (prescription drugs), fall under the $35/month co-pay cap.

On July 1, 2023, the same out-of-pocket limit will also apply to those who take insulin via pump, which falls under Medicare part B (durable medical equipment).  

The bill originally included the co-pay cap for people with private insurance as well, but that was stripped out as part of the reconciliation process and didn’t garner the necessary 60 Senate votes to keep it in prior to passage.  

However, since 2019, 22 U.S. states have passed their own co-pay caps for people with state-regulated private insurance, ranging from $25 to $100 for a 30-day supply. A few states also cap the cost of diabetes devices as well.

Moreover, federal legislation could still address co-pay caps for people with private insurance, as well as include provisions to help those without insurance to afford insulin, Niels Knutson, director of government relations for the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, told this news organization.

“There’s a whole menu of ideas on how to address the issue of insulin affordability. Most pathways to solving this on the federal level will require 60 votes in the Senate. There is universal recognition that this is a problem. The challenge becomes: is everybody on the same page for how to fix it,” Mr. Knutson said.

JDRF is supporting the bipartisan Improving Needed Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now (INSULIN) Act, introduced in June 2022 by U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who co-chair the Senate Diabetes Caucus. The bill includes a co-pay cap and also provisions to encourage insulin manufacturers to reduce their list prices.

“The bill is unique in that it adds a pathway to reduce the cost of insulin for everybody, regardless of whether they have insurance or not ... We see the Insulin Act as being the best path forward and the most viable path to have the biggest impact for the most people,” Mr. Knutson explained.

At the same time, JDRF is also supporting a nonprofit pharmaceutical company called Civica, which plans to bring biosimilar versions of the insulin analogs glargine, lispro, and aspart to the U.S. market by 2024 at a cost of no more than $30 for a vial and $50 for a box of prefilled pens. The state of California is expected to partner with Civica as well.

“This is just another access point for insulin, especially for folks who are uninsured, that would make a big impact,” Mr. Knutson said.

Other entities that have announced intentions to bring lower-cost insulin to the United States market include the Korean firm Undbio and billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban, through his company Cost Plus Drugs.

“Insulin is such a clear and present crisis that we need to address,” Mr. Knutson said. “You’re seeing this problem being recognized and solutions from all different angles coming at it.”

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

Medicare beneficiaries will pay no more than $35 a month for insulin in 2023, while ongoing work will be needed to ensure that everyone in the United States with diabetes who needs insulin can afford it.

As of Jan. 1, 2023, the new provision tucked into the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Biden in August 2022, means that beneficiaries who take insulin via pen or syringe, covered under Medicare part D (prescription drugs), fall under the $35/month co-pay cap.

On July 1, 2023, the same out-of-pocket limit will also apply to those who take insulin via pump, which falls under Medicare part B (durable medical equipment).  

The bill originally included the co-pay cap for people with private insurance as well, but that was stripped out as part of the reconciliation process and didn’t garner the necessary 60 Senate votes to keep it in prior to passage.  

However, since 2019, 22 U.S. states have passed their own co-pay caps for people with state-regulated private insurance, ranging from $25 to $100 for a 30-day supply. A few states also cap the cost of diabetes devices as well.

Moreover, federal legislation could still address co-pay caps for people with private insurance, as well as include provisions to help those without insurance to afford insulin, Niels Knutson, director of government relations for the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, told this news organization.

“There’s a whole menu of ideas on how to address the issue of insulin affordability. Most pathways to solving this on the federal level will require 60 votes in the Senate. There is universal recognition that this is a problem. The challenge becomes: is everybody on the same page for how to fix it,” Mr. Knutson said.

JDRF is supporting the bipartisan Improving Needed Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now (INSULIN) Act, introduced in June 2022 by U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who co-chair the Senate Diabetes Caucus. The bill includes a co-pay cap and also provisions to encourage insulin manufacturers to reduce their list prices.

“The bill is unique in that it adds a pathway to reduce the cost of insulin for everybody, regardless of whether they have insurance or not ... We see the Insulin Act as being the best path forward and the most viable path to have the biggest impact for the most people,” Mr. Knutson explained.

At the same time, JDRF is also supporting a nonprofit pharmaceutical company called Civica, which plans to bring biosimilar versions of the insulin analogs glargine, lispro, and aspart to the U.S. market by 2024 at a cost of no more than $30 for a vial and $50 for a box of prefilled pens. The state of California is expected to partner with Civica as well.

“This is just another access point for insulin, especially for folks who are uninsured, that would make a big impact,” Mr. Knutson said.

Other entities that have announced intentions to bring lower-cost insulin to the United States market include the Korean firm Undbio and billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban, through his company Cost Plus Drugs.

“Insulin is such a clear and present crisis that we need to address,” Mr. Knutson said. “You’re seeing this problem being recognized and solutions from all different angles coming at it.”

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

More than a quarter of cardiologists in an international survey reported experiencing mental health conditions ranging from anxiety or anger issues to major depression or other psychiatric disorders.  

Such conditions varied in prevalence by cardiology subspecialty and years in the field, were more common in women than in men, and were closely linked to enduring hostile work environments and other strains of professional life.

The survey, conducted only months before the COVID-19 pandemic and with its share of limitations, still paints a picture that’s not pretty.

For example, mental health concerns were reported by about 42% of respondents who cited a hostile work environment, defined as workplace experience of discrimination based on age, sex, religion, race or ethnicity, or emotional or sexual harassment. Conversely, the prevalence of these concerns reached only 17% among those without such workplace conditions.

The study shows substantial overlap between cardiologists reporting hostility at work and those with mental health concerns, “and that was a significant finding,” Garima Sharma, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Still, only 31% of male and 42% of female cardiologists (P < .001) reporting mental health concerns also said they had sought professional help either within or outside their own institutions.

That means “there is a lot of silent suffering” in the field, said Dr. Sharma, who is lead author on the study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Bringing back the conversation

The survey findings, she added, point to at least two potential ways the cardiology community can strive to diminish what may be a major underlying cause of the mental health concerns and their consequences.

“If you work towards reducing hostility at work and making mental health a priority for your workforce, then those experiencing these types of egregious conditions based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation are less likely to be harmed.”

Mental health concerns among cardiologists are seldom openly discussed, so the current study can be “a way to bring them back into the conversation,” Dr. Sharma said. Clinician mental health “is extremely important because it directly impacts patient care and productivity.”

The survey’s reported mental health conditions “are an issue across the board in medicine, and amongst our medical students as well,” senior author Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview. The current study provides new details about their prevalence and predictors in cardiology and, she hopes, may improve the field’s awareness of and efforts to address the problem.

“We need to support those who have underlying mental health conditions, as well as improve the work environment to reduce contributory factors to mental illnesses. And we also need to work on reducing the stigma associated with seeking treatment and on reducing the barriers to receiving treatment,” said Dr. Mehta, who chairs the Workgroup on Clinician Well-Being of the ACC, which conducted the survey in 2019.
 

A global perspective

Cardiologists in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania – 5,890 in all – responded to mental health questions on the survey, which was novel for its global reach and insights across continents and cultures.

Respondents in South America and Central America reported the highest prevalences of mental health concerns, outliers at about 39% and 33%, respectively. Rates for most other geographic regions ranged narrowly from about 20% to 26%, the lowest reported in Asia and the Middle East.

Dr. Sharma acknowledged that the countries probably varied widely in social and cultural factors likely to influence survey responses, such as interpretation of the questionnaire’s mental health terminology or the degree to which the disorders are stigmatized.

“I think it’s hard to say how people may or may not respond culturally to a certain word or metric,” she said. But on the survey results, “whether you’re practicing in rural America, in rural India, or in the United Arab Emirates, Oceania, or Eastern Europe, there is a level of consistency, across the board, in what people are recognizing as mental health conditions.”
 

Junior vs. senior physicians

The global perspective “is a nice positive of the study, and the high rates in Central America and South America I think were something the field was not aware of and are an important contribution,” Srijan Sen, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The psychological toll of hostile work environments is an issue throughout medicine, “but it seems greater in certain specialties, and cardiology may be one where it’s more of a problem,” observed Dr. Sen, who studies physician mental health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and wasn’t associated with the survey.

Mental health concerns in the survey were significantly more common among women than men (33.7% vs 26.3%), and for younger cardiologists, compared with older cardiologists (32.2% for those < 40 vs. 22.1% and 16.8% for those 55-69 and 70 or older, respectively).

Those findings seem to make sense, Dr. Sen observed. “Generally, cardiology and medicine broadly are hierarchical, so being more junior can be stressful.” And if there’s more hostility in the workplace, “it might fall on junior people.”

In other studies, moreover, “a high level of work-family conflict has been a real driver of depression and burnout, and that likely is affecting younger physicians, particularly young women physicians,” who may have smaller children and a greater burden of childcare than their seniors.

He pointed to the survey’s low response rate as an important limitation of the study. Of the 71,022 cardiologists invited to participate, only 5,890 (8.3%) responded and answered the queries on mental health.

With a response rate that low, a survey “can be biased in ways that we can’t predict,” Dr. Sen noted. Also, anyone concerned about the toxicity of their own workplace might be “more likely to respond to the survey than if they worked in a more pleasant place. That would provide a skewed sense of the overall experience of cardiologists.”

Those issues might not be a concern with the current survey, however, “because the results are consistent with other studies with higher response rates.”
 

‘Sobering report’

An accompanying editorial said Dr. Sharm and colleagues have provided “a sobering report on the global prevalence and potential contributors to mental health concerns” in the surveyed population.

Based on its lessons, Andrew J. Sauer, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., proposed several potential “interventions” the field could enact.

It could “selectively promote leaders who strive to mitigate implicit bias, discrimination, and harassment while advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion within the broad ranks of cardiologists.”

Also, he continued, “we must eliminate the stigmatization of mental illness among physicians. We need to handle mental health concerns with compassion and without blaming, like how we strive to treat our veterans who suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder.”

Lastly, Dr. Sauer wrote, “mentorship programs should be formalized to assist the cardiologist in transition zones from early to mid-career, with particular attention to women and those experiencing a simultaneously increased load of family burdens that compound existing workplace contributors to burnout and psychological distress.”
 

Years in practice

Of the cardiologists who responded to the survey’s mental health questions, 28% reported they have experienced mental health issues that could include alcohol/drug use disorder, suicidal tendencies, psychological distress (including anxiety, irritability, or anger), “other psychiatric disorders” (such as panic disorder, posttraumatic stress, or eating disorders) or major psychiatric disorders such as major depression, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia.

Cardiologists with 5-10 years of practice post-training were more likely than cardiologists practicing for at least 20 years to have mental health concerns (31.9% vs. 22.6%, P < .001).

Mental health concerns were cited by 42% of respondents who cited “any type of discrimination” based on age, sex, race or ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the report noted.

Among those reporting any mental health concern, 2.7% considered suicide within the past year and 2.9% considered suicide more than 12 months previously. Women were more likely than men to consider suicide within the past year (3.8% vs. 2.3%) but were also more likely to seek help (42.3% vs. 31.1%; P < .001 for both differences), the authors wrote.

In multivariate analysis, predictors of mental health concerns included emotional harassment, 2.81 (odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.46-3.20), any discrimination (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.61-2.12), being divorced (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.26-2.36, age less than 55 years (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.66), and being mid-career versus late (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.62).

Because the survey was conducted from September to October 2019, before the pandemic’s traumatic effects unfolded on health care nearly everywhere, “I think there needs to be a follow-up at some point when everything has leveled out,” Dr. Sharma said. The current study is “a baseline, and not a healthy baseline,” for the field’s state of mental health that has likely grown worse during the pandemic.

But even without such a follow-up, the current study “is actionable enough that it forces us to do something about it right now.”

Dr. Sharma, Dr. Mehta, their coauthors, Dr. Sen, and Dr. Sauer reported no relevant disclosures.

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

More than a quarter of cardiologists in an international survey reported experiencing mental health conditions ranging from anxiety or anger issues to major depression or other psychiatric disorders.  

Such conditions varied in prevalence by cardiology subspecialty and years in the field, were more common in women than in men, and were closely linked to enduring hostile work environments and other strains of professional life.

The survey, conducted only months before the COVID-19 pandemic and with its share of limitations, still paints a picture that’s not pretty.

For example, mental health concerns were reported by about 42% of respondents who cited a hostile work environment, defined as workplace experience of discrimination based on age, sex, religion, race or ethnicity, or emotional or sexual harassment. Conversely, the prevalence of these concerns reached only 17% among those without such workplace conditions.

The study shows substantial overlap between cardiologists reporting hostility at work and those with mental health concerns, “and that was a significant finding,” Garima Sharma, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Still, only 31% of male and 42% of female cardiologists (P < .001) reporting mental health concerns also said they had sought professional help either within or outside their own institutions.

That means “there is a lot of silent suffering” in the field, said Dr. Sharma, who is lead author on the study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Bringing back the conversation

The survey findings, she added, point to at least two potential ways the cardiology community can strive to diminish what may be a major underlying cause of the mental health concerns and their consequences.

“If you work towards reducing hostility at work and making mental health a priority for your workforce, then those experiencing these types of egregious conditions based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation are less likely to be harmed.”

Mental health concerns among cardiologists are seldom openly discussed, so the current study can be “a way to bring them back into the conversation,” Dr. Sharma said. Clinician mental health “is extremely important because it directly impacts patient care and productivity.”

The survey’s reported mental health conditions “are an issue across the board in medicine, and amongst our medical students as well,” senior author Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview. The current study provides new details about their prevalence and predictors in cardiology and, she hopes, may improve the field’s awareness of and efforts to address the problem.

“We need to support those who have underlying mental health conditions, as well as improve the work environment to reduce contributory factors to mental illnesses. And we also need to work on reducing the stigma associated with seeking treatment and on reducing the barriers to receiving treatment,” said Dr. Mehta, who chairs the Workgroup on Clinician Well-Being of the ACC, which conducted the survey in 2019.
 

A global perspective

Cardiologists in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania – 5,890 in all – responded to mental health questions on the survey, which was novel for its global reach and insights across continents and cultures.

Respondents in South America and Central America reported the highest prevalences of mental health concerns, outliers at about 39% and 33%, respectively. Rates for most other geographic regions ranged narrowly from about 20% to 26%, the lowest reported in Asia and the Middle East.

Dr. Sharma acknowledged that the countries probably varied widely in social and cultural factors likely to influence survey responses, such as interpretation of the questionnaire’s mental health terminology or the degree to which the disorders are stigmatized.

“I think it’s hard to say how people may or may not respond culturally to a certain word or metric,” she said. But on the survey results, “whether you’re practicing in rural America, in rural India, or in the United Arab Emirates, Oceania, or Eastern Europe, there is a level of consistency, across the board, in what people are recognizing as mental health conditions.”
 

Junior vs. senior physicians

The global perspective “is a nice positive of the study, and the high rates in Central America and South America I think were something the field was not aware of and are an important contribution,” Srijan Sen, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The psychological toll of hostile work environments is an issue throughout medicine, “but it seems greater in certain specialties, and cardiology may be one where it’s more of a problem,” observed Dr. Sen, who studies physician mental health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and wasn’t associated with the survey.

Mental health concerns in the survey were significantly more common among women than men (33.7% vs 26.3%), and for younger cardiologists, compared with older cardiologists (32.2% for those < 40 vs. 22.1% and 16.8% for those 55-69 and 70 or older, respectively).

Those findings seem to make sense, Dr. Sen observed. “Generally, cardiology and medicine broadly are hierarchical, so being more junior can be stressful.” And if there’s more hostility in the workplace, “it might fall on junior people.”

In other studies, moreover, “a high level of work-family conflict has been a real driver of depression and burnout, and that likely is affecting younger physicians, particularly young women physicians,” who may have smaller children and a greater burden of childcare than their seniors.

He pointed to the survey’s low response rate as an important limitation of the study. Of the 71,022 cardiologists invited to participate, only 5,890 (8.3%) responded and answered the queries on mental health.

With a response rate that low, a survey “can be biased in ways that we can’t predict,” Dr. Sen noted. Also, anyone concerned about the toxicity of their own workplace might be “more likely to respond to the survey than if they worked in a more pleasant place. That would provide a skewed sense of the overall experience of cardiologists.”

Those issues might not be a concern with the current survey, however, “because the results are consistent with other studies with higher response rates.”
 

‘Sobering report’

An accompanying editorial said Dr. Sharm and colleagues have provided “a sobering report on the global prevalence and potential contributors to mental health concerns” in the surveyed population.

Based on its lessons, Andrew J. Sauer, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., proposed several potential “interventions” the field could enact.

It could “selectively promote leaders who strive to mitigate implicit bias, discrimination, and harassment while advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion within the broad ranks of cardiologists.”

Also, he continued, “we must eliminate the stigmatization of mental illness among physicians. We need to handle mental health concerns with compassion and without blaming, like how we strive to treat our veterans who suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder.”

Lastly, Dr. Sauer wrote, “mentorship programs should be formalized to assist the cardiologist in transition zones from early to mid-career, with particular attention to women and those experiencing a simultaneously increased load of family burdens that compound existing workplace contributors to burnout and psychological distress.”
 

Years in practice

Of the cardiologists who responded to the survey’s mental health questions, 28% reported they have experienced mental health issues that could include alcohol/drug use disorder, suicidal tendencies, psychological distress (including anxiety, irritability, or anger), “other psychiatric disorders” (such as panic disorder, posttraumatic stress, or eating disorders) or major psychiatric disorders such as major depression, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia.

Cardiologists with 5-10 years of practice post-training were more likely than cardiologists practicing for at least 20 years to have mental health concerns (31.9% vs. 22.6%, P < .001).

Mental health concerns were cited by 42% of respondents who cited “any type of discrimination” based on age, sex, race or ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the report noted.

Among those reporting any mental health concern, 2.7% considered suicide within the past year and 2.9% considered suicide more than 12 months previously. Women were more likely than men to consider suicide within the past year (3.8% vs. 2.3%) but were also more likely to seek help (42.3% vs. 31.1%; P < .001 for both differences), the authors wrote.

In multivariate analysis, predictors of mental health concerns included emotional harassment, 2.81 (odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.46-3.20), any discrimination (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.61-2.12), being divorced (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.26-2.36, age less than 55 years (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.66), and being mid-career versus late (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.62).

Because the survey was conducted from September to October 2019, before the pandemic’s traumatic effects unfolded on health care nearly everywhere, “I think there needs to be a follow-up at some point when everything has leveled out,” Dr. Sharma said. The current study is “a baseline, and not a healthy baseline,” for the field’s state of mental health that has likely grown worse during the pandemic.

But even without such a follow-up, the current study “is actionable enough that it forces us to do something about it right now.”

Dr. Sharma, Dr. Mehta, their coauthors, Dr. Sen, and Dr. Sauer reported no relevant disclosures.

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

More than a quarter of cardiologists in an international survey reported experiencing mental health conditions ranging from anxiety or anger issues to major depression or other psychiatric disorders.  

Such conditions varied in prevalence by cardiology subspecialty and years in the field, were more common in women than in men, and were closely linked to enduring hostile work environments and other strains of professional life.

The survey, conducted only months before the COVID-19 pandemic and with its share of limitations, still paints a picture that’s not pretty.

For example, mental health concerns were reported by about 42% of respondents who cited a hostile work environment, defined as workplace experience of discrimination based on age, sex, religion, race or ethnicity, or emotional or sexual harassment. Conversely, the prevalence of these concerns reached only 17% among those without such workplace conditions.

The study shows substantial overlap between cardiologists reporting hostility at work and those with mental health concerns, “and that was a significant finding,” Garima Sharma, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Still, only 31% of male and 42% of female cardiologists (P < .001) reporting mental health concerns also said they had sought professional help either within or outside their own institutions.

That means “there is a lot of silent suffering” in the field, said Dr. Sharma, who is lead author on the study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Bringing back the conversation

The survey findings, she added, point to at least two potential ways the cardiology community can strive to diminish what may be a major underlying cause of the mental health concerns and their consequences.

“If you work towards reducing hostility at work and making mental health a priority for your workforce, then those experiencing these types of egregious conditions based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation are less likely to be harmed.”

Mental health concerns among cardiologists are seldom openly discussed, so the current study can be “a way to bring them back into the conversation,” Dr. Sharma said. Clinician mental health “is extremely important because it directly impacts patient care and productivity.”

The survey’s reported mental health conditions “are an issue across the board in medicine, and amongst our medical students as well,” senior author Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview. The current study provides new details about their prevalence and predictors in cardiology and, she hopes, may improve the field’s awareness of and efforts to address the problem.

“We need to support those who have underlying mental health conditions, as well as improve the work environment to reduce contributory factors to mental illnesses. And we also need to work on reducing the stigma associated with seeking treatment and on reducing the barriers to receiving treatment,” said Dr. Mehta, who chairs the Workgroup on Clinician Well-Being of the ACC, which conducted the survey in 2019.
 

A global perspective

Cardiologists in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania – 5,890 in all – responded to mental health questions on the survey, which was novel for its global reach and insights across continents and cultures.

Respondents in South America and Central America reported the highest prevalences of mental health concerns, outliers at about 39% and 33%, respectively. Rates for most other geographic regions ranged narrowly from about 20% to 26%, the lowest reported in Asia and the Middle East.

Dr. Sharma acknowledged that the countries probably varied widely in social and cultural factors likely to influence survey responses, such as interpretation of the questionnaire’s mental health terminology or the degree to which the disorders are stigmatized.

“I think it’s hard to say how people may or may not respond culturally to a certain word or metric,” she said. But on the survey results, “whether you’re practicing in rural America, in rural India, or in the United Arab Emirates, Oceania, or Eastern Europe, there is a level of consistency, across the board, in what people are recognizing as mental health conditions.”
 

Junior vs. senior physicians

The global perspective “is a nice positive of the study, and the high rates in Central America and South America I think were something the field was not aware of and are an important contribution,” Srijan Sen, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The psychological toll of hostile work environments is an issue throughout medicine, “but it seems greater in certain specialties, and cardiology may be one where it’s more of a problem,” observed Dr. Sen, who studies physician mental health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and wasn’t associated with the survey.

Mental health concerns in the survey were significantly more common among women than men (33.7% vs 26.3%), and for younger cardiologists, compared with older cardiologists (32.2% for those < 40 vs. 22.1% and 16.8% for those 55-69 and 70 or older, respectively).

Those findings seem to make sense, Dr. Sen observed. “Generally, cardiology and medicine broadly are hierarchical, so being more junior can be stressful.” And if there’s more hostility in the workplace, “it might fall on junior people.”

In other studies, moreover, “a high level of work-family conflict has been a real driver of depression and burnout, and that likely is affecting younger physicians, particularly young women physicians,” who may have smaller children and a greater burden of childcare than their seniors.

He pointed to the survey’s low response rate as an important limitation of the study. Of the 71,022 cardiologists invited to participate, only 5,890 (8.3%) responded and answered the queries on mental health.

With a response rate that low, a survey “can be biased in ways that we can’t predict,” Dr. Sen noted. Also, anyone concerned about the toxicity of their own workplace might be “more likely to respond to the survey than if they worked in a more pleasant place. That would provide a skewed sense of the overall experience of cardiologists.”

Those issues might not be a concern with the current survey, however, “because the results are consistent with other studies with higher response rates.”
 

‘Sobering report’

An accompanying editorial said Dr. Sharm and colleagues have provided “a sobering report on the global prevalence and potential contributors to mental health concerns” in the surveyed population.

Based on its lessons, Andrew J. Sauer, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., proposed several potential “interventions” the field could enact.

It could “selectively promote leaders who strive to mitigate implicit bias, discrimination, and harassment while advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion within the broad ranks of cardiologists.”

Also, he continued, “we must eliminate the stigmatization of mental illness among physicians. We need to handle mental health concerns with compassion and without blaming, like how we strive to treat our veterans who suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder.”

Lastly, Dr. Sauer wrote, “mentorship programs should be formalized to assist the cardiologist in transition zones from early to mid-career, with particular attention to women and those experiencing a simultaneously increased load of family burdens that compound existing workplace contributors to burnout and psychological distress.”
 

Years in practice

Of the cardiologists who responded to the survey’s mental health questions, 28% reported they have experienced mental health issues that could include alcohol/drug use disorder, suicidal tendencies, psychological distress (including anxiety, irritability, or anger), “other psychiatric disorders” (such as panic disorder, posttraumatic stress, or eating disorders) or major psychiatric disorders such as major depression, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia.

Cardiologists with 5-10 years of practice post-training were more likely than cardiologists practicing for at least 20 years to have mental health concerns (31.9% vs. 22.6%, P < .001).

Mental health concerns were cited by 42% of respondents who cited “any type of discrimination” based on age, sex, race or ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the report noted.

Among those reporting any mental health concern, 2.7% considered suicide within the past year and 2.9% considered suicide more than 12 months previously. Women were more likely than men to consider suicide within the past year (3.8% vs. 2.3%) but were also more likely to seek help (42.3% vs. 31.1%; P < .001 for both differences), the authors wrote.

In multivariate analysis, predictors of mental health concerns included emotional harassment, 2.81 (odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.46-3.20), any discrimination (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.61-2.12), being divorced (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.26-2.36, age less than 55 years (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.66), and being mid-career versus late (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.62).

Because the survey was conducted from September to October 2019, before the pandemic’s traumatic effects unfolded on health care nearly everywhere, “I think there needs to be a follow-up at some point when everything has leveled out,” Dr. Sharma said. The current study is “a baseline, and not a healthy baseline,” for the field’s state of mental health that has likely grown worse during the pandemic.

But even without such a follow-up, the current study “is actionable enough that it forces us to do something about it right now.”

Dr. Sharma, Dr. Mehta, their coauthors, Dr. Sen, and Dr. Sauer reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Could gut health be behind a person’s motivation – or lack thereof – to exercise?

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia recently explored this topic when they wanted to find out why some lab mice seem to love their exercise wheel, while others mostly ignore it.

To start, the researchers used a machine-learning algorithm to look for biological traits that could explain the differences in activity levels among mice. And what they found surprised them: Genetics seemed to have little to do with it, but differences in gut bacteria appeared to matter more. A handful of studies backed that up: Thriving gut microbiomes have been linked with optimal muscle function in mice.

Sure enough, when the researchers dosed mice with broad-spectrum antibiotics, killing off their gut bacteria, the distance the rodents were able to run dropped by half. But off the antibiotics, the mice mostly regained their previous performance levels.

The findings, published in the journal Nature, suggest that the gut microbiome may help regulate the desire to exercise. 

If confirmed in humans, this hypothesis could help explain why so many Americans fail to get the recommended amount of physical activity. Some may blame lack of time, energy, or interest. But perhaps the reason could come down to the trillions of microbes living in their gut. 

This line of research could also lead to microbiome-based ways to get sedentary people off the couch or optimize athletic performance.  

But how could one’s microbiome impact the motivation to move? To find the answer, the researchers zeroed in on the brain. 
 

The gut-brain connection

After treating the mice with antibiotics, the researchers sequenced RNA in the rodents’ striatum (the part of the brain responsible for motivation). They found reduced gene expression in the cells’ dopamine receptors – which release the neurochemical dopamine, making one feel like they’ve accomplished something good. In other words: Mice treated with antibiotics were getting less of a dopamine hit after their run. 

“Only when we started focusing on the brain did we understand that the microbiome’s effect on exercise capacity was mediated by the central and peripheral nervous systems,” said study author Christoph Thaiss, PhD, a microbiologist at the University of Pennsylvania. “This realization completely changed the trajectory of the project.”

To find out how, exactly, bacteria in the colon were signaling the brain, the researchers performed a series of experiments over several years. They identified two types of bacteria, Eubacterium rectale and Coprococcus eutactus. These strains produce compounds called fatty acid amides that interact with endocannabinoid receptors in the gut. 

Those endocannabinoid receptors signal the brain to cut back its production of monoamine oxidase, the compound that breaks down dopamine. With less of this dopamine-clearing compound in the brain, more dopamine could build up after a long run, making the mice feel good and eager to hit the exercise wheel again soon. 

This gut-brain pathway “may have evolved to couple the initiation of prolonged physical activity to the nutritional status of the gastrointestinal tract,” Dr. Thaiss said. Gut bacteria monitor what’s in your colon and tell your brain whether you have enough food to fuel a workout. 

The colon, or gut, hosts trillions of microbes with potentially hundreds of different bacteria strains. These strains are determined by the food we eat and the environment we occupy.

“The genetic impact on the microbiome is rather minor,” Dr. Thaiss said, “but lifestyle factors strongly impact the composition of the gut microbiome.”

He hopes to develop nutritional interventions to encourage the growth of the motivating types of bacteria, the kind that make a person want to go for a 5-mile run.
 

What’s next?  

Moving forward,  the researchers need to find out whether the gut affects motivation in humans, too. To do that, they’re analyzing the gut microbiomes of people with varying levels of exercise motivation. 

“With enough samples, we could potentially correlate species of microbiota that exist in exercise-motivated individuals,” said study coauthor Nicholas Betley, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania. 

Variations in the gut microbiome could help explain the “runner’s high” that some people have in a long-distance race. The research could also help promote weight training or sports participation. 

“Imagine if a sports team could optimally motivate the athletes on the team to exercise,” said Dr. Betley. The lab is investigating the microbiome’s impact on high-intensity interval training.

Signals from the gut to the brain could be affecting body processes in other ways too, the researchers speculated. 

“There are so many possibilities for how these signals may change physiology and impact health,” Dr. Betley said. “A new set of studies may well establish a whole new branch of exercise physiology.”

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

Could gut health be behind a person’s motivation – or lack thereof – to exercise?

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia recently explored this topic when they wanted to find out why some lab mice seem to love their exercise wheel, while others mostly ignore it.

To start, the researchers used a machine-learning algorithm to look for biological traits that could explain the differences in activity levels among mice. And what they found surprised them: Genetics seemed to have little to do with it, but differences in gut bacteria appeared to matter more. A handful of studies backed that up: Thriving gut microbiomes have been linked with optimal muscle function in mice.

Sure enough, when the researchers dosed mice with broad-spectrum antibiotics, killing off their gut bacteria, the distance the rodents were able to run dropped by half. But off the antibiotics, the mice mostly regained their previous performance levels.

The findings, published in the journal Nature, suggest that the gut microbiome may help regulate the desire to exercise. 

If confirmed in humans, this hypothesis could help explain why so many Americans fail to get the recommended amount of physical activity. Some may blame lack of time, energy, or interest. But perhaps the reason could come down to the trillions of microbes living in their gut. 

This line of research could also lead to microbiome-based ways to get sedentary people off the couch or optimize athletic performance.  

But how could one’s microbiome impact the motivation to move? To find the answer, the researchers zeroed in on the brain. 
 

The gut-brain connection

After treating the mice with antibiotics, the researchers sequenced RNA in the rodents’ striatum (the part of the brain responsible for motivation). They found reduced gene expression in the cells’ dopamine receptors – which release the neurochemical dopamine, making one feel like they’ve accomplished something good. In other words: Mice treated with antibiotics were getting less of a dopamine hit after their run. 

“Only when we started focusing on the brain did we understand that the microbiome’s effect on exercise capacity was mediated by the central and peripheral nervous systems,” said study author Christoph Thaiss, PhD, a microbiologist at the University of Pennsylvania. “This realization completely changed the trajectory of the project.”

To find out how, exactly, bacteria in the colon were signaling the brain, the researchers performed a series of experiments over several years. They identified two types of bacteria, Eubacterium rectale and Coprococcus eutactus. These strains produce compounds called fatty acid amides that interact with endocannabinoid receptors in the gut. 

Those endocannabinoid receptors signal the brain to cut back its production of monoamine oxidase, the compound that breaks down dopamine. With less of this dopamine-clearing compound in the brain, more dopamine could build up after a long run, making the mice feel good and eager to hit the exercise wheel again soon. 

This gut-brain pathway “may have evolved to couple the initiation of prolonged physical activity to the nutritional status of the gastrointestinal tract,” Dr. Thaiss said. Gut bacteria monitor what’s in your colon and tell your brain whether you have enough food to fuel a workout. 

The colon, or gut, hosts trillions of microbes with potentially hundreds of different bacteria strains. These strains are determined by the food we eat and the environment we occupy.

“The genetic impact on the microbiome is rather minor,” Dr. Thaiss said, “but lifestyle factors strongly impact the composition of the gut microbiome.”

He hopes to develop nutritional interventions to encourage the growth of the motivating types of bacteria, the kind that make a person want to go for a 5-mile run.
 

What’s next?  

Moving forward,  the researchers need to find out whether the gut affects motivation in humans, too. To do that, they’re analyzing the gut microbiomes of people with varying levels of exercise motivation. 

“With enough samples, we could potentially correlate species of microbiota that exist in exercise-motivated individuals,” said study coauthor Nicholas Betley, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania. 

Variations in the gut microbiome could help explain the “runner’s high” that some people have in a long-distance race. The research could also help promote weight training or sports participation. 

“Imagine if a sports team could optimally motivate the athletes on the team to exercise,” said Dr. Betley. The lab is investigating the microbiome’s impact on high-intensity interval training.

Signals from the gut to the brain could be affecting body processes in other ways too, the researchers speculated. 

“There are so many possibilities for how these signals may change physiology and impact health,” Dr. Betley said. “A new set of studies may well establish a whole new branch of exercise physiology.”

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

Could gut health be behind a person’s motivation – or lack thereof – to exercise?

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia recently explored this topic when they wanted to find out why some lab mice seem to love their exercise wheel, while others mostly ignore it.

To start, the researchers used a machine-learning algorithm to look for biological traits that could explain the differences in activity levels among mice. And what they found surprised them: Genetics seemed to have little to do with it, but differences in gut bacteria appeared to matter more. A handful of studies backed that up: Thriving gut microbiomes have been linked with optimal muscle function in mice.

Sure enough, when the researchers dosed mice with broad-spectrum antibiotics, killing off their gut bacteria, the distance the rodents were able to run dropped by half. But off the antibiotics, the mice mostly regained their previous performance levels.

The findings, published in the journal Nature, suggest that the gut microbiome may help regulate the desire to exercise. 

If confirmed in humans, this hypothesis could help explain why so many Americans fail to get the recommended amount of physical activity. Some may blame lack of time, energy, or interest. But perhaps the reason could come down to the trillions of microbes living in their gut. 

This line of research could also lead to microbiome-based ways to get sedentary people off the couch or optimize athletic performance.  

But how could one’s microbiome impact the motivation to move? To find the answer, the researchers zeroed in on the brain. 
 

The gut-brain connection

After treating the mice with antibiotics, the researchers sequenced RNA in the rodents’ striatum (the part of the brain responsible for motivation). They found reduced gene expression in the cells’ dopamine receptors – which release the neurochemical dopamine, making one feel like they’ve accomplished something good. In other words: Mice treated with antibiotics were getting less of a dopamine hit after their run. 

“Only when we started focusing on the brain did we understand that the microbiome’s effect on exercise capacity was mediated by the central and peripheral nervous systems,” said study author Christoph Thaiss, PhD, a microbiologist at the University of Pennsylvania. “This realization completely changed the trajectory of the project.”

To find out how, exactly, bacteria in the colon were signaling the brain, the researchers performed a series of experiments over several years. They identified two types of bacteria, Eubacterium rectale and Coprococcus eutactus. These strains produce compounds called fatty acid amides that interact with endocannabinoid receptors in the gut. 

Those endocannabinoid receptors signal the brain to cut back its production of monoamine oxidase, the compound that breaks down dopamine. With less of this dopamine-clearing compound in the brain, more dopamine could build up after a long run, making the mice feel good and eager to hit the exercise wheel again soon. 

This gut-brain pathway “may have evolved to couple the initiation of prolonged physical activity to the nutritional status of the gastrointestinal tract,” Dr. Thaiss said. Gut bacteria monitor what’s in your colon and tell your brain whether you have enough food to fuel a workout. 

The colon, or gut, hosts trillions of microbes with potentially hundreds of different bacteria strains. These strains are determined by the food we eat and the environment we occupy.

“The genetic impact on the microbiome is rather minor,” Dr. Thaiss said, “but lifestyle factors strongly impact the composition of the gut microbiome.”

He hopes to develop nutritional interventions to encourage the growth of the motivating types of bacteria, the kind that make a person want to go for a 5-mile run.
 

What’s next?  

Moving forward,  the researchers need to find out whether the gut affects motivation in humans, too. To do that, they’re analyzing the gut microbiomes of people with varying levels of exercise motivation. 

“With enough samples, we could potentially correlate species of microbiota that exist in exercise-motivated individuals,” said study coauthor Nicholas Betley, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania. 

Variations in the gut microbiome could help explain the “runner’s high” that some people have in a long-distance race. The research could also help promote weight training or sports participation. 

“Imagine if a sports team could optimally motivate the athletes on the team to exercise,” said Dr. Betley. The lab is investigating the microbiome’s impact on high-intensity interval training.

Signals from the gut to the brain could be affecting body processes in other ways too, the researchers speculated. 

“There are so many possibilities for how these signals may change physiology and impact health,” Dr. Betley said. “A new set of studies may well establish a whole new branch of exercise physiology.”

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

Nine top professional emergency medicine organizations in the United States jointly issued a letter expressing concerns about the misleading and incomplete nature of a systematic review issued by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality on diagnostic errors in the emergency department.

The AHRQ review, issued on Dec. 15, 2022, stated that the findings of their study translate “to about 1 in 18 emergency department patients receiving an incorrect diagnosis, 1 in 50 suffering an adverse event, and 1 in 350 suffering permanent disability or death.” The authors describe these rates as similar to those seen in primary care and inpatient hospital settings.

The review was conducted through an Evidence-Based Practice Center as part of AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. The authors included data from 279 studies in the review. They identified the five most frequently misdiagnosed conditions in the ED as stroke, MI, aortic aneurysm and dissection, spinal cord compression and injury, and venous thromboembolism.

The authors noted that, given an estimated 130 million ED visits in the United States each year, the overall rate of incorrect diagnoses in the ED is approximately 5.7% and that 2.0% of the patients whose conditions were misdiagnosed suffer an adverse event as a result. On a local level, the authors estimate that an average ED with approximately 25,000 visits per year could experience 1,400 diagnostic errors, 500 diagnostic adverse events, and 75 serious harms, including 50 deaths. However, the authors noted that the overall error and harm rates were based on three studies from outside the United States (Canada, Spain, and Switzerland) and that only two of these were used to estimate harms.

“It’s imperative that we, as emergency physicians, inform the public that the AHRQ report used flawed methodology and statistics that extrapolated – and therefore overstated – the potential for harm when receiving care in US emergency departments,” Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital at Northwell Health and an assistant professor at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview.
 

Emergency medicine organizations express concerns for accuracy

The American College of Emergency Physicians and eight other medical organizations representing emergency medicine in the United States sent a letter to the AHRQ on Dec. 14, 2022, spelling out their concerns. The review was conducted as part of the AHRQ’s ongoing Effective Health Care Program, and the organizations had the opportunity to review a draft before it was published. On reading the review, they asked that the publication of the review be delayed. “After reviewing the executive summary and initial draft, we believe that the report makes misleading, incomplete, and erroneous conclusions from the literature reviewed and conveys a tone that inaccurately characterizes and unnecessarily disparages the practice of emergency medicine in the United States,” the organizations wrote in their letter.

The concerns of the emergency medicine organizations fell into four categories: misrepresentation of the practice and nature of emergency medicine; applicability of references cited; inaccurate interpretation of malpractice data; and the reporting of a single overall diagnostic error rate of 5.7% in EDs.

The practice of emergency medicine is variable and unique among specialties in that the focus is less about the final diagnosis and more about immediate identification and treatment of life-threatening conditions, according to the letter.

Notably, many of the studies cited did not mention whether the patient’s final diagnosis was apparent on admission to the ED. “Without this knowledge, it is completely inappropriate to label such discrepancies as ‘ED diagnostic error,’ ” the organizations wrote.

All medical specialties have room for improvement, but the current AHRQ review appears not to identify these opportunities, and instead of contributing to a discussion of improving patient care in the ED, it may cause harm by presenting misinformation, they said.
 

Misleading and inadequate evidence

“I strongly agree with the concerns mentioned from ACEP and other key organizations about the problems and conclusions reached in the AHRQ report,” Dr. Glatter said in an interview.

“The methodology used to arrive at the conclusions [in the review] was flawed and does not provide an accurate estimate of diagnostic error and, consequently, misdiagnosis and deaths occurring in emergency departments in the U.S.,” he said. “The startling headline that 250,000 people die annually in U.S. EDs was extrapolated from a single study based on one death that occurred in a Canadian ED in 2004,” Dr. Glatter noted. “Clearly, this is not only poor methodology but flawed science.”

The AHRQ report misused one death from this single study to estimate the death rate across the United States, Dr. Glatter explained, and this overestimate improperly inflated and magnified the number of potential patients that may have been harmed by physician error.

“This flawed evidence would actually place ED misdiagnoses in the top five causes of death in the United States, with 1 in every 500 ED patients dying as a result of an error by a physician. Simply put, there is just no evidence to support such a claim,” said Dr. Glatter.

The repercussions of the AHRQ review could be harmful to patients by instilling fear and doubt about the ability of emergency physicians to diagnose those who present with life-threatening conditions, Dr. Glatter said.

“This more balanced and accurate picture of the role of emergency physicians in diagnosing and managing such emergencies needs to be communicated to the public in order to reassure and instill confidence in our role in the sequence of emergency care in relation to continuity of care in patients presenting to the ED,” he said.

“While our primary role as emergency medicine physicians is to stabilize and evaluate patients, arriving at a particular diagnosis is not always possible for some conditions,” and additional diagnostic testing is often needed to identify more specific causes of symptoms, Dr. Glatter added.

Additional research is needed for a more accurate representation of diagnostic errors in the ED, said Dr. Glatter. New prospective studies are needed to address outcomes in U.S. EDs that account for the latest advances and diagnostic modalities in emergency medicine, “particularly advances in bedside ultrasound that can expedite critical decision-making, which can be lifesaving.

“The AHRQ report is simply not an accurate reflection of the technology and skill set that current emergency medicine practice offers our patients in 2023.”

Dr. Glatter disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nine top professional emergency medicine organizations in the United States jointly issued a letter expressing concerns about the misleading and incomplete nature of a systematic review issued by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality on diagnostic errors in the emergency department.

The AHRQ review, issued on Dec. 15, 2022, stated that the findings of their study translate “to about 1 in 18 emergency department patients receiving an incorrect diagnosis, 1 in 50 suffering an adverse event, and 1 in 350 suffering permanent disability or death.” The authors describe these rates as similar to those seen in primary care and inpatient hospital settings.

The review was conducted through an Evidence-Based Practice Center as part of AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. The authors included data from 279 studies in the review. They identified the five most frequently misdiagnosed conditions in the ED as stroke, MI, aortic aneurysm and dissection, spinal cord compression and injury, and venous thromboembolism.

The authors noted that, given an estimated 130 million ED visits in the United States each year, the overall rate of incorrect diagnoses in the ED is approximately 5.7% and that 2.0% of the patients whose conditions were misdiagnosed suffer an adverse event as a result. On a local level, the authors estimate that an average ED with approximately 25,000 visits per year could experience 1,400 diagnostic errors, 500 diagnostic adverse events, and 75 serious harms, including 50 deaths. However, the authors noted that the overall error and harm rates were based on three studies from outside the United States (Canada, Spain, and Switzerland) and that only two of these were used to estimate harms.

“It’s imperative that we, as emergency physicians, inform the public that the AHRQ report used flawed methodology and statistics that extrapolated – and therefore overstated – the potential for harm when receiving care in US emergency departments,” Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital at Northwell Health and an assistant professor at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview.
 

Emergency medicine organizations express concerns for accuracy

The American College of Emergency Physicians and eight other medical organizations representing emergency medicine in the United States sent a letter to the AHRQ on Dec. 14, 2022, spelling out their concerns. The review was conducted as part of the AHRQ’s ongoing Effective Health Care Program, and the organizations had the opportunity to review a draft before it was published. On reading the review, they asked that the publication of the review be delayed. “After reviewing the executive summary and initial draft, we believe that the report makes misleading, incomplete, and erroneous conclusions from the literature reviewed and conveys a tone that inaccurately characterizes and unnecessarily disparages the practice of emergency medicine in the United States,” the organizations wrote in their letter.

The concerns of the emergency medicine organizations fell into four categories: misrepresentation of the practice and nature of emergency medicine; applicability of references cited; inaccurate interpretation of malpractice data; and the reporting of a single overall diagnostic error rate of 5.7% in EDs.

The practice of emergency medicine is variable and unique among specialties in that the focus is less about the final diagnosis and more about immediate identification and treatment of life-threatening conditions, according to the letter.

Notably, many of the studies cited did not mention whether the patient’s final diagnosis was apparent on admission to the ED. “Without this knowledge, it is completely inappropriate to label such discrepancies as ‘ED diagnostic error,’ ” the organizations wrote.

All medical specialties have room for improvement, but the current AHRQ review appears not to identify these opportunities, and instead of contributing to a discussion of improving patient care in the ED, it may cause harm by presenting misinformation, they said.
 

Misleading and inadequate evidence

“I strongly agree with the concerns mentioned from ACEP and other key organizations about the problems and conclusions reached in the AHRQ report,” Dr. Glatter said in an interview.

“The methodology used to arrive at the conclusions [in the review] was flawed and does not provide an accurate estimate of diagnostic error and, consequently, misdiagnosis and deaths occurring in emergency departments in the U.S.,” he said. “The startling headline that 250,000 people die annually in U.S. EDs was extrapolated from a single study based on one death that occurred in a Canadian ED in 2004,” Dr. Glatter noted. “Clearly, this is not only poor methodology but flawed science.”

The AHRQ report misused one death from this single study to estimate the death rate across the United States, Dr. Glatter explained, and this overestimate improperly inflated and magnified the number of potential patients that may have been harmed by physician error.

“This flawed evidence would actually place ED misdiagnoses in the top five causes of death in the United States, with 1 in every 500 ED patients dying as a result of an error by a physician. Simply put, there is just no evidence to support such a claim,” said Dr. Glatter.

The repercussions of the AHRQ review could be harmful to patients by instilling fear and doubt about the ability of emergency physicians to diagnose those who present with life-threatening conditions, Dr. Glatter said.

“This more balanced and accurate picture of the role of emergency physicians in diagnosing and managing such emergencies needs to be communicated to the public in order to reassure and instill confidence in our role in the sequence of emergency care in relation to continuity of care in patients presenting to the ED,” he said.

“While our primary role as emergency medicine physicians is to stabilize and evaluate patients, arriving at a particular diagnosis is not always possible for some conditions,” and additional diagnostic testing is often needed to identify more specific causes of symptoms, Dr. Glatter added.

Additional research is needed for a more accurate representation of diagnostic errors in the ED, said Dr. Glatter. New prospective studies are needed to address outcomes in U.S. EDs that account for the latest advances and diagnostic modalities in emergency medicine, “particularly advances in bedside ultrasound that can expedite critical decision-making, which can be lifesaving.

“The AHRQ report is simply not an accurate reflection of the technology and skill set that current emergency medicine practice offers our patients in 2023.”

Dr. Glatter disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nine top professional emergency medicine organizations in the United States jointly issued a letter expressing concerns about the misleading and incomplete nature of a systematic review issued by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality on diagnostic errors in the emergency department.

The AHRQ review, issued on Dec. 15, 2022, stated that the findings of their study translate “to about 1 in 18 emergency department patients receiving an incorrect diagnosis, 1 in 50 suffering an adverse event, and 1 in 350 suffering permanent disability or death.” The authors describe these rates as similar to those seen in primary care and inpatient hospital settings.

The review was conducted through an Evidence-Based Practice Center as part of AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. The authors included data from 279 studies in the review. They identified the five most frequently misdiagnosed conditions in the ED as stroke, MI, aortic aneurysm and dissection, spinal cord compression and injury, and venous thromboembolism.

The authors noted that, given an estimated 130 million ED visits in the United States each year, the overall rate of incorrect diagnoses in the ED is approximately 5.7% and that 2.0% of the patients whose conditions were misdiagnosed suffer an adverse event as a result. On a local level, the authors estimate that an average ED with approximately 25,000 visits per year could experience 1,400 diagnostic errors, 500 diagnostic adverse events, and 75 serious harms, including 50 deaths. However, the authors noted that the overall error and harm rates were based on three studies from outside the United States (Canada, Spain, and Switzerland) and that only two of these were used to estimate harms.

“It’s imperative that we, as emergency physicians, inform the public that the AHRQ report used flawed methodology and statistics that extrapolated – and therefore overstated – the potential for harm when receiving care in US emergency departments,” Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital at Northwell Health and an assistant professor at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview.
 

Emergency medicine organizations express concerns for accuracy

The American College of Emergency Physicians and eight other medical organizations representing emergency medicine in the United States sent a letter to the AHRQ on Dec. 14, 2022, spelling out their concerns. The review was conducted as part of the AHRQ’s ongoing Effective Health Care Program, and the organizations had the opportunity to review a draft before it was published. On reading the review, they asked that the publication of the review be delayed. “After reviewing the executive summary and initial draft, we believe that the report makes misleading, incomplete, and erroneous conclusions from the literature reviewed and conveys a tone that inaccurately characterizes and unnecessarily disparages the practice of emergency medicine in the United States,” the organizations wrote in their letter.

The concerns of the emergency medicine organizations fell into four categories: misrepresentation of the practice and nature of emergency medicine; applicability of references cited; inaccurate interpretation of malpractice data; and the reporting of a single overall diagnostic error rate of 5.7% in EDs.

The practice of emergency medicine is variable and unique among specialties in that the focus is less about the final diagnosis and more about immediate identification and treatment of life-threatening conditions, according to the letter.

Notably, many of the studies cited did not mention whether the patient’s final diagnosis was apparent on admission to the ED. “Without this knowledge, it is completely inappropriate to label such discrepancies as ‘ED diagnostic error,’ ” the organizations wrote.

All medical specialties have room for improvement, but the current AHRQ review appears not to identify these opportunities, and instead of contributing to a discussion of improving patient care in the ED, it may cause harm by presenting misinformation, they said.
 

Misleading and inadequate evidence

“I strongly agree with the concerns mentioned from ACEP and other key organizations about the problems and conclusions reached in the AHRQ report,” Dr. Glatter said in an interview.

“The methodology used to arrive at the conclusions [in the review] was flawed and does not provide an accurate estimate of diagnostic error and, consequently, misdiagnosis and deaths occurring in emergency departments in the U.S.,” he said. “The startling headline that 250,000 people die annually in U.S. EDs was extrapolated from a single study based on one death that occurred in a Canadian ED in 2004,” Dr. Glatter noted. “Clearly, this is not only poor methodology but flawed science.”

The AHRQ report misused one death from this single study to estimate the death rate across the United States, Dr. Glatter explained, and this overestimate improperly inflated and magnified the number of potential patients that may have been harmed by physician error.

“This flawed evidence would actually place ED misdiagnoses in the top five causes of death in the United States, with 1 in every 500 ED patients dying as a result of an error by a physician. Simply put, there is just no evidence to support such a claim,” said Dr. Glatter.

The repercussions of the AHRQ review could be harmful to patients by instilling fear and doubt about the ability of emergency physicians to diagnose those who present with life-threatening conditions, Dr. Glatter said.

“This more balanced and accurate picture of the role of emergency physicians in diagnosing and managing such emergencies needs to be communicated to the public in order to reassure and instill confidence in our role in the sequence of emergency care in relation to continuity of care in patients presenting to the ED,” he said.

“While our primary role as emergency medicine physicians is to stabilize and evaluate patients, arriving at a particular diagnosis is not always possible for some conditions,” and additional diagnostic testing is often needed to identify more specific causes of symptoms, Dr. Glatter added.

Additional research is needed for a more accurate representation of diagnostic errors in the ED, said Dr. Glatter. New prospective studies are needed to address outcomes in U.S. EDs that account for the latest advances and diagnostic modalities in emergency medicine, “particularly advances in bedside ultrasound that can expedite critical decision-making, which can be lifesaving.

“The AHRQ report is simply not an accurate reflection of the technology and skill set that current emergency medicine practice offers our patients in 2023.”

Dr. Glatter disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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