Business of Medicine

A few weeks ago I wrote about my glasses and the discovery that they’d been made incorrectly. The headline for the story was “The Way I See It.”

That’s the opening line from Joni Mitchell’s 1974 song “Free Man in Paris.” But I grew up in a Neil Diamond household (Dad always had Neil Diamond on when he was working at home) so the first time I heard the song was in 1977, when Diamond covered it. In fact, I didn’t even realize it was originally Mitchell’s song until I was in my 50s.

It’s about a world that doesn’t exist anymore.

The song is about music promoter David Geffen and a trip he took to Paris. Back in southern California, he was always working. There were continual phone calls, deals, meetings, and people looking for favors.

But on his trip to Paris in the early 1970s, he became just another person. No one could find him to ask for help or cut a deal. He couldn’t be reached. He felt “unfettered and alive” and could go from “cafe to cabaret,” relax, and enjoy himself.

Medical practice was once that way. You’d check-out patients to your call partners, leave town, and relax for a week or two.

Try doing that today.

For better or worse, all of us now are attached to our phones. We even have a new psychiatric condition – nomophobia – for the fear of not having our mobile phone handy. Every time I leave my house or office I repeat a simple mantra “phone, wallet, keys” as I pat my pockets.

Unless you can part with your gadget – which ain’t easy – no one is a “free man in Paris” (or Tokyo, or Rio, or Beijing) anymore. Even ships have cell service at sea. There are still places on Earth remote enough that you can’t be reached, but they get fewer and smaller every year.

When was the last time you really went somewhere and had no communication with your office at all? Emails, texts, anything? Unless you’re in a shift-work branch of medicine, like ER or hospitalist, I’m going to guess it’s been a while. And even in those branches you probably get emails about administrative matters, scheduling questions, and pointless memos.

Being in solo practice I’ve come to accept this, but it’s a conscious decision on my part. It’s easier than finding a call partner, and if I’m handling my own stuff at least I’m not going to come home to any surprises. So I’ve covered patients from as far west as Hawaii, north as Juneau, south as Panama City, and east as Le Havre.

Granted, this is medicine, and many other jobs don’t require the degree of involvement that it does. But I suspect pretty much any professional - attorney, accountant, executive - still has to deal with work-related stuff while traveling. Back in the 1970s to 1980s my dad, a solo-practice lawyer, had a set time each vacation weekday afternoon where he’d call his secretary to go over stuff. Today it would be by email or texts.

We’ve done this to ourselves. We’ve accepted the trade-off of better connectivity with family and friends for expanding our time at work. The same technology that lets me send in prescription refills from London also lets me send family pictures back from Maui. It’s not easy to draw a solid line between them, and I’m not so sure many of us want to.

Today, 50 years after Ms. Mitchell wrote the song, the idea of being a “free man in Paris” – or anywhere – really doesn’t exist for most of us anymore. You can argue whether that’s good or bad, but it’s where we are.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A few weeks ago I wrote about my glasses and the discovery that they’d been made incorrectly. The headline for the story was “The Way I See It.”

That’s the opening line from Joni Mitchell’s 1974 song “Free Man in Paris.” But I grew up in a Neil Diamond household (Dad always had Neil Diamond on when he was working at home) so the first time I heard the song was in 1977, when Diamond covered it. In fact, I didn’t even realize it was originally Mitchell’s song until I was in my 50s.

It’s about a world that doesn’t exist anymore.

The song is about music promoter David Geffen and a trip he took to Paris. Back in southern California, he was always working. There were continual phone calls, deals, meetings, and people looking for favors.

But on his trip to Paris in the early 1970s, he became just another person. No one could find him to ask for help or cut a deal. He couldn’t be reached. He felt “unfettered and alive” and could go from “cafe to cabaret,” relax, and enjoy himself.

Medical practice was once that way. You’d check-out patients to your call partners, leave town, and relax for a week or two.

Try doing that today.

For better or worse, all of us now are attached to our phones. We even have a new psychiatric condition – nomophobia – for the fear of not having our mobile phone handy. Every time I leave my house or office I repeat a simple mantra “phone, wallet, keys” as I pat my pockets.

Unless you can part with your gadget – which ain’t easy – no one is a “free man in Paris” (or Tokyo, or Rio, or Beijing) anymore. Even ships have cell service at sea. There are still places on Earth remote enough that you can’t be reached, but they get fewer and smaller every year.

When was the last time you really went somewhere and had no communication with your office at all? Emails, texts, anything? Unless you’re in a shift-work branch of medicine, like ER or hospitalist, I’m going to guess it’s been a while. And even in those branches you probably get emails about administrative matters, scheduling questions, and pointless memos.

Being in solo practice I’ve come to accept this, but it’s a conscious decision on my part. It’s easier than finding a call partner, and if I’m handling my own stuff at least I’m not going to come home to any surprises. So I’ve covered patients from as far west as Hawaii, north as Juneau, south as Panama City, and east as Le Havre.

Granted, this is medicine, and many other jobs don’t require the degree of involvement that it does. But I suspect pretty much any professional - attorney, accountant, executive - still has to deal with work-related stuff while traveling. Back in the 1970s to 1980s my dad, a solo-practice lawyer, had a set time each vacation weekday afternoon where he’d call his secretary to go over stuff. Today it would be by email or texts.

We’ve done this to ourselves. We’ve accepted the trade-off of better connectivity with family and friends for expanding our time at work. The same technology that lets me send in prescription refills from London also lets me send family pictures back from Maui. It’s not easy to draw a solid line between them, and I’m not so sure many of us want to.

Today, 50 years after Ms. Mitchell wrote the song, the idea of being a “free man in Paris” – or anywhere – really doesn’t exist for most of us anymore. You can argue whether that’s good or bad, but it’s where we are.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A few weeks ago I wrote about my glasses and the discovery that they’d been made incorrectly. The headline for the story was “The Way I See It.”

That’s the opening line from Joni Mitchell’s 1974 song “Free Man in Paris.” But I grew up in a Neil Diamond household (Dad always had Neil Diamond on when he was working at home) so the first time I heard the song was in 1977, when Diamond covered it. In fact, I didn’t even realize it was originally Mitchell’s song until I was in my 50s.

It’s about a world that doesn’t exist anymore.

The song is about music promoter David Geffen and a trip he took to Paris. Back in southern California, he was always working. There were continual phone calls, deals, meetings, and people looking for favors.

But on his trip to Paris in the early 1970s, he became just another person. No one could find him to ask for help or cut a deal. He couldn’t be reached. He felt “unfettered and alive” and could go from “cafe to cabaret,” relax, and enjoy himself.

Medical practice was once that way. You’d check-out patients to your call partners, leave town, and relax for a week or two.

Try doing that today.

For better or worse, all of us now are attached to our phones. We even have a new psychiatric condition – nomophobia – for the fear of not having our mobile phone handy. Every time I leave my house or office I repeat a simple mantra “phone, wallet, keys” as I pat my pockets.

Unless you can part with your gadget – which ain’t easy – no one is a “free man in Paris” (or Tokyo, or Rio, or Beijing) anymore. Even ships have cell service at sea. There are still places on Earth remote enough that you can’t be reached, but they get fewer and smaller every year.

When was the last time you really went somewhere and had no communication with your office at all? Emails, texts, anything? Unless you’re in a shift-work branch of medicine, like ER or hospitalist, I’m going to guess it’s been a while. And even in those branches you probably get emails about administrative matters, scheduling questions, and pointless memos.

Being in solo practice I’ve come to accept this, but it’s a conscious decision on my part. It’s easier than finding a call partner, and if I’m handling my own stuff at least I’m not going to come home to any surprises. So I’ve covered patients from as far west as Hawaii, north as Juneau, south as Panama City, and east as Le Havre.

Granted, this is medicine, and many other jobs don’t require the degree of involvement that it does. But I suspect pretty much any professional - attorney, accountant, executive - still has to deal with work-related stuff while traveling. Back in the 1970s to 1980s my dad, a solo-practice lawyer, had a set time each vacation weekday afternoon where he’d call his secretary to go over stuff. Today it would be by email or texts.

We’ve done this to ourselves. We’ve accepted the trade-off of better connectivity with family and friends for expanding our time at work. The same technology that lets me send in prescription refills from London also lets me send family pictures back from Maui. It’s not easy to draw a solid line between them, and I’m not so sure many of us want to.

Today, 50 years after Ms. Mitchell wrote the song, the idea of being a “free man in Paris” – or anywhere – really doesn’t exist for most of us anymore. You can argue whether that’s good or bad, but it’s where we are.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.

These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.

“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.

Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

The needle mover: LDL lowering

“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.

“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.

Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.

Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.

That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.

“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”

At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.

Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.

And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.

Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.

“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”


 

Other important successes and equally important failures

Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.

There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.

Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.

“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
 

The rise and fall of CVOTs

Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).

It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.

His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.

“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.

Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.

In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.

Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.

“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”

Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.

“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.

“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”

Clinical research for the next 20 years

Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.

Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.

RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.

“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.

RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.

Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.

“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
 

Time to be inclusive

Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.

“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”

In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”

The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
 

Stick with randomization

Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.

“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”

Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.

“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”

Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”

In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.

These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.

“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.

Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

The needle mover: LDL lowering

“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.

“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.

Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.

Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.

That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.

“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”

At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.

Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.

And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.

Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.

“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”


 

Other important successes and equally important failures

Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.

There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.

Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.

“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
 

The rise and fall of CVOTs

Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).

It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.

His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.

“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.

Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.

In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.

Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.

“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”

Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.

“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.

“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”

Clinical research for the next 20 years

Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.

Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.

RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.

“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.

RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.

Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.

“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
 

Time to be inclusive

Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.

“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”

In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”

The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
 

Stick with randomization

Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.

“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”

Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.

“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”

Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”

In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.

These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.

“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.

Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

The needle mover: LDL lowering

“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.

“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.

Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.

Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.

That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.

“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”

At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.

Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.

And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.

Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.

“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”


 

Other important successes and equally important failures

Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.

There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.

Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.

“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
 

The rise and fall of CVOTs

Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).

It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.

His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.

“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.

Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.

In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.

Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.

“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”

Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.

“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.

“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”

Clinical research for the next 20 years

Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.

Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.

RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.

“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.

RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.

Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.

“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
 

Time to be inclusive

Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.

“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”

In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”

The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
 

Stick with randomization

Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.

“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”

Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.

“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”

Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”

Virtual Reality Learning Environments (VRLEs) can help medical students understand stages of fetal development and better retain the information, at least in the short term, results from a randomized, controlled trial suggest.

However, the authors note a major limitation in using these devices is the potential for cybersickness and in this study almost half of the participants using the VR headsets experienced dizziness (43%) and disorientation (48%); 38% reported impaired balance.

Findings of a research team led by Grace Ryan, a medical student at the University College Dublin Perinatal Research Centre, were published online in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

Forty-one University College Dublin students completed the study after randomization either to a group that had a 15-minute VRLE learning experience on the stages of fetal development (n = 21) or to a traditional PowerPoint tutorial via Zoom on the same topic (n = 20).
 

Knowledge gaged with multiple-choice questions

Students’ knowledge was then assessed with multiple-choice questionnaires at three time points: before the presentations, immediately after the presentations, and a week after the intervention.

The secondary outcome was level of satisfaction and self-confidence.

Within-group differences in knowledge scores were significant among all three time points for both the intervention (P < .01; 95% confidence interval, 5.33-6.19) and control group (P = .02; 95% CI, 5.74-6.49).

But students retained the information level only in the VR group 1 week after the training.

In the VR group, knowledge scores were significantly higher after the intervention, compared with baseline. In the control group, knowledge scores were significantly higher immediately after the presentation, compared with baseline, but scores decreased nonsignificantly between the time point after the presentation, compared with 1 week after.

Mean levels of satisfaction and self-confidence in learning were higher in the VRLE group, compared with the control group: 54.2 (standard deviation, 7.5) and 50.5 (SD, 7.2), respectively, but were not significant (P = .21).
 

VR group went on a ‘treasure hunt’

The VR intervention involved an immersive experience that explored the stages of fetal development. The experience was designed in collaboration with the University College Dublin School of Computer Science using online tutorials and documentation from the literature.

Obstetrics and gynecology clinical professionals provided expert validation.

The VR program took the students on a “treasure hunt” for information, linking images to key learning points on fetal development. Students used controllers to select organs on the fetal images they visualized relevant to a stage of development, unlocking key information that appeared on the assessment.
 

Zoom vs. VR

The traditional control group had a 15-minute face-to-face teaching tutorial (via Zoom because of COVID-19 restrictions) on the information and used a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. The researchers took 15 minutes before the tutorial to explain the study and requirements for participation.

The factual content was the same for both groups and was taught by the same clinical tutor in both groups for consistency.

Aparna Srindhar, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview that, from the images in the VR system in this study, “It is unclear what the advantage of the VR over Zoom was. If the VR is showing texts and images very similar to the Zoom in-person teaching, then it may not produce drastically different results in short-term knowledge retention.”

At UCLA, she says, clinicians have used virtual reality in the patient care setting but not in the teaching setting; they have used smart glasses and other modalities in teaching real-time procedures.

Mastering information on fetal development can be difficult because the material is complex and includes details not visible to the naked eye, the authors note.

Regarding the cybersickness side effects, the authors write, “With increased use and the advancement of VR technology, side effect profiles are expected to decrease. Future studies should include a larger cohort to explore the use of VR further as a learning tool for medical students.”

The study authors and Dr. Sridhar report no relevant financial relationships.

Virtual Reality Learning Environments (VRLEs) can help medical students understand stages of fetal development and better retain the information, at least in the short term, results from a randomized, controlled trial suggest.

However, the authors note a major limitation in using these devices is the potential for cybersickness and in this study almost half of the participants using the VR headsets experienced dizziness (43%) and disorientation (48%); 38% reported impaired balance.

Findings of a research team led by Grace Ryan, a medical student at the University College Dublin Perinatal Research Centre, were published online in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

Forty-one University College Dublin students completed the study after randomization either to a group that had a 15-minute VRLE learning experience on the stages of fetal development (n = 21) or to a traditional PowerPoint tutorial via Zoom on the same topic (n = 20).
 

Knowledge gaged with multiple-choice questions

Students’ knowledge was then assessed with multiple-choice questionnaires at three time points: before the presentations, immediately after the presentations, and a week after the intervention.

The secondary outcome was level of satisfaction and self-confidence.

Within-group differences in knowledge scores were significant among all three time points for both the intervention (P < .01; 95% confidence interval, 5.33-6.19) and control group (P = .02; 95% CI, 5.74-6.49).

But students retained the information level only in the VR group 1 week after the training.

In the VR group, knowledge scores were significantly higher after the intervention, compared with baseline. In the control group, knowledge scores were significantly higher immediately after the presentation, compared with baseline, but scores decreased nonsignificantly between the time point after the presentation, compared with 1 week after.

Mean levels of satisfaction and self-confidence in learning were higher in the VRLE group, compared with the control group: 54.2 (standard deviation, 7.5) and 50.5 (SD, 7.2), respectively, but were not significant (P = .21).
 

VR group went on a ‘treasure hunt’

The VR intervention involved an immersive experience that explored the stages of fetal development. The experience was designed in collaboration with the University College Dublin School of Computer Science using online tutorials and documentation from the literature.

Obstetrics and gynecology clinical professionals provided expert validation.

The VR program took the students on a “treasure hunt” for information, linking images to key learning points on fetal development. Students used controllers to select organs on the fetal images they visualized relevant to a stage of development, unlocking key information that appeared on the assessment.
 

Zoom vs. VR

The traditional control group had a 15-minute face-to-face teaching tutorial (via Zoom because of COVID-19 restrictions) on the information and used a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. The researchers took 15 minutes before the tutorial to explain the study and requirements for participation.

The factual content was the same for both groups and was taught by the same clinical tutor in both groups for consistency.

Aparna Srindhar, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview that, from the images in the VR system in this study, “It is unclear what the advantage of the VR over Zoom was. If the VR is showing texts and images very similar to the Zoom in-person teaching, then it may not produce drastically different results in short-term knowledge retention.”

At UCLA, she says, clinicians have used virtual reality in the patient care setting but not in the teaching setting; they have used smart glasses and other modalities in teaching real-time procedures.

Mastering information on fetal development can be difficult because the material is complex and includes details not visible to the naked eye, the authors note.

Regarding the cybersickness side effects, the authors write, “With increased use and the advancement of VR technology, side effect profiles are expected to decrease. Future studies should include a larger cohort to explore the use of VR further as a learning tool for medical students.”

The study authors and Dr. Sridhar report no relevant financial relationships.

Virtual Reality Learning Environments (VRLEs) can help medical students understand stages of fetal development and better retain the information, at least in the short term, results from a randomized, controlled trial suggest.

However, the authors note a major limitation in using these devices is the potential for cybersickness and in this study almost half of the participants using the VR headsets experienced dizziness (43%) and disorientation (48%); 38% reported impaired balance.

Findings of a research team led by Grace Ryan, a medical student at the University College Dublin Perinatal Research Centre, were published online in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

Forty-one University College Dublin students completed the study after randomization either to a group that had a 15-minute VRLE learning experience on the stages of fetal development (n = 21) or to a traditional PowerPoint tutorial via Zoom on the same topic (n = 20).
 

Knowledge gaged with multiple-choice questions

Students’ knowledge was then assessed with multiple-choice questionnaires at three time points: before the presentations, immediately after the presentations, and a week after the intervention.

The secondary outcome was level of satisfaction and self-confidence.

Within-group differences in knowledge scores were significant among all three time points for both the intervention (P < .01; 95% confidence interval, 5.33-6.19) and control group (P = .02; 95% CI, 5.74-6.49).

But students retained the information level only in the VR group 1 week after the training.

In the VR group, knowledge scores were significantly higher after the intervention, compared with baseline. In the control group, knowledge scores were significantly higher immediately after the presentation, compared with baseline, but scores decreased nonsignificantly between the time point after the presentation, compared with 1 week after.

Mean levels of satisfaction and self-confidence in learning were higher in the VRLE group, compared with the control group: 54.2 (standard deviation, 7.5) and 50.5 (SD, 7.2), respectively, but were not significant (P = .21).
 

VR group went on a ‘treasure hunt’

The VR intervention involved an immersive experience that explored the stages of fetal development. The experience was designed in collaboration with the University College Dublin School of Computer Science using online tutorials and documentation from the literature.

Obstetrics and gynecology clinical professionals provided expert validation.

The VR program took the students on a “treasure hunt” for information, linking images to key learning points on fetal development. Students used controllers to select organs on the fetal images they visualized relevant to a stage of development, unlocking key information that appeared on the assessment.
 

Zoom vs. VR

The traditional control group had a 15-minute face-to-face teaching tutorial (via Zoom because of COVID-19 restrictions) on the information and used a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. The researchers took 15 minutes before the tutorial to explain the study and requirements for participation.

The factual content was the same for both groups and was taught by the same clinical tutor in both groups for consistency.

Aparna Srindhar, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview that, from the images in the VR system in this study, “It is unclear what the advantage of the VR over Zoom was. If the VR is showing texts and images very similar to the Zoom in-person teaching, then it may not produce drastically different results in short-term knowledge retention.”

At UCLA, she says, clinicians have used virtual reality in the patient care setting but not in the teaching setting; they have used smart glasses and other modalities in teaching real-time procedures.

Mastering information on fetal development can be difficult because the material is complex and includes details not visible to the naked eye, the authors note.

Regarding the cybersickness side effects, the authors write, “With increased use and the advancement of VR technology, side effect profiles are expected to decrease. Future studies should include a larger cohort to explore the use of VR further as a learning tool for medical students.”

The study authors and Dr. Sridhar report no relevant financial relationships.

Much attention has been focused recently on the idea that breast cancer with a low expression of HER2 can be treated with HER2-targeted agents. Not surprisingly, manufacturers of these drugs have pounced on this idea, as it opens up a whole new patient population: previously these drugs were only for tumors with a high HER2 expression.

There is a large potential market at stake: HER2-low (also referred to as ERBB2-low), as defined by a score of 0 to 3+ on immunohistochemistry (IHC), is seen in approximately 50%-60% of all breast cancers

However, there is still much debate over whether low-HER2 breast cancer is, in fact, a separate clinical entity.

A new large-scale analysis concludes that it is not. The authors argued that it actually it represents a series of biological differences from HER2-negative disease that do not have a strong bearing on outcomes.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Oncology.

For the study, researchers from the University of Chicago examined data on more than 1.1 million breast cancer patients recorded as HER2-negative in the U.S. National Cancer Database, and re-classified almost two thirds as HER2-low on further analysis.

They found that HER2-low status was associated with higher estrogen receptor (ER) expression, as well as a lower rate of pathologic complete response, compared with HER2-negative disease. It was also linked to an improvement in overall survival on multivariate analysis of up to 9% in advance stage triple negative tumors.

“However, the clinical significance of these differences is questionable,” the researchers commented.

HER2-low status alone “should not influence neoadjuvant treatment decisions with currently approved regimens,” they added.

These results “do not support classification of HER2-low breast cancer as a distinct clinical subtype,” the team concluded.

Not necessarily, according to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, director of the new drugs and early drug development for innovative therapies division at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan. He argued the opposite case, that HER2-low is a separate clinical entity, in a recent debate on the topic held at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In a comment, Dr. Curigliano said that a “major strength” of the current study is its large patient cohort, which reflects the majority of cancer diagnoses in the United States, but that it nevertheless has “important limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.”

The inclusion of only overall survival in the dataset limits the ability to make associations between HER2-low status and cancer-specific prognosis, as “survival may lag years behind recurrence.”

The lack of centralized assessment of IHC results is also an issue, as “some of the results may be associated with regional variation in practice of classifying cases as HER2 0 versus HER2 1+.”

“In my opinion, this is a great limitation,” he said, in being able to conclude that there is “no prognostic difference between ERBB2-low and -negative patients.”

He also noted that, from a molecular point of view, “the key determinant of the gene expression profile is the expression of hormone receptors, [and] if we perform a correction for hormone receptor expression, only marginal differences in gene expression are found” between HER2-low and HER2-negative tumors.

“Similarly, large genomic studies have identified no specific and consistent difference in genomic profiles,” Dr. Curigliano said, and so, HER2-low disease, “as currently defined, should not be considered a distinct molecular entity, but rather a heterogeneous group of tumors, with biology primarily driven by hormone receptor expression.”
 

Analysis quoted by both sides

Senior author of the new analysis, Frederick M. Howard, MD, from the section of hematology-oncology in the department of medicine at the University of Chicago, said that his team’s work was quoted by both sides of the debate at SABCS 2022.

This reflects the fact that, while differences between ERBB2-low and -negative are present, it is “questionable how clinically significant those differences are,” he said in an interview. It’s a matter of “the eye of the beholder.”

Dr. Howard does not think that clinicians are going to modify standard treatment regimens based solely on HER2-low status, and that low expression of the protein “is probably just a reflection of some underlying biologic processes.”

Dr. Howard agreed with Dr. Curigliano that a “caveat” of their study is that the IHC analyses were performed locally, especially as it has shown that there can be discordance between pathologists in around 40% of cases, and that the associations they found might therefore be “strengthened” by more precise quantification of HER2 expression.

“But, even then,” Dr. Howard continued, “I doubt that [ERBB2-low status] is going to be that strong a prognostic factor.”

He believes that advances in analytic techniques will, in the future, allow tumors to be characterized more precisely, and it may be that HER2-low tumors end up being called something else in 5 years.
 

Renewed interest in this subgroup

In their paper, Dr. Howard and colleagues pointed out that, as a group, HER2-low tumors are heterogeneous, with HER2-low found in both hormone receptor–positive and triple-negative breast cancers. Also, various studies have come to different conclusions about what HER2 low means prognostically, with conclusions ranging from negative to neutral and to positive prognoses.

However, new research has shown that patients with HER2-low tumors can benefit from HER2-targeted drugs. In particular, the recent report that the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in ERBB2-low tumors led to “renewed interest in the subgroup,” the researchers noted.

To examine this subgroup further, they embarked on their analysis. Examining the National Cancer Database, they gathered information on more than 1.1 million U.S. patients diagnosed with HER2-negative invasive breast cancer in the 10-year period 2010-2019, and for whom IHC results were available.

The patients were reclassified as having HER2-low disease if they had an IHC score of 1+, or 2+ with a negative in situ hybridization test, while those with an IHC score of 0 were deemed to be HER2-negative. They were followed up until Nov. 30, 2022.

These patients had a mean age of 62.4 years, and 99.1% were female. The majority (78.6%) were non-Hispanic white. HER2-low was identified in 65.5% of the cohort, while 34.5% were HER2-negative.

The proportion of HER2-low disease was lower in non-Hispanic black (62.8%) and Hispanic (61%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients, at 66.1%.

HER2-low disease was also more common in hormone receptor–positive than triple-negative tumors, at just 51.5%, rising to 58.6% for progesterone receptor–positive, ER-negative, and 69.1% for PR-positive, ER-positive tumors.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis taking into account age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidity score, and treatment facility type, among other factors, revealed that the likelihood of HER2-low disease was significantly with increased ER expression, at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.15 for each 10% increase (P < .001).

Non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Pacific Islander patients had similar rates of HER2-low disease as non-Hispanic White patients after adjustment, whereas Native American patients had an increased rate, at an aOR of 1.22 (P < .001), and Hispanic patients had a lower rate, at an aOR of 0.85 (P < .001).

HER2-low status was associated with a slightly reduced likelihood of having a pathologic complete response (aOR, 0.89; P < .001), with similar results when restricting the analysis to patients with triple negative or hormone receptor-positive tumors.

After a median follow-up of 54 months, HER2-low disease was associated with a minor improvement in survival on multivariate analysis, at an adjusted hazard ratio for death of 0.98 (P < .001).

The greatest improvement in survival was seen in patients with stage III and IV triple-negative breast cancer, at HRs of 0.92 and 0.91, respectively, although the researchers noted that this represented only a 2% and 0.4% improvement in 5-year overall survival, respectively.

The study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the American Society of Clinical Oncology/Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Susan G. Komen, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the University of Chicago Elwood V. Jensen Scholars Program. Dr. Howard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Curigliano has relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Celltrion, Veracyte, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Scientific Affairs Group, and Ellipsis.

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

Much attention has been focused recently on the idea that breast cancer with a low expression of HER2 can be treated with HER2-targeted agents. Not surprisingly, manufacturers of these drugs have pounced on this idea, as it opens up a whole new patient population: previously these drugs were only for tumors with a high HER2 expression.

There is a large potential market at stake: HER2-low (also referred to as ERBB2-low), as defined by a score of 0 to 3+ on immunohistochemistry (IHC), is seen in approximately 50%-60% of all breast cancers

However, there is still much debate over whether low-HER2 breast cancer is, in fact, a separate clinical entity.

A new large-scale analysis concludes that it is not. The authors argued that it actually it represents a series of biological differences from HER2-negative disease that do not have a strong bearing on outcomes.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Oncology.

For the study, researchers from the University of Chicago examined data on more than 1.1 million breast cancer patients recorded as HER2-negative in the U.S. National Cancer Database, and re-classified almost two thirds as HER2-low on further analysis.

They found that HER2-low status was associated with higher estrogen receptor (ER) expression, as well as a lower rate of pathologic complete response, compared with HER2-negative disease. It was also linked to an improvement in overall survival on multivariate analysis of up to 9% in advance stage triple negative tumors.

“However, the clinical significance of these differences is questionable,” the researchers commented.

HER2-low status alone “should not influence neoadjuvant treatment decisions with currently approved regimens,” they added.

These results “do not support classification of HER2-low breast cancer as a distinct clinical subtype,” the team concluded.

Not necessarily, according to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, director of the new drugs and early drug development for innovative therapies division at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan. He argued the opposite case, that HER2-low is a separate clinical entity, in a recent debate on the topic held at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In a comment, Dr. Curigliano said that a “major strength” of the current study is its large patient cohort, which reflects the majority of cancer diagnoses in the United States, but that it nevertheless has “important limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.”

The inclusion of only overall survival in the dataset limits the ability to make associations between HER2-low status and cancer-specific prognosis, as “survival may lag years behind recurrence.”

The lack of centralized assessment of IHC results is also an issue, as “some of the results may be associated with regional variation in practice of classifying cases as HER2 0 versus HER2 1+.”

“In my opinion, this is a great limitation,” he said, in being able to conclude that there is “no prognostic difference between ERBB2-low and -negative patients.”

He also noted that, from a molecular point of view, “the key determinant of the gene expression profile is the expression of hormone receptors, [and] if we perform a correction for hormone receptor expression, only marginal differences in gene expression are found” between HER2-low and HER2-negative tumors.

“Similarly, large genomic studies have identified no specific and consistent difference in genomic profiles,” Dr. Curigliano said, and so, HER2-low disease, “as currently defined, should not be considered a distinct molecular entity, but rather a heterogeneous group of tumors, with biology primarily driven by hormone receptor expression.”
 

Analysis quoted by both sides

Senior author of the new analysis, Frederick M. Howard, MD, from the section of hematology-oncology in the department of medicine at the University of Chicago, said that his team’s work was quoted by both sides of the debate at SABCS 2022.

This reflects the fact that, while differences between ERBB2-low and -negative are present, it is “questionable how clinically significant those differences are,” he said in an interview. It’s a matter of “the eye of the beholder.”

Dr. Howard does not think that clinicians are going to modify standard treatment regimens based solely on HER2-low status, and that low expression of the protein “is probably just a reflection of some underlying biologic processes.”

Dr. Howard agreed with Dr. Curigliano that a “caveat” of their study is that the IHC analyses were performed locally, especially as it has shown that there can be discordance between pathologists in around 40% of cases, and that the associations they found might therefore be “strengthened” by more precise quantification of HER2 expression.

“But, even then,” Dr. Howard continued, “I doubt that [ERBB2-low status] is going to be that strong a prognostic factor.”

He believes that advances in analytic techniques will, in the future, allow tumors to be characterized more precisely, and it may be that HER2-low tumors end up being called something else in 5 years.
 

Renewed interest in this subgroup

In their paper, Dr. Howard and colleagues pointed out that, as a group, HER2-low tumors are heterogeneous, with HER2-low found in both hormone receptor–positive and triple-negative breast cancers. Also, various studies have come to different conclusions about what HER2 low means prognostically, with conclusions ranging from negative to neutral and to positive prognoses.

However, new research has shown that patients with HER2-low tumors can benefit from HER2-targeted drugs. In particular, the recent report that the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in ERBB2-low tumors led to “renewed interest in the subgroup,” the researchers noted.

To examine this subgroup further, they embarked on their analysis. Examining the National Cancer Database, they gathered information on more than 1.1 million U.S. patients diagnosed with HER2-negative invasive breast cancer in the 10-year period 2010-2019, and for whom IHC results were available.

The patients were reclassified as having HER2-low disease if they had an IHC score of 1+, or 2+ with a negative in situ hybridization test, while those with an IHC score of 0 were deemed to be HER2-negative. They were followed up until Nov. 30, 2022.

These patients had a mean age of 62.4 years, and 99.1% were female. The majority (78.6%) were non-Hispanic white. HER2-low was identified in 65.5% of the cohort, while 34.5% were HER2-negative.

The proportion of HER2-low disease was lower in non-Hispanic black (62.8%) and Hispanic (61%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients, at 66.1%.

HER2-low disease was also more common in hormone receptor–positive than triple-negative tumors, at just 51.5%, rising to 58.6% for progesterone receptor–positive, ER-negative, and 69.1% for PR-positive, ER-positive tumors.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis taking into account age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidity score, and treatment facility type, among other factors, revealed that the likelihood of HER2-low disease was significantly with increased ER expression, at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.15 for each 10% increase (P < .001).

Non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Pacific Islander patients had similar rates of HER2-low disease as non-Hispanic White patients after adjustment, whereas Native American patients had an increased rate, at an aOR of 1.22 (P < .001), and Hispanic patients had a lower rate, at an aOR of 0.85 (P < .001).

HER2-low status was associated with a slightly reduced likelihood of having a pathologic complete response (aOR, 0.89; P < .001), with similar results when restricting the analysis to patients with triple negative or hormone receptor-positive tumors.

After a median follow-up of 54 months, HER2-low disease was associated with a minor improvement in survival on multivariate analysis, at an adjusted hazard ratio for death of 0.98 (P < .001).

The greatest improvement in survival was seen in patients with stage III and IV triple-negative breast cancer, at HRs of 0.92 and 0.91, respectively, although the researchers noted that this represented only a 2% and 0.4% improvement in 5-year overall survival, respectively.

The study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the American Society of Clinical Oncology/Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Susan G. Komen, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the University of Chicago Elwood V. Jensen Scholars Program. Dr. Howard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Curigliano has relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Celltrion, Veracyte, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Scientific Affairs Group, and Ellipsis.

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

Much attention has been focused recently on the idea that breast cancer with a low expression of HER2 can be treated with HER2-targeted agents. Not surprisingly, manufacturers of these drugs have pounced on this idea, as it opens up a whole new patient population: previously these drugs were only for tumors with a high HER2 expression.

There is a large potential market at stake: HER2-low (also referred to as ERBB2-low), as defined by a score of 0 to 3+ on immunohistochemistry (IHC), is seen in approximately 50%-60% of all breast cancers

However, there is still much debate over whether low-HER2 breast cancer is, in fact, a separate clinical entity.

A new large-scale analysis concludes that it is not. The authors argued that it actually it represents a series of biological differences from HER2-negative disease that do not have a strong bearing on outcomes.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Oncology.

For the study, researchers from the University of Chicago examined data on more than 1.1 million breast cancer patients recorded as HER2-negative in the U.S. National Cancer Database, and re-classified almost two thirds as HER2-low on further analysis.

They found that HER2-low status was associated with higher estrogen receptor (ER) expression, as well as a lower rate of pathologic complete response, compared with HER2-negative disease. It was also linked to an improvement in overall survival on multivariate analysis of up to 9% in advance stage triple negative tumors.

“However, the clinical significance of these differences is questionable,” the researchers commented.

HER2-low status alone “should not influence neoadjuvant treatment decisions with currently approved regimens,” they added.

These results “do not support classification of HER2-low breast cancer as a distinct clinical subtype,” the team concluded.

Not necessarily, according to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, director of the new drugs and early drug development for innovative therapies division at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan. He argued the opposite case, that HER2-low is a separate clinical entity, in a recent debate on the topic held at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In a comment, Dr. Curigliano said that a “major strength” of the current study is its large patient cohort, which reflects the majority of cancer diagnoses in the United States, but that it nevertheless has “important limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.”

The inclusion of only overall survival in the dataset limits the ability to make associations between HER2-low status and cancer-specific prognosis, as “survival may lag years behind recurrence.”

The lack of centralized assessment of IHC results is also an issue, as “some of the results may be associated with regional variation in practice of classifying cases as HER2 0 versus HER2 1+.”

“In my opinion, this is a great limitation,” he said, in being able to conclude that there is “no prognostic difference between ERBB2-low and -negative patients.”

He also noted that, from a molecular point of view, “the key determinant of the gene expression profile is the expression of hormone receptors, [and] if we perform a correction for hormone receptor expression, only marginal differences in gene expression are found” between HER2-low and HER2-negative tumors.

“Similarly, large genomic studies have identified no specific and consistent difference in genomic profiles,” Dr. Curigliano said, and so, HER2-low disease, “as currently defined, should not be considered a distinct molecular entity, but rather a heterogeneous group of tumors, with biology primarily driven by hormone receptor expression.”
 

Analysis quoted by both sides

Senior author of the new analysis, Frederick M. Howard, MD, from the section of hematology-oncology in the department of medicine at the University of Chicago, said that his team’s work was quoted by both sides of the debate at SABCS 2022.

This reflects the fact that, while differences between ERBB2-low and -negative are present, it is “questionable how clinically significant those differences are,” he said in an interview. It’s a matter of “the eye of the beholder.”

Dr. Howard does not think that clinicians are going to modify standard treatment regimens based solely on HER2-low status, and that low expression of the protein “is probably just a reflection of some underlying biologic processes.”

Dr. Howard agreed with Dr. Curigliano that a “caveat” of their study is that the IHC analyses were performed locally, especially as it has shown that there can be discordance between pathologists in around 40% of cases, and that the associations they found might therefore be “strengthened” by more precise quantification of HER2 expression.

“But, even then,” Dr. Howard continued, “I doubt that [ERBB2-low status] is going to be that strong a prognostic factor.”

He believes that advances in analytic techniques will, in the future, allow tumors to be characterized more precisely, and it may be that HER2-low tumors end up being called something else in 5 years.
 

Renewed interest in this subgroup

In their paper, Dr. Howard and colleagues pointed out that, as a group, HER2-low tumors are heterogeneous, with HER2-low found in both hormone receptor–positive and triple-negative breast cancers. Also, various studies have come to different conclusions about what HER2 low means prognostically, with conclusions ranging from negative to neutral and to positive prognoses.

However, new research has shown that patients with HER2-low tumors can benefit from HER2-targeted drugs. In particular, the recent report that the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in ERBB2-low tumors led to “renewed interest in the subgroup,” the researchers noted.

To examine this subgroup further, they embarked on their analysis. Examining the National Cancer Database, they gathered information on more than 1.1 million U.S. patients diagnosed with HER2-negative invasive breast cancer in the 10-year period 2010-2019, and for whom IHC results were available.

The patients were reclassified as having HER2-low disease if they had an IHC score of 1+, or 2+ with a negative in situ hybridization test, while those with an IHC score of 0 were deemed to be HER2-negative. They were followed up until Nov. 30, 2022.

These patients had a mean age of 62.4 years, and 99.1% were female. The majority (78.6%) were non-Hispanic white. HER2-low was identified in 65.5% of the cohort, while 34.5% were HER2-negative.

The proportion of HER2-low disease was lower in non-Hispanic black (62.8%) and Hispanic (61%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients, at 66.1%.

HER2-low disease was also more common in hormone receptor–positive than triple-negative tumors, at just 51.5%, rising to 58.6% for progesterone receptor–positive, ER-negative, and 69.1% for PR-positive, ER-positive tumors.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis taking into account age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidity score, and treatment facility type, among other factors, revealed that the likelihood of HER2-low disease was significantly with increased ER expression, at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.15 for each 10% increase (P < .001).

Non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Pacific Islander patients had similar rates of HER2-low disease as non-Hispanic White patients after adjustment, whereas Native American patients had an increased rate, at an aOR of 1.22 (P < .001), and Hispanic patients had a lower rate, at an aOR of 0.85 (P < .001).

HER2-low status was associated with a slightly reduced likelihood of having a pathologic complete response (aOR, 0.89; P < .001), with similar results when restricting the analysis to patients with triple negative or hormone receptor-positive tumors.

After a median follow-up of 54 months, HER2-low disease was associated with a minor improvement in survival on multivariate analysis, at an adjusted hazard ratio for death of 0.98 (P < .001).

The greatest improvement in survival was seen in patients with stage III and IV triple-negative breast cancer, at HRs of 0.92 and 0.91, respectively, although the researchers noted that this represented only a 2% and 0.4% improvement in 5-year overall survival, respectively.

The study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the American Society of Clinical Oncology/Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Susan G. Komen, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the University of Chicago Elwood V. Jensen Scholars Program. Dr. Howard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Curigliano has relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Celltrion, Veracyte, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Scientific Affairs Group, and Ellipsis.

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

Following a fish-based pescatarian diet or plant-based vegetarian or vegan diet is associated with not only the greatest benefit to health but also the lowest impact on the environment, suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.

This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.

Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”

Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.

“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.

“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.

To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.

The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.

The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.

The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.

Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.

Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.

The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).

The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.

Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.

Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”

The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.

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

Following a fish-based pescatarian diet or plant-based vegetarian or vegan diet is associated with not only the greatest benefit to health but also the lowest impact on the environment, suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.

This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.

Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”

Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.

“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.

“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.

To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.

The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.

The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.

The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.

Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.

Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.

The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).

The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.

Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.

Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”

The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.

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

Following a fish-based pescatarian diet or plant-based vegetarian or vegan diet is associated with not only the greatest benefit to health but also the lowest impact on the environment, suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.

This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.

Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”

Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.

“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.

“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.

To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.

The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.

The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.

The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.

Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.

Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.

The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).

The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.

Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.

Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”

The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.

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

If budesonide-formoterol were to become available over the counter (OTC) and used as-needed for mild asthma, it would save lives and cut health care costs, according to a computer modeling study presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio.

Asthma affects 25 million people, about 1 in 13, in the United States. About 28% are uninsured or underinsured, and 70% have mild asthma. Many are using a $30 inhaled epinephrine product (Primatene Mist) – the only FDA-approved asthma inhaler available without a prescription, said Marcus Shaker, MD, MS, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, and clinician at Dartmouth Health Children’s, N.H.

A new version of Primatene Mist was reintroduced on the market in 2018 after the product was pulled for containing chlorofluorocarbons in 2011, but it is not recommended by professional medical societies because of safety concerns over epinephrine’s adverse effects, such as increased heart rate and blood pressure.

Drugs in its class (bronchodilators) have long been associated with a higher risk for death or near-death.

Meanwhile, research more than 2 decades ago linked regular use of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids with reduced risk for asthma death.

More recently, two large studies (SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2) compared maintenance therapy with a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (budesonide) vs. on-demand treatment with an inhaler containing both a corticosteroid (budesonide) and a long-acting bronchodilator (formoterol).

“Using as-needed budesonide-formoterol led to outcomes that are almost as good as taking a maintenance budesonide dose every day,” said Dr. Shaker.

The Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines now recommend this approach – as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus long-acting bronchodilators – for adults with mild asthma. In the United States, however, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute still suggests daily ICS plus quick-relief therapy as needed.

Dr. Shaker and colleagues used computer modeling to compare the cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol vs. over-the-counter inhaled epinephrine in underinsured U.S. adults who were self-managing their mild asthma. The study randomly assigned these individuals into three groups: OTC inhaled epinephrine (current reality), OTC budesonide-formoterol (not yet available), or no OTC option. The model assumed that patients treated for an exacerbation were referred to a health care provider and started a regimen of ICS plus as-needed rescue therapy.

In this analysis, which has been submitted for publication, the OTC budesonide-formoterol strategy was associated with 12,495 fewer deaths, prevented nearly 14 million severe asthma exacerbations, and saved more than $68 billion. And “when we looked at OTC budesonide-formoterol vs. having no OTC option at all, budesonide-formoterol was similarly cost-effective,” said Dr. Shaker, who presented the results at an AAAAI oral abstract session.

The cost savings emerged even though in the United States asthma controller therapies (for example, fluticasone) cost about 10 times more than rescue therapies (for instance, salbutamol, OTC epinephrine).

Nevertheless, the results make sense. “If you’re using Primatene Mist, your health costs are predicted to be much greater because you’re going to be in the hospital more. Your asthma is not going to be well-controlled,” Thanai Pongdee, MD, an allergist-immunologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It’s not only the cost of your ER visit but also the cost of loss of work or school, and loss of daily productivity. There are all these associated costs.”

The analysis “is certainly something policy makers could take a look at,” he said.

He noted that current use of budesonide-formoterol is stymied by difficulties with insurance coverage. The difficulties stem from a mismatch between the updated recommendation for as-needed use and the description printed on the brand-name product (Symbicort).

“On the product label, it says Symbicort should be used on a daily basis,” Dr. Pongdee said. “But if a prescription comes through and says you’re going to use this ‘as needed,’ the health plan may say that’s not appropriate because that’s not on the product label.”

Given these access challenges with the all-in-one inhaler, other researchers have developed a workaround – asking patients to continue their usual care (that is, using a rescue inhaler as needed) but to also administer a controller medication after each rescue. When tested in Black and Latino patients with moderate to severe asthma, this easy strategy (patient activated reliever-triggered inhaled corticosteroid, or PARTICS) reduced severe asthma exacerbations about as well as the all-in-one inhaler.

If the all-in-one budesonide-formoterol does become available OTC, Dr. Shaker stressed that it “would not be a substitute for seeing an allergist and getting appropriate medical care and an evaluation and all the rest. But it’s better than the status quo. It’s the sort of thing where the perfect is not the enemy of the good,” he said.

Dr. Shaker is the AAAAI cochair of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters and serves as an editorial board member of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in Practice. He is also an associate editor of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. Dr. Pongdee serves as an at-large director on the AAAAI board of directors. He receives grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline, and Mayo Clinic is a trial site for GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

If budesonide-formoterol were to become available over the counter (OTC) and used as-needed for mild asthma, it would save lives and cut health care costs, according to a computer modeling study presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio.

Asthma affects 25 million people, about 1 in 13, in the United States. About 28% are uninsured or underinsured, and 70% have mild asthma. Many are using a $30 inhaled epinephrine product (Primatene Mist) – the only FDA-approved asthma inhaler available without a prescription, said Marcus Shaker, MD, MS, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, and clinician at Dartmouth Health Children’s, N.H.

A new version of Primatene Mist was reintroduced on the market in 2018 after the product was pulled for containing chlorofluorocarbons in 2011, but it is not recommended by professional medical societies because of safety concerns over epinephrine’s adverse effects, such as increased heart rate and blood pressure.

Drugs in its class (bronchodilators) have long been associated with a higher risk for death or near-death.

Meanwhile, research more than 2 decades ago linked regular use of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids with reduced risk for asthma death.

More recently, two large studies (SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2) compared maintenance therapy with a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (budesonide) vs. on-demand treatment with an inhaler containing both a corticosteroid (budesonide) and a long-acting bronchodilator (formoterol).

“Using as-needed budesonide-formoterol led to outcomes that are almost as good as taking a maintenance budesonide dose every day,” said Dr. Shaker.

The Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines now recommend this approach – as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus long-acting bronchodilators – for adults with mild asthma. In the United States, however, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute still suggests daily ICS plus quick-relief therapy as needed.

Dr. Shaker and colleagues used computer modeling to compare the cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol vs. over-the-counter inhaled epinephrine in underinsured U.S. adults who were self-managing their mild asthma. The study randomly assigned these individuals into three groups: OTC inhaled epinephrine (current reality), OTC budesonide-formoterol (not yet available), or no OTC option. The model assumed that patients treated for an exacerbation were referred to a health care provider and started a regimen of ICS plus as-needed rescue therapy.

In this analysis, which has been submitted for publication, the OTC budesonide-formoterol strategy was associated with 12,495 fewer deaths, prevented nearly 14 million severe asthma exacerbations, and saved more than $68 billion. And “when we looked at OTC budesonide-formoterol vs. having no OTC option at all, budesonide-formoterol was similarly cost-effective,” said Dr. Shaker, who presented the results at an AAAAI oral abstract session.

The cost savings emerged even though in the United States asthma controller therapies (for example, fluticasone) cost about 10 times more than rescue therapies (for instance, salbutamol, OTC epinephrine).

Nevertheless, the results make sense. “If you’re using Primatene Mist, your health costs are predicted to be much greater because you’re going to be in the hospital more. Your asthma is not going to be well-controlled,” Thanai Pongdee, MD, an allergist-immunologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It’s not only the cost of your ER visit but also the cost of loss of work or school, and loss of daily productivity. There are all these associated costs.”

The analysis “is certainly something policy makers could take a look at,” he said.

He noted that current use of budesonide-formoterol is stymied by difficulties with insurance coverage. The difficulties stem from a mismatch between the updated recommendation for as-needed use and the description printed on the brand-name product (Symbicort).

“On the product label, it says Symbicort should be used on a daily basis,” Dr. Pongdee said. “But if a prescription comes through and says you’re going to use this ‘as needed,’ the health plan may say that’s not appropriate because that’s not on the product label.”

Given these access challenges with the all-in-one inhaler, other researchers have developed a workaround – asking patients to continue their usual care (that is, using a rescue inhaler as needed) but to also administer a controller medication after each rescue. When tested in Black and Latino patients with moderate to severe asthma, this easy strategy (patient activated reliever-triggered inhaled corticosteroid, or PARTICS) reduced severe asthma exacerbations about as well as the all-in-one inhaler.

If the all-in-one budesonide-formoterol does become available OTC, Dr. Shaker stressed that it “would not be a substitute for seeing an allergist and getting appropriate medical care and an evaluation and all the rest. But it’s better than the status quo. It’s the sort of thing where the perfect is not the enemy of the good,” he said.

Dr. Shaker is the AAAAI cochair of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters and serves as an editorial board member of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in Practice. He is also an associate editor of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. Dr. Pongdee serves as an at-large director on the AAAAI board of directors. He receives grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline, and Mayo Clinic is a trial site for GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

If budesonide-formoterol were to become available over the counter (OTC) and used as-needed for mild asthma, it would save lives and cut health care costs, according to a computer modeling study presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio.

Asthma affects 25 million people, about 1 in 13, in the United States. About 28% are uninsured or underinsured, and 70% have mild asthma. Many are using a $30 inhaled epinephrine product (Primatene Mist) – the only FDA-approved asthma inhaler available without a prescription, said Marcus Shaker, MD, MS, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, and clinician at Dartmouth Health Children’s, N.H.

A new version of Primatene Mist was reintroduced on the market in 2018 after the product was pulled for containing chlorofluorocarbons in 2011, but it is not recommended by professional medical societies because of safety concerns over epinephrine’s adverse effects, such as increased heart rate and blood pressure.

Drugs in its class (bronchodilators) have long been associated with a higher risk for death or near-death.

Meanwhile, research more than 2 decades ago linked regular use of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids with reduced risk for asthma death.

More recently, two large studies (SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2) compared maintenance therapy with a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (budesonide) vs. on-demand treatment with an inhaler containing both a corticosteroid (budesonide) and a long-acting bronchodilator (formoterol).

“Using as-needed budesonide-formoterol led to outcomes that are almost as good as taking a maintenance budesonide dose every day,” said Dr. Shaker.

The Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines now recommend this approach – as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus long-acting bronchodilators – for adults with mild asthma. In the United States, however, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute still suggests daily ICS plus quick-relief therapy as needed.

Dr. Shaker and colleagues used computer modeling to compare the cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol vs. over-the-counter inhaled epinephrine in underinsured U.S. adults who were self-managing their mild asthma. The study randomly assigned these individuals into three groups: OTC inhaled epinephrine (current reality), OTC budesonide-formoterol (not yet available), or no OTC option. The model assumed that patients treated for an exacerbation were referred to a health care provider and started a regimen of ICS plus as-needed rescue therapy.

In this analysis, which has been submitted for publication, the OTC budesonide-formoterol strategy was associated with 12,495 fewer deaths, prevented nearly 14 million severe asthma exacerbations, and saved more than $68 billion. And “when we looked at OTC budesonide-formoterol vs. having no OTC option at all, budesonide-formoterol was similarly cost-effective,” said Dr. Shaker, who presented the results at an AAAAI oral abstract session.

The cost savings emerged even though in the United States asthma controller therapies (for example, fluticasone) cost about 10 times more than rescue therapies (for instance, salbutamol, OTC epinephrine).

Nevertheless, the results make sense. “If you’re using Primatene Mist, your health costs are predicted to be much greater because you’re going to be in the hospital more. Your asthma is not going to be well-controlled,” Thanai Pongdee, MD, an allergist-immunologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It’s not only the cost of your ER visit but also the cost of loss of work or school, and loss of daily productivity. There are all these associated costs.”

The analysis “is certainly something policy makers could take a look at,” he said.

He noted that current use of budesonide-formoterol is stymied by difficulties with insurance coverage. The difficulties stem from a mismatch between the updated recommendation for as-needed use and the description printed on the brand-name product (Symbicort).

“On the product label, it says Symbicort should be used on a daily basis,” Dr. Pongdee said. “But if a prescription comes through and says you’re going to use this ‘as needed,’ the health plan may say that’s not appropriate because that’s not on the product label.”

Given these access challenges with the all-in-one inhaler, other researchers have developed a workaround – asking patients to continue their usual care (that is, using a rescue inhaler as needed) but to also administer a controller medication after each rescue. When tested in Black and Latino patients with moderate to severe asthma, this easy strategy (patient activated reliever-triggered inhaled corticosteroid, or PARTICS) reduced severe asthma exacerbations about as well as the all-in-one inhaler.

If the all-in-one budesonide-formoterol does become available OTC, Dr. Shaker stressed that it “would not be a substitute for seeing an allergist and getting appropriate medical care and an evaluation and all the rest. But it’s better than the status quo. It’s the sort of thing where the perfect is not the enemy of the good,” he said.

Dr. Shaker is the AAAAI cochair of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters and serves as an editorial board member of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in Practice. He is also an associate editor of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. Dr. Pongdee serves as an at-large director on the AAAAI board of directors. He receives grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline, and Mayo Clinic is a trial site for GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

In February, the US House of Representatives hurriedly passed the Stopping Home Office Work’s Unproductive Problems (SHOW UP) Act, H.R. 139, a bill that calls into question the contributions of federal employees allowed to work from home and resets telework policies to those in place in 2019. Its author, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R, Kentucky) claimed that this change was necessary because the expansion of federal telework during the COVID-19 pandemic “has crippled the ability of agencies to get their jobs done and created backlogs.” His targets included the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), where, he charged, “veterans have been unable…to obtain care they have earned.” He added, “it’s hard to argue that teleworking has helped the VA.” 

While oversight of government programs is an authority of Congress, the SHOW UP Act is based on unsubstantiated assumptions of dereliction. It also disregards the devastating impact the proposed changes will have on veterans’ ability to receive care and inaccurately implies improving it. As the Senate considers the bill, they should take heed of these and other facts involving this often misunderstood form of labor.

COVID-19 irrevocably transformed the use of virtual care within the VA and across the world. Even as the pandemic subsides, public and private health care systems have continued to use telework-centered telehealth far above prepandemic levels, especially for mental health and primary care. Employers, including the VA, capitalize on telework for its benefits to both consumers and the workforce. For consumers, research supports the clinical effectiveness of telemental health service, as well as its cost-effectiveness and consumer satisfaction. On the workforce side, research has documented heightened productivity, lower distractibility, and higher job satisfaction among counselors who shifted to remote work.

Remote work also serves as a key tool in attracting and retaining a qualified workforce. As one VA service chief explained, “I am having enough trouble competing with the private sector, where extensive telework is now the norm. If telework options were rolled back, the private sector will have a field day picking off my best staff.” These comments are consistent with the data. McKinsey’s American Opportunity Survey shows that Americans have embraced remote work and want more of it. Recent data from Gallup show that 6 of 10 currently exclusively remote employees would be extremely likely to change companies if they lost their remote flexibility. Further, Gallup data show that when an employee’s location preference does not match their current work location, burnout rises, and engagement drops.   

Between 2019 and 2023, the VA’s telework expansion is what has enabled it to meet the growing demand for mental health services. VA is keeping pace by having 2 or more clinicians rotate between home and a shared VA office. Forcing these hybrid practitioners to work full time at VA facilities would drastically reduce the number of patients they can care for. There simply are not enough offices on crammed VA grounds to house staff who telework today. The net result would be that fewer appointments would be available, creating longer wait times. And that is just for existing patients. It does not factor in the expected influx due to new veteran eligibility made possible by the toxic exposures PACT Act.

Here is another good example of crucial VA telework: With the advent of the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, VA is adding more than 1000 new Veterans Crisis Line responders. All these new positions are remote. The SHOW UP Act would inhibit this expansion of lifesaving programs.

Veterans want more, not fewer, telehealth options. At a House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs hearing this past September, the VA reported that most veterans would prefer to receive mental health services virtually than to have to commute to a VA medical center or clinic. Telehealth benefits veterans in meaningful ways, including that it reduces their travel time, travel expense, depletion of sick leave, and need for childcare. Veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder, military sexual trauma, those with mobility issues, or those who struggle with the stigma of mental health treatment may prefer the familiarity of their own homes for care. Virtual options also relieve a patient’s need to enter a hospital and be unnecessarily exposed to contagious viruses. That’s safer not only for veterans but also for VA staff.

Finally, virtual care improves treatment. Research has revealed that the likelihood of missing telehealth appointments is lower than for in-person appointments. When patients miss appointments, continuity of care is disrupted, and health care outcomes are diminished. 

The pandemic is receding, but the advantages of telework-centered virtual care are greater than ever. Political representatives who want to show up for veterans should do everything in their power to expand—not cut—VA’s ability to authorize working from home.

In February, the US House of Representatives hurriedly passed the Stopping Home Office Work’s Unproductive Problems (SHOW UP) Act, H.R. 139, a bill that calls into question the contributions of federal employees allowed to work from home and resets telework policies to those in place in 2019. Its author, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R, Kentucky) claimed that this change was necessary because the expansion of federal telework during the COVID-19 pandemic “has crippled the ability of agencies to get their jobs done and created backlogs.” His targets included the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), where, he charged, “veterans have been unable…to obtain care they have earned.” He added, “it’s hard to argue that teleworking has helped the VA.” 

While oversight of government programs is an authority of Congress, the SHOW UP Act is based on unsubstantiated assumptions of dereliction. It also disregards the devastating impact the proposed changes will have on veterans’ ability to receive care and inaccurately implies improving it. As the Senate considers the bill, they should take heed of these and other facts involving this often misunderstood form of labor.

COVID-19 irrevocably transformed the use of virtual care within the VA and across the world. Even as the pandemic subsides, public and private health care systems have continued to use telework-centered telehealth far above prepandemic levels, especially for mental health and primary care. Employers, including the VA, capitalize on telework for its benefits to both consumers and the workforce. For consumers, research supports the clinical effectiveness of telemental health service, as well as its cost-effectiveness and consumer satisfaction. On the workforce side, research has documented heightened productivity, lower distractibility, and higher job satisfaction among counselors who shifted to remote work.

Remote work also serves as a key tool in attracting and retaining a qualified workforce. As one VA service chief explained, “I am having enough trouble competing with the private sector, where extensive telework is now the norm. If telework options were rolled back, the private sector will have a field day picking off my best staff.” These comments are consistent with the data. McKinsey’s American Opportunity Survey shows that Americans have embraced remote work and want more of it. Recent data from Gallup show that 6 of 10 currently exclusively remote employees would be extremely likely to change companies if they lost their remote flexibility. Further, Gallup data show that when an employee’s location preference does not match their current work location, burnout rises, and engagement drops.   

Between 2019 and 2023, the VA’s telework expansion is what has enabled it to meet the growing demand for mental health services. VA is keeping pace by having 2 or more clinicians rotate between home and a shared VA office. Forcing these hybrid practitioners to work full time at VA facilities would drastically reduce the number of patients they can care for. There simply are not enough offices on crammed VA grounds to house staff who telework today. The net result would be that fewer appointments would be available, creating longer wait times. And that is just for existing patients. It does not factor in the expected influx due to new veteran eligibility made possible by the toxic exposures PACT Act.

Here is another good example of crucial VA telework: With the advent of the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, VA is adding more than 1000 new Veterans Crisis Line responders. All these new positions are remote. The SHOW UP Act would inhibit this expansion of lifesaving programs.

Veterans want more, not fewer, telehealth options. At a House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs hearing this past September, the VA reported that most veterans would prefer to receive mental health services virtually than to have to commute to a VA medical center or clinic. Telehealth benefits veterans in meaningful ways, including that it reduces their travel time, travel expense, depletion of sick leave, and need for childcare. Veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder, military sexual trauma, those with mobility issues, or those who struggle with the stigma of mental health treatment may prefer the familiarity of their own homes for care. Virtual options also relieve a patient’s need to enter a hospital and be unnecessarily exposed to contagious viruses. That’s safer not only for veterans but also for VA staff.

Finally, virtual care improves treatment. Research has revealed that the likelihood of missing telehealth appointments is lower than for in-person appointments. When patients miss appointments, continuity of care is disrupted, and health care outcomes are diminished. 

The pandemic is receding, but the advantages of telework-centered virtual care are greater than ever. Political representatives who want to show up for veterans should do everything in their power to expand—not cut—VA’s ability to authorize working from home.

In February, the US House of Representatives hurriedly passed the Stopping Home Office Work’s Unproductive Problems (SHOW UP) Act, H.R. 139, a bill that calls into question the contributions of federal employees allowed to work from home and resets telework policies to those in place in 2019. Its author, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R, Kentucky) claimed that this change was necessary because the expansion of federal telework during the COVID-19 pandemic “has crippled the ability of agencies to get their jobs done and created backlogs.” His targets included the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), where, he charged, “veterans have been unable…to obtain care they have earned.” He added, “it’s hard to argue that teleworking has helped the VA.” 

While oversight of government programs is an authority of Congress, the SHOW UP Act is based on unsubstantiated assumptions of dereliction. It also disregards the devastating impact the proposed changes will have on veterans’ ability to receive care and inaccurately implies improving it. As the Senate considers the bill, they should take heed of these and other facts involving this often misunderstood form of labor.

COVID-19 irrevocably transformed the use of virtual care within the VA and across the world. Even as the pandemic subsides, public and private health care systems have continued to use telework-centered telehealth far above prepandemic levels, especially for mental health and primary care. Employers, including the VA, capitalize on telework for its benefits to both consumers and the workforce. For consumers, research supports the clinical effectiveness of telemental health service, as well as its cost-effectiveness and consumer satisfaction. On the workforce side, research has documented heightened productivity, lower distractibility, and higher job satisfaction among counselors who shifted to remote work.

Remote work also serves as a key tool in attracting and retaining a qualified workforce. As one VA service chief explained, “I am having enough trouble competing with the private sector, where extensive telework is now the norm. If telework options were rolled back, the private sector will have a field day picking off my best staff.” These comments are consistent with the data. McKinsey’s American Opportunity Survey shows that Americans have embraced remote work and want more of it. Recent data from Gallup show that 6 of 10 currently exclusively remote employees would be extremely likely to change companies if they lost their remote flexibility. Further, Gallup data show that when an employee’s location preference does not match their current work location, burnout rises, and engagement drops.   

Between 2019 and 2023, the VA’s telework expansion is what has enabled it to meet the growing demand for mental health services. VA is keeping pace by having 2 or more clinicians rotate between home and a shared VA office. Forcing these hybrid practitioners to work full time at VA facilities would drastically reduce the number of patients they can care for. There simply are not enough offices on crammed VA grounds to house staff who telework today. The net result would be that fewer appointments would be available, creating longer wait times. And that is just for existing patients. It does not factor in the expected influx due to new veteran eligibility made possible by the toxic exposures PACT Act.

Here is another good example of crucial VA telework: With the advent of the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, VA is adding more than 1000 new Veterans Crisis Line responders. All these new positions are remote. The SHOW UP Act would inhibit this expansion of lifesaving programs.

Veterans want more, not fewer, telehealth options. At a House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs hearing this past September, the VA reported that most veterans would prefer to receive mental health services virtually than to have to commute to a VA medical center or clinic. Telehealth benefits veterans in meaningful ways, including that it reduces their travel time, travel expense, depletion of sick leave, and need for childcare. Veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder, military sexual trauma, those with mobility issues, or those who struggle with the stigma of mental health treatment may prefer the familiarity of their own homes for care. Virtual options also relieve a patient’s need to enter a hospital and be unnecessarily exposed to contagious viruses. That’s safer not only for veterans but also for VA staff.

Finally, virtual care improves treatment. Research has revealed that the likelihood of missing telehealth appointments is lower than for in-person appointments. When patients miss appointments, continuity of care is disrupted, and health care outcomes are diminished. 

The pandemic is receding, but the advantages of telework-centered virtual care are greater than ever. Political representatives who want to show up for veterans should do everything in their power to expand—not cut—VA’s ability to authorize working from home.

In hindsight, Nikki Ruston said, she should have recognized the red flags.

The office in Miami where she scheduled what’s known as a Brazilian butt lift had closed and transferred her records to a different facility, she said. The price she was quoted – and paid upfront – increased the day of the procedure, and she said she did not meet her surgeon until she was about to be placed under general anesthesia.

“I was ready to walk out,” said Ms. Ruston, 44, of Lake Alfred in Central Florida. “But I had paid everything.”

A few days after the July procedure, Ms. Ruston was hospitalized because of infection, blood loss, and nausea, her medical records show.

“I went cheap. That’s what I did,” Ms. Ruston recalled recently. “I looked for the lowest price, and I found him on Instagram.”

Daniel Chang/KHN

People like Ms. Ruston are commonly lured to office-based surgery centers in South Florida through social media marketing that makes Brazilian butt lifts and other cosmetic surgery look deceptively painless, safe, and affordable, say researchers, patient advocates, and surgeon groups.

Unlike ambulatory surgery centers and hospitals, where a patient might stay overnight for observation after treatment, office-based surgery centers offer procedures that don’t typically require an inpatient stay and are regulated as an extension of a doctor’s private practice.

Daniel Chang/KHN

But such surgical offices are often owned by corporations that can offer discount prices by contracting with surgeons who are incentivized to work on as many patients per day as possible, in as little time as possible, according to state regulators and physicians critical of the facilities.

Ms. Ruston said she now lives with constant pain, but for other patients a Brazilian butt lift cost them their lives. After a rash of deaths, and in the absence of national standards, Florida regulators were the first in the nation to enact rules in 2019 meant to make the procedures safer. More than 3 years later, data shows deaths still occur.

Daniel Chang/KHN

Patient advocates and some surgeons – including those who perform the procedure themselves – anticipate the problem will only get worse. Emergency restrictions imposed by the state’s medical board in June expired in September, and the corporate business model popularized in Miami is spreading to other cities.

“We’re seeing entities that have a strong footprint in low-cost, high-volume cosmetic surgery, based in South Florida, manifesting in other parts of the country,” said Bob Basu, MD, MPH, a vice president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and a practicing physician in Houston.

During a Brazilian butt lift, fat is taken via liposuction from other areas of the body – such as the torso, back, or thighs – and injected into the buttocks. More than 61,000 buttock augmentation procedures, both butt lifts and implants, were performed nationwide in 2021, a 37% increase from the previous year, according to data from the Aesthetic Society, a trade group of plastic surgeons.

As with all surgery, complications can occur. Miami-Dade County’s medical examiner has documented nearly three dozen cosmetic surgery patient deaths since 2009, of which 26 resulted from a Brazilian butt lift. In each case, the person died from a pulmonary fat embolism, when fat entered the bloodstream through veins in the gluteal muscles and stopped blood from flowing to the lungs.

No national reporting system or insurance code tracks outcomes and patient demographics for a Brazilian butt lift. About 3% of surgeons worldwide had a patient die as a result of the procedure, according to a 2017 report from an Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force.

Medical experts said the problem is driven, in part, by having medical professionals like physician assistants and nurse practitioners perform key parts of the butt lift instead of doctors. It’s also driven by a business model that is motivated by profit, not safety, and incentivizes surgeons to exceed the number of surgeries outlined in their contracts.

In May, after a fifth patient in as many months died of complications in Miami-Dade County, Kevin Cairns, MD, proposed the state’s emergency rule to limit the number of butt lifts a surgeon could perform each day.

“I was getting sick of reading about women dying and seeing cases come before the board,” said Dr. Cairns, a physician and former member of the Florida Board of Medicine.

Some doctors performed as many as seven, according to disciplinary cases against surgeons prosecuted by the Florida Department of Health. The emergency rule limited them to no more than three, and required the use of an ultrasound to help surgeons lower the risk of a pulmonary fat clot.

But a group of physicians who perform Brazilian butt lifts in South Florida clapped back and formed Surgeons for Safety. They argued the new requirements would make the situation worse. Qualified doctors would have to do fewer procedures, they said, thus driving patients to dangerous medical professionals who don’t follow rules.

The group has since donated more than $350,000 to the state’s Republican Party, Republican candidates, and Republican political action committees, according to campaign contribution data from the Florida Department of State.

Surgeons for Safety declined KHN’s repeated interview requests. Although the group’s president, Constantino Mendieta, MD, wrote in an August editorial that he agreed not all surgeons have followed the standard of care, he called the limits put on surgeons “arbitrary.” The rule sets “a historic precedent of controlling surgeons,” he said during a meeting with Florida’s medical board.

In January, Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia, a Republican, filed a draft bill with the state legislature that proposes no limit on the number of Brazilian butt lifts a surgeon can perform in a day. Instead, it requires office surgery centers where the procedures are performed to staff one physician per patient and prohibits surgeons from working on more than one person at a time.

The bill would also allow surgeons to delegate some parts of the procedure to other clinicians under their direct supervision.

Florida’s legislature convenes on March 7.

Consumers considering cosmetic procedures are urged to be cautious. Like Ms. Ruston, many people base their expectations on before-and-after photos and marketing videos posted on social media platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram.

“That’s very dangerous,” said Dr. Basu, of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. “They’re excited about a low price and they forget about doing their homework,” he said.

The average price of a buttocks augmentation in 2021 was $4,000, according to data from the Aesthetic Society. But that’s only for the physician’s fee and does not cover anesthesia, operating room fees, prescriptions, or other expenses. A “safe” Brazilian butt lift, performed in an accredited facility and with proper aftercare, costs between $12,000 and $18,000, according to a recent article on the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ website.

Although Florida requires a physician’s license to perform liposuction on patients who are under general anesthesia, it’s common in the medical field for midlevel medical practitioners, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, to do the procedure in office settings, according to Mark Mofid, MD, who coauthored the 2017 Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force study.

By relying on staffers who don’t have the same specialty training and get paid less, office-based surgeons can complete more butt lifts per day and charge a lower price.

“They’re doing all of them simultaneously in three or four different rooms, and it’s being staffed by one surgeon,” said Dr. Mofid, a plastic surgeon in San Diego, who added that he does not perform more than one Brazilian butt lift in a day. “The surgeon isn’t doing the actual case. It’s assistants.”

Dr. Basu said patients should ask whether their doctor holds privileges to perform the same procedure at a hospital or ambulatory surgery center, which have stricter rules than office surgery centers in terms of who can perform butt lifts and how they should be done.

People in search of bargains are reminded that cosmetic surgery can have other serious risks beyond the deadly fat clots, such as infection and organ puncture, plus problems with the kidneys, heart, and lungs.

Ms. Ruston’s surgery was performed by a board-certified plastic surgeon she said she found on Instagram. She was originally quoted $4,995, which she said she paid in full before surgery. But when she arrived in Miami, she said, the clinic tacked on fees for liposuction and for postsurgical garments and devices.

“I ended up having to pay, like, $8,000,” Ms. Ruston said. A few days after Ms. Ruston returned home to Lake Alfred, she said, she started to feel dizzy and weak and called 911.

Paramedics took her to an emergency room, where doctors diagnosed her with anemia due to blood loss, and blood and abdominal infections, her medical records show.

“If I could go back in time,” she said, “I wouldn’t have had it done.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In hindsight, Nikki Ruston said, she should have recognized the red flags.

The office in Miami where she scheduled what’s known as a Brazilian butt lift had closed and transferred her records to a different facility, she said. The price she was quoted – and paid upfront – increased the day of the procedure, and she said she did not meet her surgeon until she was about to be placed under general anesthesia.

“I was ready to walk out,” said Ms. Ruston, 44, of Lake Alfred in Central Florida. “But I had paid everything.”

A few days after the July procedure, Ms. Ruston was hospitalized because of infection, blood loss, and nausea, her medical records show.

“I went cheap. That’s what I did,” Ms. Ruston recalled recently. “I looked for the lowest price, and I found him on Instagram.”

Daniel Chang/KHN

People like Ms. Ruston are commonly lured to office-based surgery centers in South Florida through social media marketing that makes Brazilian butt lifts and other cosmetic surgery look deceptively painless, safe, and affordable, say researchers, patient advocates, and surgeon groups.

Unlike ambulatory surgery centers and hospitals, where a patient might stay overnight for observation after treatment, office-based surgery centers offer procedures that don’t typically require an inpatient stay and are regulated as an extension of a doctor’s private practice.

Daniel Chang/KHN

But such surgical offices are often owned by corporations that can offer discount prices by contracting with surgeons who are incentivized to work on as many patients per day as possible, in as little time as possible, according to state regulators and physicians critical of the facilities.

Ms. Ruston said she now lives with constant pain, but for other patients a Brazilian butt lift cost them their lives. After a rash of deaths, and in the absence of national standards, Florida regulators were the first in the nation to enact rules in 2019 meant to make the procedures safer. More than 3 years later, data shows deaths still occur.

Daniel Chang/KHN

Patient advocates and some surgeons – including those who perform the procedure themselves – anticipate the problem will only get worse. Emergency restrictions imposed by the state’s medical board in June expired in September, and the corporate business model popularized in Miami is spreading to other cities.

“We’re seeing entities that have a strong footprint in low-cost, high-volume cosmetic surgery, based in South Florida, manifesting in other parts of the country,” said Bob Basu, MD, MPH, a vice president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and a practicing physician in Houston.

During a Brazilian butt lift, fat is taken via liposuction from other areas of the body – such as the torso, back, or thighs – and injected into the buttocks. More than 61,000 buttock augmentation procedures, both butt lifts and implants, were performed nationwide in 2021, a 37% increase from the previous year, according to data from the Aesthetic Society, a trade group of plastic surgeons.

As with all surgery, complications can occur. Miami-Dade County’s medical examiner has documented nearly three dozen cosmetic surgery patient deaths since 2009, of which 26 resulted from a Brazilian butt lift. In each case, the person died from a pulmonary fat embolism, when fat entered the bloodstream through veins in the gluteal muscles and stopped blood from flowing to the lungs.

No national reporting system or insurance code tracks outcomes and patient demographics for a Brazilian butt lift. About 3% of surgeons worldwide had a patient die as a result of the procedure, according to a 2017 report from an Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force.

Medical experts said the problem is driven, in part, by having medical professionals like physician assistants and nurse practitioners perform key parts of the butt lift instead of doctors. It’s also driven by a business model that is motivated by profit, not safety, and incentivizes surgeons to exceed the number of surgeries outlined in their contracts.

In May, after a fifth patient in as many months died of complications in Miami-Dade County, Kevin Cairns, MD, proposed the state’s emergency rule to limit the number of butt lifts a surgeon could perform each day.

“I was getting sick of reading about women dying and seeing cases come before the board,” said Dr. Cairns, a physician and former member of the Florida Board of Medicine.

Some doctors performed as many as seven, according to disciplinary cases against surgeons prosecuted by the Florida Department of Health. The emergency rule limited them to no more than three, and required the use of an ultrasound to help surgeons lower the risk of a pulmonary fat clot.

But a group of physicians who perform Brazilian butt lifts in South Florida clapped back and formed Surgeons for Safety. They argued the new requirements would make the situation worse. Qualified doctors would have to do fewer procedures, they said, thus driving patients to dangerous medical professionals who don’t follow rules.

The group has since donated more than $350,000 to the state’s Republican Party, Republican candidates, and Republican political action committees, according to campaign contribution data from the Florida Department of State.

Surgeons for Safety declined KHN’s repeated interview requests. Although the group’s president, Constantino Mendieta, MD, wrote in an August editorial that he agreed not all surgeons have followed the standard of care, he called the limits put on surgeons “arbitrary.” The rule sets “a historic precedent of controlling surgeons,” he said during a meeting with Florida’s medical board.

In January, Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia, a Republican, filed a draft bill with the state legislature that proposes no limit on the number of Brazilian butt lifts a surgeon can perform in a day. Instead, it requires office surgery centers where the procedures are performed to staff one physician per patient and prohibits surgeons from working on more than one person at a time.

The bill would also allow surgeons to delegate some parts of the procedure to other clinicians under their direct supervision.

Florida’s legislature convenes on March 7.

Consumers considering cosmetic procedures are urged to be cautious. Like Ms. Ruston, many people base their expectations on before-and-after photos and marketing videos posted on social media platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram.

“That’s very dangerous,” said Dr. Basu, of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. “They’re excited about a low price and they forget about doing their homework,” he said.

The average price of a buttocks augmentation in 2021 was $4,000, according to data from the Aesthetic Society. But that’s only for the physician’s fee and does not cover anesthesia, operating room fees, prescriptions, or other expenses. A “safe” Brazilian butt lift, performed in an accredited facility and with proper aftercare, costs between $12,000 and $18,000, according to a recent article on the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ website.

Although Florida requires a physician’s license to perform liposuction on patients who are under general anesthesia, it’s common in the medical field for midlevel medical practitioners, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, to do the procedure in office settings, according to Mark Mofid, MD, who coauthored the 2017 Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force study.

By relying on staffers who don’t have the same specialty training and get paid less, office-based surgeons can complete more butt lifts per day and charge a lower price.

“They’re doing all of them simultaneously in three or four different rooms, and it’s being staffed by one surgeon,” said Dr. Mofid, a plastic surgeon in San Diego, who added that he does not perform more than one Brazilian butt lift in a day. “The surgeon isn’t doing the actual case. It’s assistants.”

Dr. Basu said patients should ask whether their doctor holds privileges to perform the same procedure at a hospital or ambulatory surgery center, which have stricter rules than office surgery centers in terms of who can perform butt lifts and how they should be done.

People in search of bargains are reminded that cosmetic surgery can have other serious risks beyond the deadly fat clots, such as infection and organ puncture, plus problems with the kidneys, heart, and lungs.

Ms. Ruston’s surgery was performed by a board-certified plastic surgeon she said she found on Instagram. She was originally quoted $4,995, which she said she paid in full before surgery. But when she arrived in Miami, she said, the clinic tacked on fees for liposuction and for postsurgical garments and devices.

“I ended up having to pay, like, $8,000,” Ms. Ruston said. A few days after Ms. Ruston returned home to Lake Alfred, she said, she started to feel dizzy and weak and called 911.

Paramedics took her to an emergency room, where doctors diagnosed her with anemia due to blood loss, and blood and abdominal infections, her medical records show.

“If I could go back in time,” she said, “I wouldn’t have had it done.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In hindsight, Nikki Ruston said, she should have recognized the red flags.

The office in Miami where she scheduled what’s known as a Brazilian butt lift had closed and transferred her records to a different facility, she said. The price she was quoted – and paid upfront – increased the day of the procedure, and she said she did not meet her surgeon until she was about to be placed under general anesthesia.

“I was ready to walk out,” said Ms. Ruston, 44, of Lake Alfred in Central Florida. “But I had paid everything.”

A few days after the July procedure, Ms. Ruston was hospitalized because of infection, blood loss, and nausea, her medical records show.

“I went cheap. That’s what I did,” Ms. Ruston recalled recently. “I looked for the lowest price, and I found him on Instagram.”

Daniel Chang/KHN

People like Ms. Ruston are commonly lured to office-based surgery centers in South Florida through social media marketing that makes Brazilian butt lifts and other cosmetic surgery look deceptively painless, safe, and affordable, say researchers, patient advocates, and surgeon groups.

Unlike ambulatory surgery centers and hospitals, where a patient might stay overnight for observation after treatment, office-based surgery centers offer procedures that don’t typically require an inpatient stay and are regulated as an extension of a doctor’s private practice.

Daniel Chang/KHN

But such surgical offices are often owned by corporations that can offer discount prices by contracting with surgeons who are incentivized to work on as many patients per day as possible, in as little time as possible, according to state regulators and physicians critical of the facilities.

Ms. Ruston said she now lives with constant pain, but for other patients a Brazilian butt lift cost them their lives. After a rash of deaths, and in the absence of national standards, Florida regulators were the first in the nation to enact rules in 2019 meant to make the procedures safer. More than 3 years later, data shows deaths still occur.

Daniel Chang/KHN

Patient advocates and some surgeons – including those who perform the procedure themselves – anticipate the problem will only get worse. Emergency restrictions imposed by the state’s medical board in June expired in September, and the corporate business model popularized in Miami is spreading to other cities.

“We’re seeing entities that have a strong footprint in low-cost, high-volume cosmetic surgery, based in South Florida, manifesting in other parts of the country,” said Bob Basu, MD, MPH, a vice president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and a practicing physician in Houston.

During a Brazilian butt lift, fat is taken via liposuction from other areas of the body – such as the torso, back, or thighs – and injected into the buttocks. More than 61,000 buttock augmentation procedures, both butt lifts and implants, were performed nationwide in 2021, a 37% increase from the previous year, according to data from the Aesthetic Society, a trade group of plastic surgeons.

As with all surgery, complications can occur. Miami-Dade County’s medical examiner has documented nearly three dozen cosmetic surgery patient deaths since 2009, of which 26 resulted from a Brazilian butt lift. In each case, the person died from a pulmonary fat embolism, when fat entered the bloodstream through veins in the gluteal muscles and stopped blood from flowing to the lungs.

No national reporting system or insurance code tracks outcomes and patient demographics for a Brazilian butt lift. About 3% of surgeons worldwide had a patient die as a result of the procedure, according to a 2017 report from an Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force.

Medical experts said the problem is driven, in part, by having medical professionals like physician assistants and nurse practitioners perform key parts of the butt lift instead of doctors. It’s also driven by a business model that is motivated by profit, not safety, and incentivizes surgeons to exceed the number of surgeries outlined in their contracts.

In May, after a fifth patient in as many months died of complications in Miami-Dade County, Kevin Cairns, MD, proposed the state’s emergency rule to limit the number of butt lifts a surgeon could perform each day.

“I was getting sick of reading about women dying and seeing cases come before the board,” said Dr. Cairns, a physician and former member of the Florida Board of Medicine.

Some doctors performed as many as seven, according to disciplinary cases against surgeons prosecuted by the Florida Department of Health. The emergency rule limited them to no more than three, and required the use of an ultrasound to help surgeons lower the risk of a pulmonary fat clot.

But a group of physicians who perform Brazilian butt lifts in South Florida clapped back and formed Surgeons for Safety. They argued the new requirements would make the situation worse. Qualified doctors would have to do fewer procedures, they said, thus driving patients to dangerous medical professionals who don’t follow rules.

The group has since donated more than $350,000 to the state’s Republican Party, Republican candidates, and Republican political action committees, according to campaign contribution data from the Florida Department of State.

Surgeons for Safety declined KHN’s repeated interview requests. Although the group’s president, Constantino Mendieta, MD, wrote in an August editorial that he agreed not all surgeons have followed the standard of care, he called the limits put on surgeons “arbitrary.” The rule sets “a historic precedent of controlling surgeons,” he said during a meeting with Florida’s medical board.

In January, Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia, a Republican, filed a draft bill with the state legislature that proposes no limit on the number of Brazilian butt lifts a surgeon can perform in a day. Instead, it requires office surgery centers where the procedures are performed to staff one physician per patient and prohibits surgeons from working on more than one person at a time.

The bill would also allow surgeons to delegate some parts of the procedure to other clinicians under their direct supervision.

Florida’s legislature convenes on March 7.

Consumers considering cosmetic procedures are urged to be cautious. Like Ms. Ruston, many people base their expectations on before-and-after photos and marketing videos posted on social media platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram.

“That’s very dangerous,” said Dr. Basu, of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. “They’re excited about a low price and they forget about doing their homework,” he said.

The average price of a buttocks augmentation in 2021 was $4,000, according to data from the Aesthetic Society. But that’s only for the physician’s fee and does not cover anesthesia, operating room fees, prescriptions, or other expenses. A “safe” Brazilian butt lift, performed in an accredited facility and with proper aftercare, costs between $12,000 and $18,000, according to a recent article on the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ website.

Although Florida requires a physician’s license to perform liposuction on patients who are under general anesthesia, it’s common in the medical field for midlevel medical practitioners, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, to do the procedure in office settings, according to Mark Mofid, MD, who coauthored the 2017 Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force study.

By relying on staffers who don’t have the same specialty training and get paid less, office-based surgeons can complete more butt lifts per day and charge a lower price.

“They’re doing all of them simultaneously in three or four different rooms, and it’s being staffed by one surgeon,” said Dr. Mofid, a plastic surgeon in San Diego, who added that he does not perform more than one Brazilian butt lift in a day. “The surgeon isn’t doing the actual case. It’s assistants.”

Dr. Basu said patients should ask whether their doctor holds privileges to perform the same procedure at a hospital or ambulatory surgery center, which have stricter rules than office surgery centers in terms of who can perform butt lifts and how they should be done.

People in search of bargains are reminded that cosmetic surgery can have other serious risks beyond the deadly fat clots, such as infection and organ puncture, plus problems with the kidneys, heart, and lungs.

Ms. Ruston’s surgery was performed by a board-certified plastic surgeon she said she found on Instagram. She was originally quoted $4,995, which she said she paid in full before surgery. But when she arrived in Miami, she said, the clinic tacked on fees for liposuction and for postsurgical garments and devices.

“I ended up having to pay, like, $8,000,” Ms. Ruston said. A few days after Ms. Ruston returned home to Lake Alfred, she said, she started to feel dizzy and weak and called 911.

Paramedics took her to an emergency room, where doctors diagnosed her with anemia due to blood loss, and blood and abdominal infections, her medical records show.

“If I could go back in time,” she said, “I wouldn’t have had it done.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Nearly 2 years after a whistleblower alleged that the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and its head of cardiothoracic surgery participated in billing fraud and dangerous operating room practices, the case has ended in an $8.5 million settlement, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced.

The lawsuit alleges that James L. Luketich, MD, the longtime chair of the school’s cardiothoracic surgery department, regularly performed up to three complex surgical procedures simultaneously, moving among multiple operating rooms and attending to matters other than patient care. The investigation began after Jonathan D’Cunha, MD, a former UPMC surgeon, raised concerns about his colleague’s surgical scheduling and billing practices.

Dr. Luketich’s overbooking of procedures led to patients enduring hours of medically unnecessary anesthesia time and risking surgical complications, according to court documents.

In addition, the complaint states that these practices violated the False Claims Act, which prohibits “teaching physicians” like Dr. Luketich from billing Medicare and other government health plans for “concurrent surgeries” – regulations federal authorities say UPMC leadership were aware of and the University of Pittsburgh Physicians (UPP), also named in the suit, permitted Dr. Luketich to skirt.

The whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act allows private parties to file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the recovery to help deter health care fraud, says the DOJ.

The defendants previously asked the court to dismiss the case, but a judge denied the request in June 2022.

Paul Wood, vice president and chief communications officer for UPMC, told this news organization that the lawsuit pertained to Dr. Luketich’s “most complicated, team-based surgical procedures.”

“At issue was compliance with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS’s) Teaching Physician Regulation and related billing guidance as well as with UPMC’s internal surgical policies,” he said.

“While UPMC continues to believe Dr. Luketich’s surgical practice complies with CMS requirements, it has agreed to [the settlement] to avoid the distraction and expense of further litigation,” said Mr. Wood, adding that all parties agree that UPMC can seek clarity from CMS regarding future billing of these surgeries.

Efrem Grail, JD, Dr. Luketich’s attorney, said in an interview that he and Dr. Luketich are pleased that the settlement puts an end to the case and that he hopes the United States will issue “authoritative guidance” on billing regulations for teaching physicians, something medical schools and hospitals have sought for years.

Dr. Luketich, UPMC, and UPP face more legal challenges from a separate medical malpractice lawsuit. In March 2018, Bernadette Fedorka underwent a lung transplant at UPMC. Although Dr. Luketich did not perform the surgery, Ms. Fedorka alleges that his poor leadership caused understaffing of the lung transplant program and contributed to surgical complications, including a 4-inch piece of wire left in her neck.

Ms. Fedorka claims that suboxone impaired Dr. Luketich’s decision-making. He began taking the drug in 2008 to manage the pain from a slipped disc injury after a history of prescription drug abuse. Both UPMC and Dr. Luketich have denied the validity of Ms. Fedorka’s claims.

The malpractice suit centers on a recording of a conversation between Dr. Luketich and David Wilson, MD, who prescribed the suboxone and treated the surgeon’s opioid use disorder for several years. Dr. Luketich has accused former colleagues, Dr. D’Cunha and Lara Schaheen, MD, of illegally recording the private conversation that discussed Dr. Luketich’s suboxone prescription – something both physicians deny.

For the billing fraud case, Dr. Luketich has agreed to complete a corrective action plan and submit to a third-party audit of his Medicare billings for 1 year.

“This is an important settlement and a just conclusion to the United States’ investigation into Dr. Luketich’s surgical and billing practices and UPMC and UPP’s acceptance of those practices,” Acting U.S. Attorney Troy Rivetti said in a statement that, “no medical provider – however renowned – is excepted from scrutiny or above the law.”

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

Nearly 2 years after a whistleblower alleged that the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and its head of cardiothoracic surgery participated in billing fraud and dangerous operating room practices, the case has ended in an $8.5 million settlement, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced.

The lawsuit alleges that James L. Luketich, MD, the longtime chair of the school’s cardiothoracic surgery department, regularly performed up to three complex surgical procedures simultaneously, moving among multiple operating rooms and attending to matters other than patient care. The investigation began after Jonathan D’Cunha, MD, a former UPMC surgeon, raised concerns about his colleague’s surgical scheduling and billing practices.

Dr. Luketich’s overbooking of procedures led to patients enduring hours of medically unnecessary anesthesia time and risking surgical complications, according to court documents.

In addition, the complaint states that these practices violated the False Claims Act, which prohibits “teaching physicians” like Dr. Luketich from billing Medicare and other government health plans for “concurrent surgeries” – regulations federal authorities say UPMC leadership were aware of and the University of Pittsburgh Physicians (UPP), also named in the suit, permitted Dr. Luketich to skirt.

The whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act allows private parties to file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the recovery to help deter health care fraud, says the DOJ.

The defendants previously asked the court to dismiss the case, but a judge denied the request in June 2022.

Paul Wood, vice president and chief communications officer for UPMC, told this news organization that the lawsuit pertained to Dr. Luketich’s “most complicated, team-based surgical procedures.”

“At issue was compliance with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS’s) Teaching Physician Regulation and related billing guidance as well as with UPMC’s internal surgical policies,” he said.

“While UPMC continues to believe Dr. Luketich’s surgical practice complies with CMS requirements, it has agreed to [the settlement] to avoid the distraction and expense of further litigation,” said Mr. Wood, adding that all parties agree that UPMC can seek clarity from CMS regarding future billing of these surgeries.

Efrem Grail, JD, Dr. Luketich’s attorney, said in an interview that he and Dr. Luketich are pleased that the settlement puts an end to the case and that he hopes the United States will issue “authoritative guidance” on billing regulations for teaching physicians, something medical schools and hospitals have sought for years.

Dr. Luketich, UPMC, and UPP face more legal challenges from a separate medical malpractice lawsuit. In March 2018, Bernadette Fedorka underwent a lung transplant at UPMC. Although Dr. Luketich did not perform the surgery, Ms. Fedorka alleges that his poor leadership caused understaffing of the lung transplant program and contributed to surgical complications, including a 4-inch piece of wire left in her neck.

Ms. Fedorka claims that suboxone impaired Dr. Luketich’s decision-making. He began taking the drug in 2008 to manage the pain from a slipped disc injury after a history of prescription drug abuse. Both UPMC and Dr. Luketich have denied the validity of Ms. Fedorka’s claims.

The malpractice suit centers on a recording of a conversation between Dr. Luketich and David Wilson, MD, who prescribed the suboxone and treated the surgeon’s opioid use disorder for several years. Dr. Luketich has accused former colleagues, Dr. D’Cunha and Lara Schaheen, MD, of illegally recording the private conversation that discussed Dr. Luketich’s suboxone prescription – something both physicians deny.

For the billing fraud case, Dr. Luketich has agreed to complete a corrective action plan and submit to a third-party audit of his Medicare billings for 1 year.

“This is an important settlement and a just conclusion to the United States’ investigation into Dr. Luketich’s surgical and billing practices and UPMC and UPP’s acceptance of those practices,” Acting U.S. Attorney Troy Rivetti said in a statement that, “no medical provider – however renowned – is excepted from scrutiny or above the law.”

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

Nearly 2 years after a whistleblower alleged that the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and its head of cardiothoracic surgery participated in billing fraud and dangerous operating room practices, the case has ended in an $8.5 million settlement, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced.

The lawsuit alleges that James L. Luketich, MD, the longtime chair of the school’s cardiothoracic surgery department, regularly performed up to three complex surgical procedures simultaneously, moving among multiple operating rooms and attending to matters other than patient care. The investigation began after Jonathan D’Cunha, MD, a former UPMC surgeon, raised concerns about his colleague’s surgical scheduling and billing practices.

Dr. Luketich’s overbooking of procedures led to patients enduring hours of medically unnecessary anesthesia time and risking surgical complications, according to court documents.

In addition, the complaint states that these practices violated the False Claims Act, which prohibits “teaching physicians” like Dr. Luketich from billing Medicare and other government health plans for “concurrent surgeries” – regulations federal authorities say UPMC leadership were aware of and the University of Pittsburgh Physicians (UPP), also named in the suit, permitted Dr. Luketich to skirt.

The whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act allows private parties to file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the recovery to help deter health care fraud, says the DOJ.

The defendants previously asked the court to dismiss the case, but a judge denied the request in June 2022.

Paul Wood, vice president and chief communications officer for UPMC, told this news organization that the lawsuit pertained to Dr. Luketich’s “most complicated, team-based surgical procedures.”

“At issue was compliance with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS’s) Teaching Physician Regulation and related billing guidance as well as with UPMC’s internal surgical policies,” he said.

“While UPMC continues to believe Dr. Luketich’s surgical practice complies with CMS requirements, it has agreed to [the settlement] to avoid the distraction and expense of further litigation,” said Mr. Wood, adding that all parties agree that UPMC can seek clarity from CMS regarding future billing of these surgeries.

Efrem Grail, JD, Dr. Luketich’s attorney, said in an interview that he and Dr. Luketich are pleased that the settlement puts an end to the case and that he hopes the United States will issue “authoritative guidance” on billing regulations for teaching physicians, something medical schools and hospitals have sought for years.

Dr. Luketich, UPMC, and UPP face more legal challenges from a separate medical malpractice lawsuit. In March 2018, Bernadette Fedorka underwent a lung transplant at UPMC. Although Dr. Luketich did not perform the surgery, Ms. Fedorka alleges that his poor leadership caused understaffing of the lung transplant program and contributed to surgical complications, including a 4-inch piece of wire left in her neck.

Ms. Fedorka claims that suboxone impaired Dr. Luketich’s decision-making. He began taking the drug in 2008 to manage the pain from a slipped disc injury after a history of prescription drug abuse. Both UPMC and Dr. Luketich have denied the validity of Ms. Fedorka’s claims.

The malpractice suit centers on a recording of a conversation between Dr. Luketich and David Wilson, MD, who prescribed the suboxone and treated the surgeon’s opioid use disorder for several years. Dr. Luketich has accused former colleagues, Dr. D’Cunha and Lara Schaheen, MD, of illegally recording the private conversation that discussed Dr. Luketich’s suboxone prescription – something both physicians deny.

For the billing fraud case, Dr. Luketich has agreed to complete a corrective action plan and submit to a third-party audit of his Medicare billings for 1 year.

“This is an important settlement and a just conclusion to the United States’ investigation into Dr. Luketich’s surgical and billing practices and UPMC and UPP’s acceptance of those practices,” Acting U.S. Attorney Troy Rivetti said in a statement that, “no medical provider – however renowned – is excepted from scrutiny or above the law.”

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

NEW ORLEANS – Causal artificial intelligence (AI) can translate polygenic scores (PGS) and other genetic information into risk reduction strategies for coronary artery disease (CAD) that is tailored for each individual patient, according to an analysis presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Tested for LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), causal AI explained how much each of these risk factors must improve at the level of each individual patient “to overcome overall inherited risk,” reported Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, director of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England).

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Unlike the “black box” risk assessments common to machine learning, which relies on disparate forms of information of often unknown relative significance, causal AI explains cause and effect. In the case of CAD, its ability to encode the biological causes means that it can “both predict outcomes and prescribe specific actions to change those outcomes,” Dr. Ference explained.

The concept is testable against observed biology using randomized evidence, which was the objective of the study Dr. Ference presented in the late-breaker session.
 

Causal AI trained on nearly 2 million patients

This study employed a causal AI platform trained on roughly 1.3 million participants in Mendelian randomization studies, as well as more than 500,000 participants in randomized clinical trials. The PGS estimate of inherited risk was constructed from almost 4.1 million variants from genomewide association studies.

To test the ability of causal AI to reveal how much LDL-C or SBP had to be reduced to overcome the inherited risk of CAD based on PGS, it was applied to 445,765 participants of European ancestry in the UK Biobank. The goal was to determine how much those with greater than average risk would need to lower their LDL-C or SBP to achieve average CAD risk.

When validated against observed rates of events, causal AI accurately characterized risk before estimating what reductions in LDL-C, SBP, or both would attenuate that risk.

Providing examples, Dr. Ference explained that a PGS in the 80^th percentile can be overcome by lowering LDL-C by 14 mg/dL. Alternatively, the 80^th percentile risk could also be overcome by simultaneously lowering LDL-C and SBP by 7 mg/dL and 2.5 mm Hg, respectively.

Required risk factor reductions increase with age because of the increased risk of the events. For example, while a 14.8 mg/dL reduction in LDL-C would be adequate to overcome risk defined by a PGS in the 80^th percentile at age 35, reductions of 18.2 mg/dL, 28.9 mg/dL, and 42.6 mg/dL would be required, respectively, at ages 45, 55, and 65 years. The values climb similarly for SBP.

Family history of CAD adds an independent variable that further contributes to the ability of causal AI to estimate risk and the degree of risk factor attenuation to overcome the risk.

Even though family history is equivalent to having PGS above the 95^th percentile, it is an independent and additive variable, according to Dr. Ference. As a result, inherited risk of CAD depends on both.

Still when family history is factored into the analysis, “causal AI accurately estimated the magnitude of lower LDL-C, SBP, or both needed to overcome overall inherited risk at all levels of higher or lower PGS,” he reported.

According to Dr. Ference, the value of causal AI is that it can generate very specific goals for each patient regarding modifiable risk factors. Causal effects of risk factors encoded in time units of exposure allow the patient and the clinician to understand the biology and the basis of the disease burden.
 

Treatments become understandable to patients

“Encoding biology creates algorithms that are deeply explainable because they reveal why a person is at risk, how to reduce that risk, and how much each person will benefit from specific actions to reduce risk,” Dr. Ference said.

A real-world, randomized trial to confirm that the information from causal AI can reduce the risk of CAD is expected to start in 2023, but Dr. Ference thinks that causal AI for managing CAD risk, independent of this planned trial, is essentially inevitable. PGS, which he thinks will be performed routinely in all individuals within 10 years, is only likely to improve. He foresees large advantages of this form of personalized medicine.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Ami Bhatt, MD, chief innovation officer for the American College of Cardiology, Washington, agreed, seeing a direct relationship between precision health as the pathway to improvements in population health.

By explaining risk factors in terms of mechanisms and specific goals to ameliorate these risks, it “engages our patients with agency,” said Dr. Bhatt. She suggested that the information provided by causal AI has the potential to empower patients while creating a collaborative approach with clinicians to CAD prevention.

With patient-specific information provided in the context of the disease biology, “you increase the sense of transparency,” Dr. Bhatt said.

She suggested this direction of research is wholly consistent with initiatives such as those from the World Health Organization to improve precision medicine as a step toward equipping patients to manage their own health.

Dr. Ference reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, CiVi Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, DalCOR, Esperion, Eli Lilly, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, KrKA, Medicines Company, Merck, Mylan, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Sanofi, and Viatris. Dr. Bhatt reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW ORLEANS – Causal artificial intelligence (AI) can translate polygenic scores (PGS) and other genetic information into risk reduction strategies for coronary artery disease (CAD) that is tailored for each individual patient, according to an analysis presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Tested for LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), causal AI explained how much each of these risk factors must improve at the level of each individual patient “to overcome overall inherited risk,” reported Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, director of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England).

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Unlike the “black box” risk assessments common to machine learning, which relies on disparate forms of information of often unknown relative significance, causal AI explains cause and effect. In the case of CAD, its ability to encode the biological causes means that it can “both predict outcomes and prescribe specific actions to change those outcomes,” Dr. Ference explained.

The concept is testable against observed biology using randomized evidence, which was the objective of the study Dr. Ference presented in the late-breaker session.
 

Causal AI trained on nearly 2 million patients

This study employed a causal AI platform trained on roughly 1.3 million participants in Mendelian randomization studies, as well as more than 500,000 participants in randomized clinical trials. The PGS estimate of inherited risk was constructed from almost 4.1 million variants from genomewide association studies.

To test the ability of causal AI to reveal how much LDL-C or SBP had to be reduced to overcome the inherited risk of CAD based on PGS, it was applied to 445,765 participants of European ancestry in the UK Biobank. The goal was to determine how much those with greater than average risk would need to lower their LDL-C or SBP to achieve average CAD risk.

When validated against observed rates of events, causal AI accurately characterized risk before estimating what reductions in LDL-C, SBP, or both would attenuate that risk.

Providing examples, Dr. Ference explained that a PGS in the 80^th percentile can be overcome by lowering LDL-C by 14 mg/dL. Alternatively, the 80^th percentile risk could also be overcome by simultaneously lowering LDL-C and SBP by 7 mg/dL and 2.5 mm Hg, respectively.

Required risk factor reductions increase with age because of the increased risk of the events. For example, while a 14.8 mg/dL reduction in LDL-C would be adequate to overcome risk defined by a PGS in the 80^th percentile at age 35, reductions of 18.2 mg/dL, 28.9 mg/dL, and 42.6 mg/dL would be required, respectively, at ages 45, 55, and 65 years. The values climb similarly for SBP.

Family history of CAD adds an independent variable that further contributes to the ability of causal AI to estimate risk and the degree of risk factor attenuation to overcome the risk.

Even though family history is equivalent to having PGS above the 95^th percentile, it is an independent and additive variable, according to Dr. Ference. As a result, inherited risk of CAD depends on both.

Still when family history is factored into the analysis, “causal AI accurately estimated the magnitude of lower LDL-C, SBP, or both needed to overcome overall inherited risk at all levels of higher or lower PGS,” he reported.

According to Dr. Ference, the value of causal AI is that it can generate very specific goals for each patient regarding modifiable risk factors. Causal effects of risk factors encoded in time units of exposure allow the patient and the clinician to understand the biology and the basis of the disease burden.
 

Treatments become understandable to patients

“Encoding biology creates algorithms that are deeply explainable because they reveal why a person is at risk, how to reduce that risk, and how much each person will benefit from specific actions to reduce risk,” Dr. Ference said.

A real-world, randomized trial to confirm that the information from causal AI can reduce the risk of CAD is expected to start in 2023, but Dr. Ference thinks that causal AI for managing CAD risk, independent of this planned trial, is essentially inevitable. PGS, which he thinks will be performed routinely in all individuals within 10 years, is only likely to improve. He foresees large advantages of this form of personalized medicine.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Ami Bhatt, MD, chief innovation officer for the American College of Cardiology, Washington, agreed, seeing a direct relationship between precision health as the pathway to improvements in population health.

By explaining risk factors in terms of mechanisms and specific goals to ameliorate these risks, it “engages our patients with agency,” said Dr. Bhatt. She suggested that the information provided by causal AI has the potential to empower patients while creating a collaborative approach with clinicians to CAD prevention.

With patient-specific information provided in the context of the disease biology, “you increase the sense of transparency,” Dr. Bhatt said.

She suggested this direction of research is wholly consistent with initiatives such as those from the World Health Organization to improve precision medicine as a step toward equipping patients to manage their own health.

Dr. Ference reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, CiVi Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, DalCOR, Esperion, Eli Lilly, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, KrKA, Medicines Company, Merck, Mylan, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Sanofi, and Viatris. Dr. Bhatt reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW ORLEANS – Causal artificial intelligence (AI) can translate polygenic scores (PGS) and other genetic information into risk reduction strategies for coronary artery disease (CAD) that is tailored for each individual patient, according to an analysis presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Tested for LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), causal AI explained how much each of these risk factors must improve at the level of each individual patient “to overcome overall inherited risk,” reported Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, director of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England).

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Unlike the “black box” risk assessments common to machine learning, which relies on disparate forms of information of often unknown relative significance, causal AI explains cause and effect. In the case of CAD, its ability to encode the biological causes means that it can “both predict outcomes and prescribe specific actions to change those outcomes,” Dr. Ference explained.

The concept is testable against observed biology using randomized evidence, which was the objective of the study Dr. Ference presented in the late-breaker session.
 

Causal AI trained on nearly 2 million patients

This study employed a causal AI platform trained on roughly 1.3 million participants in Mendelian randomization studies, as well as more than 500,000 participants in randomized clinical trials. The PGS estimate of inherited risk was constructed from almost 4.1 million variants from genomewide association studies.

To test the ability of causal AI to reveal how much LDL-C or SBP had to be reduced to overcome the inherited risk of CAD based on PGS, it was applied to 445,765 participants of European ancestry in the UK Biobank. The goal was to determine how much those with greater than average risk would need to lower their LDL-C or SBP to achieve average CAD risk.

When validated against observed rates of events, causal AI accurately characterized risk before estimating what reductions in LDL-C, SBP, or both would attenuate that risk.

Providing examples, Dr. Ference explained that a PGS in the 80^th percentile can be overcome by lowering LDL-C by 14 mg/dL. Alternatively, the 80^th percentile risk could also be overcome by simultaneously lowering LDL-C and SBP by 7 mg/dL and 2.5 mm Hg, respectively.

Required risk factor reductions increase with age because of the increased risk of the events. For example, while a 14.8 mg/dL reduction in LDL-C would be adequate to overcome risk defined by a PGS in the 80^th percentile at age 35, reductions of 18.2 mg/dL, 28.9 mg/dL, and 42.6 mg/dL would be required, respectively, at ages 45, 55, and 65 years. The values climb similarly for SBP.

Family history of CAD adds an independent variable that further contributes to the ability of causal AI to estimate risk and the degree of risk factor attenuation to overcome the risk.

Even though family history is equivalent to having PGS above the 95^th percentile, it is an independent and additive variable, according to Dr. Ference. As a result, inherited risk of CAD depends on both.

Still when family history is factored into the analysis, “causal AI accurately estimated the magnitude of lower LDL-C, SBP, or both needed to overcome overall inherited risk at all levels of higher or lower PGS,” he reported.

According to Dr. Ference, the value of causal AI is that it can generate very specific goals for each patient regarding modifiable risk factors. Causal effects of risk factors encoded in time units of exposure allow the patient and the clinician to understand the biology and the basis of the disease burden.
 

Treatments become understandable to patients

“Encoding biology creates algorithms that are deeply explainable because they reveal why a person is at risk, how to reduce that risk, and how much each person will benefit from specific actions to reduce risk,” Dr. Ference said.

A real-world, randomized trial to confirm that the information from causal AI can reduce the risk of CAD is expected to start in 2023, but Dr. Ference thinks that causal AI for managing CAD risk, independent of this planned trial, is essentially inevitable. PGS, which he thinks will be performed routinely in all individuals within 10 years, is only likely to improve. He foresees large advantages of this form of personalized medicine.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Ami Bhatt, MD, chief innovation officer for the American College of Cardiology, Washington, agreed, seeing a direct relationship between precision health as the pathway to improvements in population health.

By explaining risk factors in terms of mechanisms and specific goals to ameliorate these risks, it “engages our patients with agency,” said Dr. Bhatt. She suggested that the information provided by causal AI has the potential to empower patients while creating a collaborative approach with clinicians to CAD prevention.

With patient-specific information provided in the context of the disease biology, “you increase the sense of transparency,” Dr. Bhatt said.

She suggested this direction of research is wholly consistent with initiatives such as those from the World Health Organization to improve precision medicine as a step toward equipping patients to manage their own health.

Dr. Ference reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, CiVi Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, DalCOR, Esperion, Eli Lilly, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, KrKA, Medicines Company, Merck, Mylan, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Sanofi, and Viatris. Dr. Bhatt reported no potential conflicts of interest.