Practice Management

There’s a new morning ritual in Pinedale, Wyoming, a town of about 2000, nestled against the Wind River Mountains.

Friends and neighbors in the oil- and gas-rich community “take their morning coffee and pull up” to watch workers building the county’s first hospital, said Kari DeWitt, the project’s public relations director.

“I think it’s just gratitude,” Ms. DeWitt said.

Sublette County is the only one in Wyoming — where counties span thousands of square miles — without a hospital. The 10-bed, 40,000-square-foot hospital, with a similarly sized attached long-term care facility, is slated to open by the summer of 2025.

Ms. DeWitt, who also is executive director of the Sublette County Health Foundation, has an office at the town’s health clinic with a window view of the construction.

Pinedale’s residents have good reason to be excited. New full-service hospitals with inpatient beds are rare in rural America, where declining population has spurred decades of downsizing and closures. Yet, a few communities in Wyoming and others in Kansas and Georgia are defying the trend.

“To be honest with you, it even seems strange to me,” said Wyoming Hospital Association President Eric Boley. Small rural “hospitals are really struggling all across the country,” he said.

There is no official tally of new hospitals being built in rural America, but industry experts such as Mr. Boley said they’re rare. Typically, health-related construction projects in rural areas are for smaller urgent care centers or stand-alone emergency facilities or are replacements for old hospitals.

About half of rural hospitals lost money in the prior year, according to Chartis, a health analytics and consulting firm. And nearly 150 rural hospitals have closed or converted to smaller operations since 2010, according to data collected by the University of North Carolina’s Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research.

To stem the tide of closures, Congress created a new rural emergency hospital designation that allowed struggling hospitals to close their inpatient units and provide only outpatient and emergency services. Since January 2023, when the program took effect, 32 of the more than 1700 eligible rural hospitals — from Georgia to New Mexico — have joined the program, according to data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Tony Breitlow is healthcare studio director for EUA, which has extensive experience working for rural health care systems. Mr. Breitlow said his national architecture and engineering firm’s work expands, replaces, or revamps older buildings, many of which were constructed during the middle of the last century.

The work, Mr. Breitlow said, is part of health care “systems figuring out how to remain robust and viable.”

Freeman Health System, based in Joplin, Missouri, announced plans last year to build a new 50-bed hospital across the state line in Kansas. Paula Baker, Freeman’s president and chief executive, said the system is building for patients in the southeastern corner of the state who travel 45 minutes or more to its bigger Joplin facilities for care.

Freeman’s new hospital, with construction on the building expected to begin in the spring, will be less than 10 miles away from an older, 64-bed hospital that has existed for decades. Kansas is one of more than a dozen states with no “certificate of need” law that would require health providers to obtain approval from the state before offering new services or building or expanding facilities.

Ms. Baker also said Freeman plans to operate emergency services and a small 10-bed outpost in Fort Scott, Kansas, opening early next year in a corner of a hospital that closed in late 2018. Residents there “cried, they cheered, they hugged me,” Ms. Baker said, adding that the “level of appreciation and gratitude that they felt and they displayed was overwhelming to me.”

Michael Topchik, executive director of the Chartis Center for Rural Health, said regional healthcare systems in the Upper Midwest have been particularly active in competing for patients by, among other things, building new hospitals.

And while private corporate money can drive construction, many rural hospital projects tap government programs, especially those supported by the US Department of Agriculture, Mr. Topchik said. That, he said, “surprises a lot of people.”

Since 2021, the USDA’s rural Community Facilities Programs have awarded $2.24 billion in loans and grants to 68 rural hospitals for work that was not related to an emergency or disaster, according to data analyzed by KFF Health News and confirmed by the agency. The federal program is funded through what is often known as the farm bill, which faces a September congressional renewal deadline.

Nearly all the projects are replacements or expansions and updates of older facilities.

The USDA confirmed that three new or planned Wyoming hospitals received federal funding. Hospital projects in Riverton and Saratoga received loans of $37.2 million and $18.3 million, respectively. Pinedale’s hospital received a $29.2 million loan from the agency.

Wyoming’s new construction is rare in a state where more than 80% of rural hospitals reported losses in the third quarter of 2023, according to Chartis. The state association’s Mr. Boley said he worries about several hospitals that have less than 10 days’ cash on hand “day and night.”

Pinedale’s project loan was approved after the community submitted a feasibility study to the USDA that included local clinics and a long-term care facility. “It’s pretty remote and right up in the mountains,” Mr. Boley said.

Pinedale’s Ms. DeWitt said the community was missing key services, such as blood transfusions, which are often necessary when there is a trauma like a car crash or if a pregnant woman faces severe complications. Local ambulances drove 94,000 miles last year, she said.

Ms. DeWitt began working to raise support for the new hospital after her own pregnancy-related trauma in 2014. She was bleeding heavily and arrived at the local health clinic believing it operated like a hospital.

“It was shocking to hear, ‘No, we’re not a hospital. We can’t do blood transfusions. We’re just going to have to pray you live for the next 45 minutes,’ ” Ms. DeWitt said.

Ms. DeWitt had to be airlifted to Idaho, where she delivered a few minutes after landing. When the hospital financing went on the ballot in 2020, Ms. DeWitt — fully recovered, with healthy grade-schoolers at home — began making five calls a night to rally support for a county tax increase to help fund the hospital.

“By improving health care, I think we improve everybody’s chances of survival. You know, it’s pretty basic,” Ms. DeWitt said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

There’s a new morning ritual in Pinedale, Wyoming, a town of about 2000, nestled against the Wind River Mountains.

Friends and neighbors in the oil- and gas-rich community “take their morning coffee and pull up” to watch workers building the county’s first hospital, said Kari DeWitt, the project’s public relations director.

“I think it’s just gratitude,” Ms. DeWitt said.

Sublette County is the only one in Wyoming — where counties span thousands of square miles — without a hospital. The 10-bed, 40,000-square-foot hospital, with a similarly sized attached long-term care facility, is slated to open by the summer of 2025.

Ms. DeWitt, who also is executive director of the Sublette County Health Foundation, has an office at the town’s health clinic with a window view of the construction.

Pinedale’s residents have good reason to be excited. New full-service hospitals with inpatient beds are rare in rural America, where declining population has spurred decades of downsizing and closures. Yet, a few communities in Wyoming and others in Kansas and Georgia are defying the trend.

“To be honest with you, it even seems strange to me,” said Wyoming Hospital Association President Eric Boley. Small rural “hospitals are really struggling all across the country,” he said.

There is no official tally of new hospitals being built in rural America, but industry experts such as Mr. Boley said they’re rare. Typically, health-related construction projects in rural areas are for smaller urgent care centers or stand-alone emergency facilities or are replacements for old hospitals.

About half of rural hospitals lost money in the prior year, according to Chartis, a health analytics and consulting firm. And nearly 150 rural hospitals have closed or converted to smaller operations since 2010, according to data collected by the University of North Carolina’s Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research.

To stem the tide of closures, Congress created a new rural emergency hospital designation that allowed struggling hospitals to close their inpatient units and provide only outpatient and emergency services. Since January 2023, when the program took effect, 32 of the more than 1700 eligible rural hospitals — from Georgia to New Mexico — have joined the program, according to data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Tony Breitlow is healthcare studio director for EUA, which has extensive experience working for rural health care systems. Mr. Breitlow said his national architecture and engineering firm’s work expands, replaces, or revamps older buildings, many of which were constructed during the middle of the last century.

The work, Mr. Breitlow said, is part of health care “systems figuring out how to remain robust and viable.”

Freeman Health System, based in Joplin, Missouri, announced plans last year to build a new 50-bed hospital across the state line in Kansas. Paula Baker, Freeman’s president and chief executive, said the system is building for patients in the southeastern corner of the state who travel 45 minutes or more to its bigger Joplin facilities for care.

Freeman’s new hospital, with construction on the building expected to begin in the spring, will be less than 10 miles away from an older, 64-bed hospital that has existed for decades. Kansas is one of more than a dozen states with no “certificate of need” law that would require health providers to obtain approval from the state before offering new services or building or expanding facilities.

Ms. Baker also said Freeman plans to operate emergency services and a small 10-bed outpost in Fort Scott, Kansas, opening early next year in a corner of a hospital that closed in late 2018. Residents there “cried, they cheered, they hugged me,” Ms. Baker said, adding that the “level of appreciation and gratitude that they felt and they displayed was overwhelming to me.”

Michael Topchik, executive director of the Chartis Center for Rural Health, said regional healthcare systems in the Upper Midwest have been particularly active in competing for patients by, among other things, building new hospitals.

And while private corporate money can drive construction, many rural hospital projects tap government programs, especially those supported by the US Department of Agriculture, Mr. Topchik said. That, he said, “surprises a lot of people.”

Since 2021, the USDA’s rural Community Facilities Programs have awarded $2.24 billion in loans and grants to 68 rural hospitals for work that was not related to an emergency or disaster, according to data analyzed by KFF Health News and confirmed by the agency. The federal program is funded through what is often known as the farm bill, which faces a September congressional renewal deadline.

Nearly all the projects are replacements or expansions and updates of older facilities.

The USDA confirmed that three new or planned Wyoming hospitals received federal funding. Hospital projects in Riverton and Saratoga received loans of $37.2 million and $18.3 million, respectively. Pinedale’s hospital received a $29.2 million loan from the agency.

Wyoming’s new construction is rare in a state where more than 80% of rural hospitals reported losses in the third quarter of 2023, according to Chartis. The state association’s Mr. Boley said he worries about several hospitals that have less than 10 days’ cash on hand “day and night.”

Pinedale’s project loan was approved after the community submitted a feasibility study to the USDA that included local clinics and a long-term care facility. “It’s pretty remote and right up in the mountains,” Mr. Boley said.

Pinedale’s Ms. DeWitt said the community was missing key services, such as blood transfusions, which are often necessary when there is a trauma like a car crash or if a pregnant woman faces severe complications. Local ambulances drove 94,000 miles last year, she said.

Ms. DeWitt began working to raise support for the new hospital after her own pregnancy-related trauma in 2014. She was bleeding heavily and arrived at the local health clinic believing it operated like a hospital.

“It was shocking to hear, ‘No, we’re not a hospital. We can’t do blood transfusions. We’re just going to have to pray you live for the next 45 minutes,’ ” Ms. DeWitt said.

Ms. DeWitt had to be airlifted to Idaho, where she delivered a few minutes after landing. When the hospital financing went on the ballot in 2020, Ms. DeWitt — fully recovered, with healthy grade-schoolers at home — began making five calls a night to rally support for a county tax increase to help fund the hospital.

“By improving health care, I think we improve everybody’s chances of survival. You know, it’s pretty basic,” Ms. DeWitt said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

There’s a new morning ritual in Pinedale, Wyoming, a town of about 2000, nestled against the Wind River Mountains.

Friends and neighbors in the oil- and gas-rich community “take their morning coffee and pull up” to watch workers building the county’s first hospital, said Kari DeWitt, the project’s public relations director.

“I think it’s just gratitude,” Ms. DeWitt said.

Sublette County is the only one in Wyoming — where counties span thousands of square miles — without a hospital. The 10-bed, 40,000-square-foot hospital, with a similarly sized attached long-term care facility, is slated to open by the summer of 2025.

Ms. DeWitt, who also is executive director of the Sublette County Health Foundation, has an office at the town’s health clinic with a window view of the construction.

Pinedale’s residents have good reason to be excited. New full-service hospitals with inpatient beds are rare in rural America, where declining population has spurred decades of downsizing and closures. Yet, a few communities in Wyoming and others in Kansas and Georgia are defying the trend.

“To be honest with you, it even seems strange to me,” said Wyoming Hospital Association President Eric Boley. Small rural “hospitals are really struggling all across the country,” he said.

There is no official tally of new hospitals being built in rural America, but industry experts such as Mr. Boley said they’re rare. Typically, health-related construction projects in rural areas are for smaller urgent care centers or stand-alone emergency facilities or are replacements for old hospitals.

About half of rural hospitals lost money in the prior year, according to Chartis, a health analytics and consulting firm. And nearly 150 rural hospitals have closed or converted to smaller operations since 2010, according to data collected by the University of North Carolina’s Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research.

To stem the tide of closures, Congress created a new rural emergency hospital designation that allowed struggling hospitals to close their inpatient units and provide only outpatient and emergency services. Since January 2023, when the program took effect, 32 of the more than 1700 eligible rural hospitals — from Georgia to New Mexico — have joined the program, according to data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Tony Breitlow is healthcare studio director for EUA, which has extensive experience working for rural health care systems. Mr. Breitlow said his national architecture and engineering firm’s work expands, replaces, or revamps older buildings, many of which were constructed during the middle of the last century.

The work, Mr. Breitlow said, is part of health care “systems figuring out how to remain robust and viable.”

Freeman Health System, based in Joplin, Missouri, announced plans last year to build a new 50-bed hospital across the state line in Kansas. Paula Baker, Freeman’s president and chief executive, said the system is building for patients in the southeastern corner of the state who travel 45 minutes or more to its bigger Joplin facilities for care.

Freeman’s new hospital, with construction on the building expected to begin in the spring, will be less than 10 miles away from an older, 64-bed hospital that has existed for decades. Kansas is one of more than a dozen states with no “certificate of need” law that would require health providers to obtain approval from the state before offering new services or building or expanding facilities.

Ms. Baker also said Freeman plans to operate emergency services and a small 10-bed outpost in Fort Scott, Kansas, opening early next year in a corner of a hospital that closed in late 2018. Residents there “cried, they cheered, they hugged me,” Ms. Baker said, adding that the “level of appreciation and gratitude that they felt and they displayed was overwhelming to me.”

Michael Topchik, executive director of the Chartis Center for Rural Health, said regional healthcare systems in the Upper Midwest have been particularly active in competing for patients by, among other things, building new hospitals.

And while private corporate money can drive construction, many rural hospital projects tap government programs, especially those supported by the US Department of Agriculture, Mr. Topchik said. That, he said, “surprises a lot of people.”

Since 2021, the USDA’s rural Community Facilities Programs have awarded $2.24 billion in loans and grants to 68 rural hospitals for work that was not related to an emergency or disaster, according to data analyzed by KFF Health News and confirmed by the agency. The federal program is funded through what is often known as the farm bill, which faces a September congressional renewal deadline.

Nearly all the projects are replacements or expansions and updates of older facilities.

The USDA confirmed that three new or planned Wyoming hospitals received federal funding. Hospital projects in Riverton and Saratoga received loans of $37.2 million and $18.3 million, respectively. Pinedale’s hospital received a $29.2 million loan from the agency.

Wyoming’s new construction is rare in a state where more than 80% of rural hospitals reported losses in the third quarter of 2023, according to Chartis. The state association’s Mr. Boley said he worries about several hospitals that have less than 10 days’ cash on hand “day and night.”

Pinedale’s project loan was approved after the community submitted a feasibility study to the USDA that included local clinics and a long-term care facility. “It’s pretty remote and right up in the mountains,” Mr. Boley said.

Pinedale’s Ms. DeWitt said the community was missing key services, such as blood transfusions, which are often necessary when there is a trauma like a car crash or if a pregnant woman faces severe complications. Local ambulances drove 94,000 miles last year, she said.

Ms. DeWitt began working to raise support for the new hospital after her own pregnancy-related trauma in 2014. She was bleeding heavily and arrived at the local health clinic believing it operated like a hospital.

“It was shocking to hear, ‘No, we’re not a hospital. We can’t do blood transfusions. We’re just going to have to pray you live for the next 45 minutes,’ ” Ms. DeWitt said.

Ms. DeWitt had to be airlifted to Idaho, where she delivered a few minutes after landing. When the hospital financing went on the ballot in 2020, Ms. DeWitt — fully recovered, with healthy grade-schoolers at home — began making five calls a night to rally support for a county tax increase to help fund the hospital.

“By improving health care, I think we improve everybody’s chances of survival. You know, it’s pretty basic,” Ms. DeWitt said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Late last week, a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel met to discuss whether to limit the use of nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with unresectable or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative, microsatellite stable gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

During the meeting, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted in favor of restricting the use of these immunotherapy agents to patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of 1% or higher. 

The agency usually follows the ODAC’s advice.

The FDA had originally approved the two immune checkpoint inhibitors for both indications in combination with chemotherapy, regardless of patients’ PD-L1 status. The FDA had also approved nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab for esophageal cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression. The approvals were based on overall benefit in intent-to-treat populations, not on specific PD-L1 expression subgroups.

Since then, additional studies — including the agency’s own pooled analyses of the approval trials — have found that overall survival benefits are limited to patients with PD-L1 expression of 1% or higher.

These findings have raised concerns that patients with no or low PD-L1 expression face the risks associated with immunotherapy, which include death, but minimal to no benefits.

In response, the FDA has considered changing the labeling for these indications to require a PD-L1 cutoff point of 1% or higher. The move would mirror guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network that already recommend use with chemotherapy only at certain PD-L1 cutoffs.

Before the agency acts, however, the FDA wanted the advice of the ODAC. It asked the 14-member panel whether the risk-benefit assessment is “favorable for the use of PD-1 inhibitors in first line” for the two indications among patients with PD-L1 expression below 1%.

In two nearly unanimous decisions for each indication, the panel voted that risk-benefit assessment was not favorable. In other words, the risks do outweigh the benefits for this patient population with no or low PD-L1 expression.

The determination also applies to tislelizumab (Tevimbra), an immune checkpoint inhibitor under review by the FDA for the same indications.

Voting came after hours of testimony from FDA scientists and the three drug companies involved in the decisions.

Merck, maker of pembrolizumab, was against any labeling change. Nivolumab’s maker, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), also wanted to stick with the current PD-L1 agnostic indications but said that any indication change should be class-wide to avoid confusion. BeiGene USA, maker of tislelizumab, had no problem with a PD-L1 cutoff of 1% because its approval trial showed benefit only in patients at that level or higher.

In general, Merck and BMS said the drug benefits correspond with higher PD-L1 expression but noted that patients with low or no PD-L1 expression can sometimes benefit from treatment. The companies had several patients testify to the benefits of the agents and noted patients like this would likely lose access. But an ODAC panelist noted that patients who died from immunotherapy complications weren’t there to respond.

The companies also expressed concern about taking treatment decisions out of the hands of oncologists as well as the need for additional biopsies to determine if tumors cross the proposed PD-L1 threshold at some point during treatment. With this potential new restriction, the companies were worried that insurance companies would be even less likely to pay for their checkpoint inhibitors in low or no PD-L1 expressors.

ODAC wasn’t moved. With consistent findings across multiple trials, the strength of the FDA’s data carried the day.

In a pooled analysis of the three companies’ unresectable or metastatic HER2–negative, microsatellite-stable gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma approval trials across almost 4000 patients, those with PD-L1 levels below 1% did not demonstrate a significant overall survival benefit (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.75-1.09). The median overall survival with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy was only 1 month more — 13.4 months vs 12.4 months with chemotherapy alone.

FDA’s pooled analysis for unresectable or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma also showed no overall survival benefit (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.76-1.58), with a trend suggesting harm. Median overall survival with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy was 14.6 months vs 9.8 months with chemotherapy alone.

Despite the vote on esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, panelists had reservations about making decisions based on just over 160 patients with PD-L1 levels below 1% in the three esophageal squamous cell carcinoma trials.

Still, one panelist said, it’s likely “the best dataset we will get.”

The companies all used different methods to test PD-L1 levels, and attendees called for a single standardized PD-L1 test. Richard Pazdur, MD, head of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said the agency has been working with companies for years to get them to agree to such a test, with no luck.

If the FDA ultimately decides to restrict immunotherapy use in this patient population based on PD-L1 levels, insurance company coverage may become more limited. Pazdur asked the companies if they would be willing to expand their patient assistance programs to provide free coverage of immune checkpoint blockers to patients with low or no PD-L1 expression.

BeiGene and BMS seemed open to the idea. Merck said, “We’ll have to ... think about it.”
 

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

Late last week, a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel met to discuss whether to limit the use of nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with unresectable or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative, microsatellite stable gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

During the meeting, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted in favor of restricting the use of these immunotherapy agents to patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of 1% or higher. 

The agency usually follows the ODAC’s advice.

The FDA had originally approved the two immune checkpoint inhibitors for both indications in combination with chemotherapy, regardless of patients’ PD-L1 status. The FDA had also approved nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab for esophageal cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression. The approvals were based on overall benefit in intent-to-treat populations, not on specific PD-L1 expression subgroups.

Since then, additional studies — including the agency’s own pooled analyses of the approval trials — have found that overall survival benefits are limited to patients with PD-L1 expression of 1% or higher.

These findings have raised concerns that patients with no or low PD-L1 expression face the risks associated with immunotherapy, which include death, but minimal to no benefits.

In response, the FDA has considered changing the labeling for these indications to require a PD-L1 cutoff point of 1% or higher. The move would mirror guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network that already recommend use with chemotherapy only at certain PD-L1 cutoffs.

Before the agency acts, however, the FDA wanted the advice of the ODAC. It asked the 14-member panel whether the risk-benefit assessment is “favorable for the use of PD-1 inhibitors in first line” for the two indications among patients with PD-L1 expression below 1%.

In two nearly unanimous decisions for each indication, the panel voted that risk-benefit assessment was not favorable. In other words, the risks do outweigh the benefits for this patient population with no or low PD-L1 expression.

The determination also applies to tislelizumab (Tevimbra), an immune checkpoint inhibitor under review by the FDA for the same indications.

Voting came after hours of testimony from FDA scientists and the three drug companies involved in the decisions.

Merck, maker of pembrolizumab, was against any labeling change. Nivolumab’s maker, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), also wanted to stick with the current PD-L1 agnostic indications but said that any indication change should be class-wide to avoid confusion. BeiGene USA, maker of tislelizumab, had no problem with a PD-L1 cutoff of 1% because its approval trial showed benefit only in patients at that level or higher.

In general, Merck and BMS said the drug benefits correspond with higher PD-L1 expression but noted that patients with low or no PD-L1 expression can sometimes benefit from treatment. The companies had several patients testify to the benefits of the agents and noted patients like this would likely lose access. But an ODAC panelist noted that patients who died from immunotherapy complications weren’t there to respond.

The companies also expressed concern about taking treatment decisions out of the hands of oncologists as well as the need for additional biopsies to determine if tumors cross the proposed PD-L1 threshold at some point during treatment. With this potential new restriction, the companies were worried that insurance companies would be even less likely to pay for their checkpoint inhibitors in low or no PD-L1 expressors.

ODAC wasn’t moved. With consistent findings across multiple trials, the strength of the FDA’s data carried the day.

In a pooled analysis of the three companies’ unresectable or metastatic HER2–negative, microsatellite-stable gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma approval trials across almost 4000 patients, those with PD-L1 levels below 1% did not demonstrate a significant overall survival benefit (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.75-1.09). The median overall survival with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy was only 1 month more — 13.4 months vs 12.4 months with chemotherapy alone.

FDA’s pooled analysis for unresectable or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma also showed no overall survival benefit (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.76-1.58), with a trend suggesting harm. Median overall survival with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy was 14.6 months vs 9.8 months with chemotherapy alone.

Despite the vote on esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, panelists had reservations about making decisions based on just over 160 patients with PD-L1 levels below 1% in the three esophageal squamous cell carcinoma trials.

Still, one panelist said, it’s likely “the best dataset we will get.”

The companies all used different methods to test PD-L1 levels, and attendees called for a single standardized PD-L1 test. Richard Pazdur, MD, head of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said the agency has been working with companies for years to get them to agree to such a test, with no luck.

If the FDA ultimately decides to restrict immunotherapy use in this patient population based on PD-L1 levels, insurance company coverage may become more limited. Pazdur asked the companies if they would be willing to expand their patient assistance programs to provide free coverage of immune checkpoint blockers to patients with low or no PD-L1 expression.

BeiGene and BMS seemed open to the idea. Merck said, “We’ll have to ... think about it.”
 

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

Late last week, a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel met to discuss whether to limit the use of nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with unresectable or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative, microsatellite stable gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

During the meeting, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted in favor of restricting the use of these immunotherapy agents to patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of 1% or higher. 

The agency usually follows the ODAC’s advice.

The FDA had originally approved the two immune checkpoint inhibitors for both indications in combination with chemotherapy, regardless of patients’ PD-L1 status. The FDA had also approved nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab for esophageal cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression. The approvals were based on overall benefit in intent-to-treat populations, not on specific PD-L1 expression subgroups.

Since then, additional studies — including the agency’s own pooled analyses of the approval trials — have found that overall survival benefits are limited to patients with PD-L1 expression of 1% or higher.

These findings have raised concerns that patients with no or low PD-L1 expression face the risks associated with immunotherapy, which include death, but minimal to no benefits.

In response, the FDA has considered changing the labeling for these indications to require a PD-L1 cutoff point of 1% or higher. The move would mirror guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network that already recommend use with chemotherapy only at certain PD-L1 cutoffs.

Before the agency acts, however, the FDA wanted the advice of the ODAC. It asked the 14-member panel whether the risk-benefit assessment is “favorable for the use of PD-1 inhibitors in first line” for the two indications among patients with PD-L1 expression below 1%.

In two nearly unanimous decisions for each indication, the panel voted that risk-benefit assessment was not favorable. In other words, the risks do outweigh the benefits for this patient population with no or low PD-L1 expression.

The determination also applies to tislelizumab (Tevimbra), an immune checkpoint inhibitor under review by the FDA for the same indications.

Voting came after hours of testimony from FDA scientists and the three drug companies involved in the decisions.

Merck, maker of pembrolizumab, was against any labeling change. Nivolumab’s maker, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), also wanted to stick with the current PD-L1 agnostic indications but said that any indication change should be class-wide to avoid confusion. BeiGene USA, maker of tislelizumab, had no problem with a PD-L1 cutoff of 1% because its approval trial showed benefit only in patients at that level or higher.

In general, Merck and BMS said the drug benefits correspond with higher PD-L1 expression but noted that patients with low or no PD-L1 expression can sometimes benefit from treatment. The companies had several patients testify to the benefits of the agents and noted patients like this would likely lose access. But an ODAC panelist noted that patients who died from immunotherapy complications weren’t there to respond.

The companies also expressed concern about taking treatment decisions out of the hands of oncologists as well as the need for additional biopsies to determine if tumors cross the proposed PD-L1 threshold at some point during treatment. With this potential new restriction, the companies were worried that insurance companies would be even less likely to pay for their checkpoint inhibitors in low or no PD-L1 expressors.

ODAC wasn’t moved. With consistent findings across multiple trials, the strength of the FDA’s data carried the day.

In a pooled analysis of the three companies’ unresectable or metastatic HER2–negative, microsatellite-stable gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma approval trials across almost 4000 patients, those with PD-L1 levels below 1% did not demonstrate a significant overall survival benefit (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.75-1.09). The median overall survival with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy was only 1 month more — 13.4 months vs 12.4 months with chemotherapy alone.

FDA’s pooled analysis for unresectable or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma also showed no overall survival benefit (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.76-1.58), with a trend suggesting harm. Median overall survival with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy was 14.6 months vs 9.8 months with chemotherapy alone.

Despite the vote on esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, panelists had reservations about making decisions based on just over 160 patients with PD-L1 levels below 1% in the three esophageal squamous cell carcinoma trials.

Still, one panelist said, it’s likely “the best dataset we will get.”

The companies all used different methods to test PD-L1 levels, and attendees called for a single standardized PD-L1 test. Richard Pazdur, MD, head of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said the agency has been working with companies for years to get them to agree to such a test, with no luck.

If the FDA ultimately decides to restrict immunotherapy use in this patient population based on PD-L1 levels, insurance company coverage may become more limited. Pazdur asked the companies if they would be willing to expand their patient assistance programs to provide free coverage of immune checkpoint blockers to patients with low or no PD-L1 expression.

BeiGene and BMS seemed open to the idea. Merck said, “We’ll have to ... think about it.”
 

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

Residency programs across the country may have a few more slots for incoming residents due to a recent bump in Medicare funding.

Case in point: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The state has one of the top stroke rates in the country, and yet UAB has the only hospital in the state training future doctors to help stroke patients recover. “Our hospital cares for Alabama’s sickest patients, many who need rehabilitation services,” said Craig Hoesley, MD, senior associate dean for medical education, who oversees graduate medical education (GME) or residency programs.

After decades of stagnant support, a recent bump in Medicare funding will allow UAB to add two more physical medicine and rehabilitation residents to the four residencies already receiving such funding.

Medicare also awarded UAB more funding last year to add an addiction medicine fellowship, one of two such training programs in the state for the specialty that helps treat patients fighting addiction.

UAB is among healthcare systems and hospitals nationwide benefiting from a recent hike in Medicare funding for residency programs after some 25 years at the same level of federal support. Medicare is the largest funder of training positions. Otherwise, hospitals finance training through means such as state support.

The latest round of funding, which went into effect in July, adds 200 positions to the doctor pipeline, creating more openings for residents seeking positions after medical school.

In the next few months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will notify teaching hospitals whether they’ll receive the next round of Medicare funding for more residency positions. At that time, CMS will have awarded nearly half of the 1200 residency training slots Congress approved in the past few years. In 2020 — for the first time since 1996 — Congress approved adding 1000 residency slots at teaching hospitals nationwide. CMS awards the money for 200 slots each year for 5 years.

More than half of the initial round of funding focused on training primary care specialists, with other slots designated for mental health specialists. Last year, Congress also approved a separate allocation of 200 more Medicare-funded residency positions, with at least half designated for psychiatry and related subspecialty residencies to help meet the growing need for more mental health specialists. On August 1, CMS announced it would distribute the funds next year, effective in 2026.

The additional Medicare funding attempts to address the shortage of healthcare providers and ensure future access to care, including in rural and underserved communities. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including primary care doctors and specialists.

In addition, more than 100 million Americans, nearly a third of the nation, don’t have access to primary care due to the physician shortages in their communities, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.

Major medical organizations, medical schools, and hospital groups have been pushing for years for increased Medicare funding to train new doctors to keep up with the demand for healthcare services and offset the physician shortage. As a cost-saving measure, Medicare set its cap in 1996 for how much it will reimburse each hospital offering GME training. However, according to the medical groups that continue to advocate to Congress for more funding, the funding hasn’t kept pace with the growing healthcare needs or rising medical school enrollment.
 

Adding Residency Spots

In April, Dr. Hoesley of UAB spoke at a Congressional briefing among health systems and hospitals that benefited from the additional funding. He told Congressional leaders how the increased number of GME positions affects UAB Medicine and its ability to care for rural areas.

“We have entire counties in Alabama that don’t have physicians. One way to address the physician shortage is to grow the GME programs. The funding we received will help us grow these programs and care for residents in our state.”

Still, the Medicare funding is only a drop in the bucket, Dr. Hoesley said. “We rely on Medicare funding alongside other funding partners to train residents and expand our care across the state.” He said many UAB residency programs are over their Medicare funding cap and would like to grow, but they can’t without more funding.

Mount Sinai Health System in New York City also will be able to expand its residency program after receiving Medicare support in the latest round of funding. The health system will use the federal funds to train an additional vascular surgeon. Mount Sinai currently receives CMS funding to train three residents in the specialty.

Over a 5-year program, that means CMS funding will help train 20 residents in the specialty that treats blood vessel blockages and diseases of the veins and arteries generally associated with aging.

“The funding is amazing,” said Peter L. Faries, MD, a surgery professor and system chief of vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who directs the residency program.

“We don’t have the capacity to provide an individual training program without the funding. It’s not economically feasible.”

The need for more vascular surgeons increases as the population continues to age, he said. Mount Sinai treats patients throughout New York, including underserved areas in Harlem, the Bronx, Washington Heights, Brooklyn, and Queens. “These individuals might not receive an appropriate level of vascular care if we don’t have clinicians to treat them.”

Of the recent funding, Dr. Faries said it’s taken the residency program 15 years of advocacy to increase by two slots. “It’s a long process to get funding.” Vascular training programs can remain very selective with Medicare funding, typically receiving two applicants for every position,” said Dr. Faries.
 

Pushing for More Funds

Nearly 98,000 students enrolled in medical school this year, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A total of 44,853 applicants vied for the 38,494 first-year residency positions and 3009 second-year slots, leaving 3350 medical school graduates without a match.

“There are not enough spots to meet the growing demand,” said Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, immediate past president of the American Medical Association. “Graduate medical education funding has not kept up.”

Despite the increase in medical school graduates over the past two decades, Medicare-supported training opportunities remained frozen at the 1996 level. A limited number of training positions meant residency programs couldn’t expand the physician pipeline to offset an aging workforce, contributing to the shortage. “The way to solve this is to expand GME,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We continue to advocate to remove the cap.”

Dr. Ehrenfeld also told this news organization that he doesn’t mind that Congress recently designated GME funding to certain specialties, such as psychiatry, because he believes the need is great for residency spots across the board. “The good news is people recognize it’s challenging to get much through Congress.” He’s optimistic, though, about recent legislative efforts to increase funding.

AAMC, representing about a third of the nation’s 1100 teaching hospitals and health systems, feels the same. Congress “acknowledges and continues to recognize that the shortage is not getting better, and one way to address it is to increase Medicare-supported GME positions,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy.

Still, he said that the Medicare funding bump is only making a small dent in the need. AAMC estimates the average cost to train residents is $23 billion annually, and Medicare only funds 20% of that, or $5 billion. “Our members are at the point where they say: We already can’t add new training positions,” Mr. Marquez said. He added that without increasing residency slots, patient care will suffer. “We have to do anything possible we can to increase access to care.”

Mr. Marquez also believes Medicare funding should increase residency positions across the specialty spectrum, not just for psychiatry and primary care. He said that the targeted funding may prevent some teaching hospitals from applying for residency positions if they need other types of specialists based on their community’s needs.

Among the current proposals before Congress, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would add 14,000 Medicare-supported residency slots over 7 years. Mr. Marquez said it may be more realistic to expect fewer new slots. A decision on potential legislation is expected at the end of the year. He said that if the medical groups aren’t pleased with the decision, they’ll advocate again in 2025.
 

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

Residency programs across the country may have a few more slots for incoming residents due to a recent bump in Medicare funding.

Case in point: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The state has one of the top stroke rates in the country, and yet UAB has the only hospital in the state training future doctors to help stroke patients recover. “Our hospital cares for Alabama’s sickest patients, many who need rehabilitation services,” said Craig Hoesley, MD, senior associate dean for medical education, who oversees graduate medical education (GME) or residency programs.

After decades of stagnant support, a recent bump in Medicare funding will allow UAB to add two more physical medicine and rehabilitation residents to the four residencies already receiving such funding.

Medicare also awarded UAB more funding last year to add an addiction medicine fellowship, one of two such training programs in the state for the specialty that helps treat patients fighting addiction.

UAB is among healthcare systems and hospitals nationwide benefiting from a recent hike in Medicare funding for residency programs after some 25 years at the same level of federal support. Medicare is the largest funder of training positions. Otherwise, hospitals finance training through means such as state support.

The latest round of funding, which went into effect in July, adds 200 positions to the doctor pipeline, creating more openings for residents seeking positions after medical school.

In the next few months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will notify teaching hospitals whether they’ll receive the next round of Medicare funding for more residency positions. At that time, CMS will have awarded nearly half of the 1200 residency training slots Congress approved in the past few years. In 2020 — for the first time since 1996 — Congress approved adding 1000 residency slots at teaching hospitals nationwide. CMS awards the money for 200 slots each year for 5 years.

More than half of the initial round of funding focused on training primary care specialists, with other slots designated for mental health specialists. Last year, Congress also approved a separate allocation of 200 more Medicare-funded residency positions, with at least half designated for psychiatry and related subspecialty residencies to help meet the growing need for more mental health specialists. On August 1, CMS announced it would distribute the funds next year, effective in 2026.

The additional Medicare funding attempts to address the shortage of healthcare providers and ensure future access to care, including in rural and underserved communities. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including primary care doctors and specialists.

In addition, more than 100 million Americans, nearly a third of the nation, don’t have access to primary care due to the physician shortages in their communities, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.

Major medical organizations, medical schools, and hospital groups have been pushing for years for increased Medicare funding to train new doctors to keep up with the demand for healthcare services and offset the physician shortage. As a cost-saving measure, Medicare set its cap in 1996 for how much it will reimburse each hospital offering GME training. However, according to the medical groups that continue to advocate to Congress for more funding, the funding hasn’t kept pace with the growing healthcare needs or rising medical school enrollment.
 

Adding Residency Spots

In April, Dr. Hoesley of UAB spoke at a Congressional briefing among health systems and hospitals that benefited from the additional funding. He told Congressional leaders how the increased number of GME positions affects UAB Medicine and its ability to care for rural areas.

“We have entire counties in Alabama that don’t have physicians. One way to address the physician shortage is to grow the GME programs. The funding we received will help us grow these programs and care for residents in our state.”

Still, the Medicare funding is only a drop in the bucket, Dr. Hoesley said. “We rely on Medicare funding alongside other funding partners to train residents and expand our care across the state.” He said many UAB residency programs are over their Medicare funding cap and would like to grow, but they can’t without more funding.

Mount Sinai Health System in New York City also will be able to expand its residency program after receiving Medicare support in the latest round of funding. The health system will use the federal funds to train an additional vascular surgeon. Mount Sinai currently receives CMS funding to train three residents in the specialty.

Over a 5-year program, that means CMS funding will help train 20 residents in the specialty that treats blood vessel blockages and diseases of the veins and arteries generally associated with aging.

“The funding is amazing,” said Peter L. Faries, MD, a surgery professor and system chief of vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who directs the residency program.

“We don’t have the capacity to provide an individual training program without the funding. It’s not economically feasible.”

The need for more vascular surgeons increases as the population continues to age, he said. Mount Sinai treats patients throughout New York, including underserved areas in Harlem, the Bronx, Washington Heights, Brooklyn, and Queens. “These individuals might not receive an appropriate level of vascular care if we don’t have clinicians to treat them.”

Of the recent funding, Dr. Faries said it’s taken the residency program 15 years of advocacy to increase by two slots. “It’s a long process to get funding.” Vascular training programs can remain very selective with Medicare funding, typically receiving two applicants for every position,” said Dr. Faries.
 

Pushing for More Funds

Nearly 98,000 students enrolled in medical school this year, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A total of 44,853 applicants vied for the 38,494 first-year residency positions and 3009 second-year slots, leaving 3350 medical school graduates without a match.

“There are not enough spots to meet the growing demand,” said Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, immediate past president of the American Medical Association. “Graduate medical education funding has not kept up.”

Despite the increase in medical school graduates over the past two decades, Medicare-supported training opportunities remained frozen at the 1996 level. A limited number of training positions meant residency programs couldn’t expand the physician pipeline to offset an aging workforce, contributing to the shortage. “The way to solve this is to expand GME,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We continue to advocate to remove the cap.”

Dr. Ehrenfeld also told this news organization that he doesn’t mind that Congress recently designated GME funding to certain specialties, such as psychiatry, because he believes the need is great for residency spots across the board. “The good news is people recognize it’s challenging to get much through Congress.” He’s optimistic, though, about recent legislative efforts to increase funding.

AAMC, representing about a third of the nation’s 1100 teaching hospitals and health systems, feels the same. Congress “acknowledges and continues to recognize that the shortage is not getting better, and one way to address it is to increase Medicare-supported GME positions,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy.

Still, he said that the Medicare funding bump is only making a small dent in the need. AAMC estimates the average cost to train residents is $23 billion annually, and Medicare only funds 20% of that, or $5 billion. “Our members are at the point where they say: We already can’t add new training positions,” Mr. Marquez said. He added that without increasing residency slots, patient care will suffer. “We have to do anything possible we can to increase access to care.”

Mr. Marquez also believes Medicare funding should increase residency positions across the specialty spectrum, not just for psychiatry and primary care. He said that the targeted funding may prevent some teaching hospitals from applying for residency positions if they need other types of specialists based on their community’s needs.

Among the current proposals before Congress, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would add 14,000 Medicare-supported residency slots over 7 years. Mr. Marquez said it may be more realistic to expect fewer new slots. A decision on potential legislation is expected at the end of the year. He said that if the medical groups aren’t pleased with the decision, they’ll advocate again in 2025.
 

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

Residency programs across the country may have a few more slots for incoming residents due to a recent bump in Medicare funding.

Case in point: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The state has one of the top stroke rates in the country, and yet UAB has the only hospital in the state training future doctors to help stroke patients recover. “Our hospital cares for Alabama’s sickest patients, many who need rehabilitation services,” said Craig Hoesley, MD, senior associate dean for medical education, who oversees graduate medical education (GME) or residency programs.

After decades of stagnant support, a recent bump in Medicare funding will allow UAB to add two more physical medicine and rehabilitation residents to the four residencies already receiving such funding.

Medicare also awarded UAB more funding last year to add an addiction medicine fellowship, one of two such training programs in the state for the specialty that helps treat patients fighting addiction.

UAB is among healthcare systems and hospitals nationwide benefiting from a recent hike in Medicare funding for residency programs after some 25 years at the same level of federal support. Medicare is the largest funder of training positions. Otherwise, hospitals finance training through means such as state support.

The latest round of funding, which went into effect in July, adds 200 positions to the doctor pipeline, creating more openings for residents seeking positions after medical school.

In the next few months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will notify teaching hospitals whether they’ll receive the next round of Medicare funding for more residency positions. At that time, CMS will have awarded nearly half of the 1200 residency training slots Congress approved in the past few years. In 2020 — for the first time since 1996 — Congress approved adding 1000 residency slots at teaching hospitals nationwide. CMS awards the money for 200 slots each year for 5 years.

More than half of the initial round of funding focused on training primary care specialists, with other slots designated for mental health specialists. Last year, Congress also approved a separate allocation of 200 more Medicare-funded residency positions, with at least half designated for psychiatry and related subspecialty residencies to help meet the growing need for more mental health specialists. On August 1, CMS announced it would distribute the funds next year, effective in 2026.

The additional Medicare funding attempts to address the shortage of healthcare providers and ensure future access to care, including in rural and underserved communities. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including primary care doctors and specialists.

In addition, more than 100 million Americans, nearly a third of the nation, don’t have access to primary care due to the physician shortages in their communities, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.

Major medical organizations, medical schools, and hospital groups have been pushing for years for increased Medicare funding to train new doctors to keep up with the demand for healthcare services and offset the physician shortage. As a cost-saving measure, Medicare set its cap in 1996 for how much it will reimburse each hospital offering GME training. However, according to the medical groups that continue to advocate to Congress for more funding, the funding hasn’t kept pace with the growing healthcare needs or rising medical school enrollment.
 

Adding Residency Spots

In April, Dr. Hoesley of UAB spoke at a Congressional briefing among health systems and hospitals that benefited from the additional funding. He told Congressional leaders how the increased number of GME positions affects UAB Medicine and its ability to care for rural areas.

“We have entire counties in Alabama that don’t have physicians. One way to address the physician shortage is to grow the GME programs. The funding we received will help us grow these programs and care for residents in our state.”

Still, the Medicare funding is only a drop in the bucket, Dr. Hoesley said. “We rely on Medicare funding alongside other funding partners to train residents and expand our care across the state.” He said many UAB residency programs are over their Medicare funding cap and would like to grow, but they can’t without more funding.

Mount Sinai Health System in New York City also will be able to expand its residency program after receiving Medicare support in the latest round of funding. The health system will use the federal funds to train an additional vascular surgeon. Mount Sinai currently receives CMS funding to train three residents in the specialty.

Over a 5-year program, that means CMS funding will help train 20 residents in the specialty that treats blood vessel blockages and diseases of the veins and arteries generally associated with aging.

“The funding is amazing,” said Peter L. Faries, MD, a surgery professor and system chief of vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who directs the residency program.

“We don’t have the capacity to provide an individual training program without the funding. It’s not economically feasible.”

The need for more vascular surgeons increases as the population continues to age, he said. Mount Sinai treats patients throughout New York, including underserved areas in Harlem, the Bronx, Washington Heights, Brooklyn, and Queens. “These individuals might not receive an appropriate level of vascular care if we don’t have clinicians to treat them.”

Of the recent funding, Dr. Faries said it’s taken the residency program 15 years of advocacy to increase by two slots. “It’s a long process to get funding.” Vascular training programs can remain very selective with Medicare funding, typically receiving two applicants for every position,” said Dr. Faries.
 

Pushing for More Funds

Nearly 98,000 students enrolled in medical school this year, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A total of 44,853 applicants vied for the 38,494 first-year residency positions and 3009 second-year slots, leaving 3350 medical school graduates without a match.

“There are not enough spots to meet the growing demand,” said Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, immediate past president of the American Medical Association. “Graduate medical education funding has not kept up.”

Despite the increase in medical school graduates over the past two decades, Medicare-supported training opportunities remained frozen at the 1996 level. A limited number of training positions meant residency programs couldn’t expand the physician pipeline to offset an aging workforce, contributing to the shortage. “The way to solve this is to expand GME,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We continue to advocate to remove the cap.”

Dr. Ehrenfeld also told this news organization that he doesn’t mind that Congress recently designated GME funding to certain specialties, such as psychiatry, because he believes the need is great for residency spots across the board. “The good news is people recognize it’s challenging to get much through Congress.” He’s optimistic, though, about recent legislative efforts to increase funding.

AAMC, representing about a third of the nation’s 1100 teaching hospitals and health systems, feels the same. Congress “acknowledges and continues to recognize that the shortage is not getting better, and one way to address it is to increase Medicare-supported GME positions,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy.

Still, he said that the Medicare funding bump is only making a small dent in the need. AAMC estimates the average cost to train residents is $23 billion annually, and Medicare only funds 20% of that, or $5 billion. “Our members are at the point where they say: We already can’t add new training positions,” Mr. Marquez said. He added that without increasing residency slots, patient care will suffer. “We have to do anything possible we can to increase access to care.”

Mr. Marquez also believes Medicare funding should increase residency positions across the specialty spectrum, not just for psychiatry and primary care. He said that the targeted funding may prevent some teaching hospitals from applying for residency positions if they need other types of specialists based on their community’s needs.

Among the current proposals before Congress, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would add 14,000 Medicare-supported residency slots over 7 years. Mr. Marquez said it may be more realistic to expect fewer new slots. A decision on potential legislation is expected at the end of the year. He said that if the medical groups aren’t pleased with the decision, they’ll advocate again in 2025.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for the treatment of locally advanced, unresectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in certain adult patients.

Specifically, the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) was approved for patients whose disease has not progressed during or after concurrent or sequential platinum-based chemoradiation therapy and whose tumors have EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R mutations. Such EGFR mutations can be detected by an FDA-approved test.

The FDA approved osimertinib in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with the same mutations in February. The EGFR-TKI also carries other indications, including as first-line monotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC.
 

Trial Findings Supporting Latest Approval

AstraZeneca announced in June that osimertinib had been granted Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation for its newest indication.

The September 25 approval was based on findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled LAURA trial of 216 patients, which demonstrated improved median progression-free survival with osimertinib vs placebo (39.1 vs 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.16). Overall survival results were immature at the most recent analysis, but “no trend towards a detriment was observed,” with 36% of prespecified deaths for the final analysis reported, according to an FDA press release.
 

Adverse Events

Study participants were randomized 2:1 to receive the osimertinib recommended dose of 80 mg given orally once daily or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were lymphopenia, leukopenia, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, rash, diarrhea, nail toxicity, musculoskeletal pain, cough, and COVID-19 infection.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for the treatment of locally advanced, unresectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in certain adult patients.

Specifically, the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) was approved for patients whose disease has not progressed during or after concurrent or sequential platinum-based chemoradiation therapy and whose tumors have EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R mutations. Such EGFR mutations can be detected by an FDA-approved test.

The FDA approved osimertinib in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with the same mutations in February. The EGFR-TKI also carries other indications, including as first-line monotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC.
 

Trial Findings Supporting Latest Approval

AstraZeneca announced in June that osimertinib had been granted Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation for its newest indication.

The September 25 approval was based on findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled LAURA trial of 216 patients, which demonstrated improved median progression-free survival with osimertinib vs placebo (39.1 vs 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.16). Overall survival results were immature at the most recent analysis, but “no trend towards a detriment was observed,” with 36% of prespecified deaths for the final analysis reported, according to an FDA press release.
 

Adverse Events

Study participants were randomized 2:1 to receive the osimertinib recommended dose of 80 mg given orally once daily or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were lymphopenia, leukopenia, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, rash, diarrhea, nail toxicity, musculoskeletal pain, cough, and COVID-19 infection.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for the treatment of locally advanced, unresectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in certain adult patients.

Specifically, the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) was approved for patients whose disease has not progressed during or after concurrent or sequential platinum-based chemoradiation therapy and whose tumors have EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R mutations. Such EGFR mutations can be detected by an FDA-approved test.

The FDA approved osimertinib in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with the same mutations in February. The EGFR-TKI also carries other indications, including as first-line monotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC.
 

Trial Findings Supporting Latest Approval

AstraZeneca announced in June that osimertinib had been granted Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation for its newest indication.

The September 25 approval was based on findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled LAURA trial of 216 patients, which demonstrated improved median progression-free survival with osimertinib vs placebo (39.1 vs 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.16). Overall survival results were immature at the most recent analysis, but “no trend towards a detriment was observed,” with 36% of prespecified deaths for the final analysis reported, according to an FDA press release.
 

Adverse Events

Study participants were randomized 2:1 to receive the osimertinib recommended dose of 80 mg given orally once daily or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were lymphopenia, leukopenia, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, rash, diarrhea, nail toxicity, musculoskeletal pain, cough, and COVID-19 infection.

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

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted a second-line indication to amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant, Janssen Biotech) in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 

Amivantamab with carboplatin and pemetrexed is now indicated for adults with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations whose disease has progressed on or after treatment with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI).

The FDA has already approved first-line use of amivantamab in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, as reported by Medscape Medical News. 

The second-line approval for amivantamab plus chemotherapy “may address the most common mechanisms of treatment resistance to third-generation EGFR TKIs, such as osimertinib, in the first line,” Martin Dietrich, MD, PhD, oncologist, Cancer Care Centers of Brevard in Florida, said in a company news release.

“This multitargeted combination extended progression-free survival (PFS) and improved overall response compared to chemotherapy alone, offering an important and effective new second-line option for patients,” Dr. Dietrich added. 

The second-line indication is supported by the phase 3 MARIPOSA-2 study, which included 657 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations and disease progression on or after receiving osimertinib.

The study demonstrated a 52% reduced risk of disease progression or death when amivantamab was added to carboplatin and pemetrexed (hazard ratio, 0.48). 

Median PFS was 6.3 months with amivantamab vs 4.2 months with chemotherapy alone. The confirmed objective response rate was 53% in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy group vs 29% in the chemotherapy only group. 

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were rash, infusion-related reactions, fatigue, nail toxicity, nausea, constipation, edema, stomatitis, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, vomiting, and COVID-19 infection.

The company noted that amivantamab in combination with chemotherapy is the only category 1 treatment option in National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines for patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who have progressed on osimertinib and who are symptomatic with multiple lesions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted a second-line indication to amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant, Janssen Biotech) in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 

Amivantamab with carboplatin and pemetrexed is now indicated for adults with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations whose disease has progressed on or after treatment with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI).

The FDA has already approved first-line use of amivantamab in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, as reported by Medscape Medical News. 

The second-line approval for amivantamab plus chemotherapy “may address the most common mechanisms of treatment resistance to third-generation EGFR TKIs, such as osimertinib, in the first line,” Martin Dietrich, MD, PhD, oncologist, Cancer Care Centers of Brevard in Florida, said in a company news release.

“This multitargeted combination extended progression-free survival (PFS) and improved overall response compared to chemotherapy alone, offering an important and effective new second-line option for patients,” Dr. Dietrich added. 

The second-line indication is supported by the phase 3 MARIPOSA-2 study, which included 657 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations and disease progression on or after receiving osimertinib.

The study demonstrated a 52% reduced risk of disease progression or death when amivantamab was added to carboplatin and pemetrexed (hazard ratio, 0.48). 

Median PFS was 6.3 months with amivantamab vs 4.2 months with chemotherapy alone. The confirmed objective response rate was 53% in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy group vs 29% in the chemotherapy only group. 

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were rash, infusion-related reactions, fatigue, nail toxicity, nausea, constipation, edema, stomatitis, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, vomiting, and COVID-19 infection.

The company noted that amivantamab in combination with chemotherapy is the only category 1 treatment option in National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines for patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who have progressed on osimertinib and who are symptomatic with multiple lesions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted a second-line indication to amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant, Janssen Biotech) in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 

Amivantamab with carboplatin and pemetrexed is now indicated for adults with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations whose disease has progressed on or after treatment with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI).

The FDA has already approved first-line use of amivantamab in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, as reported by Medscape Medical News. 

The second-line approval for amivantamab plus chemotherapy “may address the most common mechanisms of treatment resistance to third-generation EGFR TKIs, such as osimertinib, in the first line,” Martin Dietrich, MD, PhD, oncologist, Cancer Care Centers of Brevard in Florida, said in a company news release.

“This multitargeted combination extended progression-free survival (PFS) and improved overall response compared to chemotherapy alone, offering an important and effective new second-line option for patients,” Dr. Dietrich added. 

The second-line indication is supported by the phase 3 MARIPOSA-2 study, which included 657 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations and disease progression on or after receiving osimertinib.

The study demonstrated a 52% reduced risk of disease progression or death when amivantamab was added to carboplatin and pemetrexed (hazard ratio, 0.48). 

Median PFS was 6.3 months with amivantamab vs 4.2 months with chemotherapy alone. The confirmed objective response rate was 53% in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy group vs 29% in the chemotherapy only group. 

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were rash, infusion-related reactions, fatigue, nail toxicity, nausea, constipation, edema, stomatitis, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, vomiting, and COVID-19 infection.

The company noted that amivantamab in combination with chemotherapy is the only category 1 treatment option in National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines for patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who have progressed on osimertinib and who are symptomatic with multiple lesions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

Five years have passed since the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) gathered at the 72nd World Health Assembly and decided that September 17 should be recognized as World Patient Safety Day, acknowledging it as a global health priority.

WHO data indicate the following findings related to medical safety:

• One in 10 patients is harmed while receiving healthcare, and 3 million die as a result.
• More than half of these incidents could be prevented.
• Indirect costs could amount to several billion US dollars annually.

Given the magnitude of preventable harm related to medication use, in 2017, the WHO launched the third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm with the goal of reducing serious and preventable harm related to medication by 50%. In addition, considering the volume of medication packages prescribed in 2023 by physicians in Spain’s National Health System, it is necessary to understand the most common types of medication errors to provide an effective and efficient response.

According to Spain’s Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the 10 types of medication errors detected in 2020 with the most serious consequences were the following:

• Errors due to omission or delay in medication.
• Administration of medication to the wrong patient.
• Errors related to allergies or known adverse effects of medications.
• Dosing errors in pediatric patients.
• Errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.
• Errors associated with the lack of use of smart infusion pumps.
• Errors due to accidental administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.
• Incorrect intravenous administration of oral liquid medications.
• Errors in medication reconciliation upon hospital admission and discharge.
• Errors due to patient misunderstandings regarding medication use.

I would like to focus on the fifth item, errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.

Medications with similar names or with similar labeling or packaging are known as “look alike–sound alike” medications. They are estimated to account for between 6.2% and 14.7% of all medication errors. Confusion can arise due to spelling and phonetic similarities.

As shown in bulletin no. 50 of the ISMP, difficulties in distinguishing different medications or different presentations of the same medication due to similar packaging and labeling have frequently been associated with reported incidents.

Most cases involve either medications marketed by the same laboratory with a design based on brand image or different medications marketed by different laboratories in screen-printed ampoules used in the same settings.

In 2020, the ISMP published 11 new cases of labeling or packaging that may promote errors on its website. It reported 49 incidents to the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices.

Shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have further contributed to these incidents, as healthcare facilities sometimes had to change the medications they usually acquired and purchase whatever was available, without being able to select products that would not be confused with existing medications in the facility.

The ISMP recommends the following general practices for healthcare institutions, professionals, and patients to prevent these errors:

• Develop short lists of easily confused medication names and distribute them among all healthcare professionals.
• Prioritize medication names by active ingredient instead of brand name.
• For similar names, highlight the differences in capital letters, eg, DOBUTamine, DOPamine.
• For similar active ingredients, use brand names.
• Avoid placing similar medications near each other.
• Prescribe all medications electronically to minimize the risk of selecting the wrong medication.
• Make manual prescriptions legible, with clearly written dosages and pharmaceutical forms.
• Encourage patients to actively participate in their treatment and consult a clinician if they have any questions about the medications they are receiving.
• Raise awareness among patients, family members, and caregivers about the issues caused by medication name confusion and inform them about how to avoid these errors.
• Instruct patients to focus on and always use the active ingredient name as an identifying element for the medications they are taking.
• Review treatments with patients to ensure they know the medications they are taking.
•  

Julia María Ruiz Redondo is the regional nursing advisor inspector of Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians of Castilla-La Mancha (SEMG-CLM), coordinator of the National Working Group on Public Health in the SEMG, and director of the international public health master’s degree at TECH Technological University. This article is the result of an editorial collaboration between the SEMG and Univadis, which you can access here. 

This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five years have passed since the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) gathered at the 72nd World Health Assembly and decided that September 17 should be recognized as World Patient Safety Day, acknowledging it as a global health priority.

WHO data indicate the following findings related to medical safety:

• One in 10 patients is harmed while receiving healthcare, and 3 million die as a result.
• More than half of these incidents could be prevented.
• Indirect costs could amount to several billion US dollars annually.

Given the magnitude of preventable harm related to medication use, in 2017, the WHO launched the third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm with the goal of reducing serious and preventable harm related to medication by 50%. In addition, considering the volume of medication packages prescribed in 2023 by physicians in Spain’s National Health System, it is necessary to understand the most common types of medication errors to provide an effective and efficient response.

According to Spain’s Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the 10 types of medication errors detected in 2020 with the most serious consequences were the following:

• Errors due to omission or delay in medication.
• Administration of medication to the wrong patient.
• Errors related to allergies or known adverse effects of medications.
• Dosing errors in pediatric patients.
• Errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.
• Errors associated with the lack of use of smart infusion pumps.
• Errors due to accidental administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.
• Incorrect intravenous administration of oral liquid medications.
• Errors in medication reconciliation upon hospital admission and discharge.
• Errors due to patient misunderstandings regarding medication use.

I would like to focus on the fifth item, errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.

Medications with similar names or with similar labeling or packaging are known as “look alike–sound alike” medications. They are estimated to account for between 6.2% and 14.7% of all medication errors. Confusion can arise due to spelling and phonetic similarities.

As shown in bulletin no. 50 of the ISMP, difficulties in distinguishing different medications or different presentations of the same medication due to similar packaging and labeling have frequently been associated with reported incidents.

Most cases involve either medications marketed by the same laboratory with a design based on brand image or different medications marketed by different laboratories in screen-printed ampoules used in the same settings.

In 2020, the ISMP published 11 new cases of labeling or packaging that may promote errors on its website. It reported 49 incidents to the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices.

Shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have further contributed to these incidents, as healthcare facilities sometimes had to change the medications they usually acquired and purchase whatever was available, without being able to select products that would not be confused with existing medications in the facility.

The ISMP recommends the following general practices for healthcare institutions, professionals, and patients to prevent these errors:

• Develop short lists of easily confused medication names and distribute them among all healthcare professionals.
• Prioritize medication names by active ingredient instead of brand name.
• For similar names, highlight the differences in capital letters, eg, DOBUTamine, DOPamine.
• For similar active ingredients, use brand names.
• Avoid placing similar medications near each other.
• Prescribe all medications electronically to minimize the risk of selecting the wrong medication.
• Make manual prescriptions legible, with clearly written dosages and pharmaceutical forms.
• Encourage patients to actively participate in their treatment and consult a clinician if they have any questions about the medications they are receiving.
• Raise awareness among patients, family members, and caregivers about the issues caused by medication name confusion and inform them about how to avoid these errors.
• Instruct patients to focus on and always use the active ingredient name as an identifying element for the medications they are taking.
• Review treatments with patients to ensure they know the medications they are taking.
•  

Julia María Ruiz Redondo is the regional nursing advisor inspector of Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians of Castilla-La Mancha (SEMG-CLM), coordinator of the National Working Group on Public Health in the SEMG, and director of the international public health master’s degree at TECH Technological University. This article is the result of an editorial collaboration between the SEMG and Univadis, which you can access here. 

This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five years have passed since the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) gathered at the 72nd World Health Assembly and decided that September 17 should be recognized as World Patient Safety Day, acknowledging it as a global health priority.

WHO data indicate the following findings related to medical safety:

• One in 10 patients is harmed while receiving healthcare, and 3 million die as a result.
• More than half of these incidents could be prevented.
• Indirect costs could amount to several billion US dollars annually.

Given the magnitude of preventable harm related to medication use, in 2017, the WHO launched the third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm with the goal of reducing serious and preventable harm related to medication by 50%. In addition, considering the volume of medication packages prescribed in 2023 by physicians in Spain’s National Health System, it is necessary to understand the most common types of medication errors to provide an effective and efficient response.

According to Spain’s Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the 10 types of medication errors detected in 2020 with the most serious consequences were the following:

• Errors due to omission or delay in medication.
• Administration of medication to the wrong patient.
• Errors related to allergies or known adverse effects of medications.
• Dosing errors in pediatric patients.
• Errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.
• Errors associated with the lack of use of smart infusion pumps.
• Errors due to accidental administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.
• Incorrect intravenous administration of oral liquid medications.
• Errors in medication reconciliation upon hospital admission and discharge.
• Errors due to patient misunderstandings regarding medication use.

I would like to focus on the fifth item, errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.

Medications with similar names or with similar labeling or packaging are known as “look alike–sound alike” medications. They are estimated to account for between 6.2% and 14.7% of all medication errors. Confusion can arise due to spelling and phonetic similarities.

As shown in bulletin no. 50 of the ISMP, difficulties in distinguishing different medications or different presentations of the same medication due to similar packaging and labeling have frequently been associated with reported incidents.

Most cases involve either medications marketed by the same laboratory with a design based on brand image or different medications marketed by different laboratories in screen-printed ampoules used in the same settings.

In 2020, the ISMP published 11 new cases of labeling or packaging that may promote errors on its website. It reported 49 incidents to the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices.

Shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have further contributed to these incidents, as healthcare facilities sometimes had to change the medications they usually acquired and purchase whatever was available, without being able to select products that would not be confused with existing medications in the facility.

The ISMP recommends the following general practices for healthcare institutions, professionals, and patients to prevent these errors:

• Develop short lists of easily confused medication names and distribute them among all healthcare professionals.
• Prioritize medication names by active ingredient instead of brand name.
• For similar names, highlight the differences in capital letters, eg, DOBUTamine, DOPamine.
• For similar active ingredients, use brand names.
• Avoid placing similar medications near each other.
• Prescribe all medications electronically to minimize the risk of selecting the wrong medication.
• Make manual prescriptions legible, with clearly written dosages and pharmaceutical forms.
• Encourage patients to actively participate in their treatment and consult a clinician if they have any questions about the medications they are receiving.
• Raise awareness among patients, family members, and caregivers about the issues caused by medication name confusion and inform them about how to avoid these errors.
• Instruct patients to focus on and always use the active ingredient name as an identifying element for the medications they are taking.
• Review treatments with patients to ensure they know the medications they are taking.
•  

Julia María Ruiz Redondo is the regional nursing advisor inspector of Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians of Castilla-La Mancha (SEMG-CLM), coordinator of the National Working Group on Public Health in the SEMG, and director of the international public health master’s degree at TECH Technological University. This article is the result of an editorial collaboration between the SEMG and Univadis, which you can access here. 

This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.