Kerry Dooley Young

More than one third of patients with cancer visited an emergency department (ED) in the 90 days before their diagnosis, according to a study of medical records from Ontario, Canada.

Researchers examined Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) data that had been gathered from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021. The study focused on patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary cancer diagnoses.

Factors associated with an increased likelihood of an ED visit ahead of diagnosis included having certain cancers, living in rural areas, and having less access to primary care, according to study author Keerat Grewal, MD, an emergency physician and clinician scientist at the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute at Sinai Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.

“The ED is a distressing environment for patients to receive a possible cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, it is frequently ill equipped to provide ongoing continuity of care, which can lead patients down a poorly defined diagnostic pathway before receiving a confirmed diagnosis based on tissue and a subsequent treatment plan.”

The findings were published online on November 4 in CMAJ).
 

Neurologic Cancers Prominent

In an interview, Grewal said in an interview that the study reflects her desire as an emergency room physician to understand why so many patients with cancer get the initial reports about their disease from clinicians whom they often have just met for the first time.

Among patients with an ED visit before cancer diagnosis, 51.4% were admitted to hospital from the most recent visit.

Compared with patients with a family physician on whom they could rely for routine care, those who had no outpatient visits (odds ratio [OR], 2.09) or fewer than three outpatient visits (OR, 1.41) in the 6-30 months before cancer diagnosis were more likely to have an ED visit before their cancer diagnosis.

Other factors associated with increased odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis included rurality (OR, 1.15), residence in northern Ontario (northeast region: OR, 1.14 and northwest region: OR, 1.27 vs Toronto region), and living in the most marginalized areas (material resource deprivation: OR, 1.37 and housing stability: OR, 1.09 vs least marginalized area).

The researchers also found that patients with certain cancers were more likely to have sought care in the ED. They compared these cancers with breast cancer, which is often detected through screening.

“Patients with neurologic cancers had extremely high odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “This is likely because of the emergent nature of presentation, with acute neurologic symptoms such as weakness, confusion, or seizures, which require urgent assessment.” On the other hand, pancreatic, liver, or thoracic cancer can trigger nonspecific symptoms that may be ignored until they reach a crisis level that prompts an ED visit.

The limitations of the study included its inability to identify cancer-related ED visits and its narrow focus on patients in Ontario, according to the researchers. But the use of the ICES databases also allowed researchers access to a broader pool of data than are available in many other cases.

The findings in the new paper echo those of previous research, the authors noted. Research in the United Kingdom found that 24%-31% of cancer diagnoses involved the ED. In addition, a study of people enrolled in the US Medicare program, which serves patients aged 65 years or older, found that 23% were seen in the ED in the 30 days before diagnosis.
 

‘Unpacking the Data’

The current findings also are consistent with those of an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study that was published in 2022 in The Lancet Oncology, said Erika Nicholson, MHS, vice president of cancer systems and innovation at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The latter study analyzed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

“We see similar trends in terms of people visiting EDs and being diagnosed through EDs internationally,” Nicholson said. “We’re working with partners to put in place different strategies to address the challenges” that this phenomenon presents in terms of improving screening and follow-up care.

“Cancer is not one disease, but many diseases,” she said. “They present differently. We’re focused on really unpacking the data and understanding them.”

All this research highlights the need for more services and personnel to address cancer, including people who are trained to help patients cope after getting concerning news through emergency care, she said.

“That means having a system that fully supports you and helps you navigate through that diagnostic process,” Nicholson said. Addressing the added challenges for patients who don’t have secure housing is a special need, she added.

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Grewal reported receiving grants from CIHR and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Nicholson reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than one third of patients with cancer visited an emergency department (ED) in the 90 days before their diagnosis, according to a study of medical records from Ontario, Canada.

Researchers examined Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) data that had been gathered from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021. The study focused on patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary cancer diagnoses.

Factors associated with an increased likelihood of an ED visit ahead of diagnosis included having certain cancers, living in rural areas, and having less access to primary care, according to study author Keerat Grewal, MD, an emergency physician and clinician scientist at the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute at Sinai Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.

“The ED is a distressing environment for patients to receive a possible cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, it is frequently ill equipped to provide ongoing continuity of care, which can lead patients down a poorly defined diagnostic pathway before receiving a confirmed diagnosis based on tissue and a subsequent treatment plan.”

The findings were published online on November 4 in CMAJ).
 

Neurologic Cancers Prominent

In an interview, Grewal said in an interview that the study reflects her desire as an emergency room physician to understand why so many patients with cancer get the initial reports about their disease from clinicians whom they often have just met for the first time.

Among patients with an ED visit before cancer diagnosis, 51.4% were admitted to hospital from the most recent visit.

Compared with patients with a family physician on whom they could rely for routine care, those who had no outpatient visits (odds ratio [OR], 2.09) or fewer than three outpatient visits (OR, 1.41) in the 6-30 months before cancer diagnosis were more likely to have an ED visit before their cancer diagnosis.

Other factors associated with increased odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis included rurality (OR, 1.15), residence in northern Ontario (northeast region: OR, 1.14 and northwest region: OR, 1.27 vs Toronto region), and living in the most marginalized areas (material resource deprivation: OR, 1.37 and housing stability: OR, 1.09 vs least marginalized area).

The researchers also found that patients with certain cancers were more likely to have sought care in the ED. They compared these cancers with breast cancer, which is often detected through screening.

“Patients with neurologic cancers had extremely high odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “This is likely because of the emergent nature of presentation, with acute neurologic symptoms such as weakness, confusion, or seizures, which require urgent assessment.” On the other hand, pancreatic, liver, or thoracic cancer can trigger nonspecific symptoms that may be ignored until they reach a crisis level that prompts an ED visit.

The limitations of the study included its inability to identify cancer-related ED visits and its narrow focus on patients in Ontario, according to the researchers. But the use of the ICES databases also allowed researchers access to a broader pool of data than are available in many other cases.

The findings in the new paper echo those of previous research, the authors noted. Research in the United Kingdom found that 24%-31% of cancer diagnoses involved the ED. In addition, a study of people enrolled in the US Medicare program, which serves patients aged 65 years or older, found that 23% were seen in the ED in the 30 days before diagnosis.
 

‘Unpacking the Data’

The current findings also are consistent with those of an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study that was published in 2022 in The Lancet Oncology, said Erika Nicholson, MHS, vice president of cancer systems and innovation at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The latter study analyzed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

“We see similar trends in terms of people visiting EDs and being diagnosed through EDs internationally,” Nicholson said. “We’re working with partners to put in place different strategies to address the challenges” that this phenomenon presents in terms of improving screening and follow-up care.

“Cancer is not one disease, but many diseases,” she said. “They present differently. We’re focused on really unpacking the data and understanding them.”

All this research highlights the need for more services and personnel to address cancer, including people who are trained to help patients cope after getting concerning news through emergency care, she said.

“That means having a system that fully supports you and helps you navigate through that diagnostic process,” Nicholson said. Addressing the added challenges for patients who don’t have secure housing is a special need, she added.

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Grewal reported receiving grants from CIHR and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Nicholson reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than one third of patients with cancer visited an emergency department (ED) in the 90 days before their diagnosis, according to a study of medical records from Ontario, Canada.

Researchers examined Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) data that had been gathered from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021. The study focused on patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary cancer diagnoses.

Factors associated with an increased likelihood of an ED visit ahead of diagnosis included having certain cancers, living in rural areas, and having less access to primary care, according to study author Keerat Grewal, MD, an emergency physician and clinician scientist at the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute at Sinai Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.

“The ED is a distressing environment for patients to receive a possible cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, it is frequently ill equipped to provide ongoing continuity of care, which can lead patients down a poorly defined diagnostic pathway before receiving a confirmed diagnosis based on tissue and a subsequent treatment plan.”

The findings were published online on November 4 in CMAJ).
 

Neurologic Cancers Prominent

In an interview, Grewal said in an interview that the study reflects her desire as an emergency room physician to understand why so many patients with cancer get the initial reports about their disease from clinicians whom they often have just met for the first time.

Among patients with an ED visit before cancer diagnosis, 51.4% were admitted to hospital from the most recent visit.

Compared with patients with a family physician on whom they could rely for routine care, those who had no outpatient visits (odds ratio [OR], 2.09) or fewer than three outpatient visits (OR, 1.41) in the 6-30 months before cancer diagnosis were more likely to have an ED visit before their cancer diagnosis.

Other factors associated with increased odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis included rurality (OR, 1.15), residence in northern Ontario (northeast region: OR, 1.14 and northwest region: OR, 1.27 vs Toronto region), and living in the most marginalized areas (material resource deprivation: OR, 1.37 and housing stability: OR, 1.09 vs least marginalized area).

The researchers also found that patients with certain cancers were more likely to have sought care in the ED. They compared these cancers with breast cancer, which is often detected through screening.

“Patients with neurologic cancers had extremely high odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “This is likely because of the emergent nature of presentation, with acute neurologic symptoms such as weakness, confusion, or seizures, which require urgent assessment.” On the other hand, pancreatic, liver, or thoracic cancer can trigger nonspecific symptoms that may be ignored until they reach a crisis level that prompts an ED visit.

The limitations of the study included its inability to identify cancer-related ED visits and its narrow focus on patients in Ontario, according to the researchers. But the use of the ICES databases also allowed researchers access to a broader pool of data than are available in many other cases.

The findings in the new paper echo those of previous research, the authors noted. Research in the United Kingdom found that 24%-31% of cancer diagnoses involved the ED. In addition, a study of people enrolled in the US Medicare program, which serves patients aged 65 years or older, found that 23% were seen in the ED in the 30 days before diagnosis.
 

‘Unpacking the Data’

The current findings also are consistent with those of an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study that was published in 2022 in The Lancet Oncology, said Erika Nicholson, MHS, vice president of cancer systems and innovation at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The latter study analyzed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

“We see similar trends in terms of people visiting EDs and being diagnosed through EDs internationally,” Nicholson said. “We’re working with partners to put in place different strategies to address the challenges” that this phenomenon presents in terms of improving screening and follow-up care.

“Cancer is not one disease, but many diseases,” she said. “They present differently. We’re focused on really unpacking the data and understanding them.”

All this research highlights the need for more services and personnel to address cancer, including people who are trained to help patients cope after getting concerning news through emergency care, she said.

“That means having a system that fully supports you and helps you navigate through that diagnostic process,” Nicholson said. Addressing the added challenges for patients who don’t have secure housing is a special need, she added.

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Grewal reported receiving grants from CIHR and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Nicholson reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal lawmakers are rushing to soften the blow of Medicare’s 2025 effective pay cut for doctors in 2025, introducing a bill that could limit the cut. But they have little time to act.

In 2025, the conversion factor used to calculate payment to doctors and hospitals caring for Medicare patients will drop to $32.35, a nearly 3% decrease from the current level. 

Congress likely will act before the cuts take effect, said Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), who specialized in cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress. Lawmakers in past years have typically tinkered with the Medicare physician fee schedule at the last minute, tucking in fixes to December legislative packages and spending bills. 

“I’m pretty optimistic that a good portion of the fee cuts will be mitigated and they won’t go through,” Bucshon told this news organization in an interview.

Bruce A. Scott, MD, president of the American Medical Association (AMA) said in a statement that CMS’ release of the final fee schedule on November 1 should trigger serious work on a change to the 2025 Medicare physician fee schedule.

“The fee schedule rule released [on November 1] starts the clock — with January 1 looming,” Scott said. “A legislative remedy will require hard work and compromise. The 66 million patients who rely on Medicare are counting on that.”

Both Bucshon and Scott also joined many lawmakers and medical associations in calling on Congress for a larger overhaul of the Medicare physician fee schedule, well beyond whatever temporary adjustment may be made in the months ahead to avoid or soften the 2025 cuts.

The physician fee schedule sets formulas and rules regarding how the largest US buyer of health services pays the almost 1.3 million clinicians who bill Medicare. Of these, 51% are physicians. The physician fee schedule also covers payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, physical therapists, and other health professionals.
 

Last Major Overhaul Unpopular

There’s broad dissatisfaction with Congress’ last major overhaul of the Medicare physician fee schedule. The 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) aimed to shift clinicians toward programs tying pay increases to quality measures. But the implementation of that aim through the Merit-based Incentive Payment System is widely considered a disappointment.

MACRA was intended to end the need for annual “doc fixes,” as Congress’ last-minute Medicare adjustments are known. Seventeen such tweaks passed before MACRA took effect. 

But MACRA did not include a broad-based inflation adjuster, and some clinicians’ incomes are lagging as inflation rates — and practice costs — have risen. Scott said the Medicare Economic Index, which is a measure used to gauge increases in practice costs for clinicians, is expected to rise by 3.5%.

“To put it bluntly, Medicare plans to pay us less while costs go up. You don’t have to be an economist to know that is an unsustainable trend, though one that has been going on for decades,” Scott said. “For physician practices operating on small margins already, this means it is harder to acquire new equipment, harder to retain staff, harder to take on new Medicare patients, and harder to keep the doors open, particularly in rural and underserved areas.”

In a statement, Jen Brull, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, noted that this likely will be the fifth year in a row that Congress will need to do a patch to prevent cuts in pay to clinicians. 

Bucshon, who will retire from the House in January, said he expects Congress to pass legislation tying Medicare payment rates to inflation — eventually.

“People want to find a way to fix this problem, but also do it in a way that does not cut benefits to anyone, and that’s the key,” Bucshon said. “We’re going to have to find a way to make sure that providers are properly reimbursed.”

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

Federal lawmakers are rushing to soften the blow of Medicare’s 2025 effective pay cut for doctors in 2025, introducing a bill that could limit the cut. But they have little time to act.

In 2025, the conversion factor used to calculate payment to doctors and hospitals caring for Medicare patients will drop to $32.35, a nearly 3% decrease from the current level. 

Congress likely will act before the cuts take effect, said Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), who specialized in cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress. Lawmakers in past years have typically tinkered with the Medicare physician fee schedule at the last minute, tucking in fixes to December legislative packages and spending bills. 

“I’m pretty optimistic that a good portion of the fee cuts will be mitigated and they won’t go through,” Bucshon told this news organization in an interview.

Bruce A. Scott, MD, president of the American Medical Association (AMA) said in a statement that CMS’ release of the final fee schedule on November 1 should trigger serious work on a change to the 2025 Medicare physician fee schedule.

“The fee schedule rule released [on November 1] starts the clock — with January 1 looming,” Scott said. “A legislative remedy will require hard work and compromise. The 66 million patients who rely on Medicare are counting on that.”

Both Bucshon and Scott also joined many lawmakers and medical associations in calling on Congress for a larger overhaul of the Medicare physician fee schedule, well beyond whatever temporary adjustment may be made in the months ahead to avoid or soften the 2025 cuts.

The physician fee schedule sets formulas and rules regarding how the largest US buyer of health services pays the almost 1.3 million clinicians who bill Medicare. Of these, 51% are physicians. The physician fee schedule also covers payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, physical therapists, and other health professionals.
 

Last Major Overhaul Unpopular

There’s broad dissatisfaction with Congress’ last major overhaul of the Medicare physician fee schedule. The 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) aimed to shift clinicians toward programs tying pay increases to quality measures. But the implementation of that aim through the Merit-based Incentive Payment System is widely considered a disappointment.

MACRA was intended to end the need for annual “doc fixes,” as Congress’ last-minute Medicare adjustments are known. Seventeen such tweaks passed before MACRA took effect. 

But MACRA did not include a broad-based inflation adjuster, and some clinicians’ incomes are lagging as inflation rates — and practice costs — have risen. Scott said the Medicare Economic Index, which is a measure used to gauge increases in practice costs for clinicians, is expected to rise by 3.5%.

“To put it bluntly, Medicare plans to pay us less while costs go up. You don’t have to be an economist to know that is an unsustainable trend, though one that has been going on for decades,” Scott said. “For physician practices operating on small margins already, this means it is harder to acquire new equipment, harder to retain staff, harder to take on new Medicare patients, and harder to keep the doors open, particularly in rural and underserved areas.”

In a statement, Jen Brull, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, noted that this likely will be the fifth year in a row that Congress will need to do a patch to prevent cuts in pay to clinicians. 

Bucshon, who will retire from the House in January, said he expects Congress to pass legislation tying Medicare payment rates to inflation — eventually.

“People want to find a way to fix this problem, but also do it in a way that does not cut benefits to anyone, and that’s the key,” Bucshon said. “We’re going to have to find a way to make sure that providers are properly reimbursed.”

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

Federal lawmakers are rushing to soften the blow of Medicare’s 2025 effective pay cut for doctors in 2025, introducing a bill that could limit the cut. But they have little time to act.

In 2025, the conversion factor used to calculate payment to doctors and hospitals caring for Medicare patients will drop to $32.35, a nearly 3% decrease from the current level. 

Congress likely will act before the cuts take effect, said Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), who specialized in cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress. Lawmakers in past years have typically tinkered with the Medicare physician fee schedule at the last minute, tucking in fixes to December legislative packages and spending bills. 

“I’m pretty optimistic that a good portion of the fee cuts will be mitigated and they won’t go through,” Bucshon told this news organization in an interview.

Bruce A. Scott, MD, president of the American Medical Association (AMA) said in a statement that CMS’ release of the final fee schedule on November 1 should trigger serious work on a change to the 2025 Medicare physician fee schedule.

“The fee schedule rule released [on November 1] starts the clock — with January 1 looming,” Scott said. “A legislative remedy will require hard work and compromise. The 66 million patients who rely on Medicare are counting on that.”

Both Bucshon and Scott also joined many lawmakers and medical associations in calling on Congress for a larger overhaul of the Medicare physician fee schedule, well beyond whatever temporary adjustment may be made in the months ahead to avoid or soften the 2025 cuts.

The physician fee schedule sets formulas and rules regarding how the largest US buyer of health services pays the almost 1.3 million clinicians who bill Medicare. Of these, 51% are physicians. The physician fee schedule also covers payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, physical therapists, and other health professionals.
 

Last Major Overhaul Unpopular

There’s broad dissatisfaction with Congress’ last major overhaul of the Medicare physician fee schedule. The 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) aimed to shift clinicians toward programs tying pay increases to quality measures. But the implementation of that aim through the Merit-based Incentive Payment System is widely considered a disappointment.

MACRA was intended to end the need for annual “doc fixes,” as Congress’ last-minute Medicare adjustments are known. Seventeen such tweaks passed before MACRA took effect. 

But MACRA did not include a broad-based inflation adjuster, and some clinicians’ incomes are lagging as inflation rates — and practice costs — have risen. Scott said the Medicare Economic Index, which is a measure used to gauge increases in practice costs for clinicians, is expected to rise by 3.5%.

“To put it bluntly, Medicare plans to pay us less while costs go up. You don’t have to be an economist to know that is an unsustainable trend, though one that has been going on for decades,” Scott said. “For physician practices operating on small margins already, this means it is harder to acquire new equipment, harder to retain staff, harder to take on new Medicare patients, and harder to keep the doors open, particularly in rural and underserved areas.”

In a statement, Jen Brull, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, noted that this likely will be the fifth year in a row that Congress will need to do a patch to prevent cuts in pay to clinicians. 

Bucshon, who will retire from the House in January, said he expects Congress to pass legislation tying Medicare payment rates to inflation — eventually.

“People want to find a way to fix this problem, but also do it in a way that does not cut benefits to anyone, and that’s the key,” Bucshon said. “We’re going to have to find a way to make sure that providers are properly reimbursed.”

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

Efforts to curb overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer have made a difference in the United States and South Korea, but these countries still have high rates of excess treatment of indolent lesions, according to a recently published global study.

The proportion of thyroid cancer cases attributable to overdiagnosis globally was higher in women (78%) than in men (68%), with this rate varying substantially across countries, wrote Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, and coauthors in an October paper in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Overdiagnosis refers to the diagnosis of lesions that would not cause symptoms and that would not progress, if left alone.

Increased testing for thyroid cancer, fueled in large part by the expansion of imaging technologies and progressively more intense and disorganized scrutiny of the thyroid, led many people to be treated for often indolent lesions, exposing them to potential side effects as well as financial and emotional distress.

Li and coauthors estimate that more than 1.7 million people might have been overdiagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in 63 countries.

“Overdiagnosis clearly emerged in some high-resource countries with private-based health systems in which access to healthcare overrules regulatory controls (eg, in the USA) and in some high-quality public health systems with easy and broad access to thyroid gland diagnostic examinations (eg, in Canada),” Li and coauthors wrote. “Conversely, thyroid cancer is less commonly diagnosed in those countries in which access to diagnosis is guided by strong regulatory rules (eg, in Nordic countries).”

Their study drew from almost 40 years of research, including the latest available data from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC’s) Global Cancer Observatory. Li and coauthors examined patterns in the time trends of thyroid cancer, mortality data, and trends in diagnosis of thyroid cancer before testing became common in many nations.

This approach is needed in estimating overdiagnosis, where it’s not possible to see what’s happening on a case-by-case level, Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, a scientist at IARC’s Cancer Surveillance Branch, said in an interview.

Researchers can’t tell whether an individual’s detected early-stage cancers would have remained indolent for years or eventually would have put their life at risk, he said. Instead, the patterns emerge through larger studies of the reported cases of cancer like thyroid tumors and then looking at separate datasets on mortality.

“We can only see that as a big phenomenon when we look at population-based data,” Vaccarella said.
 

Persisting Problem

Recognition of the harms of overdiagnosis has resulted in some reduction of the incidence of thyroid cancer in the United States, Li and coauthors wrote. After adjusting for age, incidence has fallen from 19 per 100,000 women in 2013 to 16 per 100,000 women in 2017. The proportion of thyroid cancer attributed to overdiagnosis has dropped from 76% to 68% in the country.

The paper adds to the evidence suggesting that the rise in screening has not changed mortality rates for thyroid cancer. For example, Li and coauthors reported seeing “a small decrease in thyroid cancer mortality rates over time in some European countries, but this decline (less than 1 per 100,000 women) is marginal compared with the increases in incidence (reaching around 100 per 100,000 women).”

“Moreover, previous data show that the downward mortality trends had begun before the wide use of ultrasonography for early detection and that period and birth cohort effects have been declining, probably due to treatment advances and reduced prevalence of risk factors, such as the reduction in iodine deficiency,” they wrote.

In an interview, Amanda Davis, MD, of AnMed, a nonprofit health system based in Anderson, South Carolina, said the new paper from Li and Vaccarella provides further evidence for a cautious approach to thyroid nodules given concerns about overdiagnosis.

If early detection of cancer via discovery of thyroid nodules actually helped patients, mortality rates would have dropped with expansion of screening and the resulting diagnoses, said Davis, who is an associate program director at AnMed’s family medicine residency program and affiliate professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

In many cases, people learn they have thyroid lesions after being tested for other conditions such as ultrasound done on carotid arteries to check for stroke risk. The most common form of thyroid cancer is the papillary form. Papillary thyroid cancer tends to be slow growing, carries a low risk for distant metastasis, and in many cases poses little risk. Some small (< 1 cm) papillary thyroid cancers can be monitored with active surveillance as opposed to thyroid lobectomy.

“So just finding more nodules incidentally or through screening ultrasound and even finding more papillary cancers via these methods does not make people healthier or decrease mortality,” Davis said.

“So just finding more things and even finding more papillary cancers does not increase our ability to treat people and keep them alive longer,” Davis said.

The 5-year survival rate for thyroid cancer overall is 98.1% and varies from 99.9% for localized disease to 55.3% for distant disease, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said in a 2017 publication in JAMA. The task force that year gave a “D” rating on screening of asymptomatic people for thyroid cancer. That means there’s moderate certainty that screening for thyroid cancer in asymptomatic persons results in harms that outweigh the benefits. The decision to give this “D” rating meant this screening is not recommended. That’s still the panel’s view.

“You can think of it as a “D” for ‘don’t screen for thyroid cancer,’ ” in people who present no symptoms of this illness, John Wong, MD, the vice chair of the USPSTF, said in an interview.

In primary care, the challenge is assessing thyroid nodules detected when people undergo testing for another reason, such as an ultrasound of the carotid artery to check for stroke risk.

Thyroid nodules can be detected by ultrasonography in up to 68% of the general population, reported a study in American Family Physician. Nodules with suspicious features or ≥ 1 cm require fine needle aspiration. The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology can be used to classify samples, with molecular testing applied to guide treatment when fine needle aspiration yields an indeterminate result.
 

New Thinking on Thyroid Cancer

There’s been a shift in recent years in the approach to how physicians should proceed if certain kinds of thyroid cancer are detected, Cari M. Kitahara, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute noted in a comment accompanying the Li paper.

“Clinicians need to be judicious in the use of thyroid ultrasonography, the diagnostic follow-up of incidentally detected thyroid nodules, and determining the optimal course of treatment,” Kitahara wrote. “For low-risk and incidentally detected tumors, strong consideration should be given to less intensive treatment options (eg, lobectomy, delayed treatment, and active surveillance).”

The American Thyroid Association guidelines encourage de-escalation of treatment for low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma up to 4 cm.

Physicians often need to make clear to patients how a diagnosis of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer differs from other oncology diagnoses, R. Michael Tuttle, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, said in an interview.

“I’ll frequently say that everything you’ve ever learned about cancer, you need to forget,” Tuttle said.

Some patients will mistakenly think any cancer diagnosis is a likely death sentence, meaning they should rush to get aggressive treatment. Tuttle has been a leader for many years in efforts in advancing active surveillance as an option for certain people with low-risk thyroid cancer.

“I often start my consultation by saying: ‘We’re going to choose between two right answers here. One right answer is watching right. One right answer is going to surgery,’ ” Tuttle said.

Patients with low-risk thyroid cancer tend to fall into two camps, with maximalists likely to seek quick treatment and minimalists more inclined for surveillance if that’s an option for them, Tuttle said. As opinions have shifted within the medical community about approaches to low-risk thyroid cancer, there’s also been some growing awareness among the public about thyroid overdiagnosis.

“Ten or 15 years ago, people thought we were crazy” to consider active surveillance as an option for low-risk thyroid cancers,” Tuttle said. “Now we have swung, at least in some of the public opinion, to this recognition that every little speck of cancer doesn’t need to be immediately taken out of your body.”

Some patients express regret about having learned that they have low-risk thyroid cancer, Tuttle said.

“Over the last 5 years, it’s not uncommon for patients to ask me, ‘Is this one of those that needs to be treated now, or is this one of those that we wish we would have never found?’ Or people will say, ‘My doctor talked me into an ultrasound, I didn’t want it’ or ‘I had a car wreck, and I found this nodule and I wished I had never found it.’ ”

This study from Li and coauthors was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, the Young Talents Program of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, the Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian Ministry of Health. Davis and Tuttle had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Efforts to curb overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer have made a difference in the United States and South Korea, but these countries still have high rates of excess treatment of indolent lesions, according to a recently published global study.

The proportion of thyroid cancer cases attributable to overdiagnosis globally was higher in women (78%) than in men (68%), with this rate varying substantially across countries, wrote Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, and coauthors in an October paper in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Overdiagnosis refers to the diagnosis of lesions that would not cause symptoms and that would not progress, if left alone.

Increased testing for thyroid cancer, fueled in large part by the expansion of imaging technologies and progressively more intense and disorganized scrutiny of the thyroid, led many people to be treated for often indolent lesions, exposing them to potential side effects as well as financial and emotional distress.

Li and coauthors estimate that more than 1.7 million people might have been overdiagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in 63 countries.

“Overdiagnosis clearly emerged in some high-resource countries with private-based health systems in which access to healthcare overrules regulatory controls (eg, in the USA) and in some high-quality public health systems with easy and broad access to thyroid gland diagnostic examinations (eg, in Canada),” Li and coauthors wrote. “Conversely, thyroid cancer is less commonly diagnosed in those countries in which access to diagnosis is guided by strong regulatory rules (eg, in Nordic countries).”

Their study drew from almost 40 years of research, including the latest available data from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC’s) Global Cancer Observatory. Li and coauthors examined patterns in the time trends of thyroid cancer, mortality data, and trends in diagnosis of thyroid cancer before testing became common in many nations.

This approach is needed in estimating overdiagnosis, where it’s not possible to see what’s happening on a case-by-case level, Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, a scientist at IARC’s Cancer Surveillance Branch, said in an interview.

Researchers can’t tell whether an individual’s detected early-stage cancers would have remained indolent for years or eventually would have put their life at risk, he said. Instead, the patterns emerge through larger studies of the reported cases of cancer like thyroid tumors and then looking at separate datasets on mortality.

“We can only see that as a big phenomenon when we look at population-based data,” Vaccarella said.
 

Persisting Problem

Recognition of the harms of overdiagnosis has resulted in some reduction of the incidence of thyroid cancer in the United States, Li and coauthors wrote. After adjusting for age, incidence has fallen from 19 per 100,000 women in 2013 to 16 per 100,000 women in 2017. The proportion of thyroid cancer attributed to overdiagnosis has dropped from 76% to 68% in the country.

The paper adds to the evidence suggesting that the rise in screening has not changed mortality rates for thyroid cancer. For example, Li and coauthors reported seeing “a small decrease in thyroid cancer mortality rates over time in some European countries, but this decline (less than 1 per 100,000 women) is marginal compared with the increases in incidence (reaching around 100 per 100,000 women).”

“Moreover, previous data show that the downward mortality trends had begun before the wide use of ultrasonography for early detection and that period and birth cohort effects have been declining, probably due to treatment advances and reduced prevalence of risk factors, such as the reduction in iodine deficiency,” they wrote.

In an interview, Amanda Davis, MD, of AnMed, a nonprofit health system based in Anderson, South Carolina, said the new paper from Li and Vaccarella provides further evidence for a cautious approach to thyroid nodules given concerns about overdiagnosis.

If early detection of cancer via discovery of thyroid nodules actually helped patients, mortality rates would have dropped with expansion of screening and the resulting diagnoses, said Davis, who is an associate program director at AnMed’s family medicine residency program and affiliate professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

In many cases, people learn they have thyroid lesions after being tested for other conditions such as ultrasound done on carotid arteries to check for stroke risk. The most common form of thyroid cancer is the papillary form. Papillary thyroid cancer tends to be slow growing, carries a low risk for distant metastasis, and in many cases poses little risk. Some small (< 1 cm) papillary thyroid cancers can be monitored with active surveillance as opposed to thyroid lobectomy.

“So just finding more nodules incidentally or through screening ultrasound and even finding more papillary cancers via these methods does not make people healthier or decrease mortality,” Davis said.

“So just finding more things and even finding more papillary cancers does not increase our ability to treat people and keep them alive longer,” Davis said.

The 5-year survival rate for thyroid cancer overall is 98.1% and varies from 99.9% for localized disease to 55.3% for distant disease, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said in a 2017 publication in JAMA. The task force that year gave a “D” rating on screening of asymptomatic people for thyroid cancer. That means there’s moderate certainty that screening for thyroid cancer in asymptomatic persons results in harms that outweigh the benefits. The decision to give this “D” rating meant this screening is not recommended. That’s still the panel’s view.

“You can think of it as a “D” for ‘don’t screen for thyroid cancer,’ ” in people who present no symptoms of this illness, John Wong, MD, the vice chair of the USPSTF, said in an interview.

In primary care, the challenge is assessing thyroid nodules detected when people undergo testing for another reason, such as an ultrasound of the carotid artery to check for stroke risk.

Thyroid nodules can be detected by ultrasonography in up to 68% of the general population, reported a study in American Family Physician. Nodules with suspicious features or ≥ 1 cm require fine needle aspiration. The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology can be used to classify samples, with molecular testing applied to guide treatment when fine needle aspiration yields an indeterminate result.
 

New Thinking on Thyroid Cancer

There’s been a shift in recent years in the approach to how physicians should proceed if certain kinds of thyroid cancer are detected, Cari M. Kitahara, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute noted in a comment accompanying the Li paper.

“Clinicians need to be judicious in the use of thyroid ultrasonography, the diagnostic follow-up of incidentally detected thyroid nodules, and determining the optimal course of treatment,” Kitahara wrote. “For low-risk and incidentally detected tumors, strong consideration should be given to less intensive treatment options (eg, lobectomy, delayed treatment, and active surveillance).”

The American Thyroid Association guidelines encourage de-escalation of treatment for low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma up to 4 cm.

Physicians often need to make clear to patients how a diagnosis of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer differs from other oncology diagnoses, R. Michael Tuttle, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, said in an interview.

“I’ll frequently say that everything you’ve ever learned about cancer, you need to forget,” Tuttle said.

Some patients will mistakenly think any cancer diagnosis is a likely death sentence, meaning they should rush to get aggressive treatment. Tuttle has been a leader for many years in efforts in advancing active surveillance as an option for certain people with low-risk thyroid cancer.

“I often start my consultation by saying: ‘We’re going to choose between two right answers here. One right answer is watching right. One right answer is going to surgery,’ ” Tuttle said.

Patients with low-risk thyroid cancer tend to fall into two camps, with maximalists likely to seek quick treatment and minimalists more inclined for surveillance if that’s an option for them, Tuttle said. As opinions have shifted within the medical community about approaches to low-risk thyroid cancer, there’s also been some growing awareness among the public about thyroid overdiagnosis.

“Ten or 15 years ago, people thought we were crazy” to consider active surveillance as an option for low-risk thyroid cancers,” Tuttle said. “Now we have swung, at least in some of the public opinion, to this recognition that every little speck of cancer doesn’t need to be immediately taken out of your body.”

Some patients express regret about having learned that they have low-risk thyroid cancer, Tuttle said.

“Over the last 5 years, it’s not uncommon for patients to ask me, ‘Is this one of those that needs to be treated now, or is this one of those that we wish we would have never found?’ Or people will say, ‘My doctor talked me into an ultrasound, I didn’t want it’ or ‘I had a car wreck, and I found this nodule and I wished I had never found it.’ ”

This study from Li and coauthors was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, the Young Talents Program of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, the Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian Ministry of Health. Davis and Tuttle had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Efforts to curb overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer have made a difference in the United States and South Korea, but these countries still have high rates of excess treatment of indolent lesions, according to a recently published global study.

The proportion of thyroid cancer cases attributable to overdiagnosis globally was higher in women (78%) than in men (68%), with this rate varying substantially across countries, wrote Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, and coauthors in an October paper in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Overdiagnosis refers to the diagnosis of lesions that would not cause symptoms and that would not progress, if left alone.

Increased testing for thyroid cancer, fueled in large part by the expansion of imaging technologies and progressively more intense and disorganized scrutiny of the thyroid, led many people to be treated for often indolent lesions, exposing them to potential side effects as well as financial and emotional distress.

Li and coauthors estimate that more than 1.7 million people might have been overdiagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in 63 countries.

“Overdiagnosis clearly emerged in some high-resource countries with private-based health systems in which access to healthcare overrules regulatory controls (eg, in the USA) and in some high-quality public health systems with easy and broad access to thyroid gland diagnostic examinations (eg, in Canada),” Li and coauthors wrote. “Conversely, thyroid cancer is less commonly diagnosed in those countries in which access to diagnosis is guided by strong regulatory rules (eg, in Nordic countries).”

Their study drew from almost 40 years of research, including the latest available data from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC’s) Global Cancer Observatory. Li and coauthors examined patterns in the time trends of thyroid cancer, mortality data, and trends in diagnosis of thyroid cancer before testing became common in many nations.

This approach is needed in estimating overdiagnosis, where it’s not possible to see what’s happening on a case-by-case level, Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, a scientist at IARC’s Cancer Surveillance Branch, said in an interview.

Researchers can’t tell whether an individual’s detected early-stage cancers would have remained indolent for years or eventually would have put their life at risk, he said. Instead, the patterns emerge through larger studies of the reported cases of cancer like thyroid tumors and then looking at separate datasets on mortality.

“We can only see that as a big phenomenon when we look at population-based data,” Vaccarella said.
 

Persisting Problem

Recognition of the harms of overdiagnosis has resulted in some reduction of the incidence of thyroid cancer in the United States, Li and coauthors wrote. After adjusting for age, incidence has fallen from 19 per 100,000 women in 2013 to 16 per 100,000 women in 2017. The proportion of thyroid cancer attributed to overdiagnosis has dropped from 76% to 68% in the country.

The paper adds to the evidence suggesting that the rise in screening has not changed mortality rates for thyroid cancer. For example, Li and coauthors reported seeing “a small decrease in thyroid cancer mortality rates over time in some European countries, but this decline (less than 1 per 100,000 women) is marginal compared with the increases in incidence (reaching around 100 per 100,000 women).”

“Moreover, previous data show that the downward mortality trends had begun before the wide use of ultrasonography for early detection and that period and birth cohort effects have been declining, probably due to treatment advances and reduced prevalence of risk factors, such as the reduction in iodine deficiency,” they wrote.

In an interview, Amanda Davis, MD, of AnMed, a nonprofit health system based in Anderson, South Carolina, said the new paper from Li and Vaccarella provides further evidence for a cautious approach to thyroid nodules given concerns about overdiagnosis.

If early detection of cancer via discovery of thyroid nodules actually helped patients, mortality rates would have dropped with expansion of screening and the resulting diagnoses, said Davis, who is an associate program director at AnMed’s family medicine residency program and affiliate professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

In many cases, people learn they have thyroid lesions after being tested for other conditions such as ultrasound done on carotid arteries to check for stroke risk. The most common form of thyroid cancer is the papillary form. Papillary thyroid cancer tends to be slow growing, carries a low risk for distant metastasis, and in many cases poses little risk. Some small (< 1 cm) papillary thyroid cancers can be monitored with active surveillance as opposed to thyroid lobectomy.

“So just finding more nodules incidentally or through screening ultrasound and even finding more papillary cancers via these methods does not make people healthier or decrease mortality,” Davis said.

“So just finding more things and even finding more papillary cancers does not increase our ability to treat people and keep them alive longer,” Davis said.

The 5-year survival rate for thyroid cancer overall is 98.1% and varies from 99.9% for localized disease to 55.3% for distant disease, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said in a 2017 publication in JAMA. The task force that year gave a “D” rating on screening of asymptomatic people for thyroid cancer. That means there’s moderate certainty that screening for thyroid cancer in asymptomatic persons results in harms that outweigh the benefits. The decision to give this “D” rating meant this screening is not recommended. That’s still the panel’s view.

“You can think of it as a “D” for ‘don’t screen for thyroid cancer,’ ” in people who present no symptoms of this illness, John Wong, MD, the vice chair of the USPSTF, said in an interview.

In primary care, the challenge is assessing thyroid nodules detected when people undergo testing for another reason, such as an ultrasound of the carotid artery to check for stroke risk.

Thyroid nodules can be detected by ultrasonography in up to 68% of the general population, reported a study in American Family Physician. Nodules with suspicious features or ≥ 1 cm require fine needle aspiration. The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology can be used to classify samples, with molecular testing applied to guide treatment when fine needle aspiration yields an indeterminate result.
 

New Thinking on Thyroid Cancer

There’s been a shift in recent years in the approach to how physicians should proceed if certain kinds of thyroid cancer are detected, Cari M. Kitahara, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute noted in a comment accompanying the Li paper.

“Clinicians need to be judicious in the use of thyroid ultrasonography, the diagnostic follow-up of incidentally detected thyroid nodules, and determining the optimal course of treatment,” Kitahara wrote. “For low-risk and incidentally detected tumors, strong consideration should be given to less intensive treatment options (eg, lobectomy, delayed treatment, and active surveillance).”

The American Thyroid Association guidelines encourage de-escalation of treatment for low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma up to 4 cm.

Physicians often need to make clear to patients how a diagnosis of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer differs from other oncology diagnoses, R. Michael Tuttle, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, said in an interview.

“I’ll frequently say that everything you’ve ever learned about cancer, you need to forget,” Tuttle said.

Some patients will mistakenly think any cancer diagnosis is a likely death sentence, meaning they should rush to get aggressive treatment. Tuttle has been a leader for many years in efforts in advancing active surveillance as an option for certain people with low-risk thyroid cancer.

“I often start my consultation by saying: ‘We’re going to choose between two right answers here. One right answer is watching right. One right answer is going to surgery,’ ” Tuttle said.

Patients with low-risk thyroid cancer tend to fall into two camps, with maximalists likely to seek quick treatment and minimalists more inclined for surveillance if that’s an option for them, Tuttle said. As opinions have shifted within the medical community about approaches to low-risk thyroid cancer, there’s also been some growing awareness among the public about thyroid overdiagnosis.

“Ten or 15 years ago, people thought we were crazy” to consider active surveillance as an option for low-risk thyroid cancers,” Tuttle said. “Now we have swung, at least in some of the public opinion, to this recognition that every little speck of cancer doesn’t need to be immediately taken out of your body.”

Some patients express regret about having learned that they have low-risk thyroid cancer, Tuttle said.

“Over the last 5 years, it’s not uncommon for patients to ask me, ‘Is this one of those that needs to be treated now, or is this one of those that we wish we would have never found?’ Or people will say, ‘My doctor talked me into an ultrasound, I didn’t want it’ or ‘I had a car wreck, and I found this nodule and I wished I had never found it.’ ”

This study from Li and coauthors was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, the Young Talents Program of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, the Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian Ministry of Health. Davis and Tuttle had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Recent reports suggest diabetic retinopathy is more common in younger people than previously thought, leading to a call for more frequent screening for this condition and more attention to follow-up after diagnosis.

The increased incidence of diabetic retinopathy is “a potentially unappreciated public health catastrophe,” Julie Rosenthal, MD, MS, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and her coauthors wrote in a recent viewpoint in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Rosenthal, an ophthalmologist, said she has been treating each year several young people with diabetes with symptoms of retinopathy that might have been prevented through earlier detection and treatment.

Some patients with retinopathy seek out eye specialists for issues such as seeing floaters, vision loss, or feeling of having cobwebs in their vision, which can be symptoms of bleeding. Other patients may have no symptoms with their retinopathy discovered only in screening.

“It would be wonderful to never need to treat any 20-year-olds with proliferative diabetic retinopathy who are losing vision,” Rosenthal said.

Diabetic retinopathy once was considered rare in young people, with earlier research suggesting an age-adjusted prevalence of 4%-13% in youths with type 2 diabetes, roughly in line with that for type 1 diabetes.

But an analysis of more recent data drawn from two major federally funded studies of diabetes in young people shows what Rosenthal and her colleagues called “alarming rates” of retinopathy. Data from these studies suggest more than half (52%) of youths with type 1 diabetes may have some retinopathy, and as many as 55% of those with youth-onset type 2 diabetes.

Other research suggests young people with type 2 diabetes may have almost twice the risk of developing retinopathy, develop it sooner after diabetes diagnosis, and are more likely to have vision-threatening retinopathy, Rosenthal and coauthors wrote.

Elizabeth Jensen, PhD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, the lead author of a 2023 study cited by Rosenthal and coauthors in their JAMA Ophthalmology viewpoint, told Medscape Medical News she also supports a call for more screening of young people.

“What many people don’t realize is that there is evidence of retinal changes consistent with development of diabetic retinopathy early in disease,” Jensen said.

The proportion of people with diabetic retinopathy varied according to a range of modifiable factors, including A1c levels and blood pressure, she added.

This fact underscores the need to not only screen for diabetic retinopathy early but also consider addressing those modifiable factors that may mitigate risk for the development and progression of diabetic retinopathy, Jensen said.

Rosenthal said some patients have the false impression of sight loss being inevitable with diabetes. Their primary care physicians can help make them aware that there are treatments for retinopathy in cases where it can’t be avoided.

These interventions include laser treatments and injecting medicines into the eye. “It sounds a lot scarier than it is,” Rosenthal said.

“We do know that keeping good control over not only glucose but also blood pressure, cholesterol, and lipids is all important for decreasing the risk. But even if those are under control, sometimes people can still get diabetes in their eyes,” Rosenthal said. “The longer you have diabetes, the higher your risk of having problems in your eye.”
 

‘Stagnant Guidelines’

Guidelines from major medical groups have “remained largely stagnant in the face of new evidence of increasing diabetes prevalence,” making it difficult to know when to screen younger people, according to Rosenthal and her colleagues.

Medical associations, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the American Academy of Ophthalmology, now recommend ocular screening for youths with type 1 diabetes 3-5 years after diagnosis in those who are at least 11 years old or are experiencing puberty, and for youths with type 2 diabetes from the time of diagnosis.

Follow-up diabetic eye examinations can be performed every 2 years, with some groups advocating for even more infrequent follow-up examinations.

“These guidelines are rooted in evidence from prior studies showing that it is rare to have advanced retinopathy prior to this age,” Rosenthal and coauthors wrote. “However, these guidelines have remained largely stagnant in the face of new evidence of increasing diabetes prevalence.”

The American Academy of Ophthalmology told Medscape Medical News it has no immediate plans to update its recommendations. These include directing people with type 1 diabetes without known diabetic retinopathy to have annual dilated eye examinations beginning 5 years after the onset of diabetes. Individuals with type 2 diabetes without diabetic retinopathy should have annual dilated eye examinations to detect the onset of diabetic retinopathy.

The group also said clinicians should make sure patients understand that even if they may have good vision and no ocular symptoms, they may still have significant disease that needs treatment.
 

More Opportunities for Screening Tools

The current standards of care for retinopathy from the ADA note new products on the market are increasing the options for screening.

“Retinal photography with remote reading by experts has great potential to provide screening services in areas where qualified eye care professionals are not readily available,” according to standards.

“However, the benefits and optimal utilization of this type of screening have yet to be fully determined,” the group stated. “Results of all screening eye examinations should be documented and transmitted to the referring healthcare professionals.”

The approach has promise, despite some significant challenges, according to Rithwick Rajagopal, MD, PhD, an associate professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.

Rajagopal and colleagues in 2022 published results of a test of retinopathy screening during appointments at the primary care medicine clinic of Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri. They found the system used worked well in ruling out retinopathy and appeared to help more patients receive care for the condition. Among patients referred for follow-up eye exams, the adherence rate was 55.4% at 1-year compared with the historical adherence rate of 18.7%, Rajagopal and his colleagues reported.

In an email exchange with Medscape Medical News, Rajagopal highlighted several barriers to wider adoption of retinopathy screenings in primary care.

“First is unfamiliarity with eye anatomy and physiology, which is associated with low level of comfort in capturing the photographs and interpreting the results (even though the cameras are increasingly easy to use and that the AI software generates the diagnosis),” Rajagopal said.

In addition, questions about reimbursement and liability remain unresolved.

But Rajagopal said he still expects more use of products such as the EyeArt 2.0 automated DR screening software (Eyenuk, Inc.).

“Despite the above concerns, point-of-care screening offers a powerful solution to a long-standing problem: People with diabetes in this country are generally not adherent to recommended retinal screening guidelines,” Rajagopal told Medscape Medical News. “There are multiple causes of such poor adherence, but point-of-care screening solves several of them: No need to take time off for an additional medical visit, no additional co-pay for eye doctor visits, and no need for dilation in many cases.”

Aiding in the adoption of this service is likely the special Current Procedural Terminology (billing) code — 92229 — the American Medical Association introduced in 2021 for diabetic eye exams when ordered by a physician who is not an ophthalmologist. Many commercial health plans and many state Medicaid programs now cover this service, which is still off-label, Michael Abramoff, MD, PhD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, and founder of Digital Diagnostics, maker of the AI-assisted LumineticsCore diagnostic system, told Medscape Medical News. A representative for Eyenuk also told Medscape Medical News many insurers now cover the screening service.

LumineticsCore has been used in a study done in conjunction with appointments for regular care at the Johns Hopkins Pediatric Diabetes Center in Baltimore.

Abramoff and coauthors, including Risa Wolf, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, reported this year in Nature Communications that 100% of patients in the group offered the autonomous AI screening completed their eye exam that day, while only 22% of a comparison group followed through within 6 months to complete an eye exam with an optometrist or ophthalmologist.

Wolf, who is also a coauthor with Rosenthal of the commentary in JAMA Ophthalmology, said she agrees these tools have the potential to expand the pool of clinicians who can screen patients for retinopathy.
 

Make Screening Easier

The critical issue is to make it easier for young adults with diabetes to get checked for retinopathy, Wolf said. People in their late teens and early 20s face many challenges in getting needed medical screenings. They often are shifting away from living with parents, who likely managed their care for them in their childhood.

These young adults tend to be busy with college and the demands of starting out in careers while living on their own. And they may not want to address the potential consequences of diabetes, which can seem remote to people not feeling effects of the illness.

“It’s just not always a priority, especially when you’re in this time of life where you’re generally feeling very healthy,” Wolf said. “But we want to make sure that they are getting screened.”

Rosenthal reported receiving research grant support from MediBeacon, outside the submitted work. Other coauthors reported receiving grants from Breakthrough T1D, Physical Sciences, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim, and receiving nonfinancial support from Optovue, Boston Micromachines, Novo Nordisk, Adaptive Sensory Technology, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, and Alcon outside the submitted work. Jensen reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Eyenuk Inc. provided the camera and automated screening software used in the study reported by Rajagopal and coauthors and was involved in the data collection and management, but otherwise had no role in the design or conduct of this research. Rajagopal had no personal financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reports suggest diabetic retinopathy is more common in younger people than previously thought, leading to a call for more frequent screening for this condition and more attention to follow-up after diagnosis.

The increased incidence of diabetic retinopathy is “a potentially unappreciated public health catastrophe,” Julie Rosenthal, MD, MS, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and her coauthors wrote in a recent viewpoint in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Rosenthal, an ophthalmologist, said she has been treating each year several young people with diabetes with symptoms of retinopathy that might have been prevented through earlier detection and treatment.

Some patients with retinopathy seek out eye specialists for issues such as seeing floaters, vision loss, or feeling of having cobwebs in their vision, which can be symptoms of bleeding. Other patients may have no symptoms with their retinopathy discovered only in screening.

“It would be wonderful to never need to treat any 20-year-olds with proliferative diabetic retinopathy who are losing vision,” Rosenthal said.

Diabetic retinopathy once was considered rare in young people, with earlier research suggesting an age-adjusted prevalence of 4%-13% in youths with type 2 diabetes, roughly in line with that for type 1 diabetes.

But an analysis of more recent data drawn from two major federally funded studies of diabetes in young people shows what Rosenthal and her colleagues called “alarming rates” of retinopathy. Data from these studies suggest more than half (52%) of youths with type 1 diabetes may have some retinopathy, and as many as 55% of those with youth-onset type 2 diabetes.

Other research suggests young people with type 2 diabetes may have almost twice the risk of developing retinopathy, develop it sooner after diabetes diagnosis, and are more likely to have vision-threatening retinopathy, Rosenthal and coauthors wrote.

Elizabeth Jensen, PhD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, the lead author of a 2023 study cited by Rosenthal and coauthors in their JAMA Ophthalmology viewpoint, told Medscape Medical News she also supports a call for more screening of young people.

“What many people don’t realize is that there is evidence of retinal changes consistent with development of diabetic retinopathy early in disease,” Jensen said.

The proportion of people with diabetic retinopathy varied according to a range of modifiable factors, including A1c levels and blood pressure, she added.

This fact underscores the need to not only screen for diabetic retinopathy early but also consider addressing those modifiable factors that may mitigate risk for the development and progression of diabetic retinopathy, Jensen said.

Rosenthal said some patients have the false impression of sight loss being inevitable with diabetes. Their primary care physicians can help make them aware that there are treatments for retinopathy in cases where it can’t be avoided.

These interventions include laser treatments and injecting medicines into the eye. “It sounds a lot scarier than it is,” Rosenthal said.

“We do know that keeping good control over not only glucose but also blood pressure, cholesterol, and lipids is all important for decreasing the risk. But even if those are under control, sometimes people can still get diabetes in their eyes,” Rosenthal said. “The longer you have diabetes, the higher your risk of having problems in your eye.”
 

‘Stagnant Guidelines’

Guidelines from major medical groups have “remained largely stagnant in the face of new evidence of increasing diabetes prevalence,” making it difficult to know when to screen younger people, according to Rosenthal and her colleagues.

Medical associations, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the American Academy of Ophthalmology, now recommend ocular screening for youths with type 1 diabetes 3-5 years after diagnosis in those who are at least 11 years old or are experiencing puberty, and for youths with type 2 diabetes from the time of diagnosis.

Follow-up diabetic eye examinations can be performed every 2 years, with some groups advocating for even more infrequent follow-up examinations.

“These guidelines are rooted in evidence from prior studies showing that it is rare to have advanced retinopathy prior to this age,” Rosenthal and coauthors wrote. “However, these guidelines have remained largely stagnant in the face of new evidence of increasing diabetes prevalence.”

The American Academy of Ophthalmology told Medscape Medical News it has no immediate plans to update its recommendations. These include directing people with type 1 diabetes without known diabetic retinopathy to have annual dilated eye examinations beginning 5 years after the onset of diabetes. Individuals with type 2 diabetes without diabetic retinopathy should have annual dilated eye examinations to detect the onset of diabetic retinopathy.

The group also said clinicians should make sure patients understand that even if they may have good vision and no ocular symptoms, they may still have significant disease that needs treatment.
 

More Opportunities for Screening Tools

The current standards of care for retinopathy from the ADA note new products on the market are increasing the options for screening.

“Retinal photography with remote reading by experts has great potential to provide screening services in areas where qualified eye care professionals are not readily available,” according to standards.

“However, the benefits and optimal utilization of this type of screening have yet to be fully determined,” the group stated. “Results of all screening eye examinations should be documented and transmitted to the referring healthcare professionals.”

The approach has promise, despite some significant challenges, according to Rithwick Rajagopal, MD, PhD, an associate professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.

Rajagopal and colleagues in 2022 published results of a test of retinopathy screening during appointments at the primary care medicine clinic of Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri. They found the system used worked well in ruling out retinopathy and appeared to help more patients receive care for the condition. Among patients referred for follow-up eye exams, the adherence rate was 55.4% at 1-year compared with the historical adherence rate of 18.7%, Rajagopal and his colleagues reported.

In an email exchange with Medscape Medical News, Rajagopal highlighted several barriers to wider adoption of retinopathy screenings in primary care.

“First is unfamiliarity with eye anatomy and physiology, which is associated with low level of comfort in capturing the photographs and interpreting the results (even though the cameras are increasingly easy to use and that the AI software generates the diagnosis),” Rajagopal said.

In addition, questions about reimbursement and liability remain unresolved.

But Rajagopal said he still expects more use of products such as the EyeArt 2.0 automated DR screening software (Eyenuk, Inc.).

“Despite the above concerns, point-of-care screening offers a powerful solution to a long-standing problem: People with diabetes in this country are generally not adherent to recommended retinal screening guidelines,” Rajagopal told Medscape Medical News. “There are multiple causes of such poor adherence, but point-of-care screening solves several of them: No need to take time off for an additional medical visit, no additional co-pay for eye doctor visits, and no need for dilation in many cases.”

Aiding in the adoption of this service is likely the special Current Procedural Terminology (billing) code — 92229 — the American Medical Association introduced in 2021 for diabetic eye exams when ordered by a physician who is not an ophthalmologist. Many commercial health plans and many state Medicaid programs now cover this service, which is still off-label, Michael Abramoff, MD, PhD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, and founder of Digital Diagnostics, maker of the AI-assisted LumineticsCore diagnostic system, told Medscape Medical News. A representative for Eyenuk also told Medscape Medical News many insurers now cover the screening service.

LumineticsCore has been used in a study done in conjunction with appointments for regular care at the Johns Hopkins Pediatric Diabetes Center in Baltimore.

Abramoff and coauthors, including Risa Wolf, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, reported this year in Nature Communications that 100% of patients in the group offered the autonomous AI screening completed their eye exam that day, while only 22% of a comparison group followed through within 6 months to complete an eye exam with an optometrist or ophthalmologist.

Wolf, who is also a coauthor with Rosenthal of the commentary in JAMA Ophthalmology, said she agrees these tools have the potential to expand the pool of clinicians who can screen patients for retinopathy.
 

Make Screening Easier

The critical issue is to make it easier for young adults with diabetes to get checked for retinopathy, Wolf said. People in their late teens and early 20s face many challenges in getting needed medical screenings. They often are shifting away from living with parents, who likely managed their care for them in their childhood.

These young adults tend to be busy with college and the demands of starting out in careers while living on their own. And they may not want to address the potential consequences of diabetes, which can seem remote to people not feeling effects of the illness.

“It’s just not always a priority, especially when you’re in this time of life where you’re generally feeling very healthy,” Wolf said. “But we want to make sure that they are getting screened.”

Rosenthal reported receiving research grant support from MediBeacon, outside the submitted work. Other coauthors reported receiving grants from Breakthrough T1D, Physical Sciences, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim, and receiving nonfinancial support from Optovue, Boston Micromachines, Novo Nordisk, Adaptive Sensory Technology, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, and Alcon outside the submitted work. Jensen reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Eyenuk Inc. provided the camera and automated screening software used in the study reported by Rajagopal and coauthors and was involved in the data collection and management, but otherwise had no role in the design or conduct of this research. Rajagopal had no personal financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reports suggest diabetic retinopathy is more common in younger people than previously thought, leading to a call for more frequent screening for this condition and more attention to follow-up after diagnosis.

The increased incidence of diabetic retinopathy is “a potentially unappreciated public health catastrophe,” Julie Rosenthal, MD, MS, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and her coauthors wrote in a recent viewpoint in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Rosenthal, an ophthalmologist, said she has been treating each year several young people with diabetes with symptoms of retinopathy that might have been prevented through earlier detection and treatment.

Some patients with retinopathy seek out eye specialists for issues such as seeing floaters, vision loss, or feeling of having cobwebs in their vision, which can be symptoms of bleeding. Other patients may have no symptoms with their retinopathy discovered only in screening.

“It would be wonderful to never need to treat any 20-year-olds with proliferative diabetic retinopathy who are losing vision,” Rosenthal said.

Diabetic retinopathy once was considered rare in young people, with earlier research suggesting an age-adjusted prevalence of 4%-13% in youths with type 2 diabetes, roughly in line with that for type 1 diabetes.

But an analysis of more recent data drawn from two major federally funded studies of diabetes in young people shows what Rosenthal and her colleagues called “alarming rates” of retinopathy. Data from these studies suggest more than half (52%) of youths with type 1 diabetes may have some retinopathy, and as many as 55% of those with youth-onset type 2 diabetes.

Other research suggests young people with type 2 diabetes may have almost twice the risk of developing retinopathy, develop it sooner after diabetes diagnosis, and are more likely to have vision-threatening retinopathy, Rosenthal and coauthors wrote.

Elizabeth Jensen, PhD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, the lead author of a 2023 study cited by Rosenthal and coauthors in their JAMA Ophthalmology viewpoint, told Medscape Medical News she also supports a call for more screening of young people.

“What many people don’t realize is that there is evidence of retinal changes consistent with development of diabetic retinopathy early in disease,” Jensen said.

The proportion of people with diabetic retinopathy varied according to a range of modifiable factors, including A1c levels and blood pressure, she added.

This fact underscores the need to not only screen for diabetic retinopathy early but also consider addressing those modifiable factors that may mitigate risk for the development and progression of diabetic retinopathy, Jensen said.

Rosenthal said some patients have the false impression of sight loss being inevitable with diabetes. Their primary care physicians can help make them aware that there are treatments for retinopathy in cases where it can’t be avoided.

These interventions include laser treatments and injecting medicines into the eye. “It sounds a lot scarier than it is,” Rosenthal said.

“We do know that keeping good control over not only glucose but also blood pressure, cholesterol, and lipids is all important for decreasing the risk. But even if those are under control, sometimes people can still get diabetes in their eyes,” Rosenthal said. “The longer you have diabetes, the higher your risk of having problems in your eye.”
 

‘Stagnant Guidelines’

Guidelines from major medical groups have “remained largely stagnant in the face of new evidence of increasing diabetes prevalence,” making it difficult to know when to screen younger people, according to Rosenthal and her colleagues.

Medical associations, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the American Academy of Ophthalmology, now recommend ocular screening for youths with type 1 diabetes 3-5 years after diagnosis in those who are at least 11 years old or are experiencing puberty, and for youths with type 2 diabetes from the time of diagnosis.

Follow-up diabetic eye examinations can be performed every 2 years, with some groups advocating for even more infrequent follow-up examinations.

“These guidelines are rooted in evidence from prior studies showing that it is rare to have advanced retinopathy prior to this age,” Rosenthal and coauthors wrote. “However, these guidelines have remained largely stagnant in the face of new evidence of increasing diabetes prevalence.”

The American Academy of Ophthalmology told Medscape Medical News it has no immediate plans to update its recommendations. These include directing people with type 1 diabetes without known diabetic retinopathy to have annual dilated eye examinations beginning 5 years after the onset of diabetes. Individuals with type 2 diabetes without diabetic retinopathy should have annual dilated eye examinations to detect the onset of diabetic retinopathy.

The group also said clinicians should make sure patients understand that even if they may have good vision and no ocular symptoms, they may still have significant disease that needs treatment.
 

More Opportunities for Screening Tools

The current standards of care for retinopathy from the ADA note new products on the market are increasing the options for screening.

“Retinal photography with remote reading by experts has great potential to provide screening services in areas where qualified eye care professionals are not readily available,” according to standards.

“However, the benefits and optimal utilization of this type of screening have yet to be fully determined,” the group stated. “Results of all screening eye examinations should be documented and transmitted to the referring healthcare professionals.”

The approach has promise, despite some significant challenges, according to Rithwick Rajagopal, MD, PhD, an associate professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.

Rajagopal and colleagues in 2022 published results of a test of retinopathy screening during appointments at the primary care medicine clinic of Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri. They found the system used worked well in ruling out retinopathy and appeared to help more patients receive care for the condition. Among patients referred for follow-up eye exams, the adherence rate was 55.4% at 1-year compared with the historical adherence rate of 18.7%, Rajagopal and his colleagues reported.

In an email exchange with Medscape Medical News, Rajagopal highlighted several barriers to wider adoption of retinopathy screenings in primary care.

“First is unfamiliarity with eye anatomy and physiology, which is associated with low level of comfort in capturing the photographs and interpreting the results (even though the cameras are increasingly easy to use and that the AI software generates the diagnosis),” Rajagopal said.

In addition, questions about reimbursement and liability remain unresolved.

But Rajagopal said he still expects more use of products such as the EyeArt 2.0 automated DR screening software (Eyenuk, Inc.).

“Despite the above concerns, point-of-care screening offers a powerful solution to a long-standing problem: People with diabetes in this country are generally not adherent to recommended retinal screening guidelines,” Rajagopal told Medscape Medical News. “There are multiple causes of such poor adherence, but point-of-care screening solves several of them: No need to take time off for an additional medical visit, no additional co-pay for eye doctor visits, and no need for dilation in many cases.”

Aiding in the adoption of this service is likely the special Current Procedural Terminology (billing) code — 92229 — the American Medical Association introduced in 2021 for diabetic eye exams when ordered by a physician who is not an ophthalmologist. Many commercial health plans and many state Medicaid programs now cover this service, which is still off-label, Michael Abramoff, MD, PhD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, and founder of Digital Diagnostics, maker of the AI-assisted LumineticsCore diagnostic system, told Medscape Medical News. A representative for Eyenuk also told Medscape Medical News many insurers now cover the screening service.

LumineticsCore has been used in a study done in conjunction with appointments for regular care at the Johns Hopkins Pediatric Diabetes Center in Baltimore.

Abramoff and coauthors, including Risa Wolf, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, reported this year in Nature Communications that 100% of patients in the group offered the autonomous AI screening completed their eye exam that day, while only 22% of a comparison group followed through within 6 months to complete an eye exam with an optometrist or ophthalmologist.

Wolf, who is also a coauthor with Rosenthal of the commentary in JAMA Ophthalmology, said she agrees these tools have the potential to expand the pool of clinicians who can screen patients for retinopathy.
 

Make Screening Easier

The critical issue is to make it easier for young adults with diabetes to get checked for retinopathy, Wolf said. People in their late teens and early 20s face many challenges in getting needed medical screenings. They often are shifting away from living with parents, who likely managed their care for them in their childhood.

These young adults tend to be busy with college and the demands of starting out in careers while living on their own. And they may not want to address the potential consequences of diabetes, which can seem remote to people not feeling effects of the illness.

“It’s just not always a priority, especially when you’re in this time of life where you’re generally feeling very healthy,” Wolf said. “But we want to make sure that they are getting screened.”

Rosenthal reported receiving research grant support from MediBeacon, outside the submitted work. Other coauthors reported receiving grants from Breakthrough T1D, Physical Sciences, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim, and receiving nonfinancial support from Optovue, Boston Micromachines, Novo Nordisk, Adaptive Sensory Technology, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, and Alcon outside the submitted work. Jensen reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Eyenuk Inc. provided the camera and automated screening software used in the study reported by Rajagopal and coauthors and was involved in the data collection and management, but otherwise had no role in the design or conduct of this research. Rajagopal had no personal financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Katie Sullivan, DNP, FNP-C, is publicizing her own challenge with updating an insulin pump as part of an effort to bring an end to the biannual seasonal clock changes in the United States.

On March 10, 2024, Sullivan, who works in the Endocrinology Clinic, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, mistakenly reversed the AM and PM settings while adjusting her own insulin pump. Sullivan, who has type 1 diabetes, noticed several hours later that her blood glucose levels had become higher than usual and was surprised to see her pump showed sleep mode during the day.

She was able to address this glitch before going to sleep and thus “escaped a potential occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycemia,” Sullivan and her colleague, Saleh Aldasouqi, MD, wrote in a September commentary in the journal Clinical Diabetes.

The risk of daylight saving time (DST) changes for people with insulin pumps is well known. Aldasouqi himself raised it in a 2014 article in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.

Medtronic Inc., the leading maker of insulin pumps, told this news organization in an email that it intends for future devices to automate DST changes. The company did not provide any further details on when such changes would happen.

For now, Medtronic and other makers of insulin pumps join in twice-a-year efforts to remind people they need to update their devices to adjust for DST changes. They will need to gear up these outreach campaigns, which include social media posts, again ahead of the end of DST on November 3, when clocks shift back an hour. Diabetes clinics and hospitals also send notes to patients.

Even so, people will fail to make this change or to do it correctly.

“Despite our efforts to educate our patients about DST glitches, we have detected incorrect time settings in some of our patients’ insulin pumps after the DST changes in the fall and spring and occasional cases of incorrect insulin dosing, resulting in hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia,” Sullivan and Aldasouqi wrote in their article.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database of injuries and mishaps with devices contains many reports about patients not adjusting their insulin pumps for DST.

Known as Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE), this database does not provide identifying details about the patients. Instead, the reports contain only a few lines describing what happened. In many cases, people were able to easily resolve their temporary glycemic issues and then set their devices to the correct time.

But some of the MAUDE reports tell of more severe consequences, with people ending up in emergency rooms because they did not adjust their insulin pumps for DST.

Among these is a report about a November 2022 incident, where a patient suffered due to what appeared to be inaccurate continuous glucose monitor readings, combined with the effects of an insulin pump that had not been updated for a DST change.

Although that patient’s mother was available to assist and the patient consumed three dextrose candies, the patient still reportedly lost consciousness and experienced tremors. That led to hospitalization, where the patient was treated with intravenous saline, intravenous insulin, saline fluids, and insulin fluids. The patient left the hospital with “the issue resolved and no permanent damage” but then switched to another method of insulin therapy, the MAUDE report said.

It’s unclear how often DST changes lead to problems with insulin pumps, reflecting difficulties in tracking flaws and glitches in medical devices, Madris Kinard, the chief executive officer and founder of Device Events, told this news organization.

The FDA relies heavily on passive surveillance, gathering MAUDE reports submitted by companies, clinicians, and patients. That means many cases likely are missed, said Kinard who earlier worked as an analyst at the FDA, updating processes and systems to help identify risky devices.

For example, Sullivan told this news organization she had not filed a report for her incident with the insulin pump.
 

Permanent Standard Time?

Many clinicians, including Aldasouqi and Sullivan, argue a better solution to these challenges would be to end DST.

In their Clinical Diabetes article, they also cited other health risks associated with clock changes such as fatigue, headache, and loss of attention and alertness that can result in injuries.

But a permanent time change is a “politically charged issue, and it continues to be debated nationally and at the state level,” they wrote.

At least 30 states also considered measures this year related to DST, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A pending Senate bill intended to make DST permanent has the support of 8 Democrats and 11 Republicans, including Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala).

“It’s amazing how many phone calls we get over this one topic. People across America agree that changing our clocks back and forth twice a year really makes no sense,” Tuberville said last year on the Senate floor. “People call and say they’re just sick of it.”

These federal and state efforts have stalled to date on the key question of whether to make either standard time or DST permanent, the National Conference of State Legislatures noted. A shift to permanent DST might have benefits for some agricultural and recreational industries, but many physicians say it would be bad for people’s health.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) argues strongly for moving to permanent standard time. In a position statement published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, the group said the acute transitions from standard time to DST pose harms, citing research indicating increased risks for adverse cardiovascular events, mood disorders, and motor vehicle crashes.

The solution is to end shifts in time and opt for standard time, which best aligns with the human biological clock, AASM said.

AASM noted that there already was a failed experiment in the United States with a shift to permanent DST. Congress established this in response to the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, expecting that allowing more evening hours with light would lead to energy savings. That didn’t pay off in the expected reduction in energy and the policy was highly unpopular, especially in rural areas, AASM said.

“After a single winter, the policy was reversed by an overwhelming congressional majority,” wrote Muhammad Adeel Rishi, MD, and other authors of the statement. “The unpopularity of the act was likely because despite greater evening light, the policy resulted in a greater proportion of days that required waking up on dark mornings, particularly in the winter.”

Karin G. Johnson, MD, professor of neurology at the UMass Chan School of Medicine, Worcester, Massachusetts, told this news organization that a shift to permanent DST would rob many people of the signals their bodies need for sleep.

“Sunrises and sunsets are later and that creates a desire for our body to stay up later and have more trouble getting up in the morning,” Johnson said. “You’re all but making it impossible for certain segments of the population to get enough sleep” with permanent DST.

Johnson, Sullivan, and Aldasouqi had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Katie Sullivan, DNP, FNP-C, is publicizing her own challenge with updating an insulin pump as part of an effort to bring an end to the biannual seasonal clock changes in the United States.

On March 10, 2024, Sullivan, who works in the Endocrinology Clinic, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, mistakenly reversed the AM and PM settings while adjusting her own insulin pump. Sullivan, who has type 1 diabetes, noticed several hours later that her blood glucose levels had become higher than usual and was surprised to see her pump showed sleep mode during the day.

She was able to address this glitch before going to sleep and thus “escaped a potential occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycemia,” Sullivan and her colleague, Saleh Aldasouqi, MD, wrote in a September commentary in the journal Clinical Diabetes.

The risk of daylight saving time (DST) changes for people with insulin pumps is well known. Aldasouqi himself raised it in a 2014 article in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.

Medtronic Inc., the leading maker of insulin pumps, told this news organization in an email that it intends for future devices to automate DST changes. The company did not provide any further details on when such changes would happen.

For now, Medtronic and other makers of insulin pumps join in twice-a-year efforts to remind people they need to update their devices to adjust for DST changes. They will need to gear up these outreach campaigns, which include social media posts, again ahead of the end of DST on November 3, when clocks shift back an hour. Diabetes clinics and hospitals also send notes to patients.

Even so, people will fail to make this change or to do it correctly.

“Despite our efforts to educate our patients about DST glitches, we have detected incorrect time settings in some of our patients’ insulin pumps after the DST changes in the fall and spring and occasional cases of incorrect insulin dosing, resulting in hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia,” Sullivan and Aldasouqi wrote in their article.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database of injuries and mishaps with devices contains many reports about patients not adjusting their insulin pumps for DST.

Known as Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE), this database does not provide identifying details about the patients. Instead, the reports contain only a few lines describing what happened. In many cases, people were able to easily resolve their temporary glycemic issues and then set their devices to the correct time.

But some of the MAUDE reports tell of more severe consequences, with people ending up in emergency rooms because they did not adjust their insulin pumps for DST.

Among these is a report about a November 2022 incident, where a patient suffered due to what appeared to be inaccurate continuous glucose monitor readings, combined with the effects of an insulin pump that had not been updated for a DST change.

Although that patient’s mother was available to assist and the patient consumed three dextrose candies, the patient still reportedly lost consciousness and experienced tremors. That led to hospitalization, where the patient was treated with intravenous saline, intravenous insulin, saline fluids, and insulin fluids. The patient left the hospital with “the issue resolved and no permanent damage” but then switched to another method of insulin therapy, the MAUDE report said.

It’s unclear how often DST changes lead to problems with insulin pumps, reflecting difficulties in tracking flaws and glitches in medical devices, Madris Kinard, the chief executive officer and founder of Device Events, told this news organization.

The FDA relies heavily on passive surveillance, gathering MAUDE reports submitted by companies, clinicians, and patients. That means many cases likely are missed, said Kinard who earlier worked as an analyst at the FDA, updating processes and systems to help identify risky devices.

For example, Sullivan told this news organization she had not filed a report for her incident with the insulin pump.
 

Permanent Standard Time?

Many clinicians, including Aldasouqi and Sullivan, argue a better solution to these challenges would be to end DST.

In their Clinical Diabetes article, they also cited other health risks associated with clock changes such as fatigue, headache, and loss of attention and alertness that can result in injuries.

But a permanent time change is a “politically charged issue, and it continues to be debated nationally and at the state level,” they wrote.

At least 30 states also considered measures this year related to DST, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A pending Senate bill intended to make DST permanent has the support of 8 Democrats and 11 Republicans, including Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala).

“It’s amazing how many phone calls we get over this one topic. People across America agree that changing our clocks back and forth twice a year really makes no sense,” Tuberville said last year on the Senate floor. “People call and say they’re just sick of it.”

These federal and state efforts have stalled to date on the key question of whether to make either standard time or DST permanent, the National Conference of State Legislatures noted. A shift to permanent DST might have benefits for some agricultural and recreational industries, but many physicians say it would be bad for people’s health.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) argues strongly for moving to permanent standard time. In a position statement published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, the group said the acute transitions from standard time to DST pose harms, citing research indicating increased risks for adverse cardiovascular events, mood disorders, and motor vehicle crashes.

The solution is to end shifts in time and opt for standard time, which best aligns with the human biological clock, AASM said.

AASM noted that there already was a failed experiment in the United States with a shift to permanent DST. Congress established this in response to the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, expecting that allowing more evening hours with light would lead to energy savings. That didn’t pay off in the expected reduction in energy and the policy was highly unpopular, especially in rural areas, AASM said.

“After a single winter, the policy was reversed by an overwhelming congressional majority,” wrote Muhammad Adeel Rishi, MD, and other authors of the statement. “The unpopularity of the act was likely because despite greater evening light, the policy resulted in a greater proportion of days that required waking up on dark mornings, particularly in the winter.”

Karin G. Johnson, MD, professor of neurology at the UMass Chan School of Medicine, Worcester, Massachusetts, told this news organization that a shift to permanent DST would rob many people of the signals their bodies need for sleep.

“Sunrises and sunsets are later and that creates a desire for our body to stay up later and have more trouble getting up in the morning,” Johnson said. “You’re all but making it impossible for certain segments of the population to get enough sleep” with permanent DST.

Johnson, Sullivan, and Aldasouqi had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Katie Sullivan, DNP, FNP-C, is publicizing her own challenge with updating an insulin pump as part of an effort to bring an end to the biannual seasonal clock changes in the United States.

On March 10, 2024, Sullivan, who works in the Endocrinology Clinic, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, mistakenly reversed the AM and PM settings while adjusting her own insulin pump. Sullivan, who has type 1 diabetes, noticed several hours later that her blood glucose levels had become higher than usual and was surprised to see her pump showed sleep mode during the day.

She was able to address this glitch before going to sleep and thus “escaped a potential occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycemia,” Sullivan and her colleague, Saleh Aldasouqi, MD, wrote in a September commentary in the journal Clinical Diabetes.

The risk of daylight saving time (DST) changes for people with insulin pumps is well known. Aldasouqi himself raised it in a 2014 article in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.

Medtronic Inc., the leading maker of insulin pumps, told this news organization in an email that it intends for future devices to automate DST changes. The company did not provide any further details on when such changes would happen.

For now, Medtronic and other makers of insulin pumps join in twice-a-year efforts to remind people they need to update their devices to adjust for DST changes. They will need to gear up these outreach campaigns, which include social media posts, again ahead of the end of DST on November 3, when clocks shift back an hour. Diabetes clinics and hospitals also send notes to patients.

Even so, people will fail to make this change or to do it correctly.

“Despite our efforts to educate our patients about DST glitches, we have detected incorrect time settings in some of our patients’ insulin pumps after the DST changes in the fall and spring and occasional cases of incorrect insulin dosing, resulting in hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia,” Sullivan and Aldasouqi wrote in their article.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database of injuries and mishaps with devices contains many reports about patients not adjusting their insulin pumps for DST.

Known as Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE), this database does not provide identifying details about the patients. Instead, the reports contain only a few lines describing what happened. In many cases, people were able to easily resolve their temporary glycemic issues and then set their devices to the correct time.

But some of the MAUDE reports tell of more severe consequences, with people ending up in emergency rooms because they did not adjust their insulin pumps for DST.

Among these is a report about a November 2022 incident, where a patient suffered due to what appeared to be inaccurate continuous glucose monitor readings, combined with the effects of an insulin pump that had not been updated for a DST change.

Although that patient’s mother was available to assist and the patient consumed three dextrose candies, the patient still reportedly lost consciousness and experienced tremors. That led to hospitalization, where the patient was treated with intravenous saline, intravenous insulin, saline fluids, and insulin fluids. The patient left the hospital with “the issue resolved and no permanent damage” but then switched to another method of insulin therapy, the MAUDE report said.

It’s unclear how often DST changes lead to problems with insulin pumps, reflecting difficulties in tracking flaws and glitches in medical devices, Madris Kinard, the chief executive officer and founder of Device Events, told this news organization.

The FDA relies heavily on passive surveillance, gathering MAUDE reports submitted by companies, clinicians, and patients. That means many cases likely are missed, said Kinard who earlier worked as an analyst at the FDA, updating processes and systems to help identify risky devices.

For example, Sullivan told this news organization she had not filed a report for her incident with the insulin pump.
 

Permanent Standard Time?

Many clinicians, including Aldasouqi and Sullivan, argue a better solution to these challenges would be to end DST.

In their Clinical Diabetes article, they also cited other health risks associated with clock changes such as fatigue, headache, and loss of attention and alertness that can result in injuries.

But a permanent time change is a “politically charged issue, and it continues to be debated nationally and at the state level,” they wrote.

At least 30 states also considered measures this year related to DST, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A pending Senate bill intended to make DST permanent has the support of 8 Democrats and 11 Republicans, including Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala).

“It’s amazing how many phone calls we get over this one topic. People across America agree that changing our clocks back and forth twice a year really makes no sense,” Tuberville said last year on the Senate floor. “People call and say they’re just sick of it.”

These federal and state efforts have stalled to date on the key question of whether to make either standard time or DST permanent, the National Conference of State Legislatures noted. A shift to permanent DST might have benefits for some agricultural and recreational industries, but many physicians say it would be bad for people’s health.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) argues strongly for moving to permanent standard time. In a position statement published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, the group said the acute transitions from standard time to DST pose harms, citing research indicating increased risks for adverse cardiovascular events, mood disorders, and motor vehicle crashes.

The solution is to end shifts in time and opt for standard time, which best aligns with the human biological clock, AASM said.

AASM noted that there already was a failed experiment in the United States with a shift to permanent DST. Congress established this in response to the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, expecting that allowing more evening hours with light would lead to energy savings. That didn’t pay off in the expected reduction in energy and the policy was highly unpopular, especially in rural areas, AASM said.

“After a single winter, the policy was reversed by an overwhelming congressional majority,” wrote Muhammad Adeel Rishi, MD, and other authors of the statement. “The unpopularity of the act was likely because despite greater evening light, the policy resulted in a greater proportion of days that required waking up on dark mornings, particularly in the winter.”

Karin G. Johnson, MD, professor of neurology at the UMass Chan School of Medicine, Worcester, Massachusetts, told this news organization that a shift to permanent DST would rob many people of the signals their bodies need for sleep.

“Sunrises and sunsets are later and that creates a desire for our body to stay up later and have more trouble getting up in the morning,” Johnson said. “You’re all but making it impossible for certain segments of the population to get enough sleep” with permanent DST.

Johnson, Sullivan, and Aldasouqi had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Medicare will speed nationwide payment decisions for as many as five promising new medical devices a year, a move that could get some products to patients earlier and spare companies from a bureaucratic slog to secure regional clearances.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in August finalized a long-awaited plan to accelerate coverage decisions on medical devices that have impressed regulators.

The intent is to create a smoother pathway for some devices that earned a “breakthrough” designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a label intended for innovative products that significantly advance treatment for serious illness.

“We’ll see how many they actually take on, but it could make a really big difference on how quickly devices make it through the Medicare coverage gauntlet and get to patients,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire, told this news organization.

Companies selling “breakthrough” devices face tougher challenges in securing Medicare payment than device makers whose products fit into already established niches. Previous Medicare decisions can serve as a path to coverage for those products.

The new CMS Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies (TCET) pathway addresses two causes of delay in securing Medicare coverage for newcomer devices:

• CMS delegates many decisions on new device coverage to Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs). MACs are businesses owned by, or affiliated with, insurers such as Blue Cross plans. Companies sometimes need to work their way through several regional MACs to gain nationwide coverage of their devices.
• Congress sets different mandates for the FDA and CMS regarding medical products. The FDA needs to know a product is safe and effective enough for US sales. Companies sometimes produce enough evidence to show products can meet the FDA’s standard without generating sufficient data to compel Medicare coverage. Medicare covers about 66.7 million people: 59.1 million aged 65 years or older and 7.6 million with disabilities.

“Medicare beneficiaries are often older, have multiple comorbidities, and are often underrepresented or not represented in many clinical studies,” CMS said in its August notice on the TCET pathway.

“Consequently, a device’s potential benefits and harms for older patients with more comorbidities may not be well understood at the time of FDA market authorization,” the agency added.
 

Coverage With Evidence Development (CED) Experience

TCET is meant to help CMS officials clear coverage of breakthrough devices sooner, and on a nationwide basis, while sometimes continuing to study how well these products work for people enrolled in Medicare.

The TCET pathway builds on Medicare’s experience over two decades with its “CED” program. That program allows coverage of well-regarded new devices or treatments whose effects on older patients were not yet well understood.

In the TCET notice, CMS provided details of its plans for using contractors for evidence reviews and evidence development plans as part of its new coverage pathway.

Securing help from these experts outside of CMS, along with perhaps some new arrangements for in-house staff, would help the agency reach its goals for TCET, Dr. Zeitler said. She has published research on the CED process and has participated in cardiac registries associated with CED as both a researcher and a physician who implants devices.

The poster child for the benefits of the CED approach is the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices, said Ralph Brindis, MD, MPH, a past president of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the senior medical officer for external affairs of the ACC’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR).

Through the NCDR, ACC members worked with CMS for years in trying to find ways to gather evidence about the best uses of medical devices.

Brindis said this approach to evidence generation involved more tracking of off-label use and analysis of how TAVR devices performed in routine use through the data obtained through a registry, rather than relying solely on clinical trials requiring a much longer time frame for completion and at an increased cost.

This approach allowed cardiovascular surgeons and cardiologists to steer the course of real-world evidence gathering, he said.

“We were able to expand indications for TAVR without relying on industry to fund randomized clinical trials that they may not have had interest or bandwidth or finances” to do, Dr. Brindis said. “And we already had the data in hand.”

The TCET policy is welcomed, although there remain questions about how well CMS will be able to carry out this program due to funding limitations, Dr. Brindis said. Groups such as the ACC may be able to help CMS by encouraging Congress to provide the agency with more money to carry out the TCET plans, Dr. Brindis said.

“The professional societies will work hand in hand with CMS in trying to achieve these goals” with TCET, he said.

AdvaMed, the trade group for makers of medical devices, also called for beefing up the administrative budget for CMS to speed reviews of innovative devices.

“The limited number of devices CMS can handle demonstrates clearly to Congress the need for greater resources,” AdvaMed CEO Scott Whitaker said in a statement.

Mr. Whitaker also described CMS’ decision to exclude medical tests from the TCET pathway as a disappointment.

The agency said the majority of coverage decisions on diagnostic tests should stay with MACs. In some cases, there may be a need for CMS to use its long-standing processes for considering a national coverage decision for certain tests, the agency said.

“The final TCET notice is a step toward a stronger, more robust policy, but doesn’t go far enough to help the Medicare seniors depending on breakthrough diagnostics and treatments to alleviate their suffering,” AdvaMed’s Mr. Whitaker said.

Dr. Brindis said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zeitler reported having received consulting and speaking fees, travel payments, and research support from Medtronic, Abbott, Biosense Webster, Sanofi, NIH/NIGMS, Element Science, Edwards, Boston Scientific, Philips, and V-Wave.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will speed nationwide payment decisions for as many as five promising new medical devices a year, a move that could get some products to patients earlier and spare companies from a bureaucratic slog to secure regional clearances.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in August finalized a long-awaited plan to accelerate coverage decisions on medical devices that have impressed regulators.

The intent is to create a smoother pathway for some devices that earned a “breakthrough” designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a label intended for innovative products that significantly advance treatment for serious illness.

“We’ll see how many they actually take on, but it could make a really big difference on how quickly devices make it through the Medicare coverage gauntlet and get to patients,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire, told this news organization.

Companies selling “breakthrough” devices face tougher challenges in securing Medicare payment than device makers whose products fit into already established niches. Previous Medicare decisions can serve as a path to coverage for those products.

The new CMS Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies (TCET) pathway addresses two causes of delay in securing Medicare coverage for newcomer devices:

• CMS delegates many decisions on new device coverage to Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs). MACs are businesses owned by, or affiliated with, insurers such as Blue Cross plans. Companies sometimes need to work their way through several regional MACs to gain nationwide coverage of their devices.
• Congress sets different mandates for the FDA and CMS regarding medical products. The FDA needs to know a product is safe and effective enough for US sales. Companies sometimes produce enough evidence to show products can meet the FDA’s standard without generating sufficient data to compel Medicare coverage. Medicare covers about 66.7 million people: 59.1 million aged 65 years or older and 7.6 million with disabilities.

“Medicare beneficiaries are often older, have multiple comorbidities, and are often underrepresented or not represented in many clinical studies,” CMS said in its August notice on the TCET pathway.

“Consequently, a device’s potential benefits and harms for older patients with more comorbidities may not be well understood at the time of FDA market authorization,” the agency added.
 

Coverage With Evidence Development (CED) Experience

TCET is meant to help CMS officials clear coverage of breakthrough devices sooner, and on a nationwide basis, while sometimes continuing to study how well these products work for people enrolled in Medicare.

The TCET pathway builds on Medicare’s experience over two decades with its “CED” program. That program allows coverage of well-regarded new devices or treatments whose effects on older patients were not yet well understood.

In the TCET notice, CMS provided details of its plans for using contractors for evidence reviews and evidence development plans as part of its new coverage pathway.

Securing help from these experts outside of CMS, along with perhaps some new arrangements for in-house staff, would help the agency reach its goals for TCET, Dr. Zeitler said. She has published research on the CED process and has participated in cardiac registries associated with CED as both a researcher and a physician who implants devices.

The poster child for the benefits of the CED approach is the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices, said Ralph Brindis, MD, MPH, a past president of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the senior medical officer for external affairs of the ACC’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR).

Through the NCDR, ACC members worked with CMS for years in trying to find ways to gather evidence about the best uses of medical devices.

Brindis said this approach to evidence generation involved more tracking of off-label use and analysis of how TAVR devices performed in routine use through the data obtained through a registry, rather than relying solely on clinical trials requiring a much longer time frame for completion and at an increased cost.

This approach allowed cardiovascular surgeons and cardiologists to steer the course of real-world evidence gathering, he said.

“We were able to expand indications for TAVR without relying on industry to fund randomized clinical trials that they may not have had interest or bandwidth or finances” to do, Dr. Brindis said. “And we already had the data in hand.”

The TCET policy is welcomed, although there remain questions about how well CMS will be able to carry out this program due to funding limitations, Dr. Brindis said. Groups such as the ACC may be able to help CMS by encouraging Congress to provide the agency with more money to carry out the TCET plans, Dr. Brindis said.

“The professional societies will work hand in hand with CMS in trying to achieve these goals” with TCET, he said.

AdvaMed, the trade group for makers of medical devices, also called for beefing up the administrative budget for CMS to speed reviews of innovative devices.

“The limited number of devices CMS can handle demonstrates clearly to Congress the need for greater resources,” AdvaMed CEO Scott Whitaker said in a statement.

Mr. Whitaker also described CMS’ decision to exclude medical tests from the TCET pathway as a disappointment.

The agency said the majority of coverage decisions on diagnostic tests should stay with MACs. In some cases, there may be a need for CMS to use its long-standing processes for considering a national coverage decision for certain tests, the agency said.

“The final TCET notice is a step toward a stronger, more robust policy, but doesn’t go far enough to help the Medicare seniors depending on breakthrough diagnostics and treatments to alleviate their suffering,” AdvaMed’s Mr. Whitaker said.

Dr. Brindis said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zeitler reported having received consulting and speaking fees, travel payments, and research support from Medtronic, Abbott, Biosense Webster, Sanofi, NIH/NIGMS, Element Science, Edwards, Boston Scientific, Philips, and V-Wave.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will speed nationwide payment decisions for as many as five promising new medical devices a year, a move that could get some products to patients earlier and spare companies from a bureaucratic slog to secure regional clearances.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in August finalized a long-awaited plan to accelerate coverage decisions on medical devices that have impressed regulators.

The intent is to create a smoother pathway for some devices that earned a “breakthrough” designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a label intended for innovative products that significantly advance treatment for serious illness.

“We’ll see how many they actually take on, but it could make a really big difference on how quickly devices make it through the Medicare coverage gauntlet and get to patients,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire, told this news organization.

Companies selling “breakthrough” devices face tougher challenges in securing Medicare payment than device makers whose products fit into already established niches. Previous Medicare decisions can serve as a path to coverage for those products.

The new CMS Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies (TCET) pathway addresses two causes of delay in securing Medicare coverage for newcomer devices:

• CMS delegates many decisions on new device coverage to Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs). MACs are businesses owned by, or affiliated with, insurers such as Blue Cross plans. Companies sometimes need to work their way through several regional MACs to gain nationwide coverage of their devices.
• Congress sets different mandates for the FDA and CMS regarding medical products. The FDA needs to know a product is safe and effective enough for US sales. Companies sometimes produce enough evidence to show products can meet the FDA’s standard without generating sufficient data to compel Medicare coverage. Medicare covers about 66.7 million people: 59.1 million aged 65 years or older and 7.6 million with disabilities.

“Medicare beneficiaries are often older, have multiple comorbidities, and are often underrepresented or not represented in many clinical studies,” CMS said in its August notice on the TCET pathway.

“Consequently, a device’s potential benefits and harms for older patients with more comorbidities may not be well understood at the time of FDA market authorization,” the agency added.
 

Coverage With Evidence Development (CED) Experience

TCET is meant to help CMS officials clear coverage of breakthrough devices sooner, and on a nationwide basis, while sometimes continuing to study how well these products work for people enrolled in Medicare.

The TCET pathway builds on Medicare’s experience over two decades with its “CED” program. That program allows coverage of well-regarded new devices or treatments whose effects on older patients were not yet well understood.

In the TCET notice, CMS provided details of its plans for using contractors for evidence reviews and evidence development plans as part of its new coverage pathway.

Securing help from these experts outside of CMS, along with perhaps some new arrangements for in-house staff, would help the agency reach its goals for TCET, Dr. Zeitler said. She has published research on the CED process and has participated in cardiac registries associated with CED as both a researcher and a physician who implants devices.

The poster child for the benefits of the CED approach is the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices, said Ralph Brindis, MD, MPH, a past president of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the senior medical officer for external affairs of the ACC’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR).

Through the NCDR, ACC members worked with CMS for years in trying to find ways to gather evidence about the best uses of medical devices.

Brindis said this approach to evidence generation involved more tracking of off-label use and analysis of how TAVR devices performed in routine use through the data obtained through a registry, rather than relying solely on clinical trials requiring a much longer time frame for completion and at an increased cost.

This approach allowed cardiovascular surgeons and cardiologists to steer the course of real-world evidence gathering, he said.

“We were able to expand indications for TAVR without relying on industry to fund randomized clinical trials that they may not have had interest or bandwidth or finances” to do, Dr. Brindis said. “And we already had the data in hand.”

The TCET policy is welcomed, although there remain questions about how well CMS will be able to carry out this program due to funding limitations, Dr. Brindis said. Groups such as the ACC may be able to help CMS by encouraging Congress to provide the agency with more money to carry out the TCET plans, Dr. Brindis said.

“The professional societies will work hand in hand with CMS in trying to achieve these goals” with TCET, he said.

AdvaMed, the trade group for makers of medical devices, also called for beefing up the administrative budget for CMS to speed reviews of innovative devices.

“The limited number of devices CMS can handle demonstrates clearly to Congress the need for greater resources,” AdvaMed CEO Scott Whitaker said in a statement.

Mr. Whitaker also described CMS’ decision to exclude medical tests from the TCET pathway as a disappointment.

The agency said the majority of coverage decisions on diagnostic tests should stay with MACs. In some cases, there may be a need for CMS to use its long-standing processes for considering a national coverage decision for certain tests, the agency said.

“The final TCET notice is a step toward a stronger, more robust policy, but doesn’t go far enough to help the Medicare seniors depending on breakthrough diagnostics and treatments to alleviate their suffering,” AdvaMed’s Mr. Whitaker said.

Dr. Brindis said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zeitler reported having received consulting and speaking fees, travel payments, and research support from Medtronic, Abbott, Biosense Webster, Sanofi, NIH/NIGMS, Element Science, Edwards, Boston Scientific, Philips, and V-Wave.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Common complaints of abdominal pain, fever, shortness of breath, or rash can signal more serious disease that should be referred to specialty care or might be related to benign conditions.

Combine the vague nature of many patients’ descriptions and the pressure of short visits, and clinicians have a recipe for all manner of diagnostic error.

An estimated 5% of US adults who seek outpatient care each year experience a diagnostic error. Most Americans will eventually have this experience, according to a 2015 report from the National Academy of Medicine.

The most frequently missed diagnoses in primary care involve conditions such as pneumonia, decompensated heart failure, acute renal failure, cancer, urinary tract infection, and pyelonephritis.

“It’s not one or two or three types of diagnosis that are missed: We miss a lot of things, especially in primary care,” said Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, a patient safety researcher at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

One of the most serious errors is to miss cancer, with failing to follow‐up on abnormal tests ranking consistently as one of the leading causes of malpractice claims. But most diagnostic errors do not lead to lawsuits, although they often result in missed and delayed opportunities for patients to get needed care.

In interviews with this news organization, experts who have studied the root causes of diagnostic error suggested primary care clinicians focus on several practices to avoid mistakes: Ask questions with humility and curiosity, use checklists, and brainstorm with patients the potential root cause of symptoms.
 

Humility and Curiosity 

Clinicians should remain aware of the potential for errors and reach out for assistance when needed, keeping an open mind that common symptoms may, in rare cases, signal serious illness, Dr. Singh said.

Dr. Singh recommends continual review with what he calls “byte-sized” learning through digital tools such as the Human Diagnosis app and podcasts and webinars offered by Clinical Problem Solvers.

Continuing education activities such as classes for Maintenance of Certification (MOC) can help keep physicians up to date and alert for cases where seemingly common symptoms may turn out to be something serious, said Richard M. Wardrop, III, MD, PhD, an internal medicine physician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and chair of the internal medicine board at the American Board of Internal Medicine.

“I’ve been in practice for 20 years. I’m double board certified in peds and medicine, and I regularly teach students and residents and mentor other physicians, but the further I go in my career and in practice, the more humble I become,” Dr. Wardrop told this news organization.

He said he recently spent a few hours on MOC for pediatrics and found the review was helpful in his practice in medicine.

“If I find myself taking care of a patient in a newborn nursery anytime soon, I’m going to understand the new hyperbilirubinemia guidelines,” Dr. Wardrop said. “That takes time and energy, but when I was done with the questions for this quarter, I felt good about myself.”
 

Checking It Twice

Clinicians should incorporate checklists into daily practice. Reviewing these with patients can not only help rule out an illness but also serve as a nonconfrontational method to inquire about issues patients may find uncomfortable, said John Ely, MD, MSPH, professor emeritus of family medicine at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine in Iowa City.

Clinicians could benefit from the approach used in aviation, where checklists are a required and routine part of a pilot’s job, Dr. Ely said.

Although clinicians may assume patients expect them to work from memory and knowledge without this aide, many will see using a checklist as a sign of providing thorough care, he said.

Checklists can also open a pathway for discussions about potentially difficult or touchy issues in short visits. For example, a patient might feel defensive if a clinician asks about depression during a visit for abdominal pain. But incorporating a question in a checklist allows for a different framing of the question.

“A clinician could say ‘I didn’t say you were depressed because of your abdominal pain, I brought it up because it’s on the list,’” Dr. Ely said. The checklist is “a very easy way to bring up those things.”

Dr. Ely said he has cared for a few patients who sought help for abdominal pain that turned out to be linked to sexual abuse in their past. Dr. Ely used a checklist with these patients to review possible causes for their illness. He recalled one of these patients who had suffered sexual abuse and had depression, neither of which was readily apparent.

“There was nothing about her affect that appeared to be depressed, and she had seen multiple physicians unable to make a diagnosis,” Dr. Ely said. “She had worked up for multiple other diseases and this had never come up before.”
 

Cooperation 

“Coproduction” is how Kathryn McDonald, PhD, describes an ideal path to getting an accurate diagnosis. The intent is for clinicians to enlist patients in helping them in finding the root cause of symptoms.

“It’s bringing the patient into knowing that they are in a partnership to coproduce, knowing that there is a process going on,” said Dr. McDonald, who is codirector of the Armstrong Institute Center for Diagnostic Excellence at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.

In many cases, patients seek reassurance for ruling out a suspected condition, which the physician can sometimes provide. In others, clinicians may not be able to offer a concrete diagnosis.

“There are times when uncertainty is more pervasive and I will ask patients, ‘Let’s brainstorm this together,’” Dr. Wardrop said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Common complaints of abdominal pain, fever, shortness of breath, or rash can signal more serious disease that should be referred to specialty care or might be related to benign conditions.

Combine the vague nature of many patients’ descriptions and the pressure of short visits, and clinicians have a recipe for all manner of diagnostic error.

An estimated 5% of US adults who seek outpatient care each year experience a diagnostic error. Most Americans will eventually have this experience, according to a 2015 report from the National Academy of Medicine.

The most frequently missed diagnoses in primary care involve conditions such as pneumonia, decompensated heart failure, acute renal failure, cancer, urinary tract infection, and pyelonephritis.

“It’s not one or two or three types of diagnosis that are missed: We miss a lot of things, especially in primary care,” said Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, a patient safety researcher at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

One of the most serious errors is to miss cancer, with failing to follow‐up on abnormal tests ranking consistently as one of the leading causes of malpractice claims. But most diagnostic errors do not lead to lawsuits, although they often result in missed and delayed opportunities for patients to get needed care.

In interviews with this news organization, experts who have studied the root causes of diagnostic error suggested primary care clinicians focus on several practices to avoid mistakes: Ask questions with humility and curiosity, use checklists, and brainstorm with patients the potential root cause of symptoms.
 

Humility and Curiosity 

Clinicians should remain aware of the potential for errors and reach out for assistance when needed, keeping an open mind that common symptoms may, in rare cases, signal serious illness, Dr. Singh said.

Dr. Singh recommends continual review with what he calls “byte-sized” learning through digital tools such as the Human Diagnosis app and podcasts and webinars offered by Clinical Problem Solvers.

Continuing education activities such as classes for Maintenance of Certification (MOC) can help keep physicians up to date and alert for cases where seemingly common symptoms may turn out to be something serious, said Richard M. Wardrop, III, MD, PhD, an internal medicine physician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and chair of the internal medicine board at the American Board of Internal Medicine.

“I’ve been in practice for 20 years. I’m double board certified in peds and medicine, and I regularly teach students and residents and mentor other physicians, but the further I go in my career and in practice, the more humble I become,” Dr. Wardrop told this news organization.

He said he recently spent a few hours on MOC for pediatrics and found the review was helpful in his practice in medicine.

“If I find myself taking care of a patient in a newborn nursery anytime soon, I’m going to understand the new hyperbilirubinemia guidelines,” Dr. Wardrop said. “That takes time and energy, but when I was done with the questions for this quarter, I felt good about myself.”
 

Checking It Twice

Clinicians should incorporate checklists into daily practice. Reviewing these with patients can not only help rule out an illness but also serve as a nonconfrontational method to inquire about issues patients may find uncomfortable, said John Ely, MD, MSPH, professor emeritus of family medicine at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine in Iowa City.

Clinicians could benefit from the approach used in aviation, where checklists are a required and routine part of a pilot’s job, Dr. Ely said.

Although clinicians may assume patients expect them to work from memory and knowledge without this aide, many will see using a checklist as a sign of providing thorough care, he said.

Checklists can also open a pathway for discussions about potentially difficult or touchy issues in short visits. For example, a patient might feel defensive if a clinician asks about depression during a visit for abdominal pain. But incorporating a question in a checklist allows for a different framing of the question.

“A clinician could say ‘I didn’t say you were depressed because of your abdominal pain, I brought it up because it’s on the list,’” Dr. Ely said. The checklist is “a very easy way to bring up those things.”

Dr. Ely said he has cared for a few patients who sought help for abdominal pain that turned out to be linked to sexual abuse in their past. Dr. Ely used a checklist with these patients to review possible causes for their illness. He recalled one of these patients who had suffered sexual abuse and had depression, neither of which was readily apparent.

“There was nothing about her affect that appeared to be depressed, and she had seen multiple physicians unable to make a diagnosis,” Dr. Ely said. “She had worked up for multiple other diseases and this had never come up before.”
 

Cooperation 

“Coproduction” is how Kathryn McDonald, PhD, describes an ideal path to getting an accurate diagnosis. The intent is for clinicians to enlist patients in helping them in finding the root cause of symptoms.

“It’s bringing the patient into knowing that they are in a partnership to coproduce, knowing that there is a process going on,” said Dr. McDonald, who is codirector of the Armstrong Institute Center for Diagnostic Excellence at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.

In many cases, patients seek reassurance for ruling out a suspected condition, which the physician can sometimes provide. In others, clinicians may not be able to offer a concrete diagnosis.

“There are times when uncertainty is more pervasive and I will ask patients, ‘Let’s brainstorm this together,’” Dr. Wardrop said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Common complaints of abdominal pain, fever, shortness of breath, or rash can signal more serious disease that should be referred to specialty care or might be related to benign conditions.

Combine the vague nature of many patients’ descriptions and the pressure of short visits, and clinicians have a recipe for all manner of diagnostic error.

An estimated 5% of US adults who seek outpatient care each year experience a diagnostic error. Most Americans will eventually have this experience, according to a 2015 report from the National Academy of Medicine.

The most frequently missed diagnoses in primary care involve conditions such as pneumonia, decompensated heart failure, acute renal failure, cancer, urinary tract infection, and pyelonephritis.

“It’s not one or two or three types of diagnosis that are missed: We miss a lot of things, especially in primary care,” said Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, a patient safety researcher at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

One of the most serious errors is to miss cancer, with failing to follow‐up on abnormal tests ranking consistently as one of the leading causes of malpractice claims. But most diagnostic errors do not lead to lawsuits, although they often result in missed and delayed opportunities for patients to get needed care.

In interviews with this news organization, experts who have studied the root causes of diagnostic error suggested primary care clinicians focus on several practices to avoid mistakes: Ask questions with humility and curiosity, use checklists, and brainstorm with patients the potential root cause of symptoms.
 

Humility and Curiosity 

Clinicians should remain aware of the potential for errors and reach out for assistance when needed, keeping an open mind that common symptoms may, in rare cases, signal serious illness, Dr. Singh said.

Dr. Singh recommends continual review with what he calls “byte-sized” learning through digital tools such as the Human Diagnosis app and podcasts and webinars offered by Clinical Problem Solvers.

Continuing education activities such as classes for Maintenance of Certification (MOC) can help keep physicians up to date and alert for cases where seemingly common symptoms may turn out to be something serious, said Richard M. Wardrop, III, MD, PhD, an internal medicine physician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and chair of the internal medicine board at the American Board of Internal Medicine.

“I’ve been in practice for 20 years. I’m double board certified in peds and medicine, and I regularly teach students and residents and mentor other physicians, but the further I go in my career and in practice, the more humble I become,” Dr. Wardrop told this news organization.

He said he recently spent a few hours on MOC for pediatrics and found the review was helpful in his practice in medicine.

“If I find myself taking care of a patient in a newborn nursery anytime soon, I’m going to understand the new hyperbilirubinemia guidelines,” Dr. Wardrop said. “That takes time and energy, but when I was done with the questions for this quarter, I felt good about myself.”
 

Checking It Twice

Clinicians should incorporate checklists into daily practice. Reviewing these with patients can not only help rule out an illness but also serve as a nonconfrontational method to inquire about issues patients may find uncomfortable, said John Ely, MD, MSPH, professor emeritus of family medicine at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine in Iowa City.

Clinicians could benefit from the approach used in aviation, where checklists are a required and routine part of a pilot’s job, Dr. Ely said.

Although clinicians may assume patients expect them to work from memory and knowledge without this aide, many will see using a checklist as a sign of providing thorough care, he said.

Checklists can also open a pathway for discussions about potentially difficult or touchy issues in short visits. For example, a patient might feel defensive if a clinician asks about depression during a visit for abdominal pain. But incorporating a question in a checklist allows for a different framing of the question.

“A clinician could say ‘I didn’t say you were depressed because of your abdominal pain, I brought it up because it’s on the list,’” Dr. Ely said. The checklist is “a very easy way to bring up those things.”

Dr. Ely said he has cared for a few patients who sought help for abdominal pain that turned out to be linked to sexual abuse in their past. Dr. Ely used a checklist with these patients to review possible causes for their illness. He recalled one of these patients who had suffered sexual abuse and had depression, neither of which was readily apparent.

“There was nothing about her affect that appeared to be depressed, and she had seen multiple physicians unable to make a diagnosis,” Dr. Ely said. “She had worked up for multiple other diseases and this had never come up before.”
 

Cooperation 

“Coproduction” is how Kathryn McDonald, PhD, describes an ideal path to getting an accurate diagnosis. The intent is for clinicians to enlist patients in helping them in finding the root cause of symptoms.

“It’s bringing the patient into knowing that they are in a partnership to coproduce, knowing that there is a process going on,” said Dr. McDonald, who is codirector of the Armstrong Institute Center for Diagnostic Excellence at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.

In many cases, patients seek reassurance for ruling out a suspected condition, which the physician can sometimes provide. In others, clinicians may not be able to offer a concrete diagnosis.

“There are times when uncertainty is more pervasive and I will ask patients, ‘Let’s brainstorm this together,’” Dr. Wardrop said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The global withdrawal of voxelotor (Oxbryta, Pfizer) has left clinicians who treat sickle cell disease (SCD) with the urgent task of reaching patients taking the medicine, while trying to understand why it was taken off the market.

The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.

“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.

On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”

Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.

The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.

On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.

The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.

“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
 

Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)

As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.

The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.

These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.

“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.

“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.

The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.

The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.

“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”

Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.

“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.

Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.

Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.

“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”

Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
 

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

The global withdrawal of voxelotor (Oxbryta, Pfizer) has left clinicians who treat sickle cell disease (SCD) with the urgent task of reaching patients taking the medicine, while trying to understand why it was taken off the market.

The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.

“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.

On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”

Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.

The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.

On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.

The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.

“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
 

Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)

As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.

The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.

These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.

“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.

“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.

The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.

The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.

“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”

Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.

“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.

Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.

Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.

“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”

Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
 

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

The global withdrawal of voxelotor (Oxbryta, Pfizer) has left clinicians who treat sickle cell disease (SCD) with the urgent task of reaching patients taking the medicine, while trying to understand why it was taken off the market.

The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.

“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.

On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”

Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.

The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.

On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.

The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.

“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
 

Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)

As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.

The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.

These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.

“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.

“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.

The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.

The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.

“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”

Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.

“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.

Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.

Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.

“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”

Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
 

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

People who received systemic glucocorticoids during short hospital stays were more than twice as likely to develop new onset diabetes than those who didn’t, reported the authors of a large study that analyzed more than a decade’s worth of patient records.

Rajna Golubic, MD, PhD, of the diabetes trials unit at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and colleagues did an observational cohort study, using data from electronic healthcare records of more than patients admitted between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2023.

They looked for patients who didn’t have a diabetes diagnosis at the time of admission and who were not taking a steroid. Their research was presented this month at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid, Spain.

About 1.8%, of 316, of the 17,258 patients who received systemic glucocorticoids (tablets, injections, or infusions) during their hospital stay developed new-onset diabetes, while this happened to only 0.8%, or 3450, of the 434,348 who did not get these drugs, according to an abstract of the EASD presentation.

The median length of stay was 3 days (2-8) for the group of patients who took steroids, compared with 1 day (1-3) in those who did not. Further analysis showed that, when age and sex were factored in, patients receiving systemic glucocorticoids were more than twice as likely (2.6 times) to develop diabetes as those not receiving the treatment, Dr. Golubic said.

This research builds on previous studies that looked at smaller groups of patients and the diabetes risk in patients with specific conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Golubic said. It may prove helpful for clinicians considering when to employ steroids, which are useful medications for managing inflammation associated with many conditions.

“This gives them a very good estimate of how much more likely people treated with systemic glucocorticoids are to develop new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Golubic said.

Glucocorticoids have for decades been used for managing acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. The link to diabetes has been previously reported in smaller studies and in ones linked to specific conditions such as respiratory disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

Carolyn Cummins, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not part of this study, told this news organization she was pleased to see a study of diabetes and steroids done with the scope that Dr. Golubic and colleagues undertook. Dr. Cummins in 2022 published an article titled “Fresh insights into glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus and new therapeutic directions” in Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 

“We know that this is an issue, but we didn’t necessarily know numerically how significant it was,” Dr. Cummins said. “I would say it wasn’t a surprising finding, but it’s nice to actually have the numbers from a large study.”

Dr. Golubic and Dr. Cummins reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

People who received systemic glucocorticoids during short hospital stays were more than twice as likely to develop new onset diabetes than those who didn’t, reported the authors of a large study that analyzed more than a decade’s worth of patient records.

Rajna Golubic, MD, PhD, of the diabetes trials unit at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and colleagues did an observational cohort study, using data from electronic healthcare records of more than patients admitted between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2023.

They looked for patients who didn’t have a diabetes diagnosis at the time of admission and who were not taking a steroid. Their research was presented this month at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid, Spain.

About 1.8%, of 316, of the 17,258 patients who received systemic glucocorticoids (tablets, injections, or infusions) during their hospital stay developed new-onset diabetes, while this happened to only 0.8%, or 3450, of the 434,348 who did not get these drugs, according to an abstract of the EASD presentation.

The median length of stay was 3 days (2-8) for the group of patients who took steroids, compared with 1 day (1-3) in those who did not. Further analysis showed that, when age and sex were factored in, patients receiving systemic glucocorticoids were more than twice as likely (2.6 times) to develop diabetes as those not receiving the treatment, Dr. Golubic said.

This research builds on previous studies that looked at smaller groups of patients and the diabetes risk in patients with specific conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Golubic said. It may prove helpful for clinicians considering when to employ steroids, which are useful medications for managing inflammation associated with many conditions.

“This gives them a very good estimate of how much more likely people treated with systemic glucocorticoids are to develop new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Golubic said.

Glucocorticoids have for decades been used for managing acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. The link to diabetes has been previously reported in smaller studies and in ones linked to specific conditions such as respiratory disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

Carolyn Cummins, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not part of this study, told this news organization she was pleased to see a study of diabetes and steroids done with the scope that Dr. Golubic and colleagues undertook. Dr. Cummins in 2022 published an article titled “Fresh insights into glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus and new therapeutic directions” in Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 

“We know that this is an issue, but we didn’t necessarily know numerically how significant it was,” Dr. Cummins said. “I would say it wasn’t a surprising finding, but it’s nice to actually have the numbers from a large study.”

Dr. Golubic and Dr. Cummins reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

People who received systemic glucocorticoids during short hospital stays were more than twice as likely to develop new onset diabetes than those who didn’t, reported the authors of a large study that analyzed more than a decade’s worth of patient records.

Rajna Golubic, MD, PhD, of the diabetes trials unit at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and colleagues did an observational cohort study, using data from electronic healthcare records of more than patients admitted between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2023.

They looked for patients who didn’t have a diabetes diagnosis at the time of admission and who were not taking a steroid. Their research was presented this month at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid, Spain.

About 1.8%, of 316, of the 17,258 patients who received systemic glucocorticoids (tablets, injections, or infusions) during their hospital stay developed new-onset diabetes, while this happened to only 0.8%, or 3450, of the 434,348 who did not get these drugs, according to an abstract of the EASD presentation.

The median length of stay was 3 days (2-8) for the group of patients who took steroids, compared with 1 day (1-3) in those who did not. Further analysis showed that, when age and sex were factored in, patients receiving systemic glucocorticoids were more than twice as likely (2.6 times) to develop diabetes as those not receiving the treatment, Dr. Golubic said.

This research builds on previous studies that looked at smaller groups of patients and the diabetes risk in patients with specific conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Golubic said. It may prove helpful for clinicians considering when to employ steroids, which are useful medications for managing inflammation associated with many conditions.

“This gives them a very good estimate of how much more likely people treated with systemic glucocorticoids are to develop new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Golubic said.

Glucocorticoids have for decades been used for managing acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. The link to diabetes has been previously reported in smaller studies and in ones linked to specific conditions such as respiratory disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

Carolyn Cummins, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not part of this study, told this news organization she was pleased to see a study of diabetes and steroids done with the scope that Dr. Golubic and colleagues undertook. Dr. Cummins in 2022 published an article titled “Fresh insights into glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus and new therapeutic directions” in Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 

“We know that this is an issue, but we didn’t necessarily know numerically how significant it was,” Dr. Cummins said. “I would say it wasn’t a surprising finding, but it’s nice to actually have the numbers from a large study.”

Dr. Golubic and Dr. Cummins reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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