Clinician Reviews

A multi-institutional partnership has funded six new research projects aimed at developing novel insulin analogs that more closely mimic the action of a healthy pancreas. 

The Type 1 Diabetes Grand Challenge comprises Diabetes UK, JDRF (now called “Breakthrough T1D” in the United States), and the Steve Morgan Foundation. It will provide a total of £50 million (about $64 million in US dollars) for type 1 diabetes research, including £15 million (~$19 million) for six separate projects on novel insulins to be conducted at universities in the United States, Australia, and China. Four will aim to develop glucose-responsive “smart” insulins, another one ultrafast-acting insulin, and the sixth a product combining insulin and glucagon. 

“Even with the currently available modern insulins, people living with type 1 diabetes put lots of effort into managing their diabetes every day to find a good balance between acceptable glycemic control on the one hand and avoiding hypoglycemia on the other. The funded six new research projects address major shortcomings in insulin therapy,” Tim Heise, MD, vice-chair of the project’s Novel Insulins Scientific Advisory Panel, said in a statement from the Steve Morgan Foundation. 

All six projects are currently in the preclinical stage, Dr. Heise said, noting that “the idea behind the funding program is to help the most promising research initiatives to reach the clinical stage.”

Glucose-responsive, or so-called “smart,” insulins are considered the holy grail because they would become active only to prevent hyperglycemia and remain dormant otherwise, thereby not causing hypoglycemia as current insulin analogs can. The idea isn’t new. In 2010, there was excitement in the type 1 diabetes community when the pharmaceutical company Merck acquired a smaller company called SmartCells that had been working on a “smart insulin” for several years. But nothing came of that. 

“The challenges then and today are pretty similar. In particular, it is quite difficult to find a glucose-sensing moiety that is safe, reacts sufficiently to relatively small changes in the human body in both falling and increasing glucose, and can be produced in large quantities,” Dr. Heise, lead scientist and co-founder of the diabetes contract research organization Profil, based in Neuss, Germany, told this news organization.

Several papers since have reported proof-of-concept in rodents, but there are no published data thus far in humans. However, in recent years the major insulin manufacturers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have acquired smaller companies with the aim of smart insulin development. 

It will still take some time, Dr. Heise said. “The challenges are well understood, although difficult to overcome. There has been quite some progress in the development of glucose-sensing moieties including, but not limited to, nanotechnological approaches.”

Applications for the newly funded projects “were thoroughly reviewed by a large panel of scientists with different areas of expertise. At the end, there was agreement in the review panel that these projects deserved further investigation, although considering their early stage, there still is a substantial risk of failure for all these projects,” he said. 

The development path might be a bit more straightforward for the other two projects. Ultra–fast-acting insulin is needed because the action of the current ones, Novo Nordisk’s Fiasp and Eli Lilly and Company’s Lyumjev, is still delayed, potentially leading to postmeal hyperglycemia if administered after or immediately prior to eating. “A truly rapid short-acting insulin might make it finally possible to progress from hybrid to fully closed loop systems, allowing a technological ‘cure’ for people with diabetes,” Dr. Heise said in the statement. 

And a protein combining insulin with glucagon could help minimize the risk for hypoglycemia, which still exists for current insulin analogs and remains “one of the major concerns associated with insulin therapy today,” he noted. 

Dr. Heise told this news organization that compared with “smart” insulin, development of the other two products “might be a bit faster if they succeed. But none of these approaches will make it to market in the next 5 years, and if one entered clinic within the next 2 years, that would be a huge success.” Nonetheless, “these research projects, if successful, might do no less than heralding a new era in insulin therapy.”

Dr. Heise is an employee of Profil, which has worked with a large number of the major diabetes industry manufacturers.

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

A multi-institutional partnership has funded six new research projects aimed at developing novel insulin analogs that more closely mimic the action of a healthy pancreas. 

The Type 1 Diabetes Grand Challenge comprises Diabetes UK, JDRF (now called “Breakthrough T1D” in the United States), and the Steve Morgan Foundation. It will provide a total of £50 million (about $64 million in US dollars) for type 1 diabetes research, including £15 million (~$19 million) for six separate projects on novel insulins to be conducted at universities in the United States, Australia, and China. Four will aim to develop glucose-responsive “smart” insulins, another one ultrafast-acting insulin, and the sixth a product combining insulin and glucagon. 

“Even with the currently available modern insulins, people living with type 1 diabetes put lots of effort into managing their diabetes every day to find a good balance between acceptable glycemic control on the one hand and avoiding hypoglycemia on the other. The funded six new research projects address major shortcomings in insulin therapy,” Tim Heise, MD, vice-chair of the project’s Novel Insulins Scientific Advisory Panel, said in a statement from the Steve Morgan Foundation. 

All six projects are currently in the preclinical stage, Dr. Heise said, noting that “the idea behind the funding program is to help the most promising research initiatives to reach the clinical stage.”

Glucose-responsive, or so-called “smart,” insulins are considered the holy grail because they would become active only to prevent hyperglycemia and remain dormant otherwise, thereby not causing hypoglycemia as current insulin analogs can. The idea isn’t new. In 2010, there was excitement in the type 1 diabetes community when the pharmaceutical company Merck acquired a smaller company called SmartCells that had been working on a “smart insulin” for several years. But nothing came of that. 

“The challenges then and today are pretty similar. In particular, it is quite difficult to find a glucose-sensing moiety that is safe, reacts sufficiently to relatively small changes in the human body in both falling and increasing glucose, and can be produced in large quantities,” Dr. Heise, lead scientist and co-founder of the diabetes contract research organization Profil, based in Neuss, Germany, told this news organization.

Several papers since have reported proof-of-concept in rodents, but there are no published data thus far in humans. However, in recent years the major insulin manufacturers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have acquired smaller companies with the aim of smart insulin development. 

It will still take some time, Dr. Heise said. “The challenges are well understood, although difficult to overcome. There has been quite some progress in the development of glucose-sensing moieties including, but not limited to, nanotechnological approaches.”

Applications for the newly funded projects “were thoroughly reviewed by a large panel of scientists with different areas of expertise. At the end, there was agreement in the review panel that these projects deserved further investigation, although considering their early stage, there still is a substantial risk of failure for all these projects,” he said. 

The development path might be a bit more straightforward for the other two projects. Ultra–fast-acting insulin is needed because the action of the current ones, Novo Nordisk’s Fiasp and Eli Lilly and Company’s Lyumjev, is still delayed, potentially leading to postmeal hyperglycemia if administered after or immediately prior to eating. “A truly rapid short-acting insulin might make it finally possible to progress from hybrid to fully closed loop systems, allowing a technological ‘cure’ for people with diabetes,” Dr. Heise said in the statement. 

And a protein combining insulin with glucagon could help minimize the risk for hypoglycemia, which still exists for current insulin analogs and remains “one of the major concerns associated with insulin therapy today,” he noted. 

Dr. Heise told this news organization that compared with “smart” insulin, development of the other two products “might be a bit faster if they succeed. But none of these approaches will make it to market in the next 5 years, and if one entered clinic within the next 2 years, that would be a huge success.” Nonetheless, “these research projects, if successful, might do no less than heralding a new era in insulin therapy.”

Dr. Heise is an employee of Profil, which has worked with a large number of the major diabetes industry manufacturers.

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

A multi-institutional partnership has funded six new research projects aimed at developing novel insulin analogs that more closely mimic the action of a healthy pancreas. 

The Type 1 Diabetes Grand Challenge comprises Diabetes UK, JDRF (now called “Breakthrough T1D” in the United States), and the Steve Morgan Foundation. It will provide a total of £50 million (about $64 million in US dollars) for type 1 diabetes research, including £15 million (~$19 million) for six separate projects on novel insulins to be conducted at universities in the United States, Australia, and China. Four will aim to develop glucose-responsive “smart” insulins, another one ultrafast-acting insulin, and the sixth a product combining insulin and glucagon. 

“Even with the currently available modern insulins, people living with type 1 diabetes put lots of effort into managing their diabetes every day to find a good balance between acceptable glycemic control on the one hand and avoiding hypoglycemia on the other. The funded six new research projects address major shortcomings in insulin therapy,” Tim Heise, MD, vice-chair of the project’s Novel Insulins Scientific Advisory Panel, said in a statement from the Steve Morgan Foundation. 

All six projects are currently in the preclinical stage, Dr. Heise said, noting that “the idea behind the funding program is to help the most promising research initiatives to reach the clinical stage.”

Glucose-responsive, or so-called “smart,” insulins are considered the holy grail because they would become active only to prevent hyperglycemia and remain dormant otherwise, thereby not causing hypoglycemia as current insulin analogs can. The idea isn’t new. In 2010, there was excitement in the type 1 diabetes community when the pharmaceutical company Merck acquired a smaller company called SmartCells that had been working on a “smart insulin” for several years. But nothing came of that. 

“The challenges then and today are pretty similar. In particular, it is quite difficult to find a glucose-sensing moiety that is safe, reacts sufficiently to relatively small changes in the human body in both falling and increasing glucose, and can be produced in large quantities,” Dr. Heise, lead scientist and co-founder of the diabetes contract research organization Profil, based in Neuss, Germany, told this news organization.

Several papers since have reported proof-of-concept in rodents, but there are no published data thus far in humans. However, in recent years the major insulin manufacturers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have acquired smaller companies with the aim of smart insulin development. 

It will still take some time, Dr. Heise said. “The challenges are well understood, although difficult to overcome. There has been quite some progress in the development of glucose-sensing moieties including, but not limited to, nanotechnological approaches.”

Applications for the newly funded projects “were thoroughly reviewed by a large panel of scientists with different areas of expertise. At the end, there was agreement in the review panel that these projects deserved further investigation, although considering their early stage, there still is a substantial risk of failure for all these projects,” he said. 

The development path might be a bit more straightforward for the other two projects. Ultra–fast-acting insulin is needed because the action of the current ones, Novo Nordisk’s Fiasp and Eli Lilly and Company’s Lyumjev, is still delayed, potentially leading to postmeal hyperglycemia if administered after or immediately prior to eating. “A truly rapid short-acting insulin might make it finally possible to progress from hybrid to fully closed loop systems, allowing a technological ‘cure’ for people with diabetes,” Dr. Heise said in the statement. 

And a protein combining insulin with glucagon could help minimize the risk for hypoglycemia, which still exists for current insulin analogs and remains “one of the major concerns associated with insulin therapy today,” he noted. 

Dr. Heise told this news organization that compared with “smart” insulin, development of the other two products “might be a bit faster if they succeed. But none of these approaches will make it to market in the next 5 years, and if one entered clinic within the next 2 years, that would be a huge success.” Nonetheless, “these research projects, if successful, might do no less than heralding a new era in insulin therapy.”

Dr. Heise is an employee of Profil, which has worked with a large number of the major diabetes industry manufacturers.

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

People over age 60 who drink alcohol regularly are at an increased risk of early death, particularly from cancer or issues related to the heart and blood vessels.

That’s according to the findings of a new, large study that was published in JAMA Network Openand build upon numerous other recent studies concluding that any amount of alcohol consumption is linked to significant health risks. That’s a change from decades of public health messaging suggesting that moderate alcohol intake (one or two drinks per day) wasn’t dangerous. Recently, experts have uncovered flaws in how researchers came to those earlier conclusions.

In this latest study, researchers in Spain analyzed health data for more than 135,000 people, all of whom were at least 60 years old, lived in the United Kingdom, and provided their health information to the UK Biobank database. The average age of people at the start of the analysis period was 64.

The researchers compared 12 years of health outcomes for occasional drinkers with those who averaged drinking at least some alcohol on a daily basis. The greatest health risks were seen between occasional drinkers and those whom the researchers labeled “high risk.” Occasional drinkers had less than about two drinks per week. The high-risk group included men who averaged nearly three drinks per day or more, and women who averaged about a drink and a half per day or more. The analysis showed that, compared with occasional drinking, high-risk drinking was linked to a 33% increased risk of early death, a 39% increased risk of dying from cancer, and a 21% increased risk of dying from problems with the heart and blood vessels.

More moderate drinking habits were also linked to an increased risk of early death and dying from cancer, and even just averaging about one drink or less daily was associated with an 11% higher risk of dying from cancer. Low and moderate drinkers were most at risk if they also had health problems or experienced socioeconomic factors like living in less affluent neighborhoods.

The findings also suggested the potential that mostly drinking wine, or drinking mostly with meals, may be lower risk, but the researchers called for further study on those topics since “it may mostly reflect the effect of healthier lifestyles, slower alcohol absorption, or nonalcoholic components of beverages.”

A recent Gallup poll showed that overall, Americans’ attitudes toward the health impacts of alcohol are changing, with 65% of young adults (ages 18-34) saying that drinking can have negative health effects. But just 39% of adults age 55 or older agreed that drinking is bad for a person’s health. The gap in perspectives between younger and older adults about drinking is the largest on record, Gallup reported.

The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

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

People over age 60 who drink alcohol regularly are at an increased risk of early death, particularly from cancer or issues related to the heart and blood vessels.

That’s according to the findings of a new, large study that was published in JAMA Network Openand build upon numerous other recent studies concluding that any amount of alcohol consumption is linked to significant health risks. That’s a change from decades of public health messaging suggesting that moderate alcohol intake (one or two drinks per day) wasn’t dangerous. Recently, experts have uncovered flaws in how researchers came to those earlier conclusions.

In this latest study, researchers in Spain analyzed health data for more than 135,000 people, all of whom were at least 60 years old, lived in the United Kingdom, and provided their health information to the UK Biobank database. The average age of people at the start of the analysis period was 64.

The researchers compared 12 years of health outcomes for occasional drinkers with those who averaged drinking at least some alcohol on a daily basis. The greatest health risks were seen between occasional drinkers and those whom the researchers labeled “high risk.” Occasional drinkers had less than about two drinks per week. The high-risk group included men who averaged nearly three drinks per day or more, and women who averaged about a drink and a half per day or more. The analysis showed that, compared with occasional drinking, high-risk drinking was linked to a 33% increased risk of early death, a 39% increased risk of dying from cancer, and a 21% increased risk of dying from problems with the heart and blood vessels.

More moderate drinking habits were also linked to an increased risk of early death and dying from cancer, and even just averaging about one drink or less daily was associated with an 11% higher risk of dying from cancer. Low and moderate drinkers were most at risk if they also had health problems or experienced socioeconomic factors like living in less affluent neighborhoods.

The findings also suggested the potential that mostly drinking wine, or drinking mostly with meals, may be lower risk, but the researchers called for further study on those topics since “it may mostly reflect the effect of healthier lifestyles, slower alcohol absorption, or nonalcoholic components of beverages.”

A recent Gallup poll showed that overall, Americans’ attitudes toward the health impacts of alcohol are changing, with 65% of young adults (ages 18-34) saying that drinking can have negative health effects. But just 39% of adults age 55 or older agreed that drinking is bad for a person’s health. The gap in perspectives between younger and older adults about drinking is the largest on record, Gallup reported.

The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

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

People over age 60 who drink alcohol regularly are at an increased risk of early death, particularly from cancer or issues related to the heart and blood vessels.

That’s according to the findings of a new, large study that was published in JAMA Network Openand build upon numerous other recent studies concluding that any amount of alcohol consumption is linked to significant health risks. That’s a change from decades of public health messaging suggesting that moderate alcohol intake (one or two drinks per day) wasn’t dangerous. Recently, experts have uncovered flaws in how researchers came to those earlier conclusions.

In this latest study, researchers in Spain analyzed health data for more than 135,000 people, all of whom were at least 60 years old, lived in the United Kingdom, and provided their health information to the UK Biobank database. The average age of people at the start of the analysis period was 64.

The researchers compared 12 years of health outcomes for occasional drinkers with those who averaged drinking at least some alcohol on a daily basis. The greatest health risks were seen between occasional drinkers and those whom the researchers labeled “high risk.” Occasional drinkers had less than about two drinks per week. The high-risk group included men who averaged nearly three drinks per day or more, and women who averaged about a drink and a half per day or more. The analysis showed that, compared with occasional drinking, high-risk drinking was linked to a 33% increased risk of early death, a 39% increased risk of dying from cancer, and a 21% increased risk of dying from problems with the heart and blood vessels.

More moderate drinking habits were also linked to an increased risk of early death and dying from cancer, and even just averaging about one drink or less daily was associated with an 11% higher risk of dying from cancer. Low and moderate drinkers were most at risk if they also had health problems or experienced socioeconomic factors like living in less affluent neighborhoods.

The findings also suggested the potential that mostly drinking wine, or drinking mostly with meals, may be lower risk, but the researchers called for further study on those topics since “it may mostly reflect the effect of healthier lifestyles, slower alcohol absorption, or nonalcoholic components of beverages.”

A recent Gallup poll showed that overall, Americans’ attitudes toward the health impacts of alcohol are changing, with 65% of young adults (ages 18-34) saying that drinking can have negative health effects. But just 39% of adults age 55 or older agreed that drinking is bad for a person’s health. The gap in perspectives between younger and older adults about drinking is the largest on record, Gallup reported.

The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Ensifentrine (Ohtuvayre), a novel medication for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, has been shown to reduce COPD exacerbations and may improve the quality of life for patients, but these potential benefits come at a high annual cost, authors of a cost-effectiveness analysis say.

Ensifentrine is a first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE-3) and PDE-4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.

In the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo. In addition, patients were found to tolerate the inhaled treatment well, with similar proportions of ensifentrine- and placebo-assigned patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.
 

High Cost Barrier

But as authors of the analysis from the Boston-based Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) found, the therapeutic edge offered by ensifentrine is outweighed by the annual wholesale acquisition cost that its maker, Verona Pharma, has established: $35,400, which far exceeds the estimated health-benefit price of $7500 to $12,700, according to ICER. ICER is an independent, nonprofit research institute that conducts evidence-based reviews of healthcare interventions, including prescription drugs, other treatments, and diagnostic tests. 

“Current evidence shows that ensifentrine decreases COPD exacerbations when used in combination with some current inhaled therapies, but there are uncertainties about how much benefit it may add to unstudied combinations of inhaled treatments,” said David Rind, MD, chief medical officer of ICER, in a statement.

In an interview, Dr. Rind noted that the high price of ensifentrine may lead payers to restrict access to an otherwise promising new therapy. “Obviously many drugs in the US are overpriced, and this one, too, looks like it is overpriced. That causes ongoing financial toxicity for individual patients and it causes problems for the entire US health system, because when we pay too much for drugs we don’t have money for other things. So I’m worried about the fact that this price is too high compared to the benefit it provides,” he said.

As previously reported, as many as 1 in 6 persons with COPD in the United States miss or delay COPD medication doses owing to high drug costs. “I think that the pricing they chose is going to cause lots of barriers to people getting access and that insurance companies will throw up barriers. Primary care physicians like me won’t even try to get approval for a drug like this given the hoops we will be made to jump through, and so fewer people will get this drug,” Dr. Rind said. He pointed out that a lower wholesale acquisition cost could encourage higher volume sales, affording the drug maker a comparable profit to the higher cost but lower volume option.
 

Good Drug, High Price

An independent appraisal committee for ICER determined that “current evidence is adequate to demonstrate a net health benefit for ensifentrine added to maintenance therapy when compared to maintenance therapy alone.”

But ICER also issued an access and affordability alert “to signal to stakeholders and policymakers that the amount of added health care costs associated with a new service may be difficult for the health system to absorb over the short term without displacing other needed services.” ICER recommends that payers should include coverage for smoking cessation therapies, and that drug manufacturers “set prices that will foster affordability and good access for all patients by aligning prices with the patient-centered therapeutic value of their treatments.”

“This looks like a pretty good drug,” Dr. Rind said. “It looks quite safe, and I think there will be a lot of patients, particularly those who are having frequent exacerbations, who this would be appropriate for, particularly once they’ve maxed out existing therapies, but maybe even earlier than that. And if the price comes down to the point that patients can really access this and providers can access it, people really should look at this as a potential therapy.”
 

Drug Not Yet Available? 

However, providers have not yet had experience to gauge the new medication. “We haven’t been able to prescribe it yet,” said Corinne Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, director of advance practice provider and clinical services for Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants and president and founder of the Association of Pulmonary Advanced Practice Providers. She learned that “they were going to release it to select specialty pharmacies in the third quarter of 2024. But all the ones we call do not have it, and no one knows who does. They haven’t sent any reps into the field in my area, so we don’t have any points of contact either,” she said. 

Verona Pharma stated it anticipates ensifentrine to be available in the third quarter of 2024 “through an exclusive network of accredited specialty pharmacies.” 

Funding for the ICER report came from nonprofit foundations. No funding came from health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, or life science companies. Dr. Rind had no disclosures relevant to ensifentrine or Verona Pharma. Ms. Young is a member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board.

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

Ensifentrine (Ohtuvayre), a novel medication for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, has been shown to reduce COPD exacerbations and may improve the quality of life for patients, but these potential benefits come at a high annual cost, authors of a cost-effectiveness analysis say.

Ensifentrine is a first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE-3) and PDE-4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.

In the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo. In addition, patients were found to tolerate the inhaled treatment well, with similar proportions of ensifentrine- and placebo-assigned patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.
 

High Cost Barrier

But as authors of the analysis from the Boston-based Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) found, the therapeutic edge offered by ensifentrine is outweighed by the annual wholesale acquisition cost that its maker, Verona Pharma, has established: $35,400, which far exceeds the estimated health-benefit price of $7500 to $12,700, according to ICER. ICER is an independent, nonprofit research institute that conducts evidence-based reviews of healthcare interventions, including prescription drugs, other treatments, and diagnostic tests. 

“Current evidence shows that ensifentrine decreases COPD exacerbations when used in combination with some current inhaled therapies, but there are uncertainties about how much benefit it may add to unstudied combinations of inhaled treatments,” said David Rind, MD, chief medical officer of ICER, in a statement.

In an interview, Dr. Rind noted that the high price of ensifentrine may lead payers to restrict access to an otherwise promising new therapy. “Obviously many drugs in the US are overpriced, and this one, too, looks like it is overpriced. That causes ongoing financial toxicity for individual patients and it causes problems for the entire US health system, because when we pay too much for drugs we don’t have money for other things. So I’m worried about the fact that this price is too high compared to the benefit it provides,” he said.

As previously reported, as many as 1 in 6 persons with COPD in the United States miss or delay COPD medication doses owing to high drug costs. “I think that the pricing they chose is going to cause lots of barriers to people getting access and that insurance companies will throw up barriers. Primary care physicians like me won’t even try to get approval for a drug like this given the hoops we will be made to jump through, and so fewer people will get this drug,” Dr. Rind said. He pointed out that a lower wholesale acquisition cost could encourage higher volume sales, affording the drug maker a comparable profit to the higher cost but lower volume option.
 

Good Drug, High Price

An independent appraisal committee for ICER determined that “current evidence is adequate to demonstrate a net health benefit for ensifentrine added to maintenance therapy when compared to maintenance therapy alone.”

But ICER also issued an access and affordability alert “to signal to stakeholders and policymakers that the amount of added health care costs associated with a new service may be difficult for the health system to absorb over the short term without displacing other needed services.” ICER recommends that payers should include coverage for smoking cessation therapies, and that drug manufacturers “set prices that will foster affordability and good access for all patients by aligning prices with the patient-centered therapeutic value of their treatments.”

“This looks like a pretty good drug,” Dr. Rind said. “It looks quite safe, and I think there will be a lot of patients, particularly those who are having frequent exacerbations, who this would be appropriate for, particularly once they’ve maxed out existing therapies, but maybe even earlier than that. And if the price comes down to the point that patients can really access this and providers can access it, people really should look at this as a potential therapy.”
 

Drug Not Yet Available? 

However, providers have not yet had experience to gauge the new medication. “We haven’t been able to prescribe it yet,” said Corinne Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, director of advance practice provider and clinical services for Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants and president and founder of the Association of Pulmonary Advanced Practice Providers. She learned that “they were going to release it to select specialty pharmacies in the third quarter of 2024. But all the ones we call do not have it, and no one knows who does. They haven’t sent any reps into the field in my area, so we don’t have any points of contact either,” she said. 

Verona Pharma stated it anticipates ensifentrine to be available in the third quarter of 2024 “through an exclusive network of accredited specialty pharmacies.” 

Funding for the ICER report came from nonprofit foundations. No funding came from health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, or life science companies. Dr. Rind had no disclosures relevant to ensifentrine or Verona Pharma. Ms. Young is a member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board.

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

Ensifentrine (Ohtuvayre), a novel medication for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, has been shown to reduce COPD exacerbations and may improve the quality of life for patients, but these potential benefits come at a high annual cost, authors of a cost-effectiveness analysis say.

Ensifentrine is a first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE-3) and PDE-4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.

In the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo. In addition, patients were found to tolerate the inhaled treatment well, with similar proportions of ensifentrine- and placebo-assigned patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.
 

High Cost Barrier

But as authors of the analysis from the Boston-based Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) found, the therapeutic edge offered by ensifentrine is outweighed by the annual wholesale acquisition cost that its maker, Verona Pharma, has established: $35,400, which far exceeds the estimated health-benefit price of $7500 to $12,700, according to ICER. ICER is an independent, nonprofit research institute that conducts evidence-based reviews of healthcare interventions, including prescription drugs, other treatments, and diagnostic tests. 

“Current evidence shows that ensifentrine decreases COPD exacerbations when used in combination with some current inhaled therapies, but there are uncertainties about how much benefit it may add to unstudied combinations of inhaled treatments,” said David Rind, MD, chief medical officer of ICER, in a statement.

In an interview, Dr. Rind noted that the high price of ensifentrine may lead payers to restrict access to an otherwise promising new therapy. “Obviously many drugs in the US are overpriced, and this one, too, looks like it is overpriced. That causes ongoing financial toxicity for individual patients and it causes problems for the entire US health system, because when we pay too much for drugs we don’t have money for other things. So I’m worried about the fact that this price is too high compared to the benefit it provides,” he said.

As previously reported, as many as 1 in 6 persons with COPD in the United States miss or delay COPD medication doses owing to high drug costs. “I think that the pricing they chose is going to cause lots of barriers to people getting access and that insurance companies will throw up barriers. Primary care physicians like me won’t even try to get approval for a drug like this given the hoops we will be made to jump through, and so fewer people will get this drug,” Dr. Rind said. He pointed out that a lower wholesale acquisition cost could encourage higher volume sales, affording the drug maker a comparable profit to the higher cost but lower volume option.
 

Good Drug, High Price

An independent appraisal committee for ICER determined that “current evidence is adequate to demonstrate a net health benefit for ensifentrine added to maintenance therapy when compared to maintenance therapy alone.”

But ICER also issued an access and affordability alert “to signal to stakeholders and policymakers that the amount of added health care costs associated with a new service may be difficult for the health system to absorb over the short term without displacing other needed services.” ICER recommends that payers should include coverage for smoking cessation therapies, and that drug manufacturers “set prices that will foster affordability and good access for all patients by aligning prices with the patient-centered therapeutic value of their treatments.”

“This looks like a pretty good drug,” Dr. Rind said. “It looks quite safe, and I think there will be a lot of patients, particularly those who are having frequent exacerbations, who this would be appropriate for, particularly once they’ve maxed out existing therapies, but maybe even earlier than that. And if the price comes down to the point that patients can really access this and providers can access it, people really should look at this as a potential therapy.”
 

Drug Not Yet Available? 

However, providers have not yet had experience to gauge the new medication. “We haven’t been able to prescribe it yet,” said Corinne Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, director of advance practice provider and clinical services for Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants and president and founder of the Association of Pulmonary Advanced Practice Providers. She learned that “they were going to release it to select specialty pharmacies in the third quarter of 2024. But all the ones we call do not have it, and no one knows who does. They haven’t sent any reps into the field in my area, so we don’t have any points of contact either,” she said. 

Verona Pharma stated it anticipates ensifentrine to be available in the third quarter of 2024 “through an exclusive network of accredited specialty pharmacies.” 

Funding for the ICER report came from nonprofit foundations. No funding came from health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, or life science companies. Dr. Rind had no disclosures relevant to ensifentrine or Verona Pharma. Ms. Young is a member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board.

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

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked certification for two physicians known for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website. Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine. 

Dr. Marik is the chief scientific officer and Dr. Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.

Ivermectin was proven to not be of use in treating COVID. Studies purporting to show a benefit were later linked to errors, and some were found to have been based on potentially fraudulent research.

The ABIM declined to comment when asked by this news organization about its action. Its website indicates that “revoked” indicates “loss of certification due to disciplinary action for which ABIM has determined that the conduct underlying the sanction does not warrant a defined pathway for restoration of certification at the time of disciplinary sanction.”

In a statement emailed to this news organization, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.”

The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.”

Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik lost an appeal. 

In a 2023 statement, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”

“This isn’t a free speech question,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine’s Department of Population Health, New York City. “You do have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to practice outside of the standard of care boundaries,” he told this news organization.

The ABIM action “is the field standing up and saying, ‘These are the limits of what you can do,’” said Dr. Caplan. It means the profession is rejecting those “who are involved in things that harm patients or delay them getting accepted treatments,” he said. Caplan noted that a disciplinary action had been a long time in coming — 3 years since the first battles over ivermectin. 

Wendy Parmet, JD, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Boston, said that misinformation spread by physicians is especially harmful because it comes with an air of credibility.

“We certainly want people to be able to dissent,” Ms. Parmet told this news organization. To engender trust, any sanctions by a professional board should be done in a deliberative process with a strong evidentiary base, she said. 

“You want to leave sufficient room for discourse and discussion within the profession, and you don’t want the board to enforce a narrow, rigid orthodoxy,” she said. But in cases where people are “peddling information that is way outside the consensus” or are “profiting off of it, for the profession to take no action, that is, I think, detrimental also to the trust in the profession,” she said.

She was not surprised that Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik would fight to retain certification. “Board certification is an important, very worthwhile thing to have,” she said. “Losing it is not trivial.”

Dr. Kory, who is licensed in California, New York, and Wisconsin, “does not require this certification for his independent practice but is evaluating next steps with attorneys,” according to the statement from FLCCC.

Dr. Marik, whose Virginia medical license expired in 2022, “is no longer treating patients and has dedicated his time and efforts to the FLCCC Alliance,” the statement said.

Dr. Caplan served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and advisor for this news organization. Ms. Parmet reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked certification for two physicians known for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website. Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine. 

Dr. Marik is the chief scientific officer and Dr. Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.

Ivermectin was proven to not be of use in treating COVID. Studies purporting to show a benefit were later linked to errors, and some were found to have been based on potentially fraudulent research.

The ABIM declined to comment when asked by this news organization about its action. Its website indicates that “revoked” indicates “loss of certification due to disciplinary action for which ABIM has determined that the conduct underlying the sanction does not warrant a defined pathway for restoration of certification at the time of disciplinary sanction.”

In a statement emailed to this news organization, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.”

The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.”

Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik lost an appeal. 

In a 2023 statement, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”

“This isn’t a free speech question,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine’s Department of Population Health, New York City. “You do have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to practice outside of the standard of care boundaries,” he told this news organization.

The ABIM action “is the field standing up and saying, ‘These are the limits of what you can do,’” said Dr. Caplan. It means the profession is rejecting those “who are involved in things that harm patients or delay them getting accepted treatments,” he said. Caplan noted that a disciplinary action had been a long time in coming — 3 years since the first battles over ivermectin. 

Wendy Parmet, JD, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Boston, said that misinformation spread by physicians is especially harmful because it comes with an air of credibility.

“We certainly want people to be able to dissent,” Ms. Parmet told this news organization. To engender trust, any sanctions by a professional board should be done in a deliberative process with a strong evidentiary base, she said. 

“You want to leave sufficient room for discourse and discussion within the profession, and you don’t want the board to enforce a narrow, rigid orthodoxy,” she said. But in cases where people are “peddling information that is way outside the consensus” or are “profiting off of it, for the profession to take no action, that is, I think, detrimental also to the trust in the profession,” she said.

She was not surprised that Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik would fight to retain certification. “Board certification is an important, very worthwhile thing to have,” she said. “Losing it is not trivial.”

Dr. Kory, who is licensed in California, New York, and Wisconsin, “does not require this certification for his independent practice but is evaluating next steps with attorneys,” according to the statement from FLCCC.

Dr. Marik, whose Virginia medical license expired in 2022, “is no longer treating patients and has dedicated his time and efforts to the FLCCC Alliance,” the statement said.

Dr. Caplan served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and advisor for this news organization. Ms. Parmet reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked certification for two physicians known for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website. Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine. 

Dr. Marik is the chief scientific officer and Dr. Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.

Ivermectin was proven to not be of use in treating COVID. Studies purporting to show a benefit were later linked to errors, and some were found to have been based on potentially fraudulent research.

The ABIM declined to comment when asked by this news organization about its action. Its website indicates that “revoked” indicates “loss of certification due to disciplinary action for which ABIM has determined that the conduct underlying the sanction does not warrant a defined pathway for restoration of certification at the time of disciplinary sanction.”

In a statement emailed to this news organization, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.”

The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.”

Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik lost an appeal. 

In a 2023 statement, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”

“This isn’t a free speech question,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine’s Department of Population Health, New York City. “You do have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to practice outside of the standard of care boundaries,” he told this news organization.

The ABIM action “is the field standing up and saying, ‘These are the limits of what you can do,’” said Dr. Caplan. It means the profession is rejecting those “who are involved in things that harm patients or delay them getting accepted treatments,” he said. Caplan noted that a disciplinary action had been a long time in coming — 3 years since the first battles over ivermectin. 

Wendy Parmet, JD, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Boston, said that misinformation spread by physicians is especially harmful because it comes with an air of credibility.

“We certainly want people to be able to dissent,” Ms. Parmet told this news organization. To engender trust, any sanctions by a professional board should be done in a deliberative process with a strong evidentiary base, she said. 

“You want to leave sufficient room for discourse and discussion within the profession, and you don’t want the board to enforce a narrow, rigid orthodoxy,” she said. But in cases where people are “peddling information that is way outside the consensus” or are “profiting off of it, for the profession to take no action, that is, I think, detrimental also to the trust in the profession,” she said.

She was not surprised that Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik would fight to retain certification. “Board certification is an important, very worthwhile thing to have,” she said. “Losing it is not trivial.”

Dr. Kory, who is licensed in California, New York, and Wisconsin, “does not require this certification for his independent practice but is evaluating next steps with attorneys,” according to the statement from FLCCC.

Dr. Marik, whose Virginia medical license expired in 2022, “is no longer treating patients and has dedicated his time and efforts to the FLCCC Alliance,” the statement said.

Dr. Caplan served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and advisor for this news organization. Ms. Parmet reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi (seladelpar, Gilead Sciences, Inc.) for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who fail to respond adequately to UDCA, or as monotherapy in those who can’t tolerate UDCA. 

Livdelzi, a selective agonist of peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor delta, is not recommended in adults who have or develop decompensated cirrhosis.

PBC is a rare, chronic, autoimmune disease of the bile ducts that affects roughly 130,000 Americans, primarily women, and can cause liver damage and possible liver failure if untreated. The disease currently has no cure.

The FDA approved Livdelzi based largely on results of the phase 3 RESPONSE study, in which the drug significantly improved liver biomarkers of disease activity and bothersome symptoms of pruritus in adults with PBC.

The primary endpoint of the trial was a biochemical response, defined as an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level < 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a decrease of 15% or more from baseline, and a normal total bilirubin level, at 12 months.

After 12 months, 62% of patients taking Livdelzi met the primary endpoint vs 20% of patients taking placebo.

In addition, significantly more patients taking Livdelzi than placebo had normalization of the ALP level (25% vs 0%). The average decrease in ALP from baseline was 42.4% in the Livdelzi group vs 4.3% in the placebo group.

At 12 months, alanine aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase levels were reduced by 23.5% and 39.1%, respectively, in the Livdelzi group compared with 6.5% and 11.4%, respectively, in the placebo group.

A key secondary endpoint was change in patient-reported pruritus.

At baseline, 38.3% of patients in the Livdelzi group and 35.4% of those in the placebo group had moderate to severe pruritus, with a daily numerical rating scale (NRS) score ≥ 4 out of 10.

Among these patients, the reduction from baseline in the pruritus NRS score at month 6 was significantly greater with Livdelzi than with placebo (change from baseline, -3.2 vs -1.7 points). These improvements were sustained through 12 months.

Improvements on the 5-D Itch Scale in both the moderate- to severe-pruritis population and the overall population also favored Livdelzi over placebo for itch relief, which had a positive impact on sleep.

“The availability of a new treatment option that can help reduce [the] intense itching while also improving biomarkers of active liver disease is a milestone for our community,” Carol Roberts, president, The PBCers Organization, said in a news release announcing the approval. 

The most common adverse reactions with Livdelzi were headache, abdominal pain, nausea, abdominal distension, and dizziness.

The company noted that the FDA granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi based on a reduction of ALP. Improvement in survival or prevention of liver decompensation events have not been demonstrated. Continued approval of Livdelzi for PBC may be contingent on verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trial(s).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi (seladelpar, Gilead Sciences, Inc.) for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who fail to respond adequately to UDCA, or as monotherapy in those who can’t tolerate UDCA. 

Livdelzi, a selective agonist of peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor delta, is not recommended in adults who have or develop decompensated cirrhosis.

PBC is a rare, chronic, autoimmune disease of the bile ducts that affects roughly 130,000 Americans, primarily women, and can cause liver damage and possible liver failure if untreated. The disease currently has no cure.

The FDA approved Livdelzi based largely on results of the phase 3 RESPONSE study, in which the drug significantly improved liver biomarkers of disease activity and bothersome symptoms of pruritus in adults with PBC.

The primary endpoint of the trial was a biochemical response, defined as an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level < 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a decrease of 15% or more from baseline, and a normal total bilirubin level, at 12 months.

After 12 months, 62% of patients taking Livdelzi met the primary endpoint vs 20% of patients taking placebo.

In addition, significantly more patients taking Livdelzi than placebo had normalization of the ALP level (25% vs 0%). The average decrease in ALP from baseline was 42.4% in the Livdelzi group vs 4.3% in the placebo group.

At 12 months, alanine aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase levels were reduced by 23.5% and 39.1%, respectively, in the Livdelzi group compared with 6.5% and 11.4%, respectively, in the placebo group.

A key secondary endpoint was change in patient-reported pruritus.

At baseline, 38.3% of patients in the Livdelzi group and 35.4% of those in the placebo group had moderate to severe pruritus, with a daily numerical rating scale (NRS) score ≥ 4 out of 10.

Among these patients, the reduction from baseline in the pruritus NRS score at month 6 was significantly greater with Livdelzi than with placebo (change from baseline, -3.2 vs -1.7 points). These improvements were sustained through 12 months.

Improvements on the 5-D Itch Scale in both the moderate- to severe-pruritis population and the overall population also favored Livdelzi over placebo for itch relief, which had a positive impact on sleep.

“The availability of a new treatment option that can help reduce [the] intense itching while also improving biomarkers of active liver disease is a milestone for our community,” Carol Roberts, president, The PBCers Organization, said in a news release announcing the approval. 

The most common adverse reactions with Livdelzi were headache, abdominal pain, nausea, abdominal distension, and dizziness.

The company noted that the FDA granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi based on a reduction of ALP. Improvement in survival or prevention of liver decompensation events have not been demonstrated. Continued approval of Livdelzi for PBC may be contingent on verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trial(s).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi (seladelpar, Gilead Sciences, Inc.) for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who fail to respond adequately to UDCA, or as monotherapy in those who can’t tolerate UDCA. 

Livdelzi, a selective agonist of peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor delta, is not recommended in adults who have or develop decompensated cirrhosis.

PBC is a rare, chronic, autoimmune disease of the bile ducts that affects roughly 130,000 Americans, primarily women, and can cause liver damage and possible liver failure if untreated. The disease currently has no cure.

The FDA approved Livdelzi based largely on results of the phase 3 RESPONSE study, in which the drug significantly improved liver biomarkers of disease activity and bothersome symptoms of pruritus in adults with PBC.

The primary endpoint of the trial was a biochemical response, defined as an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level < 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a decrease of 15% or more from baseline, and a normal total bilirubin level, at 12 months.

After 12 months, 62% of patients taking Livdelzi met the primary endpoint vs 20% of patients taking placebo.

In addition, significantly more patients taking Livdelzi than placebo had normalization of the ALP level (25% vs 0%). The average decrease in ALP from baseline was 42.4% in the Livdelzi group vs 4.3% in the placebo group.

At 12 months, alanine aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase levels were reduced by 23.5% and 39.1%, respectively, in the Livdelzi group compared with 6.5% and 11.4%, respectively, in the placebo group.

A key secondary endpoint was change in patient-reported pruritus.

At baseline, 38.3% of patients in the Livdelzi group and 35.4% of those in the placebo group had moderate to severe pruritus, with a daily numerical rating scale (NRS) score ≥ 4 out of 10.

Among these patients, the reduction from baseline in the pruritus NRS score at month 6 was significantly greater with Livdelzi than with placebo (change from baseline, -3.2 vs -1.7 points). These improvements were sustained through 12 months.

Improvements on the 5-D Itch Scale in both the moderate- to severe-pruritis population and the overall population also favored Livdelzi over placebo for itch relief, which had a positive impact on sleep.

“The availability of a new treatment option that can help reduce [the] intense itching while also improving biomarkers of active liver disease is a milestone for our community,” Carol Roberts, president, The PBCers Organization, said in a news release announcing the approval. 

The most common adverse reactions with Livdelzi were headache, abdominal pain, nausea, abdominal distension, and dizziness.

The company noted that the FDA granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi based on a reduction of ALP. Improvement in survival or prevention of liver decompensation events have not been demonstrated. Continued approval of Livdelzi for PBC may be contingent on verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trial(s).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Consider this: If you’re taking your children to the beach, how do you protect them from drowning? You don’t tell them, “Don’t go into the ocean.” You teach them how to swim; you give them floaties; and you accompany them in the water and go in only when a lifeguard is present. In other words, you give them all the tools to protect themselves because you know they will go into the ocean anyway. 

Patients are diving into the ocean. Patients with obesity, who know that a treatment for their disease exists but is inaccessible, are diving into the ocean. Unfortunately, they are diving in without floaties or a lifeguard, and well-meaning bystanders are simply telling them to not go. 

Compounded peptides are an ocean of alternative therapies. Even though compounding pharmacists need specialized training, facilities and equipment need to be properly certified, and final dosage forms need extensive testing, pharmacies are not equal when it comes to sterile compounding. Regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have expressed caution around compounded semaglutide. Professional societies such as the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) advise against compounded peptides because they lack clinical trials that prove their safety and efficacy. Ask any individual doctor and you are likely to receive a range of opinions. 

As an endocrinologist specializing in obesity, I practice evidence-based medicine as much as possible. However, I also recognize how today’s dysfunctional medical system compels patients to dive into that ocean in search of an alternative solution. 

Doctors can’t be lifeguards, but we can at least empower patients who want to decide for themselves whether the risk of compounded peptides is worth it. 

With the help of pharmacists, compounding pharmacists, researchers, and clinicians, here is a checklist for patients who seek compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide: 

• Check the state licensing board website to see if there have been any complaints or disciplinary actions made against the pharmacy facility. These government-maintained websites vary in searchability and user-friendliness, but you are specifically looking for whether the FDA ever issued a 483 form.
• Ask for the pharmacy’s state board inspection report. There should be at least one of these reports, issued at the pharmacy’s founding, and there may be more depending on individual state regulations on frequencies of inspections.
• Ask if the compounding pharmacy is accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB). Accreditation is an extra optional step that some compounding pharmacies take to be legitimized by a third party.
• Ask if the pharmacy follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). CGMP is not required of 503a pharmacies, which are pharmacies that provide semaglutide or tirzepatide directly to patients, but following CGMP means an extra level of quality assurance. The bare minimum for anyone doing sterile compounding in the United States is to meet the standards found in the US Pharmacopeia, chapter <797>, Sterile Compounding.
• Ask your compounding pharmacy where they source the medication’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
• Find out if this supplier is registered with the FDA by searching here or here.
• Confirm that semaglutide base, not semaglutide salt, is used in the compounding process.
• Request a certificate of analysis (COA) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which should be semaglutide base. This shows you whether the medication has impurities or byproducts due to its manufacturing process.
• Ask if they have third-party confirmation of potency, stability, and sterility testing of the final product.

In generating this guidance, I’m not endorsing compounded peptides, and in fact, I recognize that there is nothing keeping small-time compounding pharmacies from skirting some of these quality measures, falsifying records, and flying under the radar. However, I hope this checklist serves as a starting point for education and risk mitigation. If a compounder is unwilling or unable to answer these questions, consider it a red flag and look elsewhere. 

In an ideal world, the state regulators or the FDA would proactively supervise instead of reactively monitor; trusted compounding pharmacies would be systematically activated to ease medication shortages; and patients with obesity would have access to safe and efficacious treatments for their disease. Until then, we as providers can acknowledge the disappointments of our healthcare system while still developing realistic and individualized solutions that prioritize patient care and safety. 
 

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York. She is an adviser for Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, and an adviser for Ro, a telehealth company that offers compounded semaglutide, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

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

Consider this: If you’re taking your children to the beach, how do you protect them from drowning? You don’t tell them, “Don’t go into the ocean.” You teach them how to swim; you give them floaties; and you accompany them in the water and go in only when a lifeguard is present. In other words, you give them all the tools to protect themselves because you know they will go into the ocean anyway. 

Patients are diving into the ocean. Patients with obesity, who know that a treatment for their disease exists but is inaccessible, are diving into the ocean. Unfortunately, they are diving in without floaties or a lifeguard, and well-meaning bystanders are simply telling them to not go. 

Compounded peptides are an ocean of alternative therapies. Even though compounding pharmacists need specialized training, facilities and equipment need to be properly certified, and final dosage forms need extensive testing, pharmacies are not equal when it comes to sterile compounding. Regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have expressed caution around compounded semaglutide. Professional societies such as the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) advise against compounded peptides because they lack clinical trials that prove their safety and efficacy. Ask any individual doctor and you are likely to receive a range of opinions. 

As an endocrinologist specializing in obesity, I practice evidence-based medicine as much as possible. However, I also recognize how today’s dysfunctional medical system compels patients to dive into that ocean in search of an alternative solution. 

Doctors can’t be lifeguards, but we can at least empower patients who want to decide for themselves whether the risk of compounded peptides is worth it. 

With the help of pharmacists, compounding pharmacists, researchers, and clinicians, here is a checklist for patients who seek compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide: 

• Check the state licensing board website to see if there have been any complaints or disciplinary actions made against the pharmacy facility. These government-maintained websites vary in searchability and user-friendliness, but you are specifically looking for whether the FDA ever issued a 483 form.
• Ask for the pharmacy’s state board inspection report. There should be at least one of these reports, issued at the pharmacy’s founding, and there may be more depending on individual state regulations on frequencies of inspections.
• Ask if the compounding pharmacy is accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB). Accreditation is an extra optional step that some compounding pharmacies take to be legitimized by a third party.
• Ask if the pharmacy follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). CGMP is not required of 503a pharmacies, which are pharmacies that provide semaglutide or tirzepatide directly to patients, but following CGMP means an extra level of quality assurance. The bare minimum for anyone doing sterile compounding in the United States is to meet the standards found in the US Pharmacopeia, chapter <797>, Sterile Compounding.
• Ask your compounding pharmacy where they source the medication’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
• Find out if this supplier is registered with the FDA by searching here or here.
• Confirm that semaglutide base, not semaglutide salt, is used in the compounding process.
• Request a certificate of analysis (COA) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which should be semaglutide base. This shows you whether the medication has impurities or byproducts due to its manufacturing process.
• Ask if they have third-party confirmation of potency, stability, and sterility testing of the final product.

In generating this guidance, I’m not endorsing compounded peptides, and in fact, I recognize that there is nothing keeping small-time compounding pharmacies from skirting some of these quality measures, falsifying records, and flying under the radar. However, I hope this checklist serves as a starting point for education and risk mitigation. If a compounder is unwilling or unable to answer these questions, consider it a red flag and look elsewhere. 

In an ideal world, the state regulators or the FDA would proactively supervise instead of reactively monitor; trusted compounding pharmacies would be systematically activated to ease medication shortages; and patients with obesity would have access to safe and efficacious treatments for their disease. Until then, we as providers can acknowledge the disappointments of our healthcare system while still developing realistic and individualized solutions that prioritize patient care and safety. 
 

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York. She is an adviser for Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, and an adviser for Ro, a telehealth company that offers compounded semaglutide, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

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

Consider this: If you’re taking your children to the beach, how do you protect them from drowning? You don’t tell them, “Don’t go into the ocean.” You teach them how to swim; you give them floaties; and you accompany them in the water and go in only when a lifeguard is present. In other words, you give them all the tools to protect themselves because you know they will go into the ocean anyway. 

Patients are diving into the ocean. Patients with obesity, who know that a treatment for their disease exists but is inaccessible, are diving into the ocean. Unfortunately, they are diving in without floaties or a lifeguard, and well-meaning bystanders are simply telling them to not go. 

Compounded peptides are an ocean of alternative therapies. Even though compounding pharmacists need specialized training, facilities and equipment need to be properly certified, and final dosage forms need extensive testing, pharmacies are not equal when it comes to sterile compounding. Regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have expressed caution around compounded semaglutide. Professional societies such as the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) advise against compounded peptides because they lack clinical trials that prove their safety and efficacy. Ask any individual doctor and you are likely to receive a range of opinions. 

As an endocrinologist specializing in obesity, I practice evidence-based medicine as much as possible. However, I also recognize how today’s dysfunctional medical system compels patients to dive into that ocean in search of an alternative solution. 

Doctors can’t be lifeguards, but we can at least empower patients who want to decide for themselves whether the risk of compounded peptides is worth it. 

With the help of pharmacists, compounding pharmacists, researchers, and clinicians, here is a checklist for patients who seek compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide: 

• Check the state licensing board website to see if there have been any complaints or disciplinary actions made against the pharmacy facility. These government-maintained websites vary in searchability and user-friendliness, but you are specifically looking for whether the FDA ever issued a 483 form.
• Ask for the pharmacy’s state board inspection report. There should be at least one of these reports, issued at the pharmacy’s founding, and there may be more depending on individual state regulations on frequencies of inspections.
• Ask if the compounding pharmacy is accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB). Accreditation is an extra optional step that some compounding pharmacies take to be legitimized by a third party.
• Ask if the pharmacy follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). CGMP is not required of 503a pharmacies, which are pharmacies that provide semaglutide or tirzepatide directly to patients, but following CGMP means an extra level of quality assurance. The bare minimum for anyone doing sterile compounding in the United States is to meet the standards found in the US Pharmacopeia, chapter <797>, Sterile Compounding.
• Ask your compounding pharmacy where they source the medication’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
• Find out if this supplier is registered with the FDA by searching here or here.
• Confirm that semaglutide base, not semaglutide salt, is used in the compounding process.
• Request a certificate of analysis (COA) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which should be semaglutide base. This shows you whether the medication has impurities or byproducts due to its manufacturing process.
• Ask if they have third-party confirmation of potency, stability, and sterility testing of the final product.

In generating this guidance, I’m not endorsing compounded peptides, and in fact, I recognize that there is nothing keeping small-time compounding pharmacies from skirting some of these quality measures, falsifying records, and flying under the radar. However, I hope this checklist serves as a starting point for education and risk mitigation. If a compounder is unwilling or unable to answer these questions, consider it a red flag and look elsewhere. 

In an ideal world, the state regulators or the FDA would proactively supervise instead of reactively monitor; trusted compounding pharmacies would be systematically activated to ease medication shortages; and patients with obesity would have access to safe and efficacious treatments for their disease. Until then, we as providers can acknowledge the disappointments of our healthcare system while still developing realistic and individualized solutions that prioritize patient care and safety. 
 

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York. She is an adviser for Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, and an adviser for Ro, a telehealth company that offers compounded semaglutide, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

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

TOPLINE:

Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality by 33% overall, with a notable 42% reduction in deaths from left colon and rectal cancers, new data show.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the United States, annual FIT screening is recommended among average-risk adults to reduce the risk for death from CRC, but evidence on its effectiveness is limited.
• Researchers performed a nested case-control study within two large, demographically diverse health systems with long-standing programs of mailing FITs to promote CRC screening efforts.
• They compared 1103 adults who had died of CRC between 2011 and 2017 (cases) with 9608 matched, randomly selected people who were alive and free of CRC (controls).
• Analyses focused on FIT screening completed within 5 years before CRC diagnosis for cases or the corresponding date for controls.
• The primary outcome measured was CRC death overall and by tumor location; secondary analyses assessed CRC death by race and ethnicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• In regression analysis, completing one or more FIT screenings was associated with a 33% lower risk for CRC death overall.
• There was a 42% lower risk for death from left colon and rectum cancers but no significant reduction in mortality from right colon cancers.
• The benefits of FIT screening were observed across racial and ethnic groups, with significant mortality reductions of 63% in non-Hispanic Asian, 42% in non-Hispanic Black, and 29% in non-Hispanic White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support the use of strategies for coordinated and equitable large-scale population-based delivery of FIT screening with follow-up of abnormal screening results to help avert preventable premature CRC deaths,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH, Center for Health Equity, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Almost one half of study subjects had completed two or more FITs, but the case-control design was not suitable for assessing the impact of repeated screening. The study was conducted prior to the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation to start screening at age 45 years, so the findings may not directly apply to adults aged 45-49 years. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Doubeni reported receiving royalties from UpToDate, and additional authors reported receiving grants outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality by 33% overall, with a notable 42% reduction in deaths from left colon and rectal cancers, new data show.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the United States, annual FIT screening is recommended among average-risk adults to reduce the risk for death from CRC, but evidence on its effectiveness is limited.
• Researchers performed a nested case-control study within two large, demographically diverse health systems with long-standing programs of mailing FITs to promote CRC screening efforts.
• They compared 1103 adults who had died of CRC between 2011 and 2017 (cases) with 9608 matched, randomly selected people who were alive and free of CRC (controls).
• Analyses focused on FIT screening completed within 5 years before CRC diagnosis for cases or the corresponding date for controls.
• The primary outcome measured was CRC death overall and by tumor location; secondary analyses assessed CRC death by race and ethnicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• In regression analysis, completing one or more FIT screenings was associated with a 33% lower risk for CRC death overall.
• There was a 42% lower risk for death from left colon and rectum cancers but no significant reduction in mortality from right colon cancers.
• The benefits of FIT screening were observed across racial and ethnic groups, with significant mortality reductions of 63% in non-Hispanic Asian, 42% in non-Hispanic Black, and 29% in non-Hispanic White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support the use of strategies for coordinated and equitable large-scale population-based delivery of FIT screening with follow-up of abnormal screening results to help avert preventable premature CRC deaths,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH, Center for Health Equity, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Almost one half of study subjects had completed two or more FITs, but the case-control design was not suitable for assessing the impact of repeated screening. The study was conducted prior to the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation to start screening at age 45 years, so the findings may not directly apply to adults aged 45-49 years. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Doubeni reported receiving royalties from UpToDate, and additional authors reported receiving grants outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality by 33% overall, with a notable 42% reduction in deaths from left colon and rectal cancers, new data show.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the United States, annual FIT screening is recommended among average-risk adults to reduce the risk for death from CRC, but evidence on its effectiveness is limited.
• Researchers performed a nested case-control study within two large, demographically diverse health systems with long-standing programs of mailing FITs to promote CRC screening efforts.
• They compared 1103 adults who had died of CRC between 2011 and 2017 (cases) with 9608 matched, randomly selected people who were alive and free of CRC (controls).
• Analyses focused on FIT screening completed within 5 years before CRC diagnosis for cases or the corresponding date for controls.
• The primary outcome measured was CRC death overall and by tumor location; secondary analyses assessed CRC death by race and ethnicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• In regression analysis, completing one or more FIT screenings was associated with a 33% lower risk for CRC death overall.
• There was a 42% lower risk for death from left colon and rectum cancers but no significant reduction in mortality from right colon cancers.
• The benefits of FIT screening were observed across racial and ethnic groups, with significant mortality reductions of 63% in non-Hispanic Asian, 42% in non-Hispanic Black, and 29% in non-Hispanic White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support the use of strategies for coordinated and equitable large-scale population-based delivery of FIT screening with follow-up of abnormal screening results to help avert preventable premature CRC deaths,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH, Center for Health Equity, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Almost one half of study subjects had completed two or more FITs, but the case-control design was not suitable for assessing the impact of repeated screening. The study was conducted prior to the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation to start screening at age 45 years, so the findings may not directly apply to adults aged 45-49 years. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Doubeni reported receiving royalties from UpToDate, and additional authors reported receiving grants outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

The maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women treated with anti–interleukin (IL)-6 therapy for COVID-19 are largely favorable, with transient neonatal cytopenia observed in around one third of the babies being the only possible adverse outcome that could be related to anti–IL-6 therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite guidance, very few pregnant women with COVID-19 are offered evidence-based therapies such as anti–IL-6 due to concerns regarding fetal safety in later pregnancy.
• In this retrospective study, researchers evaluated maternal and neonatal outcomes in 25 pregnant women with COVID-19 (mean age at admission, 33 years) treated with anti–IL-6 (tocilizumab or sarilumab) at two tertiary hospitals in London.
• Most women (n = 16) received anti–IL-6 in the third trimester of pregnancy, whereas nine received it during the second trimester.
• Maternal and neonatal outcomes were assessed through medical record reviews and maternal medicine networks, with follow-up for 12 months.
• The women included in the study constituted a high-risk population with severe COVID-19; 24 required level two or three critical care. All women were receiving at least three concomitant medications due to their critical illness.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 24 of 25 women treated with IL-6 receptor antibodies survived until hospital discharge.
• The sole death occurred in a woman with severe COVID-19 pneumonitis who later developed myocarditis and cardiac arrest. The physicians believed that these complications were more likely due to severe COVID-19 rather than anti–IL-6 therapy.
• All pregnancies resulted in live births; however, 16 babies had to be delivered preterm due to COVID-19 complications.
• Transient cytopenia was observed in 6 of 19 babies in whom a full blood count was performed. All the six babies were premature, with cytopenia resolving within 7 days in four babies; one baby died from complications associated with extreme prematurity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the authors found mild, transitory cytopenia in some (6 of 19) exposed infants, most had been delivered prematurely due to progressive COVID-19–related morbidity, and distinguishing drug effects from similar prematurity-related effects is difficult,” wrote Steven L. Clark, MD, from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Melanie Nana, MRCP, from the Department of Obstetric Medicine, St Thomas’ Hospital, London, England. It was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in design, which may have introduced bias. The small sample size of 25 women may have limited the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the study did not include a control group, which made it difficult to attribute outcomes solely to anti–IL-6 therapy. The lack of long-term follow-up data on the neonates also limited the understanding of potential long-term effects.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. Some authors, including the lead author, received speaker fees, grants, or consultancy fees from academic institutions or pharmaceutical companies or had other ties with various sources.

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

TOPLINE:

The maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women treated with anti–interleukin (IL)-6 therapy for COVID-19 are largely favorable, with transient neonatal cytopenia observed in around one third of the babies being the only possible adverse outcome that could be related to anti–IL-6 therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite guidance, very few pregnant women with COVID-19 are offered evidence-based therapies such as anti–IL-6 due to concerns regarding fetal safety in later pregnancy.
• In this retrospective study, researchers evaluated maternal and neonatal outcomes in 25 pregnant women with COVID-19 (mean age at admission, 33 years) treated with anti–IL-6 (tocilizumab or sarilumab) at two tertiary hospitals in London.
• Most women (n = 16) received anti–IL-6 in the third trimester of pregnancy, whereas nine received it during the second trimester.
• Maternal and neonatal outcomes were assessed through medical record reviews and maternal medicine networks, with follow-up for 12 months.
• The women included in the study constituted a high-risk population with severe COVID-19; 24 required level two or three critical care. All women were receiving at least three concomitant medications due to their critical illness.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 24 of 25 women treated with IL-6 receptor antibodies survived until hospital discharge.
• The sole death occurred in a woman with severe COVID-19 pneumonitis who later developed myocarditis and cardiac arrest. The physicians believed that these complications were more likely due to severe COVID-19 rather than anti–IL-6 therapy.
• All pregnancies resulted in live births; however, 16 babies had to be delivered preterm due to COVID-19 complications.
• Transient cytopenia was observed in 6 of 19 babies in whom a full blood count was performed. All the six babies were premature, with cytopenia resolving within 7 days in four babies; one baby died from complications associated with extreme prematurity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the authors found mild, transitory cytopenia in some (6 of 19) exposed infants, most had been delivered prematurely due to progressive COVID-19–related morbidity, and distinguishing drug effects from similar prematurity-related effects is difficult,” wrote Steven L. Clark, MD, from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Melanie Nana, MRCP, from the Department of Obstetric Medicine, St Thomas’ Hospital, London, England. It was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in design, which may have introduced bias. The small sample size of 25 women may have limited the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the study did not include a control group, which made it difficult to attribute outcomes solely to anti–IL-6 therapy. The lack of long-term follow-up data on the neonates also limited the understanding of potential long-term effects.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. Some authors, including the lead author, received speaker fees, grants, or consultancy fees from academic institutions or pharmaceutical companies or had other ties with various sources.

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

TOPLINE:

The maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women treated with anti–interleukin (IL)-6 therapy for COVID-19 are largely favorable, with transient neonatal cytopenia observed in around one third of the babies being the only possible adverse outcome that could be related to anti–IL-6 therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite guidance, very few pregnant women with COVID-19 are offered evidence-based therapies such as anti–IL-6 due to concerns regarding fetal safety in later pregnancy.
• In this retrospective study, researchers evaluated maternal and neonatal outcomes in 25 pregnant women with COVID-19 (mean age at admission, 33 years) treated with anti–IL-6 (tocilizumab or sarilumab) at two tertiary hospitals in London.
• Most women (n = 16) received anti–IL-6 in the third trimester of pregnancy, whereas nine received it during the second trimester.
• Maternal and neonatal outcomes were assessed through medical record reviews and maternal medicine networks, with follow-up for 12 months.
• The women included in the study constituted a high-risk population with severe COVID-19; 24 required level two or three critical care. All women were receiving at least three concomitant medications due to their critical illness.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 24 of 25 women treated with IL-6 receptor antibodies survived until hospital discharge.
• The sole death occurred in a woman with severe COVID-19 pneumonitis who later developed myocarditis and cardiac arrest. The physicians believed that these complications were more likely due to severe COVID-19 rather than anti–IL-6 therapy.
• All pregnancies resulted in live births; however, 16 babies had to be delivered preterm due to COVID-19 complications.
• Transient cytopenia was observed in 6 of 19 babies in whom a full blood count was performed. All the six babies were premature, with cytopenia resolving within 7 days in four babies; one baby died from complications associated with extreme prematurity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the authors found mild, transitory cytopenia in some (6 of 19) exposed infants, most had been delivered prematurely due to progressive COVID-19–related morbidity, and distinguishing drug effects from similar prematurity-related effects is difficult,” wrote Steven L. Clark, MD, from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Melanie Nana, MRCP, from the Department of Obstetric Medicine, St Thomas’ Hospital, London, England. It was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in design, which may have introduced bias. The small sample size of 25 women may have limited the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the study did not include a control group, which made it difficult to attribute outcomes solely to anti–IL-6 therapy. The lack of long-term follow-up data on the neonates also limited the understanding of potential long-term effects.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. Some authors, including the lead author, received speaker fees, grants, or consultancy fees from academic institutions or pharmaceutical companies or had other ties with various sources.

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

A new consensus statement recommended genetic testing for all categories of kidney diseases whenever a genetic cause is suspected and offered guidance on who to test, which tests are the most useful, and how to talk to patients about results.

The statement, published online in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases, is the work of four dozen authors — including patients, nephrologists, experts in clinical and laboratory genetics, kidney pathology, genetic counseling, and ethics. The experts were brought together by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) with the goal of broadening use and understanding of the tests.

About 10% or more of kidney diseases in adults and 70% of selected chronic kidney diseases (CKDs) in children have genetic causes. But nephrologists have reported a lack of education about genetic testing, and other barriers to wider use, including limited access to testing, cost, insurance coverage, and a small number of genetic counselors who are versed in kidney genetics.

Genetic testing “in the kidney field is a little less developed than in other fields,” said co–lead author Nora Franceschini, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, and a nephrologist who studies the genetic epidemiology of hypertension and kidney and cardiovascular diseases.

There are already many known variants that play a role in various kidney diseases and more are on the horizon, Dr. Franceschini told this news organization. More genetic tests will be available in the near future. “The workforce needs to be prepared,” she said.

The statement is an initial step that gets clinicians thinking about testing in a more systematic way, said Dr. Franceschini. “Genetic testing is just another test that physicians can use to complete the story when evaluating patients.

“I think clinicians are ready to implement” testing, said Dr. Franceschini. “We just need to have better guidance.”
 

Who, When, What to Test

The NKF statement is not the first to try to address gaps in use and knowledge. A European Renal Association Working Group published guidelines in 2022.

The NKF Working Group came up with 56 recommendations and separate algorithms to guide testing for adult and pediatric individuals who are considered at-risk (and currently asymptomatic) and for those who already have clinical disease.

Testing can help determine a cause if there’s an atypical clinical presentation, and it can help avoid biopsies, said the group. Tests can also guide choice of therapy.

For at-risk individuals, there are two broad situations in which testing might be considered: In family members of a patient who already has kidney disease and in potential kidney donors. But testing at-risk children younger than 18 years should only be done if there is an intervention available that could prevent, treat, or slow progression of disease, said the authors.

For patients with an established genetic diagnosis, at-risk family members should be tested with the known single-gene variant diagnostic instead of a broad panel, said the group.

Single-gene variant testing is most appropriate in situations when clinical disease is already evident or when there is known genetic disease in the family, according to the NKF panel. A large diagnostic panel that covers the many common genetic causes of kidney disease is recommended for the majority of patients.

The group recommended that apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) testing should be included in gene panels for CKD, and it should be offered to any patient “with clinical findings suggestive of APOL1-association nephropathy, regardless of race and ethnicity.”

High-risk APOL1 genotypes confer a 5- to 10-fold increased risk for CKD and are found in one out of seven individuals of African ancestry, which means the focus has largely been on testing those with that ancestry.

However, with many unknowns about APOL1, the NKF panel did not want to “profile” individuals and suggest that testing should not be based on skin color or race/ethnicity, said Dr. Franceschini.

In addition, only about 10% of those with the variant develop disease, so testing is not currently warranted for those who do not already have kidney disease, said the group.

They also recommended against the use of polygenic risk scores, saying that there are not enough data from diverse populations in genome-wide association studies for kidney disease or on their clinical utility.
 

More Education Needed; Many Barriers

The authors acknowledged that nephrologists generally receive little education in genetics and lack support for interpreting and discussing results.

“Nephrologists should be provided with training and best practice resources to interpret genetic testing and discuss the results with individuals and their families,” they wrote, adding that there’s a need for genomic medicine boards at academic centers that would be available to help nephrologists interpret results and plot clinical management.

The group did not, however, cite some of the other barriers to adoption of testing, including a limited number of sites offering testing, cost, and lack of insurance coverage for the diagnostics.

Medicare may cover genetic testing for kidney disease when an individual has symptoms and there is a Food and Drug Administration–approved test. Joseph Vassalotti, MD, chief medical officer for the NKF, said private insurance may cover the testing if the nephrologist deems it medically necessary, but that he usually confirms coverage before initiating testing. The often-used Renasight panel, which tests for 385 genes related to kidney diseases, costs $300-$400 out of pocket, Dr. Vassalotti told this news organization.

In a survey of 149 nephrologists conducted in 2021, both users (46%) and nonusers of the tests (69%) said that high cost was the most significant perceived barrier to implementing widespread testing. A third of users and almost two thirds of nonusers said that poor availability or lack of ease of testing was the second most significant barrier.

Clinics that test for kidney genes “are largely confined to large academic centers and some specialty clinics,” said Dominic Raj, MD, the Bert B. Brooks chair, and Divya Shankaranarayanan, MD, director of the Kidney Precision Medicine Clinic, both at George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Washington, DC, in an email.

Testing is also limited by cultural barriers, lack of genetic literacy, and patients’ concerns that a positive result could lead to a loss of health insurance coverage, said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan.
 

Paper Will Help Expand Use

A lack of consensus has also held back expansion. The new statement “may lead to increased and possibly judicious utilization of genetic testing in nephrology practices,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan. “Most importantly, the panel has given specific guidance as to what type of genetic test platform is likely to yield the best and most cost-effective yield.”

The most effective use is “in monogenic kidney diseases and to a lesser extent in oligogenic kidney disease,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan, adding that testing is of less-certain utility in polygenic kidney diseases, “where complex genetic and epigenetic factors determine the phenotype.”

Genetic testing might be especially useful “in atypical clinical presentations” and can help clinicians avoid unnecessary expensive and extensive investigations when multiple organ systems are involved, they said.

“Most importantly, [testing] might prevent unnecessary and potentially harmful treatment and enable targeted specific treatment, when available,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan.

Dr. Franceschini and Dr. Shankaranarayanan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Raj disclosed that he received consulting fees and honoraria from Novo Nordisk and is a national leader for the company’s Zeus trial, studying whether ziltivekimab reduces the risk for cardiovascular events in cardiovascular disease, CKD, and inflammation. He also participated in a study of Natera’s Renasight, a 385-gene panel for kidney disease.

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

A new consensus statement recommended genetic testing for all categories of kidney diseases whenever a genetic cause is suspected and offered guidance on who to test, which tests are the most useful, and how to talk to patients about results.

The statement, published online in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases, is the work of four dozen authors — including patients, nephrologists, experts in clinical and laboratory genetics, kidney pathology, genetic counseling, and ethics. The experts were brought together by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) with the goal of broadening use and understanding of the tests.

About 10% or more of kidney diseases in adults and 70% of selected chronic kidney diseases (CKDs) in children have genetic causes. But nephrologists have reported a lack of education about genetic testing, and other barriers to wider use, including limited access to testing, cost, insurance coverage, and a small number of genetic counselors who are versed in kidney genetics.

Genetic testing “in the kidney field is a little less developed than in other fields,” said co–lead author Nora Franceschini, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, and a nephrologist who studies the genetic epidemiology of hypertension and kidney and cardiovascular diseases.

There are already many known variants that play a role in various kidney diseases and more are on the horizon, Dr. Franceschini told this news organization. More genetic tests will be available in the near future. “The workforce needs to be prepared,” she said.

The statement is an initial step that gets clinicians thinking about testing in a more systematic way, said Dr. Franceschini. “Genetic testing is just another test that physicians can use to complete the story when evaluating patients.

“I think clinicians are ready to implement” testing, said Dr. Franceschini. “We just need to have better guidance.”
 

Who, When, What to Test

The NKF statement is not the first to try to address gaps in use and knowledge. A European Renal Association Working Group published guidelines in 2022.

The NKF Working Group came up with 56 recommendations and separate algorithms to guide testing for adult and pediatric individuals who are considered at-risk (and currently asymptomatic) and for those who already have clinical disease.

Testing can help determine a cause if there’s an atypical clinical presentation, and it can help avoid biopsies, said the group. Tests can also guide choice of therapy.

For at-risk individuals, there are two broad situations in which testing might be considered: In family members of a patient who already has kidney disease and in potential kidney donors. But testing at-risk children younger than 18 years should only be done if there is an intervention available that could prevent, treat, or slow progression of disease, said the authors.

For patients with an established genetic diagnosis, at-risk family members should be tested with the known single-gene variant diagnostic instead of a broad panel, said the group.

Single-gene variant testing is most appropriate in situations when clinical disease is already evident or when there is known genetic disease in the family, according to the NKF panel. A large diagnostic panel that covers the many common genetic causes of kidney disease is recommended for the majority of patients.

The group recommended that apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) testing should be included in gene panels for CKD, and it should be offered to any patient “with clinical findings suggestive of APOL1-association nephropathy, regardless of race and ethnicity.”

High-risk APOL1 genotypes confer a 5- to 10-fold increased risk for CKD and are found in one out of seven individuals of African ancestry, which means the focus has largely been on testing those with that ancestry.

However, with many unknowns about APOL1, the NKF panel did not want to “profile” individuals and suggest that testing should not be based on skin color or race/ethnicity, said Dr. Franceschini.

In addition, only about 10% of those with the variant develop disease, so testing is not currently warranted for those who do not already have kidney disease, said the group.

They also recommended against the use of polygenic risk scores, saying that there are not enough data from diverse populations in genome-wide association studies for kidney disease or on their clinical utility.
 

More Education Needed; Many Barriers

The authors acknowledged that nephrologists generally receive little education in genetics and lack support for interpreting and discussing results.

“Nephrologists should be provided with training and best practice resources to interpret genetic testing and discuss the results with individuals and their families,” they wrote, adding that there’s a need for genomic medicine boards at academic centers that would be available to help nephrologists interpret results and plot clinical management.

The group did not, however, cite some of the other barriers to adoption of testing, including a limited number of sites offering testing, cost, and lack of insurance coverage for the diagnostics.

Medicare may cover genetic testing for kidney disease when an individual has symptoms and there is a Food and Drug Administration–approved test. Joseph Vassalotti, MD, chief medical officer for the NKF, said private insurance may cover the testing if the nephrologist deems it medically necessary, but that he usually confirms coverage before initiating testing. The often-used Renasight panel, which tests for 385 genes related to kidney diseases, costs $300-$400 out of pocket, Dr. Vassalotti told this news organization.

In a survey of 149 nephrologists conducted in 2021, both users (46%) and nonusers of the tests (69%) said that high cost was the most significant perceived barrier to implementing widespread testing. A third of users and almost two thirds of nonusers said that poor availability or lack of ease of testing was the second most significant barrier.

Clinics that test for kidney genes “are largely confined to large academic centers and some specialty clinics,” said Dominic Raj, MD, the Bert B. Brooks chair, and Divya Shankaranarayanan, MD, director of the Kidney Precision Medicine Clinic, both at George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Washington, DC, in an email.

Testing is also limited by cultural barriers, lack of genetic literacy, and patients’ concerns that a positive result could lead to a loss of health insurance coverage, said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan.
 

Paper Will Help Expand Use

A lack of consensus has also held back expansion. The new statement “may lead to increased and possibly judicious utilization of genetic testing in nephrology practices,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan. “Most importantly, the panel has given specific guidance as to what type of genetic test platform is likely to yield the best and most cost-effective yield.”

The most effective use is “in monogenic kidney diseases and to a lesser extent in oligogenic kidney disease,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan, adding that testing is of less-certain utility in polygenic kidney diseases, “where complex genetic and epigenetic factors determine the phenotype.”

Genetic testing might be especially useful “in atypical clinical presentations” and can help clinicians avoid unnecessary expensive and extensive investigations when multiple organ systems are involved, they said.

“Most importantly, [testing] might prevent unnecessary and potentially harmful treatment and enable targeted specific treatment, when available,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan.

Dr. Franceschini and Dr. Shankaranarayanan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Raj disclosed that he received consulting fees and honoraria from Novo Nordisk and is a national leader for the company’s Zeus trial, studying whether ziltivekimab reduces the risk for cardiovascular events in cardiovascular disease, CKD, and inflammation. He also participated in a study of Natera’s Renasight, a 385-gene panel for kidney disease.

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

A new consensus statement recommended genetic testing for all categories of kidney diseases whenever a genetic cause is suspected and offered guidance on who to test, which tests are the most useful, and how to talk to patients about results.

The statement, published online in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases, is the work of four dozen authors — including patients, nephrologists, experts in clinical and laboratory genetics, kidney pathology, genetic counseling, and ethics. The experts were brought together by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) with the goal of broadening use and understanding of the tests.

About 10% or more of kidney diseases in adults and 70% of selected chronic kidney diseases (CKDs) in children have genetic causes. But nephrologists have reported a lack of education about genetic testing, and other barriers to wider use, including limited access to testing, cost, insurance coverage, and a small number of genetic counselors who are versed in kidney genetics.

Genetic testing “in the kidney field is a little less developed than in other fields,” said co–lead author Nora Franceschini, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, and a nephrologist who studies the genetic epidemiology of hypertension and kidney and cardiovascular diseases.

There are already many known variants that play a role in various kidney diseases and more are on the horizon, Dr. Franceschini told this news organization. More genetic tests will be available in the near future. “The workforce needs to be prepared,” she said.

The statement is an initial step that gets clinicians thinking about testing in a more systematic way, said Dr. Franceschini. “Genetic testing is just another test that physicians can use to complete the story when evaluating patients.

“I think clinicians are ready to implement” testing, said Dr. Franceschini. “We just need to have better guidance.”
 

Who, When, What to Test

The NKF statement is not the first to try to address gaps in use and knowledge. A European Renal Association Working Group published guidelines in 2022.

The NKF Working Group came up with 56 recommendations and separate algorithms to guide testing for adult and pediatric individuals who are considered at-risk (and currently asymptomatic) and for those who already have clinical disease.

Testing can help determine a cause if there’s an atypical clinical presentation, and it can help avoid biopsies, said the group. Tests can also guide choice of therapy.

For at-risk individuals, there are two broad situations in which testing might be considered: In family members of a patient who already has kidney disease and in potential kidney donors. But testing at-risk children younger than 18 years should only be done if there is an intervention available that could prevent, treat, or slow progression of disease, said the authors.

For patients with an established genetic diagnosis, at-risk family members should be tested with the known single-gene variant diagnostic instead of a broad panel, said the group.

Single-gene variant testing is most appropriate in situations when clinical disease is already evident or when there is known genetic disease in the family, according to the NKF panel. A large diagnostic panel that covers the many common genetic causes of kidney disease is recommended for the majority of patients.

The group recommended that apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) testing should be included in gene panels for CKD, and it should be offered to any patient “with clinical findings suggestive of APOL1-association nephropathy, regardless of race and ethnicity.”

High-risk APOL1 genotypes confer a 5- to 10-fold increased risk for CKD and are found in one out of seven individuals of African ancestry, which means the focus has largely been on testing those with that ancestry.

However, with many unknowns about APOL1, the NKF panel did not want to “profile” individuals and suggest that testing should not be based on skin color or race/ethnicity, said Dr. Franceschini.

In addition, only about 10% of those with the variant develop disease, so testing is not currently warranted for those who do not already have kidney disease, said the group.

They also recommended against the use of polygenic risk scores, saying that there are not enough data from diverse populations in genome-wide association studies for kidney disease or on their clinical utility.
 

More Education Needed; Many Barriers

The authors acknowledged that nephrologists generally receive little education in genetics and lack support for interpreting and discussing results.

“Nephrologists should be provided with training and best practice resources to interpret genetic testing and discuss the results with individuals and their families,” they wrote, adding that there’s a need for genomic medicine boards at academic centers that would be available to help nephrologists interpret results and plot clinical management.

The group did not, however, cite some of the other barriers to adoption of testing, including a limited number of sites offering testing, cost, and lack of insurance coverage for the diagnostics.

Medicare may cover genetic testing for kidney disease when an individual has symptoms and there is a Food and Drug Administration–approved test. Joseph Vassalotti, MD, chief medical officer for the NKF, said private insurance may cover the testing if the nephrologist deems it medically necessary, but that he usually confirms coverage before initiating testing. The often-used Renasight panel, which tests for 385 genes related to kidney diseases, costs $300-$400 out of pocket, Dr. Vassalotti told this news organization.

In a survey of 149 nephrologists conducted in 2021, both users (46%) and nonusers of the tests (69%) said that high cost was the most significant perceived barrier to implementing widespread testing. A third of users and almost two thirds of nonusers said that poor availability or lack of ease of testing was the second most significant barrier.

Clinics that test for kidney genes “are largely confined to large academic centers and some specialty clinics,” said Dominic Raj, MD, the Bert B. Brooks chair, and Divya Shankaranarayanan, MD, director of the Kidney Precision Medicine Clinic, both at George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Washington, DC, in an email.

Testing is also limited by cultural barriers, lack of genetic literacy, and patients’ concerns that a positive result could lead to a loss of health insurance coverage, said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan.
 

Paper Will Help Expand Use

A lack of consensus has also held back expansion. The new statement “may lead to increased and possibly judicious utilization of genetic testing in nephrology practices,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan. “Most importantly, the panel has given specific guidance as to what type of genetic test platform is likely to yield the best and most cost-effective yield.”

The most effective use is “in monogenic kidney diseases and to a lesser extent in oligogenic kidney disease,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan, adding that testing is of less-certain utility in polygenic kidney diseases, “where complex genetic and epigenetic factors determine the phenotype.”

Genetic testing might be especially useful “in atypical clinical presentations” and can help clinicians avoid unnecessary expensive and extensive investigations when multiple organ systems are involved, they said.

“Most importantly, [testing] might prevent unnecessary and potentially harmful treatment and enable targeted specific treatment, when available,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan.

Dr. Franceschini and Dr. Shankaranarayanan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Raj disclosed that he received consulting fees and honoraria from Novo Nordisk and is a national leader for the company’s Zeus trial, studying whether ziltivekimab reduces the risk for cardiovascular events in cardiovascular disease, CKD, and inflammation. He also participated in a study of Natera’s Renasight, a 385-gene panel for kidney disease.

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

Experts are debating whether and how to define obesity, but clinicians’ attitudes and behavior toward patients with obesity don’t seem to be undergoing similar scrutiny.

“Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, the prevailing view in society is that obesity is a choice that can be reversed by voluntary decisions to eat less and exercise more,” a multidisciplinary group of 36 international experts wrote in a joint consensus statement for ending the stigma of obesity, published a few years ago in Nature Medicine. “These assumptions mislead public health policies, confuse messages in popular media, undermine access to evidence-based treatments, and compromise advances in research.”

These assumptions also affect how clinicians view and treat their patients.

A systematic review and meta-analysis from Australia using 27 different outcomes to assess weight bias found that “medical doctors, nurses, dietitians, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, podiatrists, and exercise physiologists hold implicit and/or explicit weight-biased attitudes toward people with obesity.”

Another recent systematic review, this one from Brazil, found that obesity bias affected both clinical decision-making and quality of care. Patients with obesity had fewer screening exams for cancer, less-frequent treatment intensification in the management of obesity, and fewer pelvic exams. The authors concluded that their findings “reveal the urgent necessity for reflection and development of strategies to mitigate the adverse impacts” of obesity bias.

“Weight is one of those things that gets judged because it can be seen,” Obesity Society Spokesperson Peminda Cabandugama, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. “People just look at someone with overweight and say, ‘That person needs to eat less and exercise more.’ ”
 

How Obesity Bias Manifests

The Obesity Action Coalition (OAC), a partner organization to the consensus statement, defines weight bias as “negative attitudes, beliefs, judgments, stereotypes, and discriminatory acts aimed at individuals simply because of their weight. It can be overt or subtle and occur in any setting, including employment, healthcare, education, mass media, and relationships with family and friends.”

The organization notes that weight bias takes many forms, including verbal, written, media, and online.

The consensus statement authors offer these definitions, which encompass the manifestations of obesity bias: Weight stigma refers to “social devaluation and denigration of individuals because of their excess body weight and can lead to negative attitudes, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination.” 

Weight discrimination refers to “overt forms of weight-based prejudice and unfair treatment (biased behaviors) toward individuals with overweight or obesity.” The authors noted that some public health efforts “openly embrace stigmatization of individuals with obesity based on the assumption that shame will motivate them to change behavior and achieve weight loss through a self-directed diet and increased physical exercise.”

The result: “Individuals with obesity face not only increased risk of serious medical complications but also a pervasive, resilient form of social stigma. Often perceived (without evidence) as lazy, gluttonous, lacking will power and self-discipline, individuals with overweight or obesity are vulnerable to stigma and discrimination in the workplace, education, healthcare settings, and society in general.”

“Obesity bias is so pervasive that the most common thing I hear when I ask a patient why they’re referred to me is ‘my doctor wants me to lose weight,’” Dr. Cabandugama said. “And the first thing I ask them is ‘what do you want to do?’ They come in because they’ve already been judged, and more often than not, in ways that come across as derogatory or punitive — like it’s their fault.”

 

Why It Persists

Experts say a big part of the problem is the lack of obesity education in medical school. A recent survey study found that medical schools are not prioritizing obesity in their curricula. Among 40 medical schools responding to the survey, only 10% said they believed their students were “very prepared” to manage patients with obesity, and one third had no obesity education program in place with no plans to develop one.

“Most healthcare providers do not get much meaningful education on obesity during medical school or postgraduate training, and many of their opinions may be influenced by the pervasive weight bias that exists in society,” affirmed Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of Weight Wellness Program and associate professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “We need to prioritize updating education and certification curricula to reflect the current science.”

Small wonder that a recent comparison of explicit weight bias among US resident physicians from 49 medical schools across 16 clinical specialties found “problematic levels” of weight bias — eg, anti-fat blame, anti-fat dislike, and other negative attitudes toward patients — in all specialties. 
 

What to Do

To counteract the stigma, when working with patients who have overweight, “We need to be respectful of them, their bodies, and their health wishes,” Dr. Almandoz told this news organization. “Clinicians should always ask for permission to discuss their weight and frame weight or BMI in the context of health, not just an arbitrary number or goal.”

“Many people with obesity have had traumatic and stigmatizing experiences with well-intentioned healthcare providers,” he noted. “This can lead to the avoidance of routine healthcare and screenings and potential exacerbations and maladaptive health behaviors.”

“Be mindful of the environment that you and your office create for people with obesity,” he advised. “Consider getting additional education and information about weight bias.”

The OAC has resources on obesity bias, including steps clinicians can take to reduce the impact. These include, among others: Encouraging patients to share their experiences of stigma to help them feel less isolated in these experiences; helping them identify ways to effectively cope with stigma, such as using positive “self-talk” and obtaining social support from others; and encouraging participation in activities that they may have restricted due to feelings of shame about their weight.

Clinicians can also improve the physical and social environment of their practice by having bathrooms that are easily negotiated by heavier individuals, sturdy armless chairs in waiting rooms, offices with large exam tables, gowns and blood pressure cuffs in appropriate sizes, and “weight-friendly” reading materials rather than fashion magazines with thin supermodels.

Importantly, clinicians need to address the issue of weight bias within themselves, their medical staff, and colleagues, according to the OAC. To be effective and empathic with individuals affected by obesity “requires honest self-examination of one’s own attitudes and weight bias.”

Dr. Almandoz reported being a consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly and Company. Dr. Cabandugama reported no competing interests. 
 

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

Experts are debating whether and how to define obesity, but clinicians’ attitudes and behavior toward patients with obesity don’t seem to be undergoing similar scrutiny.

“Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, the prevailing view in society is that obesity is a choice that can be reversed by voluntary decisions to eat less and exercise more,” a multidisciplinary group of 36 international experts wrote in a joint consensus statement for ending the stigma of obesity, published a few years ago in Nature Medicine. “These assumptions mislead public health policies, confuse messages in popular media, undermine access to evidence-based treatments, and compromise advances in research.”

These assumptions also affect how clinicians view and treat their patients.

A systematic review and meta-analysis from Australia using 27 different outcomes to assess weight bias found that “medical doctors, nurses, dietitians, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, podiatrists, and exercise physiologists hold implicit and/or explicit weight-biased attitudes toward people with obesity.”

Another recent systematic review, this one from Brazil, found that obesity bias affected both clinical decision-making and quality of care. Patients with obesity had fewer screening exams for cancer, less-frequent treatment intensification in the management of obesity, and fewer pelvic exams. The authors concluded that their findings “reveal the urgent necessity for reflection and development of strategies to mitigate the adverse impacts” of obesity bias.

“Weight is one of those things that gets judged because it can be seen,” Obesity Society Spokesperson Peminda Cabandugama, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. “People just look at someone with overweight and say, ‘That person needs to eat less and exercise more.’ ”
 

How Obesity Bias Manifests

The Obesity Action Coalition (OAC), a partner organization to the consensus statement, defines weight bias as “negative attitudes, beliefs, judgments, stereotypes, and discriminatory acts aimed at individuals simply because of their weight. It can be overt or subtle and occur in any setting, including employment, healthcare, education, mass media, and relationships with family and friends.”

The organization notes that weight bias takes many forms, including verbal, written, media, and online.

The consensus statement authors offer these definitions, which encompass the manifestations of obesity bias: Weight stigma refers to “social devaluation and denigration of individuals because of their excess body weight and can lead to negative attitudes, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination.” 

Weight discrimination refers to “overt forms of weight-based prejudice and unfair treatment (biased behaviors) toward individuals with overweight or obesity.” The authors noted that some public health efforts “openly embrace stigmatization of individuals with obesity based on the assumption that shame will motivate them to change behavior and achieve weight loss through a self-directed diet and increased physical exercise.”

The result: “Individuals with obesity face not only increased risk of serious medical complications but also a pervasive, resilient form of social stigma. Often perceived (without evidence) as lazy, gluttonous, lacking will power and self-discipline, individuals with overweight or obesity are vulnerable to stigma and discrimination in the workplace, education, healthcare settings, and society in general.”

“Obesity bias is so pervasive that the most common thing I hear when I ask a patient why they’re referred to me is ‘my doctor wants me to lose weight,’” Dr. Cabandugama said. “And the first thing I ask them is ‘what do you want to do?’ They come in because they’ve already been judged, and more often than not, in ways that come across as derogatory or punitive — like it’s their fault.”

 

Why It Persists

Experts say a big part of the problem is the lack of obesity education in medical school. A recent survey study found that medical schools are not prioritizing obesity in their curricula. Among 40 medical schools responding to the survey, only 10% said they believed their students were “very prepared” to manage patients with obesity, and one third had no obesity education program in place with no plans to develop one.

“Most healthcare providers do not get much meaningful education on obesity during medical school or postgraduate training, and many of their opinions may be influenced by the pervasive weight bias that exists in society,” affirmed Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of Weight Wellness Program and associate professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “We need to prioritize updating education and certification curricula to reflect the current science.”

Small wonder that a recent comparison of explicit weight bias among US resident physicians from 49 medical schools across 16 clinical specialties found “problematic levels” of weight bias — eg, anti-fat blame, anti-fat dislike, and other negative attitudes toward patients — in all specialties. 
 

What to Do

To counteract the stigma, when working with patients who have overweight, “We need to be respectful of them, their bodies, and their health wishes,” Dr. Almandoz told this news organization. “Clinicians should always ask for permission to discuss their weight and frame weight or BMI in the context of health, not just an arbitrary number or goal.”

“Many people with obesity have had traumatic and stigmatizing experiences with well-intentioned healthcare providers,” he noted. “This can lead to the avoidance of routine healthcare and screenings and potential exacerbations and maladaptive health behaviors.”

“Be mindful of the environment that you and your office create for people with obesity,” he advised. “Consider getting additional education and information about weight bias.”

The OAC has resources on obesity bias, including steps clinicians can take to reduce the impact. These include, among others: Encouraging patients to share their experiences of stigma to help them feel less isolated in these experiences; helping them identify ways to effectively cope with stigma, such as using positive “self-talk” and obtaining social support from others; and encouraging participation in activities that they may have restricted due to feelings of shame about their weight.

Clinicians can also improve the physical and social environment of their practice by having bathrooms that are easily negotiated by heavier individuals, sturdy armless chairs in waiting rooms, offices with large exam tables, gowns and blood pressure cuffs in appropriate sizes, and “weight-friendly” reading materials rather than fashion magazines with thin supermodels.

Importantly, clinicians need to address the issue of weight bias within themselves, their medical staff, and colleagues, according to the OAC. To be effective and empathic with individuals affected by obesity “requires honest self-examination of one’s own attitudes and weight bias.”

Dr. Almandoz reported being a consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly and Company. Dr. Cabandugama reported no competing interests. 
 

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

Experts are debating whether and how to define obesity, but clinicians’ attitudes and behavior toward patients with obesity don’t seem to be undergoing similar scrutiny.

“Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, the prevailing view in society is that obesity is a choice that can be reversed by voluntary decisions to eat less and exercise more,” a multidisciplinary group of 36 international experts wrote in a joint consensus statement for ending the stigma of obesity, published a few years ago in Nature Medicine. “These assumptions mislead public health policies, confuse messages in popular media, undermine access to evidence-based treatments, and compromise advances in research.”

These assumptions also affect how clinicians view and treat their patients.

A systematic review and meta-analysis from Australia using 27 different outcomes to assess weight bias found that “medical doctors, nurses, dietitians, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, podiatrists, and exercise physiologists hold implicit and/or explicit weight-biased attitudes toward people with obesity.”

Another recent systematic review, this one from Brazil, found that obesity bias affected both clinical decision-making and quality of care. Patients with obesity had fewer screening exams for cancer, less-frequent treatment intensification in the management of obesity, and fewer pelvic exams. The authors concluded that their findings “reveal the urgent necessity for reflection and development of strategies to mitigate the adverse impacts” of obesity bias.

“Weight is one of those things that gets judged because it can be seen,” Obesity Society Spokesperson Peminda Cabandugama, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. “People just look at someone with overweight and say, ‘That person needs to eat less and exercise more.’ ”
 

How Obesity Bias Manifests

The Obesity Action Coalition (OAC), a partner organization to the consensus statement, defines weight bias as “negative attitudes, beliefs, judgments, stereotypes, and discriminatory acts aimed at individuals simply because of their weight. It can be overt or subtle and occur in any setting, including employment, healthcare, education, mass media, and relationships with family and friends.”

The organization notes that weight bias takes many forms, including verbal, written, media, and online.

The consensus statement authors offer these definitions, which encompass the manifestations of obesity bias: Weight stigma refers to “social devaluation and denigration of individuals because of their excess body weight and can lead to negative attitudes, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination.” 

Weight discrimination refers to “overt forms of weight-based prejudice and unfair treatment (biased behaviors) toward individuals with overweight or obesity.” The authors noted that some public health efforts “openly embrace stigmatization of individuals with obesity based on the assumption that shame will motivate them to change behavior and achieve weight loss through a self-directed diet and increased physical exercise.”

The result: “Individuals with obesity face not only increased risk of serious medical complications but also a pervasive, resilient form of social stigma. Often perceived (without evidence) as lazy, gluttonous, lacking will power and self-discipline, individuals with overweight or obesity are vulnerable to stigma and discrimination in the workplace, education, healthcare settings, and society in general.”

“Obesity bias is so pervasive that the most common thing I hear when I ask a patient why they’re referred to me is ‘my doctor wants me to lose weight,’” Dr. Cabandugama said. “And the first thing I ask them is ‘what do you want to do?’ They come in because they’ve already been judged, and more often than not, in ways that come across as derogatory or punitive — like it’s their fault.”

 

Why It Persists

Experts say a big part of the problem is the lack of obesity education in medical school. A recent survey study found that medical schools are not prioritizing obesity in their curricula. Among 40 medical schools responding to the survey, only 10% said they believed their students were “very prepared” to manage patients with obesity, and one third had no obesity education program in place with no plans to develop one.

“Most healthcare providers do not get much meaningful education on obesity during medical school or postgraduate training, and many of their opinions may be influenced by the pervasive weight bias that exists in society,” affirmed Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of Weight Wellness Program and associate professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “We need to prioritize updating education and certification curricula to reflect the current science.”

Small wonder that a recent comparison of explicit weight bias among US resident physicians from 49 medical schools across 16 clinical specialties found “problematic levels” of weight bias — eg, anti-fat blame, anti-fat dislike, and other negative attitudes toward patients — in all specialties. 
 

What to Do

To counteract the stigma, when working with patients who have overweight, “We need to be respectful of them, their bodies, and their health wishes,” Dr. Almandoz told this news organization. “Clinicians should always ask for permission to discuss their weight and frame weight or BMI in the context of health, not just an arbitrary number or goal.”

“Many people with obesity have had traumatic and stigmatizing experiences with well-intentioned healthcare providers,” he noted. “This can lead to the avoidance of routine healthcare and screenings and potential exacerbations and maladaptive health behaviors.”

“Be mindful of the environment that you and your office create for people with obesity,” he advised. “Consider getting additional education and information about weight bias.”

The OAC has resources on obesity bias, including steps clinicians can take to reduce the impact. These include, among others: Encouraging patients to share their experiences of stigma to help them feel less isolated in these experiences; helping them identify ways to effectively cope with stigma, such as using positive “self-talk” and obtaining social support from others; and encouraging participation in activities that they may have restricted due to feelings of shame about their weight.

Clinicians can also improve the physical and social environment of their practice by having bathrooms that are easily negotiated by heavier individuals, sturdy armless chairs in waiting rooms, offices with large exam tables, gowns and blood pressure cuffs in appropriate sizes, and “weight-friendly” reading materials rather than fashion magazines with thin supermodels.

Importantly, clinicians need to address the issue of weight bias within themselves, their medical staff, and colleagues, according to the OAC. To be effective and empathic with individuals affected by obesity “requires honest self-examination of one’s own attitudes and weight bias.”

Dr. Almandoz reported being a consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly and Company. Dr. Cabandugama reported no competing interests. 
 

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