Hematology News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding Residency Spots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pushing for More Funds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding Residency Spots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pushing for More Funds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding Residency Spots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pushing for More Funds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nearly one-third of US adults may have low iron levels that can add to problems ranging from fatigue to heart failure. 

Researchers in a new study estimated that 7% of US adults have anemia, a blood disorder that can be iron related and is particularly well-known in part because of screenings given during pregnancy. But more striking was the finding in this latest study that a significant portion of the population may have less severe iron deficiencies that have been linked to serious health problems.

The body gets iron from food, and it can store iron for times when there isn’t enough it can access right away. The research team looked at test results that show whether people have enough iron stored, as well as whether their bodies could effectively use available iron. If you don’t have enough iron stored, you have a condition called absolute iron deficiency. And if you have stored iron but problems using it, you have what’s called functional iron deficiency. The study found that an estimated 14% of adults have absolute iron deficiency, and another 15% have functional iron deficiency.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, are based on data from more than 8,000 people who had laboratory iron levels on file as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey that was done from 2017 to 2020.

Besides anemia, iron deficiency is linked to other serious health problems, including restless legs syndrome, mental and thinking difficulties, reduced physical abilities, and heart failure, the authors noted. The effects of iron deficiency can significantly impact a person’s quality of life.

Routine blood work as part of an annual physical doesn’t typically include a check of iron levels unless there is a cause for concern. The out-of-pocket cost without using insurance for a blood test to check iron levels is typically around $60. 

“This is a common yet underappreciated public health problem,” study author Leo Buckley, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacology specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told NBC News. “What’s unique about our study is we were looking at regular people who would not otherwise have been screened or tested.”

Treatment for low iron levels can include changes to your diet, as well as intravenous or oral supplements. Taking an iron supplement should be done under the guidance of a health care provider because of the risk of iron toxicity.

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

Nearly one-third of US adults may have low iron levels that can add to problems ranging from fatigue to heart failure. 

Researchers in a new study estimated that 7% of US adults have anemia, a blood disorder that can be iron related and is particularly well-known in part because of screenings given during pregnancy. But more striking was the finding in this latest study that a significant portion of the population may have less severe iron deficiencies that have been linked to serious health problems.

The body gets iron from food, and it can store iron for times when there isn’t enough it can access right away. The research team looked at test results that show whether people have enough iron stored, as well as whether their bodies could effectively use available iron. If you don’t have enough iron stored, you have a condition called absolute iron deficiency. And if you have stored iron but problems using it, you have what’s called functional iron deficiency. The study found that an estimated 14% of adults have absolute iron deficiency, and another 15% have functional iron deficiency.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, are based on data from more than 8,000 people who had laboratory iron levels on file as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey that was done from 2017 to 2020.

Besides anemia, iron deficiency is linked to other serious health problems, including restless legs syndrome, mental and thinking difficulties, reduced physical abilities, and heart failure, the authors noted. The effects of iron deficiency can significantly impact a person’s quality of life.

Routine blood work as part of an annual physical doesn’t typically include a check of iron levels unless there is a cause for concern. The out-of-pocket cost without using insurance for a blood test to check iron levels is typically around $60. 

“This is a common yet underappreciated public health problem,” study author Leo Buckley, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacology specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told NBC News. “What’s unique about our study is we were looking at regular people who would not otherwise have been screened or tested.”

Treatment for low iron levels can include changes to your diet, as well as intravenous or oral supplements. Taking an iron supplement should be done under the guidance of a health care provider because of the risk of iron toxicity.

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

Nearly one-third of US adults may have low iron levels that can add to problems ranging from fatigue to heart failure. 

Researchers in a new study estimated that 7% of US adults have anemia, a blood disorder that can be iron related and is particularly well-known in part because of screenings given during pregnancy. But more striking was the finding in this latest study that a significant portion of the population may have less severe iron deficiencies that have been linked to serious health problems.

The body gets iron from food, and it can store iron for times when there isn’t enough it can access right away. The research team looked at test results that show whether people have enough iron stored, as well as whether their bodies could effectively use available iron. If you don’t have enough iron stored, you have a condition called absolute iron deficiency. And if you have stored iron but problems using it, you have what’s called functional iron deficiency. The study found that an estimated 14% of adults have absolute iron deficiency, and another 15% have functional iron deficiency.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, are based on data from more than 8,000 people who had laboratory iron levels on file as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey that was done from 2017 to 2020.

Besides anemia, iron deficiency is linked to other serious health problems, including restless legs syndrome, mental and thinking difficulties, reduced physical abilities, and heart failure, the authors noted. The effects of iron deficiency can significantly impact a person’s quality of life.

Routine blood work as part of an annual physical doesn’t typically include a check of iron levels unless there is a cause for concern. The out-of-pocket cost without using insurance for a blood test to check iron levels is typically around $60. 

“This is a common yet underappreciated public health problem,” study author Leo Buckley, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacology specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told NBC News. “What’s unique about our study is we were looking at regular people who would not otherwise have been screened or tested.”

Treatment for low iron levels can include changes to your diet, as well as intravenous or oral supplements. Taking an iron supplement should be done under the guidance of a health care provider because of the risk of iron toxicity.

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

Guinea pigs are important to Ohio State University leukemia specialist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, but not because they’re in her research laboratory, where the focus is on studying treatments for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), hairy cell leukemia, and autoimmune hemolytic anemia. Instead, two of these little creatures — Pancake and Maple — are pets who live with her at home. 

Sometimes, however, Dr. Rogers’ guinea pigs pay visits to her workplace. Every Halloween, she dresses them up and shows off their photos to just about everyone. Patients, coworkers, and even random people in the elevator get glimpses of the furry pair, who pose as dinosaurs, bats, aquarium shrimp, sharks, spiders, and bumblebees.

courtesy Ohio State University

“Being in the hospital is not funny, but guinea pigs dressed up for Halloween is incredibly funny,” Dr. Rogers said. “They make a lot of people smile.”

For physician-scientist Dr. Rogers, a native of suburban Chicago, quality of life for patients is a priority, even when she’s not trying to entertain them and lift their spirits.

The field of hematology “is trying to figure out not only what’s biologically effective for disease, but also what might be best for people living with the condition,” she said. “This is especially true in terms of patient preference for a treatment you complete vs an ongoing or continuous treatment. I really like this idea of having more attention paid to what matters to patients, which the field of medicine sometimes forgets.”

In an interview, Dr. Rogers spoke about the appeal of storytelling in medicine, advances in treatment for CLL and hairy cell leukemia, and the challenges of college football loyalty. 

How did you get drawn to medicine?

Ever since I was a kid, I thought, “Oh, I really want to be a doctor. That sounds fun.” At its core, medicine blends things I really like: science, helping people with a problem, and storytelling. 

The practice of medicine is a lot about stories — talking to people, figuring out what they’re telling you about what’s going on, then explaining what you know in a way that makes sense to them. 

What changes have you seen in leukemia care during your career?

The biggest change is the move from chemotherapies to targeted agents. When I first did a fellowship here at Ohio State, we had studies of ibrutinib, the first-in-class covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor. We’d see patients who’d been on chemotherapy for the past 10 or 15 years, and then they got in a clinical trial. Ibrutinib worked better than any of the chemotherapy, and they felt better and had fewer side effects. 

Now, chemoimmunotherapy is not recommended for CLL, and you can see the impact of targeted agents on the lives of patients. Instead of telling people they need to put aside work and personal plans to take intensive chemotherapy for 6 months, you say: “You’ve got to come to some more appointments to make sure the treatment is going well, and you don’t have too many side effects. But you can expect to continue to work full-time and go to your niece’s wedding out of state or whatever else you want to do.”

What are you most excited about working on? 

I’m the principal investigator of a study combining obinutuzumab, ibrutinib, and venetoclax for a fixed duration, a defined treatment course of a little over a year. I just reported the median progression-free survival for phase 2 at the European Hematology Association meeting this spring. It was over 7 years for both patients who had prior treatment and those who hadn’t. 

The idea that people could take a year of treatment and get a huge benefit after completing it is quite important. The regimen has gone into phase 3 testing, and we’re now trying to understand the impact in terms of which patients got longer responses or which didn’t. 

What are some challenges that remain in CLL?

There are still patients whose CLL becomes resistant to our two most commonly used classes of agents: BTK inhibitors and the BLC2 inhibitor, venetoclax. There are some more BCL2 inhibitors in development, but venetoclax is the only one currently approved.

I am also principal investigator on another study that added venetoclax to ibrutinib when resistance mutations developed that would predict ultimate resistance to ibrutinib. The median progression-free survival in that study was 40.7 months, whereas the expectation with venetoclax alone is 24 months. So, it really improved the amount of time people were in remission. This study is ongoing. 

We’ve just started a phase 2 study to have patients take pirtobrutinib, a noncovalent BTK inhibitor, in combination with venetoclax in cases where CLL has become resistant to a covalent BTK inhibitor. Patients will take this combination for about a year and a half. 

It’s been really exciting to see the impact of some of these combinations both as first-line CLL treatment and in CLL that’s become resistant. But trying to understand what predicts response is a harder thing. I wish I knew the answers for what causes this synergy between those two classes of drugs. 

You also specialize in hairy cell leukemia. Could you talk about what it is? 

CLL is the most prevalent adult leukemia in the Western world, whereas hairy cell leukemia is very rare. It’s a slow-growing B-cell cancer that got its name because under the microscope, the cells have hairy projections on them.

It had a survival of only about 2-4 years before the development of purine analogs. After a course of pentostatin or cladribine (2-chlordeoxyadenosine), some people never need treatment again in our natural lifespan. 

But some patients don’t benefit from purine analogs, either because they have a devastating infection that makes them unsuitable or for another reason. Or they end up needing treatment every 2-3 years, which isn’t something you want to do for 30 years of someone’s lifespan. 

What are some challenges in hairy cell leukemia?

It’s a rare condition, so it can be hard to do a really large clinical trial. A lot of physicians think that the prognosis is good and miss out on an opportunity for better treatment and to generate new knowledge.

Also, some people perceive that it’s not actually a problem for people living with it. Cladribine and pentostatin are not terrible chemotherapies, and most people tolerate them very well. But we can make treatment for hairy cell more effective and more tolerable for our patients if we put more effort into researching it. 

I’ve heard that you’re a big college football fan. How do you balance your history as a University of Michigan medical school alum with your work for archrival Ohio State? 

I went to Northwestern for undergrad, as did several people in my family. So, I usually just claim Northwestern is my football affiliation. It doesn’t inspire much vitriol if you cheer for Northwestern! 

And I understand that you live with a pair of guinea pigs. Do tell.

I adopted guinea pigs as pets in medical school. They’re cute and friendly, and they make all this noise for you when you come home. 

Courtesy Dr. Rogers

Once, one of my clinic patients said, “I don’t want to be your guinea pig.” I thought, “you should be so lucky.” They have quite a lifestyle: They’ve trained me to bring them vegetables, they nap most of the time, and they have a play space, a guinea pig playground. 

I thought I liked the guinea pigs more than they liked me. But last fall, I was gone for about 10 days. When I got back, I’d never heard them make so much noise. They were extremely happy to see me. Then for the next 48 hours, one would randomly start whistling for me to come over. I thought, “oh, these things do like me a little bit.”

Dr. Rogers disclosed receiving research funding from Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, and AstraZeneca and consulting/advisory relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Genentech, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Loxo@Lilly, and Alpine Immune Sciences. 

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

Guinea pigs are important to Ohio State University leukemia specialist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, but not because they’re in her research laboratory, where the focus is on studying treatments for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), hairy cell leukemia, and autoimmune hemolytic anemia. Instead, two of these little creatures — Pancake and Maple — are pets who live with her at home. 

Sometimes, however, Dr. Rogers’ guinea pigs pay visits to her workplace. Every Halloween, she dresses them up and shows off their photos to just about everyone. Patients, coworkers, and even random people in the elevator get glimpses of the furry pair, who pose as dinosaurs, bats, aquarium shrimp, sharks, spiders, and bumblebees.

courtesy Ohio State University

“Being in the hospital is not funny, but guinea pigs dressed up for Halloween is incredibly funny,” Dr. Rogers said. “They make a lot of people smile.”

For physician-scientist Dr. Rogers, a native of suburban Chicago, quality of life for patients is a priority, even when she’s not trying to entertain them and lift their spirits.

The field of hematology “is trying to figure out not only what’s biologically effective for disease, but also what might be best for people living with the condition,” she said. “This is especially true in terms of patient preference for a treatment you complete vs an ongoing or continuous treatment. I really like this idea of having more attention paid to what matters to patients, which the field of medicine sometimes forgets.”

In an interview, Dr. Rogers spoke about the appeal of storytelling in medicine, advances in treatment for CLL and hairy cell leukemia, and the challenges of college football loyalty. 

How did you get drawn to medicine?

Ever since I was a kid, I thought, “Oh, I really want to be a doctor. That sounds fun.” At its core, medicine blends things I really like: science, helping people with a problem, and storytelling. 

The practice of medicine is a lot about stories — talking to people, figuring out what they’re telling you about what’s going on, then explaining what you know in a way that makes sense to them. 

What changes have you seen in leukemia care during your career?

The biggest change is the move from chemotherapies to targeted agents. When I first did a fellowship here at Ohio State, we had studies of ibrutinib, the first-in-class covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor. We’d see patients who’d been on chemotherapy for the past 10 or 15 years, and then they got in a clinical trial. Ibrutinib worked better than any of the chemotherapy, and they felt better and had fewer side effects. 

Now, chemoimmunotherapy is not recommended for CLL, and you can see the impact of targeted agents on the lives of patients. Instead of telling people they need to put aside work and personal plans to take intensive chemotherapy for 6 months, you say: “You’ve got to come to some more appointments to make sure the treatment is going well, and you don’t have too many side effects. But you can expect to continue to work full-time and go to your niece’s wedding out of state or whatever else you want to do.”

What are you most excited about working on? 

I’m the principal investigator of a study combining obinutuzumab, ibrutinib, and venetoclax for a fixed duration, a defined treatment course of a little over a year. I just reported the median progression-free survival for phase 2 at the European Hematology Association meeting this spring. It was over 7 years for both patients who had prior treatment and those who hadn’t. 

The idea that people could take a year of treatment and get a huge benefit after completing it is quite important. The regimen has gone into phase 3 testing, and we’re now trying to understand the impact in terms of which patients got longer responses or which didn’t. 

What are some challenges that remain in CLL?

There are still patients whose CLL becomes resistant to our two most commonly used classes of agents: BTK inhibitors and the BLC2 inhibitor, venetoclax. There are some more BCL2 inhibitors in development, but venetoclax is the only one currently approved.

I am also principal investigator on another study that added venetoclax to ibrutinib when resistance mutations developed that would predict ultimate resistance to ibrutinib. The median progression-free survival in that study was 40.7 months, whereas the expectation with venetoclax alone is 24 months. So, it really improved the amount of time people were in remission. This study is ongoing. 

We’ve just started a phase 2 study to have patients take pirtobrutinib, a noncovalent BTK inhibitor, in combination with venetoclax in cases where CLL has become resistant to a covalent BTK inhibitor. Patients will take this combination for about a year and a half. 

It’s been really exciting to see the impact of some of these combinations both as first-line CLL treatment and in CLL that’s become resistant. But trying to understand what predicts response is a harder thing. I wish I knew the answers for what causes this synergy between those two classes of drugs. 

You also specialize in hairy cell leukemia. Could you talk about what it is? 

CLL is the most prevalent adult leukemia in the Western world, whereas hairy cell leukemia is very rare. It’s a slow-growing B-cell cancer that got its name because under the microscope, the cells have hairy projections on them.

It had a survival of only about 2-4 years before the development of purine analogs. After a course of pentostatin or cladribine (2-chlordeoxyadenosine), some people never need treatment again in our natural lifespan. 

But some patients don’t benefit from purine analogs, either because they have a devastating infection that makes them unsuitable or for another reason. Or they end up needing treatment every 2-3 years, which isn’t something you want to do for 30 years of someone’s lifespan. 

What are some challenges in hairy cell leukemia?

It’s a rare condition, so it can be hard to do a really large clinical trial. A lot of physicians think that the prognosis is good and miss out on an opportunity for better treatment and to generate new knowledge.

Also, some people perceive that it’s not actually a problem for people living with it. Cladribine and pentostatin are not terrible chemotherapies, and most people tolerate them very well. But we can make treatment for hairy cell more effective and more tolerable for our patients if we put more effort into researching it. 

I’ve heard that you’re a big college football fan. How do you balance your history as a University of Michigan medical school alum with your work for archrival Ohio State? 

I went to Northwestern for undergrad, as did several people in my family. So, I usually just claim Northwestern is my football affiliation. It doesn’t inspire much vitriol if you cheer for Northwestern! 

And I understand that you live with a pair of guinea pigs. Do tell.

I adopted guinea pigs as pets in medical school. They’re cute and friendly, and they make all this noise for you when you come home. 

Courtesy Dr. Rogers

Once, one of my clinic patients said, “I don’t want to be your guinea pig.” I thought, “you should be so lucky.” They have quite a lifestyle: They’ve trained me to bring them vegetables, they nap most of the time, and they have a play space, a guinea pig playground. 

I thought I liked the guinea pigs more than they liked me. But last fall, I was gone for about 10 days. When I got back, I’d never heard them make so much noise. They were extremely happy to see me. Then for the next 48 hours, one would randomly start whistling for me to come over. I thought, “oh, these things do like me a little bit.”

Dr. Rogers disclosed receiving research funding from Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, and AstraZeneca and consulting/advisory relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Genentech, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Loxo@Lilly, and Alpine Immune Sciences. 

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

Guinea pigs are important to Ohio State University leukemia specialist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, but not because they’re in her research laboratory, where the focus is on studying treatments for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), hairy cell leukemia, and autoimmune hemolytic anemia. Instead, two of these little creatures — Pancake and Maple — are pets who live with her at home. 

Sometimes, however, Dr. Rogers’ guinea pigs pay visits to her workplace. Every Halloween, she dresses them up and shows off their photos to just about everyone. Patients, coworkers, and even random people in the elevator get glimpses of the furry pair, who pose as dinosaurs, bats, aquarium shrimp, sharks, spiders, and bumblebees.

courtesy Ohio State University

“Being in the hospital is not funny, but guinea pigs dressed up for Halloween is incredibly funny,” Dr. Rogers said. “They make a lot of people smile.”

For physician-scientist Dr. Rogers, a native of suburban Chicago, quality of life for patients is a priority, even when she’s not trying to entertain them and lift their spirits.

The field of hematology “is trying to figure out not only what’s biologically effective for disease, but also what might be best for people living with the condition,” she said. “This is especially true in terms of patient preference for a treatment you complete vs an ongoing or continuous treatment. I really like this idea of having more attention paid to what matters to patients, which the field of medicine sometimes forgets.”

In an interview, Dr. Rogers spoke about the appeal of storytelling in medicine, advances in treatment for CLL and hairy cell leukemia, and the challenges of college football loyalty. 

How did you get drawn to medicine?

Ever since I was a kid, I thought, “Oh, I really want to be a doctor. That sounds fun.” At its core, medicine blends things I really like: science, helping people with a problem, and storytelling. 

The practice of medicine is a lot about stories — talking to people, figuring out what they’re telling you about what’s going on, then explaining what you know in a way that makes sense to them. 

What changes have you seen in leukemia care during your career?

The biggest change is the move from chemotherapies to targeted agents. When I first did a fellowship here at Ohio State, we had studies of ibrutinib, the first-in-class covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor. We’d see patients who’d been on chemotherapy for the past 10 or 15 years, and then they got in a clinical trial. Ibrutinib worked better than any of the chemotherapy, and they felt better and had fewer side effects. 

Now, chemoimmunotherapy is not recommended for CLL, and you can see the impact of targeted agents on the lives of patients. Instead of telling people they need to put aside work and personal plans to take intensive chemotherapy for 6 months, you say: “You’ve got to come to some more appointments to make sure the treatment is going well, and you don’t have too many side effects. But you can expect to continue to work full-time and go to your niece’s wedding out of state or whatever else you want to do.”

What are you most excited about working on? 

I’m the principal investigator of a study combining obinutuzumab, ibrutinib, and venetoclax for a fixed duration, a defined treatment course of a little over a year. I just reported the median progression-free survival for phase 2 at the European Hematology Association meeting this spring. It was over 7 years for both patients who had prior treatment and those who hadn’t. 

The idea that people could take a year of treatment and get a huge benefit after completing it is quite important. The regimen has gone into phase 3 testing, and we’re now trying to understand the impact in terms of which patients got longer responses or which didn’t. 

What are some challenges that remain in CLL?

There are still patients whose CLL becomes resistant to our two most commonly used classes of agents: BTK inhibitors and the BLC2 inhibitor, venetoclax. There are some more BCL2 inhibitors in development, but venetoclax is the only one currently approved.

I am also principal investigator on another study that added venetoclax to ibrutinib when resistance mutations developed that would predict ultimate resistance to ibrutinib. The median progression-free survival in that study was 40.7 months, whereas the expectation with venetoclax alone is 24 months. So, it really improved the amount of time people were in remission. This study is ongoing. 

We’ve just started a phase 2 study to have patients take pirtobrutinib, a noncovalent BTK inhibitor, in combination with venetoclax in cases where CLL has become resistant to a covalent BTK inhibitor. Patients will take this combination for about a year and a half. 

It’s been really exciting to see the impact of some of these combinations both as first-line CLL treatment and in CLL that’s become resistant. But trying to understand what predicts response is a harder thing. I wish I knew the answers for what causes this synergy between those two classes of drugs. 

You also specialize in hairy cell leukemia. Could you talk about what it is? 

CLL is the most prevalent adult leukemia in the Western world, whereas hairy cell leukemia is very rare. It’s a slow-growing B-cell cancer that got its name because under the microscope, the cells have hairy projections on them.

It had a survival of only about 2-4 years before the development of purine analogs. After a course of pentostatin or cladribine (2-chlordeoxyadenosine), some people never need treatment again in our natural lifespan. 

But some patients don’t benefit from purine analogs, either because they have a devastating infection that makes them unsuitable or for another reason. Or they end up needing treatment every 2-3 years, which isn’t something you want to do for 30 years of someone’s lifespan. 

What are some challenges in hairy cell leukemia?

It’s a rare condition, so it can be hard to do a really large clinical trial. A lot of physicians think that the prognosis is good and miss out on an opportunity for better treatment and to generate new knowledge.

Also, some people perceive that it’s not actually a problem for people living with it. Cladribine and pentostatin are not terrible chemotherapies, and most people tolerate them very well. But we can make treatment for hairy cell more effective and more tolerable for our patients if we put more effort into researching it. 

I’ve heard that you’re a big college football fan. How do you balance your history as a University of Michigan medical school alum with your work for archrival Ohio State? 

I went to Northwestern for undergrad, as did several people in my family. So, I usually just claim Northwestern is my football affiliation. It doesn’t inspire much vitriol if you cheer for Northwestern! 

And I understand that you live with a pair of guinea pigs. Do tell.

I adopted guinea pigs as pets in medical school. They’re cute and friendly, and they make all this noise for you when you come home. 

Courtesy Dr. Rogers

Once, one of my clinic patients said, “I don’t want to be your guinea pig.” I thought, “you should be so lucky.” They have quite a lifestyle: They’ve trained me to bring them vegetables, they nap most of the time, and they have a play space, a guinea pig playground. 

I thought I liked the guinea pigs more than they liked me. But last fall, I was gone for about 10 days. When I got back, I’d never heard them make so much noise. They were extremely happy to see me. Then for the next 48 hours, one would randomly start whistling for me to come over. I thought, “oh, these things do like me a little bit.”

Dr. Rogers disclosed receiving research funding from Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, and AstraZeneca and consulting/advisory relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Genentech, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Loxo@Lilly, and Alpine Immune Sciences. 

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inside the Report: Big Progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gaps

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

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

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

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

The Path Forward

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

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

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

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

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inside the Report: Big Progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gaps

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

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

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

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

The Path Forward

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

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

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

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

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inside the Report: Big Progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gaps

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

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

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

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

The Path Forward

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

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

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

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

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

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

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

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

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

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

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

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

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

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

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

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

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

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

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

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

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

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

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded the label of isatuximab-irfc (Sarclisa — Sanofi-Aventis) on September 20 to include treatment with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

The new first-line indication joins two previous approvals of the CD38 antibody for later-line indications, one for relapsed disease with carfilzomib and dexamethasone, the other with pomalidomide and dexamethasone after at least two prior regimens that include lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

In addition to other MM indications, isatuximab’s anti-CD38 competitor on the US market, daratumumab (Darzalex — Johnson & Johnson), also carries a first-line indication for transplant-ineligible MM in combination with either lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone.

Isatuximab’s new approval is based on the open-label IMROZ trial in 446 patients randomized 3:2 to either isatuximab or placebo on a background of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, estimated progression-free survival (PFS) was 63.2% with isatuximab add-on vs 45.2% in the placebo arm. Median PFS was not reached in the isatuximab group but 54.3 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.60; 98.5% CI, 0.41-0.88; P < .001). 

In a press release announcing the results, Sanofi said “IMROZ is the first global phase 3 study of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody” to show benefit in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, the current standard of care for transplant-ineligible MM.

Upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhea, fatigue, peripheral sensory neuropathy, pneumonia, musculoskeletal pain, cataract, constipation, peripheral edema, rash, infusion-related reaction, insomnia, and COVID-19 were the most common adverse events in the isatuximab arm of IMROZ, occurring in 20% or more of subjects.

Eleven percent of isatuximab patients died during treatment vs 5.5% in the placebo group, driven primarily by infections.

The recommended dose of isatuximab is 10 mg/kg every week for 4 weeks followed by every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The cost is approximately $843 for 5 mL of the 20 mg/mL intravenous solution, according to Drugs.com.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded the label of isatuximab-irfc (Sarclisa — Sanofi-Aventis) on September 20 to include treatment with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

The new first-line indication joins two previous approvals of the CD38 antibody for later-line indications, one for relapsed disease with carfilzomib and dexamethasone, the other with pomalidomide and dexamethasone after at least two prior regimens that include lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

In addition to other MM indications, isatuximab’s anti-CD38 competitor on the US market, daratumumab (Darzalex — Johnson & Johnson), also carries a first-line indication for transplant-ineligible MM in combination with either lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone.

Isatuximab’s new approval is based on the open-label IMROZ trial in 446 patients randomized 3:2 to either isatuximab or placebo on a background of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, estimated progression-free survival (PFS) was 63.2% with isatuximab add-on vs 45.2% in the placebo arm. Median PFS was not reached in the isatuximab group but 54.3 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.60; 98.5% CI, 0.41-0.88; P < .001). 

In a press release announcing the results, Sanofi said “IMROZ is the first global phase 3 study of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody” to show benefit in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, the current standard of care for transplant-ineligible MM.

Upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhea, fatigue, peripheral sensory neuropathy, pneumonia, musculoskeletal pain, cataract, constipation, peripheral edema, rash, infusion-related reaction, insomnia, and COVID-19 were the most common adverse events in the isatuximab arm of IMROZ, occurring in 20% or more of subjects.

Eleven percent of isatuximab patients died during treatment vs 5.5% in the placebo group, driven primarily by infections.

The recommended dose of isatuximab is 10 mg/kg every week for 4 weeks followed by every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The cost is approximately $843 for 5 mL of the 20 mg/mL intravenous solution, according to Drugs.com.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded the label of isatuximab-irfc (Sarclisa — Sanofi-Aventis) on September 20 to include treatment with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

The new first-line indication joins two previous approvals of the CD38 antibody for later-line indications, one for relapsed disease with carfilzomib and dexamethasone, the other with pomalidomide and dexamethasone after at least two prior regimens that include lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

In addition to other MM indications, isatuximab’s anti-CD38 competitor on the US market, daratumumab (Darzalex — Johnson & Johnson), also carries a first-line indication for transplant-ineligible MM in combination with either lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone.

Isatuximab’s new approval is based on the open-label IMROZ trial in 446 patients randomized 3:2 to either isatuximab or placebo on a background of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, estimated progression-free survival (PFS) was 63.2% with isatuximab add-on vs 45.2% in the placebo arm. Median PFS was not reached in the isatuximab group but 54.3 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.60; 98.5% CI, 0.41-0.88; P < .001). 

In a press release announcing the results, Sanofi said “IMROZ is the first global phase 3 study of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody” to show benefit in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, the current standard of care for transplant-ineligible MM.

Upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhea, fatigue, peripheral sensory neuropathy, pneumonia, musculoskeletal pain, cataract, constipation, peripheral edema, rash, infusion-related reaction, insomnia, and COVID-19 were the most common adverse events in the isatuximab arm of IMROZ, occurring in 20% or more of subjects.

Eleven percent of isatuximab patients died during treatment vs 5.5% in the placebo group, driven primarily by infections.

The recommended dose of isatuximab is 10 mg/kg every week for 4 weeks followed by every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The cost is approximately $843 for 5 mL of the 20 mg/mL intravenous solution, according to Drugs.com.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOPLINE: 

Intravenous iron reduced iron deficiency more effectively than oral iron, which is often distasteful, among pregnant women in Nigeria. However, no significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia or preterm birth between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 1056 pregnant women aged 15-49 years with hemoglobin concentrations 10 g/dL at 20-32 weeks’ gestation were included in the trial.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single dose of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (20 mg/kg to a maximum of 1000 mg) or oral ferrous sulphate (200 mg; 65 mg elemental iron) three times daily until 6 weeks postpartum.
• Primary outcomes were maternal anemia (hemoglobin, < 11 g/dL) at 36 weeks’ gestation and preterm birth before 37 weeks’ gestation.
• Secondary outcomes were iron deficiency, iron deficiency anemia, maternal depression, infections, immunization, and breastfeeding practices.
• The trial was conducted in 11 health facilities in Lagos and Kano, Nigeria, with follow-up visits at 2 weeks and 6 weeks postpartum.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia at 36 weeks’ gestation between the intravenous and oral iron groups (58% vs 61%; P = .36).
• Intravenous iron was more effective at reducing iron deficiency (5% vs 16%; P = .0001) and iron deficiency anemia (2% vs 10%; P = .0001) at 36 weeks’ gestation.
• The incidence of preterm birth did not significantly differ between the intravenous and oral iron groups (14% vs 15%; P = .66).
• Intravenous iron led to a higher mean hemoglobin concentration from baseline to 4 weeks in both iron-deficient and non–iron-deficient subgroups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the effect on overall anaemia did not differ, intravenous iron reduced the prevalence of iron deficiency to a greater extent than oral iron and was considered to be safe. We recommend that intravenous iron be considered for anaemic pregnant women in Nigeria and similar settings,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Bosede B. Afolabi, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Nigeria. It was published online in The Lancet Global Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s sample size estimation assumed a 25% rate of preterm births, but the actual rate was only 14.5%, which potentially underpowered the study to measure this outcome. Most participants were enrolled after 20 weeks’ gestation, which limited the ability to explore the effect of treatment duration. The interpretation of postpartum hemorrhage was limited by the use of visual assessment to determine blood loss, which is subjective.

DISCLOSURES:

A coathor, Kristi S. Annerstedt, PhD, reported participation on the ALERT project Data Safety Monitoring Board. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. The study was supported by grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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: 

Intravenous iron reduced iron deficiency more effectively than oral iron, which is often distasteful, among pregnant women in Nigeria. However, no significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia or preterm birth between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 1056 pregnant women aged 15-49 years with hemoglobin concentrations 10 g/dL at 20-32 weeks’ gestation were included in the trial.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single dose of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (20 mg/kg to a maximum of 1000 mg) or oral ferrous sulphate (200 mg; 65 mg elemental iron) three times daily until 6 weeks postpartum.
• Primary outcomes were maternal anemia (hemoglobin, < 11 g/dL) at 36 weeks’ gestation and preterm birth before 37 weeks’ gestation.
• Secondary outcomes were iron deficiency, iron deficiency anemia, maternal depression, infections, immunization, and breastfeeding practices.
• The trial was conducted in 11 health facilities in Lagos and Kano, Nigeria, with follow-up visits at 2 weeks and 6 weeks postpartum.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia at 36 weeks’ gestation between the intravenous and oral iron groups (58% vs 61%; P = .36).
• Intravenous iron was more effective at reducing iron deficiency (5% vs 16%; P = .0001) and iron deficiency anemia (2% vs 10%; P = .0001) at 36 weeks’ gestation.
• The incidence of preterm birth did not significantly differ between the intravenous and oral iron groups (14% vs 15%; P = .66).
• Intravenous iron led to a higher mean hemoglobin concentration from baseline to 4 weeks in both iron-deficient and non–iron-deficient subgroups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the effect on overall anaemia did not differ, intravenous iron reduced the prevalence of iron deficiency to a greater extent than oral iron and was considered to be safe. We recommend that intravenous iron be considered for anaemic pregnant women in Nigeria and similar settings,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Bosede B. Afolabi, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Nigeria. It was published online in The Lancet Global Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s sample size estimation assumed a 25% rate of preterm births, but the actual rate was only 14.5%, which potentially underpowered the study to measure this outcome. Most participants were enrolled after 20 weeks’ gestation, which limited the ability to explore the effect of treatment duration. The interpretation of postpartum hemorrhage was limited by the use of visual assessment to determine blood loss, which is subjective.

DISCLOSURES:

A coathor, Kristi S. Annerstedt, PhD, reported participation on the ALERT project Data Safety Monitoring Board. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. The study was supported by grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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: 

Intravenous iron reduced iron deficiency more effectively than oral iron, which is often distasteful, among pregnant women in Nigeria. However, no significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia or preterm birth between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 1056 pregnant women aged 15-49 years with hemoglobin concentrations 10 g/dL at 20-32 weeks’ gestation were included in the trial.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single dose of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (20 mg/kg to a maximum of 1000 mg) or oral ferrous sulphate (200 mg; 65 mg elemental iron) three times daily until 6 weeks postpartum.
• Primary outcomes were maternal anemia (hemoglobin, < 11 g/dL) at 36 weeks’ gestation and preterm birth before 37 weeks’ gestation.
• Secondary outcomes were iron deficiency, iron deficiency anemia, maternal depression, infections, immunization, and breastfeeding practices.
• The trial was conducted in 11 health facilities in Lagos and Kano, Nigeria, with follow-up visits at 2 weeks and 6 weeks postpartum.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia at 36 weeks’ gestation between the intravenous and oral iron groups (58% vs 61%; P = .36).
• Intravenous iron was more effective at reducing iron deficiency (5% vs 16%; P = .0001) and iron deficiency anemia (2% vs 10%; P = .0001) at 36 weeks’ gestation.
• The incidence of preterm birth did not significantly differ between the intravenous and oral iron groups (14% vs 15%; P = .66).
• Intravenous iron led to a higher mean hemoglobin concentration from baseline to 4 weeks in both iron-deficient and non–iron-deficient subgroups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the effect on overall anaemia did not differ, intravenous iron reduced the prevalence of iron deficiency to a greater extent than oral iron and was considered to be safe. We recommend that intravenous iron be considered for anaemic pregnant women in Nigeria and similar settings,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Bosede B. Afolabi, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Nigeria. It was published online in The Lancet Global Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s sample size estimation assumed a 25% rate of preterm births, but the actual rate was only 14.5%, which potentially underpowered the study to measure this outcome. Most participants were enrolled after 20 weeks’ gestation, which limited the ability to explore the effect of treatment duration. The interpretation of postpartum hemorrhage was limited by the use of visual assessment to determine blood loss, which is subjective.

DISCLOSURES:

A coathor, Kristi S. Annerstedt, PhD, reported participation on the ALERT project Data Safety Monitoring Board. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. The study was supported by grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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.

NEW YORK — Because of their heterogeneity in appearance, drug-induced skin rashes are a common diagnostic challenge, but eruptions in skin of color, particularly those with a delayed onset, require a high index of suspicion to speed the diagnosis.

This risk for a delayed or missed diagnosis in patients with darker skin is shared across skin rashes, but drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS) is a telling example, according to Joanna Harp, MD, director of the Inpatient Dermatology Consult Service, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York City.

DIHS, also known as a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, is a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, Dr. Harp explained. While the fact that this disorder does not always include eosinophilia prompted the DIHS acronym, the maculopapular rash often serves as a critical clue of the underlying etiology.

Signs of AGEP Can Be Subtle in Black Patients

Some of the same principles for diagnosing drug-induced rash in darker skin can also be applied to acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), another type IV hypersensitivity reaction. Like all drug-induced rashes, the earlier AGEP is recognized and treated, the better the outcome, but in Black patients, the signs can be subtle.

“The onset is usually fast and occurs in 1-2 days after [the causative drug] exposure,” said Dr. Harp, adding that antibiotics, such as cephalosporins or penicillin, and calcium channel blockers are among the prominent causes of AGEP.

One of the hallmark signs of early-onset AGEP are tiny erythematous pustules in flexural areas, such as the neck or the armpits. The issue of detecting erythema in darker skin is also relevant to this area, but there is an additional problem, according to Dr. Harp. The pustules often dry up quickly, leaving a neutrophilic scale that further complicates the effort to see the characteristic erythema.

“If you see a lot of scale, look for erythema underneath. Think of inflammation,” Dr. Harp said, explaining that the clinical appearance evolves quickly. “If you do not see the pustules, it does not mean they were not there; you just missed them.”

In addition to the flexural areas, “AGEP loves the ears, the face, and the geographic tongue,” she said, offering several pearls to help with the diagnosis. These include side lighting to make papules easier to see, pressing on the skin to highlight the difference between erythematous skin and blanched skin, and checking less pigmented skin, such as on the hands and feet, which makes erythema easier to see.

Steroids are often the first-line treatment for drug-induced skin rashes, but Dr. Harp moves to etanercept or cyclosporine for the most serious drug reactions, such as SJS and toxic epidermal necrolysis.

Etanercept is typically her first choice because patients with systemic hypersensitivity reactions with major organ involvement are often quite ill, making cyclosporine harder to use. In her experience, etanercept has been well tolerated.

Conversely, she cautioned against the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Although this has been used traditionally for severe drug hypersensitivity reactions, “the data are not there,” she said. The data are stronger for a combination of high-dose steroids and IVIG, but she thinks even these data are inconsistent and not as strong as the data supporting etanercept or cyclosporine. She encouraged centers still using IVIG to consider alternatives.

After drug sensitivity reactions are controlled, follow-up care is particularly important for Black patients who face greater risks for sequelae, such as hypopigmentation, hyperpigmentation, or keloids. She recommended aggressive use of emollients and sunscreens for an extended period after lesions resolve to lessen these risks.

Differences in the manifestations of drug-induced skin rashes by race and ethnicity are important and perhaps underappreciated, agreed Shawn Kwatra, MD, professor and chairman of the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Asked to comment at the meeting, Dr. Kwatra said that he appreciated Dr. Harp’s effort to translate published data and her experience into an overview that increases awareness of the risk for missed or delayed diagnoses of drug-induced rashes in skin of color. He noted that the strategies to identify erythema and pustules, such as increased suspicion in skin of color and the extra steps to rule them out, such as the use of side lighting in the case of pustules for AGEP, are simple and practical.

Dr. Harp and Dr. Kwatra had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Because of their heterogeneity in appearance, drug-induced skin rashes are a common diagnostic challenge, but eruptions in skin of color, particularly those with a delayed onset, require a high index of suspicion to speed the diagnosis.

This risk for a delayed or missed diagnosis in patients with darker skin is shared across skin rashes, but drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS) is a telling example, according to Joanna Harp, MD, director of the Inpatient Dermatology Consult Service, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York City.

DIHS, also known as a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, is a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, Dr. Harp explained. While the fact that this disorder does not always include eosinophilia prompted the DIHS acronym, the maculopapular rash often serves as a critical clue of the underlying etiology.

Signs of AGEP Can Be Subtle in Black Patients

Some of the same principles for diagnosing drug-induced rash in darker skin can also be applied to acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), another type IV hypersensitivity reaction. Like all drug-induced rashes, the earlier AGEP is recognized and treated, the better the outcome, but in Black patients, the signs can be subtle.

“The onset is usually fast and occurs in 1-2 days after [the causative drug] exposure,” said Dr. Harp, adding that antibiotics, such as cephalosporins or penicillin, and calcium channel blockers are among the prominent causes of AGEP.

One of the hallmark signs of early-onset AGEP are tiny erythematous pustules in flexural areas, such as the neck or the armpits. The issue of detecting erythema in darker skin is also relevant to this area, but there is an additional problem, according to Dr. Harp. The pustules often dry up quickly, leaving a neutrophilic scale that further complicates the effort to see the characteristic erythema.

“If you see a lot of scale, look for erythema underneath. Think of inflammation,” Dr. Harp said, explaining that the clinical appearance evolves quickly. “If you do not see the pustules, it does not mean they were not there; you just missed them.”

In addition to the flexural areas, “AGEP loves the ears, the face, and the geographic tongue,” she said, offering several pearls to help with the diagnosis. These include side lighting to make papules easier to see, pressing on the skin to highlight the difference between erythematous skin and blanched skin, and checking less pigmented skin, such as on the hands and feet, which makes erythema easier to see.

Steroids are often the first-line treatment for drug-induced skin rashes, but Dr. Harp moves to etanercept or cyclosporine for the most serious drug reactions, such as SJS and toxic epidermal necrolysis.

Etanercept is typically her first choice because patients with systemic hypersensitivity reactions with major organ involvement are often quite ill, making cyclosporine harder to use. In her experience, etanercept has been well tolerated.

Conversely, she cautioned against the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Although this has been used traditionally for severe drug hypersensitivity reactions, “the data are not there,” she said. The data are stronger for a combination of high-dose steroids and IVIG, but she thinks even these data are inconsistent and not as strong as the data supporting etanercept or cyclosporine. She encouraged centers still using IVIG to consider alternatives.

After drug sensitivity reactions are controlled, follow-up care is particularly important for Black patients who face greater risks for sequelae, such as hypopigmentation, hyperpigmentation, or keloids. She recommended aggressive use of emollients and sunscreens for an extended period after lesions resolve to lessen these risks.

Differences in the manifestations of drug-induced skin rashes by race and ethnicity are important and perhaps underappreciated, agreed Shawn Kwatra, MD, professor and chairman of the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Asked to comment at the meeting, Dr. Kwatra said that he appreciated Dr. Harp’s effort to translate published data and her experience into an overview that increases awareness of the risk for missed or delayed diagnoses of drug-induced rashes in skin of color. He noted that the strategies to identify erythema and pustules, such as increased suspicion in skin of color and the extra steps to rule them out, such as the use of side lighting in the case of pustules for AGEP, are simple and practical.

Dr. Harp and Dr. Kwatra had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Because of their heterogeneity in appearance, drug-induced skin rashes are a common diagnostic challenge, but eruptions in skin of color, particularly those with a delayed onset, require a high index of suspicion to speed the diagnosis.

This risk for a delayed or missed diagnosis in patients with darker skin is shared across skin rashes, but drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS) is a telling example, according to Joanna Harp, MD, director of the Inpatient Dermatology Consult Service, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York City.

DIHS, also known as a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, is a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, Dr. Harp explained. While the fact that this disorder does not always include eosinophilia prompted the DIHS acronym, the maculopapular rash often serves as a critical clue of the underlying etiology.

Signs of AGEP Can Be Subtle in Black Patients

Some of the same principles for diagnosing drug-induced rash in darker skin can also be applied to acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), another type IV hypersensitivity reaction. Like all drug-induced rashes, the earlier AGEP is recognized and treated, the better the outcome, but in Black patients, the signs can be subtle.

“The onset is usually fast and occurs in 1-2 days after [the causative drug] exposure,” said Dr. Harp, adding that antibiotics, such as cephalosporins or penicillin, and calcium channel blockers are among the prominent causes of AGEP.

One of the hallmark signs of early-onset AGEP are tiny erythematous pustules in flexural areas, such as the neck or the armpits. The issue of detecting erythema in darker skin is also relevant to this area, but there is an additional problem, according to Dr. Harp. The pustules often dry up quickly, leaving a neutrophilic scale that further complicates the effort to see the characteristic erythema.

“If you see a lot of scale, look for erythema underneath. Think of inflammation,” Dr. Harp said, explaining that the clinical appearance evolves quickly. “If you do not see the pustules, it does not mean they were not there; you just missed them.”

In addition to the flexural areas, “AGEP loves the ears, the face, and the geographic tongue,” she said, offering several pearls to help with the diagnosis. These include side lighting to make papules easier to see, pressing on the skin to highlight the difference between erythematous skin and blanched skin, and checking less pigmented skin, such as on the hands and feet, which makes erythema easier to see.

Steroids are often the first-line treatment for drug-induced skin rashes, but Dr. Harp moves to etanercept or cyclosporine for the most serious drug reactions, such as SJS and toxic epidermal necrolysis.

Etanercept is typically her first choice because patients with systemic hypersensitivity reactions with major organ involvement are often quite ill, making cyclosporine harder to use. In her experience, etanercept has been well tolerated.

Conversely, she cautioned against the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Although this has been used traditionally for severe drug hypersensitivity reactions, “the data are not there,” she said. The data are stronger for a combination of high-dose steroids and IVIG, but she thinks even these data are inconsistent and not as strong as the data supporting etanercept or cyclosporine. She encouraged centers still using IVIG to consider alternatives.

After drug sensitivity reactions are controlled, follow-up care is particularly important for Black patients who face greater risks for sequelae, such as hypopigmentation, hyperpigmentation, or keloids. She recommended aggressive use of emollients and sunscreens for an extended period after lesions resolve to lessen these risks.

Differences in the manifestations of drug-induced skin rashes by race and ethnicity are important and perhaps underappreciated, agreed Shawn Kwatra, MD, professor and chairman of the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Asked to comment at the meeting, Dr. Kwatra said that he appreciated Dr. Harp’s effort to translate published data and her experience into an overview that increases awareness of the risk for missed or delayed diagnoses of drug-induced rashes in skin of color. He noted that the strategies to identify erythema and pustules, such as increased suspicion in skin of color and the extra steps to rule them out, such as the use of side lighting in the case of pustules for AGEP, are simple and practical.

Dr. Harp and Dr. Kwatra had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.