Hematology News

TOPLINE:

Venetoclax-obinutuzumab combination therapy for untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) shows a 6-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 53%. The time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) rate is 65%, with improved quality of life reported by patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 432 patients with previously untreated CLL and coexisting conditions were enrolled in the study.
• Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either 12 cycles of venetoclax with 6 cycles of obinutuzumab or 12 cycles of chlorambucil with 6 cycles of obinutuzumab.
• The primary endpoint was PFS, with secondary endpoints including TTNT, overall survival (OS), and adverse events.
• Minimal residual disease was assessed in peripheral blood and bone marrow at the end of treatment and at several follow-up points.
• The study was conducted across multiple centers and was registered with clinical trial identifiers NCT02242942 and EudraCT 2014-001810-24.

TAKEAWAY:

• The 6-year PFS rate was significantly higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (53%) than in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (21.7%) (P < .0001).
• The TTNT rate was 65.2% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group vs 37.1% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (P < .0001).
• The OS rate at 6 years was 78.7% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 69.2% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (P = .052).
• Patients in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group reported better quality of life and less fatigue than those in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients treated with the venetoclax-obinutuzumab combination showed a statistically significant sustained prolongation of PFS, compared with patients treated with chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (76.2 vs 36.4 months). Overall, the PFS rate was 53% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group vs 21.7% after chlorambucil-obinutuzumab,” the study’s authors wrote.

In a related article, Silvia Deaglio, University of Turin in Italy, noted: “A second important observation of the study is that in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm, patients who relapsed more frequently presented with unmutated IGHV genes, deletion of 17p, or TP53 mutations.”
 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Othman Al-Sawaf, Sandra Robrecht, and Can Zhang, University of Cologne in Germany. It was published online on October 31 in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the relatively small sample size and the short duration of follow-up for some endpoints. Additionally, the study population was limited to older adult patients with coexisting conditions, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to a broader CLL population.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and AbbVie. Al-Sawaf disclosed receiving grants from BeiGene, AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche. 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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Venetoclax-obinutuzumab combination therapy for untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) shows a 6-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 53%. The time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) rate is 65%, with improved quality of life reported by patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 432 patients with previously untreated CLL and coexisting conditions were enrolled in the study.
• Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either 12 cycles of venetoclax with 6 cycles of obinutuzumab or 12 cycles of chlorambucil with 6 cycles of obinutuzumab.
• The primary endpoint was PFS, with secondary endpoints including TTNT, overall survival (OS), and adverse events.
• Minimal residual disease was assessed in peripheral blood and bone marrow at the end of treatment and at several follow-up points.
• The study was conducted across multiple centers and was registered with clinical trial identifiers NCT02242942 and EudraCT 2014-001810-24.

TAKEAWAY:

• The 6-year PFS rate was significantly higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (53%) than in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (21.7%) (P < .0001).
• The TTNT rate was 65.2% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group vs 37.1% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (P < .0001).
• The OS rate at 6 years was 78.7% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 69.2% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (P = .052).
• Patients in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group reported better quality of life and less fatigue than those in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients treated with the venetoclax-obinutuzumab combination showed a statistically significant sustained prolongation of PFS, compared with patients treated with chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (76.2 vs 36.4 months). Overall, the PFS rate was 53% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group vs 21.7% after chlorambucil-obinutuzumab,” the study’s authors wrote.

In a related article, Silvia Deaglio, University of Turin in Italy, noted: “A second important observation of the study is that in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm, patients who relapsed more frequently presented with unmutated IGHV genes, deletion of 17p, or TP53 mutations.”
 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Othman Al-Sawaf, Sandra Robrecht, and Can Zhang, University of Cologne in Germany. It was published online on October 31 in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the relatively small sample size and the short duration of follow-up for some endpoints. Additionally, the study population was limited to older adult patients with coexisting conditions, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to a broader CLL population.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and AbbVie. Al-Sawaf disclosed receiving grants from BeiGene, AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche. 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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Venetoclax-obinutuzumab combination therapy for untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) shows a 6-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 53%. The time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) rate is 65%, with improved quality of life reported by patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 432 patients with previously untreated CLL and coexisting conditions were enrolled in the study.
• Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either 12 cycles of venetoclax with 6 cycles of obinutuzumab or 12 cycles of chlorambucil with 6 cycles of obinutuzumab.
• The primary endpoint was PFS, with secondary endpoints including TTNT, overall survival (OS), and adverse events.
• Minimal residual disease was assessed in peripheral blood and bone marrow at the end of treatment and at several follow-up points.
• The study was conducted across multiple centers and was registered with clinical trial identifiers NCT02242942 and EudraCT 2014-001810-24.

TAKEAWAY:

• The 6-year PFS rate was significantly higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (53%) than in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (21.7%) (P < .0001).
• The TTNT rate was 65.2% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group vs 37.1% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (P < .0001).
• The OS rate at 6 years was 78.7% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 69.2% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (P = .052).
• Patients in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group reported better quality of life and less fatigue than those in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients treated with the venetoclax-obinutuzumab combination showed a statistically significant sustained prolongation of PFS, compared with patients treated with chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (76.2 vs 36.4 months). Overall, the PFS rate was 53% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group vs 21.7% after chlorambucil-obinutuzumab,” the study’s authors wrote.

In a related article, Silvia Deaglio, University of Turin in Italy, noted: “A second important observation of the study is that in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm, patients who relapsed more frequently presented with unmutated IGHV genes, deletion of 17p, or TP53 mutations.”
 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Othman Al-Sawaf, Sandra Robrecht, and Can Zhang, University of Cologne in Germany. It was published online on October 31 in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the relatively small sample size and the short duration of follow-up for some endpoints. Additionally, the study population was limited to older adult patients with coexisting conditions, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to a broader CLL population.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and AbbVie. Al-Sawaf disclosed receiving grants from BeiGene, AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche. 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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are associated with a lower incidence of cancer. However, omega-3 fatty acids are linked to an increased risk for prostate cancer, specifically.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers looked for associations of plasma omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) with the incidence of cancer overall and 19 site-specific cancers in the large population-based prospective UK Biobank cohort.
• They included 253,138 participants aged 37-73 years who were followed for an average of 12.9 years, with 29,838 diagnosed with cancer.
• Plasma levels of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids were measured using nuclear magnetic resonance and expressed as percentages of total fatty acids.
• Participants with cancer diagnoses at baseline, those who withdrew from the study, and those with missing data on plasma PUFAs were excluded.
• The study adjusted for multiple covariates, including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, lifestyle behaviors, and family history of diseases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids were associated with a 2% and 1% reduction in overall cancer risk per SD increase, respectively (P = .001 and P = .03).
• Omega-6 fatty acids were inversely associated with 14 site-specific cancers, whereas omega-3 fatty acids were inversely associated with five site-specific cancers.
• Prostate cancer was positively associated with omega-3 fatty acids, with a 3% increased risk per SD increase (P = .049).
• A higher omega-6/omega-3 ratio was associated with an increased risk for overall cancer, and three site-specific cancers showed positive associations with the ratio. “Each standard deviation increase, corresponding to a 13.13 increase in the omega ratio, was associated with a 2% increase in the risk of rectum cancer,” for example, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, our findings provide support for possible small net protective roles of omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs in the development of new cancer incidence. Our study also suggests that the usage of circulating blood biomarkers captures different aspects of dietary intake, reduces measurement errors, and thus enhances statistical power. The differential effects of omega-6% and omega-3% in age and sex subgroups warrant future investigation,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yuchen Zhang of the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. It was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s potential for selective bias persists due to the participant sample skewing heavily toward European ancestry and White ethnicity. The number of events was small for some specific cancer sites, which may have limited the statistical power. The study focused on total omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs, with only two individual fatty acids measured. Future studies are needed to examine the roles of other individual PUFAs and specific genetic variants. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
 

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are associated with a lower incidence of cancer. However, omega-3 fatty acids are linked to an increased risk for prostate cancer, specifically.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers looked for associations of plasma omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) with the incidence of cancer overall and 19 site-specific cancers in the large population-based prospective UK Biobank cohort.
• They included 253,138 participants aged 37-73 years who were followed for an average of 12.9 years, with 29,838 diagnosed with cancer.
• Plasma levels of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids were measured using nuclear magnetic resonance and expressed as percentages of total fatty acids.
• Participants with cancer diagnoses at baseline, those who withdrew from the study, and those with missing data on plasma PUFAs were excluded.
• The study adjusted for multiple covariates, including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, lifestyle behaviors, and family history of diseases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids were associated with a 2% and 1% reduction in overall cancer risk per SD increase, respectively (P = .001 and P = .03).
• Omega-6 fatty acids were inversely associated with 14 site-specific cancers, whereas omega-3 fatty acids were inversely associated with five site-specific cancers.
• Prostate cancer was positively associated with omega-3 fatty acids, with a 3% increased risk per SD increase (P = .049).
• A higher omega-6/omega-3 ratio was associated with an increased risk for overall cancer, and three site-specific cancers showed positive associations with the ratio. “Each standard deviation increase, corresponding to a 13.13 increase in the omega ratio, was associated with a 2% increase in the risk of rectum cancer,” for example, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, our findings provide support for possible small net protective roles of omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs in the development of new cancer incidence. Our study also suggests that the usage of circulating blood biomarkers captures different aspects of dietary intake, reduces measurement errors, and thus enhances statistical power. The differential effects of omega-6% and omega-3% in age and sex subgroups warrant future investigation,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yuchen Zhang of the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. It was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s potential for selective bias persists due to the participant sample skewing heavily toward European ancestry and White ethnicity. The number of events was small for some specific cancer sites, which may have limited the statistical power. The study focused on total omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs, with only two individual fatty acids measured. Future studies are needed to examine the roles of other individual PUFAs and specific genetic variants. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
 

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are associated with a lower incidence of cancer. However, omega-3 fatty acids are linked to an increased risk for prostate cancer, specifically.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers looked for associations of plasma omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) with the incidence of cancer overall and 19 site-specific cancers in the large population-based prospective UK Biobank cohort.
• They included 253,138 participants aged 37-73 years who were followed for an average of 12.9 years, with 29,838 diagnosed with cancer.
• Plasma levels of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids were measured using nuclear magnetic resonance and expressed as percentages of total fatty acids.
• Participants with cancer diagnoses at baseline, those who withdrew from the study, and those with missing data on plasma PUFAs were excluded.
• The study adjusted for multiple covariates, including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, lifestyle behaviors, and family history of diseases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids were associated with a 2% and 1% reduction in overall cancer risk per SD increase, respectively (P = .001 and P = .03).
• Omega-6 fatty acids were inversely associated with 14 site-specific cancers, whereas omega-3 fatty acids were inversely associated with five site-specific cancers.
• Prostate cancer was positively associated with omega-3 fatty acids, with a 3% increased risk per SD increase (P = .049).
• A higher omega-6/omega-3 ratio was associated with an increased risk for overall cancer, and three site-specific cancers showed positive associations with the ratio. “Each standard deviation increase, corresponding to a 13.13 increase in the omega ratio, was associated with a 2% increase in the risk of rectum cancer,” for example, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, our findings provide support for possible small net protective roles of omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs in the development of new cancer incidence. Our study also suggests that the usage of circulating blood biomarkers captures different aspects of dietary intake, reduces measurement errors, and thus enhances statistical power. The differential effects of omega-6% and omega-3% in age and sex subgroups warrant future investigation,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yuchen Zhang of the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. It was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s potential for selective bias persists due to the participant sample skewing heavily toward European ancestry and White ethnicity. The number of events was small for some specific cancer sites, which may have limited the statistical power. The study focused on total omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs, with only two individual fatty acids measured. Future studies are needed to examine the roles of other individual PUFAs and specific genetic variants. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
 

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

On September 27, 2024, UMC Health System in Lubbock, Texas, experienced an IT outage because of a cybersecurity incident that temporarily diverted patients to other healthcare facilities. So far, in 2024, there have been 386 cyberattacks on healthcare organizations. These high-impact ransomware attacks disrupt and delay patient care.

In recent years, many healthcare systems, including Scripps Health, Universal Health Services, Vastaamo, Sky Lakes, and the University of Vermont, have paid millions — even tens of millions — to recover data after a cyberattack or data breach. When healthcare systems come under cyber fire, the impact extends far past disrupting workflows and compromising data, patient safety can be also be compromised, vital information may be lost, and imaging and lab results can go missing or be held for ransom, making physicians’ job difficult or impossible.

In fact, cyberattacks on hospitals are far more common than you may realize. A new report issued by Ponemon and Proofpoint found that 92% of healthcare organizations have experienced a cyberattack in the past 12 months. Even more sobering is that about half of the organizations affected suffered disruptions in patient care.
 

Healthcare Systems = ‘Soft Targets’

Healthcare systems are a “soft target” for hackers for several reasons, pointed out Matthew Radolec, vice president, incident response and cloud operations at Varonis, a data security company. “One, they’re usually an amalgamation of many healthcare systems that are interconnected,” said Radolec. “A lot of hospitals are connected to other hospitals or connected to educational institutions, which means their computer vulnerabilities are shared ... and if they have an issue, it could very easily spread to your network.”

Another factor is the cost of securing data. “[With hospitals], they’ll say that a dollar spent on security is a dollar not spent on patient care,” said Radolec. “So the idea of investing in security is really tough from a budget standpoint…they’re choosing between a new MRI machine or better antivirus, backups, or data security.”

Because of the wealth of private data and healthcare information they maintain, hospitals are considered “high impact” for cybercriminals. Attackers know that if they get a foothold in a hospital, it’s more likely to pay — and pay quickly, Radolec told this news organization. Hospitals are also likely to have cyber insurance to help cover the cost of having their data stolen, encrypted, and ransomed.

The 2024 Microsoft Digital Defense Report also found that the bad actors are more sophisticated and better resourced and can challenge even the best cybersecurity. Improved defenses may not be good enough, and the sheer volume of attacks must be met with effective deterrence and government solutions that impose consequences for cybercriminals.
 

Vulnerable Users

Whether through a phishing email or text, password attack, or web attack, “the moment a ‘threat actor’ gets into your institution and gets credentials ... that’s the Nirvana state of a threat actor,” warned Ryan Witt, chair of the healthcare customer advisory board and vice president of Industry Solutions at Proofpoint, a cybersecurity platform. “They have those credentials and will go into deep reconnaissance mode. It often takes healthcare up to 6 months to even ascertain whether somebody’s actually in the network.” During that time, the hacker is learning how the institution works, what job functions matter, and how best to plan their attack.

“Attackers are getting in because they’re buying databases of usernames and passwords. And they’re trying them by the millions,” added Radolec. “For a sophisticated actor, all it takes is time and motivation. They have the skills. It’s just a matter of how persistent they want to be.”

Certain hospital staff are also more likely to be targeted by cyberhackers than others. “About 10% of a healthcare organization’s user base is much more vulnerable for all sorts of reasons — how they work, the value of their job title and job function, and therefore their access to systems,” said Witt.

High-profile staff are more likely to be targeted than those in lower-level positions; the so-called “CEO attack” is typical. However, staff in other hospital departments are also subject to cybercriminals, including hospice departments/hospice organizations and research arms of hospitals.
 

The Impact of Cyberattacks on Patients 

Physicians and healthcare execs may have considered cybersecurity more of a compliance issue than a true threat to patients in the past. But this attitude is rapidly changing. “We are starting to see a very clear connection between a cyber event and how it can impact patient care and patient safety,” said Witt.

According to the Proofpoint report, cyber breaches can severely affect patient care. In 2024:

• 56% of respondents saw a delay in patient tests/procedures
• 53% experienced increased patient complications from medical procedures
• 52% noted a longer patient length of stay
• 44% saw an increase in patient transfers to other facilities
• 28% had an increase in mortality rate

What Hospitals and Physicians Can Do

Fortunately, hospitals can take measures to better protect their data and their patients. One strategy is segmenting networks to reduce the amount of data or systems one person or system can access. Educating staff about the dangers of phishing and spoofing emails also help protect organizations from ransomware attacks. Having staff avoid reusing passwords and updating logins and passwords frequently helps.

Most hospitals also need more robust security controls. Physicians and healthcare facilities must also embrace the cybersecurity controls found in other industries, said Witt. “Multifactor authentication is one of those things that can cause us frustration,” he said. “The controls can seem onerous, but they’re really valuable overall…and should become standard practice.”

Doctors can also prepare for a ransomware attack and protect patients by practicing some “old-school” medicine, like using paper systems and maintaining good patient notes — often, those notes are synced locally as well as offsite, so you’d be able to access them even during a data breach. “It’s smart to write prescriptions on pads sometimes,” said Radolec. “Don’t forget how to do those things because that will make you more resilient in the event of a ransomware attack.”
 

A Continuing Threat

Cyberattacks will continue. “When you look at the high likelihood [of success] and the soft target, you end up with ... a perfect storm,” said Radolec. “Hospitals have a lot of vulnerabilities. They have to keep operations going just to receive income, but also to deliver care to people.”

That means that the burden is on healthcare organizations — including physicians, nurses, staff, and C-level execs — to help keep the “security” in cybersecurity. “We are all part of the cybersecurity defense,” said Witt. Helping to maintain that defense has become a critical aspect of caring for patients.

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

On September 27, 2024, UMC Health System in Lubbock, Texas, experienced an IT outage because of a cybersecurity incident that temporarily diverted patients to other healthcare facilities. So far, in 2024, there have been 386 cyberattacks on healthcare organizations. These high-impact ransomware attacks disrupt and delay patient care.

In recent years, many healthcare systems, including Scripps Health, Universal Health Services, Vastaamo, Sky Lakes, and the University of Vermont, have paid millions — even tens of millions — to recover data after a cyberattack or data breach. When healthcare systems come under cyber fire, the impact extends far past disrupting workflows and compromising data, patient safety can be also be compromised, vital information may be lost, and imaging and lab results can go missing or be held for ransom, making physicians’ job difficult or impossible.

In fact, cyberattacks on hospitals are far more common than you may realize. A new report issued by Ponemon and Proofpoint found that 92% of healthcare organizations have experienced a cyberattack in the past 12 months. Even more sobering is that about half of the organizations affected suffered disruptions in patient care.
 

Healthcare Systems = ‘Soft Targets’

Healthcare systems are a “soft target” for hackers for several reasons, pointed out Matthew Radolec, vice president, incident response and cloud operations at Varonis, a data security company. “One, they’re usually an amalgamation of many healthcare systems that are interconnected,” said Radolec. “A lot of hospitals are connected to other hospitals or connected to educational institutions, which means their computer vulnerabilities are shared ... and if they have an issue, it could very easily spread to your network.”

Another factor is the cost of securing data. “[With hospitals], they’ll say that a dollar spent on security is a dollar not spent on patient care,” said Radolec. “So the idea of investing in security is really tough from a budget standpoint…they’re choosing between a new MRI machine or better antivirus, backups, or data security.”

Because of the wealth of private data and healthcare information they maintain, hospitals are considered “high impact” for cybercriminals. Attackers know that if they get a foothold in a hospital, it’s more likely to pay — and pay quickly, Radolec told this news organization. Hospitals are also likely to have cyber insurance to help cover the cost of having their data stolen, encrypted, and ransomed.

The 2024 Microsoft Digital Defense Report also found that the bad actors are more sophisticated and better resourced and can challenge even the best cybersecurity. Improved defenses may not be good enough, and the sheer volume of attacks must be met with effective deterrence and government solutions that impose consequences for cybercriminals.
 

Vulnerable Users

Whether through a phishing email or text, password attack, or web attack, “the moment a ‘threat actor’ gets into your institution and gets credentials ... that’s the Nirvana state of a threat actor,” warned Ryan Witt, chair of the healthcare customer advisory board and vice president of Industry Solutions at Proofpoint, a cybersecurity platform. “They have those credentials and will go into deep reconnaissance mode. It often takes healthcare up to 6 months to even ascertain whether somebody’s actually in the network.” During that time, the hacker is learning how the institution works, what job functions matter, and how best to plan their attack.

“Attackers are getting in because they’re buying databases of usernames and passwords. And they’re trying them by the millions,” added Radolec. “For a sophisticated actor, all it takes is time and motivation. They have the skills. It’s just a matter of how persistent they want to be.”

Certain hospital staff are also more likely to be targeted by cyberhackers than others. “About 10% of a healthcare organization’s user base is much more vulnerable for all sorts of reasons — how they work, the value of their job title and job function, and therefore their access to systems,” said Witt.

High-profile staff are more likely to be targeted than those in lower-level positions; the so-called “CEO attack” is typical. However, staff in other hospital departments are also subject to cybercriminals, including hospice departments/hospice organizations and research arms of hospitals.
 

The Impact of Cyberattacks on Patients 

Physicians and healthcare execs may have considered cybersecurity more of a compliance issue than a true threat to patients in the past. But this attitude is rapidly changing. “We are starting to see a very clear connection between a cyber event and how it can impact patient care and patient safety,” said Witt.

According to the Proofpoint report, cyber breaches can severely affect patient care. In 2024:

• 56% of respondents saw a delay in patient tests/procedures
• 53% experienced increased patient complications from medical procedures
• 52% noted a longer patient length of stay
• 44% saw an increase in patient transfers to other facilities
• 28% had an increase in mortality rate

What Hospitals and Physicians Can Do

Fortunately, hospitals can take measures to better protect their data and their patients. One strategy is segmenting networks to reduce the amount of data or systems one person or system can access. Educating staff about the dangers of phishing and spoofing emails also help protect organizations from ransomware attacks. Having staff avoid reusing passwords and updating logins and passwords frequently helps.

Most hospitals also need more robust security controls. Physicians and healthcare facilities must also embrace the cybersecurity controls found in other industries, said Witt. “Multifactor authentication is one of those things that can cause us frustration,” he said. “The controls can seem onerous, but they’re really valuable overall…and should become standard practice.”

Doctors can also prepare for a ransomware attack and protect patients by practicing some “old-school” medicine, like using paper systems and maintaining good patient notes — often, those notes are synced locally as well as offsite, so you’d be able to access them even during a data breach. “It’s smart to write prescriptions on pads sometimes,” said Radolec. “Don’t forget how to do those things because that will make you more resilient in the event of a ransomware attack.”
 

A Continuing Threat

Cyberattacks will continue. “When you look at the high likelihood [of success] and the soft target, you end up with ... a perfect storm,” said Radolec. “Hospitals have a lot of vulnerabilities. They have to keep operations going just to receive income, but also to deliver care to people.”

That means that the burden is on healthcare organizations — including physicians, nurses, staff, and C-level execs — to help keep the “security” in cybersecurity. “We are all part of the cybersecurity defense,” said Witt. Helping to maintain that defense has become a critical aspect of caring for patients.

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

On September 27, 2024, UMC Health System in Lubbock, Texas, experienced an IT outage because of a cybersecurity incident that temporarily diverted patients to other healthcare facilities. So far, in 2024, there have been 386 cyberattacks on healthcare organizations. These high-impact ransomware attacks disrupt and delay patient care.

In recent years, many healthcare systems, including Scripps Health, Universal Health Services, Vastaamo, Sky Lakes, and the University of Vermont, have paid millions — even tens of millions — to recover data after a cyberattack or data breach. When healthcare systems come under cyber fire, the impact extends far past disrupting workflows and compromising data, patient safety can be also be compromised, vital information may be lost, and imaging and lab results can go missing or be held for ransom, making physicians’ job difficult or impossible.

In fact, cyberattacks on hospitals are far more common than you may realize. A new report issued by Ponemon and Proofpoint found that 92% of healthcare organizations have experienced a cyberattack in the past 12 months. Even more sobering is that about half of the organizations affected suffered disruptions in patient care.
 

Healthcare Systems = ‘Soft Targets’

Healthcare systems are a “soft target” for hackers for several reasons, pointed out Matthew Radolec, vice president, incident response and cloud operations at Varonis, a data security company. “One, they’re usually an amalgamation of many healthcare systems that are interconnected,” said Radolec. “A lot of hospitals are connected to other hospitals or connected to educational institutions, which means their computer vulnerabilities are shared ... and if they have an issue, it could very easily spread to your network.”

Another factor is the cost of securing data. “[With hospitals], they’ll say that a dollar spent on security is a dollar not spent on patient care,” said Radolec. “So the idea of investing in security is really tough from a budget standpoint…they’re choosing between a new MRI machine or better antivirus, backups, or data security.”

Because of the wealth of private data and healthcare information they maintain, hospitals are considered “high impact” for cybercriminals. Attackers know that if they get a foothold in a hospital, it’s more likely to pay — and pay quickly, Radolec told this news organization. Hospitals are also likely to have cyber insurance to help cover the cost of having their data stolen, encrypted, and ransomed.

The 2024 Microsoft Digital Defense Report also found that the bad actors are more sophisticated and better resourced and can challenge even the best cybersecurity. Improved defenses may not be good enough, and the sheer volume of attacks must be met with effective deterrence and government solutions that impose consequences for cybercriminals.
 

Vulnerable Users

Whether through a phishing email or text, password attack, or web attack, “the moment a ‘threat actor’ gets into your institution and gets credentials ... that’s the Nirvana state of a threat actor,” warned Ryan Witt, chair of the healthcare customer advisory board and vice president of Industry Solutions at Proofpoint, a cybersecurity platform. “They have those credentials and will go into deep reconnaissance mode. It often takes healthcare up to 6 months to even ascertain whether somebody’s actually in the network.” During that time, the hacker is learning how the institution works, what job functions matter, and how best to plan their attack.

“Attackers are getting in because they’re buying databases of usernames and passwords. And they’re trying them by the millions,” added Radolec. “For a sophisticated actor, all it takes is time and motivation. They have the skills. It’s just a matter of how persistent they want to be.”

Certain hospital staff are also more likely to be targeted by cyberhackers than others. “About 10% of a healthcare organization’s user base is much more vulnerable for all sorts of reasons — how they work, the value of their job title and job function, and therefore their access to systems,” said Witt.

High-profile staff are more likely to be targeted than those in lower-level positions; the so-called “CEO attack” is typical. However, staff in other hospital departments are also subject to cybercriminals, including hospice departments/hospice organizations and research arms of hospitals.
 

The Impact of Cyberattacks on Patients 

Physicians and healthcare execs may have considered cybersecurity more of a compliance issue than a true threat to patients in the past. But this attitude is rapidly changing. “We are starting to see a very clear connection between a cyber event and how it can impact patient care and patient safety,” said Witt.

According to the Proofpoint report, cyber breaches can severely affect patient care. In 2024:

• 56% of respondents saw a delay in patient tests/procedures
• 53% experienced increased patient complications from medical procedures
• 52% noted a longer patient length of stay
• 44% saw an increase in patient transfers to other facilities
• 28% had an increase in mortality rate

What Hospitals and Physicians Can Do

Fortunately, hospitals can take measures to better protect their data and their patients. One strategy is segmenting networks to reduce the amount of data or systems one person or system can access. Educating staff about the dangers of phishing and spoofing emails also help protect organizations from ransomware attacks. Having staff avoid reusing passwords and updating logins and passwords frequently helps.

Most hospitals also need more robust security controls. Physicians and healthcare facilities must also embrace the cybersecurity controls found in other industries, said Witt. “Multifactor authentication is one of those things that can cause us frustration,” he said. “The controls can seem onerous, but they’re really valuable overall…and should become standard practice.”

Doctors can also prepare for a ransomware attack and protect patients by practicing some “old-school” medicine, like using paper systems and maintaining good patient notes — often, those notes are synced locally as well as offsite, so you’d be able to access them even during a data breach. “It’s smart to write prescriptions on pads sometimes,” said Radolec. “Don’t forget how to do those things because that will make you more resilient in the event of a ransomware attack.”
 

A Continuing Threat

Cyberattacks will continue. “When you look at the high likelihood [of success] and the soft target, you end up with ... a perfect storm,” said Radolec. “Hospitals have a lot of vulnerabilities. They have to keep operations going just to receive income, but also to deliver care to people.”

That means that the burden is on healthcare organizations — including physicians, nurses, staff, and C-level execs — to help keep the “security” in cybersecurity. “We are all part of the cybersecurity defense,” said Witt. Helping to maintain that defense has become a critical aspect of caring for patients.

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

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

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

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

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

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

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

While a medical peer review occurs once a patient, fellow doctor, or staff member reports that a physician failed to treat a patient up to standards or acted improperly, a “sham peer review” is undertaken for ulterior motives.

Sham peer reviews can be used to attack a doctor for unrelated professional, personal, or nonmedical reasons; intimidate, silence, or target a physician; or to carry out a personal vendetta. They’re typically undertaken due to professional competition or institutional politics rather than to promote quality care or uphold professional standards.

Physicians should be concerned. In a soon-to-be-published Medscape report on peer reviews, 56% of US physicians surveyed expressed higher levels of concern that a peer review could be misused to punish a physician for reasons unrelated to the matter being reviewed.

This is a troublesome issue, and many doctors may not be aware of it or how often it occurs.

“The biggest misconception about sham peer reviews is a denial of how pervasive they are,” said Andy Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which offers a free legal consultation service for physicians facing a sham peer review. “Many hospital administrations are as dangerous to good physicians as street gangs can be in a crime-ridden neighborhood.”

“Physicians should become aware of whether sham peer reviews are prevalent at their hospital and, if so, those physicians should look to practice somewhere else,” Schlafly said in an interview.

Unfortunately, there are limited data on how often this happens. When it does, it can be a career killer, said Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, who has run the AAPS sham peer review hotline for over 20 years.

The physicians at the most risk for a sham peer review tend to be those who work for large hospital systems — as this is one way for hospitals to get rid of the doctors they don’t want to retain on staff, Huntoon said.

“Hospitals want a model whereby every physician on the medical staff is an employee,” Huntoon added. “This gives them complete power and control over these physicians, including the way they practice and how many patients they see per day, which, for some, is 20-50 a day to generate sufficient revenue.”

Complaints are generally filed via incident reporting software.

“The complaint could be that the physician is ‘disruptive,’ which can include facial expression, tone of voice, and body language — for example, ‘I found his facial expression demeaning’ or ‘I found her tone condescending’ — and this can be used to prosecute a doctor,” Huntoon said.

After the complaint is filed, the leaders of a hospital’s peer review committee meet to discuss the incident, followed by a panel of fellow physicians convened to review the matter. Once the date for a meeting is set, the accused doctor is allowed to testify, offer evidence, and have attorney representation.

The entire experience can take a physician by surprise.

“A sham peer review is difficult to prepare for because no physician thinks this is going to happen to them,” said Laurie L. York, a medical law attorney in Austin, Texas.

York added that there may also be a misperception of what is actually happening.

“When a physician becomes aware of an investigation, it initially may look like a regular peer review, and the physician may feel there has been a ‘misunderstanding’ that they can make right by explaining things,” York said. “The window of opportunity to shut down a sham peer review happens quickly. That’s why the physician needs the help of an experienced attorney as early in the process as possible.”
 

If You’re a Victim of a Sham Peer Review

Be vigilant. The most important thing you should think about when it comes to sham peer reviews is that this can, indeed, happen to you, Huntoon said. “I’ve written articles to help educate physicians about the tactics that are used,” he said. “You need to be educated and read medical staff bylaws to know your rights before something bad happens.”

Stay in your job. No matter what, if you’re under review, do not resign your position, no matter how difficult this may be. “A resignation during a sham peer review triggers an adverse report to the National Practitioner Data Bank [NPDB],” Schlafly said. The NPDB is a flagging system created by Congress to improve healthcare quality and reduce healthcare fraud and abuse. “A resignation also waives the physician’s right to contest the unfair review. In addition, leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement is lost if the physician simply resigns.”

Get a lawyer on board early. This is the only way to protect your rights. “Don’t wait a year to get an attorney involved,” Huntoon said. But this also can’t be any lawyer. It’s critical to find someone who specializes in sham peer reviews, so be sure to ask about their experience in handling peer review matters in hospitals and how knowledgeable they are about databank reporting requirements. “Sometimes, doctors will hire a malpractice attorney with no knowledge of what happens with sham peer reviews, and they may give bad advice,” he said. “Others may hire an employment attorney and that attorney will be up on employment law but has no experience with peer review matters in hospitals.”

Given the seriousness of a sham peer review, following these guidelines can help.

Contact the AAPA right away. There are things that can be done early on like getting a withdrawal of the request for corrective action as well as obtaining a preliminary injunction. Preparing for the fallout that may occur can be just as challenging.

“After this situation, the doctor is damaged goods,” Huntoon said. “What hospital will want to hire damaged goods to be part of their medical staff? Finding employment is going to be challenging and opening your own practice may also be difficult because the insurers have access to data bank reports.”

Ultimately, the best advice Huntoon can offer is to do your best to stay one step ahead of any work issues that could even lead to a sham peer review.

“Try and shield yourself from a sham peer review and be prepared should it happen,” he said. “I’ve seen careers end in the blink of an eye — wrongfully.”

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

While a medical peer review occurs once a patient, fellow doctor, or staff member reports that a physician failed to treat a patient up to standards or acted improperly, a “sham peer review” is undertaken for ulterior motives.

Sham peer reviews can be used to attack a doctor for unrelated professional, personal, or nonmedical reasons; intimidate, silence, or target a physician; or to carry out a personal vendetta. They’re typically undertaken due to professional competition or institutional politics rather than to promote quality care or uphold professional standards.

Physicians should be concerned. In a soon-to-be-published Medscape report on peer reviews, 56% of US physicians surveyed expressed higher levels of concern that a peer review could be misused to punish a physician for reasons unrelated to the matter being reviewed.

This is a troublesome issue, and many doctors may not be aware of it or how often it occurs.

“The biggest misconception about sham peer reviews is a denial of how pervasive they are,” said Andy Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which offers a free legal consultation service for physicians facing a sham peer review. “Many hospital administrations are as dangerous to good physicians as street gangs can be in a crime-ridden neighborhood.”

“Physicians should become aware of whether sham peer reviews are prevalent at their hospital and, if so, those physicians should look to practice somewhere else,” Schlafly said in an interview.

Unfortunately, there are limited data on how often this happens. When it does, it can be a career killer, said Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, who has run the AAPS sham peer review hotline for over 20 years.

The physicians at the most risk for a sham peer review tend to be those who work for large hospital systems — as this is one way for hospitals to get rid of the doctors they don’t want to retain on staff, Huntoon said.

“Hospitals want a model whereby every physician on the medical staff is an employee,” Huntoon added. “This gives them complete power and control over these physicians, including the way they practice and how many patients they see per day, which, for some, is 20-50 a day to generate sufficient revenue.”

Complaints are generally filed via incident reporting software.

“The complaint could be that the physician is ‘disruptive,’ which can include facial expression, tone of voice, and body language — for example, ‘I found his facial expression demeaning’ or ‘I found her tone condescending’ — and this can be used to prosecute a doctor,” Huntoon said.

After the complaint is filed, the leaders of a hospital’s peer review committee meet to discuss the incident, followed by a panel of fellow physicians convened to review the matter. Once the date for a meeting is set, the accused doctor is allowed to testify, offer evidence, and have attorney representation.

The entire experience can take a physician by surprise.

“A sham peer review is difficult to prepare for because no physician thinks this is going to happen to them,” said Laurie L. York, a medical law attorney in Austin, Texas.

York added that there may also be a misperception of what is actually happening.

“When a physician becomes aware of an investigation, it initially may look like a regular peer review, and the physician may feel there has been a ‘misunderstanding’ that they can make right by explaining things,” York said. “The window of opportunity to shut down a sham peer review happens quickly. That’s why the physician needs the help of an experienced attorney as early in the process as possible.”
 

If You’re a Victim of a Sham Peer Review

Be vigilant. The most important thing you should think about when it comes to sham peer reviews is that this can, indeed, happen to you, Huntoon said. “I’ve written articles to help educate physicians about the tactics that are used,” he said. “You need to be educated and read medical staff bylaws to know your rights before something bad happens.”

Stay in your job. No matter what, if you’re under review, do not resign your position, no matter how difficult this may be. “A resignation during a sham peer review triggers an adverse report to the National Practitioner Data Bank [NPDB],” Schlafly said. The NPDB is a flagging system created by Congress to improve healthcare quality and reduce healthcare fraud and abuse. “A resignation also waives the physician’s right to contest the unfair review. In addition, leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement is lost if the physician simply resigns.”

Get a lawyer on board early. This is the only way to protect your rights. “Don’t wait a year to get an attorney involved,” Huntoon said. But this also can’t be any lawyer. It’s critical to find someone who specializes in sham peer reviews, so be sure to ask about their experience in handling peer review matters in hospitals and how knowledgeable they are about databank reporting requirements. “Sometimes, doctors will hire a malpractice attorney with no knowledge of what happens with sham peer reviews, and they may give bad advice,” he said. “Others may hire an employment attorney and that attorney will be up on employment law but has no experience with peer review matters in hospitals.”

Given the seriousness of a sham peer review, following these guidelines can help.

Contact the AAPA right away. There are things that can be done early on like getting a withdrawal of the request for corrective action as well as obtaining a preliminary injunction. Preparing for the fallout that may occur can be just as challenging.

“After this situation, the doctor is damaged goods,” Huntoon said. “What hospital will want to hire damaged goods to be part of their medical staff? Finding employment is going to be challenging and opening your own practice may also be difficult because the insurers have access to data bank reports.”

Ultimately, the best advice Huntoon can offer is to do your best to stay one step ahead of any work issues that could even lead to a sham peer review.

“Try and shield yourself from a sham peer review and be prepared should it happen,” he said. “I’ve seen careers end in the blink of an eye — wrongfully.”

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

While a medical peer review occurs once a patient, fellow doctor, or staff member reports that a physician failed to treat a patient up to standards or acted improperly, a “sham peer review” is undertaken for ulterior motives.

Sham peer reviews can be used to attack a doctor for unrelated professional, personal, or nonmedical reasons; intimidate, silence, or target a physician; or to carry out a personal vendetta. They’re typically undertaken due to professional competition or institutional politics rather than to promote quality care or uphold professional standards.

Physicians should be concerned. In a soon-to-be-published Medscape report on peer reviews, 56% of US physicians surveyed expressed higher levels of concern that a peer review could be misused to punish a physician for reasons unrelated to the matter being reviewed.

This is a troublesome issue, and many doctors may not be aware of it or how often it occurs.

“The biggest misconception about sham peer reviews is a denial of how pervasive they are,” said Andy Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which offers a free legal consultation service for physicians facing a sham peer review. “Many hospital administrations are as dangerous to good physicians as street gangs can be in a crime-ridden neighborhood.”

“Physicians should become aware of whether sham peer reviews are prevalent at their hospital and, if so, those physicians should look to practice somewhere else,” Schlafly said in an interview.

Unfortunately, there are limited data on how often this happens. When it does, it can be a career killer, said Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, who has run the AAPS sham peer review hotline for over 20 years.

The physicians at the most risk for a sham peer review tend to be those who work for large hospital systems — as this is one way for hospitals to get rid of the doctors they don’t want to retain on staff, Huntoon said.

“Hospitals want a model whereby every physician on the medical staff is an employee,” Huntoon added. “This gives them complete power and control over these physicians, including the way they practice and how many patients they see per day, which, for some, is 20-50 a day to generate sufficient revenue.”

Complaints are generally filed via incident reporting software.

“The complaint could be that the physician is ‘disruptive,’ which can include facial expression, tone of voice, and body language — for example, ‘I found his facial expression demeaning’ or ‘I found her tone condescending’ — and this can be used to prosecute a doctor,” Huntoon said.

After the complaint is filed, the leaders of a hospital’s peer review committee meet to discuss the incident, followed by a panel of fellow physicians convened to review the matter. Once the date for a meeting is set, the accused doctor is allowed to testify, offer evidence, and have attorney representation.

The entire experience can take a physician by surprise.

“A sham peer review is difficult to prepare for because no physician thinks this is going to happen to them,” said Laurie L. York, a medical law attorney in Austin, Texas.

York added that there may also be a misperception of what is actually happening.

“When a physician becomes aware of an investigation, it initially may look like a regular peer review, and the physician may feel there has been a ‘misunderstanding’ that they can make right by explaining things,” York said. “The window of opportunity to shut down a sham peer review happens quickly. That’s why the physician needs the help of an experienced attorney as early in the process as possible.”
 

If You’re a Victim of a Sham Peer Review

Be vigilant. The most important thing you should think about when it comes to sham peer reviews is that this can, indeed, happen to you, Huntoon said. “I’ve written articles to help educate physicians about the tactics that are used,” he said. “You need to be educated and read medical staff bylaws to know your rights before something bad happens.”

Stay in your job. No matter what, if you’re under review, do not resign your position, no matter how difficult this may be. “A resignation during a sham peer review triggers an adverse report to the National Practitioner Data Bank [NPDB],” Schlafly said. The NPDB is a flagging system created by Congress to improve healthcare quality and reduce healthcare fraud and abuse. “A resignation also waives the physician’s right to contest the unfair review. In addition, leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement is lost if the physician simply resigns.”

Get a lawyer on board early. This is the only way to protect your rights. “Don’t wait a year to get an attorney involved,” Huntoon said. But this also can’t be any lawyer. It’s critical to find someone who specializes in sham peer reviews, so be sure to ask about their experience in handling peer review matters in hospitals and how knowledgeable they are about databank reporting requirements. “Sometimes, doctors will hire a malpractice attorney with no knowledge of what happens with sham peer reviews, and they may give bad advice,” he said. “Others may hire an employment attorney and that attorney will be up on employment law but has no experience with peer review matters in hospitals.”

Given the seriousness of a sham peer review, following these guidelines can help.

Contact the AAPA right away. There are things that can be done early on like getting a withdrawal of the request for corrective action as well as obtaining a preliminary injunction. Preparing for the fallout that may occur can be just as challenging.

“After this situation, the doctor is damaged goods,” Huntoon said. “What hospital will want to hire damaged goods to be part of their medical staff? Finding employment is going to be challenging and opening your own practice may also be difficult because the insurers have access to data bank reports.”

Ultimately, the best advice Huntoon can offer is to do your best to stay one step ahead of any work issues that could even lead to a sham peer review.

“Try and shield yourself from a sham peer review and be prepared should it happen,” he said. “I’ve seen careers end in the blink of an eye — wrongfully.”

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Only 12% of the nurses providing patient care at hospitals and health clinics today are men. Although the percentage of nurses has increased — men made up just 2.7% of nurses in 1970 — nursing is still considered a “pink collar” profession, a female-dominated field.

“We’ve made strides over the last couple of decades, but [the number of men pursuing nursing careers] is leveling out,” said Jason Dunne, DNP, MSN, RN, chief academic officer at the Arizona College of Nursing, Phoenix. “There continues to be persistent gender stereotypes that [have] discouraged men from entering the profession.”

A nationwide nursing shortage has led to increased efforts to attract more men to the profession and ensure that men in nursing feel valued and supported and want to continue their careers long term.

“The nursing shortage is very real,” Dunne said. “We need to be highly focused on the shortage and look at opportunities to bring diversity into the profession, and one big way to solve it is bringing more men into nursing.”
 

Representation Matters

Colleges recognize the need to diversify their nursing student population and have turned their attention to increasing the number of men attending informational sessions and career days. Dunne believes, “There is a general lack of awareness of nursing as a career choice [for men].”

The Nursing Consortium of Florida hosts a “Day in the Life of a Nurse” program to introduce high school students to nursing careers, and the University of Virginia School of Nursing invites male nursing students to speak at educational events to promote workforce diversity.

“When I was growing up, the males wouldn’t have been included in those sessions,” said Melissa Gilbert Gomes, PhD, APRN, PMHNP-BC, FNAP, FAAN, associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion at the University of Virginia School of Nursing, Charlottesville, Virginia. “It was nice to see their interest and to have a male student there for them to ask questions and to help them see that this could be a place for them.”

Nursing schools have also engaged in other efforts to encourage more men to consider nursing careers, from highlighting male nurses in marketing materials and engaging with men at career fairs to updating course curriculum to include content on men’s health and connecting male nursing students with men in nursing faculty or clinical settings.

Focusing on nursing as a lucrative career choice could also attract more men to the profession. On average, male registered nurses (RNs) make $7300 per year more than their female counterparts due to the gender pay gap. The median wage for male RNs in acute care, cardiology, and perioperative specialties is $90,000 annually.

At the University of Virginia School of Nursing, which the American Association for Men in Nursing (AAMN) named “Best School for Men in Nursing” in 2023, 20% of nursing students are men.

The school has a Men Advancing Nursing club and is in the process of chartering a new AAMN chapter. The goal, according to Gomes, is to create an environment where male nursing students feel represented and supported.

“Valuing the perspective that men bring [to nursing] is important,” she said. “Coming together [and] having that camaraderie and intrinsic motivation to specifically speak to areas that impact men ... is important.”
 

Promoting Patient Care

Highlighting the diversity of career options within the nursing profession is also essential. RNs can pursue careers in specialties ranging from pediatrics, orthopedics, and occupational health to anesthesia, cardiology, and nephrology. The specialty with the highest number of male RNs tends to be acute care, which encompasses emergency/trauma and medical-surgical.

John Schmidt, DNP, MSN, BSN, faculty member and program lead for the acute care nurse practitioner program at Purdue Global School of Nursing, refers to these specialties as having a high excitement factor.

“Men gravitate to nursing to help people,” he said. “In critical care, there is instant gratification. You see patients get better. It’s the same in the [intensive care unit] and the emergency department. We take care of them and can see how we made a difference.”

When hospitals and health systems create environments that support men in nursing, patients also benefit. Research shows that patients often prefer nurses of the same gender, and a more diverse healthcare workforce has been linked to improved patient outcomes. Reducing gender inequities among nursing staff could also improve job satisfaction and retention rates for men in nursing.

“When you’re in a vulnerable space as a patient ... it’s important to know that your care provider understands you [and] having men as nurses is a part of that,” said Gomes. “Even though patients might not be used to having a male nurse at the bedside, once they have the experience, it challenges preconceived notions [and] that connection is important.”

Hospitals must proactively support men in nursing to achieve the benefits of greater gender diversity in the nursing workforce. Male nurses have fewer role models and report higher levels of loneliness, isolation, and role strain.

Groups such as NYC Men in Nursing and mentorship programs such as Men in Nursing at RUSH University College of Nursing and RUSH University Medical Center, and the North Carolina Healthcare Association Diverse Healthcare Leaders Mentorship Program were designed to provide coaching, education, and networking opportunities and connect men in nursing.

Male nurses, Dunne added, must be role models and must take the lead in changing the conversations about gender roles in nursing. Establishing support systems and mentorship opportunities is instrumental in inspiring men to pursue nursing careers and creating visibility into the profession and “would create a level of parity for men in the profession and encourage them to want to stay in nursing as a long-term career.”

He told this news organization that creating scholarships for men enrolled in nursing school, increasing the involvement of male nurse leaders in recruitment efforts, and updating curriculum to ensure men are reflected in the materials is also essential.

“We’ve got to be willing and open to having the conversations to end the stereotypes that have plagued the profession,” said Dunne. “And we’ve got to push men in nursing to be front and center so folks see that there are opportunities for men in nursing.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Only 12% of the nurses providing patient care at hospitals and health clinics today are men. Although the percentage of nurses has increased — men made up just 2.7% of nurses in 1970 — nursing is still considered a “pink collar” profession, a female-dominated field.

“We’ve made strides over the last couple of decades, but [the number of men pursuing nursing careers] is leveling out,” said Jason Dunne, DNP, MSN, RN, chief academic officer at the Arizona College of Nursing, Phoenix. “There continues to be persistent gender stereotypes that [have] discouraged men from entering the profession.”

A nationwide nursing shortage has led to increased efforts to attract more men to the profession and ensure that men in nursing feel valued and supported and want to continue their careers long term.

“The nursing shortage is very real,” Dunne said. “We need to be highly focused on the shortage and look at opportunities to bring diversity into the profession, and one big way to solve it is bringing more men into nursing.”
 

Representation Matters

Colleges recognize the need to diversify their nursing student population and have turned their attention to increasing the number of men attending informational sessions and career days. Dunne believes, “There is a general lack of awareness of nursing as a career choice [for men].”

The Nursing Consortium of Florida hosts a “Day in the Life of a Nurse” program to introduce high school students to nursing careers, and the University of Virginia School of Nursing invites male nursing students to speak at educational events to promote workforce diversity.

“When I was growing up, the males wouldn’t have been included in those sessions,” said Melissa Gilbert Gomes, PhD, APRN, PMHNP-BC, FNAP, FAAN, associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion at the University of Virginia School of Nursing, Charlottesville, Virginia. “It was nice to see their interest and to have a male student there for them to ask questions and to help them see that this could be a place for them.”

Nursing schools have also engaged in other efforts to encourage more men to consider nursing careers, from highlighting male nurses in marketing materials and engaging with men at career fairs to updating course curriculum to include content on men’s health and connecting male nursing students with men in nursing faculty or clinical settings.

Focusing on nursing as a lucrative career choice could also attract more men to the profession. On average, male registered nurses (RNs) make $7300 per year more than their female counterparts due to the gender pay gap. The median wage for male RNs in acute care, cardiology, and perioperative specialties is $90,000 annually.

At the University of Virginia School of Nursing, which the American Association for Men in Nursing (AAMN) named “Best School for Men in Nursing” in 2023, 20% of nursing students are men.

The school has a Men Advancing Nursing club and is in the process of chartering a new AAMN chapter. The goal, according to Gomes, is to create an environment where male nursing students feel represented and supported.

“Valuing the perspective that men bring [to nursing] is important,” she said. “Coming together [and] having that camaraderie and intrinsic motivation to specifically speak to areas that impact men ... is important.”
 

Promoting Patient Care

Highlighting the diversity of career options within the nursing profession is also essential. RNs can pursue careers in specialties ranging from pediatrics, orthopedics, and occupational health to anesthesia, cardiology, and nephrology. The specialty with the highest number of male RNs tends to be acute care, which encompasses emergency/trauma and medical-surgical.

John Schmidt, DNP, MSN, BSN, faculty member and program lead for the acute care nurse practitioner program at Purdue Global School of Nursing, refers to these specialties as having a high excitement factor.

“Men gravitate to nursing to help people,” he said. “In critical care, there is instant gratification. You see patients get better. It’s the same in the [intensive care unit] and the emergency department. We take care of them and can see how we made a difference.”

When hospitals and health systems create environments that support men in nursing, patients also benefit. Research shows that patients often prefer nurses of the same gender, and a more diverse healthcare workforce has been linked to improved patient outcomes. Reducing gender inequities among nursing staff could also improve job satisfaction and retention rates for men in nursing.

“When you’re in a vulnerable space as a patient ... it’s important to know that your care provider understands you [and] having men as nurses is a part of that,” said Gomes. “Even though patients might not be used to having a male nurse at the bedside, once they have the experience, it challenges preconceived notions [and] that connection is important.”

Hospitals must proactively support men in nursing to achieve the benefits of greater gender diversity in the nursing workforce. Male nurses have fewer role models and report higher levels of loneliness, isolation, and role strain.

Groups such as NYC Men in Nursing and mentorship programs such as Men in Nursing at RUSH University College of Nursing and RUSH University Medical Center, and the North Carolina Healthcare Association Diverse Healthcare Leaders Mentorship Program were designed to provide coaching, education, and networking opportunities and connect men in nursing.

Male nurses, Dunne added, must be role models and must take the lead in changing the conversations about gender roles in nursing. Establishing support systems and mentorship opportunities is instrumental in inspiring men to pursue nursing careers and creating visibility into the profession and “would create a level of parity for men in the profession and encourage them to want to stay in nursing as a long-term career.”

He told this news organization that creating scholarships for men enrolled in nursing school, increasing the involvement of male nurse leaders in recruitment efforts, and updating curriculum to ensure men are reflected in the materials is also essential.

“We’ve got to be willing and open to having the conversations to end the stereotypes that have plagued the profession,” said Dunne. “And we’ve got to push men in nursing to be front and center so folks see that there are opportunities for men in nursing.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Only 12% of the nurses providing patient care at hospitals and health clinics today are men. Although the percentage of nurses has increased — men made up just 2.7% of nurses in 1970 — nursing is still considered a “pink collar” profession, a female-dominated field.

“We’ve made strides over the last couple of decades, but [the number of men pursuing nursing careers] is leveling out,” said Jason Dunne, DNP, MSN, RN, chief academic officer at the Arizona College of Nursing, Phoenix. “There continues to be persistent gender stereotypes that [have] discouraged men from entering the profession.”

A nationwide nursing shortage has led to increased efforts to attract more men to the profession and ensure that men in nursing feel valued and supported and want to continue their careers long term.

“The nursing shortage is very real,” Dunne said. “We need to be highly focused on the shortage and look at opportunities to bring diversity into the profession, and one big way to solve it is bringing more men into nursing.”
 

Representation Matters

Colleges recognize the need to diversify their nursing student population and have turned their attention to increasing the number of men attending informational sessions and career days. Dunne believes, “There is a general lack of awareness of nursing as a career choice [for men].”

The Nursing Consortium of Florida hosts a “Day in the Life of a Nurse” program to introduce high school students to nursing careers, and the University of Virginia School of Nursing invites male nursing students to speak at educational events to promote workforce diversity.

“When I was growing up, the males wouldn’t have been included in those sessions,” said Melissa Gilbert Gomes, PhD, APRN, PMHNP-BC, FNAP, FAAN, associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion at the University of Virginia School of Nursing, Charlottesville, Virginia. “It was nice to see their interest and to have a male student there for them to ask questions and to help them see that this could be a place for them.”

Nursing schools have also engaged in other efforts to encourage more men to consider nursing careers, from highlighting male nurses in marketing materials and engaging with men at career fairs to updating course curriculum to include content on men’s health and connecting male nursing students with men in nursing faculty or clinical settings.

Focusing on nursing as a lucrative career choice could also attract more men to the profession. On average, male registered nurses (RNs) make $7300 per year more than their female counterparts due to the gender pay gap. The median wage for male RNs in acute care, cardiology, and perioperative specialties is $90,000 annually.

At the University of Virginia School of Nursing, which the American Association for Men in Nursing (AAMN) named “Best School for Men in Nursing” in 2023, 20% of nursing students are men.

The school has a Men Advancing Nursing club and is in the process of chartering a new AAMN chapter. The goal, according to Gomes, is to create an environment where male nursing students feel represented and supported.

“Valuing the perspective that men bring [to nursing] is important,” she said. “Coming together [and] having that camaraderie and intrinsic motivation to specifically speak to areas that impact men ... is important.”
 

Promoting Patient Care

Highlighting the diversity of career options within the nursing profession is also essential. RNs can pursue careers in specialties ranging from pediatrics, orthopedics, and occupational health to anesthesia, cardiology, and nephrology. The specialty with the highest number of male RNs tends to be acute care, which encompasses emergency/trauma and medical-surgical.

John Schmidt, DNP, MSN, BSN, faculty member and program lead for the acute care nurse practitioner program at Purdue Global School of Nursing, refers to these specialties as having a high excitement factor.

“Men gravitate to nursing to help people,” he said. “In critical care, there is instant gratification. You see patients get better. It’s the same in the [intensive care unit] and the emergency department. We take care of them and can see how we made a difference.”

When hospitals and health systems create environments that support men in nursing, patients also benefit. Research shows that patients often prefer nurses of the same gender, and a more diverse healthcare workforce has been linked to improved patient outcomes. Reducing gender inequities among nursing staff could also improve job satisfaction and retention rates for men in nursing.

“When you’re in a vulnerable space as a patient ... it’s important to know that your care provider understands you [and] having men as nurses is a part of that,” said Gomes. “Even though patients might not be used to having a male nurse at the bedside, once they have the experience, it challenges preconceived notions [and] that connection is important.”

Hospitals must proactively support men in nursing to achieve the benefits of greater gender diversity in the nursing workforce. Male nurses have fewer role models and report higher levels of loneliness, isolation, and role strain.

Groups such as NYC Men in Nursing and mentorship programs such as Men in Nursing at RUSH University College of Nursing and RUSH University Medical Center, and the North Carolina Healthcare Association Diverse Healthcare Leaders Mentorship Program were designed to provide coaching, education, and networking opportunities and connect men in nursing.

Male nurses, Dunne added, must be role models and must take the lead in changing the conversations about gender roles in nursing. Establishing support systems and mentorship opportunities is instrumental in inspiring men to pursue nursing careers and creating visibility into the profession and “would create a level of parity for men in the profession and encourage them to want to stay in nursing as a long-term career.”

He told this news organization that creating scholarships for men enrolled in nursing school, increasing the involvement of male nurse leaders in recruitment efforts, and updating curriculum to ensure men are reflected in the materials is also essential.

“We’ve got to be willing and open to having the conversations to end the stereotypes that have plagued the profession,” said Dunne. “And we’ve got to push men in nursing to be front and center so folks see that there are opportunities for men in nursing.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last Major Overhaul Unpopular

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last Major Overhaul Unpopular

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last Major Overhaul Unpopular

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A growing body of research suggests that clinicians can offer chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy safely and effectively on an outpatient basis — a positive development as clinicians strive to expand access beyond metropolitan areas.

In one recent study, an industry-funded phase 2 trial, researchers found similar outcomes from outpatient and inpatient CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma with lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). 

Another recent study reported that outpatient treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) had similar efficacy to inpatient treatment. Meanwhile, a 2023 review of CAR T-cell therapy in various settings found similar outcomes in outpatient and inpatient treatment. 

“The future of CAR T-cell therapy lies in balancing safety with accessibility,” said Rayne Rouce, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Texas Children’s Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, in an interview. “Expanding CAR T-cell therapy beyond large medical centers is a critical next step.” 
 

Great Outcomes, Low Access

Since 2017, the FDA has approved six CAR T-cell therapies, which target cancer by harnessing the power of a patient’s own T cells. As an Oregon Health & Sciences University/Knight Cancer Center website explains, T cells are removed from the patient’s body, “genetically modified to make the chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, [which] protein binds to specific proteins on the surface of cancer cells.”

Modified cells are grown and then infused back into the body, where they “multiply and may be able to destroy all the cancer cells.”

As Rouce puts it, “CAR T-cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed or refractory blood cancers.” One or more of the therapies have been approved to treat types of lymphoblastic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.

A 2023 review of clinical trial data reported complete response rates of 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B cell lymphoma.

“Commercialization of CAR T-cell therapy brought hope that access would expand beyond the major academic medical centers with the highly specialized infrastructure and advanced laboratories required to manufacture and ultimately treat patients,” Rouce said. “However, it quickly became clear that patients who are underinsured or uninsured — or who live outside the network of the well-resourced institutions that house these therapies — are still unable to access these potentially life-saving therapies.”

A 2024 report estimated the cost of CAR T-cell therapy as $700,000-$1 million and said only a small percentage of those who could benefit from the treatment actually get it. For example, an estimated 10,000 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma alone could benefit from CAR T therapy annually, but a survey of 200 US healthcare centers in 2021 found that 1900 procedures were performed overall for all indications. 
 

Distance to Treatment Is a Major Obstacle

Even if patients have insurance plans willing to cover CAR T-cell therapy, they may not be able get care. While more than 150 US centers are certified to administer the therapy, “distance to major medical centers with CAR T capabilities is a major obstacle,” Yuliya Linhares, MD, chief of lymphoma at Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, Florida, said in an interview. 

“I have had patients who chose to not proceed with CAR T therapy due to inability to travel the distance to the medical center for pre-CAR T appointments and assessments and a lack of caretakers who are available to stay nearby,” Linhares said.

Indeed, the challenges facing patients in rural and underserved urban areas can be overwhelming, Hoda Badr, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said in an interview.

“They must take time off work, arrange accommodations near treatment sites, and manage travel costs, all of which strain limited financial resources. The inability to afford these additional expenses can lead to delays in receiving care or patients forgoing the treatment altogether,” Badr said. She added that “the psychological and social burden of being away from family and community support systems during treatment can intensify the stress of an already difficult situation.”

A statistic tells the story of the urban/community divide. CAR T-cell therapy administration at academic centers after leukapheresis — the separation and collection of white blood cells — is reported to be at around 90%, while it’s only 47% in community-based practices that have to refer patients elsewhere, Linhares noted. 
 

Researchers Explore CAR T-Cell Therapy in the Community 

Linhares is lead author of the phase 2 trial that explored administration of lisocabtagene maraleucel in 82 patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The findings were published Sept. 30 in Blood Advances.

The OUTREACH trial, funded by Juno/Bristol-Myers Squibb, treated patients in the third line and beyond at community medical centers (outpatient-monitored, 70%; inpatient-monitored, 30%). The trial didn’t require facilities to be certified by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT); all had to be non-tertiary cancer centers that weren’t associated with a university. In order to administer therapy on the outpatient basis, the centers had to have phase 1 or hematopoietic stem cell transplant capabilities.

As Linhares explained, 72% of participating centers hadn’t provided CAR T-cell therapy before, and 44% did not have FACT accreditation. “About 32% of patients received CAR T at CAR T naive sites, while 70% of patients received CAR T as outpatients. Investigators had to decide whether patients qualified for the outpatient observation or had to be admitted for the inpatient observation,” she noted.
 

Community Outcomes Were Comparable to Major Trial

As for the results, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred at a similar frequency among outpatients and inpatients at 74% and 76%, Linhares said. There were no grade 5 adverse events, and 25% of patients treated as outpatients were never hospitalized. 

Response rates were similar to those in the major TRANSCEND trial with the objective response rates rate of 80% and complete response rates of 54%.

“Overall,” Linhares said, “our study demonstrated that with the availability of standard operating procedures, specially trained staff and a multidisciplinary team trained in CAR T toxicity management, inpatient and outpatient CAR T administration is feasible at specialized community medical centers.”

In 2023, another study examined patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated on an outpatient basis with tisagenlecleucel. Researchers reported that outpatient therapy was “feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment.”

And a 2023 systematic literature review identified 11 studies that reported outpatient vs inpatient outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy and found “comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient).” Costs were cheaper in the outpatient setting. 

Research findings like these are good news, Baylor College of Medicine’s Badr said. “Outpatient administration could help to scale the availability of this therapy to a broader range of healthcare settings, including those serving underserved populations. Findings indicate promising safety profiles, which is encouraging for expanding access.”
 

Not Every Patient Can Tolerate Outpatient Care

Linhares noted that the patients who received outpatient care in the lisocabtagene maraleucel study were in better shape than those in the inpatient group. Those selected for inpatient care had “higher disease risk characteristics, including high grade B cell lymphoma histology, higher disease burden, and having received bridging therapy. This points to the fact that the investigators properly selected patients who were at a higher risk of complications for inpatient observation. Additionally, some patients stayed as inpatient due to social factors, which increases length of stay independently of disease characteristics.”

Specifically, reasons for inpatient monitoring were disease characteristics (48%) including tumor burden and risk of adverse events; psychosocial factors (32%) including lack of caregiver support or transportation; COVID-19 precautions (8%); pre-infusion adverse events (8%) of fever and vasovagal reaction; and principal investigator decision (4%) due to limited hospital experience with CAR T-cell therapy.

Texas Children’s Cancer Center’s Rouce said “certain patients, particularly those with higher risk for complications or those who require intensive monitoring, may not be suited for outpatient CAR T-cell therapy. This may be due to other comorbidities or baseline factors known to predispose to CAR T-related toxicities. However, evidence-based risk mitigation algorithms may still allow closely monitored outpatient treatment, with recognition that hospital admission for incipient side effects may be necessary.”
 

What’s Next for Access to Therapy?

Rouce noted that her institution, like many others, is offering CAR T-cell therapy on an outpatient basis. “Additionally, continued scientific innovation, such as immediately available, off-the-shelf cell therapies and inducible safety switches, will ultimately improve access,” she said. 

Linhares noted a recent advance and highlighted research that’s now in progress. “CAR Ts now have an indication as a second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, and there are ongoing clinical trials that will potentially move CAR Ts into the first line,” she said. “Some trials are exploring allogeneic, readily available off-the-shelf CAR T for the treatment of minimal residual disease positive large B-cell lymphoma after completion of first-line therapy.”

These potential advances “are increasing the need for CAR T-capable medical centers,” Linhares noted. “More and more medical centers with expert hematology teams are becoming CAR T-certified, with more patients having access to CAR T.”

Still, she said, “I don’t think access is nearly as good as it should be. Many patients in rural areas are still unable to get this life-saving treatment. “However, “it is very possible that other novel targeted therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, will be used in place of CAR T in areas with poor CAR T access. Bispecific antibody efficacy in various B cell lymphoma histologies are being currently explored.”

Rouce discloses relationships with Novartis and Pfizer. Linhares reports ties with Kyowa Kirin, AbbVie, ADC, BeiGene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, and TG. Badr has no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing body of research suggests that clinicians can offer chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy safely and effectively on an outpatient basis — a positive development as clinicians strive to expand access beyond metropolitan areas.

In one recent study, an industry-funded phase 2 trial, researchers found similar outcomes from outpatient and inpatient CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma with lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). 

Another recent study reported that outpatient treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) had similar efficacy to inpatient treatment. Meanwhile, a 2023 review of CAR T-cell therapy in various settings found similar outcomes in outpatient and inpatient treatment. 

“The future of CAR T-cell therapy lies in balancing safety with accessibility,” said Rayne Rouce, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Texas Children’s Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, in an interview. “Expanding CAR T-cell therapy beyond large medical centers is a critical next step.” 
 

Great Outcomes, Low Access

Since 2017, the FDA has approved six CAR T-cell therapies, which target cancer by harnessing the power of a patient’s own T cells. As an Oregon Health & Sciences University/Knight Cancer Center website explains, T cells are removed from the patient’s body, “genetically modified to make the chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, [which] protein binds to specific proteins on the surface of cancer cells.”

Modified cells are grown and then infused back into the body, where they “multiply and may be able to destroy all the cancer cells.”

As Rouce puts it, “CAR T-cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed or refractory blood cancers.” One or more of the therapies have been approved to treat types of lymphoblastic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.

A 2023 review of clinical trial data reported complete response rates of 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B cell lymphoma.

“Commercialization of CAR T-cell therapy brought hope that access would expand beyond the major academic medical centers with the highly specialized infrastructure and advanced laboratories required to manufacture and ultimately treat patients,” Rouce said. “However, it quickly became clear that patients who are underinsured or uninsured — or who live outside the network of the well-resourced institutions that house these therapies — are still unable to access these potentially life-saving therapies.”

A 2024 report estimated the cost of CAR T-cell therapy as $700,000-$1 million and said only a small percentage of those who could benefit from the treatment actually get it. For example, an estimated 10,000 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma alone could benefit from CAR T therapy annually, but a survey of 200 US healthcare centers in 2021 found that 1900 procedures were performed overall for all indications. 
 

Distance to Treatment Is a Major Obstacle

Even if patients have insurance plans willing to cover CAR T-cell therapy, they may not be able get care. While more than 150 US centers are certified to administer the therapy, “distance to major medical centers with CAR T capabilities is a major obstacle,” Yuliya Linhares, MD, chief of lymphoma at Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, Florida, said in an interview. 

“I have had patients who chose to not proceed with CAR T therapy due to inability to travel the distance to the medical center for pre-CAR T appointments and assessments and a lack of caretakers who are available to stay nearby,” Linhares said.

Indeed, the challenges facing patients in rural and underserved urban areas can be overwhelming, Hoda Badr, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said in an interview.

“They must take time off work, arrange accommodations near treatment sites, and manage travel costs, all of which strain limited financial resources. The inability to afford these additional expenses can lead to delays in receiving care or patients forgoing the treatment altogether,” Badr said. She added that “the psychological and social burden of being away from family and community support systems during treatment can intensify the stress of an already difficult situation.”

A statistic tells the story of the urban/community divide. CAR T-cell therapy administration at academic centers after leukapheresis — the separation and collection of white blood cells — is reported to be at around 90%, while it’s only 47% in community-based practices that have to refer patients elsewhere, Linhares noted. 
 

Researchers Explore CAR T-Cell Therapy in the Community 

Linhares is lead author of the phase 2 trial that explored administration of lisocabtagene maraleucel in 82 patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The findings were published Sept. 30 in Blood Advances.

The OUTREACH trial, funded by Juno/Bristol-Myers Squibb, treated patients in the third line and beyond at community medical centers (outpatient-monitored, 70%; inpatient-monitored, 30%). The trial didn’t require facilities to be certified by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT); all had to be non-tertiary cancer centers that weren’t associated with a university. In order to administer therapy on the outpatient basis, the centers had to have phase 1 or hematopoietic stem cell transplant capabilities.

As Linhares explained, 72% of participating centers hadn’t provided CAR T-cell therapy before, and 44% did not have FACT accreditation. “About 32% of patients received CAR T at CAR T naive sites, while 70% of patients received CAR T as outpatients. Investigators had to decide whether patients qualified for the outpatient observation or had to be admitted for the inpatient observation,” she noted.
 

Community Outcomes Were Comparable to Major Trial

As for the results, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred at a similar frequency among outpatients and inpatients at 74% and 76%, Linhares said. There were no grade 5 adverse events, and 25% of patients treated as outpatients were never hospitalized. 

Response rates were similar to those in the major TRANSCEND trial with the objective response rates rate of 80% and complete response rates of 54%.

“Overall,” Linhares said, “our study demonstrated that with the availability of standard operating procedures, specially trained staff and a multidisciplinary team trained in CAR T toxicity management, inpatient and outpatient CAR T administration is feasible at specialized community medical centers.”

In 2023, another study examined patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated on an outpatient basis with tisagenlecleucel. Researchers reported that outpatient therapy was “feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment.”

And a 2023 systematic literature review identified 11 studies that reported outpatient vs inpatient outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy and found “comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient).” Costs were cheaper in the outpatient setting. 

Research findings like these are good news, Baylor College of Medicine’s Badr said. “Outpatient administration could help to scale the availability of this therapy to a broader range of healthcare settings, including those serving underserved populations. Findings indicate promising safety profiles, which is encouraging for expanding access.”
 

Not Every Patient Can Tolerate Outpatient Care

Linhares noted that the patients who received outpatient care in the lisocabtagene maraleucel study were in better shape than those in the inpatient group. Those selected for inpatient care had “higher disease risk characteristics, including high grade B cell lymphoma histology, higher disease burden, and having received bridging therapy. This points to the fact that the investigators properly selected patients who were at a higher risk of complications for inpatient observation. Additionally, some patients stayed as inpatient due to social factors, which increases length of stay independently of disease characteristics.”

Specifically, reasons for inpatient monitoring were disease characteristics (48%) including tumor burden and risk of adverse events; psychosocial factors (32%) including lack of caregiver support or transportation; COVID-19 precautions (8%); pre-infusion adverse events (8%) of fever and vasovagal reaction; and principal investigator decision (4%) due to limited hospital experience with CAR T-cell therapy.

Texas Children’s Cancer Center’s Rouce said “certain patients, particularly those with higher risk for complications or those who require intensive monitoring, may not be suited for outpatient CAR T-cell therapy. This may be due to other comorbidities or baseline factors known to predispose to CAR T-related toxicities. However, evidence-based risk mitigation algorithms may still allow closely monitored outpatient treatment, with recognition that hospital admission for incipient side effects may be necessary.”
 

What’s Next for Access to Therapy?

Rouce noted that her institution, like many others, is offering CAR T-cell therapy on an outpatient basis. “Additionally, continued scientific innovation, such as immediately available, off-the-shelf cell therapies and inducible safety switches, will ultimately improve access,” she said. 

Linhares noted a recent advance and highlighted research that’s now in progress. “CAR Ts now have an indication as a second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, and there are ongoing clinical trials that will potentially move CAR Ts into the first line,” she said. “Some trials are exploring allogeneic, readily available off-the-shelf CAR T for the treatment of minimal residual disease positive large B-cell lymphoma after completion of first-line therapy.”

These potential advances “are increasing the need for CAR T-capable medical centers,” Linhares noted. “More and more medical centers with expert hematology teams are becoming CAR T-certified, with more patients having access to CAR T.”

Still, she said, “I don’t think access is nearly as good as it should be. Many patients in rural areas are still unable to get this life-saving treatment. “However, “it is very possible that other novel targeted therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, will be used in place of CAR T in areas with poor CAR T access. Bispecific antibody efficacy in various B cell lymphoma histologies are being currently explored.”

Rouce discloses relationships with Novartis and Pfizer. Linhares reports ties with Kyowa Kirin, AbbVie, ADC, BeiGene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, and TG. Badr has no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing body of research suggests that clinicians can offer chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy safely and effectively on an outpatient basis — a positive development as clinicians strive to expand access beyond metropolitan areas.

In one recent study, an industry-funded phase 2 trial, researchers found similar outcomes from outpatient and inpatient CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma with lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). 

Another recent study reported that outpatient treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) had similar efficacy to inpatient treatment. Meanwhile, a 2023 review of CAR T-cell therapy in various settings found similar outcomes in outpatient and inpatient treatment. 

“The future of CAR T-cell therapy lies in balancing safety with accessibility,” said Rayne Rouce, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Texas Children’s Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, in an interview. “Expanding CAR T-cell therapy beyond large medical centers is a critical next step.” 
 

Great Outcomes, Low Access

Since 2017, the FDA has approved six CAR T-cell therapies, which target cancer by harnessing the power of a patient’s own T cells. As an Oregon Health & Sciences University/Knight Cancer Center website explains, T cells are removed from the patient’s body, “genetically modified to make the chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, [which] protein binds to specific proteins on the surface of cancer cells.”

Modified cells are grown and then infused back into the body, where they “multiply and may be able to destroy all the cancer cells.”

As Rouce puts it, “CAR T-cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed or refractory blood cancers.” One or more of the therapies have been approved to treat types of lymphoblastic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.

A 2023 review of clinical trial data reported complete response rates of 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B cell lymphoma.

“Commercialization of CAR T-cell therapy brought hope that access would expand beyond the major academic medical centers with the highly specialized infrastructure and advanced laboratories required to manufacture and ultimately treat patients,” Rouce said. “However, it quickly became clear that patients who are underinsured or uninsured — or who live outside the network of the well-resourced institutions that house these therapies — are still unable to access these potentially life-saving therapies.”

A 2024 report estimated the cost of CAR T-cell therapy as $700,000-$1 million and said only a small percentage of those who could benefit from the treatment actually get it. For example, an estimated 10,000 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma alone could benefit from CAR T therapy annually, but a survey of 200 US healthcare centers in 2021 found that 1900 procedures were performed overall for all indications. 
 

Distance to Treatment Is a Major Obstacle

Even if patients have insurance plans willing to cover CAR T-cell therapy, they may not be able get care. While more than 150 US centers are certified to administer the therapy, “distance to major medical centers with CAR T capabilities is a major obstacle,” Yuliya Linhares, MD, chief of lymphoma at Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, Florida, said in an interview. 

“I have had patients who chose to not proceed with CAR T therapy due to inability to travel the distance to the medical center for pre-CAR T appointments and assessments and a lack of caretakers who are available to stay nearby,” Linhares said.

Indeed, the challenges facing patients in rural and underserved urban areas can be overwhelming, Hoda Badr, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said in an interview.

“They must take time off work, arrange accommodations near treatment sites, and manage travel costs, all of which strain limited financial resources. The inability to afford these additional expenses can lead to delays in receiving care or patients forgoing the treatment altogether,” Badr said. She added that “the psychological and social burden of being away from family and community support systems during treatment can intensify the stress of an already difficult situation.”

A statistic tells the story of the urban/community divide. CAR T-cell therapy administration at academic centers after leukapheresis — the separation and collection of white blood cells — is reported to be at around 90%, while it’s only 47% in community-based practices that have to refer patients elsewhere, Linhares noted. 
 

Researchers Explore CAR T-Cell Therapy in the Community 

Linhares is lead author of the phase 2 trial that explored administration of lisocabtagene maraleucel in 82 patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The findings were published Sept. 30 in Blood Advances.

The OUTREACH trial, funded by Juno/Bristol-Myers Squibb, treated patients in the third line and beyond at community medical centers (outpatient-monitored, 70%; inpatient-monitored, 30%). The trial didn’t require facilities to be certified by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT); all had to be non-tertiary cancer centers that weren’t associated with a university. In order to administer therapy on the outpatient basis, the centers had to have phase 1 or hematopoietic stem cell transplant capabilities.

As Linhares explained, 72% of participating centers hadn’t provided CAR T-cell therapy before, and 44% did not have FACT accreditation. “About 32% of patients received CAR T at CAR T naive sites, while 70% of patients received CAR T as outpatients. Investigators had to decide whether patients qualified for the outpatient observation or had to be admitted for the inpatient observation,” she noted.
 

Community Outcomes Were Comparable to Major Trial

As for the results, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred at a similar frequency among outpatients and inpatients at 74% and 76%, Linhares said. There were no grade 5 adverse events, and 25% of patients treated as outpatients were never hospitalized. 

Response rates were similar to those in the major TRANSCEND trial with the objective response rates rate of 80% and complete response rates of 54%.

“Overall,” Linhares said, “our study demonstrated that with the availability of standard operating procedures, specially trained staff and a multidisciplinary team trained in CAR T toxicity management, inpatient and outpatient CAR T administration is feasible at specialized community medical centers.”

In 2023, another study examined patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated on an outpatient basis with tisagenlecleucel. Researchers reported that outpatient therapy was “feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment.”

And a 2023 systematic literature review identified 11 studies that reported outpatient vs inpatient outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy and found “comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient).” Costs were cheaper in the outpatient setting. 

Research findings like these are good news, Baylor College of Medicine’s Badr said. “Outpatient administration could help to scale the availability of this therapy to a broader range of healthcare settings, including those serving underserved populations. Findings indicate promising safety profiles, which is encouraging for expanding access.”
 

Not Every Patient Can Tolerate Outpatient Care

Linhares noted that the patients who received outpatient care in the lisocabtagene maraleucel study were in better shape than those in the inpatient group. Those selected for inpatient care had “higher disease risk characteristics, including high grade B cell lymphoma histology, higher disease burden, and having received bridging therapy. This points to the fact that the investigators properly selected patients who were at a higher risk of complications for inpatient observation. Additionally, some patients stayed as inpatient due to social factors, which increases length of stay independently of disease characteristics.”

Specifically, reasons for inpatient monitoring were disease characteristics (48%) including tumor burden and risk of adverse events; psychosocial factors (32%) including lack of caregiver support or transportation; COVID-19 precautions (8%); pre-infusion adverse events (8%) of fever and vasovagal reaction; and principal investigator decision (4%) due to limited hospital experience with CAR T-cell therapy.

Texas Children’s Cancer Center’s Rouce said “certain patients, particularly those with higher risk for complications or those who require intensive monitoring, may not be suited for outpatient CAR T-cell therapy. This may be due to other comorbidities or baseline factors known to predispose to CAR T-related toxicities. However, evidence-based risk mitigation algorithms may still allow closely monitored outpatient treatment, with recognition that hospital admission for incipient side effects may be necessary.”
 

What’s Next for Access to Therapy?

Rouce noted that her institution, like many others, is offering CAR T-cell therapy on an outpatient basis. “Additionally, continued scientific innovation, such as immediately available, off-the-shelf cell therapies and inducible safety switches, will ultimately improve access,” she said. 

Linhares noted a recent advance and highlighted research that’s now in progress. “CAR Ts now have an indication as a second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, and there are ongoing clinical trials that will potentially move CAR Ts into the first line,” she said. “Some trials are exploring allogeneic, readily available off-the-shelf CAR T for the treatment of minimal residual disease positive large B-cell lymphoma after completion of first-line therapy.”

These potential advances “are increasing the need for CAR T-capable medical centers,” Linhares noted. “More and more medical centers with expert hematology teams are becoming CAR T-certified, with more patients having access to CAR T.”

Still, she said, “I don’t think access is nearly as good as it should be. Many patients in rural areas are still unable to get this life-saving treatment. “However, “it is very possible that other novel targeted therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, will be used in place of CAR T in areas with poor CAR T access. Bispecific antibody efficacy in various B cell lymphoma histologies are being currently explored.”

Rouce discloses relationships with Novartis and Pfizer. Linhares reports ties with Kyowa Kirin, AbbVie, ADC, BeiGene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, and TG. Badr has no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In late October, a federal grand jury charged a Detroit-area medical oncologist Naveed Aslam, MD, in an indictment for his part in a scheme to illegally sell cancer drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam acquired and sold more than $17 million in cancer drugs and personally netted more than $2.5 million during the scheme.

The charges against Aslam, filed on October 23 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, include 10 counts of illegally selling or trading prescription drugs and one count of conspiring to do so.

“Dr. Aslam’s alleged participation in this scheme not only allowed him to profit unlawfully from the sale of cancer drugs but it also posed a serious threat by potentially placing these medications into the wrong hands,” Cheyvoryea Gibson, special agent in charge of the FBI in Michigan, said in a press release announcing the indictment.

The investigation is being conducted jointly by the FBI, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and Homeland Security Investigations.

The indictment alleges that Aslam was recruited by an unnamed operator of a Michigan corporation that engaged in business as a retail pharmacy and in the wholesale distribution of expensive prescription drugs, largely oncology drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam and the operator came to an agreement where Aslam would purchase these expensive drugs from an authorized distributor under the false pretense that he was going to prescribe them to patients.

Instead, Aslam allegedly “sold and transferred the prescription drugs” to or through the Michigan business, with involvement from the unnamed operator and a second unnamed individual.

The unnamed individuals “identified customers interested in buying prescription cancer drugs” and “communicated with Dr. Aslam about what cancer drugs were requested,” according to the press release. “Dr. Aslam used his access to certain cancer drugs through his medical practice, Somerset Hematology and Oncology, P.C., to order and purchase the cancer drugs from his supplier.”

The indictment lays out that Aslam allegedly profited from this scheme in several ways, which included charging the Michigan business more than he paid the distributor for the drugs, sharing the profits when the business resold the drugs at a markup, and receiving rebates and discounts from the distributor “based on the amount of qualifying drugs he purchased and resold.”

According to the indictment, the scheme ran from early 2019 to mid-2023 and included four antibody drug conjugates — trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), enfortumab vedotin (Padcev), tisotumab vedotin (Tivdak), and sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy) — and the monoclonal antibody mogamulizumab (Poteligeo) for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

By working with Aslam, the operatives “obtained prescription drugs from an authorized distributor that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase, and which they were able to sell at a profit,” according to the indictment.

Both the prosecuting assistant US attorney, Andrew Lievense, and Aslam’s defense lawyer, Daniel Dena, declined to comment for this news organization.

The prosecutor is seeking to recoup the more than $2.5 million Aslam allegedly pocketed, according to the indictment. The press release also noted that an “indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt.”
 

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

In late October, a federal grand jury charged a Detroit-area medical oncologist Naveed Aslam, MD, in an indictment for his part in a scheme to illegally sell cancer drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam acquired and sold more than $17 million in cancer drugs and personally netted more than $2.5 million during the scheme.

The charges against Aslam, filed on October 23 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, include 10 counts of illegally selling or trading prescription drugs and one count of conspiring to do so.

“Dr. Aslam’s alleged participation in this scheme not only allowed him to profit unlawfully from the sale of cancer drugs but it also posed a serious threat by potentially placing these medications into the wrong hands,” Cheyvoryea Gibson, special agent in charge of the FBI in Michigan, said in a press release announcing the indictment.

The investigation is being conducted jointly by the FBI, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and Homeland Security Investigations.

The indictment alleges that Aslam was recruited by an unnamed operator of a Michigan corporation that engaged in business as a retail pharmacy and in the wholesale distribution of expensive prescription drugs, largely oncology drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam and the operator came to an agreement where Aslam would purchase these expensive drugs from an authorized distributor under the false pretense that he was going to prescribe them to patients.

Instead, Aslam allegedly “sold and transferred the prescription drugs” to or through the Michigan business, with involvement from the unnamed operator and a second unnamed individual.

The unnamed individuals “identified customers interested in buying prescription cancer drugs” and “communicated with Dr. Aslam about what cancer drugs were requested,” according to the press release. “Dr. Aslam used his access to certain cancer drugs through his medical practice, Somerset Hematology and Oncology, P.C., to order and purchase the cancer drugs from his supplier.”

The indictment lays out that Aslam allegedly profited from this scheme in several ways, which included charging the Michigan business more than he paid the distributor for the drugs, sharing the profits when the business resold the drugs at a markup, and receiving rebates and discounts from the distributor “based on the amount of qualifying drugs he purchased and resold.”

According to the indictment, the scheme ran from early 2019 to mid-2023 and included four antibody drug conjugates — trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), enfortumab vedotin (Padcev), tisotumab vedotin (Tivdak), and sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy) — and the monoclonal antibody mogamulizumab (Poteligeo) for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

By working with Aslam, the operatives “obtained prescription drugs from an authorized distributor that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase, and which they were able to sell at a profit,” according to the indictment.

Both the prosecuting assistant US attorney, Andrew Lievense, and Aslam’s defense lawyer, Daniel Dena, declined to comment for this news organization.

The prosecutor is seeking to recoup the more than $2.5 million Aslam allegedly pocketed, according to the indictment. The press release also noted that an “indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt.”
 

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

In late October, a federal grand jury charged a Detroit-area medical oncologist Naveed Aslam, MD, in an indictment for his part in a scheme to illegally sell cancer drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam acquired and sold more than $17 million in cancer drugs and personally netted more than $2.5 million during the scheme.

The charges against Aslam, filed on October 23 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, include 10 counts of illegally selling or trading prescription drugs and one count of conspiring to do so.

“Dr. Aslam’s alleged participation in this scheme not only allowed him to profit unlawfully from the sale of cancer drugs but it also posed a serious threat by potentially placing these medications into the wrong hands,” Cheyvoryea Gibson, special agent in charge of the FBI in Michigan, said in a press release announcing the indictment.

The investigation is being conducted jointly by the FBI, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and Homeland Security Investigations.

The indictment alleges that Aslam was recruited by an unnamed operator of a Michigan corporation that engaged in business as a retail pharmacy and in the wholesale distribution of expensive prescription drugs, largely oncology drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam and the operator came to an agreement where Aslam would purchase these expensive drugs from an authorized distributor under the false pretense that he was going to prescribe them to patients.

Instead, Aslam allegedly “sold and transferred the prescription drugs” to or through the Michigan business, with involvement from the unnamed operator and a second unnamed individual.

The unnamed individuals “identified customers interested in buying prescription cancer drugs” and “communicated with Dr. Aslam about what cancer drugs were requested,” according to the press release. “Dr. Aslam used his access to certain cancer drugs through his medical practice, Somerset Hematology and Oncology, P.C., to order and purchase the cancer drugs from his supplier.”

The indictment lays out that Aslam allegedly profited from this scheme in several ways, which included charging the Michigan business more than he paid the distributor for the drugs, sharing the profits when the business resold the drugs at a markup, and receiving rebates and discounts from the distributor “based on the amount of qualifying drugs he purchased and resold.”

According to the indictment, the scheme ran from early 2019 to mid-2023 and included four antibody drug conjugates — trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), enfortumab vedotin (Padcev), tisotumab vedotin (Tivdak), and sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy) — and the monoclonal antibody mogamulizumab (Poteligeo) for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

By working with Aslam, the operatives “obtained prescription drugs from an authorized distributor that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase, and which they were able to sell at a profit,” according to the indictment.

Both the prosecuting assistant US attorney, Andrew Lievense, and Aslam’s defense lawyer, Daniel Dena, declined to comment for this news organization.

The prosecutor is seeking to recoup the more than $2.5 million Aslam allegedly pocketed, according to the indictment. The press release also noted that an “indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt.”
 

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