Last year, my husband and I took a 16-day road trip from Kentucky through Massachusetts to Maine. On our first morning in Boston, we exited the Park Street Station en route to Boston Common, but instead of being greeted by the aroma of molasses, we were hit full-on with a pungent, repulsive odor. “That’s skunk weed,” my husband chuckled as we stepped right into the middle of the Boston Freedom Rally, a celebration of all things cannabis.

As we boarded a hop-on-hop-off bus, we learned that this was the one week of the year that the city skips testing tour bus drivers for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), “because we all test positive,” the driver quipped. As our open-air bus circled the Common, a crowd of pot enthusiasts displayed signs in support of relaxed regulation for public consumption.

The 34-year-old Boston Freedom Rally is a sign that U.S. culture has transformed forever. Mary Jane is no friend of emergency physicians nor of staff on hospital wards and offices. Health care workers should brace for the true impact of THC as its adoption by all ages rises.
 

Toking boomers and millennials

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, looked at cannabis-related emergency department visits from all acute-care hospitals in the state from 2005 to 2019 and found an 1,808% increase in patients aged 65 or older (that is not a typo) who were there for complications from cannabis use.

The lead author said in an interview that, “older patients taking marijuana or related products may have dizziness and falls, heart palpitations, panic attacks, confusion, anxiety or worsening of underlying lung diseases, such as asthma or [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].”

A recent study from Canada suggests that commercialization has been associated with an increase in related hospitalizations, including cannabis-induced psychosis.

According to a National Study of Drug Use and Health, marijuana use in young adults reached an all-time high (pun intended) in 2021. Nearly 10% of eighth graders and 20% of 10th graders reported using marijuana this past year.

The full downside of any drug, legal or illegal, is largely unknown until it infiltrates the mainstream market, but these are the typical cases we see:

Let’s start with the demotivated high school honors student who dropped out of college to work at the local cinema. He stumbled and broke his clavicle outside a bar at 2 AM, but he wasn’t sure if he passed out, so a cardiology consult was requested to “rule out” arrhythmia associated with syncope. He related that his plan to become a railway conductor had been upended because he knew he would be drug tested and just couldn’t give up pot. After a normal cardiac exam, ECG, labs, a Holter, and an echocardiogram were also requested and normal at a significant cost.
 

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome

One of my Midwest colleagues related her encounter with two middle-aged pot users with ventricular tachycardia (VT). These episodes coincided with potassium levels less than 3.0 mEq/L in the setting of repetitive vomiting. The QTc interval didn’t normalize despite a corrected potassium level in one patient. They were both informed that they should never smoke pot because vomiting would predictably drop their K+ levels again and prolong their QTc intervals. Then began “the circular argument,” as my friend described it. The patient claims, “I smoke pot to relieve my nausea,” to which she explains that “in many folks, pot use induces nausea.” Of course, the classic reply is, “Not me.” Predictably one of these stoners soon returned with more VT, more puking, and more hypokalemia. “Consider yourself ‘allergic’ to pot smoke,” my friend advised, but “was met with no meaningful hint of understanding or hope for transformative change,” she told me.

I’ve seen cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome several times in the past few years. It occurs in daily to weekly pot users. Very rarely, it can cause cerebral edema, but it is also associated with seizures and dehydration that can lead to hypovolemic shock and kidney failure.
 

Heart and brain harm

Then there are the young patients who for various reasons have developed heart failure. Unfortunately, some are repetitively tox screen positive with varying trifectas of methamphetamine (meth), cocaine, and THC; opiates, meth, and THC; alcohol, meth, and THC; or heroin, meth, and THC. THC, the ever present and essential third leg of the stool of stupor. These unfortunate patients often need heart failure medications that they can’t afford or won’t take because illicit drug use is expensive and dulls their ability to prioritize their health. Some desperately need a heart transplant, but the necessary negative drug screen is a pipe dream.

And it’s not just the heart that is affected. There are data linking cannabis use to a higher risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. A retrospective study published in Stroke, of more than 1,000 people diagnosed with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, found that more than half of the 46 who tested positive for THC at admission developed delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), which increases the risk for disability or early death. This was after adjusting for several patient characteristics as well as recent exposure to other illicit substances; cocaine, meth, and tobacco use were not associated with DCI.
 

Natural my ...

I’m certain my anti-cannabis stance will strike a nerve with those who love their recreational THC and push for its legal sale; after all, “It’s perfectly natural.” But I counter with the fact that tornadoes, earthquakes, cyanide, and appendicitis are all natural but certainly not optimal. And what we are seeing in the vascular specialties is completely unnatural. We are treating a different mix of complications than before pot was readily accessible across several states.

Our most effective action is to educate our patients. We should encourage those who don’t currently smoke cannabis to never start and those who do to quit. People who require marijuana for improved quality of life for terminal care or true (not supposed) disorders that mainstream medicine fails should be approached with empathy and caution.

A good rule of thumb is to never breathe anything you can see. Never put anything in your body that comes off the street: Drug dealers who sell cannabis cut with fentanyl will be ecstatic to take someone’s money then merely keep scrolling when their obituary comes up.

Let’s try to reverse the rise of vascular complications, orthopedic injuries, and vomiting across America. We can start by encouraging our patients to avoid “skunk weed” and get back to the sweet smells of nature in our cities and parks.

Some details have been changed to protect the patients’ identities, but the essence of their diagnoses has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a retired clinical cardiologist from Nashville, Tenn. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Last year, my husband and I took a 16-day road trip from Kentucky through Massachusetts to Maine. On our first morning in Boston, we exited the Park Street Station en route to Boston Common, but instead of being greeted by the aroma of molasses, we were hit full-on with a pungent, repulsive odor. “That’s skunk weed,” my husband chuckled as we stepped right into the middle of the Boston Freedom Rally, a celebration of all things cannabis.

As we boarded a hop-on-hop-off bus, we learned that this was the one week of the year that the city skips testing tour bus drivers for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), “because we all test positive,” the driver quipped. As our open-air bus circled the Common, a crowd of pot enthusiasts displayed signs in support of relaxed regulation for public consumption.

The 34-year-old Boston Freedom Rally is a sign that U.S. culture has transformed forever. Mary Jane is no friend of emergency physicians nor of staff on hospital wards and offices. Health care workers should brace for the true impact of THC as its adoption by all ages rises.
 

Toking boomers and millennials

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, looked at cannabis-related emergency department visits from all acute-care hospitals in the state from 2005 to 2019 and found an 1,808% increase in patients aged 65 or older (that is not a typo) who were there for complications from cannabis use.

The lead author said in an interview that, “older patients taking marijuana or related products may have dizziness and falls, heart palpitations, panic attacks, confusion, anxiety or worsening of underlying lung diseases, such as asthma or [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].”

A recent study from Canada suggests that commercialization has been associated with an increase in related hospitalizations, including cannabis-induced psychosis.

According to a National Study of Drug Use and Health, marijuana use in young adults reached an all-time high (pun intended) in 2021. Nearly 10% of eighth graders and 20% of 10th graders reported using marijuana this past year.

The full downside of any drug, legal or illegal, is largely unknown until it infiltrates the mainstream market, but these are the typical cases we see:

Let’s start with the demotivated high school honors student who dropped out of college to work at the local cinema. He stumbled and broke his clavicle outside a bar at 2 AM, but he wasn’t sure if he passed out, so a cardiology consult was requested to “rule out” arrhythmia associated with syncope. He related that his plan to become a railway conductor had been upended because he knew he would be drug tested and just couldn’t give up pot. After a normal cardiac exam, ECG, labs, a Holter, and an echocardiogram were also requested and normal at a significant cost.
 

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome

One of my Midwest colleagues related her encounter with two middle-aged pot users with ventricular tachycardia (VT). These episodes coincided with potassium levels less than 3.0 mEq/L in the setting of repetitive vomiting. The QTc interval didn’t normalize despite a corrected potassium level in one patient. They were both informed that they should never smoke pot because vomiting would predictably drop their K+ levels again and prolong their QTc intervals. Then began “the circular argument,” as my friend described it. The patient claims, “I smoke pot to relieve my nausea,” to which she explains that “in many folks, pot use induces nausea.” Of course, the classic reply is, “Not me.” Predictably one of these stoners soon returned with more VT, more puking, and more hypokalemia. “Consider yourself ‘allergic’ to pot smoke,” my friend advised, but “was met with no meaningful hint of understanding or hope for transformative change,” she told me.

I’ve seen cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome several times in the past few years. It occurs in daily to weekly pot users. Very rarely, it can cause cerebral edema, but it is also associated with seizures and dehydration that can lead to hypovolemic shock and kidney failure.
 

Heart and brain harm

Then there are the young patients who for various reasons have developed heart failure. Unfortunately, some are repetitively tox screen positive with varying trifectas of methamphetamine (meth), cocaine, and THC; opiates, meth, and THC; alcohol, meth, and THC; or heroin, meth, and THC. THC, the ever present and essential third leg of the stool of stupor. These unfortunate patients often need heart failure medications that they can’t afford or won’t take because illicit drug use is expensive and dulls their ability to prioritize their health. Some desperately need a heart transplant, but the necessary negative drug screen is a pipe dream.

And it’s not just the heart that is affected. There are data linking cannabis use to a higher risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. A retrospective study published in Stroke, of more than 1,000 people diagnosed with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, found that more than half of the 46 who tested positive for THC at admission developed delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), which increases the risk for disability or early death. This was after adjusting for several patient characteristics as well as recent exposure to other illicit substances; cocaine, meth, and tobacco use were not associated with DCI.
 

Natural my ...

I’m certain my anti-cannabis stance will strike a nerve with those who love their recreational THC and push for its legal sale; after all, “It’s perfectly natural.” But I counter with the fact that tornadoes, earthquakes, cyanide, and appendicitis are all natural but certainly not optimal. And what we are seeing in the vascular specialties is completely unnatural. We are treating a different mix of complications than before pot was readily accessible across several states.

Our most effective action is to educate our patients. We should encourage those who don’t currently smoke cannabis to never start and those who do to quit. People who require marijuana for improved quality of life for terminal care or true (not supposed) disorders that mainstream medicine fails should be approached with empathy and caution.

A good rule of thumb is to never breathe anything you can see. Never put anything in your body that comes off the street: Drug dealers who sell cannabis cut with fentanyl will be ecstatic to take someone’s money then merely keep scrolling when their obituary comes up.

Let’s try to reverse the rise of vascular complications, orthopedic injuries, and vomiting across America. We can start by encouraging our patients to avoid “skunk weed” and get back to the sweet smells of nature in our cities and parks.

Some details have been changed to protect the patients’ identities, but the essence of their diagnoses has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a retired clinical cardiologist from Nashville, Tenn. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Last year, my husband and I took a 16-day road trip from Kentucky through Massachusetts to Maine. On our first morning in Boston, we exited the Park Street Station en route to Boston Common, but instead of being greeted by the aroma of molasses, we were hit full-on with a pungent, repulsive odor. “That’s skunk weed,” my husband chuckled as we stepped right into the middle of the Boston Freedom Rally, a celebration of all things cannabis.

As we boarded a hop-on-hop-off bus, we learned that this was the one week of the year that the city skips testing tour bus drivers for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), “because we all test positive,” the driver quipped. As our open-air bus circled the Common, a crowd of pot enthusiasts displayed signs in support of relaxed regulation for public consumption.

The 34-year-old Boston Freedom Rally is a sign that U.S. culture has transformed forever. Mary Jane is no friend of emergency physicians nor of staff on hospital wards and offices. Health care workers should brace for the true impact of THC as its adoption by all ages rises.
 

Toking boomers and millennials

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, looked at cannabis-related emergency department visits from all acute-care hospitals in the state from 2005 to 2019 and found an 1,808% increase in patients aged 65 or older (that is not a typo) who were there for complications from cannabis use.

The lead author said in an interview that, “older patients taking marijuana or related products may have dizziness and falls, heart palpitations, panic attacks, confusion, anxiety or worsening of underlying lung diseases, such as asthma or [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].”

A recent study from Canada suggests that commercialization has been associated with an increase in related hospitalizations, including cannabis-induced psychosis.

According to a National Study of Drug Use and Health, marijuana use in young adults reached an all-time high (pun intended) in 2021. Nearly 10% of eighth graders and 20% of 10th graders reported using marijuana this past year.

The full downside of any drug, legal or illegal, is largely unknown until it infiltrates the mainstream market, but these are the typical cases we see:

Let’s start with the demotivated high school honors student who dropped out of college to work at the local cinema. He stumbled and broke his clavicle outside a bar at 2 AM, but he wasn’t sure if he passed out, so a cardiology consult was requested to “rule out” arrhythmia associated with syncope. He related that his plan to become a railway conductor had been upended because he knew he would be drug tested and just couldn’t give up pot. After a normal cardiac exam, ECG, labs, a Holter, and an echocardiogram were also requested and normal at a significant cost.
 

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome

One of my Midwest colleagues related her encounter with two middle-aged pot users with ventricular tachycardia (VT). These episodes coincided with potassium levels less than 3.0 mEq/L in the setting of repetitive vomiting. The QTc interval didn’t normalize despite a corrected potassium level in one patient. They were both informed that they should never smoke pot because vomiting would predictably drop their K+ levels again and prolong their QTc intervals. Then began “the circular argument,” as my friend described it. The patient claims, “I smoke pot to relieve my nausea,” to which she explains that “in many folks, pot use induces nausea.” Of course, the classic reply is, “Not me.” Predictably one of these stoners soon returned with more VT, more puking, and more hypokalemia. “Consider yourself ‘allergic’ to pot smoke,” my friend advised, but “was met with no meaningful hint of understanding or hope for transformative change,” she told me.

I’ve seen cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome several times in the past few years. It occurs in daily to weekly pot users. Very rarely, it can cause cerebral edema, but it is also associated with seizures and dehydration that can lead to hypovolemic shock and kidney failure.
 

Heart and brain harm

Then there are the young patients who for various reasons have developed heart failure. Unfortunately, some are repetitively tox screen positive with varying trifectas of methamphetamine (meth), cocaine, and THC; opiates, meth, and THC; alcohol, meth, and THC; or heroin, meth, and THC. THC, the ever present and essential third leg of the stool of stupor. These unfortunate patients often need heart failure medications that they can’t afford or won’t take because illicit drug use is expensive and dulls their ability to prioritize their health. Some desperately need a heart transplant, but the necessary negative drug screen is a pipe dream.

And it’s not just the heart that is affected. There are data linking cannabis use to a higher risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. A retrospective study published in Stroke, of more than 1,000 people diagnosed with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, found that more than half of the 46 who tested positive for THC at admission developed delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), which increases the risk for disability or early death. This was after adjusting for several patient characteristics as well as recent exposure to other illicit substances; cocaine, meth, and tobacco use were not associated with DCI.
 

Natural my ...

I’m certain my anti-cannabis stance will strike a nerve with those who love their recreational THC and push for its legal sale; after all, “It’s perfectly natural.” But I counter with the fact that tornadoes, earthquakes, cyanide, and appendicitis are all natural but certainly not optimal. And what we are seeing in the vascular specialties is completely unnatural. We are treating a different mix of complications than before pot was readily accessible across several states.

Our most effective action is to educate our patients. We should encourage those who don’t currently smoke cannabis to never start and those who do to quit. People who require marijuana for improved quality of life for terminal care or true (not supposed) disorders that mainstream medicine fails should be approached with empathy and caution.

A good rule of thumb is to never breathe anything you can see. Never put anything in your body that comes off the street: Drug dealers who sell cannabis cut with fentanyl will be ecstatic to take someone’s money then merely keep scrolling when their obituary comes up.

Let’s try to reverse the rise of vascular complications, orthopedic injuries, and vomiting across America. We can start by encouraging our patients to avoid “skunk weed” and get back to the sweet smells of nature in our cities and parks.

Some details have been changed to protect the patients’ identities, but the essence of their diagnoses has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a retired clinical cardiologist from Nashville, Tenn. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Obesity is a major factor affecting the health of many Americans. It is estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that 41% of adults and 19.7% of children in our country now meet the criteria for being obese. Obesity costs the United States approximately $147 billion annually in health care costs. While these numbers are staggering, they continue to rise.

The recent craze over medications such as Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro shows how eager people are to lose weight. Yet, many of them face bias, not just in their daily lives, but from health care professionals who should do better. No one should feel stigmatized when they come for medical help. This just drives away patients who need us and who may then suffer more severe consequences of obesity-related illnesses.

Earlier this year, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology issued a consensus statement on the role stigma and weight bias play in the management of obesity. They proposed a staging system to address the severity of obesity and suggested stigma and bias should be assessed in all patients.

While we are good at diagnosing obesity, many of us fail at addressing it empathetically with patients. I’ve seen many patients cry about past encounters they’ve had in the health care system. We need to address the emotional effect that obesity has as well as the physical complications.

Obesity is a major contributor to many diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, but we are finding it also plays a role in other diseases such as certain cancers. Treating obesity is imperative to prevent these diseases as well as to promote better treatment outcomes. We’ve all seen the diabetic patient lose weight and have their blood glucose levels come under control.

Many patients have tried hard to lose weight yet health care providers talk to them as if they haven’t made any efforts. This is very frustrating for patients. Simply telling a patient to diet and lose weight is a setup for failure. We need to address their past efforts and see what has worked and what hasn’t. Redoing the same thing over and over again is not a recipe for success.

Additionally, the focus on “diet and exercise” fails to account for emotional factors that may be contributing to a person’s obesity. Some people eat when they are stressed or depressed. It can become a habit or even an addiction. If this contributor to obesity isn’t fixed, nothing will work.

However, no medication will work well without the basic building blocks of diet and exercise. Routinely prescribing weight-loss medications without discussing diet and exercise will not result in much weight loss. Some patients simply don’t know how to eat healthfully or what they should do for exercise. A little education can go a long way. Ancillary staff, such as nutritionists or diabetic counselors, can help and free up the doctor’s time. In small practices, we can’t afford to provide those services in house but we should learn where patients can go for these services.

The AACE guidelines do a great job staging obesity. The guidelines make it easier to measure progress and decide on treatment plans. With this system, it is no longer necessary to use terms such as “excess weight” or “morbid obesity.” Patients already know they are overweight. What they need to know are clear steps so that they can reach goals. These guidelines greatly assist with providing those steps.

Most of us can do better when treating patients with obesity, We are probably not even aware of the times we have been guilty of stigmatization or weight bias. When we start treating obesity as a serious medical problem rather than something that’s the fault of the patient, it becomes much easier. When we remind ourselves what can happen to our patients when we fail to treat their obesity, we can become more serious about trying to help them reverse this critical medical problem. Bring an end to throwing out a “lose weight” or “eat healthier” suggestion to our already stressed patients. In order to address the obesity crisis that is here, we need to look inside ourselves and ask how we are going to contribute to the solution.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant of medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

Obesity is a major factor affecting the health of many Americans. It is estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that 41% of adults and 19.7% of children in our country now meet the criteria for being obese. Obesity costs the United States approximately $147 billion annually in health care costs. While these numbers are staggering, they continue to rise.

The recent craze over medications such as Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro shows how eager people are to lose weight. Yet, many of them face bias, not just in their daily lives, but from health care professionals who should do better. No one should feel stigmatized when they come for medical help. This just drives away patients who need us and who may then suffer more severe consequences of obesity-related illnesses.

Earlier this year, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology issued a consensus statement on the role stigma and weight bias play in the management of obesity. They proposed a staging system to address the severity of obesity and suggested stigma and bias should be assessed in all patients.

While we are good at diagnosing obesity, many of us fail at addressing it empathetically with patients. I’ve seen many patients cry about past encounters they’ve had in the health care system. We need to address the emotional effect that obesity has as well as the physical complications.

Obesity is a major contributor to many diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, but we are finding it also plays a role in other diseases such as certain cancers. Treating obesity is imperative to prevent these diseases as well as to promote better treatment outcomes. We’ve all seen the diabetic patient lose weight and have their blood glucose levels come under control.

Many patients have tried hard to lose weight yet health care providers talk to them as if they haven’t made any efforts. This is very frustrating for patients. Simply telling a patient to diet and lose weight is a setup for failure. We need to address their past efforts and see what has worked and what hasn’t. Redoing the same thing over and over again is not a recipe for success.

Additionally, the focus on “diet and exercise” fails to account for emotional factors that may be contributing to a person’s obesity. Some people eat when they are stressed or depressed. It can become a habit or even an addiction. If this contributor to obesity isn’t fixed, nothing will work.

However, no medication will work well without the basic building blocks of diet and exercise. Routinely prescribing weight-loss medications without discussing diet and exercise will not result in much weight loss. Some patients simply don’t know how to eat healthfully or what they should do for exercise. A little education can go a long way. Ancillary staff, such as nutritionists or diabetic counselors, can help and free up the doctor’s time. In small practices, we can’t afford to provide those services in house but we should learn where patients can go for these services.

The AACE guidelines do a great job staging obesity. The guidelines make it easier to measure progress and decide on treatment plans. With this system, it is no longer necessary to use terms such as “excess weight” or “morbid obesity.” Patients already know they are overweight. What they need to know are clear steps so that they can reach goals. These guidelines greatly assist with providing those steps.

Most of us can do better when treating patients with obesity, We are probably not even aware of the times we have been guilty of stigmatization or weight bias. When we start treating obesity as a serious medical problem rather than something that’s the fault of the patient, it becomes much easier. When we remind ourselves what can happen to our patients when we fail to treat their obesity, we can become more serious about trying to help them reverse this critical medical problem. Bring an end to throwing out a “lose weight” or “eat healthier” suggestion to our already stressed patients. In order to address the obesity crisis that is here, we need to look inside ourselves and ask how we are going to contribute to the solution.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant of medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

Obesity is a major factor affecting the health of many Americans. It is estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that 41% of adults and 19.7% of children in our country now meet the criteria for being obese. Obesity costs the United States approximately $147 billion annually in health care costs. While these numbers are staggering, they continue to rise.

The recent craze over medications such as Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro shows how eager people are to lose weight. Yet, many of them face bias, not just in their daily lives, but from health care professionals who should do better. No one should feel stigmatized when they come for medical help. This just drives away patients who need us and who may then suffer more severe consequences of obesity-related illnesses.

Earlier this year, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology issued a consensus statement on the role stigma and weight bias play in the management of obesity. They proposed a staging system to address the severity of obesity and suggested stigma and bias should be assessed in all patients.

While we are good at diagnosing obesity, many of us fail at addressing it empathetically with patients. I’ve seen many patients cry about past encounters they’ve had in the health care system. We need to address the emotional effect that obesity has as well as the physical complications.

Obesity is a major contributor to many diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, but we are finding it also plays a role in other diseases such as certain cancers. Treating obesity is imperative to prevent these diseases as well as to promote better treatment outcomes. We’ve all seen the diabetic patient lose weight and have their blood glucose levels come under control.

Many patients have tried hard to lose weight yet health care providers talk to them as if they haven’t made any efforts. This is very frustrating for patients. Simply telling a patient to diet and lose weight is a setup for failure. We need to address their past efforts and see what has worked and what hasn’t. Redoing the same thing over and over again is not a recipe for success.

Additionally, the focus on “diet and exercise” fails to account for emotional factors that may be contributing to a person’s obesity. Some people eat when they are stressed or depressed. It can become a habit or even an addiction. If this contributor to obesity isn’t fixed, nothing will work.

However, no medication will work well without the basic building blocks of diet and exercise. Routinely prescribing weight-loss medications without discussing diet and exercise will not result in much weight loss. Some patients simply don’t know how to eat healthfully or what they should do for exercise. A little education can go a long way. Ancillary staff, such as nutritionists or diabetic counselors, can help and free up the doctor’s time. In small practices, we can’t afford to provide those services in house but we should learn where patients can go for these services.

The AACE guidelines do a great job staging obesity. The guidelines make it easier to measure progress and decide on treatment plans. With this system, it is no longer necessary to use terms such as “excess weight” or “morbid obesity.” Patients already know they are overweight. What they need to know are clear steps so that they can reach goals. These guidelines greatly assist with providing those steps.

Most of us can do better when treating patients with obesity, We are probably not even aware of the times we have been guilty of stigmatization or weight bias. When we start treating obesity as a serious medical problem rather than something that’s the fault of the patient, it becomes much easier. When we remind ourselves what can happen to our patients when we fail to treat their obesity, we can become more serious about trying to help them reverse this critical medical problem. Bring an end to throwing out a “lose weight” or “eat healthier” suggestion to our already stressed patients. In order to address the obesity crisis that is here, we need to look inside ourselves and ask how we are going to contribute to the solution.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant of medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults, the manufacturer announced in a press release.

The indication is for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

With this approval, bimekizumab becomes the only interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F inhibitor approved for the treatment of these patients. Psoriasis affects more than 7.5 million U.S. adults, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.

“We have been eagerly awaiting bimekizumab,” Mark Lebwohl, MD, bimekizumab investigator and dean for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in the press release.

Dr. Lebwohl states that bimekizumab “achieved superior levels of skin clearance at week 16 compared to placebo and three existing biologics for psoriasis, with responses being rapid and lasting up to a year. Long-term data have also shown that the majority of patients maintained high levels of clinical response through three years.”

The most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 1% of patients) are upper respiratory infections, oral candidiasis, headache, tinea infections, gastroenteritis, herpes simplex infections, acne, folliculitis, other Candida infections, fatigue, and injection site reactions, according to the company, UCB.
 

Available in about 1 month in U.S.

Bimekizumab can be administered by a health care provider or it can be self-injected by a patient after training. It is available as a single-dose prefilled autoinjector and a single-dose prefilled syringe and will be available in the United States in about 1 month.

The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for patients with psoriasis is 320 mg (two subcutaneous injections of 160 mg each) at baseline, then on weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing at least 120 kg (about 265 lb), a dosage of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16 may be considered, the company states.

Three phase 3 trials

Approval was based on three phase 3 multicenter, randomized, placebo and/or active comparator-controlled trials: bimekizumab versus placebo and ustekinumab (BE VIVID); versus placebo (BE READY); and versus adalimumab (BE SURE).

“All studies met their co-primary endpoints and all ranked secondary endpoints,” the company reports. Secondary endpoints included the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 at week 4 and PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.

Highlights from the trials include the following results, according to UCB:

• Clear or almost clear skin: More than 8 out of 10 patients achieved a 90% or greater reduction from baseline in the PASI 90 and an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 at week 16.
• Complete skin clearance: About 60% of patients achieved PASI 100 at week 16.
• Time to response: More than 70% of patients achieved PASI 75 at week 4 following one 320-mg dose.

Safety information

The safety information includes the statement that bimekizumab may increase the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, though a causal association has not been established. Prescribers should advise patients, caregivers, and families “to monitor for emergence or worsening of depression, suicidal ideation, or other mood changes,” according to the prescribing information.

Bimekizumab is being studied for other conditions, including hidradenitis suppurativa. In the European Union, it was approved for the treatment of psoriasis in 2021 and for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.

Dr. Lebwohl is an investigator for UCB. He has not accepted any consulting payments from UCB.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults, the manufacturer announced in a press release.

The indication is for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

With this approval, bimekizumab becomes the only interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F inhibitor approved for the treatment of these patients. Psoriasis affects more than 7.5 million U.S. adults, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.

“We have been eagerly awaiting bimekizumab,” Mark Lebwohl, MD, bimekizumab investigator and dean for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in the press release.

Dr. Lebwohl states that bimekizumab “achieved superior levels of skin clearance at week 16 compared to placebo and three existing biologics for psoriasis, with responses being rapid and lasting up to a year. Long-term data have also shown that the majority of patients maintained high levels of clinical response through three years.”

The most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 1% of patients) are upper respiratory infections, oral candidiasis, headache, tinea infections, gastroenteritis, herpes simplex infections, acne, folliculitis, other Candida infections, fatigue, and injection site reactions, according to the company, UCB.
 

Available in about 1 month in U.S.

Bimekizumab can be administered by a health care provider or it can be self-injected by a patient after training. It is available as a single-dose prefilled autoinjector and a single-dose prefilled syringe and will be available in the United States in about 1 month.

The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for patients with psoriasis is 320 mg (two subcutaneous injections of 160 mg each) at baseline, then on weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing at least 120 kg (about 265 lb), a dosage of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16 may be considered, the company states.

Three phase 3 trials

Approval was based on three phase 3 multicenter, randomized, placebo and/or active comparator-controlled trials: bimekizumab versus placebo and ustekinumab (BE VIVID); versus placebo (BE READY); and versus adalimumab (BE SURE).

“All studies met their co-primary endpoints and all ranked secondary endpoints,” the company reports. Secondary endpoints included the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 at week 4 and PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.

Highlights from the trials include the following results, according to UCB:

• Clear or almost clear skin: More than 8 out of 10 patients achieved a 90% or greater reduction from baseline in the PASI 90 and an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 at week 16.
• Complete skin clearance: About 60% of patients achieved PASI 100 at week 16.
• Time to response: More than 70% of patients achieved PASI 75 at week 4 following one 320-mg dose.

Safety information

The safety information includes the statement that bimekizumab may increase the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, though a causal association has not been established. Prescribers should advise patients, caregivers, and families “to monitor for emergence or worsening of depression, suicidal ideation, or other mood changes,” according to the prescribing information.

Bimekizumab is being studied for other conditions, including hidradenitis suppurativa. In the European Union, it was approved for the treatment of psoriasis in 2021 and for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.

Dr. Lebwohl is an investigator for UCB. He has not accepted any consulting payments from UCB.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults, the manufacturer announced in a press release.

The indication is for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

With this approval, bimekizumab becomes the only interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F inhibitor approved for the treatment of these patients. Psoriasis affects more than 7.5 million U.S. adults, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.

“We have been eagerly awaiting bimekizumab,” Mark Lebwohl, MD, bimekizumab investigator and dean for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in the press release.

Dr. Lebwohl states that bimekizumab “achieved superior levels of skin clearance at week 16 compared to placebo and three existing biologics for psoriasis, with responses being rapid and lasting up to a year. Long-term data have also shown that the majority of patients maintained high levels of clinical response through three years.”

The most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 1% of patients) are upper respiratory infections, oral candidiasis, headache, tinea infections, gastroenteritis, herpes simplex infections, acne, folliculitis, other Candida infections, fatigue, and injection site reactions, according to the company, UCB.
 

Available in about 1 month in U.S.

Bimekizumab can be administered by a health care provider or it can be self-injected by a patient after training. It is available as a single-dose prefilled autoinjector and a single-dose prefilled syringe and will be available in the United States in about 1 month.

The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for patients with psoriasis is 320 mg (two subcutaneous injections of 160 mg each) at baseline, then on weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing at least 120 kg (about 265 lb), a dosage of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16 may be considered, the company states.

Three phase 3 trials

Approval was based on three phase 3 multicenter, randomized, placebo and/or active comparator-controlled trials: bimekizumab versus placebo and ustekinumab (BE VIVID); versus placebo (BE READY); and versus adalimumab (BE SURE).

“All studies met their co-primary endpoints and all ranked secondary endpoints,” the company reports. Secondary endpoints included the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 at week 4 and PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.

Highlights from the trials include the following results, according to UCB:

• Clear or almost clear skin: More than 8 out of 10 patients achieved a 90% or greater reduction from baseline in the PASI 90 and an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 at week 16.
• Complete skin clearance: About 60% of patients achieved PASI 100 at week 16.
• Time to response: More than 70% of patients achieved PASI 75 at week 4 following one 320-mg dose.

Safety information

The safety information includes the statement that bimekizumab may increase the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, though a causal association has not been established. Prescribers should advise patients, caregivers, and families “to monitor for emergence or worsening of depression, suicidal ideation, or other mood changes,” according to the prescribing information.

Bimekizumab is being studied for other conditions, including hidradenitis suppurativa. In the European Union, it was approved for the treatment of psoriasis in 2021 and for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.

Dr. Lebwohl is an investigator for UCB. He has not accepted any consulting payments from UCB.

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

TOPLINE:

DMT310, a novel topical treatment applied once per week, appears to be safe and effective for moderate to severe acne.

METHODOLOGY:

• Poor patient compliance with topical acne therapies is a common clinical challenge.
• In a 12-week, randomized, controlled, phase 2b trial of 181 patients 12 years of age and older, researchers investigated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of DMT310, a powdered mixture of Spongilla lacustris for treating moderate to severe acne. (In vitro studies have found that components of S. lacustris, a freshwater sponge, have effects that include antimicrobial activity against Cutibacterium acnes and anti-inflammatory activity in human keratinocytes).
• The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in inflammatory lesion count from baseline to week 12.
• Endpoint success was defined as an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 and at least a two-grade improvement from baseline at week 12.
•  

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 181 patients, 91 received DMT310 (applied once a week to the face and washed off after 10-15 minutes), and 90 received placebo.
• Patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–15.64 vs. –10.84, respectively; P < .001).
• Similarly, patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of noninflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–18.26 vs. –12.41, respectively; P < .001).
• At week 12, endpoint success based on IGA scores also significantly favored patients in the DMT310 arm, compared with those in the placebo arm (44.40% vs. 17.78%; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application. The researchers concluded that the findings “support further study of DMT310 in larger, confirmatory phase 3 trials.”

SOURCE:

Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, led the research. The study was published online June 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis did not include an active comparator group and it enrolled a limited number of Asian patients.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant to Dermata, which is developing DMT310, as were three other authors of the study. One author is a company employee. The remaining authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

DMT310, a novel topical treatment applied once per week, appears to be safe and effective for moderate to severe acne.

METHODOLOGY:

• Poor patient compliance with topical acne therapies is a common clinical challenge.
• In a 12-week, randomized, controlled, phase 2b trial of 181 patients 12 years of age and older, researchers investigated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of DMT310, a powdered mixture of Spongilla lacustris for treating moderate to severe acne. (In vitro studies have found that components of S. lacustris, a freshwater sponge, have effects that include antimicrobial activity against Cutibacterium acnes and anti-inflammatory activity in human keratinocytes).
• The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in inflammatory lesion count from baseline to week 12.
• Endpoint success was defined as an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 and at least a two-grade improvement from baseline at week 12.
•  

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 181 patients, 91 received DMT310 (applied once a week to the face and washed off after 10-15 minutes), and 90 received placebo.
• Patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–15.64 vs. –10.84, respectively; P < .001).
• Similarly, patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of noninflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–18.26 vs. –12.41, respectively; P < .001).
• At week 12, endpoint success based on IGA scores also significantly favored patients in the DMT310 arm, compared with those in the placebo arm (44.40% vs. 17.78%; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application. The researchers concluded that the findings “support further study of DMT310 in larger, confirmatory phase 3 trials.”

SOURCE:

Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, led the research. The study was published online June 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis did not include an active comparator group and it enrolled a limited number of Asian patients.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant to Dermata, which is developing DMT310, as were three other authors of the study. One author is a company employee. The remaining authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

DMT310, a novel topical treatment applied once per week, appears to be safe and effective for moderate to severe acne.

METHODOLOGY:

• Poor patient compliance with topical acne therapies is a common clinical challenge.
• In a 12-week, randomized, controlled, phase 2b trial of 181 patients 12 years of age and older, researchers investigated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of DMT310, a powdered mixture of Spongilla lacustris for treating moderate to severe acne. (In vitro studies have found that components of S. lacustris, a freshwater sponge, have effects that include antimicrobial activity against Cutibacterium acnes and anti-inflammatory activity in human keratinocytes).
• The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in inflammatory lesion count from baseline to week 12.
• Endpoint success was defined as an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 and at least a two-grade improvement from baseline at week 12.
•  

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 181 patients, 91 received DMT310 (applied once a week to the face and washed off after 10-15 minutes), and 90 received placebo.
• Patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–15.64 vs. –10.84, respectively; P < .001).
• Similarly, patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of noninflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–18.26 vs. –12.41, respectively; P < .001).
• At week 12, endpoint success based on IGA scores also significantly favored patients in the DMT310 arm, compared with those in the placebo arm (44.40% vs. 17.78%; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application. The researchers concluded that the findings “support further study of DMT310 in larger, confirmatory phase 3 trials.”

SOURCE:

Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, led the research. The study was published online June 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis did not include an active comparator group and it enrolled a limited number of Asian patients.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant to Dermata, which is developing DMT310, as were three other authors of the study. One author is a company employee. The remaining authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for the treatment of completely resected stage IIB/C melanoma for patients aged 12 years and older, expanding the melanoma indication for the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitor.

Nivolumab, developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, was previously approved as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab for patients aged 12 years and older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and for the adjuvant treatment of those aged 12 and older with completely resected stage III or IV melanoma.

The new approval was based on findings from the phase 3 CHECKMATE-76K trial, which randomly assigned 790 patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab 480 mg or placebo by intravenous infusion. All patients in the trial had good performance status, had undergone complete resection of the primary melanoma with negative margins, and had tested negative on sentinel lymph node assessment within 12 weeks prior to randomization. Patients received treatment every 4 weeks for up to 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Nivolumab reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 58% compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.42). Recurrence-free survival at 1 year was 89% with treatment, vs 79.4% with placebo. Median recurrence-free survival at 5 years was not reached in either arm.

Adverse reactions that were reported in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, and pruritus.

The recommended nivolumab dose for patients weighing 40 kg or more is 480 mg every 4 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year. For pediatric patients who weigh less than 40 kg, the recommended dose is 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year.

Bristol-Myers Squibb’s application for approval led to the agent’s being granted orphan drug designation, allowing expedited review.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for the treatment of completely resected stage IIB/C melanoma for patients aged 12 years and older, expanding the melanoma indication for the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitor.

Nivolumab, developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, was previously approved as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab for patients aged 12 years and older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and for the adjuvant treatment of those aged 12 and older with completely resected stage III or IV melanoma.

The new approval was based on findings from the phase 3 CHECKMATE-76K trial, which randomly assigned 790 patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab 480 mg or placebo by intravenous infusion. All patients in the trial had good performance status, had undergone complete resection of the primary melanoma with negative margins, and had tested negative on sentinel lymph node assessment within 12 weeks prior to randomization. Patients received treatment every 4 weeks for up to 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Nivolumab reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 58% compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.42). Recurrence-free survival at 1 year was 89% with treatment, vs 79.4% with placebo. Median recurrence-free survival at 5 years was not reached in either arm.

Adverse reactions that were reported in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, and pruritus.

The recommended nivolumab dose for patients weighing 40 kg or more is 480 mg every 4 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year. For pediatric patients who weigh less than 40 kg, the recommended dose is 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year.

Bristol-Myers Squibb’s application for approval led to the agent’s being granted orphan drug designation, allowing expedited review.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for the treatment of completely resected stage IIB/C melanoma for patients aged 12 years and older, expanding the melanoma indication for the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitor.

Nivolumab, developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, was previously approved as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab for patients aged 12 years and older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and for the adjuvant treatment of those aged 12 and older with completely resected stage III or IV melanoma.

The new approval was based on findings from the phase 3 CHECKMATE-76K trial, which randomly assigned 790 patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab 480 mg or placebo by intravenous infusion. All patients in the trial had good performance status, had undergone complete resection of the primary melanoma with negative margins, and had tested negative on sentinel lymph node assessment within 12 weeks prior to randomization. Patients received treatment every 4 weeks for up to 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Nivolumab reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 58% compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.42). Recurrence-free survival at 1 year was 89% with treatment, vs 79.4% with placebo. Median recurrence-free survival at 5 years was not reached in either arm.

Adverse reactions that were reported in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, and pruritus.

The recommended nivolumab dose for patients weighing 40 kg or more is 480 mg every 4 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year. For pediatric patients who weigh less than 40 kg, the recommended dose is 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year.

Bristol-Myers Squibb’s application for approval led to the agent’s being granted orphan drug designation, allowing expedited review.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the year since generative artificial intelligence (AI) software first began to emerge for use, the staggering pace and breadth of development has condensed years of growth and change into months and weeks. Among the settings where these tools may find the greatest straight-line relevance is private medical practice.

Last month’s column on the basics of AI sparked some interesting questions regarding the various generative algorithms and their usefulness to us in medicine. A multitude of generative AI products with potential medical applications are now available, with new ones appearing almost weekly. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Last month, I discussed ChatGPT, the best-known AI algorithm, and some of its applications in clinical practice, such as generating website, video, and blog content. ChatGPT can also provide rapid and concise answers to general medical questions, like a search engine – but with more natural language processing and contextual understanding. Additionally, the algorithm can draft generic medical documents, including templates for after-visit summaries, postprocedure instructions, referrals, prior authorization appeal letters, and educational handouts.

Another useful feature of ChatGPT is its ability to provide accurate and conversational language translations, thus serving as an interpreter during clinic visits in situations where a human translator is not available. It also has potential uses in clinical research by finding resources, formulating hypotheses, drafting study protocols, and collecting large amounts of data in short periods of time. Other possibilities include survey administration, clinical trial recruitment, and automatic medication monitoring.

GPT-4, the latest version of ChatGPT, is reported to have greater problem-solving abilities and an even broader knowledge base. Among its claimed skills are the ability to find the latest literature in a given area, write a discharge summary for a patient following an uncomplicated surgery, and an image analysis feature to identify objects in photos. GPT-4 has been praised as having “the potential to help drive medical innovation, from aiding with patient discharge notes, summarizing recent clinical trials, providing information on ethical guidelines, and much more.”

Bard, an AI “chat bot” introduced by Google earlier this year, intends to leverage Google’s enormous database to compete with ChatGPT in providing answers to medical questions. Bard also hopes to play a pivotal role in expanding telemedicine and remote care via Google’s secure connections and access to patient records and medical history, and “facilitate seamless communication through appointment scheduling, messaging, and sharing medical images,” according to PackT, a website for IT professionals. The company claims that Bard’s integration of AI and machine learning capabilities will serve to elevate health care efficiency and patient outcomes, PackT says, and “the platform’s AI system quickly and accurately analyzes patient records, identifies patterns and trends, and aids medical professionals in developing effective treatment plans.”

Doximity has introduced an AI engine called DocsGPT, an encrypted, HIPAA-compliant writing assistant that, the company says, can draft any form of professional correspondence, including prior authorization letters, insurance appeals, patient support letters, and patient education materials. The service is available at no charge to all U.S. physicians and medical students through their Doximity accounts.

Microsoft has introduced several AI products. BioGPT is a language model specifically designed for health care. Compared with GPT models that are trained on more general text data, BioGPT is purported to have a deeper understanding of the language used in biomedical research and can generate more accurate and relevant outputs for biomedical tasks, such as drug discovery, disease classification, and clinical decision support. Fabric is another health care–specific data and analytics platform the company described in an announcement in May. It can combine data from sources such as electronic health records, images, lab systems, medical devices, and claims systems so hospitals and offices can standardize it and access it in the same place. Microsoft said the new tools will help eliminate the “time-consuming” process of searching through these sources one by one. Microsoft will also offer a new generative AI chatbot called the Azure Health Bot, which can pull information from a health organization’s own internal data as well as reputable external sources such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Several other AI products are available for clinicians. Tana served as an administrative aid and a clinical helper during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, answering frequently asked questions, facilitating appointment management, and gathering preliminary medical information prior to teleconsultations. Dougall GPT is another AI chatbot tailored for health care professionals. It provides clinicians with AI-tuned answers to their queries, augmented by links to relevant, up-to-date, authoritative resources. It also assists in drafting patient instructions, consultation summaries, speeches, and professional correspondence. Wang has created Clinical Camel, an open-source health care–focused chatbot that assembles medical data with a combination of user-shared conversations and synthetic conversations derived from curated clinical articles. The Chinese company Baidu has rolled out Ernie as a potential rival to ChatGPT. You get the idea.

Of course, the inherent drawbacks of AI, such as producing false or biased information, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, and presenting information that has since been proven inaccurate or out-of-date, must always be kept in mind. All AI algorithms have been criticized for giving wrong answers, as their datasets are generally culled from information published in 2021 or earlier. Several of them have been shown to fabricate information – a phenomenon labeled “artificial hallucinations” in one article. “The scientific community must be vigilant in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by AI tools,” wrote the authors of that paper. “Researchers should use AI as an aid rather than a replacement for critical thinking and fact-checking.”

In the year since generative artificial intelligence (AI) software first began to emerge for use, the staggering pace and breadth of development has condensed years of growth and change into months and weeks. Among the settings where these tools may find the greatest straight-line relevance is private medical practice.

Last month’s column on the basics of AI sparked some interesting questions regarding the various generative algorithms and their usefulness to us in medicine. A multitude of generative AI products with potential medical applications are now available, with new ones appearing almost weekly. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Last month, I discussed ChatGPT, the best-known AI algorithm, and some of its applications in clinical practice, such as generating website, video, and blog content. ChatGPT can also provide rapid and concise answers to general medical questions, like a search engine – but with more natural language processing and contextual understanding. Additionally, the algorithm can draft generic medical documents, including templates for after-visit summaries, postprocedure instructions, referrals, prior authorization appeal letters, and educational handouts.

Another useful feature of ChatGPT is its ability to provide accurate and conversational language translations, thus serving as an interpreter during clinic visits in situations where a human translator is not available. It also has potential uses in clinical research by finding resources, formulating hypotheses, drafting study protocols, and collecting large amounts of data in short periods of time. Other possibilities include survey administration, clinical trial recruitment, and automatic medication monitoring.

GPT-4, the latest version of ChatGPT, is reported to have greater problem-solving abilities and an even broader knowledge base. Among its claimed skills are the ability to find the latest literature in a given area, write a discharge summary for a patient following an uncomplicated surgery, and an image analysis feature to identify objects in photos. GPT-4 has been praised as having “the potential to help drive medical innovation, from aiding with patient discharge notes, summarizing recent clinical trials, providing information on ethical guidelines, and much more.”

Bard, an AI “chat bot” introduced by Google earlier this year, intends to leverage Google’s enormous database to compete with ChatGPT in providing answers to medical questions. Bard also hopes to play a pivotal role in expanding telemedicine and remote care via Google’s secure connections and access to patient records and medical history, and “facilitate seamless communication through appointment scheduling, messaging, and sharing medical images,” according to PackT, a website for IT professionals. The company claims that Bard’s integration of AI and machine learning capabilities will serve to elevate health care efficiency and patient outcomes, PackT says, and “the platform’s AI system quickly and accurately analyzes patient records, identifies patterns and trends, and aids medical professionals in developing effective treatment plans.”

Doximity has introduced an AI engine called DocsGPT, an encrypted, HIPAA-compliant writing assistant that, the company says, can draft any form of professional correspondence, including prior authorization letters, insurance appeals, patient support letters, and patient education materials. The service is available at no charge to all U.S. physicians and medical students through their Doximity accounts.

Microsoft has introduced several AI products. BioGPT is a language model specifically designed for health care. Compared with GPT models that are trained on more general text data, BioGPT is purported to have a deeper understanding of the language used in biomedical research and can generate more accurate and relevant outputs for biomedical tasks, such as drug discovery, disease classification, and clinical decision support. Fabric is another health care–specific data and analytics platform the company described in an announcement in May. It can combine data from sources such as electronic health records, images, lab systems, medical devices, and claims systems so hospitals and offices can standardize it and access it in the same place. Microsoft said the new tools will help eliminate the “time-consuming” process of searching through these sources one by one. Microsoft will also offer a new generative AI chatbot called the Azure Health Bot, which can pull information from a health organization’s own internal data as well as reputable external sources such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Several other AI products are available for clinicians. Tana served as an administrative aid and a clinical helper during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, answering frequently asked questions, facilitating appointment management, and gathering preliminary medical information prior to teleconsultations. Dougall GPT is another AI chatbot tailored for health care professionals. It provides clinicians with AI-tuned answers to their queries, augmented by links to relevant, up-to-date, authoritative resources. It also assists in drafting patient instructions, consultation summaries, speeches, and professional correspondence. Wang has created Clinical Camel, an open-source health care–focused chatbot that assembles medical data with a combination of user-shared conversations and synthetic conversations derived from curated clinical articles. The Chinese company Baidu has rolled out Ernie as a potential rival to ChatGPT. You get the idea.

Of course, the inherent drawbacks of AI, such as producing false or biased information, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, and presenting information that has since been proven inaccurate or out-of-date, must always be kept in mind. All AI algorithms have been criticized for giving wrong answers, as their datasets are generally culled from information published in 2021 or earlier. Several of them have been shown to fabricate information – a phenomenon labeled “artificial hallucinations” in one article. “The scientific community must be vigilant in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by AI tools,” wrote the authors of that paper. “Researchers should use AI as an aid rather than a replacement for critical thinking and fact-checking.”

In the year since generative artificial intelligence (AI) software first began to emerge for use, the staggering pace and breadth of development has condensed years of growth and change into months and weeks. Among the settings where these tools may find the greatest straight-line relevance is private medical practice.

Last month’s column on the basics of AI sparked some interesting questions regarding the various generative algorithms and their usefulness to us in medicine. A multitude of generative AI products with potential medical applications are now available, with new ones appearing almost weekly. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Last month, I discussed ChatGPT, the best-known AI algorithm, and some of its applications in clinical practice, such as generating website, video, and blog content. ChatGPT can also provide rapid and concise answers to general medical questions, like a search engine – but with more natural language processing and contextual understanding. Additionally, the algorithm can draft generic medical documents, including templates for after-visit summaries, postprocedure instructions, referrals, prior authorization appeal letters, and educational handouts.

Another useful feature of ChatGPT is its ability to provide accurate and conversational language translations, thus serving as an interpreter during clinic visits in situations where a human translator is not available. It also has potential uses in clinical research by finding resources, formulating hypotheses, drafting study protocols, and collecting large amounts of data in short periods of time. Other possibilities include survey administration, clinical trial recruitment, and automatic medication monitoring.

GPT-4, the latest version of ChatGPT, is reported to have greater problem-solving abilities and an even broader knowledge base. Among its claimed skills are the ability to find the latest literature in a given area, write a discharge summary for a patient following an uncomplicated surgery, and an image analysis feature to identify objects in photos. GPT-4 has been praised as having “the potential to help drive medical innovation, from aiding with patient discharge notes, summarizing recent clinical trials, providing information on ethical guidelines, and much more.”

Bard, an AI “chat bot” introduced by Google earlier this year, intends to leverage Google’s enormous database to compete with ChatGPT in providing answers to medical questions. Bard also hopes to play a pivotal role in expanding telemedicine and remote care via Google’s secure connections and access to patient records and medical history, and “facilitate seamless communication through appointment scheduling, messaging, and sharing medical images,” according to PackT, a website for IT professionals. The company claims that Bard’s integration of AI and machine learning capabilities will serve to elevate health care efficiency and patient outcomes, PackT says, and “the platform’s AI system quickly and accurately analyzes patient records, identifies patterns and trends, and aids medical professionals in developing effective treatment plans.”

Doximity has introduced an AI engine called DocsGPT, an encrypted, HIPAA-compliant writing assistant that, the company says, can draft any form of professional correspondence, including prior authorization letters, insurance appeals, patient support letters, and patient education materials. The service is available at no charge to all U.S. physicians and medical students through their Doximity accounts.

Microsoft has introduced several AI products. BioGPT is a language model specifically designed for health care. Compared with GPT models that are trained on more general text data, BioGPT is purported to have a deeper understanding of the language used in biomedical research and can generate more accurate and relevant outputs for biomedical tasks, such as drug discovery, disease classification, and clinical decision support. Fabric is another health care–specific data and analytics platform the company described in an announcement in May. It can combine data from sources such as electronic health records, images, lab systems, medical devices, and claims systems so hospitals and offices can standardize it and access it in the same place. Microsoft said the new tools will help eliminate the “time-consuming” process of searching through these sources one by one. Microsoft will also offer a new generative AI chatbot called the Azure Health Bot, which can pull information from a health organization’s own internal data as well as reputable external sources such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Several other AI products are available for clinicians. Tana served as an administrative aid and a clinical helper during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, answering frequently asked questions, facilitating appointment management, and gathering preliminary medical information prior to teleconsultations. Dougall GPT is another AI chatbot tailored for health care professionals. It provides clinicians with AI-tuned answers to their queries, augmented by links to relevant, up-to-date, authoritative resources. It also assists in drafting patient instructions, consultation summaries, speeches, and professional correspondence. Wang has created Clinical Camel, an open-source health care–focused chatbot that assembles medical data with a combination of user-shared conversations and synthetic conversations derived from curated clinical articles. The Chinese company Baidu has rolled out Ernie as a potential rival to ChatGPT. You get the idea.

Of course, the inherent drawbacks of AI, such as producing false or biased information, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, and presenting information that has since been proven inaccurate or out-of-date, must always be kept in mind. All AI algorithms have been criticized for giving wrong answers, as their datasets are generally culled from information published in 2021 or earlier. Several of them have been shown to fabricate information – a phenomenon labeled “artificial hallucinations” in one article. “The scientific community must be vigilant in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by AI tools,” wrote the authors of that paper. “Researchers should use AI as an aid rather than a replacement for critical thinking and fact-checking.”

Artificial intelligence (AI) models are typically a year out of date and have this “charming problem of hallucinating made-up data and saying it with all the certainty of an attending on rounds,” Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told a packed audience at plenary at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Dr. Kohane, chair of the department of biomedical informatics, says the future intersection between AI and health care is “muddy.”

Echoing questions about the accuracy of new AI tools, researchers at the meeting presented the results of their new test of ChatGPT.

The AI chatbot is designed for language processing – not scientific accuracy – and does not guarantee that responses to medical queries are fully factual.

To test the accuracy of ChatGPT’s version 3.5, the researchers asked it if there are any boxed warnings on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s label for common antibiotics, and if so, what they are.

ChatGPT provided correct answers about FDA boxed warnings for only 12 of the 41 antibiotics queried – a matching rate of just 29%.

For the other 29 antibiotics, ChatGPT either “incorrectly reported that there was an FDA boxed warning when there was not, or inaccurately or incorrectly reported the boxed warning,” Rebecca Linfield, MD, infectious diseases fellow, Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.
 

Uncritical AI use risky

Nine of the 41 antibiotics included in the query have boxed warnings. And ChatGPT correctly identified all nine, but only three were the matching adverse event (33%). For the 32 antibiotics without an FDA boxed warning, ChatGPT correctly reported that 28% (9 of 32) do not have a boxed warning.

For example, ChatGPT stated that the antibiotic fidaxomicin has a boxed warning for increased risk for Clostridioides difficile, “but it is the first-line antibiotic used to treat C. difficile,” Dr. Linfield pointed out.

ChatGPT also reported that cefepime increased the risk for death in those with pneumonia and fabricated a study supporting that assertion. “However, cefepime is a first-line drug for those with hospital-acquired pneumonia,” Dr. Linfield explained.

“I can imagine a worried family member finding this through ChatGPT, and needing to have extensive reassurances from the patient’s physicians about why this antibiotic was chosen,” she said.

ChatGPT also incorrectly stated that aztreonam has a boxed warning for increased mortality.

“The risk is that both physicians and the public uncritically use ChatGPT as an easily accessible, readable source of clinically validated information, when these large language models are meant to generate fluid text, and not necessarily accurate information,” Dr. Linfield told this news organization.

Dr. Linfield said that the next step is to compare the ChatGPT 3.5 used in this analysis with ChatGPT 4, as well as with Google’s Med-PaLM 2 after it is released to the public.
 

Advancing fast

At plenary, Dr. Kohane pointed out that AI is a quick learner and improvements in tools are coming fast.

As an example, just 3 years ago, the best AI tool could score about as well as the worst student taking the medical boards, he told the audience. “Three years later, the leading large language models are scoring better than 90% of all the candidates. What’s it going to be doing next year?” he asked.

“I don’t know,” Dr. Kohane said, “but it will be better than this year.” AI will “transform health care.”

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

Artificial intelligence (AI) models are typically a year out of date and have this “charming problem of hallucinating made-up data and saying it with all the certainty of an attending on rounds,” Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told a packed audience at plenary at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Dr. Kohane, chair of the department of biomedical informatics, says the future intersection between AI and health care is “muddy.”

Echoing questions about the accuracy of new AI tools, researchers at the meeting presented the results of their new test of ChatGPT.

The AI chatbot is designed for language processing – not scientific accuracy – and does not guarantee that responses to medical queries are fully factual.

To test the accuracy of ChatGPT’s version 3.5, the researchers asked it if there are any boxed warnings on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s label for common antibiotics, and if so, what they are.

ChatGPT provided correct answers about FDA boxed warnings for only 12 of the 41 antibiotics queried – a matching rate of just 29%.

For the other 29 antibiotics, ChatGPT either “incorrectly reported that there was an FDA boxed warning when there was not, or inaccurately or incorrectly reported the boxed warning,” Rebecca Linfield, MD, infectious diseases fellow, Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.
 

Uncritical AI use risky

Nine of the 41 antibiotics included in the query have boxed warnings. And ChatGPT correctly identified all nine, but only three were the matching adverse event (33%). For the 32 antibiotics without an FDA boxed warning, ChatGPT correctly reported that 28% (9 of 32) do not have a boxed warning.

For example, ChatGPT stated that the antibiotic fidaxomicin has a boxed warning for increased risk for Clostridioides difficile, “but it is the first-line antibiotic used to treat C. difficile,” Dr. Linfield pointed out.

ChatGPT also reported that cefepime increased the risk for death in those with pneumonia and fabricated a study supporting that assertion. “However, cefepime is a first-line drug for those with hospital-acquired pneumonia,” Dr. Linfield explained.

“I can imagine a worried family member finding this through ChatGPT, and needing to have extensive reassurances from the patient’s physicians about why this antibiotic was chosen,” she said.

ChatGPT also incorrectly stated that aztreonam has a boxed warning for increased mortality.

“The risk is that both physicians and the public uncritically use ChatGPT as an easily accessible, readable source of clinically validated information, when these large language models are meant to generate fluid text, and not necessarily accurate information,” Dr. Linfield told this news organization.

Dr. Linfield said that the next step is to compare the ChatGPT 3.5 used in this analysis with ChatGPT 4, as well as with Google’s Med-PaLM 2 after it is released to the public.
 

Advancing fast

At plenary, Dr. Kohane pointed out that AI is a quick learner and improvements in tools are coming fast.

As an example, just 3 years ago, the best AI tool could score about as well as the worst student taking the medical boards, he told the audience. “Three years later, the leading large language models are scoring better than 90% of all the candidates. What’s it going to be doing next year?” he asked.

“I don’t know,” Dr. Kohane said, “but it will be better than this year.” AI will “transform health care.”

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

Artificial intelligence (AI) models are typically a year out of date and have this “charming problem of hallucinating made-up data and saying it with all the certainty of an attending on rounds,” Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told a packed audience at plenary at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Dr. Kohane, chair of the department of biomedical informatics, says the future intersection between AI and health care is “muddy.”

Echoing questions about the accuracy of new AI tools, researchers at the meeting presented the results of their new test of ChatGPT.

The AI chatbot is designed for language processing – not scientific accuracy – and does not guarantee that responses to medical queries are fully factual.

To test the accuracy of ChatGPT’s version 3.5, the researchers asked it if there are any boxed warnings on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s label for common antibiotics, and if so, what they are.

ChatGPT provided correct answers about FDA boxed warnings for only 12 of the 41 antibiotics queried – a matching rate of just 29%.

For the other 29 antibiotics, ChatGPT either “incorrectly reported that there was an FDA boxed warning when there was not, or inaccurately or incorrectly reported the boxed warning,” Rebecca Linfield, MD, infectious diseases fellow, Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.
 

Uncritical AI use risky

Nine of the 41 antibiotics included in the query have boxed warnings. And ChatGPT correctly identified all nine, but only three were the matching adverse event (33%). For the 32 antibiotics without an FDA boxed warning, ChatGPT correctly reported that 28% (9 of 32) do not have a boxed warning.

For example, ChatGPT stated that the antibiotic fidaxomicin has a boxed warning for increased risk for Clostridioides difficile, “but it is the first-line antibiotic used to treat C. difficile,” Dr. Linfield pointed out.

ChatGPT also reported that cefepime increased the risk for death in those with pneumonia and fabricated a study supporting that assertion. “However, cefepime is a first-line drug for those with hospital-acquired pneumonia,” Dr. Linfield explained.

“I can imagine a worried family member finding this through ChatGPT, and needing to have extensive reassurances from the patient’s physicians about why this antibiotic was chosen,” she said.

ChatGPT also incorrectly stated that aztreonam has a boxed warning for increased mortality.

“The risk is that both physicians and the public uncritically use ChatGPT as an easily accessible, readable source of clinically validated information, when these large language models are meant to generate fluid text, and not necessarily accurate information,” Dr. Linfield told this news organization.

Dr. Linfield said that the next step is to compare the ChatGPT 3.5 used in this analysis with ChatGPT 4, as well as with Google’s Med-PaLM 2 after it is released to the public.
 

Advancing fast

At plenary, Dr. Kohane pointed out that AI is a quick learner and improvements in tools are coming fast.

As an example, just 3 years ago, the best AI tool could score about as well as the worst student taking the medical boards, he told the audience. “Three years later, the leading large language models are scoring better than 90% of all the candidates. What’s it going to be doing next year?” he asked.

“I don’t know,” Dr. Kohane said, “but it will be better than this year.” AI will “transform health care.”

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

WASHINGTON – A series of three higher-than-approved induction doses of the interleukin-23 inhibitor risankizumab in patients with psoriasis – and no further subsequent dosing – led to an “unprecedented” level of complete skin clearance at week 52 in a small study investigating whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition can target resident memory T cells and thereby induce long-term remission, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, reported at the annual research symposium of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

Understanding and trying to target resident memory T (Trm) cells has become a hot topic in psoriasis research, with possible importance for psoriatic arthritis as well. The cells, which normally develop within tissues in a pathogen-specific manner and persist after infections resolve, have been found in healed psoriatic skin and are believed to be responsible for recurrences of psoriasis at the same sites previously affected by the disease. Research suggests, moreover, that Trm cells are dependent on IL-23 for their survival, said Dr. Blauvelt, an investigator with the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

Using an approach he has coined “knockout” therapy, 20 adult patients at the center were randomized 1:1 in double-blinded dosing to receive 300 mg or 600 mg of risankizumab (two and four times the standard initial doses, respectively) at 0, 4, and 16 weeks, and were seen every 4-6 weeks in a double-blinded follow-up period. Skin biopsies of lesional and nonlesional skin were collected at weeks 0 and 52 for RNA sequence analysis to evaluate changes in Trm cell number and effector function.

At week 28, almost all patients – 94% – achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90 score, and 83% achieved PASI 100. At week 52, of the 18 still-enrolled patients, 69% had PASI 90 scores and 43% maintained PASI 100 scores. “We’re not curing psoriasis, but that is incredible to have 43% still clear 9 months after the last dose,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

The findings are interim results that pool the two doses of risankizumab (Skyrizi). An evaluation of maintenance of efficacy with the 300-mg versus 600-mg doses and results of the skin biopsies will be presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, he said. Patients who have not had recurrences are being followed up to week 100 (unblinded).

Skin biopsy findings together with levels of clearance will “add insight as to whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition is associated with higher levels of complete clearance (i.e., PASI 100) over long periods of time, and whether remissions are associated with more profound knock-down of Trm cells,” Dr. Blauvelt wrote in an editorial on Trm cells in psoriasis published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Risankizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2019, and for active psoriatic arthritis in 2022.
 

Impact of IL-23 inhibition

A 2021 study, Dr. Blauvelt noted in his presentation, showed that the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) reduced the number of Trm cells in healed psoriatic skin, while the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) did not affect Trm cells.

Other researchers have concluded that local IL-23 is required for the proliferation and retention of Trm cells in the skin, he said, noting also that, as a class, IL-23 blockers “are associated with the longest disease-free intervals” in patients with psoriasis.

Research showing loss of Trm cells in biopsies of cleared skin is “incredibly important,” as is data showing that IL-23 may be “a critical survival factor” for Trm cells, said Christopher Ritchlin, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and director of the clinical immunology research unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, who attended the NPF meeting and was asked to comment on the growing interest in Trm cells. He did not hear Dr. Blauvelt’s presentation but has followed Trm research in psoriasis.

Measuring Trm cells in synovial tissue of patients with psoriatic disease is, in fact, on the agenda of a new research team coled by Dr. Ritchlin that is part of the Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases Program of the Accelerating Medicine Partnership – a public-private partnership that aims to collect and analyze troves of biological data in order to illuminate the cellular and molecular interactions leading to autoimmune diseases.

“Resident memory T cells have been thought to be cells that are constrained to being resident in the tissue, and while that’s largely true, there’s more recent data showing that they actually can dedifferentiate and go back to the lymph node and then go back to the joint again,” Dr. Ritchlin noted in an interview. “So it’s a more complicated story,” but nonetheless targeting the cells is a concept worth exploring therapeutically.
 

Moving toward a cure?

The high induction doses of risankizumab in Dr. Blauvelt’s phase 2 “knockout” study were well tolerated through week 40, with safety profiles similar overall to those reported in previous studies of risankizumab and “no new safety signals,” Dr. Blauvelt said at the meeting.

(At baseline, patients had a mean disease duration of 21 years, a mean affected BSA of 21, and a mean PASI of 18.5. Seven had prior treatment with biologic medications, though not in the prior 4 months and not with risankizumab.)

In lieu of a cure, which is still possible in the next 10 years, he said, patients are eager for longer-term remission and the ability to break away from established regular dosing. After publication of a phase 1 study of risankizumab, in which a notable number of patients experienced complete skin clearance up to 1 year following a single high dose, “we started getting numerous calls in our [clinical trials] office from patients who said ‘I want to be on that drug that you give once a year,’ ” Dr. Blauvelt said. (The high dosing was not investigated any further in phase 2 and 3 research, he added.)

While the “knockout” study adopts a “hit hard” approach, it is also possible that a strategy to hit both hard and early after disease onset may induce long-term remission and/or cure of the disease. “I’m talking about using the best things first. There are hints that if we treat early, maybe we can keep [psoriasis] from becoming a chronic disease, keep it from ‘setting up shop’ if you will,” he said, noting that the “hit hard, hit early” concept is not unique to dermatology.

During a discussion period, Dr. Blauvelt said that in a future iteration of the “knockout” study, he would like to evaluate risankizumab in patients with disease duration under 12 months. It may also be valuable to look not only at Trm cells, but more broadly at other elements of the tissue architecture before and after treatment.

Among other strategies for achieving long-term remission and/or cure is the expansion of regulatory T cells, which work to “control inappropriate immune responses” and calm inflammation. Defects in the number and function of regulatory T cells are associated with psoriasis and other autoimmune diseases, and it appears in early research from other investigators that low-dose IL-2 can induce the expansion of regulatory T cells and improve psoriasis. “Keep tuned,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

Dr. Blauvelt disclosed ties with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ritchlin had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – A series of three higher-than-approved induction doses of the interleukin-23 inhibitor risankizumab in patients with psoriasis – and no further subsequent dosing – led to an “unprecedented” level of complete skin clearance at week 52 in a small study investigating whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition can target resident memory T cells and thereby induce long-term remission, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, reported at the annual research symposium of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

Understanding and trying to target resident memory T (Trm) cells has become a hot topic in psoriasis research, with possible importance for psoriatic arthritis as well. The cells, which normally develop within tissues in a pathogen-specific manner and persist after infections resolve, have been found in healed psoriatic skin and are believed to be responsible for recurrences of psoriasis at the same sites previously affected by the disease. Research suggests, moreover, that Trm cells are dependent on IL-23 for their survival, said Dr. Blauvelt, an investigator with the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

Using an approach he has coined “knockout” therapy, 20 adult patients at the center were randomized 1:1 in double-blinded dosing to receive 300 mg or 600 mg of risankizumab (two and four times the standard initial doses, respectively) at 0, 4, and 16 weeks, and were seen every 4-6 weeks in a double-blinded follow-up period. Skin biopsies of lesional and nonlesional skin were collected at weeks 0 and 52 for RNA sequence analysis to evaluate changes in Trm cell number and effector function.

At week 28, almost all patients – 94% – achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90 score, and 83% achieved PASI 100. At week 52, of the 18 still-enrolled patients, 69% had PASI 90 scores and 43% maintained PASI 100 scores. “We’re not curing psoriasis, but that is incredible to have 43% still clear 9 months after the last dose,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

The findings are interim results that pool the two doses of risankizumab (Skyrizi). An evaluation of maintenance of efficacy with the 300-mg versus 600-mg doses and results of the skin biopsies will be presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, he said. Patients who have not had recurrences are being followed up to week 100 (unblinded).

Skin biopsy findings together with levels of clearance will “add insight as to whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition is associated with higher levels of complete clearance (i.e., PASI 100) over long periods of time, and whether remissions are associated with more profound knock-down of Trm cells,” Dr. Blauvelt wrote in an editorial on Trm cells in psoriasis published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Risankizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2019, and for active psoriatic arthritis in 2022.
 

Impact of IL-23 inhibition

A 2021 study, Dr. Blauvelt noted in his presentation, showed that the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) reduced the number of Trm cells in healed psoriatic skin, while the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) did not affect Trm cells.

Other researchers have concluded that local IL-23 is required for the proliferation and retention of Trm cells in the skin, he said, noting also that, as a class, IL-23 blockers “are associated with the longest disease-free intervals” in patients with psoriasis.

Research showing loss of Trm cells in biopsies of cleared skin is “incredibly important,” as is data showing that IL-23 may be “a critical survival factor” for Trm cells, said Christopher Ritchlin, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and director of the clinical immunology research unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, who attended the NPF meeting and was asked to comment on the growing interest in Trm cells. He did not hear Dr. Blauvelt’s presentation but has followed Trm research in psoriasis.

Measuring Trm cells in synovial tissue of patients with psoriatic disease is, in fact, on the agenda of a new research team coled by Dr. Ritchlin that is part of the Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases Program of the Accelerating Medicine Partnership – a public-private partnership that aims to collect and analyze troves of biological data in order to illuminate the cellular and molecular interactions leading to autoimmune diseases.

“Resident memory T cells have been thought to be cells that are constrained to being resident in the tissue, and while that’s largely true, there’s more recent data showing that they actually can dedifferentiate and go back to the lymph node and then go back to the joint again,” Dr. Ritchlin noted in an interview. “So it’s a more complicated story,” but nonetheless targeting the cells is a concept worth exploring therapeutically.
 

Moving toward a cure?

The high induction doses of risankizumab in Dr. Blauvelt’s phase 2 “knockout” study were well tolerated through week 40, with safety profiles similar overall to those reported in previous studies of risankizumab and “no new safety signals,” Dr. Blauvelt said at the meeting.

(At baseline, patients had a mean disease duration of 21 years, a mean affected BSA of 21, and a mean PASI of 18.5. Seven had prior treatment with biologic medications, though not in the prior 4 months and not with risankizumab.)

In lieu of a cure, which is still possible in the next 10 years, he said, patients are eager for longer-term remission and the ability to break away from established regular dosing. After publication of a phase 1 study of risankizumab, in which a notable number of patients experienced complete skin clearance up to 1 year following a single high dose, “we started getting numerous calls in our [clinical trials] office from patients who said ‘I want to be on that drug that you give once a year,’ ” Dr. Blauvelt said. (The high dosing was not investigated any further in phase 2 and 3 research, he added.)

While the “knockout” study adopts a “hit hard” approach, it is also possible that a strategy to hit both hard and early after disease onset may induce long-term remission and/or cure of the disease. “I’m talking about using the best things first. There are hints that if we treat early, maybe we can keep [psoriasis] from becoming a chronic disease, keep it from ‘setting up shop’ if you will,” he said, noting that the “hit hard, hit early” concept is not unique to dermatology.

During a discussion period, Dr. Blauvelt said that in a future iteration of the “knockout” study, he would like to evaluate risankizumab in patients with disease duration under 12 months. It may also be valuable to look not only at Trm cells, but more broadly at other elements of the tissue architecture before and after treatment.

Among other strategies for achieving long-term remission and/or cure is the expansion of regulatory T cells, which work to “control inappropriate immune responses” and calm inflammation. Defects in the number and function of regulatory T cells are associated with psoriasis and other autoimmune diseases, and it appears in early research from other investigators that low-dose IL-2 can induce the expansion of regulatory T cells and improve psoriasis. “Keep tuned,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

Dr. Blauvelt disclosed ties with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ritchlin had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – A series of three higher-than-approved induction doses of the interleukin-23 inhibitor risankizumab in patients with psoriasis – and no further subsequent dosing – led to an “unprecedented” level of complete skin clearance at week 52 in a small study investigating whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition can target resident memory T cells and thereby induce long-term remission, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, reported at the annual research symposium of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

Understanding and trying to target resident memory T (Trm) cells has become a hot topic in psoriasis research, with possible importance for psoriatic arthritis as well. The cells, which normally develop within tissues in a pathogen-specific manner and persist after infections resolve, have been found in healed psoriatic skin and are believed to be responsible for recurrences of psoriasis at the same sites previously affected by the disease. Research suggests, moreover, that Trm cells are dependent on IL-23 for their survival, said Dr. Blauvelt, an investigator with the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

Using an approach he has coined “knockout” therapy, 20 adult patients at the center were randomized 1:1 in double-blinded dosing to receive 300 mg or 600 mg of risankizumab (two and four times the standard initial doses, respectively) at 0, 4, and 16 weeks, and were seen every 4-6 weeks in a double-blinded follow-up period. Skin biopsies of lesional and nonlesional skin were collected at weeks 0 and 52 for RNA sequence analysis to evaluate changes in Trm cell number and effector function.

At week 28, almost all patients – 94% – achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90 score, and 83% achieved PASI 100. At week 52, of the 18 still-enrolled patients, 69% had PASI 90 scores and 43% maintained PASI 100 scores. “We’re not curing psoriasis, but that is incredible to have 43% still clear 9 months after the last dose,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

The findings are interim results that pool the two doses of risankizumab (Skyrizi). An evaluation of maintenance of efficacy with the 300-mg versus 600-mg doses and results of the skin biopsies will be presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, he said. Patients who have not had recurrences are being followed up to week 100 (unblinded).

Skin biopsy findings together with levels of clearance will “add insight as to whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition is associated with higher levels of complete clearance (i.e., PASI 100) over long periods of time, and whether remissions are associated with more profound knock-down of Trm cells,” Dr. Blauvelt wrote in an editorial on Trm cells in psoriasis published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Risankizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2019, and for active psoriatic arthritis in 2022.
 

Impact of IL-23 inhibition

A 2021 study, Dr. Blauvelt noted in his presentation, showed that the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) reduced the number of Trm cells in healed psoriatic skin, while the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) did not affect Trm cells.

Other researchers have concluded that local IL-23 is required for the proliferation and retention of Trm cells in the skin, he said, noting also that, as a class, IL-23 blockers “are associated with the longest disease-free intervals” in patients with psoriasis.

Research showing loss of Trm cells in biopsies of cleared skin is “incredibly important,” as is data showing that IL-23 may be “a critical survival factor” for Trm cells, said Christopher Ritchlin, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and director of the clinical immunology research unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, who attended the NPF meeting and was asked to comment on the growing interest in Trm cells. He did not hear Dr. Blauvelt’s presentation but has followed Trm research in psoriasis.

Measuring Trm cells in synovial tissue of patients with psoriatic disease is, in fact, on the agenda of a new research team coled by Dr. Ritchlin that is part of the Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases Program of the Accelerating Medicine Partnership – a public-private partnership that aims to collect and analyze troves of biological data in order to illuminate the cellular and molecular interactions leading to autoimmune diseases.

“Resident memory T cells have been thought to be cells that are constrained to being resident in the tissue, and while that’s largely true, there’s more recent data showing that they actually can dedifferentiate and go back to the lymph node and then go back to the joint again,” Dr. Ritchlin noted in an interview. “So it’s a more complicated story,” but nonetheless targeting the cells is a concept worth exploring therapeutically.
 

Moving toward a cure?

The high induction doses of risankizumab in Dr. Blauvelt’s phase 2 “knockout” study were well tolerated through week 40, with safety profiles similar overall to those reported in previous studies of risankizumab and “no new safety signals,” Dr. Blauvelt said at the meeting.

(At baseline, patients had a mean disease duration of 21 years, a mean affected BSA of 21, and a mean PASI of 18.5. Seven had prior treatment with biologic medications, though not in the prior 4 months and not with risankizumab.)

In lieu of a cure, which is still possible in the next 10 years, he said, patients are eager for longer-term remission and the ability to break away from established regular dosing. After publication of a phase 1 study of risankizumab, in which a notable number of patients experienced complete skin clearance up to 1 year following a single high dose, “we started getting numerous calls in our [clinical trials] office from patients who said ‘I want to be on that drug that you give once a year,’ ” Dr. Blauvelt said. (The high dosing was not investigated any further in phase 2 and 3 research, he added.)

While the “knockout” study adopts a “hit hard” approach, it is also possible that a strategy to hit both hard and early after disease onset may induce long-term remission and/or cure of the disease. “I’m talking about using the best things first. There are hints that if we treat early, maybe we can keep [psoriasis] from becoming a chronic disease, keep it from ‘setting up shop’ if you will,” he said, noting that the “hit hard, hit early” concept is not unique to dermatology.

During a discussion period, Dr. Blauvelt said that in a future iteration of the “knockout” study, he would like to evaluate risankizumab in patients with disease duration under 12 months. It may also be valuable to look not only at Trm cells, but more broadly at other elements of the tissue architecture before and after treatment.

Among other strategies for achieving long-term remission and/or cure is the expansion of regulatory T cells, which work to “control inappropriate immune responses” and calm inflammation. Defects in the number and function of regulatory T cells are associated with psoriasis and other autoimmune diseases, and it appears in early research from other investigators that low-dose IL-2 can induce the expansion of regulatory T cells and improve psoriasis. “Keep tuned,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

Dr. Blauvelt disclosed ties with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ritchlin had no disclosures.

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

I’m speaking today about the ever-rising prominence of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced lung cancers. There are more and more data emerging suggesting that the neoadjuvant strategy is a better one.

Many of you saw the press release from Merck announcing that their randomized trial comparing chemo with chemo plus pembrolizumab in the neoadjuvant setting led to improved event-free survival and also improved pathologic complete response rate.

This comes in addition to the data from the AstraZeneca trial with durvalumab saying they’ve already achieved their endpoint of higher pathologic complete response rate vs. chemotherapy alone and also the data with nivolumab from Bristol-Myers Squibb saying that nivolumab plus chemotherapy leads to a better event-free survival and a better pathologic complete response rate. That information has led to Food and Drug Administration approval for their regimen.

We’re running the table with these very positive data, and I think it’s just a sign that the approach is safe and effective.

A huge question has come up. I just came from a meeting of lung cancer experts asking what to do if you have a patient with a small tumor, for example, a 3-cm tumor. Do you recommend immediate surgery followed by adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy, and then a checkpoint inhibitor if appropriate? Or do you proceed with neoadjuvant therapy if appropriate? The truth is that it’s a very difficult decision.

We have overwhelming data that the neoadjuvant approach works for that patient. Please remember that this is a clinically staged patient. This is not the patient after their surgery, where I think we have a very clear path. We have adjuvant data and adjuvant trials for those patients.

For the patient who’s in your office with a small tumor or a small tumor and only hilar lymphadenopathy, the decision there isn’t data driven, but rather it is experience driven. The data that are out there right now suggest that neoadjuvant therapy is a better way to go. Why is that?

Well, I think that the first reason is that it is probably a better regimen. I think many of you saw the recent clinical trial by Patel and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine with melanoma. It was an interesting trial. They gave a checkpoint inhibitor for 18 doses after surgery for melanoma versus three doses of checkpoint inhibitor, surgery, and then 15 doses of the checkpoint inhibitor.

It was 18 doses versus 18 doses, with the only difference being the three doses before surgery. Lo and behold, the three doses before surgery led to a better event-free survival.

There are preclinical data in lung cancer demonstrating that the same thing is true. Tina Cascone published on that years ago. We could talk about why, but it appears that neoadjuvant is just better.

There are other advantages to it as well. I think a big one is that all the information shows that it’s better tolerated, so you’re more likely to give all the drug. You can see if the drug isn’t working, and you can stop the drug. Also, if the drug is causing a side effect, you can see whether it’s working or not and use that decision to stop. It’s different than when you’re giving a drug in the adjuvant setting where you don’t really know whether it is working or not.

I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group. You need to weigh the pros and cons I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group coming in. It’s already an FDA-approved regimen with nivolumab and chemotherapy, and I think we’re moving to making that our standard of care now.

The way to handle it today, though, is to convene your multidisciplinary panel about every patient other than those with the tiniest of lung cancers and put your heads together to see what the best treatment is for that patient.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, both in New York. He disclosed ties with Ariad Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m speaking today about the ever-rising prominence of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced lung cancers. There are more and more data emerging suggesting that the neoadjuvant strategy is a better one.

Many of you saw the press release from Merck announcing that their randomized trial comparing chemo with chemo plus pembrolizumab in the neoadjuvant setting led to improved event-free survival and also improved pathologic complete response rate.

This comes in addition to the data from the AstraZeneca trial with durvalumab saying they’ve already achieved their endpoint of higher pathologic complete response rate vs. chemotherapy alone and also the data with nivolumab from Bristol-Myers Squibb saying that nivolumab plus chemotherapy leads to a better event-free survival and a better pathologic complete response rate. That information has led to Food and Drug Administration approval for their regimen.

We’re running the table with these very positive data, and I think it’s just a sign that the approach is safe and effective.

A huge question has come up. I just came from a meeting of lung cancer experts asking what to do if you have a patient with a small tumor, for example, a 3-cm tumor. Do you recommend immediate surgery followed by adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy, and then a checkpoint inhibitor if appropriate? Or do you proceed with neoadjuvant therapy if appropriate? The truth is that it’s a very difficult decision.

We have overwhelming data that the neoadjuvant approach works for that patient. Please remember that this is a clinically staged patient. This is not the patient after their surgery, where I think we have a very clear path. We have adjuvant data and adjuvant trials for those patients.

For the patient who’s in your office with a small tumor or a small tumor and only hilar lymphadenopathy, the decision there isn’t data driven, but rather it is experience driven. The data that are out there right now suggest that neoadjuvant therapy is a better way to go. Why is that?

Well, I think that the first reason is that it is probably a better regimen. I think many of you saw the recent clinical trial by Patel and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine with melanoma. It was an interesting trial. They gave a checkpoint inhibitor for 18 doses after surgery for melanoma versus three doses of checkpoint inhibitor, surgery, and then 15 doses of the checkpoint inhibitor.

It was 18 doses versus 18 doses, with the only difference being the three doses before surgery. Lo and behold, the three doses before surgery led to a better event-free survival.

There are preclinical data in lung cancer demonstrating that the same thing is true. Tina Cascone published on that years ago. We could talk about why, but it appears that neoadjuvant is just better.

There are other advantages to it as well. I think a big one is that all the information shows that it’s better tolerated, so you’re more likely to give all the drug. You can see if the drug isn’t working, and you can stop the drug. Also, if the drug is causing a side effect, you can see whether it’s working or not and use that decision to stop. It’s different than when you’re giving a drug in the adjuvant setting where you don’t really know whether it is working or not.

I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group. You need to weigh the pros and cons I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group coming in. It’s already an FDA-approved regimen with nivolumab and chemotherapy, and I think we’re moving to making that our standard of care now.

The way to handle it today, though, is to convene your multidisciplinary panel about every patient other than those with the tiniest of lung cancers and put your heads together to see what the best treatment is for that patient.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, both in New York. He disclosed ties with Ariad Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m speaking today about the ever-rising prominence of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced lung cancers. There are more and more data emerging suggesting that the neoadjuvant strategy is a better one.

Many of you saw the press release from Merck announcing that their randomized trial comparing chemo with chemo plus pembrolizumab in the neoadjuvant setting led to improved event-free survival and also improved pathologic complete response rate.

This comes in addition to the data from the AstraZeneca trial with durvalumab saying they’ve already achieved their endpoint of higher pathologic complete response rate vs. chemotherapy alone and also the data with nivolumab from Bristol-Myers Squibb saying that nivolumab plus chemotherapy leads to a better event-free survival and a better pathologic complete response rate. That information has led to Food and Drug Administration approval for their regimen.

We’re running the table with these very positive data, and I think it’s just a sign that the approach is safe and effective.

A huge question has come up. I just came from a meeting of lung cancer experts asking what to do if you have a patient with a small tumor, for example, a 3-cm tumor. Do you recommend immediate surgery followed by adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy, and then a checkpoint inhibitor if appropriate? Or do you proceed with neoadjuvant therapy if appropriate? The truth is that it’s a very difficult decision.

We have overwhelming data that the neoadjuvant approach works for that patient. Please remember that this is a clinically staged patient. This is not the patient after their surgery, where I think we have a very clear path. We have adjuvant data and adjuvant trials for those patients.

For the patient who’s in your office with a small tumor or a small tumor and only hilar lymphadenopathy, the decision there isn’t data driven, but rather it is experience driven. The data that are out there right now suggest that neoadjuvant therapy is a better way to go. Why is that?

Well, I think that the first reason is that it is probably a better regimen. I think many of you saw the recent clinical trial by Patel and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine with melanoma. It was an interesting trial. They gave a checkpoint inhibitor for 18 doses after surgery for melanoma versus three doses of checkpoint inhibitor, surgery, and then 15 doses of the checkpoint inhibitor.

It was 18 doses versus 18 doses, with the only difference being the three doses before surgery. Lo and behold, the three doses before surgery led to a better event-free survival.

There are preclinical data in lung cancer demonstrating that the same thing is true. Tina Cascone published on that years ago. We could talk about why, but it appears that neoadjuvant is just better.

There are other advantages to it as well. I think a big one is that all the information shows that it’s better tolerated, so you’re more likely to give all the drug. You can see if the drug isn’t working, and you can stop the drug. Also, if the drug is causing a side effect, you can see whether it’s working or not and use that decision to stop. It’s different than when you’re giving a drug in the adjuvant setting where you don’t really know whether it is working or not.

I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group. You need to weigh the pros and cons I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group coming in. It’s already an FDA-approved regimen with nivolumab and chemotherapy, and I think we’re moving to making that our standard of care now.

The way to handle it today, though, is to convene your multidisciplinary panel about every patient other than those with the tiniest of lung cancers and put your heads together to see what the best treatment is for that patient.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, both in New York. He disclosed ties with Ariad Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.