Ob.Gyn. News

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A Nepali medical graduate has filed a federal lawsuit against the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), which invalidated her test results earlier this year in response to a widespread cheating scandal. 

Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. 

Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action. 

The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.

A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation. 

Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit. 

“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
 

Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat

Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam. 

A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.

Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years. 

If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit. 

“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
 

Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices

Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid. 

Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint. 

About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit. 

Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted. 

“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”

Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents. 

Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A Nepali medical graduate has filed a federal lawsuit against the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), which invalidated her test results earlier this year in response to a widespread cheating scandal. 

Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. 

Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action. 

The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.

A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation. 

Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit. 

“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
 

Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat

Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam. 

A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.

Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years. 

If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit. 

“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
 

Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices

Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid. 

Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint. 

About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit. 

Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted. 

“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”

Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents. 

Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A Nepali medical graduate has filed a federal lawsuit against the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), which invalidated her test results earlier this year in response to a widespread cheating scandal. 

Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. 

Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action. 

The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.

A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation. 

Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit. 

“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
 

Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat

Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam. 

A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.

Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years. 

If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit. 

“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
 

Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices

Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid. 

Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint. 

About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit. 

Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted. 

“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”

Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents. 

Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Several new clinical trials in gynecologic cancers have started enrolling recently. Perhaps one of your patients is eligible to take part?

Persistent or recurrent endometrial cancer or any advanced solid gynecologic tumor with appropriate ATR mutations. Patients with one of these diagnoses may be eligible to join a phase 2, randomized, open-label study of an experimental drug called ART0380. ART0380 inhibits the ability of cancer cells to repair DNA damage by targeting a DNA repair kinase called ATR (ataxia telangiectasia–mutated and Rad3-related) protein, which is faulty in some tumors. The hope is that ART0380 will overwhelm the inadequate DNA repair processes of these cancer cells while sparing the more robust DNA repair in healthy cells. 

All participants in the trial will take daily oral ART0380 until disease progression, withdrawal of consent, or unacceptable toxicity, whichever happens first. Some individuals will receive the treatment for 3 weeks out of every 4. Sites in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and France started recruiting 60 participants with endometrial cancer or any solid tumor in September 2023. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival is a secondary measure and quality of life (QOL) is not assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at City of Hope, Atlanta, who is not involved in this trial, explained that because “ a meaningful proportion of this population may have a defect in this DNA repair mechanism,” this hypothesis seems “worthy of clinical exploration.” 

Cancer of the endometrium, cervix, vagina, or vulva. Women with one of these types of cancer who can read and understand English or Spanish can join a randomized, open-label phase 2 trial to determine whether Reiki therapy can reduce pain and distress associated with brachytherapy. 

Reiki is a complementary therapy that involves a Reiki practitioner holding their hands lightly on or above the patient’s body for several minutes. Some hospitals in the US and the UK offer Reiki as a relaxation aid, although high-quality science is lacking.

In this study, one group of participants will each undergo Reiki in a quiet clinic room during the lengthy waiting period between placement of the vaginal cylinder and infusion of the radiation source, which is a time of anxiety and discomfort for many women. A second group of women will simply lie and wait in a clinic room, if desired accompanied by a friend or family member. 

The Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah, started recruiting its 68 participants in October 2023. The primary outcome is self-reported anxiety. The secondary outcomes are other validated measures of anxiety, pain, and depression. Overall survival and broader measures of QOL will not be assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Dr. Markman said that the benefits of Reiki may be “nothing more than a placebo effect.” But he highlighted the novelty of conducting a randomized trial to scientifically test Reiki’s “widely applied (without any real evidence) ‘integrative medicine’ approach to symptom management.”

Unresectable or metastatic endometrial cancer with deficient mismatch repair /high microsatellite instability. People in this clinical situation whose disease has progressed after one or two lines of prior chemotherapy, including platinum-based treatment, may be interested in an open-label nonrandomized, phase 2 investigation of bispecific antibody acasunlimab in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda). 

Acasunlimab stimulates T-cell antitumor activity as well as blocking programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and is being tested in several types of solid-tumor cancer. For up to 2 years, all participants will receive intravenous (IV) infusions of the drug combination. Study sites in Florida and Europe opened in January 2024, ready for 80 participants. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival will not be assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

“In the absence of a randomized population to compare treatment outcomes, the results of this trial will likely provide limited data upon which to determine the clinical benefits of this novel drug combination strategy,” said Dr. Markman. However, he added, “the results will be helpful in assessing the potential toxicity of this approach.”

Recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer with proficient mismatch repair. Women with this diagnosis who have progressed after one prior platinum chemotherapy regimen in any setting may wish to consider a randomized, triple-blind, phase 2 trial of pembrolizumab plus favezelimab. Favezelimab, which blocks the lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG3), appears to boost the antitumor activity of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibition in other cancers such as classic Hodgkin lymphoma. 

In the trial, participants will be assigned to one of four groups. One group will receive 17 doses of the combination treatment IV every 3 weeks — three doses in the neoadjuvant period and 14 as adjuvant therapy. A second group of individuals will receive IV pembrolizumab monotherapy on the same schedule. A third will be given up to 35 doses of the combo therapy every 3 weeks plus a daily capsule of lenvatinib (Lenvima). The fourth group will receive 35 doses of pembrolizumab plus daily lenvatinib. 

Sites in North Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and four countries other than the US started recruiting 60 participants with a solid tumor in September 2023. Pathologic complete response and objective response rate are the primary endpoints. Overall survival over approximately 3.5 years is a secondary endpoint, and QOL will not be measured. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Unresectable advanced or metastatic HER2-positive endometrial or ovarian cancer. Adults with one of these diagnoses in whom failed platinum-based therapy has failed may enroll in an open-label, phase 2 study to see whether their disease will respond to the antibody-drug conjugate disitamab vedotin. Everyone in the trial will receive IV disitamab vedotin every 2 weeks for up to approximately 5 years. 

Study sites in California, Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Canada began welcoming their 190 participants with one of a range of solid cancers in November 2023. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival is a secondary measure and QOL will not be tracked. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

High-risk locally advanced cervical cancer. Girls and women older than 14 years with this cancer that has not progressed after platinum-based chemoradiation are sought for a randomized, quadruple-blind, phase 3 trial to determine whether the investigational immunotherapy volrustomig can slow disease progression. Volrustomig targets PD-1 and cytotoxic T lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA4) and is being tested in a wide range of solid cancers. 

For approximately 3 years or until disease progression or death, whichever happens first, half of participants will receive IV infusions of volrustomig while the others will receive saline. Asian research sites started seeking the study’s 1000 participants in September 2023, while centers in 12 US states and eight other countries are gearing up for patient enrollment. Progression-free survival in participants with PD-L1 expression is the primary endpoint; overall survival and QOL are secondary endpoints. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at ClinicalTrials.gov). Dr. Markman declared he is not involved with these trials.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Several new clinical trials in gynecologic cancers have started enrolling recently. Perhaps one of your patients is eligible to take part?

Persistent or recurrent endometrial cancer or any advanced solid gynecologic tumor with appropriate ATR mutations. Patients with one of these diagnoses may be eligible to join a phase 2, randomized, open-label study of an experimental drug called ART0380. ART0380 inhibits the ability of cancer cells to repair DNA damage by targeting a DNA repair kinase called ATR (ataxia telangiectasia–mutated and Rad3-related) protein, which is faulty in some tumors. The hope is that ART0380 will overwhelm the inadequate DNA repair processes of these cancer cells while sparing the more robust DNA repair in healthy cells. 

All participants in the trial will take daily oral ART0380 until disease progression, withdrawal of consent, or unacceptable toxicity, whichever happens first. Some individuals will receive the treatment for 3 weeks out of every 4. Sites in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and France started recruiting 60 participants with endometrial cancer or any solid tumor in September 2023. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival is a secondary measure and quality of life (QOL) is not assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at City of Hope, Atlanta, who is not involved in this trial, explained that because “ a meaningful proportion of this population may have a defect in this DNA repair mechanism,” this hypothesis seems “worthy of clinical exploration.” 

Cancer of the endometrium, cervix, vagina, or vulva. Women with one of these types of cancer who can read and understand English or Spanish can join a randomized, open-label phase 2 trial to determine whether Reiki therapy can reduce pain and distress associated with brachytherapy. 

Reiki is a complementary therapy that involves a Reiki practitioner holding their hands lightly on or above the patient’s body for several minutes. Some hospitals in the US and the UK offer Reiki as a relaxation aid, although high-quality science is lacking.

In this study, one group of participants will each undergo Reiki in a quiet clinic room during the lengthy waiting period between placement of the vaginal cylinder and infusion of the radiation source, which is a time of anxiety and discomfort for many women. A second group of women will simply lie and wait in a clinic room, if desired accompanied by a friend or family member. 

The Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah, started recruiting its 68 participants in October 2023. The primary outcome is self-reported anxiety. The secondary outcomes are other validated measures of anxiety, pain, and depression. Overall survival and broader measures of QOL will not be assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Dr. Markman said that the benefits of Reiki may be “nothing more than a placebo effect.” But he highlighted the novelty of conducting a randomized trial to scientifically test Reiki’s “widely applied (without any real evidence) ‘integrative medicine’ approach to symptom management.”

Unresectable or metastatic endometrial cancer with deficient mismatch repair /high microsatellite instability. People in this clinical situation whose disease has progressed after one or two lines of prior chemotherapy, including platinum-based treatment, may be interested in an open-label nonrandomized, phase 2 investigation of bispecific antibody acasunlimab in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda). 

Acasunlimab stimulates T-cell antitumor activity as well as blocking programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and is being tested in several types of solid-tumor cancer. For up to 2 years, all participants will receive intravenous (IV) infusions of the drug combination. Study sites in Florida and Europe opened in January 2024, ready for 80 participants. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival will not be assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

“In the absence of a randomized population to compare treatment outcomes, the results of this trial will likely provide limited data upon which to determine the clinical benefits of this novel drug combination strategy,” said Dr. Markman. However, he added, “the results will be helpful in assessing the potential toxicity of this approach.”

Recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer with proficient mismatch repair. Women with this diagnosis who have progressed after one prior platinum chemotherapy regimen in any setting may wish to consider a randomized, triple-blind, phase 2 trial of pembrolizumab plus favezelimab. Favezelimab, which blocks the lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG3), appears to boost the antitumor activity of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibition in other cancers such as classic Hodgkin lymphoma. 

In the trial, participants will be assigned to one of four groups. One group will receive 17 doses of the combination treatment IV every 3 weeks — three doses in the neoadjuvant period and 14 as adjuvant therapy. A second group of individuals will receive IV pembrolizumab monotherapy on the same schedule. A third will be given up to 35 doses of the combo therapy every 3 weeks plus a daily capsule of lenvatinib (Lenvima). The fourth group will receive 35 doses of pembrolizumab plus daily lenvatinib. 

Sites in North Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and four countries other than the US started recruiting 60 participants with a solid tumor in September 2023. Pathologic complete response and objective response rate are the primary endpoints. Overall survival over approximately 3.5 years is a secondary endpoint, and QOL will not be measured. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Unresectable advanced or metastatic HER2-positive endometrial or ovarian cancer. Adults with one of these diagnoses in whom failed platinum-based therapy has failed may enroll in an open-label, phase 2 study to see whether their disease will respond to the antibody-drug conjugate disitamab vedotin. Everyone in the trial will receive IV disitamab vedotin every 2 weeks for up to approximately 5 years. 

Study sites in California, Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Canada began welcoming their 190 participants with one of a range of solid cancers in November 2023. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival is a secondary measure and QOL will not be tracked. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

High-risk locally advanced cervical cancer. Girls and women older than 14 years with this cancer that has not progressed after platinum-based chemoradiation are sought for a randomized, quadruple-blind, phase 3 trial to determine whether the investigational immunotherapy volrustomig can slow disease progression. Volrustomig targets PD-1 and cytotoxic T lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA4) and is being tested in a wide range of solid cancers. 

For approximately 3 years or until disease progression or death, whichever happens first, half of participants will receive IV infusions of volrustomig while the others will receive saline. Asian research sites started seeking the study’s 1000 participants in September 2023, while centers in 12 US states and eight other countries are gearing up for patient enrollment. Progression-free survival in participants with PD-L1 expression is the primary endpoint; overall survival and QOL are secondary endpoints. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at ClinicalTrials.gov). Dr. Markman declared he is not involved with these trials.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Several new clinical trials in gynecologic cancers have started enrolling recently. Perhaps one of your patients is eligible to take part?

Persistent or recurrent endometrial cancer or any advanced solid gynecologic tumor with appropriate ATR mutations. Patients with one of these diagnoses may be eligible to join a phase 2, randomized, open-label study of an experimental drug called ART0380. ART0380 inhibits the ability of cancer cells to repair DNA damage by targeting a DNA repair kinase called ATR (ataxia telangiectasia–mutated and Rad3-related) protein, which is faulty in some tumors. The hope is that ART0380 will overwhelm the inadequate DNA repair processes of these cancer cells while sparing the more robust DNA repair in healthy cells. 

All participants in the trial will take daily oral ART0380 until disease progression, withdrawal of consent, or unacceptable toxicity, whichever happens first. Some individuals will receive the treatment for 3 weeks out of every 4. Sites in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and France started recruiting 60 participants with endometrial cancer or any solid tumor in September 2023. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival is a secondary measure and quality of life (QOL) is not assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at City of Hope, Atlanta, who is not involved in this trial, explained that because “ a meaningful proportion of this population may have a defect in this DNA repair mechanism,” this hypothesis seems “worthy of clinical exploration.” 

Cancer of the endometrium, cervix, vagina, or vulva. Women with one of these types of cancer who can read and understand English or Spanish can join a randomized, open-label phase 2 trial to determine whether Reiki therapy can reduce pain and distress associated with brachytherapy. 

Reiki is a complementary therapy that involves a Reiki practitioner holding their hands lightly on or above the patient’s body for several minutes. Some hospitals in the US and the UK offer Reiki as a relaxation aid, although high-quality science is lacking.

In this study, one group of participants will each undergo Reiki in a quiet clinic room during the lengthy waiting period between placement of the vaginal cylinder and infusion of the radiation source, which is a time of anxiety and discomfort for many women. A second group of women will simply lie and wait in a clinic room, if desired accompanied by a friend or family member. 

The Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah, started recruiting its 68 participants in October 2023. The primary outcome is self-reported anxiety. The secondary outcomes are other validated measures of anxiety, pain, and depression. Overall survival and broader measures of QOL will not be assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Dr. Markman said that the benefits of Reiki may be “nothing more than a placebo effect.” But he highlighted the novelty of conducting a randomized trial to scientifically test Reiki’s “widely applied (without any real evidence) ‘integrative medicine’ approach to symptom management.”

Unresectable or metastatic endometrial cancer with deficient mismatch repair /high microsatellite instability. People in this clinical situation whose disease has progressed after one or two lines of prior chemotherapy, including platinum-based treatment, may be interested in an open-label nonrandomized, phase 2 investigation of bispecific antibody acasunlimab in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda). 

Acasunlimab stimulates T-cell antitumor activity as well as blocking programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and is being tested in several types of solid-tumor cancer. For up to 2 years, all participants will receive intravenous (IV) infusions of the drug combination. Study sites in Florida and Europe opened in January 2024, ready for 80 participants. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival will not be assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

“In the absence of a randomized population to compare treatment outcomes, the results of this trial will likely provide limited data upon which to determine the clinical benefits of this novel drug combination strategy,” said Dr. Markman. However, he added, “the results will be helpful in assessing the potential toxicity of this approach.”

Recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer with proficient mismatch repair. Women with this diagnosis who have progressed after one prior platinum chemotherapy regimen in any setting may wish to consider a randomized, triple-blind, phase 2 trial of pembrolizumab plus favezelimab. Favezelimab, which blocks the lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG3), appears to boost the antitumor activity of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibition in other cancers such as classic Hodgkin lymphoma. 

In the trial, participants will be assigned to one of four groups. One group will receive 17 doses of the combination treatment IV every 3 weeks — three doses in the neoadjuvant period and 14 as adjuvant therapy. A second group of individuals will receive IV pembrolizumab monotherapy on the same schedule. A third will be given up to 35 doses of the combo therapy every 3 weeks plus a daily capsule of lenvatinib (Lenvima). The fourth group will receive 35 doses of pembrolizumab plus daily lenvatinib. 

Sites in North Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and four countries other than the US started recruiting 60 participants with a solid tumor in September 2023. Pathologic complete response and objective response rate are the primary endpoints. Overall survival over approximately 3.5 years is a secondary endpoint, and QOL will not be measured. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Unresectable advanced or metastatic HER2-positive endometrial or ovarian cancer. Adults with one of these diagnoses in whom failed platinum-based therapy has failed may enroll in an open-label, phase 2 study to see whether their disease will respond to the antibody-drug conjugate disitamab vedotin. Everyone in the trial will receive IV disitamab vedotin every 2 weeks for up to approximately 5 years. 

Study sites in California, Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Canada began welcoming their 190 participants with one of a range of solid cancers in November 2023. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival is a secondary measure and QOL will not be tracked. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

High-risk locally advanced cervical cancer. Girls and women older than 14 years with this cancer that has not progressed after platinum-based chemoradiation are sought for a randomized, quadruple-blind, phase 3 trial to determine whether the investigational immunotherapy volrustomig can slow disease progression. Volrustomig targets PD-1 and cytotoxic T lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA4) and is being tested in a wide range of solid cancers. 

For approximately 3 years or until disease progression or death, whichever happens first, half of participants will receive IV infusions of volrustomig while the others will receive saline. Asian research sites started seeking the study’s 1000 participants in September 2023, while centers in 12 US states and eight other countries are gearing up for patient enrollment. Progression-free survival in participants with PD-L1 expression is the primary endpoint; overall survival and QOL are secondary endpoints. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at ClinicalTrials.gov). Dr. Markman declared he is not involved with these trials.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly discuss a critically important topic that cannot be overly emphasized. It is the relevance, the importance, the benefits, and the outcome of HPV vaccination.

The paper I’m referring to was published in Pediatrics in October 2023. It’s titled, “Ten-Year Follow-up of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety.”

Let me emphasize that we’re talking about a 10-year follow-up. In this particular paper and analysis, 301 boys — I emphasize boys — were included and 971 girls at 40 different sites in 13 countries, who received the 9-valent vaccine, which includes HPV 16, 18, and seven other types.

These investigators demonstrated that the seropositivity rate 10 years after vaccination remained high for all nine types they looked at. Most importantly, there was not a single case. Not one. Let me repeat this: There was not a single case of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, or worse, or condyloma in either males or females. There was not a single case in over 1000 individuals with a follow-up of more than 10 years.

It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the benefit associated with HPV vaccination for our children and young adults on their risk of developing highly relevant, life-changing, potentially deadly cancers.

For those of you who are interested in this topic — which should include almost all of you, if not all of you — I encourage you to read this very important follow-up paper, again, demonstrating the simple, overwhelming magnitude of the benefit of HPV vaccination. I thank you for your attention.
 

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of medicine and science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly discuss a critically important topic that cannot be overly emphasized. It is the relevance, the importance, the benefits, and the outcome of HPV vaccination.

The paper I’m referring to was published in Pediatrics in October 2023. It’s titled, “Ten-Year Follow-up of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety.”

Let me emphasize that we’re talking about a 10-year follow-up. In this particular paper and analysis, 301 boys — I emphasize boys — were included and 971 girls at 40 different sites in 13 countries, who received the 9-valent vaccine, which includes HPV 16, 18, and seven other types.

These investigators demonstrated that the seropositivity rate 10 years after vaccination remained high for all nine types they looked at. Most importantly, there was not a single case. Not one. Let me repeat this: There was not a single case of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, or worse, or condyloma in either males or females. There was not a single case in over 1000 individuals with a follow-up of more than 10 years.

It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the benefit associated with HPV vaccination for our children and young adults on their risk of developing highly relevant, life-changing, potentially deadly cancers.

For those of you who are interested in this topic — which should include almost all of you, if not all of you — I encourage you to read this very important follow-up paper, again, demonstrating the simple, overwhelming magnitude of the benefit of HPV vaccination. I thank you for your attention.
 

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of medicine and science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly discuss a critically important topic that cannot be overly emphasized. It is the relevance, the importance, the benefits, and the outcome of HPV vaccination.

The paper I’m referring to was published in Pediatrics in October 2023. It’s titled, “Ten-Year Follow-up of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety.”

Let me emphasize that we’re talking about a 10-year follow-up. In this particular paper and analysis, 301 boys — I emphasize boys — were included and 971 girls at 40 different sites in 13 countries, who received the 9-valent vaccine, which includes HPV 16, 18, and seven other types.

These investigators demonstrated that the seropositivity rate 10 years after vaccination remained high for all nine types they looked at. Most importantly, there was not a single case. Not one. Let me repeat this: There was not a single case of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, or worse, or condyloma in either males or females. There was not a single case in over 1000 individuals with a follow-up of more than 10 years.

It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the benefit associated with HPV vaccination for our children and young adults on their risk of developing highly relevant, life-changing, potentially deadly cancers.

For those of you who are interested in this topic — which should include almost all of you, if not all of you — I encourage you to read this very important follow-up paper, again, demonstrating the simple, overwhelming magnitude of the benefit of HPV vaccination. I thank you for your attention.
 

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of medicine and science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — A combination of oral antihyperglycemics was as effective as insulin for managing gestational diabetes, based on data from more than 800 individuals.

After diet control, both insulin and oral agents such as metformin and glibenclamide are used as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus, Doortje Rademaker, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting (abstract 28).

Oral antihyperglycemic agents (OAAs) are thought to be comparable to insulin in preventing large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infants at birth and potentially more convenient for patients, Dr. Rademaker said at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Metformin and glibenclamide monotherapy as first-line treatment for gestational diabetes (GDM) are often used as patient-friendly alternatives to insulin. However, side effects are a concern, and data on the use of sequential and combined metformin and glibenclamide compared with insulin are lacking, she said.

In the study known as the SUGAR-DIP trial, Dr. Rademaker and colleagues recruited 821 women older than 18 years with singleton pregnancies between 16 weeks’ and 34 weeks’ gestation who had insufficient glycemic control with diet alone.

The study was conducted between 2016 and 2022; 409 women were randomized to OAAs and 412 to insulin. The mean age of the participants was 33 years, and 58% were White.

The OAA group received metformin initially, with the addition of up to 15 mg/day of glibenclamide in cases of insufficient glycemic control. Those who still experienced insufficient glycemic control were given insulin. The insulin group received injections according to usual standard of care.

The primary outcome was neonatal LGA, defined as birth weight above the 90th percentile. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction based on the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire.

The intent-to-treat population included 406 women in the OAA group and 398 in the insulin group.

Overall, LGA rates were 23.9% in the OAA group vs. 19.9% in the insulin group. The absolute risk difference was 4%, with P values of .09 for noninferiority and .17 for superiority, Dr. Rademaker said in her presentation.

Notably, the OAA treatment led to lower maternal weight gain, although side effects were similar between the groups, she said. Neonates in the OAA group were significantly more likely to need intravenous glucose therapy (6.4% vs. 3.2%, P = .04). However, gestational weight gain was significantly lower in the OAA group than the insulin group (mean of 9.3 kg vs. 10.4 kg, P = .03).

Rates of maternal hypoglycemia were higher in the OAA group (21% vs. 11%), and 20% of women in the OAA group needed insulin therapy.

Serious adverse events were similar between the groups, but more side effects overall were reported in the OAA group than in the insulin group (77.9% vs. 55.9%, P < .001). The most common patient-reported side effects in the OAA group were nausea and diarrhea (nearly 40% for each), while headache and fatigue were the most common side effects in the insulin group.

Participants in both groups reported high levels of treatment satisfaction, with median scores of 5 on a scale of 0-6, Dr. Rademaker said. However, the data supported the researchers’ hypothesis of greater satisfaction with oral therapy. Patients in the OAA group were more likely to recommend their treatment to others than were those in the insulin group, with ratings of 5 vs. 4 on a scale of 0-6, and significantly more women in the OAA group said they would be inclined to continue their current treatment (5 vs. 4, P < .001 for both).

Study limitations included the open-label design. However, the results support the use of oral treatments as a noninferior alternative to insulin for preventing LGA in women with gestational diabetes, Dr. Rademaker said.
 

Data Support Orals as Effective Gestational Diabetes Option

“Treatment of gestational diabetes is important for optimal pregnancy outcomes,” Catherine Spong, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

Although the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends insulin as the first-line therapy for gestational diabetes, many individuals opt for OAAs for the ease of an oral medication compared with injections, she said.

The current study authors evaluated whether OAAs were noninferior to insulin alone. “The size of oral [antihyperglycemic] agents suggests they can cross the placenta and may result in hypoglycemia in the fetus,” she said.

Although the overall LGA rate in the current study seems high, the rate of LGA is increased in diabetes generally, she added.

A key takeaway was that although individuals who used oral agents were more likely to recommend their treatment and to continue their therapy, 20% of these patients needed insulin therapy, Dr. Spong said.

Additional research is needed to explore the effect of gestational diabetes treatments on the fetus, Dr. Spong said in an interview. Research questions include whether hypoglycemia is more common in women who received oral agents, whether the agents crossed the placenta, and long-term effects, she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development. Dr. Rademaker had no financial conflicts to disclose. One of the study coauthors disclosed serving as a consultant for ObsEva and Merck, and travel support from Merck, as well as support from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Spong had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — A combination of oral antihyperglycemics was as effective as insulin for managing gestational diabetes, based on data from more than 800 individuals.

After diet control, both insulin and oral agents such as metformin and glibenclamide are used as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus, Doortje Rademaker, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting (abstract 28).

Oral antihyperglycemic agents (OAAs) are thought to be comparable to insulin in preventing large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infants at birth and potentially more convenient for patients, Dr. Rademaker said at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Metformin and glibenclamide monotherapy as first-line treatment for gestational diabetes (GDM) are often used as patient-friendly alternatives to insulin. However, side effects are a concern, and data on the use of sequential and combined metformin and glibenclamide compared with insulin are lacking, she said.

In the study known as the SUGAR-DIP trial, Dr. Rademaker and colleagues recruited 821 women older than 18 years with singleton pregnancies between 16 weeks’ and 34 weeks’ gestation who had insufficient glycemic control with diet alone.

The study was conducted between 2016 and 2022; 409 women were randomized to OAAs and 412 to insulin. The mean age of the participants was 33 years, and 58% were White.

The OAA group received metformin initially, with the addition of up to 15 mg/day of glibenclamide in cases of insufficient glycemic control. Those who still experienced insufficient glycemic control were given insulin. The insulin group received injections according to usual standard of care.

The primary outcome was neonatal LGA, defined as birth weight above the 90th percentile. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction based on the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire.

The intent-to-treat population included 406 women in the OAA group and 398 in the insulin group.

Overall, LGA rates were 23.9% in the OAA group vs. 19.9% in the insulin group. The absolute risk difference was 4%, with P values of .09 for noninferiority and .17 for superiority, Dr. Rademaker said in her presentation.

Notably, the OAA treatment led to lower maternal weight gain, although side effects were similar between the groups, she said. Neonates in the OAA group were significantly more likely to need intravenous glucose therapy (6.4% vs. 3.2%, P = .04). However, gestational weight gain was significantly lower in the OAA group than the insulin group (mean of 9.3 kg vs. 10.4 kg, P = .03).

Rates of maternal hypoglycemia were higher in the OAA group (21% vs. 11%), and 20% of women in the OAA group needed insulin therapy.

Serious adverse events were similar between the groups, but more side effects overall were reported in the OAA group than in the insulin group (77.9% vs. 55.9%, P < .001). The most common patient-reported side effects in the OAA group were nausea and diarrhea (nearly 40% for each), while headache and fatigue were the most common side effects in the insulin group.

Participants in both groups reported high levels of treatment satisfaction, with median scores of 5 on a scale of 0-6, Dr. Rademaker said. However, the data supported the researchers’ hypothesis of greater satisfaction with oral therapy. Patients in the OAA group were more likely to recommend their treatment to others than were those in the insulin group, with ratings of 5 vs. 4 on a scale of 0-6, and significantly more women in the OAA group said they would be inclined to continue their current treatment (5 vs. 4, P < .001 for both).

Study limitations included the open-label design. However, the results support the use of oral treatments as a noninferior alternative to insulin for preventing LGA in women with gestational diabetes, Dr. Rademaker said.
 

Data Support Orals as Effective Gestational Diabetes Option

“Treatment of gestational diabetes is important for optimal pregnancy outcomes,” Catherine Spong, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

Although the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends insulin as the first-line therapy for gestational diabetes, many individuals opt for OAAs for the ease of an oral medication compared with injections, she said.

The current study authors evaluated whether OAAs were noninferior to insulin alone. “The size of oral [antihyperglycemic] agents suggests they can cross the placenta and may result in hypoglycemia in the fetus,” she said.

Although the overall LGA rate in the current study seems high, the rate of LGA is increased in diabetes generally, she added.

A key takeaway was that although individuals who used oral agents were more likely to recommend their treatment and to continue their therapy, 20% of these patients needed insulin therapy, Dr. Spong said.

Additional research is needed to explore the effect of gestational diabetes treatments on the fetus, Dr. Spong said in an interview. Research questions include whether hypoglycemia is more common in women who received oral agents, whether the agents crossed the placenta, and long-term effects, she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development. Dr. Rademaker had no financial conflicts to disclose. One of the study coauthors disclosed serving as a consultant for ObsEva and Merck, and travel support from Merck, as well as support from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Spong had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — A combination of oral antihyperglycemics was as effective as insulin for managing gestational diabetes, based on data from more than 800 individuals.

After diet control, both insulin and oral agents such as metformin and glibenclamide are used as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus, Doortje Rademaker, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting (abstract 28).

Oral antihyperglycemic agents (OAAs) are thought to be comparable to insulin in preventing large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infants at birth and potentially more convenient for patients, Dr. Rademaker said at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Metformin and glibenclamide monotherapy as first-line treatment for gestational diabetes (GDM) are often used as patient-friendly alternatives to insulin. However, side effects are a concern, and data on the use of sequential and combined metformin and glibenclamide compared with insulin are lacking, she said.

In the study known as the SUGAR-DIP trial, Dr. Rademaker and colleagues recruited 821 women older than 18 years with singleton pregnancies between 16 weeks’ and 34 weeks’ gestation who had insufficient glycemic control with diet alone.

The study was conducted between 2016 and 2022; 409 women were randomized to OAAs and 412 to insulin. The mean age of the participants was 33 years, and 58% were White.

The OAA group received metformin initially, with the addition of up to 15 mg/day of glibenclamide in cases of insufficient glycemic control. Those who still experienced insufficient glycemic control were given insulin. The insulin group received injections according to usual standard of care.

The primary outcome was neonatal LGA, defined as birth weight above the 90th percentile. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction based on the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire.

The intent-to-treat population included 406 women in the OAA group and 398 in the insulin group.

Overall, LGA rates were 23.9% in the OAA group vs. 19.9% in the insulin group. The absolute risk difference was 4%, with P values of .09 for noninferiority and .17 for superiority, Dr. Rademaker said in her presentation.

Notably, the OAA treatment led to lower maternal weight gain, although side effects were similar between the groups, she said. Neonates in the OAA group were significantly more likely to need intravenous glucose therapy (6.4% vs. 3.2%, P = .04). However, gestational weight gain was significantly lower in the OAA group than the insulin group (mean of 9.3 kg vs. 10.4 kg, P = .03).

Rates of maternal hypoglycemia were higher in the OAA group (21% vs. 11%), and 20% of women in the OAA group needed insulin therapy.

Serious adverse events were similar between the groups, but more side effects overall were reported in the OAA group than in the insulin group (77.9% vs. 55.9%, P < .001). The most common patient-reported side effects in the OAA group were nausea and diarrhea (nearly 40% for each), while headache and fatigue were the most common side effects in the insulin group.

Participants in both groups reported high levels of treatment satisfaction, with median scores of 5 on a scale of 0-6, Dr. Rademaker said. However, the data supported the researchers’ hypothesis of greater satisfaction with oral therapy. Patients in the OAA group were more likely to recommend their treatment to others than were those in the insulin group, with ratings of 5 vs. 4 on a scale of 0-6, and significantly more women in the OAA group said they would be inclined to continue their current treatment (5 vs. 4, P < .001 for both).

Study limitations included the open-label design. However, the results support the use of oral treatments as a noninferior alternative to insulin for preventing LGA in women with gestational diabetes, Dr. Rademaker said.
 

Data Support Orals as Effective Gestational Diabetes Option

“Treatment of gestational diabetes is important for optimal pregnancy outcomes,” Catherine Spong, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

Although the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends insulin as the first-line therapy for gestational diabetes, many individuals opt for OAAs for the ease of an oral medication compared with injections, she said.

The current study authors evaluated whether OAAs were noninferior to insulin alone. “The size of oral [antihyperglycemic] agents suggests they can cross the placenta and may result in hypoglycemia in the fetus,” she said.

Although the overall LGA rate in the current study seems high, the rate of LGA is increased in diabetes generally, she added.

A key takeaway was that although individuals who used oral agents were more likely to recommend their treatment and to continue their therapy, 20% of these patients needed insulin therapy, Dr. Spong said.

Additional research is needed to explore the effect of gestational diabetes treatments on the fetus, Dr. Spong said in an interview. Research questions include whether hypoglycemia is more common in women who received oral agents, whether the agents crossed the placenta, and long-term effects, she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development. Dr. Rademaker had no financial conflicts to disclose. One of the study coauthors disclosed serving as a consultant for ObsEva and Merck, and travel support from Merck, as well as support from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Spong had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Women who experience an adverse pregnancy outcome during their first pregnancy are significantly more likely to experience either the same or any adverse pregnancy outcome in a subsequent pregnancy than are those with no adverse pregnancy outcome during a first pregnancy, based on data from more than 4000 individuals.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) occur in approximately 20%-30% of pregnancies and contribute to significant perinatal morbidity, William A. Grobman, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (abstract 17).

Risk factors for APOs include nulliparity and prior APOs, as well as age, body mass index, and blood pressure, he said. However, less is known about factors identified early in a first pregnancy that might predict an APO in a second pregnancy, he explained.

Dr. Grobman and colleagues used data from the nuMoM2b Heart Health Study, a cohort of more than 10,000 nulliparous women at eight sites in the United States.

The current study included a subset of individuals with two pregnancies of at least 20 weeks’ gestation who were followed for up to 7 years after delivery via telephone and in-person visits and for whom APO information was available.

An APO was defined as any of a range of outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, small-for-gestational age at birth (less than 5th percentile for weight), gestational diabetes, or fetal death.

The goal of the study was to determine patterns of APOs across two pregnancies, and to identify factors in the first pregnancy that might be associated with these patterns, Dr. Grobman said.

The study population included 4253 women from the nuMOM2b; of these, 1332 (31%) experienced an APO during their first pregnancies.

Women with an APO during the first pregnancy were significantly more likely to have a second APO than were those with no initial APO (40% vs. 15%), said Dr. Grobman. Overall, the APO that occurred most frequently in the first pregnancy was the one most likely to occur in the second.

However, “the increased risk for an APO during a second pregnancy was greater for any APO in women with a history of any APO compared to women with no prior APO,” he said.

In this study, the most common APOs were gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

“In general, no risk markers were associated with a particular pattern of APO development,” Dr. Grobman said.

However, some markers from the first trimester of the first pregnancy were significantly associated with an APO in the second pregnancy, including body mass index, age older than 35 years, blood pressure, and cardiometabolic serum analytes. Also, the magnitude of APO recurrence risk was highest among non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with other ethnicities.

The findings were limited by a lack of data on placental pathology, Dr. Grobman noted during the discussion. However, the findings underscored the need to better understand the risk factors for APOs and develop prevention strategies, he said. The results also emphasize the need to account for transitions of care for patients who experience an APO, he added.
 

Data May Inform Patient Guidance

“Patients with an adverse pregnancy outcome in a first pregnancy often experience considerable anxiety when thinking about a second pregnancy,” Joseph R. Biggio Jr., MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, said in an interview.

“This study helps to provide insight into factors which may be associated with increased risk in a subsequent pregnancy, and importantly identifies some factors that are potentially modifiable, such as BMI and blood pressure,” said Dr. Biggio, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“Based on the findings from this analysis, we need research to determine whether these findings apply to not only patients having their first pregnancy, but also adverse outcomes in any pregnancy,” Dr. Biggio said in an interview. “In addition, we need to explore whether modification of any of these risk factors can improve pregnancy outcomes, so that all patients can have the birth experience that they desire,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Grobman and Dr. Biggio had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Women who experience an adverse pregnancy outcome during their first pregnancy are significantly more likely to experience either the same or any adverse pregnancy outcome in a subsequent pregnancy than are those with no adverse pregnancy outcome during a first pregnancy, based on data from more than 4000 individuals.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) occur in approximately 20%-30% of pregnancies and contribute to significant perinatal morbidity, William A. Grobman, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (abstract 17).

Risk factors for APOs include nulliparity and prior APOs, as well as age, body mass index, and blood pressure, he said. However, less is known about factors identified early in a first pregnancy that might predict an APO in a second pregnancy, he explained.

Dr. Grobman and colleagues used data from the nuMoM2b Heart Health Study, a cohort of more than 10,000 nulliparous women at eight sites in the United States.

The current study included a subset of individuals with two pregnancies of at least 20 weeks’ gestation who were followed for up to 7 years after delivery via telephone and in-person visits and for whom APO information was available.

An APO was defined as any of a range of outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, small-for-gestational age at birth (less than 5th percentile for weight), gestational diabetes, or fetal death.

The goal of the study was to determine patterns of APOs across two pregnancies, and to identify factors in the first pregnancy that might be associated with these patterns, Dr. Grobman said.

The study population included 4253 women from the nuMOM2b; of these, 1332 (31%) experienced an APO during their first pregnancies.

Women with an APO during the first pregnancy were significantly more likely to have a second APO than were those with no initial APO (40% vs. 15%), said Dr. Grobman. Overall, the APO that occurred most frequently in the first pregnancy was the one most likely to occur in the second.

However, “the increased risk for an APO during a second pregnancy was greater for any APO in women with a history of any APO compared to women with no prior APO,” he said.

In this study, the most common APOs were gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

“In general, no risk markers were associated with a particular pattern of APO development,” Dr. Grobman said.

However, some markers from the first trimester of the first pregnancy were significantly associated with an APO in the second pregnancy, including body mass index, age older than 35 years, blood pressure, and cardiometabolic serum analytes. Also, the magnitude of APO recurrence risk was highest among non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with other ethnicities.

The findings were limited by a lack of data on placental pathology, Dr. Grobman noted during the discussion. However, the findings underscored the need to better understand the risk factors for APOs and develop prevention strategies, he said. The results also emphasize the need to account for transitions of care for patients who experience an APO, he added.
 

Data May Inform Patient Guidance

“Patients with an adverse pregnancy outcome in a first pregnancy often experience considerable anxiety when thinking about a second pregnancy,” Joseph R. Biggio Jr., MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, said in an interview.

“This study helps to provide insight into factors which may be associated with increased risk in a subsequent pregnancy, and importantly identifies some factors that are potentially modifiable, such as BMI and blood pressure,” said Dr. Biggio, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“Based on the findings from this analysis, we need research to determine whether these findings apply to not only patients having their first pregnancy, but also adverse outcomes in any pregnancy,” Dr. Biggio said in an interview. “In addition, we need to explore whether modification of any of these risk factors can improve pregnancy outcomes, so that all patients can have the birth experience that they desire,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Grobman and Dr. Biggio had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Women who experience an adverse pregnancy outcome during their first pregnancy are significantly more likely to experience either the same or any adverse pregnancy outcome in a subsequent pregnancy than are those with no adverse pregnancy outcome during a first pregnancy, based on data from more than 4000 individuals.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) occur in approximately 20%-30% of pregnancies and contribute to significant perinatal morbidity, William A. Grobman, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (abstract 17).

Risk factors for APOs include nulliparity and prior APOs, as well as age, body mass index, and blood pressure, he said. However, less is known about factors identified early in a first pregnancy that might predict an APO in a second pregnancy, he explained.

Dr. Grobman and colleagues used data from the nuMoM2b Heart Health Study, a cohort of more than 10,000 nulliparous women at eight sites in the United States.

The current study included a subset of individuals with two pregnancies of at least 20 weeks’ gestation who were followed for up to 7 years after delivery via telephone and in-person visits and for whom APO information was available.

An APO was defined as any of a range of outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, small-for-gestational age at birth (less than 5th percentile for weight), gestational diabetes, or fetal death.

The goal of the study was to determine patterns of APOs across two pregnancies, and to identify factors in the first pregnancy that might be associated with these patterns, Dr. Grobman said.

The study population included 4253 women from the nuMOM2b; of these, 1332 (31%) experienced an APO during their first pregnancies.

Women with an APO during the first pregnancy were significantly more likely to have a second APO than were those with no initial APO (40% vs. 15%), said Dr. Grobman. Overall, the APO that occurred most frequently in the first pregnancy was the one most likely to occur in the second.

However, “the increased risk for an APO during a second pregnancy was greater for any APO in women with a history of any APO compared to women with no prior APO,” he said.

In this study, the most common APOs were gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

“In general, no risk markers were associated with a particular pattern of APO development,” Dr. Grobman said.

However, some markers from the first trimester of the first pregnancy were significantly associated with an APO in the second pregnancy, including body mass index, age older than 35 years, blood pressure, and cardiometabolic serum analytes. Also, the magnitude of APO recurrence risk was highest among non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with other ethnicities.

The findings were limited by a lack of data on placental pathology, Dr. Grobman noted during the discussion. However, the findings underscored the need to better understand the risk factors for APOs and develop prevention strategies, he said. The results also emphasize the need to account for transitions of care for patients who experience an APO, he added.
 

Data May Inform Patient Guidance

“Patients with an adverse pregnancy outcome in a first pregnancy often experience considerable anxiety when thinking about a second pregnancy,” Joseph R. Biggio Jr., MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, said in an interview.

“This study helps to provide insight into factors which may be associated with increased risk in a subsequent pregnancy, and importantly identifies some factors that are potentially modifiable, such as BMI and blood pressure,” said Dr. Biggio, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“Based on the findings from this analysis, we need research to determine whether these findings apply to not only patients having their first pregnancy, but also adverse outcomes in any pregnancy,” Dr. Biggio said in an interview. “In addition, we need to explore whether modification of any of these risk factors can improve pregnancy outcomes, so that all patients can have the birth experience that they desire,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Grobman and Dr. Biggio had no financial conflicts to disclose.

TOPLINE:

Allergens were present in more than half of evaluable over-the-counter (OTC) topical scar products, study finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• OTC topical scar treatments have the potential to cause an allergic reaction, but the prevalence of North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) core allergens in these products is unclear.
• Researchers used the word scar in a query of Amazon.com and four other retail websites to identify topical scar products for consumers and noted the list of ingredients.
• The investigators also surveyed the American Contact Dermatitis Society’s Contact Allergen Management Program (CAMP), a resource that helps patients with allergies find personal care products that are safe to use, for pertinent products.

TAKEAWAY: 

• The search query identified 156 products. Of these, 119 (76.2%) were gels, creams, or oils and 37 (23.7%) were sheets, strips, or tape.
• Of the 125 products that had a list of ingredients, 69 (55.2%) contained at least one NACDG allergen and 45 (36%) contained more than one.
• The top six most common allergens listed in the ingredients were fragrance (16.8%), phenoxyethanol (16.8%), parabens (14.4%), panthenol (12.8%), sodium benzoate (9.60%), and ethylhexylglycerin (8%).
• Analysis of CAMP revealed that the program only had five unique scar products in its list, suggesting that CAMP might not be a reliable source of scar product information for patients with known allergies to pertinent NACDG allergens.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients can consider trying a ‘use test’ on the inner forearm before applying to the surgical site,” the authors wrote. “It may reveal they are sensitive or sensitized by a product. 

SOURCE:

First author Meera Kattapuram, MD, of the Department of Internal Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, led the study, published in the February issue of Dermatologic Surgery.  

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the selection of five retailers and the top 100 products from each website and the potential for ingredient list inaccuracies. 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported having no financial conflicts of interest. The research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Allergens were present in more than half of evaluable over-the-counter (OTC) topical scar products, study finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• OTC topical scar treatments have the potential to cause an allergic reaction, but the prevalence of North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) core allergens in these products is unclear.
• Researchers used the word scar in a query of Amazon.com and four other retail websites to identify topical scar products for consumers and noted the list of ingredients.
• The investigators also surveyed the American Contact Dermatitis Society’s Contact Allergen Management Program (CAMP), a resource that helps patients with allergies find personal care products that are safe to use, for pertinent products.

TAKEAWAY: 

• The search query identified 156 products. Of these, 119 (76.2%) were gels, creams, or oils and 37 (23.7%) were sheets, strips, or tape.
• Of the 125 products that had a list of ingredients, 69 (55.2%) contained at least one NACDG allergen and 45 (36%) contained more than one.
• The top six most common allergens listed in the ingredients were fragrance (16.8%), phenoxyethanol (16.8%), parabens (14.4%), panthenol (12.8%), sodium benzoate (9.60%), and ethylhexylglycerin (8%).
• Analysis of CAMP revealed that the program only had five unique scar products in its list, suggesting that CAMP might not be a reliable source of scar product information for patients with known allergies to pertinent NACDG allergens.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients can consider trying a ‘use test’ on the inner forearm before applying to the surgical site,” the authors wrote. “It may reveal they are sensitive or sensitized by a product. 

SOURCE:

First author Meera Kattapuram, MD, of the Department of Internal Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, led the study, published in the February issue of Dermatologic Surgery.  

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the selection of five retailers and the top 100 products from each website and the potential for ingredient list inaccuracies. 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported having no financial conflicts of interest. The research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Allergens were present in more than half of evaluable over-the-counter (OTC) topical scar products, study finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• OTC topical scar treatments have the potential to cause an allergic reaction, but the prevalence of North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) core allergens in these products is unclear.
• Researchers used the word scar in a query of Amazon.com and four other retail websites to identify topical scar products for consumers and noted the list of ingredients.
• The investigators also surveyed the American Contact Dermatitis Society’s Contact Allergen Management Program (CAMP), a resource that helps patients with allergies find personal care products that are safe to use, for pertinent products.

TAKEAWAY: 

• The search query identified 156 products. Of these, 119 (76.2%) were gels, creams, or oils and 37 (23.7%) were sheets, strips, or tape.
• Of the 125 products that had a list of ingredients, 69 (55.2%) contained at least one NACDG allergen and 45 (36%) contained more than one.
• The top six most common allergens listed in the ingredients were fragrance (16.8%), phenoxyethanol (16.8%), parabens (14.4%), panthenol (12.8%), sodium benzoate (9.60%), and ethylhexylglycerin (8%).
• Analysis of CAMP revealed that the program only had five unique scar products in its list, suggesting that CAMP might not be a reliable source of scar product information for patients with known allergies to pertinent NACDG allergens.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients can consider trying a ‘use test’ on the inner forearm before applying to the surgical site,” the authors wrote. “It may reveal they are sensitive or sensitized by a product. 

SOURCE:

First author Meera Kattapuram, MD, of the Department of Internal Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, led the study, published in the February issue of Dermatologic Surgery.  

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the selection of five retailers and the top 100 products from each website and the potential for ingredient list inaccuracies. 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported having no financial conflicts of interest. The research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.