Oncology

TOPLINE:

Novel first-generation cell-free DNA blood (cf-bDNA) tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) cost more and are less effective than colonoscopy or stool tests, a new analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the clinical and economic impacts of emerging blood- and stool-based CRC screening tests with established alternatives in average-risk adults aged 45 years and older.
• The established screening tools were colonoscopy, a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and a multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA, Exact Sciences Cologuard).
• The four emerging screening methods were two cf-bDNA tests (Guardant Shield and Freenome); an enhanced, a next-generation multitarget stool test (ngMT-sDNA), and a novel FIT-RNA test (Geneoscopy ColoSense).

TAKEAWAY:

• Assuming 100% participation in all screening steps, colonoscopy and FIT yielded reductions of more than 70% in CRC incidence and 75% in mortality vs no screening.
• The MT-sDNA test reduced CRC incidence by 68% and mortality by 73%, with similar rates for the ngMT-sDNA and FIT-RNA tests vs no screening. The cf-bDNA tests yielded CRC incidence and mortality reductions of only 42% and 56%.
• Colonoscopy and FIT were more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA and MT-sDNA tests, and the MT-sDNA test was more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA test.
• Population benefits from blood tests were seen only in those who declined colonoscopy and stool tests. Substituting a blood test for those already using colonoscopy or stool tests led to worse population-level outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“First-generation novel cf-bDNA tests have the potential to decrease meaningfully the incidence and mortality of CRC compared with no screening but substantially less profoundly than screening colonoscopy or stool tests. Net population benefit or harm can follow incorporation of first-generation cf-bDNA CRC screening tests into practice, depending on the balance between bringing unscreened persons into screening (addition) vs shifting persons away from the more effective strategies of colonoscopy or stool testing (substitution),” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Uri Ladabaum, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included test-specific participation patterns being unknown over time. 

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms for the authors are available with the article online. Funding was provided by the Gorrindo Family Fund.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Novel first-generation cell-free DNA blood (cf-bDNA) tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) cost more and are less effective than colonoscopy or stool tests, a new analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the clinical and economic impacts of emerging blood- and stool-based CRC screening tests with established alternatives in average-risk adults aged 45 years and older.
• The established screening tools were colonoscopy, a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and a multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA, Exact Sciences Cologuard).
• The four emerging screening methods were two cf-bDNA tests (Guardant Shield and Freenome); an enhanced, a next-generation multitarget stool test (ngMT-sDNA), and a novel FIT-RNA test (Geneoscopy ColoSense).

TAKEAWAY:

• Assuming 100% participation in all screening steps, colonoscopy and FIT yielded reductions of more than 70% in CRC incidence and 75% in mortality vs no screening.
• The MT-sDNA test reduced CRC incidence by 68% and mortality by 73%, with similar rates for the ngMT-sDNA and FIT-RNA tests vs no screening. The cf-bDNA tests yielded CRC incidence and mortality reductions of only 42% and 56%.
• Colonoscopy and FIT were more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA and MT-sDNA tests, and the MT-sDNA test was more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA test.
• Population benefits from blood tests were seen only in those who declined colonoscopy and stool tests. Substituting a blood test for those already using colonoscopy or stool tests led to worse population-level outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“First-generation novel cf-bDNA tests have the potential to decrease meaningfully the incidence and mortality of CRC compared with no screening but substantially less profoundly than screening colonoscopy or stool tests. Net population benefit or harm can follow incorporation of first-generation cf-bDNA CRC screening tests into practice, depending on the balance between bringing unscreened persons into screening (addition) vs shifting persons away from the more effective strategies of colonoscopy or stool testing (substitution),” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Uri Ladabaum, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included test-specific participation patterns being unknown over time. 

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms for the authors are available with the article online. Funding was provided by the Gorrindo Family Fund.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Novel first-generation cell-free DNA blood (cf-bDNA) tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) cost more and are less effective than colonoscopy or stool tests, a new analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the clinical and economic impacts of emerging blood- and stool-based CRC screening tests with established alternatives in average-risk adults aged 45 years and older.
• The established screening tools were colonoscopy, a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and a multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA, Exact Sciences Cologuard).
• The four emerging screening methods were two cf-bDNA tests (Guardant Shield and Freenome); an enhanced, a next-generation multitarget stool test (ngMT-sDNA), and a novel FIT-RNA test (Geneoscopy ColoSense).

TAKEAWAY:

• Assuming 100% participation in all screening steps, colonoscopy and FIT yielded reductions of more than 70% in CRC incidence and 75% in mortality vs no screening.
• The MT-sDNA test reduced CRC incidence by 68% and mortality by 73%, with similar rates for the ngMT-sDNA and FIT-RNA tests vs no screening. The cf-bDNA tests yielded CRC incidence and mortality reductions of only 42% and 56%.
• Colonoscopy and FIT were more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA and MT-sDNA tests, and the MT-sDNA test was more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA test.
• Population benefits from blood tests were seen only in those who declined colonoscopy and stool tests. Substituting a blood test for those already using colonoscopy or stool tests led to worse population-level outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“First-generation novel cf-bDNA tests have the potential to decrease meaningfully the incidence and mortality of CRC compared with no screening but substantially less profoundly than screening colonoscopy or stool tests. Net population benefit or harm can follow incorporation of first-generation cf-bDNA CRC screening tests into practice, depending on the balance between bringing unscreened persons into screening (addition) vs shifting persons away from the more effective strategies of colonoscopy or stool testing (substitution),” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Uri Ladabaum, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included test-specific participation patterns being unknown over time. 

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms for the authors are available with the article online. Funding was provided by the Gorrindo Family Fund.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved revumenib (Revuforj — Syndax Pharmaceuticals) for relapsed or refractory acute leukemia with a KMT2A gene translocation in adult and pediatric patients 1 year or older.

The approval makes the oral small-molecule menin inhibitor the first pharmaceutical to carry the indication. It blocks the binding of menin to mutated KMT2A fusion proteins, tamping down the process that leads to the disease.

Although a relatively uncommon form of leukemia, KMT2A rearrangements are a major driver of acute leukemia in infants.

Approval was based on a single-arm of the open-label AUGMENT-101 trial with 104 adult and pediatric patients with the mutation. Pediatric patients were at least 30 days old.

The rate of complete remission (CR) plus CR with partial hematologic recovery was 21.2% (22 patients) with a median duration of 6.4 months. The median time to remission was 1.9 months.

Eighty-three patients required blood cell and/or platelet transfusions at baseline; 12 (14%) did not need transfusions for 56 days afterward. Of the 21 who were transfusion free at baseline, 10 (48%) remained so over the same period.

The most common adverse reactions in 20% or more of patients were hemorrhage, nausea, increased phosphate, musculoskeletal pain, infection, increased aspartate aminotransferase, febrile neutropenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, increased intact parathyroid hormone, bacterial infection, diarrhea, differentiation syndrome, electrocardiogram QT prolonged, decreased phosphate, increased triglycerides, decreased potassium, decreased appetite, constipation, edema, viral infection, fatigue, and increased alkaline phosphatase.

The recommended dose varies by weight and concomitant use of strong CYP3A4 inhibitors. Because of an anticipated delay in commercial availability, the lowest strength dose of revumenib will be available through an expanded access program for patients who weigh < 40 kg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved revumenib (Revuforj — Syndax Pharmaceuticals) for relapsed or refractory acute leukemia with a KMT2A gene translocation in adult and pediatric patients 1 year or older.

The approval makes the oral small-molecule menin inhibitor the first pharmaceutical to carry the indication. It blocks the binding of menin to mutated KMT2A fusion proteins, tamping down the process that leads to the disease.

Although a relatively uncommon form of leukemia, KMT2A rearrangements are a major driver of acute leukemia in infants.

Approval was based on a single-arm of the open-label AUGMENT-101 trial with 104 adult and pediatric patients with the mutation. Pediatric patients were at least 30 days old.

The rate of complete remission (CR) plus CR with partial hematologic recovery was 21.2% (22 patients) with a median duration of 6.4 months. The median time to remission was 1.9 months.

Eighty-three patients required blood cell and/or platelet transfusions at baseline; 12 (14%) did not need transfusions for 56 days afterward. Of the 21 who were transfusion free at baseline, 10 (48%) remained so over the same period.

The most common adverse reactions in 20% or more of patients were hemorrhage, nausea, increased phosphate, musculoskeletal pain, infection, increased aspartate aminotransferase, febrile neutropenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, increased intact parathyroid hormone, bacterial infection, diarrhea, differentiation syndrome, electrocardiogram QT prolonged, decreased phosphate, increased triglycerides, decreased potassium, decreased appetite, constipation, edema, viral infection, fatigue, and increased alkaline phosphatase.

The recommended dose varies by weight and concomitant use of strong CYP3A4 inhibitors. Because of an anticipated delay in commercial availability, the lowest strength dose of revumenib will be available through an expanded access program for patients who weigh < 40 kg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved revumenib (Revuforj — Syndax Pharmaceuticals) for relapsed or refractory acute leukemia with a KMT2A gene translocation in adult and pediatric patients 1 year or older.

The approval makes the oral small-molecule menin inhibitor the first pharmaceutical to carry the indication. It blocks the binding of menin to mutated KMT2A fusion proteins, tamping down the process that leads to the disease.

Although a relatively uncommon form of leukemia, KMT2A rearrangements are a major driver of acute leukemia in infants.

Approval was based on a single-arm of the open-label AUGMENT-101 trial with 104 adult and pediatric patients with the mutation. Pediatric patients were at least 30 days old.

The rate of complete remission (CR) plus CR with partial hematologic recovery was 21.2% (22 patients) with a median duration of 6.4 months. The median time to remission was 1.9 months.

Eighty-three patients required blood cell and/or platelet transfusions at baseline; 12 (14%) did not need transfusions for 56 days afterward. Of the 21 who were transfusion free at baseline, 10 (48%) remained so over the same period.

The most common adverse reactions in 20% or more of patients were hemorrhage, nausea, increased phosphate, musculoskeletal pain, infection, increased aspartate aminotransferase, febrile neutropenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, increased intact parathyroid hormone, bacterial infection, diarrhea, differentiation syndrome, electrocardiogram QT prolonged, decreased phosphate, increased triglycerides, decreased potassium, decreased appetite, constipation, edema, viral infection, fatigue, and increased alkaline phosphatase.

The recommended dose varies by weight and concomitant use of strong CYP3A4 inhibitors. Because of an anticipated delay in commercial availability, the lowest strength dose of revumenib will be available through an expanded access program for patients who weigh < 40 kg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In this podcast, I’m going to talk about unexplained high platelet counts, or thrombocytosis, and the risk for cancer in primary care. Let’s start with a typical case we all might see in primary care.

Louisa is 47 years old and is the chief financial officer for a tech startup company. She presents to us in primary care feeling tired all the time — a very common presentation in primary care — with associated reduced appetite. Past medical history includes irritable bowel syndrome, and she’s an ex-smoker.

Systemic inquiry is unremarkable. Specifically, there is no history of weight loss. Louisa has not been prescribed any medication and uses over-the-counter remedies for her irritable bowel syndrome. Examination is also unremarkable. Blood tests were checked, which were all reassuring, except for a platelet count of 612 × 10⁹ cells/L (usual normal range, about 150-450).

What do we do next? Do we refer for an urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer? Do we check a quantitative immunohistochemical fecal occult blood test (qFIT) to identify any occult bleeding in her stool? Do we refer for a routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or pelvic ultrasound scan to exclude any upper gastrointestinal or endometrial malignancy?

Do we simply repeat the bloods? If so, do we repeat them routinely or urgently, and indeed, which ones should we recheck?

Louisa has an unexplained thrombocytosis. How do we manage this in primary care? Thrombocytosis is generally defined as a raised platelet count over 450. Importantly, thrombocytosis is a common incidental finding in around 2% of those over 40 years of age attending primary care. Reassuringly, 80%-90% of thrombocytosis is reactive, secondary to acute blood loss, infection, or inflammation, and the majority of cases resolve within 3 months.

Why the concern with Louisa then? Although most cases are reactive, clinical guidance (for example, NICE suspected cancer guidance in the UK and Scottish suspected cancer guidance in Scotland) reminds us that unexplained thrombocytosis is a risk marker for some solid-tumor malignancies.

Previous studies have demonstrated that unexplained thrombocytosis is associated with a 1-year cancer incidence of 11.6% in males and 6.2% in females, well exceeding the standard 3% threshold warranting investigation for underlying malignancy. However, thrombocytosis should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic or screening test for cancer, or indeed to rule out cancer.

Instead, unexplained thrombocytosis should prompt us to think cancer. The Scottish suspected cancer referral guidelines include thrombocytosis in the investigation criteria for what they call the LEGO-C cancers — L for lung, E for endometrial, G for gastric, O for oesophageal, and C for colorectal, which is a useful reminder for us all.

What further history, examination, and investigations might we consider in primary care if we identify an unexplained high platelet count? As always, we should use our clinical judgment and trust our clinical acumen.

We should consider all the possible underlying causes, including infection, inflammation, and blood loss, including menstrual blood loss in women; myeloproliferative disorders such as polycythemia rubra vera, chronic myeloid leukemia, and essential thrombocythemia; and, of course, underlying malignancy. If a likely underlying reversible cause is present (for example, a recent lower respiratory tract infection), simply repeating the full blood count in 4-6 weeks is quite appropriate to see if the thrombocytosis has resolved.

Remember, 80%-90% of cases are reactive thrombocytosis, and most cases resolve within 3 months. If thrombocytosis is unexplained or not resolving, consider checking ferritin levels to exclude iron deficiency. Consider checking C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to exclude any inflammation, and also consider checking a blood film to exclude any hematologic disorders, in addition, of course, to more detailed history-taking and examination to elicit any red flags.

We can also consider a JAK2 gene mutation test, if it is available to you locally, or a hematology referral if we suspect a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 is a genetic mutation that may be present in people with essential thrombocythemia and can indicate a diagnosis of polycythemia rubra vera.

Subsequent to this, and again using our clinical judgment, we then need to exclude the LEGO-C cancers. Consider urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer or pelvic ultrasound in women to exclude endometrial cancer. Also, we should consider an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in those individuals who have associated upper gastrointestinal symptoms and/or weight loss.

Finally, consider a qFIT to identify any occult bleeding in the stool, again if it’s available to you, or certainly if not, urgent lower gastrointestinal investigations to exclude colorectal cancer.

Alongside these possible investigations, as always, we should safety-net appropriately within agreed timeframes and check for resolution of the thrombocytosis according to the condition being suspected. Remember, most cases resolve within 3 months.

Returning to Louisa, what did I do? After seeing a platelet count of 600, I subsequently telephoned her and reexplored her history, which yielded nil else of note. Specifically, there was no history of unexplained weight loss, no history of upper or lower gastrointestinal symptoms, and certainly nothing significantly different from her usual irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. There were also no respiratory or genitourinary symptoms of note.

I did arrange for Louisa to undergo a chest x-ray over the next few days, though, as she was an ex-smoker. This was subsequently reported as normal. I appreciate chest x-rays have poor sensitivity for detecting lung cancer, as highlighted in a number of recent papers, but it was mutually agreed with Louisa that we would simply repeat her blood test in around 6 weeks. As well as repeating the full blood count, I arranged to check her ferritin, CRP, and a blood film, and then I was planning to reassess her clinically in person.

These bloods and my subsequent clinical review were reassuring. In fact, her platelet count had normalized after that 6 weeks had elapsed. Her thrombocytosis had resolved.

I didn’t arrange any further follow-up for her, but I did give her the usual safety netting advice to re-present to me or one of my colleagues if she does develop any worrying symptoms or signs.

I appreciate these scenarios are not always this straightforward, but I wanted to outline what investigations and referrals we may need to consider in primary care if we encounter an unexplained high platelet count.

There are a couple of quality-improvement activities for us all to consider in primary care. Consider as a team how we would respond to an incidental finding of thrombocytosis on a full blood count. Also consider what are our safety-netting options for those found to have raised platelet counts but no other symptoms or risk factors for underlying malignancy.

Finally, I’ve produced a Medscape UK primary care hack or clinical aide-memoire on managing unexplained thrombocytosis and associated cancer risk in primary care for all healthcare professionals working in primary care. This can be found online. I hope you find this resource helpful.

Dr. Kevin Fernando, General practitioner partner with specialist interests in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic medicine, North Berwick Group Practice in Scotland, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi Menarini, and Daiichi Sankyo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In this podcast, I’m going to talk about unexplained high platelet counts, or thrombocytosis, and the risk for cancer in primary care. Let’s start with a typical case we all might see in primary care.

Louisa is 47 years old and is the chief financial officer for a tech startup company. She presents to us in primary care feeling tired all the time — a very common presentation in primary care — with associated reduced appetite. Past medical history includes irritable bowel syndrome, and she’s an ex-smoker.

Systemic inquiry is unremarkable. Specifically, there is no history of weight loss. Louisa has not been prescribed any medication and uses over-the-counter remedies for her irritable bowel syndrome. Examination is also unremarkable. Blood tests were checked, which were all reassuring, except for a platelet count of 612 × 10⁹ cells/L (usual normal range, about 150-450).

What do we do next? Do we refer for an urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer? Do we check a quantitative immunohistochemical fecal occult blood test (qFIT) to identify any occult bleeding in her stool? Do we refer for a routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or pelvic ultrasound scan to exclude any upper gastrointestinal or endometrial malignancy?

Do we simply repeat the bloods? If so, do we repeat them routinely or urgently, and indeed, which ones should we recheck?

Louisa has an unexplained thrombocytosis. How do we manage this in primary care? Thrombocytosis is generally defined as a raised platelet count over 450. Importantly, thrombocytosis is a common incidental finding in around 2% of those over 40 years of age attending primary care. Reassuringly, 80%-90% of thrombocytosis is reactive, secondary to acute blood loss, infection, or inflammation, and the majority of cases resolve within 3 months.

Why the concern with Louisa then? Although most cases are reactive, clinical guidance (for example, NICE suspected cancer guidance in the UK and Scottish suspected cancer guidance in Scotland) reminds us that unexplained thrombocytosis is a risk marker for some solid-tumor malignancies.

Previous studies have demonstrated that unexplained thrombocytosis is associated with a 1-year cancer incidence of 11.6% in males and 6.2% in females, well exceeding the standard 3% threshold warranting investigation for underlying malignancy. However, thrombocytosis should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic or screening test for cancer, or indeed to rule out cancer.

Instead, unexplained thrombocytosis should prompt us to think cancer. The Scottish suspected cancer referral guidelines include thrombocytosis in the investigation criteria for what they call the LEGO-C cancers — L for lung, E for endometrial, G for gastric, O for oesophageal, and C for colorectal, which is a useful reminder for us all.

What further history, examination, and investigations might we consider in primary care if we identify an unexplained high platelet count? As always, we should use our clinical judgment and trust our clinical acumen.

We should consider all the possible underlying causes, including infection, inflammation, and blood loss, including menstrual blood loss in women; myeloproliferative disorders such as polycythemia rubra vera, chronic myeloid leukemia, and essential thrombocythemia; and, of course, underlying malignancy. If a likely underlying reversible cause is present (for example, a recent lower respiratory tract infection), simply repeating the full blood count in 4-6 weeks is quite appropriate to see if the thrombocytosis has resolved.

Remember, 80%-90% of cases are reactive thrombocytosis, and most cases resolve within 3 months. If thrombocytosis is unexplained or not resolving, consider checking ferritin levels to exclude iron deficiency. Consider checking C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to exclude any inflammation, and also consider checking a blood film to exclude any hematologic disorders, in addition, of course, to more detailed history-taking and examination to elicit any red flags.

We can also consider a JAK2 gene mutation test, if it is available to you locally, or a hematology referral if we suspect a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 is a genetic mutation that may be present in people with essential thrombocythemia and can indicate a diagnosis of polycythemia rubra vera.

Subsequent to this, and again using our clinical judgment, we then need to exclude the LEGO-C cancers. Consider urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer or pelvic ultrasound in women to exclude endometrial cancer. Also, we should consider an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in those individuals who have associated upper gastrointestinal symptoms and/or weight loss.

Finally, consider a qFIT to identify any occult bleeding in the stool, again if it’s available to you, or certainly if not, urgent lower gastrointestinal investigations to exclude colorectal cancer.

Alongside these possible investigations, as always, we should safety-net appropriately within agreed timeframes and check for resolution of the thrombocytosis according to the condition being suspected. Remember, most cases resolve within 3 months.

Returning to Louisa, what did I do? After seeing a platelet count of 600, I subsequently telephoned her and reexplored her history, which yielded nil else of note. Specifically, there was no history of unexplained weight loss, no history of upper or lower gastrointestinal symptoms, and certainly nothing significantly different from her usual irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. There were also no respiratory or genitourinary symptoms of note.

I did arrange for Louisa to undergo a chest x-ray over the next few days, though, as she was an ex-smoker. This was subsequently reported as normal. I appreciate chest x-rays have poor sensitivity for detecting lung cancer, as highlighted in a number of recent papers, but it was mutually agreed with Louisa that we would simply repeat her blood test in around 6 weeks. As well as repeating the full blood count, I arranged to check her ferritin, CRP, and a blood film, and then I was planning to reassess her clinically in person.

These bloods and my subsequent clinical review were reassuring. In fact, her platelet count had normalized after that 6 weeks had elapsed. Her thrombocytosis had resolved.

I didn’t arrange any further follow-up for her, but I did give her the usual safety netting advice to re-present to me or one of my colleagues if she does develop any worrying symptoms or signs.

I appreciate these scenarios are not always this straightforward, but I wanted to outline what investigations and referrals we may need to consider in primary care if we encounter an unexplained high platelet count.

There are a couple of quality-improvement activities for us all to consider in primary care. Consider as a team how we would respond to an incidental finding of thrombocytosis on a full blood count. Also consider what are our safety-netting options for those found to have raised platelet counts but no other symptoms or risk factors for underlying malignancy.

Finally, I’ve produced a Medscape UK primary care hack or clinical aide-memoire on managing unexplained thrombocytosis and associated cancer risk in primary care for all healthcare professionals working in primary care. This can be found online. I hope you find this resource helpful.

Dr. Kevin Fernando, General practitioner partner with specialist interests in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic medicine, North Berwick Group Practice in Scotland, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi Menarini, and Daiichi Sankyo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In this podcast, I’m going to talk about unexplained high platelet counts, or thrombocytosis, and the risk for cancer in primary care. Let’s start with a typical case we all might see in primary care.

Louisa is 47 years old and is the chief financial officer for a tech startup company. She presents to us in primary care feeling tired all the time — a very common presentation in primary care — with associated reduced appetite. Past medical history includes irritable bowel syndrome, and she’s an ex-smoker.

Systemic inquiry is unremarkable. Specifically, there is no history of weight loss. Louisa has not been prescribed any medication and uses over-the-counter remedies for her irritable bowel syndrome. Examination is also unremarkable. Blood tests were checked, which were all reassuring, except for a platelet count of 612 × 10⁹ cells/L (usual normal range, about 150-450).

What do we do next? Do we refer for an urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer? Do we check a quantitative immunohistochemical fecal occult blood test (qFIT) to identify any occult bleeding in her stool? Do we refer for a routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or pelvic ultrasound scan to exclude any upper gastrointestinal or endometrial malignancy?

Do we simply repeat the bloods? If so, do we repeat them routinely or urgently, and indeed, which ones should we recheck?

Louisa has an unexplained thrombocytosis. How do we manage this in primary care? Thrombocytosis is generally defined as a raised platelet count over 450. Importantly, thrombocytosis is a common incidental finding in around 2% of those over 40 years of age attending primary care. Reassuringly, 80%-90% of thrombocytosis is reactive, secondary to acute blood loss, infection, or inflammation, and the majority of cases resolve within 3 months.

Why the concern with Louisa then? Although most cases are reactive, clinical guidance (for example, NICE suspected cancer guidance in the UK and Scottish suspected cancer guidance in Scotland) reminds us that unexplained thrombocytosis is a risk marker for some solid-tumor malignancies.

Previous studies have demonstrated that unexplained thrombocytosis is associated with a 1-year cancer incidence of 11.6% in males and 6.2% in females, well exceeding the standard 3% threshold warranting investigation for underlying malignancy. However, thrombocytosis should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic or screening test for cancer, or indeed to rule out cancer.

Instead, unexplained thrombocytosis should prompt us to think cancer. The Scottish suspected cancer referral guidelines include thrombocytosis in the investigation criteria for what they call the LEGO-C cancers — L for lung, E for endometrial, G for gastric, O for oesophageal, and C for colorectal, which is a useful reminder for us all.

What further history, examination, and investigations might we consider in primary care if we identify an unexplained high platelet count? As always, we should use our clinical judgment and trust our clinical acumen.

We should consider all the possible underlying causes, including infection, inflammation, and blood loss, including menstrual blood loss in women; myeloproliferative disorders such as polycythemia rubra vera, chronic myeloid leukemia, and essential thrombocythemia; and, of course, underlying malignancy. If a likely underlying reversible cause is present (for example, a recent lower respiratory tract infection), simply repeating the full blood count in 4-6 weeks is quite appropriate to see if the thrombocytosis has resolved.

Remember, 80%-90% of cases are reactive thrombocytosis, and most cases resolve within 3 months. If thrombocytosis is unexplained or not resolving, consider checking ferritin levels to exclude iron deficiency. Consider checking C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to exclude any inflammation, and also consider checking a blood film to exclude any hematologic disorders, in addition, of course, to more detailed history-taking and examination to elicit any red flags.

We can also consider a JAK2 gene mutation test, if it is available to you locally, or a hematology referral if we suspect a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 is a genetic mutation that may be present in people with essential thrombocythemia and can indicate a diagnosis of polycythemia rubra vera.

Subsequent to this, and again using our clinical judgment, we then need to exclude the LEGO-C cancers. Consider urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer or pelvic ultrasound in women to exclude endometrial cancer. Also, we should consider an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in those individuals who have associated upper gastrointestinal symptoms and/or weight loss.

Finally, consider a qFIT to identify any occult bleeding in the stool, again if it’s available to you, or certainly if not, urgent lower gastrointestinal investigations to exclude colorectal cancer.

Alongside these possible investigations, as always, we should safety-net appropriately within agreed timeframes and check for resolution of the thrombocytosis according to the condition being suspected. Remember, most cases resolve within 3 months.

Returning to Louisa, what did I do? After seeing a platelet count of 600, I subsequently telephoned her and reexplored her history, which yielded nil else of note. Specifically, there was no history of unexplained weight loss, no history of upper or lower gastrointestinal symptoms, and certainly nothing significantly different from her usual irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. There were also no respiratory or genitourinary symptoms of note.

I did arrange for Louisa to undergo a chest x-ray over the next few days, though, as she was an ex-smoker. This was subsequently reported as normal. I appreciate chest x-rays have poor sensitivity for detecting lung cancer, as highlighted in a number of recent papers, but it was mutually agreed with Louisa that we would simply repeat her blood test in around 6 weeks. As well as repeating the full blood count, I arranged to check her ferritin, CRP, and a blood film, and then I was planning to reassess her clinically in person.

These bloods and my subsequent clinical review were reassuring. In fact, her platelet count had normalized after that 6 weeks had elapsed. Her thrombocytosis had resolved.

I didn’t arrange any further follow-up for her, but I did give her the usual safety netting advice to re-present to me or one of my colleagues if she does develop any worrying symptoms or signs.

I appreciate these scenarios are not always this straightforward, but I wanted to outline what investigations and referrals we may need to consider in primary care if we encounter an unexplained high platelet count.

There are a couple of quality-improvement activities for us all to consider in primary care. Consider as a team how we would respond to an incidental finding of thrombocytosis on a full blood count. Also consider what are our safety-netting options for those found to have raised platelet counts but no other symptoms or risk factors for underlying malignancy.

Finally, I’ve produced a Medscape UK primary care hack or clinical aide-memoire on managing unexplained thrombocytosis and associated cancer risk in primary care for all healthcare professionals working in primary care. This can be found online. I hope you find this resource helpful.

Dr. Kevin Fernando, General practitioner partner with specialist interests in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic medicine, North Berwick Group Practice in Scotland, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi Menarini, and Daiichi Sankyo.

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

The 340B Drug Pricing Program began as a noble endeavor, a lifeline designed to help safety-net providers deliver affordable care to America’s most vulnerable populations. However, over the years, this well-intentioned program has strayed from its original purpose, becoming a lucrative space where profits often outweigh patients. Loopholes, lax oversight, and unchecked expansion have allowed some powerful players, such as certain disproportionate share hospitals and their “child sites” as well as for-profit pharmacies, to exploit the system. What was once a program to uplift underserved communities now risks becoming a case study in how good intentions can go astray without accountability.

What exactly is this “340B program” that has captured headlines and the interest of legislatures around the country? What ensures that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to participate in this program? How lucrative is it? How have underserved populations benefited and how is that measured? 
 

The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established in 1992 under the Public Health Service Act. Its primary goal is to enable covered entities (such as hospitals and clinics serving low-income and uninsured patients) to purchase outpatient drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers at significantly reduced prices in order to support their care of the low-income and underserved populations. Drug makers are required to participate in this program as a condition of their participation in Medicaid and Medicare Part B and offer these steep discounts to covered entities if they want their medications to be available to 38% of patients nationwide. 

The hospitals that make up 78% of the program’s spending are known as disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). These hospitals must be nonprofit and have at least an 11.75% “disproportionate” share of low-income Medicare or Medicaid inpatients. The other types of non-hospital entities qualifying for 340B pricing are known as initial “federal grantees.” Some examples include federally qualified health centers (FQHC), Ryan White HIV/AIDS program grantees, and other types of specialized clinics, such as hemophilia treatment centers. It needs to be noted up front that it is not these initial non-hospital federal grantees that need more oversight or reform, since according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2023 report they make up only 22% of all program spending. It is the large, predominantly DSH health systems that are profiting immensely through exponential growth of their clinics and contract pharmacies. However, these health systems have not been able to show exactly who are their eligible patients and how they have been benefiting them.

When the 340B program was established to offer financial relief to hospitals and clinics taking care of the uninsured, it allowed them to save 20%-50% on drug purchases, which could be reinvested in patient care services. It was hoped that savings from the program could be used to provide free or low-cost medications, free vaccines, and other essential health services, essentially allowing safety-net providers to serve their communities despite financial constraints. The initial grantees are fulfilling that mission, but there are concerns regarding DSHs. (See the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organization’s 340B explanatory statement and policy position for more.)

 

Why Should Independent Practice Physicians Care About This?

Independent doctors should care about the lack of oversight in the 340B program because it affects healthcare costs, patient assistance, market competition, and access to affordable care for underserved and uninsured patients.

It also plays a strong hand in the healthcare consolidation that continues to threaten private physician practices. These acquisitions threaten the viability of independent practices in a variety of specialties across the United States, including rheumatology. HRSA allows 340B-covered entities to register their off-campus outpatient facilities, or child sites, under their 340B designation. Covered entities can acquire drugs at the 340B price, while imposing markups on the reimbursement they submit to private insurance. The additional revenue these covered entities can pocket provides them with a cash flow advantage that physician practices and outpatient clinics will never be able to actualize. This uneven playing field may make rheumatology practices more susceptible to hospital acquisitions. In fact, between 2016 and 2022, large 340B hospitals were responsible for approximately 80% of hospital acquisitions.

Perhaps the most important reason that we should all be concerned about the trajectory of this well-meaning program is that we have seen patients with hospital debt being sued by DSHs who receive 340B discounts so that they can take care of the low-income patients they are suing. We have seen Medicaid patients be turned away from a DSH clinic after being discharged from that hospital, because the hospital had reached its disproportionate share (11.75%) of inpatient Medicare and Medicaid patients. While not illegal, that type of behavior by covered entities is WRONG! Oversight and reform are needed if the 340B program is going to live up to its purpose and not be just another well-intentioned program not fulfilling its mission.

 

Areas of Concern

There has been controversy regarding the limited oversight of the 340B program by HRSA, leading to abuse of the program. There are deep concerns regarding a lack of transparency in how savings from the program are being used, and there are concerns about the challenges associated with accurate tracking and reporting of 340B discounts, possibly leading to the duplication of discounts for both Medicaid and 340B. For example, a “duplicate discount” occurs if a manufacturer sells medications to a DSH at the 340B price and later pays a Medicaid rebate on the same drug. The extent of duplicate discounts in the 340B program is unknown. However, an audit of 1,536 cases conducted by HRSA between 2012 and 2019 found 429 instances of noncompliance related to duplicate discounts, which is nearly 30% of cases.

DSHs and their contracted pharmacies have been accused of exploiting the program by increasing the number of contract pharmacies and expanding the number of offsite outpatient clinics to maximize profits. As of mid-2024, the number of 340B contract pharmacies, counted by Drug Channels Institute (DCI), numbered 32,883 unique locations. According to DCI, the top five pharmacies in the program happen also to be among the top pharmacy revenue generators and are “for-profit.” They are CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Express Scripts, and Optum RX. Additionally, a study in JAMA Health Forum showed that, from 2011 to 2019, contract pharmacies in areas with the lowest income decreased by 5.6% while those in the most affluent neighborhoods grew by 5%. 

There also has been tremendous growth in the number of covered entities in the 340B program, which grew from just over 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2020. Before 2004, DSHs made up less than 10% of these entities, but by 2020, they accounted for over 60%. Another study shows that DSHs are expanding their offsite outpatient clinics (“child clinics”) into the affluent neighborhoods serving commercially insured patients who are not low income, to capture the high commercial reimbursements for medications they acquired at steeply discounted prices. This clearly is diverting care away from the intended beneficiaries of the 340B program. 

Furthermore, DSHs have been acquiring specialty practices that prescribe some of the most expensive drugs, in order to take advantage of commercial reimbursement for medications that were acquired at the 340B discount price. Independent oncology practices have complained specifically about this happening in their area, where in some cases the DSHs have “stolen” their patients to profit off of the 340B pricing margins. This has the unintended consequence of increasing government spending, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed price markups at 340B eligible hospitals were 6.59 times as high as those in independent physician practices after accounting for drug, patient, and geographic factors.

 

Legal Challenges and Legislation

On May 21, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a unanimous decision in favor of drug manufacturers, finding that certain manufacturer restrictions on the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B drug pricing program are permissible. The court’s decision follows a lower court (3rd Circuit) ruling which concluded that the 340B statute does not require manufacturers to deliver 340B drugs to an “unlimited number of contract pharmacies.” We’re still awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court on a similar issue. If the 7th Circuit agrees with the government, creating a split decision, there is an increase in the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take up the case.

Johnson & Johnson has also sued the federal government for blocking their proposed use of a rebate model for DSHs that purchase through 340B two of its medications, Stelara and Xarelto, whose maximum fair price was negotiated through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. J&J states this would ensure that the claims are actually acquired and dispensed by a covered 340B entity, as well as ensuring there are no duplicate discounts as statutorily required by the IRA. When initially proposed, HRSA threatened to remove J&J’s access to Medicare and Medicaid if it pursued this change. J&J’s suit challenges that decision.

However, seven states (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia) have been active on this issue, passing laws to prevent manufacturers from limiting contract pharmacies’ ability to acquire 340B-discounted drugs. The model legislation also bans restrictions on the “number, location, ownership, or type of 340B contract pharmacy.”

It should also be noted that there are states that are looking for ways to encourage certain independent private practice specialties (such as gastroenterology and rheumatology) to see Medicaid patients, as well as increase testing for sexually transmitted diseases, by offering the possibility of obtaining 340B pricing in their clinics. 

Shifting our focus to Congress, six bipartisan Senators, known as the Group of 6, are working to modernize the 340B program, which hasn’t been updated since the original law in 1992. In 2024, legislation was introduced (see here and here) to reform a number of the features of the 340B drug discount program, including transparency, contract pharmacy requirements, and federal agency oversight.

 

Who’s Guarding the Hen House?

The Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General over the last 5-10 years have asked HRSA to better define an “eligible” patient, to have more specifics concerning hospital eligibility criteria, and to have better oversight of the program to avoid duplicate discounts. HRSA has said that it doesn’t have the ability or the funding to achieve some of these goals. Consequently, little has been done on any of these fronts, creating frustration among pharmaceutical manufacturers and those calling for more oversight of the program to ensure that eligible patients are receiving the benefit of 340B pricing. Again, these frustrations are not pointed at the initial federally qualified centers or “grantees.”

HRSA now audits 200 covered entities a year, which is less than 2% of entities participating in the 340B program. HRSA expects the 340B entities themselves to have an oversight committee in place to ensure compliance with program requirements. 

So essentially, the fox is guarding the hen house?

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The 340B Drug Pricing Program began as a noble endeavor, a lifeline designed to help safety-net providers deliver affordable care to America’s most vulnerable populations. However, over the years, this well-intentioned program has strayed from its original purpose, becoming a lucrative space where profits often outweigh patients. Loopholes, lax oversight, and unchecked expansion have allowed some powerful players, such as certain disproportionate share hospitals and their “child sites” as well as for-profit pharmacies, to exploit the system. What was once a program to uplift underserved communities now risks becoming a case study in how good intentions can go astray without accountability.

What exactly is this “340B program” that has captured headlines and the interest of legislatures around the country? What ensures that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to participate in this program? How lucrative is it? How have underserved populations benefited and how is that measured? 
 

The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established in 1992 under the Public Health Service Act. Its primary goal is to enable covered entities (such as hospitals and clinics serving low-income and uninsured patients) to purchase outpatient drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers at significantly reduced prices in order to support their care of the low-income and underserved populations. Drug makers are required to participate in this program as a condition of their participation in Medicaid and Medicare Part B and offer these steep discounts to covered entities if they want their medications to be available to 38% of patients nationwide. 

The hospitals that make up 78% of the program’s spending are known as disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). These hospitals must be nonprofit and have at least an 11.75% “disproportionate” share of low-income Medicare or Medicaid inpatients. The other types of non-hospital entities qualifying for 340B pricing are known as initial “federal grantees.” Some examples include federally qualified health centers (FQHC), Ryan White HIV/AIDS program grantees, and other types of specialized clinics, such as hemophilia treatment centers. It needs to be noted up front that it is not these initial non-hospital federal grantees that need more oversight or reform, since according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2023 report they make up only 22% of all program spending. It is the large, predominantly DSH health systems that are profiting immensely through exponential growth of their clinics and contract pharmacies. However, these health systems have not been able to show exactly who are their eligible patients and how they have been benefiting them.

When the 340B program was established to offer financial relief to hospitals and clinics taking care of the uninsured, it allowed them to save 20%-50% on drug purchases, which could be reinvested in patient care services. It was hoped that savings from the program could be used to provide free or low-cost medications, free vaccines, and other essential health services, essentially allowing safety-net providers to serve their communities despite financial constraints. The initial grantees are fulfilling that mission, but there are concerns regarding DSHs. (See the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organization’s 340B explanatory statement and policy position for more.)

 

Why Should Independent Practice Physicians Care About This?

Independent doctors should care about the lack of oversight in the 340B program because it affects healthcare costs, patient assistance, market competition, and access to affordable care for underserved and uninsured patients.

It also plays a strong hand in the healthcare consolidation that continues to threaten private physician practices. These acquisitions threaten the viability of independent practices in a variety of specialties across the United States, including rheumatology. HRSA allows 340B-covered entities to register their off-campus outpatient facilities, or child sites, under their 340B designation. Covered entities can acquire drugs at the 340B price, while imposing markups on the reimbursement they submit to private insurance. The additional revenue these covered entities can pocket provides them with a cash flow advantage that physician practices and outpatient clinics will never be able to actualize. This uneven playing field may make rheumatology practices more susceptible to hospital acquisitions. In fact, between 2016 and 2022, large 340B hospitals were responsible for approximately 80% of hospital acquisitions.

Perhaps the most important reason that we should all be concerned about the trajectory of this well-meaning program is that we have seen patients with hospital debt being sued by DSHs who receive 340B discounts so that they can take care of the low-income patients they are suing. We have seen Medicaid patients be turned away from a DSH clinic after being discharged from that hospital, because the hospital had reached its disproportionate share (11.75%) of inpatient Medicare and Medicaid patients. While not illegal, that type of behavior by covered entities is WRONG! Oversight and reform are needed if the 340B program is going to live up to its purpose and not be just another well-intentioned program not fulfilling its mission.

 

Areas of Concern

There has been controversy regarding the limited oversight of the 340B program by HRSA, leading to abuse of the program. There are deep concerns regarding a lack of transparency in how savings from the program are being used, and there are concerns about the challenges associated with accurate tracking and reporting of 340B discounts, possibly leading to the duplication of discounts for both Medicaid and 340B. For example, a “duplicate discount” occurs if a manufacturer sells medications to a DSH at the 340B price and later pays a Medicaid rebate on the same drug. The extent of duplicate discounts in the 340B program is unknown. However, an audit of 1,536 cases conducted by HRSA between 2012 and 2019 found 429 instances of noncompliance related to duplicate discounts, which is nearly 30% of cases.

DSHs and their contracted pharmacies have been accused of exploiting the program by increasing the number of contract pharmacies and expanding the number of offsite outpatient clinics to maximize profits. As of mid-2024, the number of 340B contract pharmacies, counted by Drug Channels Institute (DCI), numbered 32,883 unique locations. According to DCI, the top five pharmacies in the program happen also to be among the top pharmacy revenue generators and are “for-profit.” They are CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Express Scripts, and Optum RX. Additionally, a study in JAMA Health Forum showed that, from 2011 to 2019, contract pharmacies in areas with the lowest income decreased by 5.6% while those in the most affluent neighborhoods grew by 5%. 

There also has been tremendous growth in the number of covered entities in the 340B program, which grew from just over 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2020. Before 2004, DSHs made up less than 10% of these entities, but by 2020, they accounted for over 60%. Another study shows that DSHs are expanding their offsite outpatient clinics (“child clinics”) into the affluent neighborhoods serving commercially insured patients who are not low income, to capture the high commercial reimbursements for medications they acquired at steeply discounted prices. This clearly is diverting care away from the intended beneficiaries of the 340B program. 

Furthermore, DSHs have been acquiring specialty practices that prescribe some of the most expensive drugs, in order to take advantage of commercial reimbursement for medications that were acquired at the 340B discount price. Independent oncology practices have complained specifically about this happening in their area, where in some cases the DSHs have “stolen” their patients to profit off of the 340B pricing margins. This has the unintended consequence of increasing government spending, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed price markups at 340B eligible hospitals were 6.59 times as high as those in independent physician practices after accounting for drug, patient, and geographic factors.

 

Legal Challenges and Legislation

On May 21, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a unanimous decision in favor of drug manufacturers, finding that certain manufacturer restrictions on the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B drug pricing program are permissible. The court’s decision follows a lower court (3rd Circuit) ruling which concluded that the 340B statute does not require manufacturers to deliver 340B drugs to an “unlimited number of contract pharmacies.” We’re still awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court on a similar issue. If the 7th Circuit agrees with the government, creating a split decision, there is an increase in the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take up the case.

Johnson & Johnson has also sued the federal government for blocking their proposed use of a rebate model for DSHs that purchase through 340B two of its medications, Stelara and Xarelto, whose maximum fair price was negotiated through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. J&J states this would ensure that the claims are actually acquired and dispensed by a covered 340B entity, as well as ensuring there are no duplicate discounts as statutorily required by the IRA. When initially proposed, HRSA threatened to remove J&J’s access to Medicare and Medicaid if it pursued this change. J&J’s suit challenges that decision.

However, seven states (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia) have been active on this issue, passing laws to prevent manufacturers from limiting contract pharmacies’ ability to acquire 340B-discounted drugs. The model legislation also bans restrictions on the “number, location, ownership, or type of 340B contract pharmacy.”

It should also be noted that there are states that are looking for ways to encourage certain independent private practice specialties (such as gastroenterology and rheumatology) to see Medicaid patients, as well as increase testing for sexually transmitted diseases, by offering the possibility of obtaining 340B pricing in their clinics. 

Shifting our focus to Congress, six bipartisan Senators, known as the Group of 6, are working to modernize the 340B program, which hasn’t been updated since the original law in 1992. In 2024, legislation was introduced (see here and here) to reform a number of the features of the 340B drug discount program, including transparency, contract pharmacy requirements, and federal agency oversight.

 

Who’s Guarding the Hen House?

The Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General over the last 5-10 years have asked HRSA to better define an “eligible” patient, to have more specifics concerning hospital eligibility criteria, and to have better oversight of the program to avoid duplicate discounts. HRSA has said that it doesn’t have the ability or the funding to achieve some of these goals. Consequently, little has been done on any of these fronts, creating frustration among pharmaceutical manufacturers and those calling for more oversight of the program to ensure that eligible patients are receiving the benefit of 340B pricing. Again, these frustrations are not pointed at the initial federally qualified centers or “grantees.”

HRSA now audits 200 covered entities a year, which is less than 2% of entities participating in the 340B program. HRSA expects the 340B entities themselves to have an oversight committee in place to ensure compliance with program requirements. 

So essentially, the fox is guarding the hen house?

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The 340B Drug Pricing Program began as a noble endeavor, a lifeline designed to help safety-net providers deliver affordable care to America’s most vulnerable populations. However, over the years, this well-intentioned program has strayed from its original purpose, becoming a lucrative space where profits often outweigh patients. Loopholes, lax oversight, and unchecked expansion have allowed some powerful players, such as certain disproportionate share hospitals and their “child sites” as well as for-profit pharmacies, to exploit the system. What was once a program to uplift underserved communities now risks becoming a case study in how good intentions can go astray without accountability.

What exactly is this “340B program” that has captured headlines and the interest of legislatures around the country? What ensures that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to participate in this program? How lucrative is it? How have underserved populations benefited and how is that measured? 
 

The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established in 1992 under the Public Health Service Act. Its primary goal is to enable covered entities (such as hospitals and clinics serving low-income and uninsured patients) to purchase outpatient drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers at significantly reduced prices in order to support their care of the low-income and underserved populations. Drug makers are required to participate in this program as a condition of their participation in Medicaid and Medicare Part B and offer these steep discounts to covered entities if they want their medications to be available to 38% of patients nationwide. 

The hospitals that make up 78% of the program’s spending are known as disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). These hospitals must be nonprofit and have at least an 11.75% “disproportionate” share of low-income Medicare or Medicaid inpatients. The other types of non-hospital entities qualifying for 340B pricing are known as initial “federal grantees.” Some examples include federally qualified health centers (FQHC), Ryan White HIV/AIDS program grantees, and other types of specialized clinics, such as hemophilia treatment centers. It needs to be noted up front that it is not these initial non-hospital federal grantees that need more oversight or reform, since according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2023 report they make up only 22% of all program spending. It is the large, predominantly DSH health systems that are profiting immensely through exponential growth of their clinics and contract pharmacies. However, these health systems have not been able to show exactly who are their eligible patients and how they have been benefiting them.

When the 340B program was established to offer financial relief to hospitals and clinics taking care of the uninsured, it allowed them to save 20%-50% on drug purchases, which could be reinvested in patient care services. It was hoped that savings from the program could be used to provide free or low-cost medications, free vaccines, and other essential health services, essentially allowing safety-net providers to serve their communities despite financial constraints. The initial grantees are fulfilling that mission, but there are concerns regarding DSHs. (See the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organization’s 340B explanatory statement and policy position for more.)

 

Why Should Independent Practice Physicians Care About This?

Independent doctors should care about the lack of oversight in the 340B program because it affects healthcare costs, patient assistance, market competition, and access to affordable care for underserved and uninsured patients.

It also plays a strong hand in the healthcare consolidation that continues to threaten private physician practices. These acquisitions threaten the viability of independent practices in a variety of specialties across the United States, including rheumatology. HRSA allows 340B-covered entities to register their off-campus outpatient facilities, or child sites, under their 340B designation. Covered entities can acquire drugs at the 340B price, while imposing markups on the reimbursement they submit to private insurance. The additional revenue these covered entities can pocket provides them with a cash flow advantage that physician practices and outpatient clinics will never be able to actualize. This uneven playing field may make rheumatology practices more susceptible to hospital acquisitions. In fact, between 2016 and 2022, large 340B hospitals were responsible for approximately 80% of hospital acquisitions.

Perhaps the most important reason that we should all be concerned about the trajectory of this well-meaning program is that we have seen patients with hospital debt being sued by DSHs who receive 340B discounts so that they can take care of the low-income patients they are suing. We have seen Medicaid patients be turned away from a DSH clinic after being discharged from that hospital, because the hospital had reached its disproportionate share (11.75%) of inpatient Medicare and Medicaid patients. While not illegal, that type of behavior by covered entities is WRONG! Oversight and reform are needed if the 340B program is going to live up to its purpose and not be just another well-intentioned program not fulfilling its mission.

 

Areas of Concern

There has been controversy regarding the limited oversight of the 340B program by HRSA, leading to abuse of the program. There are deep concerns regarding a lack of transparency in how savings from the program are being used, and there are concerns about the challenges associated with accurate tracking and reporting of 340B discounts, possibly leading to the duplication of discounts for both Medicaid and 340B. For example, a “duplicate discount” occurs if a manufacturer sells medications to a DSH at the 340B price and later pays a Medicaid rebate on the same drug. The extent of duplicate discounts in the 340B program is unknown. However, an audit of 1,536 cases conducted by HRSA between 2012 and 2019 found 429 instances of noncompliance related to duplicate discounts, which is nearly 30% of cases.

DSHs and their contracted pharmacies have been accused of exploiting the program by increasing the number of contract pharmacies and expanding the number of offsite outpatient clinics to maximize profits. As of mid-2024, the number of 340B contract pharmacies, counted by Drug Channels Institute (DCI), numbered 32,883 unique locations. According to DCI, the top five pharmacies in the program happen also to be among the top pharmacy revenue generators and are “for-profit.” They are CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Express Scripts, and Optum RX. Additionally, a study in JAMA Health Forum showed that, from 2011 to 2019, contract pharmacies in areas with the lowest income decreased by 5.6% while those in the most affluent neighborhoods grew by 5%. 

There also has been tremendous growth in the number of covered entities in the 340B program, which grew from just over 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2020. Before 2004, DSHs made up less than 10% of these entities, but by 2020, they accounted for over 60%. Another study shows that DSHs are expanding their offsite outpatient clinics (“child clinics”) into the affluent neighborhoods serving commercially insured patients who are not low income, to capture the high commercial reimbursements for medications they acquired at steeply discounted prices. This clearly is diverting care away from the intended beneficiaries of the 340B program. 

Furthermore, DSHs have been acquiring specialty practices that prescribe some of the most expensive drugs, in order to take advantage of commercial reimbursement for medications that were acquired at the 340B discount price. Independent oncology practices have complained specifically about this happening in their area, where in some cases the DSHs have “stolen” their patients to profit off of the 340B pricing margins. This has the unintended consequence of increasing government spending, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed price markups at 340B eligible hospitals were 6.59 times as high as those in independent physician practices after accounting for drug, patient, and geographic factors.

 

Legal Challenges and Legislation

On May 21, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a unanimous decision in favor of drug manufacturers, finding that certain manufacturer restrictions on the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B drug pricing program are permissible. The court’s decision follows a lower court (3rd Circuit) ruling which concluded that the 340B statute does not require manufacturers to deliver 340B drugs to an “unlimited number of contract pharmacies.” We’re still awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court on a similar issue. If the 7th Circuit agrees with the government, creating a split decision, there is an increase in the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take up the case.

Johnson & Johnson has also sued the federal government for blocking their proposed use of a rebate model for DSHs that purchase through 340B two of its medications, Stelara and Xarelto, whose maximum fair price was negotiated through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. J&J states this would ensure that the claims are actually acquired and dispensed by a covered 340B entity, as well as ensuring there are no duplicate discounts as statutorily required by the IRA. When initially proposed, HRSA threatened to remove J&J’s access to Medicare and Medicaid if it pursued this change. J&J’s suit challenges that decision.

However, seven states (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia) have been active on this issue, passing laws to prevent manufacturers from limiting contract pharmacies’ ability to acquire 340B-discounted drugs. The model legislation also bans restrictions on the “number, location, ownership, or type of 340B contract pharmacy.”

It should also be noted that there are states that are looking for ways to encourage certain independent private practice specialties (such as gastroenterology and rheumatology) to see Medicaid patients, as well as increase testing for sexually transmitted diseases, by offering the possibility of obtaining 340B pricing in their clinics. 

Shifting our focus to Congress, six bipartisan Senators, known as the Group of 6, are working to modernize the 340B program, which hasn’t been updated since the original law in 1992. In 2024, legislation was introduced (see here and here) to reform a number of the features of the 340B drug discount program, including transparency, contract pharmacy requirements, and federal agency oversight.

 

Who’s Guarding the Hen House?

The Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General over the last 5-10 years have asked HRSA to better define an “eligible” patient, to have more specifics concerning hospital eligibility criteria, and to have better oversight of the program to avoid duplicate discounts. HRSA has said that it doesn’t have the ability or the funding to achieve some of these goals. Consequently, little has been done on any of these fronts, creating frustration among pharmaceutical manufacturers and those calling for more oversight of the program to ensure that eligible patients are receiving the benefit of 340B pricing. Again, these frustrations are not pointed at the initial federally qualified centers or “grantees.”

HRSA now audits 200 covered entities a year, which is less than 2% of entities participating in the 340B program. HRSA expects the 340B entities themselves to have an oversight committee in place to ensure compliance with program requirements. 

So essentially, the fox is guarding the hen house?

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

PHILADELPHIA — New research provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) do not increase the risk for pancreatic cancer.

Instead, the large electronic health record (EHR) analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) found those taking GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for pancreatic cancer than peers on other antidiabetic medications. 

“Although there were previous reports suggesting possible association between pancreatic cancer and GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, this study provides reassurance that there is no observed increased incidence of pancreatic cancer in patients prescribed these medications,” said Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi, MD, a gastroenterology fellow with Aurora Healthcare in Brookfield, Wisconsin. 

He presented the study findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 

 

Important Topic

Patients with T2D are at increased risk for several malignancies, including pancreatic cancer. Given the unique mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs in the pancreas, it was important to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs and incidence of pancreatic cancer, he explained.

Using the TriNetX database, the study team identified 4.95 million antidiabetic drug naive T2D patients who were prescribed antidiabetic medications for the first time between 2005 and 2020. None had a history of pancreatic cancer. 

A total of 245,532 were prescribed a GLP-1 RA. The researchers compared GLP-1 RAs users to users of other antidiabetic medications — namely, insulin, metformin, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. 

Patients were propensity score-matched based on demographics, health determinants, lifestyle factors, medical history, family history of cancers, and acute/chronic pancreatitis. 

The risk for pancreatic cancer was significantly lower among patients on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.55), DPP-4i (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89), SGLT2i (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and sulfonylureas (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), Alchirazi reported.

The results were consistent across different groups, including patients with obesity/ overweight on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96).

Strengths of the analysis included the large and diverse cohort of propensity score-matched patients. Limitations included the retrospective design and use of claims data that did not provide granular data on pathology reports.

The study by Alchirazi and colleagues aligns with a large population-based cohort study from Israel that found no evidence that GLP-1 RAs increase risk for pancreatic cancer over 7 years following initiation.

Separately, a study of more than 1.6 million patients with T2D found that treatment with a GLP-1 RA (vs insulin or metformin) was associated with lower risks for specific types of obesity-related cancers, including pancreatic cancer.

The study had no specific funding. Alchirazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — New research provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) do not increase the risk for pancreatic cancer.

Instead, the large electronic health record (EHR) analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) found those taking GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for pancreatic cancer than peers on other antidiabetic medications. 

“Although there were previous reports suggesting possible association between pancreatic cancer and GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, this study provides reassurance that there is no observed increased incidence of pancreatic cancer in patients prescribed these medications,” said Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi, MD, a gastroenterology fellow with Aurora Healthcare in Brookfield, Wisconsin. 

He presented the study findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 

 

Important Topic

Patients with T2D are at increased risk for several malignancies, including pancreatic cancer. Given the unique mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs in the pancreas, it was important to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs and incidence of pancreatic cancer, he explained.

Using the TriNetX database, the study team identified 4.95 million antidiabetic drug naive T2D patients who were prescribed antidiabetic medications for the first time between 2005 and 2020. None had a history of pancreatic cancer. 

A total of 245,532 were prescribed a GLP-1 RA. The researchers compared GLP-1 RAs users to users of other antidiabetic medications — namely, insulin, metformin, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. 

Patients were propensity score-matched based on demographics, health determinants, lifestyle factors, medical history, family history of cancers, and acute/chronic pancreatitis. 

The risk for pancreatic cancer was significantly lower among patients on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.55), DPP-4i (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89), SGLT2i (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and sulfonylureas (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), Alchirazi reported.

The results were consistent across different groups, including patients with obesity/ overweight on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96).

Strengths of the analysis included the large and diverse cohort of propensity score-matched patients. Limitations included the retrospective design and use of claims data that did not provide granular data on pathology reports.

The study by Alchirazi and colleagues aligns with a large population-based cohort study from Israel that found no evidence that GLP-1 RAs increase risk for pancreatic cancer over 7 years following initiation.

Separately, a study of more than 1.6 million patients with T2D found that treatment with a GLP-1 RA (vs insulin or metformin) was associated with lower risks for specific types of obesity-related cancers, including pancreatic cancer.

The study had no specific funding. Alchirazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — New research provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) do not increase the risk for pancreatic cancer.

Instead, the large electronic health record (EHR) analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) found those taking GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for pancreatic cancer than peers on other antidiabetic medications. 

“Although there were previous reports suggesting possible association between pancreatic cancer and GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, this study provides reassurance that there is no observed increased incidence of pancreatic cancer in patients prescribed these medications,” said Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi, MD, a gastroenterology fellow with Aurora Healthcare in Brookfield, Wisconsin. 

He presented the study findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 

 

Important Topic

Patients with T2D are at increased risk for several malignancies, including pancreatic cancer. Given the unique mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs in the pancreas, it was important to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs and incidence of pancreatic cancer, he explained.

Using the TriNetX database, the study team identified 4.95 million antidiabetic drug naive T2D patients who were prescribed antidiabetic medications for the first time between 2005 and 2020. None had a history of pancreatic cancer. 

A total of 245,532 were prescribed a GLP-1 RA. The researchers compared GLP-1 RAs users to users of other antidiabetic medications — namely, insulin, metformin, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. 

Patients were propensity score-matched based on demographics, health determinants, lifestyle factors, medical history, family history of cancers, and acute/chronic pancreatitis. 

The risk for pancreatic cancer was significantly lower among patients on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.55), DPP-4i (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89), SGLT2i (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and sulfonylureas (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), Alchirazi reported.

The results were consistent across different groups, including patients with obesity/ overweight on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96).

Strengths of the analysis included the large and diverse cohort of propensity score-matched patients. Limitations included the retrospective design and use of claims data that did not provide granular data on pathology reports.

The study by Alchirazi and colleagues aligns with a large population-based cohort study from Israel that found no evidence that GLP-1 RAs increase risk for pancreatic cancer over 7 years following initiation.

Separately, a study of more than 1.6 million patients with T2D found that treatment with a GLP-1 RA (vs insulin or metformin) was associated with lower risks for specific types of obesity-related cancers, including pancreatic cancer.

The study had no specific funding. Alchirazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.